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.
If you could read and understand financial statements and actually read the Forbes article in question, at the link I have repeatedly provided, you wouldn’t be coming up with all these stupid, inane, ignorant statements would you?
You do realize that just knowing that someone owns a building doesn't tell them anything about how much revenue they make in a year? You also know that the value of the building in and of itself isn't the only value it would have, right? Is the value of Apple only worth the real estate value of their big HQ in California?
All Forbes needed to do was get the best minds in the real estate business to put a valuation on the assets
Right, Forbes, self-declared, got supposedly the "best minds" to make guesses about a private company. You getting it now?
Not only that they went over every single item with Trump himself
Your article doesn't even say that. You inserted that assertion yourself.
The cut&pasted anti-polka dot post:
That silly polka-dot graph you post constantly is ridiculous. For example, Trump’s 2A policy is better than any other candidate, with his national concealed carry idea.
Cruz’s Speechwriter and Communications Director, Amanda Carpenter, works at Conservative Review. So of course, there is no bias there. /s
And that you say to contact some outside group if we do not like the ratings is you just trying to deflect responsibility that YOU are posting this simplistic hogwash over and over.
I am going to post this comment every time I see your silly polka dots! (The fact that I have also mastered cutting and pasting is hardly impressive, is it, LOL)
Did I post to you???
Didn’t think so.
Won’t happen again if I did.
Groan! Forbes got the best minds to put valuations on Trump's real estate assets. It has nothing to do with private or public assets, you still got to get a valuation put on it. Get it?
You talk like you never bought or sold a house before in your life.
It does actually, having read the article in the print sagas be when it came out back in September. You see, I subscribe to Forbes. Been reading it for over 20 years. Unlike you, I actually Have a brain.
Again, $9.5 Billion in sales is NOT $9.5 in net worth. That's like the most stupid thing I ever heard. And it had to come from yet another mindless Trumpbot like you.
-——One thing that worries me about Trump is how he will react as president in the event he’s compelled to do something wildly unpopular with a significant segment of the population - like use the bully pulpit to compile congress to defund a major welfare program.
Will he try to convince the greater population of the right thing to do, or will he knuckle under to public pressure.——
I personally don’t think Trump has any guiding principles except as relates to promoting himself.
He has changed positions on everything possible. I also don’t see him changing his demeanor, bullying and whining - attacking all who he perceives criticized disagreed with him.
"Real estate assets" does not equal = total networth of Trump's empire. Furthermore, they're still guesses. Saying that guesses are right just because the "experts" says so is a logical fallacy.
It has nothing to do with private or public assets
It has everything to do with it. You don't value a company just based on the real estate value of where they keep their HQ.
You talk like you never bought or sold a house before in your life.
Remember how you were mouthing off about me not understanding business? So, umm, you understand that a company isn't equivalent to buying houses, right?
It does actually,
No, it does not, otherwise you would quote it.
Again, $9.5 Billion in sales is NOT $9.5 in net worth
So does Forbes, anywhere in the article, calculate the worth of Trump's companies in light of 9.5 billion in annual revenue? Didn't see it.
I continue to marvel each morning we get this mental masturbation thrown at us.
Cruz is a good man, but people are not fanatical about him. I wouldn’t campaign for him. I’d vote for him, but he doesn’t move me. His time will come, but not now, and I really fail to see why he would stomp on Trump right now, because deep down, I think he knows it’s Trump’s hour.
Well put. Did you watch him last night?
“So you are saying Cruz was an ineffective senator?”
His accomplishments to date have been slightly disruptive to McConnell’s operation of the Senate. Like Barack Obama and Marco Rubio he has used the Senate primarily as a platform for his presidential ambitions. His national notoriety comes from his unsuccessful attempts to block legislation. These efforts have earned the applause of the conservatives who support his campaign efforts but have been unsuccessful in changing the direction of Congress.
Most first term Senators go to Washington, learn the ropes, vote with the party, and develop a network of campaign contributors. As they gain seniority, and prove their loyalty, they gain positions of leadership. From those positions they are able to advance the agenda of the donor base. Some of those long term Senators (Kerry, Biden and McCain for example) sometimes run for president based on their years of Senate service and reputation for being “effective” in getting legislation passed.
One could certainly debate the term “effective” when it comes to a sitting Senator.
1) Is a Senator who tries to block harmful or unconstitutional legislation that was teed up to be rubber stamped “ineffective” because he loses his filibuster attempt or is he effective because he raises awareness of the failure of his party leadership and fellow Senators to stand for principle over favors to the donor class?
2) Is a Senator who is frequently successful doing back room deals to bring billions of dollars to his home state in exchange for voting for legislation harmful to the Republic an effective Senator because he showers his state with federal money or is he ineffective because his actions result in the national debt increasing?
In his first term Cruz has been ineffective in advancing the legislation for which he advocates. He has been effective in bringing national publicity to the unrealized objectives of the conservative base of the GOP. He tried, others didn’t. Sometimes you lose the first time out. It took Ted Kennedy 4 decades to realize his dream of national health insurance. Looking at his career, on the whole Kennedy was a very effective senator but he had good years and bad with respect to his leadership.
If Cruz wins the GOP nomination, and the oval office in 2016, I’d say he was very effective because he successfully used his position in the Senate to become a power player decades before he would have become a power player in the Senate by paying his dues. If he loses his presidential run, he has the option of returning to the Senate, playing the game, and moving into a leadership position after a few terms. He might then become very effective in passing legislation.
The reality is first term Senators have no institutional power and normally are invisible in Washington. Any first term Senator (Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio) who becomes a national figure during his/her first term is breaking through the anonymity imposed by the system. None of the Senators I’ve just listed were particularly “effective” in the first term leading the passage of substantive legislation. All have been, or were, extremely effective at playing on the national stage during their first terms.
Yes, he can pull the U.S. out of the agreement. Then what? He's claimed he will renegotiate a better deal but the original one was signed by the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France, and the EU. They're not pulling out so Iran will still get all their frozen billions, the other countries will buy their oil and sell Iran the goods it wants. And Trump will be sitting their saying, "We need to renegotiate this" and nobody will be listening. That's disruptive.
Obamacare? Easy. You begin by rescinding every Obama exemption, which were all put in by exec order. The howls that would come up to congress would have this repealed in a month. But Teddy says he'll do the same thing. So not sure you'd have a point of difference here.
Trump doesn't want to repeal Obamacare, he wants to replace it. He says he'll replace it with a plan that provides insurance for all. His plan will allow the poor to go to any hospital and get care at government expense. He's said, "They can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything." And somehow this is going to cost a fraction of what Obamacare does. Doesn't sound disruptive to me.
How about stopping Muslim immigration? Easy. Done through exec order, perfectly Constitutional. . . except Cruz doesn't think that we need to stop all Islamic immigration does he? So, hmmmm could be a problem.
And when Trump issues his executive order and commands not a single Muslim to cross U.S. borders then how does he accomplish it? How does he identify every Muslim from every foreign country and keep them from entering? It's not disruptive unless you can do it.
Let's start off by first of all going back to 1990 to get a perspective of Trump's history of wildly over-inflating his net assets and his long history of lying about everything.:
Inside The Epic Fantasy That's Driven Donald Trump For 33 years
In 1990, however, Trump hyperbole blew back on him. The New York real estate market was crashing, his Atlantic City casinos began struggling, and he was underwater with his new toy, the Trump Shuttle airline. In 1989 FORBES had his net worth at $1.7 billion. By spring 1990 FORBES figured it was $500 million at best.
By that fall the overleveraged Trump was “within hailing distance of zero†and dropped from The Forbes 400.
As with today, Trump sat in his corner office and provided a rebuttal. It wasn’t very convincing. “I’m going to show you cash-flow numbers I’ve never shown anyone before,†he said back then, in familiar spin mode–but he folded the pages to obscure the final column. And while he insisted he was worth between $4 billion and $5 billion, FORBES obtained records that Trump had submitted to a governmental body, professing that as of May 1989 his net assets were only $1.5 billion–one-third of what he had told us and even a bit less than the number FORBES, which strives for conservative estimates, had arrived at the previous year.
The fibbing was more brazen when they delved into specifics. In 1988 Trump sent FORBES a document listing his personal residences–including Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach mansion–with a total net value of $50 million. At the same time sworn statements placed their total asset value at $30 million, along with a debt load of $40 million–a net liability. Trump also said he owned $159 million in stock and bonds, all unencumbered. But documents filed with the SEC showed that he borrowed big-time to buy the stock, which subsequently dipped.
Trump did not like this challenge to his reputation. He published an essay for the Los Angeles Times syndicate: “Forbes Carried Out Personal Vendetta in Print.†He argued that the “willfully wrong†piece was driven by the desire to sell magazines and damage his reputation. He told ABC’s Sam Donaldson that “Forbes has been after me for years, consistently after me.â€
“Forbes is doing everything they can, possibly, to make me look as bad as possible.â€
Fast-forward 25 years. Trump is famously loath to apologize. (Ask John McCain.) But he does now admit the obvious: that he stretched the facts in those dark days. Then, without irony, he criticizes FORBES because “you were actually high.†Adds Trump: “I deserved to be off [the list].â€
“By the way, I never complained.†When reminded that he did indeed complain. Trump shrugs.
“Yeah, whatever.â€
# 1. Not only has Forbes been talking to Trump about their valuation of his net worth now, they have been talking to Trump over his net worth for over 25 years.
Bl# 2. Trump has been lying about his net worth for decades and tried to con Forbes into inflating he Trump's net worth by presenting Forbes with stock certificates of stock he claimed he owned unencumbered. What he failed to mention was that he borrowed money to buy those stocks and 2, the stocks were now worth a lot less than he paid for them. Donald Trump is in effect a con man and a snake oil salesman. More extracts coming.
www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2015/09/29/inside-the-epic-fantasy-thats-driven-donald-trump-for-33-years
Thanks. You just made my case that Trump can do all those things! Thing is, you know, deep down, your guy hasn’t really done anything in elective office. But, you are becoming a waste of time. Post away. You’re now on squelch.
Again you were too stupid to read the article. Forbes has been talking to Trump about his net worth for over 25 years. In fact Trump provides more private details about his net worth to Forbes than almost anyone else on the Forbes billionaires list, probably because he has a bigger overinflated ego than anyone else.
Forbes:
SINCE TRUMP’S RETURN TO THE LIST in 1996 he has had a more nuanced relationship with The Forbes 400. From the FORBES side the policy channels Reagan: Trust but verify. Trump shares more information than almost anyone else on the list, and we accept the basics. But without proof of ownership or debt or specific assets, we err on the side of caution. Usually Trump’s team shows us their liquid investments.
www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2015/09/29/inside-the-epic-fantasy-thats-driven-donald-trump-for-33-years
Here ya go. And it even included his planes, liquid assets etc
www.forbes.com/donald-trump
Look up the word "delusional" in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of at Trump supporter. That's what makes you guys so amusing.
Tell the “Establishment” to relax. They won’t have that problem once the truth about “Surging Ted” comes out.
‘And you call others deranged.’
This comment really shocks me. I had just started to think of you as one of the more reasonable, less gratuitously insulting posters.
Then this.
Okay. Post the quote and the link where I called others deranged.
I’ll wait.
Oh, and while you’re tracking down the quote, you can also explain how your snarky little slime answered immanently legitimate question.
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.