Posted on 10/25/2013 8:00:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s finally happened. David Frum, true conservative.
No no, kidding. This is, I think, something he pulled from his dream journal after waking up one night in a cold sweat, screaming. All it’ll take for a Cruz victory, he thinks, is an economic slowdown followed by an “event” on Wall Street that pushes America into recession followed by a months-long primary challenge by Elizabeth Warren to Hillary followed by an immigration brouhaha that unites conservatives behind Cruz followed by a Cruz/Christie fusion ticket eking out the narrowest of wins over Clinton in a very low-turnout election. Interestingly, the word “ObamaCare” appears just once in his post — in the context of liberals being grumpy that they didn’t get something more statist on health care from an Obama/Hillary cabinet. How likely is it that that’s the biggest impact O-Care has on Campaign 2016?
This part, at least, rings true to me:
In the painful aftermath of 2014, many Democrats were ready to hear that the party had been defeated because President Obama had been too cautious in his policies and too remote in his style. As Obamacare stumbled from implementation difficulty to implementation difficulty, they remembered that the program they really wanted was Medicare for all. They seethed at the way Obama had submitted to Republican demands that budget balancing take precedence over job creation. And whatever happened to the administration’s promises on climate change?
Democrats liked Hillary personally. But they could see that a Clinton nomination implied a course correction to the right from an administration they already condemned as too conservative. And so, even as the front-runner led the fundraising race through 2015, Iowa and New Hampshire were filling with volunteers canvassing for Elizabeth Warren and her message: “She’s in it to win it. I’m in it for you.”
Chris Cillizza of WaPo claimed today that the odds of Warren primarying Clinton in 2016 are near zero. I don’t know about that. Warren will be 67 in 2016 and Hillary will be a favorite to win the presidency if nominated. That means Warren won’t have another shot at running until 2024 — when she’ll be 75 years old. Ain’t happening, which means it’s now or never in 2016. She’s the closest thing in national politics that the left has to a rock star, so she’s the logical choice to fill the anti-Clinton dark horse role. (If not her, then Brian Schweitzer in Montana.) Doesn’t mean she’ll win — the Democratic establishment will be horrified at the thought of nominating someone who’s further left than Obama when they’re trying to hold the White House for a third straight term. But for all of the heavy breathing about a RINO/true-con civil war, Democrats could conceivably have a more contentious primary than the GOP does. Not likely, but conceivable. I expect to see outreach from Team Hillary to Warren sooner rather than later to make sure it doesn’t happen.
As for the GOP, Frum imagines Democrats losing Latino support in the midterms due to the recession, which will push the party into hyper-pander mode on amnesty and by extension force the issue front and center among Republicans. Advantage: …Cruz?
With the flaming wreck of Marco Rubio’s presidential hopes as a warning beacon, moderate favorite Governor Christie tried to triangulate the immigration issue. Ted Cruz determinedly took a position of all-out opposition. In an interview on Univision, he chatted in Spanish with host Jorge Ramos, then turned to English to deliver a stark message: “This is America. We obey the law. People who can’t deal with that don’t belong here.”…
Ted Cruz, however, could offer the vice presidency to Chris Christie—and the Democrats’ post-2014 leftward veer frightened Republican donors enough that they pressed Christie to accept. Unlike Romney in 2012, Cruz’s conservative allegiance could not be questioned, freeing him to write the vaguest platform and conduct the most issue-free campaign of any Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Cruz delivered half his convention speech in Spanish and used the other half to rededicate the party to “the compassion of conservatism,” a subtle variant of an old phrase that delighted convention delegates.
I’m not sure why he thinks speaking Spanish will be some sort of key asset for Cruz come 2016. It’d be a fine pander as a cheap way to soften a hardline position against amnesty, but Cruz doesn’t speak the language well. (He once declined to debate David Dewhurst in Spanish ahead of the Texas Senate primary because, he said, he doesn’t speak Spanish so much as “Spanglish.”) I’m also not sure why he thinks immigration reform will still be on the table come 2016. The GOP leadership is desperate to pass something to build goodwill with Latinos, so much so that they’re murmuring about it even now despite its potential to tear the party apart after the tumult of the shutdown battle. They might be willing to hold off before the midterms knowing that midterm turnout is much lower than in presidential years, which means they have less to fear from the Latino vote. Ain’t no way they’re going to let it slide until 2016, though. If Ted Cruz ends up campaigning against immigration, it’ll be to repeal some sort of weak-ass comprehensive plan that’s already become law and which, as expected, is failing to secure the border as promised. But that just brings me back to the ObamaCare point above: How likely is it that Cruz, whose bark on amnesty has so far been worse than his bite, would go all-in on immigration when he could brand himself the anti-ObamaCare candidate in the primary instead? He’s already built a brand on that from the “defund” effort and his epic quasi-filibuster. Cruz becomes a serious contender, I think, if/when O-Care crumbles, not amnesty.
But never mind all that. If, against all expectations, Hillary’s as vulnerable as Frum imagines in 2016, won’t GOP voters be more inclined to give weight to “electability” in the primary rather than ideological purity? Cruz is the sort of candidate, I’d imagine, whom undecideds would be more inclined to nominate if either (a) Hillary seemed unbeatable, in which case the establishment would conclude it has less to lose by nominating a tea partier or (b) the Democrat was a no-name like Martin O’Malley who seemed very beatable, in which case all the “somewhat conservative” voters who would prefer a right-wing nominee but fret that he’d be a sitting duck in the general might be more willing to take a chance. Even a weakened Hillary will be formidable, so the “somewhat conservatives” may reluctantly conclude they’ve got no choice but to go with Mr. Blue State, Chris Christie, to maximize their odds. In fact, if Frum is right about immigration taking center stage, that would arguably make things even easier for Christie since he’d end up with an even bigger avalanche of fundraising dollars from pro-amnesty establishment Republicans than he’s already expecting. That would (probably) stop Cruz, and then Christie would be free to form the Christie/Rubio ticket we all know is coming. How excited are you?
I don’t think Palin will run, I just love to fantasize about the lib meltdown if Palin and Cruz did run together. Can you imagine the firestorm with not only the dims but the media and RINOs?
I am not a troll, simply because I don’t agree with you, and you are behaving like a mentally deficient Democrat, who calls everyone who dissents from their party line a fascist or a rascist. Furthermore, anyone who gets their pants in a knot about a candidate - any candidate - as if that person is the Messiah and any questioning of their candidacy is blasphemy - that’s pathetic, and also acting like a Dem. They wanted a “black president” and put their fingers in their ears about his flaws. They got away with it because they have 90% of the media and the entertainment industry on their side. We don’t. Quite the opposite. I am looking at the situation objectively, not in a big emotional lather like you. I liked Sarah Palin very much, I thought she was wonderful, but that business with her daughter was a huge negative distraction, and had I been advising the McCain campaign, I would have weighed in against choosing her. Or told her to make the daughter get married.
We’re in a war. Ted Kennedy can kill a woman and be in the senate for a 200 years, but our people can’t have a parking ticket. We can’t run people who have been married seven times, or whose cousin’s sister-in-law’s ex-husband is a sex offender or in prison for stock fraud. We.just can’t.
Time after time members here posted about Obama’s illegitimacy based.on Vattel. Time after time, members here said it didn’t matter if he’d been born in the White House - his father wasn’t a citizen at the time of his birth, which gave Obama his father’s British citizenship. Are we now going to be hoisted on our own petard? I hope not.
You can continue to be grumpy, belligerent and uncouth - I don’t care. I have facts and logic on my side.
Take your Cruz birferism to DU pally boy. No one agrees with your ridiculous nonsense, it’s debunked. Cruz is NATURAL BORN, whether you like it or not. Learn to grasp real world facts and not BS you read on the Internet.
“Furthermore, anyone who gets their pants in a knot about a candidate - any candidate - as if that person is the Messiah and any questioning of their candidacy is blasphemy “
I agree with you 100% there pally boy but your birther crap is still nonsense and would be nonsense even if Cruz was a communist. He’s eligible, Rubio is eligible, Jindal is eligible. Like it or not. No one cares about your dime store Internet legal theory that wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for that damn Obama.
There’s being born a citizen (NATURAL BORN, THAT WHAT IT MEANS!!!!!!) and being Naturalized. END OF STORY as far as 100% of rational people are concerned. Cruz based on the citizenship law at the time was BORN A CITIZEN BECAUSE HIS MOTHER WAS ONE. It wouldn’t have mattered if his father was a baboon and he was born on Mars. THAT’S IT.
He was never naturalized BTW so if YOU say he wasn’t born a citizen then he isn’t one at all and is illegally serving in the Senate, will you be calling for his expulsion, eh clown?
I ask you again, drop this fantasy land bullcrap, you just embarrass yourself with it. If you wanna keep tweaking Obama with it go ahead but you make a lot of trouble for yourself if you keep going after Cruz.
Please save it if you want to reply with more birther BS, we’re all sick of it. I don’t want to hear it. The issue is closed, that’s the FR position.
If you or others decide to keep pimping the Cruz birtherism nonsense, you’re going to take a ride on the ZOT train. Just sayin’...
This is not North Korea or the old Soviet Union, that has official positions on issues and punishes dissent. It is a forum for conservative news and exchange of ideas. Only weak people with no intellectual rigor need to try to control what other people say and threaten dissenters. Please stop your pathetic blustering.
Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are not NBC, for the very reason that we said that Obama wasn’t. All of them had their father’s foreign citizenship at birth. Surely in a country of so many hundreds of millions people, we can find a plausible and strong candidate without baggage to run against that murderous hag of a Hildabeast.
Nope, there are no magical gradients of citizen, only 2, Natural born and naturalized, 100% legal consensus among non-fruitcakes.
Yes, there is a FR position, sorry if you don’t like it pal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts
Closed subject.
<<<<<Surely in a country of so many hundreds of millions people, we can find a plausible and strong candidate without baggage to run against that murderous hag of a Hildabeast.<<<<<<<
How fortunate that no one gives a good g*d damn about this so called “baggage”, despite your fear mongering about the evil media will say (which I dispute). We already know their attack on Cruz, he’s a “crazy teabagger”, NO ONE cares about fringe legal theories.
<<<<Please stop your pathetic blustering.<<<<
Please stop peddling fringe legal theories to tear down the conservative frontrunner. Sorry if I’ve been harsh with you pal but we’ve all debated this endlessness, time and time again. It’s all been said before. It’s over, your fringe theories are rejected and we’re tired of hearing about it, that’s it. Expect to be attacked EVERY TIME you repeat these ridiculous lies.
Since you're so very concerned about Cruz, just as you said you were so very concerned about Palin, how about offering a suggestion as to whom the base is 100% motivated to support for President ? Oh, and just so you know, we could run Jesus Christ and the Dems/media would manufacture baggage (just like they manufactured baggage against Palin and your manufacturing Birther baggage against Cruz).
Stop it right now.
Cruz had his mother's American citizenship.
Just tonight on Geraldo's, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and Ann Coulter were both asked if Ted Cruz is eligible to hold the office of POTUS.
Both answered in the affirmative.
Ted Cruz has no baggage. In fact, he's likely the most brilliant man to come along in centuries.
“NBC issue will derail Cruz”
It hasn’t derailed Obama.
Well said, Impy. And the article posted by JimRob should be a sign for all FReepers with NBC Derangement Syndrome to walk back from the ledge and accept that 99% of legal scholars have, for two centuries, agreed that a natural-born citizen of the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth (under the laws in effect at the time of his birth), in contradistinction to a naturalized citizen.
And kabumpo, Republican President Chester Arthur’s father (a British subject born in Ireland, and who didn’t become a naturalized U.S. citizen until years after his son Chester was born) called, and wants to know why Democrats never raised the issue of his son not having two U.S.-citizen parents at birth, and instead falsely claiming that Chester was born in Canada instead of Vermont. Could it be that even Democrat lawyers knew, when Chester Arthur ran for VP in 1880 (an office that, as was clarified by the 12th Amendment, has the same constitutional qualifications as the presidency) that if they accepted that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont that they would be accepting the fact that he was a natural-born citizen, and their only shot at disqualifying him was to claim that Chester was born in Canada to a non-citizen father (which, under the laws in effect at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, would not have conferred U.S. citizenship, since the laws at the time treated fathers differently from mothers, with only U.S. citizen fathers conferring U.S. citizenship at birth to children born abroad)?
But for decades before Cruz’s birth, fedral law conferred U.S. citizenship at birth to children born abroad with one U.S.-citizen parent (regardless of whether it’s the father or mother) whose citizen parent met certain minimum residency requirements (at the time of Cruz’s birth, having lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years at any time, including for at least 5 years after turning 14). Ted Cruz’s mother met such requirement in spades, which is why no one can claim that Cruz wasn’t a U.S. citizen at birth. It is embarrassing that, after all the attention that such laws got prior to the 2008 elections, when it was (correctly) postulated by legal scholars and citizens at large that if Barack Obama was born outside of U.S. territory (such as in Kenya) that he wouldn’t have been a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus not a natural-born citizen, due to the fact that at the time of his birth his only U.S.-citizen parent (his mother) had not lived in the U.S. for 5+ years after turning 14 (since she had not yet turned 19 when baby Barack was born), that you fail to grasp that crucial legal distinction in Ted Cruz’s case. At the time of Ted Cruz’s birth, Ted Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen who had lived in the U.S. for well more than 10 years, including for well more than 5 years after she turned 14, so Ted Cruz would be a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen of th U.S., even had he been birn in the Moon.
You miss my point. Totally. Or else didn’t read what I wrote. Ted Kennedy can kill a woman and continue in the senate for the next 100 years, but if our candidate has a brother-in-law whose second cousin’s ex-husband is a sex offender or committed stock fraud, the media will make that the headline for months.
The media are our enemies. They want to attack our candidates with anything they can get. Our candidates have to have no noise, no teenaged daughter with an out of wedlock pregnancy, nothing they can feed on. If you don’t get that, I don’t know what to say.
No one had to manufacture baggage against Palin - her daughter did that for her, and gave the hostile media a feeding frenzy. I thought that was a terrible shame, and a miscalculation on the part of the GOP and the McCain campaign. Had I been in that situation, I would not have run, and had my daughter’s behavior being covered at the expense of my platform.
You kind of make my point for me. Our candidate has to be unblemished, so that there isn’t any issue that our enemies can even have a conversation about other than the political issues in the candidate’s platform. Palin was a great candidate, almost perfect - except for her daughter and not being prepared to wrestle Couric to the ground.
As to who we should run - I don’t know - but there must be someone in a country our size with conservative credentials whose parents were born here.
You argue like a Dem - attempting to marginalize me by tribal browbeating (”everyone agrees, so shut up”) and labeling my discourse as “fringe”. Only a pathetically insecure person needs to cling to a group identity or an “official position”. That fear of dissent, caused by intellectual inadequacy, is the basis of totalitarianism. The need to smash argument, with threats and violence, because of the secret fear of being proved wrong.
I was the one who called it on Rubio being a phony - and worse - and I had people like you snarling and menacing me at the time. I didn’t care, because I knew I was right - and events proved me right.
I live and work in the belly of the beast - the majority of the people I associate with are Obamalunatics - I know their moves. So you can bellow and bluster and try to blow my house down all you want. All you gain from that is revealing how fearful and cowardly you are.
I feel sorry for you that you have so little intellectual stamina that you have to resort to threats.
You are wrong. While I agree that Cruz is brilliant and impressive, unfortunately he does have baggage. What counts is not what we see, but what the other side can make use of to create noise. It is disappointing to me that members of FR are becoming emotional instead of thinking strategically. If we don’t think strategically we don’t deserve to win.
Kabumpo:
Yes, it was COMPLETELY manufactured. That you don’t see that I believe is no accident. That a teenage girl got knocked up by a douchebag boyfriend (and thank heavens she did NOT marry the opportunistic asshole) is somehow a singular disqualifier is patently ludicrous.
Joe Biden’s daughter is a serious drug addict and has been arrested, why has that not been a “disqualifier” ?
Al Gore’s son is a menace on the road and has been cited and arrested for reckless driving (including during the time he was running for President), why is that not a disqualifier ?
I can cite more examples of REAL serious situations involving family members of politicians, ones involving the law, but Palin’s daughter having sex is the ultimate “baggage” that must forever disqualify her from running for any office ? Sorry, fella, but you and your concern is a bucketload of horse manure.
There IS no such thing as an unblemished candidate. None. I also already corrected you that we could run the Son of God, and he would have baggage manufactured by the Democrat Media Hate Machine. Curious you don’t address that, or perhaps not so curious.
I also invited you to cite examples of candidates you’d like to see run, and you also didn’t come up with a single name.
The conclusion drawn regarding your presence here is that of a classic concern troll. Nothing more, nothing less. I think you can spare us your indignant displays lamenting our lack of intellectual curiosity when your agenda is so obvious. And I also issued you no threat, it’s the same admonition I give to those intending to sow dissension and misinformation on this website, behavior for which you have demonstrated egregious guilt in that regard.
The other side is roaring mad at him, and trashing him daily, nightly and in between, but he doesn’t give a rip.
He’s actually and in reality smarter than all of them put together. Check out his resume when you have time.
The man is one in a Century.
Pathetic thing to say, can't think of something more original? Your nonsense IS FRINGE, whether you like it or not, SORRY!!!! AFAIK you may as well be arguing that the moon landing was faked, fruitcake nonsense.
The need to smash argument, with threats and violence, because of the secret fear of being proved wrong.
Now you're a dime store psychologist too eh? Like I said several times already, I'm "browbeating" you because I'M SICK OF THIS DEBUNKED BULLCRAP. You are repeating garbage that I've heard 1000 times already. I've had enough, FR rejects your nonsense. It's over. I'm done debating it on a serious level, go read the million words that have already been written on the subject.
I was the one who called it on Rubio being a phony - and worse - and I had people like you snarling and menacing me at the time.
You have serious issues pal, now you're deflecting. What have I said about Rubio in this thread? I said he's eligible to be President, that's all. I commend you for being skeptical of his conservatism from the beginning but that has NOTHING to do with Presidential eligibility.
I live and work in the belly of the beast - the majority of the people I associate with are Obamalunatics - I know their moves.
Some free advice, log off for a while and chill the hell out. Stop trying to defend quack legal theories on the Internet, let that stress go.
The best legal minds in the country, -— you know, those people with Doctor of Jurisprudence degrees -— have stated (in publications) and on broadcast radio and TV, that Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to run for and hold the elected office of President of the United States.
I’m holding out for Sarah Palin because I want to make Dave cry and Andy Sullivan have a catastrophic brain explosion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.