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.
True conservatives support Cruz, it’s that simple.
And how large is the Conservative caucus relative to the GOP voters in NH?
True Conservatives stop supporting Cruz once they check his immigration position and other issues, which too many "conservative" groups seem too eager either not to analyze or to actively cover up.
“And I’d like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system, and in particular about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. If this amendment is adopted to the current bill the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.** They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed under the terms of the bill they would be eligible for LPR status as well, so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principle objective — to provide a legal status for those who are here illlegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen …
“And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representantives. I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass, and so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together and this amendment — I believe if this amendment were to pass the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically, and so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment.”
http://www.kausfiles.com/2015/05/21/cruz-and-amnesty-round-ii-the-telltale-video/
Another article on this topic, describing how Cruz redefines amnesty as only referring to a “pathway to citizenship,” and won’t declare he supports deportation:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/ted_cruz_vs_donald_trump_whos_stronger_on_immigration.html
Uh, by being CONSERVATIVE, unlike many of the morons in the race??? Did this question really need an article to answer it? If he won some liberal caucus, THAT might justify an article.
Awesome! A grass roots organisation that already endorsed Cruz took a caucus of its own members, and Cruz won!
/in other news, water is wet, fire is hot, and Obama is stupid.
So what exactly is a "true conservative," anywise? Is there some kind of dictionary definition or something that defines this somewhere?
See Ronald Reagan to get a good idea.
He was our last true conservative president.
No one has even tried to come close since………..
People who actually put in the time to actually show up and vote in a straw poll are people who are reliable primary voters.
Your get your information from the Kausfiles....BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
I could give you a laundry list but if you’re a long standing member in good standing at this forum, you already know that answer.
Two can play that game (unfortunately), but your position is weaker than you apparently realize.
“People who actually put in the time to actually show up and vote in a straw poll are people who are reliable primary voters.”
Exactly. These are the workers who will go out and get others to support their candidate and get them to the polls. Many just talk, but these people will do the work to actually get the votes for their candidate.
Cruz already has workers in every county/parish in 20 states and that includes Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina where the first caucus and primaries will be.
Will be interesting to see what happens after South Carolina which is historically the time fringe candidates drop out.
Well, I know what “the list” is and I probably fit it better than most people on this forum.
But my belief is that requiring someone to “fit a list” before they are a “true conservative” is just stupid. It encourages people to not think for themselves, because they have to fit a list to “qualify” for some “ism.” “Ideology” directs thinking, instead of thinking directing “ideology.”
So while I am more of a “true conservative” than most people on this forum, at the same time, I don’t really care about being a “true conservative.” I am what I am, and if people don’t like it, then the problem lies with them, not with me.
Why is it that every time I come across a stinking pile of horsepucky on FR, it has your handle appended?
But you would ultimately fail since it requires basically ignoring Trump's immigration paper. Even Trump's plan where the "good ones" come back in based on merit is better than Cruz's "plan" of 40 million illegals given amnesty, which, by the way, Cruz isn't even honest in telling us about.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It has video of Cruz saying word for word what is quoted.
 |
 |
 |
| Budget, Spending & Debt |  |
 |
| Civil Liberties | |
 |
| Education | |
|
| Energy & Environment | |
|
| Foreign Policy & Defense | |
|
| Free Market | |
|
| Health Care & Entitlements | |
|
| Immigration | |
|
| Moral Issues | |
|
| Second Amendment | |
|
| Taxes, Economy & Trade | |
|
More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy. In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
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.