Posted on 12/28/2015 2:33:48 PM PST by Isara
Read these two quotes carefully: The first: “Cruz cannot win because the Washington elites despise him.” The second goes: “[T]here are a lot of good candidates – I like nearly all of them… …except Cruz.” Which one of the similar quotes is from a pro-Cruz Super PAC and which is from a former Republican nominee for president?
The first quote is from an ad from Keep the Promise I, a Cruz Super PAC. The second is from Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican nominee and war hero, who got trounced by Bill Clinton. Both purport to highlight a negative of Senator Cruz, but do they really?
The answer is hidden in an examination of the conservative insurgency in Massachusetts, of all places. Five years ago this very week, things were starting to turn around for then-State Senator Scott Brown (R–MA).
Knowing how much of a train wreck RomneyCare had become, the voters of Massachusetts were drawn to Brown’s singular campaign message: “I will be the 41st vote to stop Obamacare.” Attorney General Martha Coakley’s team misread the electorate and put out ads that in effect said, “If you elect Scott Brown you will stop the president from giving healthcare to millions of Americans.” Two different candidates, same message, and we all know who won that race.
That same dynamic is playing out in the presidential race this year; be it with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. The establishment keeps telling the voters how awful these two candidates are, but that just makes the voters gravitate to them even more.
Nowhere is this playing out more clearly than in Iowa where a series of establishment allies are swinging hard at Cruz in advertisements and mailers. All of this comes as Cruz further cements his lead in the state. On Christmas, CNN reported that a collection of five independent groups, aligned with the establishment and Mike Huckabee have begun attacks on Cruz in Iowa.
The attacks are being spearheaded by two people with ties to the establishment: Nick Ryan, who is an establishment activist in Iowa, and Sean Noble, another establishment hack who is backing Rubio. Mark Levin wrote of Noble’s Alinsky-like tactics back in November. Regarding Noble’s attacks on Cruz’s vote for the America Freedom Act, Conservative Review’s own Daniel Horowitz said: “Mr. Noble worked for Sen. Jeff Flake who also voted for the Freedom Act. I guess his boss and all of Rubio’s backers are also weak on national security.” Noble boasts, on his own website, of his ties to the “elite” of the party. He says “…or nearly 20 years, a pretty elite cast of characters has been doing just that [paying attention to Noble].”
Ryan is a longstanding force in Iowa politics, allied with the moderate Governor Branstad. On his website, Ryan describes himself as having investments in renewable energy—i.e. ethanol—in Iowa. Ted Cruz is very much against ethanol mandates.
When you scratch under the hood of the attacks on Cruz, and ask why they are more pointed than the attacks on Trump, a common theme begins to emerge. That is self-interest. It can be as plain as someone who has financial stakes in ethanol running ads against an anti-ethanol candidate, or it can be more complex, like with Noble—someone trying to hold onto the power they’ve carved out in the political industrial complex. Therein lies the real truth of why the attacks are stronger against Cruz than Trump, even though they really aren’t working against either candidate.
Trump is a dealmaker running a campaign as a disrupter to the status quo. Cruz is a proven disrupter to the status quo. That is a very big difference indeed.
The political industrial complex believes deep down that they can negotiate with the author of The Art of the Deal; they know they will lose the levers of power with Ted Cruz. You can see it in the voracity and frequency of their attacks.
The establishment consultants and chattering class know they have the most to lose with a Cruz presidency. What do they lose with a Cruz presidency? The very levers of power by which they enrich themselves: the Republican Party apparatus.
It goes much deeper than Cruz holding the reins of the executive branch. With a President Cruz, the positions of the self-described elite within the GOP power structure are in jeopardy. As much as the establishment screams electability from the rooftops, deep down they know that Cruz can and will win in 2016 if nominated. That is an existential threat to business as usual and the ruling class itself.
Rule #1 of the political industrial complex is: maintain power at all cost, even if it means torpedoing an electable conservative like Cruz. Here is how it would play out badly for them were Cruz the nominee:
Cruz is the larger threat to establishment because, if he wins, they lose all the levers of power. McConnell and his allies would be tossed out of organizations such as the Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, etc... If history is any guide, the sitting president of a political party has a large leeway in choosing those in key power positions. That puts the earning potential and power of the current political industrial complex in complete jeopardy.
That is why, come January, the establishment will continue to turn all their guns on Cruz because they would rather Trump win the nomination and lose to Hillary than for Ted Cruz to have a chance of being president. If that happened they would attempt to blame a Trump loss on the Tea Party, and keep their cushy jobs. As Cruz inevitably gains on Trump, the establishment will go after Cruz 110%, even if they are currently waging a rhetorical war on Trump.
As the calendar turns to 2016, and the political industrial complex realizes they can’t field a winning candidate on their own, they will increasingly turn their fire on Cruz over Trump. When they do so, be very aware that it isn’t for the “good of the country” or even because of “electability.” It pretty much boils down to what they have to do to keep food on their tables and their pockets lined.
A very powerful motivator indeed.
Not opinions. Facts.
“One big problem in the article. The claim that Hillary will beat Trump is total nonsense.”
I think he would lose and here is why:
Clinton has been all over the middle east and knows the name of every county leader there and has spoken to them, over and over. She knows those countries like the back of her hand. Trump knows practically nothing about foreign policy or those countries or those leaders. He has already failed in debates when foreign policy was the subject. If you recall, he once said he got his foreign country information from Sunday talk shows. Clinton is going to shine on foreign policy, and he will be dumb struck, searching for words to say.
He lives off personal attacks. A personal attack, will not help him when policy of any kind is the subject. He will repeat the broad sweeping actions he is going to take, and smart people will know it is fake - that he cannot do it on his own as he thinks he can. Perhaps there will be enough angry/less knowledgeable people who are not thinking through his grandiose plans, to elect him president. I hope not.
“You’re a liar” is not a very persuasive comment.
I know you are a Trump devotee but, frankly, a lot of your posts do not display a high degree of intelligence.
“That chart is of dubious accuracy at best.”
So says the supporter of the most liberal candidate.
“Really? And what attacks are those? Quote some.”
Try reading any Cruz or Trump thread on FR.
“Ever been to a Trump rally?”
A rally doesn’t warrant respect. Respect is earned based on deeds and not what Trump says because he can and does say anything regardless of how retarded it is. Trump’s deeds on the other hand show his continued liberal support for over 30 years. That worries me.
Hillary is a godless marxist liar and traitor.
No he doesn’t. They attack him.
Build that damn wall. The establishment hates him for it.
I think that the unpleasantness in the Trump posters is generated out of fear.
I don’t have that fear because I don’t hate Trump.
Cruz is the better statesman and I think he would be a better president but Trump would be fine ... a stark contrast with Hillary and Obama.
And Trump is a quick learner and adapts to changing situations. We can but hope he would adapt in the right direction. I think he would.
But when I see a nasty post about Trump, I tend to respond in kind. Sorry about that.
Cruz never supported legalization, unlike Trump that wants “to let the good ones back in”, which is code for amnesty. Cruz opposed legalization and supported the wall ever since he was running for senate. His positions are clearly written in his policy papers, which have been around longer than candidate Trump.
By the way, every bill in the senate, including TPP, was able to pass without Cruz regardless of how Cruz voted, which just shows your desperation to deflect away from Trump’s liberal records.
You attack Cruz’s record, although inaccurately, but you call any question of Trump’s record as primitive. How liberally hypocritical of you. Maybe you should return to DU. They miss you.
The problem is that you Trumpets can explain away Trump’s liberal positions so you attack Cruz, the only true conservative running.
Ooops... I meant when I see a nasty post about Ted Cruz, it riles me up and I can get mean.
I am saying she will come across as knowing everything there is to know about those countries, including their leaders. The public will THINK she is great on foreign policy.
Shitlery will get creamed on foreign policy, Benghazi Benghazi Bengazi.
From the link I provided:
"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. [Registered Provisional Immigrant] 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 [Lawful Permanent Resident], 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."
More, from same link:
"What Mr. Cruz has tried to articulate in both word and deed is a middle ground. It got no support from Democrats in Washington, but it goes further than many on the far right want to go by offering leniency to undocumented immigrants here already...
Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
"The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight," he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation."
Yes, Cruz supported legalization. He did so even after the Gang of Eight fight was over.
It cannot be denied. It is a fact. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
unlike Trump that wants “to let the good ones back inâ€, which is code for amnesty.
No, it's code for a legal immigration policy where we get to pick and choose who we want in the country.
By the way, every bill in the senate, including TPP, was able to pass without Cruz regardless of how Cruz voted
You mean TPA: and, yes, Cruz fought HEAVILY for TPA.
but you call any question of Trump’s record as primitive
It's primitive because it's the type of retorts we got from people 6 months ago. Get educated.
Perhaps there will be enough angry/less knowledgeable people who are not thinking
through his grandiose plans, to elect him president.
******************
Who the heck do you think votes in the general elections? Only people with top 10% IQ?
The “angry/less knowledgeable people who are not thinking through his grandiose plans”
make up a substantial percentage of the electorate.
Yes, she is, but she will come across as polished and knowing every subject, and he will not. I have watched her at every debate, and she speaks well on every subject - handles herself very well. He will continue to be what he is at rallies and debates, bombastic and uncontrolled. I do not think he will win a debate against her.
B/S. She’s a shitburger and everyone knows it.
The courts and congress would overturn him before the ink was dry on his executive order because it is illegal and against our Constitution to restrict entry into the U.S. based on religion alone. That is one of those feel good policies that can’t and won’t ever happen.
Sorry, foreign nationals do not have Constitutional rights. They may be excluded from the US for any reason.
You sound like a Democrat. Are you a Hillary supporter by chance?
That is too lame.
What pray tell is the fine difference between TRUMP contributing to politicians in NY, and your guy serving on the National Senatorial Re-election Committee, or his giving money to other senatorial campaigns, clearly building chits for support in states necessary for his own presidential plans to run.
It’s all pay off for political goals, or in TRUMP’s case, business goals.
And didn’t we read that serving on the NSRC, members like the senator, were not permitted to endorse, but they sure managed to pull off the “Mississippi Treatment” against the
one conservative in the lead, to re-elect THAD COCHRAN, the tool of the Left Republican establishment.
No sale on that argument.
Anyone still pushing this narrative is doing so knowing full well it is a lie.
That means you.
Cruz supporters seem to be forgetting that the Gang of 8 bill PASSED the Senate. 68-32, wasn’t even close. Despite all of his wonderful beltway theatrics, Cruz did not “stop” this bill. It died in the House.
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.