Posted on 10/21/2015 11:49:36 AM PDT by Isara
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was the undisputed winner of the first ever caucus of New Hampshire conservatives to rally behind a candidate in advance of the state's first-in-the-nation presidential primary in February. The 603 Alliance, a grassroots organization of New Hampshire conservatives, has endorsed Cruz.
Earlier this year the alliance began organizing the caucus as a means to prevent the conservative vote from getting split among so many candidates and thus handing the primary to an establishment candidate like Jeb Bush. The idea behind the caucus was that all conservatives present would throw their support behind the winner, whomever it was, and campaign for him in the months leading into the primary.
It was a clear, beautiful but cold (about 45 degrees) fall day as around 700 conservatives from across the state gathered at the State Fairgrounds in Hopkinton to choose their candidate. From the start the event seemed more of a Cruz rally than a caucus, as the senator himself gave a fiery speech outside the unheated barn where the voting was to be held. Cruz was the only candidate to personally attend the caucus.
Inside it was clear there were two camps: Cruz and everyone else. His supporters and their signs were everywhere and of course with Cruz himself on scene, the other candidates were overshadowed.
Once inside the senator gave another speech thanking his supporters for their passion and noting they were part of a grassroots movement that was spreading. He said in this year of the outsider his campaign has more money in the bank than any other, mostly from small donors, and that they would take the nation back, like Reagan did.
Cruz asked where the other candidates were on the leading issues of the day and said that on each of them, especially Obamacare, he had taken the lead. After each issue supporters in the crowd asked, “Where were they?”
Commenting on the beauty of the state—and the cold which he admitted he wasn't used to—he said it was lunacy for people in Washington to consider changing the status of the state's first-in-the-nation primary because of the importance of retail politics and how well the state plays its part.
“You take your politics seriously,” Cruz said. “You are doing a service for millions of Americans.”
If the first primary was moved to a larger state like Texas the contest would be decided by slick ads and a Hollywood-like campaign funded by big money, he said. There would be less room for grassroots activism.
After Cruz spoke, surrogates for other campaigns spoke, though as they noted, Cruz was a tough act to follow and people started to drift away. A surrogate for Ben Carson, whose supporters were also evident in strength, could say little to set her candidate apart. State Rep. Al Baldasaro gave an impassioned speech in favor of Donald Trump and said people were sick of “everyday politicians” who make promises but never produce results and that ordinary people wanted someone like Trump.
“Trump tells it like it is,” Baldasaro said.
Some campaigns, such as Sen. Rand Paul's, boycotted the event even though Paul was in the state at the same time.
After a few more speeches voters got down to business. Caucus rules said that any candidate with fewer than 25 supporters would be eliminated in the first round, resulting in the ousting of Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Rick Santorum, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush, each with zero votes. Subsequently, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and John Kasich were eliminated because they had fewer than 25 supporters present. At that point, those supporters had 10 minutes to decide which of the remaining three candidates they would choose instead.
There were loud cheers when Bush and Christie's names were read, while other losing names were greeted with loud jeers of “Who?”
The remaining three candidates were Cruz, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. After the next round of voting, Fiorina was eliminated, leaving her supporters to join either Cruz or Carson. Looking at the two sections in the bleachers and how many people were in each, it was clear Cruz was going to win.
Fredo Arias-King, a speaker just before the final vote was announced, told those present that the final choice was between a Hispanic and a black man, one of whom was going to be elected president.
“Don't ever let any of those liberals call you a racist,” he said.
Before 603 Alliance organizer Fran Wendelboe announced the results, she hoped those present would note the campaigns that were absent and hoped all those who had initially supported other candidates would now support Cruz. She said she would have supported Trump, Paul, Carson or others who might have won, but she now was behind Cruz and hoped everyone else would follow suit. While no one had to file an affidavit or become legally compelled to support Cruz, it was now the group's official position and she hoped everyone would eventually campaign for him.
The members of the 603 Alliance hope their organization and caucus can be a model for other conservatives throughout the country.
Art McGrath is a Marine veteran, and journalist and author based in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. He is a Conservative Review contributor.
Hey, you asked and I told you.
The “list” would be of conservative values, priorities and general beliefs. One who does not believe in the lions share of these core beliefs is probably not a conservative.
Kasich, for example, believes himself to be a conservative but in reality he is not as evidenced by his words and actions. Many Republicans would fall into this category.
Read the “ammendment” that he is referring to Sparky. Then we’ll talk.
The amendment essentially barred illegals from getting "citizenship," but did not touch legalization, which, by the way, leads to citizenship inevitably. This is Cruz's position still to this day, despite his obfuscations.
Did they meet in a phone booth?
NumbersUSA gives Cruz an A+ on every immigration issue except anchor babies which Cruz has since come out against. Again from NumbersUSA,
This is simply false. Even on birthright citizenship, Cruz affirms that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to illegals. Cruz's "solution" is a constitutional amendment process (not Trump's method), which he called hopeless and vain in 2013, though never explaining why he's flipped into thinking it can work out now.
Numbers is simply wrong about Cruz's immigration position, and Cruz has not helped in that he has actively gone on a campaign to obfuscate his real position. But it's clear that Cruz favors legal status, as demonstrated in my second article from American Thinker.
Never mind, can’t rationally discuss with someone who is uninformed or obtuse.
Well then, name another * true conservative * candidate that is actually running .... there isn’t one.
So I'm wrong about what the amendment does or are you actually the ignorant one who doesn't know what Cruz's amendment was supposed to accomplish?
Donald Trump: He's right on immigration, trade, healthcare, 2nd amendment and economics, etc etc.
Donald Trump is fooling you, you know pulling your chain.
Check out his past positions on many issues, more liberal than conservative, but the Trump Blinders that has you blind from his stardom has got you and many of his adoring fans blinded.
Trump is NOT a * True Conservative * wake up.
This isn't a stirring defense of Ted Cruz. "If Cruz is not conservative, neither is Trump!" I don't think we're all expecting Trump to be some ideologue. But considering the amount of heat Trump has taken and has refused to bow or change any of his positions-- as most politicians do-- I'm not sensing a lot of foundation for believing that Trump, at the last minute, is going to become Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan on immigration!
Trump’s positions have changed recently and are evolving ... where a few years most of his values and positions were liberal.
I rather build my foundation on solid rock than shifting sand..
Trump has you and many fooled by the light of stardom and bravodo... wake up..
If my "solid rock" you mean your delusions, I guess you'd be right.
“Donald Trump: He’s right on immigration, trade, healthcare, 2nd amendment and economics, etc etc. “
Well, according to his positions today anyway. I like Trump, but no one with half a brain can deny that he’s “evolved” on most of these issues (with the possible exception of trade), and this includes immigration, an issue in which he criticized Romney of all people just three years ago for being too far to the right.
And BTW — how is Trump “right” on healthcare? I saw him say in a debate in August that socialized medicine “works great” in Canada and Scotland. I also heard him say a couple weeks ago on 60 minutes “we have to take care of everybody”, whatever that means. And I repeatedly hear him talking about how he “cherishes women” and will be “great” on women’s health issues and that he’s going to replace Obamacare with “something terrific”, but assumedly it will still “take care of everybody.” Perhaps you could explain what Trump’s actual position is on healthcare, and how it is in keeping with conservative principals, because I’m having a hard time deciphering it.
None are so blind thatn those who refuse to see.
I'll take Trump who switched his position from 3 years ago over Cruz, Carson, Rubio, et al who still have the same position they had 3 years ago. Well, Carson's position actually got worse in July.
Forgot to reply to this: Trump prefers a free market solution to healthcare, removing barriers between states to allow insurance companies to compete. Yes, he said Single Payer works in Canada and Scotland, but wouldn't work here. The "take care of everybody" doesn't mean "Single Payer for everybody."
When it comes down to it, even with Trump's heresy on saying single payer can work in different countries, I'd still prefer him over any of the other candidates who will screw us on Amnesty.
NumbersUSA has their income dependent upon their accuracy, so I'll take their word over yours, thank you. While it is true that this was Cruz' early position, from what I have seen it has migrated toward the true Constitutional position which not only does not confer birthright citizenship, but precludes it. Cruz is a young man with the hubris of a great education, but he still has a lot to learn.
As to who is "stronger on immigration," that would be me.
I don't believe a word Donald Trump says, whether in person or in writing. He's reneged on way too many deals for me to trust him. So in that respect, I don't think you have any support for your argument at all unless of course you can explain to me why an owner of a major corporation hiring hordes of busboys, dishwashers, groundskeepers, construction laborers, and maids is an immigration hawk.
They are simply wrong. If I'm wrong, you should be able to address Cruz's statements and positions as outlined in those two articles I posted and demonstrate how they're either misquotations-- misrepresentations-- no longer correct for what he currently supports-- or provide some other explanation.
While it is true that this was Cruz' early position, from what I have seen it has migrated toward the true Constitutional position which not only does not confer birthright citizenship, but precludes it.
If that's true then this would have had to have happened quite recently, since Cruz's last interview with Megyn Kelly consisted of him being confronted on his position in 2013 and declaring that he had not changed it, though he didn't address the whole "it's pointless to attempt to change the constitution" thing.
I don't believe a word Donald Trump says, whether in person or in writing.
But you believe a random website? Your hypocrisy is astounding.
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.