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.
First rule of holes: stop digging yourself deeper into it. You just proved it beyond doubt. You don’t know the difference between sales, assets, net worth etc. Time for that business class. Then get back to me. No use me arguing with someone who doesn’t know the first thing about business.
You’re welcome!
No use me arguing with someone who takes Forbes as Gospel and thinks 9.5 billion in revenue is a meaningless figure!
It’s hilarious when you think about it, here.
The more I think about it, the more it may be an indicator of a broader Cruz collapse.
Think about it. There is no real competitive resume OUT THERE that can compete with the global experience, economic sophistication, and retail accomplishment of one, DONALD J. TRUMP.
TRUMP is likely already the clearing of the field, before the first vote is taken. That I feel it in my bones is just a bonus.
“TRUMP is not pro-abortion”
Oh yes he is...at least he always has been until he decided to pander to gullible republicans. Below are multiple sources proving Trump’s pro-abortion stance from Trump’s own words.
In his book, The America We Deserve, Trump devoted three sentences to abortion, claiming to be “pro-choice” but against partial birth abortion.
Mr. Trump, in 1999 you told Meet the Press this:
“Well, I’m very pro-choice.”
Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion
I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures.
When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p. 31-32 , Jul 2, 2000
Favors abortion rights but respects opposition
Trump clarified his views on abortion, saying he favors abortion rights, but respects those who oppose his position. “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors,†he said.
Money is also a factor.
Trump apparently values his "personal brand" at about $4 to $5 billion, according to Forbes magazine. His name alone is worth money.
How can Cruz or any other politician compete with that?
Oh, *d, this is the worst I’ve experienced this cycle. Read this thread!
It was a Cruz/TRUMP title so I blundered in.
I think I’m seeing the collapse of the Cruz support. There is virtually NO promotion of Cruz, bless his heart, that can compete here.
It is almost strictly “TDS”, in spades! Frankly, if it is here, on FR, it may be a harbinger for a broader collapse, is my thought.
Thank goodness, I have Christmas Coors left to keep me pretty friendly in the swamp!
I told all of you a LONG time ago that the above is THE reason Trump is running. I still believe his only goal is to block Cruz and insure that Hillary wins.
So you are saying Cruz was an ineffective senator?
There is only ONE “OKLAHOMA”, babe! My quarterback is all about your soccer player, too.
But, best to you my friend, at the ORANGE!!
We want “overs” against ALABAMA!
God’s speed.
Ted has a sense of humor! And he knows a good ‘business’ opportunity when he sees it.
If I were you, I’d stop before you embarrass yourself further. You are displaying your crass ignorance for everyone in FR To see.
Bump.
Being me, I'm thankful not to be in the pitiful situation of having pathological Trump hate but loving Cruz because he is "principled"!
Old News. TRUMP has already plead “GUILTY AS CHARGED”.
You lie to the present and live in the past. Do you have a clue how many TRUMP voters have been liberal as young adults, on these Life issues, that change with their experiences, their family, with age and grandchildren?
Wake up. You’re missing the REVOLUTION.
No, he isn’t in it if he can’t run it, and no, I think a large part of Trump’s support is outside traditional GOP circles-—union, blue-dog Dems, not impressed with the evangelical vote.
Exactly. Trump gives the GOP a shot at blue states. Cruz has no chance there with his TPA votes & Government Sachs better half. As soon as Hillary rolls out BJ, Trump will put NAFTA front and center. Game. Set. Match.
“TDS”.
Take a pill.
{^)
I’m a Cruz supporter, which means I support the Constitution and the rule of law. I would love to ban muslims, but it won’t happen.
BTW, Congress and the Courts do have authority over the entry of foreign nationals as well and will overrule Trump on this because it is illegal. You might want to brush up on your federal laws a bit.
You sound like an Obama supporter since you seem to think it is okay for Trump to skip around congress and violate religious liberties. That is a dangerous slippery slope, my friend.
You mean the Congress that has steamrolled Cruz and made him the beltway establishment doormat? That Congress?
Foreign nationals are no more deserving of Constitutional rights than my printer. It’s very generous and progressive of you to give it to them, FRiend.
You still don’t know the difference between revenue, assets and net worth, which is what this particular argument is about.
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.