Posted on 11/27/2015 4:24:41 PM PST by Isara
It is no coincidence that with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) recent rise in the polls come attempts to downplay or diminish him as a viable GOP candidate.
Two recent columns, one each from the Washington Post and NY Times, attempt to do just that. A column on November 24th by obscure Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman titled “Sen. Ted Cruz could actually be the Republican nominee for President” is especially derogatory in nature. Although conceding Cruz’s rise in the polls and the momentum he currently has, Waldman makes the following statement:
“But from one angle - probably yours if you're a member of that vaunted Republican "establishment" - the idea of Cruz being the GOP nominee is absurd. He's been in the Senate for less than three years, he's never written a significant law, let alone one that meaningfully advanced conservative goals, he has no foreign policy experience or executive experience, and he's a singularly unpleasant person, despised in Washington by Democrats and Republicans alike. If he somehow won the nomination, it would be a disaster for the party to rival Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964.”
And not to be outdone, right on cue comes NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd on November 26th featuring guest analysis from her Republican brother Kevin Dowd on the GOP and Democratic presidential candidates. From his analysis on Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and then on Cruz, it is apparent her brother is towing the Republican establishment line first praising Rubio and then downplaying Cruz with these comments:
“Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Young, whip smart and self-assured, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign affairs and is a stunning contrast to Hillary Clinton both in generation and vision. Wait until he starts delivering his speeches in Spanish.
Ted Cruz: The Hispanic heir apparent to Barry Goldwater had the best moment in the third debate, calling out an obscure cable TV host looking for his 10 minutes of fame.”
I will concede one cannot predict with absolute certainty the outcome of the 2016 presidential election should Cruz become the nominee, but the comparisons to Goldwater are premature. The GOP base has been waiting since Ronald Reagan for a candidate who will hold true to conservative principles. In my estimation, Cruz is that candidate who will bring the disenchanted GOP conservatives and evangelicals to the polls.
I hope to see more skeptics eat crow on Cruz. A column found on The Blaze could become typical. “Ok, I Admit It: I Was Wrong About Ted Cruz“, written by Justin Haskins, editor in chief of the New Revere states the following:
“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….. 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.”
I couldn’t agree more. Well said.
There was a second reason: The RNC and the Rockefeller wing of the party sat on their hands (and wallets). Goldwater got no help, save from his own voters (like me).
There is a definite risk that the GOPe and the RINO wing will do the same thing to Cruz -- leaving it up to his voters (like me) again.
Not in 64.
The lib media is scared to death.
Reagan was the New Barry Goldwater. Cruz is the New Ronald Reagan.
All three are/were winners. Two will go down in history as Presidents of the United States.
The dude’s a master. Not in a bombastic way, of course. But in a classy, subdued way. I prefer substance over appearance.
Actually I think Ted Cruz is even better than Reagan in some respects.
He’s more along the lines of Coolidge who was Reagan’s favorite president.
Well, Reagan turned out to be the “we begin bombing in 5 minutes” guy.
Lyndon Johnson ran as a peace candidate in 1964, saying, "I won't send American boys to do the fighting for Asian troops," and we all know how that turned out.
Will Mitt Romney do as his father did and smear the conservative nominee?
That description fits Obama to a “t” back in 2007, not Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz has plenty of executive experience as Solicitor General of Texas and has argued(and won) more cases before the US Supreme Court at a younger age than anyone alive.
I agree with your recollections. But today I think those GOPe Eastern Wing RINOs are no longer the only go-to funders. I am convinced that should Cruz be the nominee he will attract the wherewithal to fund a fully competitive campaign.
Substance produces long lasting results.
If Cruz gets the nomination, I will do my best to give the maximum($2700).
Nope, they couldn't. And they won't be able to do it to Cruz, either.
You won’t be alone. There are a lot of Cruz supporters like us who will dig deep to give the most we can, if Cruz gets the nomination.
They don't have the power to do that. 2016 is not 1964. We have the Internet, Twitter, Facebook etc, plus Talk Radio, Drudge etc.
Plus Goldwater was in some ways running against an assassinated charismatic, young president(JFK). This time it's the Democrats who will have a frumpy, highly disliked, super corrupt old woman, and it's the Republicans who will have the super smart, young, charismatic candidate in Ted Cruz. He will CRUSH Hilary.
I agree with your tagline in principle, but it has to cut both ways. You know as well as I do that there are a slug of extremely obnoxious Cruz bashers on this forum who make no bones about their allegiance to Donald Trump. Take my word for it, they are not helping.
I’m not responding specifically to you, but Trump supporters could follow the same advice you are giving to Isara. I’m a Cruz supporter who could vote for Trump if he gets the nomination, but a LOT of Trump supporters troll Cruz threads, and are ready to give Cruz the consolation prize. For example... Cruz will make a great V.P. under President Trump. I do like Trump, but a lot of his supporters(not specifically you) are making themselves look like the back end of a horse. You need US, just as much as we need YOU. If Trump wins the nomination, I will happily vote for him. Could the same be said for Trump supporters if Cruz wins the nomination?
I get it. Trump supporters want their man to win, and Cruz supporters want their man to win. We are on the same side. We both want a candidate who is in favor of smaller government, will protect our constitutional rights, will enforce our laws(deport illegal aliens), and unite us as a country. But if we keep fighting like this, it will never happen. So I hope other Trump supporters read this, and realize that we are both alienating each other, and to cut it out.
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.