GOP leaders say erratic attacks hurt Trump, but he vows to fight and win

Rather than take you point by point across what you have submitted, I will cut to the chase and tell you what I believe will happen if Cruz is left to be the standard bearer during the Primaries and Caucuses.

They are open. Democrats participate. It will be Jeb Bush against Ted Cruz. Which is seen as more acceptable by moderates and Democrats?

Cruz isn’t going to get the nomination anymore than our best got it in 1996, 2000, 2008, or 2012. If Conservatives couldn’t best McCain of all people in 2008, what chance has Ted actually got?

We have done exactly what you wanted in each of those nomination selection processes. How did that work out for us?

I realize Trumps weaknesses. What you address is more true than I wish, but I at the same time don’t think it’s as bad as folks make it out to be either.

I have not written Ted off. I understand your point that the race should not be between Bush and Trump. In real terms, I think it’s more that thank you think it is.

You either get a person who will draw the Reagan Democrat demographic, or you wind up with Bush.

You can disagree with me if you like. As I told another person, you can come back to me in late November and concede.

By then, we’ve got another four years of a Bush or Clinton.

Look at the people who dislike Trump. Look at his enemies. It’s a list of who’s who that hate folks like us here on Free Republic.

Here’s another thought.

Why did they have to lie about Trumps “blood” comment? He clearly said eye(s). His comment about... “where ever” was interpreted loosely enough to be a damnable lie. We all know it.

Why did they have to come up with that lie?

They did, because they couldn’t find one thing wrong with his policy, and didn’t want to spotlight it for fear of selling Trump and those policies to literally everyone.

I think folks are shortchanging Trump and the nation.

The the following entities agree with me.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3322355/posts?page=53#53

Maybe the case and it's plausible that's the reason for no polls.

An another reason may be the initial day or two have been jettisoned and they are still polling in light of the new turmoil.

We'll know Tuesday.

The other reason I think the polls will be positive for Trump are the Facebook pages for Cruella Kelly and Erick Erickson. Its really ugly. Not one supportive comment all nasty negative.

"The idea of the primary season is that we do have a "choice.""

We have a lot of choice this year and not many are choosing Cruz.

Ben Carson will at least double him in the next poll.

Cruz is not emotionally appealing and supported TPA and the Corker bill, giving the Senate's power and obligation to Obama.

That's unforgivable. As a matter of policy, politics and philosophy.

And, he has never called for a wall nor the deportation of illegals.

That's why Trump was polling ~30% and Cruz ~4%.

A clear plurality have chosen Trump's position on the issues.

You make rational arguments.

I do not share your pessimism about whether Cruz can prevail against Jeb Bush. I accept that in recent campaigns including Dole, McCain and Romney the establishment has successfully divided the field and put their man through. I accept that there is risk that it will happen again. I think Jeb Bush is a weak candidate who has made misstep after misstep and performed only with lackluster in the debate. He is already earned a loser image, interestingly paralleling the image that Hillary Clinton is generating.

So I think Ted Cruz can beat Jeb Bush. As you say, we will know more later. I am assuming (and this is admittedly conjecture on my part) that Trump will flame out. I believe that he is shooting himself in the foot time after time and exhausting the capacity for tolerance of the Republican electorate.

You defend him in this Megan Kelley flap. But have you considered how unnecessary the whole exchange was? Even conceding that Kelly had no business asking him about his misogynist remarks (and that is a concession I will not make because of his history and the history of Democrats running against an imaginary Republican war on women) how many times does he have to put his foot in it? Once in the debate by being petty; a second time by twitter after the debate; a third time with this blood business. Why should a political party risk its future on a man who makes mistake after mistake after mistake?

There comes a time when Donald Trump has to accept blame for his own conduct. Trump bots might twist themselves into pretzels to defend him under these circumstances but they will not persuade the bulk of the Republican voters and they certainly will not persuade the bulk of voters in a general election that their man is housebroken.

You forthrightly say you recognize Trump's weaknesses and I would like to acknowledge Cruz' weaknesses. I am disappointed that he has not been able to gain more support by this time but I believe there is still time. At some time or other in the future we will have to assess his relative standing and we will have to see whether Trump has died by 1000 self-inflicted cuts.

= :^)

Your words ‘sound good’ and reflect my own. But if he does not win, the words have no meaning and no substance.

Barry Goldwater was a wonderful conservative and true American in every sense. But he was a loser.

Do you know the history of Ronald Reagan? So you think he got elected because of his ‘integrity’, ‘charm’ and ‘principles’? No, none of these attributes won the election for him.

Ted is modeling his campaign after that of Ronald Reagan which is admirable. But he will need a confluence of just the right events and the right timing to get into the White House just as RR needed. In short, a miracle must happen. Ted will come close on his own but to win assuredly certain events must come together that bring the electorate to him.

In other words, barring Divine Providence, it’s a toss of the dice.

God doesn’t always choose the leader we want and think is deserving. Sometimes it comes to a person of different talents.

Super Tuesday is only 7 months away. That’s not much time.

Trump has shown he can withstand whatever the media and the Bush machine throw at him. He will survive to Super Tuesday with high probability.

Ted will survive as well but how well no one knows.

Without Trump Ted would be alone against the machine politics of the GOPe/Bush/Rove. They don’t play fair. In fact they lie, cheat, steal and break all manner of laws to get what they want.

This is why I think Trump is on the scene, to go up against the machine politics and their media. He’s not a completely wonderful character but he’s an able fighter, a very big one.

I agree with you respecting Cruz' votes on those two matters and have publicly stated so several times. I think Cruz was wrong on those votes, I do not know whether he voted the way he did because he was misled or because he simply accepts the establishment position respecting trade. I might note that Ted Cruz has been casting votes while Donald Trump has not. It is not difficult to find votes that we do not like. I weigh this against his other conservative virtues and do not find him wanting as I do when I analyze the history of Donald Trump.

You are quite right to be concerned about immigration, is the most important issue confronting us today because it has the potential for extinguishing conservatism and constitutional government. If we lose this election and even while winning this election lose the battle over immigration, conservatism is dead.

Ted Cruz position on immigration is outlined here and include:

End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances. (Nov 2014)

Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014)

No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012)

Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012)

Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012)

Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012)

Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)

I have read and reread Donald Trump's pronouncements on immigration: building a wall with a big beautiful door, deporting and then readmitting people of whom he approves. I honestly can make no coherent sense of it.

His soundbites might work but I do not believe the substance makes sense, it is clearly incoherent. Immigration is critical and Donald Trump sounds good on immigration but on investigation we don't know what he will do.

Your conjecture is certainly as credible as mine and my conjecture…

Without Trump, Jeb wins the nomination due to the winner take all FL primary and afterwards his “inevitably” status. He then goes on to lose to Hillary. He doesn’t care if he does. If Jeb loses FL, it’s a whole new ballgame.

Without Trump, Jeb wins the nomination due to the winner take all FL primary and afterwards his “inevitably” status. He then goes on to lose to Hillary.

Without Trump but with Marco Rubio Jeb loses the nomination due to the winner take all Florida primary and afterwords his "loser" status. Cruz then goes on to beat Hillary.

So Rubio and Bush divide the vote in Florida leaving the door open for Cruz to walk through. The point is that any of us can play this game and speculate all day. We are a long way from the Florida primary with many occasions for Donald Trump to self-destruct.

Meanwhile, let us convince more people to vote for a true conservative.

Thank you for your opening comment. I appreciate it.

I am not a big fan of Jeb Bush. Seldom have I seen a guy step in it more than this guy. As bad as folks seem to think Trump is, he has not made disasterous policy statements one after another daily or even more than once a day at times. Bush has for months. Trump's policy statements have gone unchallenged by anyone. Once he declared, nobody has taken him to task on his stated policies. Either he has decent policies, or folks just aren't honest enough to listen to them and point out mistakes. The Left has had that opportunity, but no Leftist entity has done so. Neither has the GOPe and it's minions. They're scared to death to address him or his policies, on policy. I think we all know why.

Getting back to Bush, it seems to me you consider the primary season to be an honest contest between Bush and Cruz. You seem to think they will be evaluated based on which guy is the smartest, the best Conservative. That isn't the case. The fact is, the most Conservative (read that Tea Party) guy will be considered by moderate Republicans to be a terrorist, and by Democrats participating to be a radical right wing extremist. Rationality won't rule the day. McCain, McConnell, Boehner, the GOPe, have all laid the groundwork for a Conservative to be judged unacceptable. How do you counter that when your own party labels you a Tea Party terrorist?

Trump simply tells the public the Washington insiders are the problem, and the public buys off on it. Cruz says that, and folks think yeah sure, and dismiss him. You may not think so, but that's how I see it. Trump is not viewed as your typical Conservative Republican. As much as you guys hate his seemingly Liberal past, the public sees that as proof he's not an extremist Republican. They'll listen to him when they would dismiss Cruz saying the same thing. I don't like that. I still think something close to that dynamic is in play here. It's that "bigger than life" or whatever you want to call it factor that Reagan somehow tapped into. He shot straight with folks. They adored him for it. Dissmiss this if you like, but Cruz simply doesn't possess that dynamic. If he did, he would be at 25%, and his Drudge numbers would have been close to 50% after the debate.

You are right, I do defend him in the Megan Kelly flap. His response to her should have been, "You know Megan, Rosie and I had a spat. It was public, but it pertains to her and I, not the nation. We are here to talk about what I consider to be the most important policy changes in this nations recenty thirty years. There are at least 50 important contemporary issues that each of us needs to address tonight, and here you are asking about Rosie O'Donnell. That's just childish." If she shot back saying something like, "Well sir, some people say you were childish", I'd respond by saying, "I respect people coming to whatever conclusion they wish to. I'm not perfect. Sometimes I make a mistake. This issue is not a critical issue facing the nation, and so far you don't seem to be able to comprehend that. If you can't think of a single presidential policy question to ask me, we can simply skip your chance to ask one. I don't think people tuned in tonight to see a presidential candiate debate a junior high campus publication reporter." Then if she wouldn't let go, I'd just keep asking her if she had a presidential level policy question to ask, every time she tried to turn it back on me. Just make her eat it.

I'm tired of this bunk routine. The moderators get worse every two years. It's time they were put on notice, that the beauty queen gotcha comments won't fly any longer. I'd remind her right then and there, this isn't the View Megan. This is supposed to be a part of the selection process of the leader of the Free World. Would you like to step up your game?

Your comment about it all being unnecesary was right on. Megan should not have gotten away with that. If I were her boss, someone else would have been asking questions from the moment the camera first left her after that debachle.

This is the party that didn't mind John McCain leading it in 2008. You think Trump is risking the reputation of this party? Wow. Trump has not made mistake after mistake. The media has gamed the situation to make it seem that way, and for some reason, you now think the Lefist media is pristine and Trump is the problem. You know better than that. They've done their best to destroy him and he's still standing stronger than ever. Why are you falling for it?

His comment referencing blood instead of daggers shooting out of her eyes was silly. You know as well as I do he didn't rererence "women's problems" there. He was referencing her stare, the look on her face. She was determined to sink him. It didn't work. That's all. The media lied about it, made a big stink out of, because it had nothing else on him, and some folks are falling for it. There's nothing to it. It's a total fabrication.

Let me get this straight, they lie about him stating she was having her period, and you come to the conclusion he needs to accept blame for his mistake? I think you're misreading what has been taking place. Trump has not been making massive mistakes. They have been trying to frame him for making massive mistakes. There's a huge difference there.

Since I have pointed this out, I'm now a Trump-bot? If Trump has been making big mistake after big mistake, why do you think he's at the highest he has been in the polls? Why do you think he got close to 50% of the debate victory votes on Drudge? Do you think Trump-bots are gaming the Drudge site to con the nation?

If there is anyone who needs to come to graps and accept what is going on, I would submit is the Leftists and even FReepers who are misreading the tea leaves almost every step of the way. It is true that Trump seemed to be far more Leftist in the past. I can't tell you 100% what the deal is. I think he needs to be watched closely, and revealed to be who he is, if he is faking. Failing that, I'm voting for him. I don't think Cruz can beat rigged elections. I know he'll have to fight every entity that Trump is having to face now. I don't think he's resilliant enough to pull it off. You do. That's what our differeing voices are here for.

Cruz's numbers are lower than I would like to see right now. Perhaps they will pull up, and perhaps they won't. I will say, Walker showed astonishingly bad on Drudge. I thought Cruz's numbers were much better after the debate on Drudge. How imporant the Drudge poll is, I question. I don't think Trump has nearly 50% of the vote. I don't think Walker is just 5% or Cruz is actually 15%. We'll see in a few days what the reaction was. I expect to see Trump take a hit at some point, and the people who have been praying for it will find every excuse in the world to say, "See, I knew it.", when it happens.

I remain unconvinced that Trump will die of 1000 self-influcted cuts. Go look at the video of those who Black women defending Trump. First of all they are hilarious. Second of all, look at the comments over there.

I've seldom seen people more on fire for a political candidate. These are not your typical Republican Conservatives either.

I think some folks are completely missing the Trump phenominon, and I'm nowhere near as convinced as they are that he is a disaster in the making.

Thank you for your response. Hope I wasn't too critical for ya. Take care. I've always enjoyed your posts, and I apprecaite the debate here as well.

"because he simply accepts the establishment position respecting trade"

It wasn't just trade and I don't want the core issue to remain unacknowledged.

He participated in a gross violation of the Constitution over TPA and the Corker Bill, each of which enables a mere 50% +1 vote to pass each chamber, and worse, requires 67 Votes in the Senate and 292 votes in the House to overturn a POTUS veto.

With the Constitution usurped, they gave Obama a blank check.

Madison rolled over in his grave and puked.

I agree with you in principle, what happened here is an inversion of the constitutional requirement of two thirds of the Senate to approve a treaty resulting in the requirement of two thirds of the House and the Senate to override Obama's veto. The Senators who participated in this were participating in a sham and that does not exclude Sen. Ted Cruz. But if I recall correctly, only one senator, Tom Cotton, failed to fall in line with this practice for the Iran deal.

Now onto the practice, I set forth below a long recital of the history of the enactment of international agreements showing that the practice has long preexisted Obama so there is plenty of political cover for the Senators (also including Ted Cruz, to be fair). I need is unconstitutional but I also acknowledge that it is an established practice. In this context, Ted Cruz's vote is not quite so far off the conservative reservation.

Here is the Wikipedia analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause):

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause [2] empowers the President to make or enter into treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent....[4]

I agree with much of your premise written here. Most voters are not hard core conservative, nor progressive. They just want to get along with their lives and watch some football and hope their kids grow up right.

Trump is not a socialist. Of that much I think we can all agree. Is he a bona-fide conservative. I think not. Can he get elected. I think so. If the vast masses of low information voters turn out and decide to vote for The Donald then the conservative movement has won something. The GOPe would have been smashed. The uni-party would have been smashed.

In my opinion I think that Trump has that uniquely American characteristic of what should be right and what is wrong. He is rich and will tell you so, but the fly-over folks accept him as one of them. Why? Cause he has been in the news and on television for years. Folks know that something is wrong in this country and probably think that “What the Hell, he couldn’t do any worse...” You know what I mean? He appeals to the little guy much like Obama did with his “Hope and Change.” Folks voted for Obama cause after eight years of Bush it was time for a change. America does that...

A republican is poised to win this election because history tells us that the pendulum is swinging. Now are we going to give the mantle to the Uni-party represented by Yeb, or will America vote for Trump (providing he doesn’t crash and burn)

I hope that Trump has taken lessons to heart here in these past few days and will tailor his campaign and messaging. He should not stop the push back but perhaps do it a bit differently. But hey, he’s a New Yorker.

It’s three am now so I guess I want to say that I am seeing an undercurrent that will support Trump and really no other republican candidate in the general. If Trump can survive through the primary season and actually get the nomination, then I believe it will be his to lose. But he really has to modify his messaging...I am getting tired of his “he’s a loser, etc...” If he can stay upbeat and keep hammering away at his message of Make America Great Again, then he will win. If he stays in the gutter battling it out with the lowly pundits, then he will tire himself by throwing too many punches.

Time to retire...

Just what I see from here

They are out of ammo and desperate - the new target is potential Trump supporters and they will try to wear them down and disillusion them by daily proclamations that he’s “dead”. Desperate measure and the stink of fear....

Last I checked a Nuclear Arms agreement has always been a Treaty.

Of course, Clinton tried a simple agreement with NK, and that didn't work out any better than his Budapest Agreement.

Anothe nuance: Had the Senate and House not done ANYTHING it would have at least preserved the filibuster in the Senate and kept the POTUS requirement at 50% +1.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with the points you touched on. There is a lot of frustration out there, and it is interesting that a guy worth $5 to $10 billion does seem to connect with the common man at least to a certain extent.

Strange days...