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.
"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."
“Trump is a dealmaker running a campaign as a disrupter to the status quo. Cruz is a proven disrupter to the status quo.”
Proven?
What has he disrupted again?
Because they’re stupid?
Ole Dole....I’m next in line and deserve the nomination. Can’t tell you why I want to be Pres or give you any ideas as to what I would do, but dammit, it’s my turn.
Will he try to convince the greater population of the right thing to do, or will he knuckle under to public pressure.
I honestly do not know. Perhaps someone can provide an instance where he stood on principle regardless of the heat he took. And not just heat from the media and political class.
Excellent analysis. Dead on accurate, imo.
How did he "disrupt" the Iran deal? He voted for the Corker bill. That wasn't "disruption."
How did he "disrupt" the TPP bill? You see my point. If any of these things had actually STOPPED any of Obama's actions, yeah, I'd be convinced.
I think Trump can do a whole lotta more disruptin', especially since he isn't beholden to the PACs and lobbyists that even Ted is.
I’m not so eager to make someone the most powerful person in the world who has no public service record. In fact, if Trump had voted the positions he has held, many who are supporting him would be blasting him on a daily basis.
I don’t want a recent convert or a campaign conservative. I want a proven Conservative. There is only one in the race and that’s Ted Cruz.
Conservative Review which has a Ted Cruz speech writer working for it, as well as Daniel Horowitz, a Ted Cruz apologist and supporter.
Cruz is not a leader, he is only a follower.
Trump is a deal making negotiator. You will lose half of what you want. Which half? We can only guess.
Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.
 |
 |
 |
| 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
Funny how the GOPe, the liberal media, and Hillary are all spending the vast majority of their efforts at sliming Trump, and just a fraction of it on Cruz.
But yeah they fear Cruz the most lol
And, of course, he is for Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate), so governement can pick winners and losers.
Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)
Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.
Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)
Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN)
Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN)
Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller)
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC)
Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post)
Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review)
In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)
I could see a major shake up in congress. Probably retirements joining Reid and Feinstein as well as major leadership changes. Maybe even guys like McCain and Graham retiring when they find that president Cruz isn’t interested in letting them lick his boots.
Based on what? That he has not attacked other candidates? That is leading with principles, not following. To follow would be to bash others for the purpose of getting ahead, like the rest of them.
But unfortunately the currency of politics is popularity.
..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....
Nobody has disrupted the politics as usual and GOPe status quo like Trump has since he announced. Nobody.
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.
