Ok, I Admit It: I Was Wrong About Ted Cruz

At the start of his presidential campaign in April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was raking in millions of dollars in campaign contributions and appeared to be the favorite candidate of choice for many conservatives. Long before Donald Trump stole the spotlight, Cruz was drawing more praise and contempt (depending on who you spoke to at the time) from Republicans and the media for his unwavering commitment to traditional conservative values and the Constitution.

It was an exciting time for many of his supporters, but in my mind, I thought the huge wave of support for Cruz was a death sentence for the conservative movement in the 2016 general election. As all of the polling indicated at the time, Cruz was expected to do poorly against Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, and while I have always greatly respected Cruz, I didn't (and still don't) want a Republican presidential nominee who can't win in November 2016.

So, as I became convinced someone had to talk some sense into the well-intentioned but delusional conservative masses, I penned a reasonable critical assessment of Cruz' chances against Clinton in the general election, warning Cruz supporters that he probably couldn't beat Clinton and that any money given to his campaign would likely be wasted. The article was published by Breitbart in April and thousands of people weighed in (mostly to tell me I was wrong).

Ben Carson and Trump have garnered far more support than many thought they would; we've had numerous presidential debates in which Cruz performed masterfully; socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) emerged briefly as a legitimate threat to Clinton's dominance; and Jeb Bush's campaign has (thankfully) become nearly irrelevant.

More important than all of that, however, has been Clinton's handling of the Benghazi tragedy. I've been following that story since the very beginning and always knew it presented a threat to her chances of capturing the presidency, but my view was that because the American public had essentially seemed disinterested in that tragedy and because the media appeared to be covering for Clinton and President Barack Obama, I felt like Benghazi wouldn't have much of an effect on the general election in 2016.

Although there is still a lot of time remaining between now and Election Day, all of the evidence now suggests Benghazi will play a significant role next November, and with the right candidate in place, conservative Republicans have a great chance of capturing the White House for the first time since Ronald Reagan left in 1989.

Although many in the liberal mainstream media seemed to declare Clinton's October hearings on Benghazi a big political victory for her, most of us who have followed the controversy from the beginning know her testimony revealed some very important details-the most important of which being the revelation Clinton told her daughter Chelsea the assault was a terrorist attack just before telling the public a YouTube video was to blame for the supposedly spontaneous event. Clinton's story about the YouTube video was used for two weeks by the Obama administration to shield itself from what could have a disastrous turn of events just weeks before the 2012 election. It's clear now, beyond any reasonable doubt, Clinton knew it was likely a terrorist attack but told the American people and the families of the victims a radically different story.

The media-as expected-came to Clinton's rescue during and after the Benghazi congressional hearings in October, and Clinton admittedly did a very nice job (from a political perspective) handling the day-long questioning. Clinton's camp also successfully convinced many Americans the hearings were politically motivated. According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, more than one-third surveyed said the hearings were too partisan.

However, despite Clinton's best efforts, her testimony and her Benghazi lies will absolutely play an important role in 2016. Even after all of the media spin, 47 percent of respondents in the same poll indicated the possibility of a cover-up would play an important role when making a decision of who to vote for, and 40 percent of independents said they were not satisfied with Clinton's explanations at the hearing.

While those may not seem like earth-shattering numbers, they are. When the general election actually gets underway in the summer, millions of people who are currently considering voting for Clinton will be barraged with one campaign commercial after another about Clinton's cover up, and family members of the Benghazi victims will almost certainly get involved in support of the Republican candidate. The media blitz that is certain to come will make the John Kerry-Swift Boat disaster look like a political nullity.

In August 2015, Quinnipiac released a survey indicating "liar" was the term most-often used to describe Clinton, but by August 2016, I'm willing to bet the results will be significantly worse.

Yes, many independents today feel that the Benghazi investigation has been politically motivated (although not as many as the media often suggests), but when faced with commercial after commercial of family members demanding answers, they won't care anymore what Republicans did or didn't do in a hearing a year earlier; all the focus will be on Clinton and whether or not she lied to the American people.

The reason I thought Cruz would lose to Clinton was based on the damage that had been done unfairly to his reputation by the liberal establishment media, and polling today still suggests candidates such as Carson and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) would have a better chance in a head-to-head race. But, given the current state of the race and what's likely to occur in the future, I have to admit that what I said before about Cruz was wrong. He can win against Clinton. In fact, he may have a better chance than others currently polling against him because I don't think any of the other candidates could handle Clinton (especially on Benghazi) in a debate as well as Cruz can.

Of course, Cruz can only beat Hillary Clinton if he wins the Republican nomination, and at the moment, it's not clear how likely that possibility is.

Justin Haskins is currently the editor of one of the nation's leading free-market think tanks headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and is the editor-in-chief of the New Revere Daily-Press.

The question for me is what constitutes “good enough.”

Personally, I don’t think most people have much of a plumb line these days, one that isn’t negotiable or malleable in the heat of an election season.

I’m talking about the basic things that have to do with whether or not these “representatives” will keep their oath.

I’m more than willing to compromise on many things. If the question is, “what shall we have for dinner?” while I may have my own preferences, I’m wide open to going with what others may want.

But if the question is, “Will this candidate protect the most important God-given, unalienable equal rights of the people, including the supreme right of those who are not yet born?” or “will they protect our right to keep and bear arms?” or “will they defend the sovereignty, security and borders of the country?” or, “will they stay within the enumerated powers of the Constitution?” I’m not willing any longer to budge a single inch.

And I remain firm in my belief that if everyone who calls themselves a Christian, or a conservative, would simply do this, and stop compromising what should never be compromised, for the sake of political expedience, we could save the republic quite quickly and easily.

The other side of that coin is that I also have come to believe that there is absolutely no way to save the republic if they won’t do that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment, but it comes back to this: ‘The question for me is what constitutes ‘good enough.’

If there’s nobody on the slate that is ‘good enough’ our options are pretty much limited: throw your own hat in the ring or stay home. I have a number of litmus issues that a candidate must support if they are to get my vote...but I also recognize that all other things being equal, I’m going to pick the candidate I believe has the broadest appeal so that he or she actually gets to represent me on those views.

Well, it was about a decade ago that I finally figured out what the plumb line should actually be. And since then I’ve done whatever I can to make sure there is someone on the ballot that I can in good conscience vote for. And if I can’t find such a person, yes, I have run myself, several times.

There was no way on God’s green earth that I was going to vote for John Judas McCain or the most liberal governor in the history of the republic, Willard Mitt Romney.

Some small fraction of the citizenry felt exactly the same way.

I’ll continue doing what I can to make sure they are represented.

While continuing to pray that the rest of America’s conservatives will eventually tire of being betrayed by unprincipled Republicans and come around.

Sure hope they don’t tarry too long. Not sure that we have much time left.

“I’m damn sick of people who complain about the GOPe betrayal of conservatives only to have them turn around and tell me that America can only be saved if I betray my most deeply held ideals and vote for a big government progressive because he’s right on 1 issue.”

Only problem, of course is that IT’S TRUE. Lose immigration, lose the Republicans as a national party, then lose the country. Sure there are more issues, but immigration ‘trumps’ them all...at least until the illegals are cleared out.

The problem with Cruz is that he refuses to state what he’ll do with the millions and millions who are here now. If he ignores them like Bush, then they get to multiply and they simply wait until some combination of president and Congress finally legalizes them. Once legal, all it takes is ONE JUDGE to make them all become citizens.

So yes, we need to win this ONE ISSUE - and with the Illegals gone, then we can still be a viable party to work on the rest.

Because it was so very popular the first time I emphasized it:

I'm damn sick of people who complain about the GOPe betrayal of conservatives only to have them turn around and tell me that America can only be saved if I betray my most deeply held ideals and vote for a big government progressive because he's right on 1 issue.

I’m so sick of political bookies like this writer.

Just decide who represents what you believe in and then support them. To hell with everything else.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For real, EV, that post actually did make me LOL at first. It can be read two ways. At first, I thought it was a “tongue in cheek” comment and you were complimenting the guy back-handedly and you just left off the (/sarc) symbol. But, after re-reading it, I realized you were serious and the guy is one who goes with the “political/polling” winds. And, you are “right on”. “The Blaze”, led by their Mormon Prophet, is a bunch of dumb f**ks anyhow.

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.