Ted Cruz’s litigious hedge fund backer emerges as top 2016 donor

MSNBC ^ | August 5, 2015 | Emma Margolin

[nascarnation]

Walker is a non-lawyer/non-Ivy League.
That’s appealing to me.
Trump gets deductions for Wharton.
Cruz has great positions but I’m only voting for a lawyer if there’s no way out.

[Jack Black]

Ted Cruz was at 3% at this point in his senate race. Discuss.

The dynamics of the Texas state Senate race and the GOP Nomination are very different.

Cruz was running as a long serving state-wide AG vs. the Lt. Gov. It seemed likely that whoever won the primary would win the Senate, so Texas GOP voters concentrated on getting the best person they could nominated.

Those dynamics are very different in this race.

• Bush might be considered the Establishment GOP Candidate, but he has lots of credible opponents, not just Cruz.

• Cruz himself is not as much of an outsider as three other candidates: Carson, Fiorina and Trump. Previously he was the outsider, this time, not so much.

• Cruz racked up lots of support in his Senate run. Per Wikipedia he was endorsed by:

  • Sarah Palin

  • Club for Growth
  • Erick Erickson, editor of RedState
  • FreedomWorks
  • Mark Levin
  • former Attorney General Edwin Meese
  • Tea Party Express
  • Young Conservatives of Texas
  • U.S. Senators Tom Coburn
  • Jim DeMint
  • Mike Lee
  • Rand Paul
  • Pat Toomey.
  • Congressman Ron Paul
  • George P. Bush
  • Rick Santorum

  • He's not doing nearly as well in the endorsement game in his run for POTUS, which historically is important in winning the nomination.

• Cruz wasn't running against a flamboyant billionaire reality TV star with dozens of golf-courses named after him around the world in his Senate race, now he is.

• Cruz wasn't facing the son of the GOP Establishment first-family. now he is.
  • A Bush has been on every winning GOP Ticket since 1980, 5 of the last 9 Presidential elections.

• At no point was Cruz running in 6th place, or worse, for the GOP Senate.
  • He wasn't "starved for oxygen" as he is know, buried in the middle of a large pack.

[Jack Black]

Reading your list I am struck by a few things:

• His heart is in the right place.
• He has a legal outlook on things
• Many of his actions are symbolic
• No legislation he has proposed has become law. He's not effective in passing stuff, despite a GOP House and Senate.
• He is very focused on Israel and Terrorism

[SoConPubbie]

    Ted Cruz Ping!

    If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
    Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

    CRUZ or LOSE!

[Still Thinking]

litigious

So then that makes Mercer a good guy, right? Cause, you know, every time R's want to inject some sanity by limiting litigation, the [lawyer-funded] left screams about not wanting to deny anyone their "day in court". Or does being litigious suddenly become a problem when you're conservative?

[Still Thinking]

...which would be why Won dissed it from the podium during SOTU and Ho-llary wants to amend it away, right?

[2ndDivisionVet]

He wasn’t the Attorney General of Texas, Mr. Abbott was. He was the Solicitor General.

[amihow]

Look Freepers. Just because Dems object to something and Republicans support it does not mean conservatives have to support it. Citizens is a horrible Robert’s court piece of pro-corporation power over government. It may be Republican, but it is not pro government by and for the people.

[Jack Black]

Thanks for the correction.

[Jack Black]

Look Freepers. Just because Dems object to something and Republicans support it does not mean conservatives have to support it. Citizens is a horrible Robert’s court piece of pro-corporation power over government. It may be Republican, but it is not pro government by and for the people.

Well had the court ruled the other way the group that had made a movie unfavorable to Hillary Clinton would have been unable to show or promote it. That doesn't sound like a victory of the people over government, to me.

Wikipedia:

The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

The essence of the opinion:

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

I find this hard to argue with logically. The court had previously found that individuals had a right to spend their own money providing their opinion on issues and candidates, without Citizens United (a great name to remember) a single rich guy like Bloomberg would be free to oppose candidates supporting the Second Ammendment, while the NRA would be unable to unable to announce counter arguments.

[amihow]

Their is a big difference between expressing an opinion and donating to a political campaign and calling it speech.

[Jack Black]

The institutional left controls the mass media, with only a few outlets, like talk radio, dominated by the right. So any system that alows, for instance, Jon "Stewart" (Leibowitz) to go on TV 5 days a week and savage conservative ideas and people, and doesn't allow the opposition (in this case people opposed to Hillary and not necessarily in support of any other candidate) to even advertise a movie opposing her.

Well that system will continue to deliver Lib and Democratic majorities indefinitely.

What alternative to you suggest. Surely you are not suggesting the pre Citizens status quo was a good one. Tards all love that system, and would like it reinstated.