This is How Much the GOP Establishment and Donor Class Hate Ted Cruz

The Resurgent ^ | 1/15/16 | Erick Erickson

[TBBT]

I said the other day that they’d rather go all in with Trump than nominate Ted Cruz. They hate him. They think that Trump is an opportunist they can cut a deal with while Cruz is the true blue conservative.

And it is. They know it.

The Politico ran a story the other day that reported House Republicans fear Cruz would destroy down ballot races. Why? Because they took a poll on Donald Trump and it showed Donald Trump would destroy the GOP down ballot. Perversely, they read the poll to mean Cruz would be terrible for them.

Then there is this from National Review about the House Republican retreat with Paul Ryan where party leaders decided to embrace Trump to stop Cruz.

The member says he believes that, when it comes down to it, “almost all of the candidates would subscribe to” the conservative agenda [Paul Ryan] and the rest of leadership are hoping to advance. Except, that is, for Cruz.

The latest data comes from the Washington Post, which reports the donors are now embracing Trump because Ted Cruz would take their corporations off the government dole.

Spencer Zwick, the national finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said power brokers and financiers are now trying to cozy up to Trump in various ways, such as reaching out through mutual friends in New York’s business community.

“A lot of donors are trying to figure their way into Trump’s orbit. There is a growing feeling among many that he may be the guy, so people are certainly seeing if they can find a home over there,” he said.

Likewise, “Eric Fehrnstrom, a former Romney adviser, said Trump remains in ‘total command of the field.'”

Got this? They think they can suck up to Trump, cut deals with him, and accommodate each other. They think if Cruz came in the status quo would get rocked and they could possibly find themselves shut out of power.

[TBBT]

Trust one thing... we will chose poorly.

[Gaffer]

So....with this missive, has Eric “Namedropper” Erickson given up on his “good friend Jeb?”

[TigerClaws]

But there are some on this board that think the $ Republicans will give Ted 1.5 billion to defeat Hillary.

They’d prefer Hillary to Cruz or Trump. Trump, though, can come up with the money to run a campaign without the RINOs.

[Leto]

This article is exactly right.

Trump is a whore who flips even on fundamental issues and is more than happy to fund the Clinton Foundation to line his pockets as a crony capitalist.

His flock of sheep only hear the phony bombast.

[cripplecreek]

Beltway Values and NY Values are essentially the same thing.

[Yosemitest]

" They think they can suck up to Trump, cut deals with him, and accommodate each other.
They think if Cruz came in the status quo would get rocked and they could possibly find themselves shut out of power."

Where's the surprise in that?

A bunch of "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" (who are SOCIALISTS at heart) see their coming LOSS OF POWER, finally decide to accept another SOCIALIST.

Remember WHO those SO-CALLED Republicans ARE !

George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:
The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

But read this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
"conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.

Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
"Conservatism" is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -
even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[Bryanw92]

>>His flock of sheep only hear the phony bombast.

He called us sheep. OK. I’m convinced that I should support Cruz now so that people won’t call me names.

[Redbob]

"They think if Cruz came in the status quo would get rocked and they could possibly find themselves shut out of power."

Ya THINK?

I thought that was the whole point of electing Cruz.

[AndyJackson]

They think that Trump is an opportunist they can cut a deal with while Cruz is the true blue conservative.

Have they read the Art of the Deal. Trump is vicious with folks who want something and can offer nothing. Hell, what did he offer Carl Icahn - the opportunity to serve - without a salary, not that he needs one.

[libbylu]

... Got this? They think they can suck up to Trump, cut deals with him, and accommodate each other. They think if Cruz came in the status quo would get rocked and they could possibly find themselves shut out of power.
The trumpees do not look at facts. The DT has sold himself and it is a YUGE con job. Lol.

[samtheman]

Sounds more like trying to get a seat on the victory train more than anything else.

If Trump is going to be president (and he is) all the fat cats are hoping to somehow go along for the ride.

If it looked like Cruz was going to win (he is not), all the fat cats would be trying to jump on the Cruz train.

Thats what this is. Overthinking it will only lead to pointless migraines.

[mak5]

It is simple. Trump is establishment. He is a creature created by the TV networks, the newspapers and the tabloid press. He is posturing as their enemy until the election, when he will embrace the media that made him, Hillary, Bill, and all of his friends again.

[demshateGod]

I truly think something teleological is going on. This end has been well designed in advance. The frustrating think for me is how many people are racing right to it.

[AndyJackson]

almost all of the candidates would subscribe to the conservative agenda [Paul Ryan] and the rest of leadership are hoping to advance.

Snort, giggle. Yeah, sure, go with that Paul.

[AndyJackson]

Overthinking it will only lead to pointless migraines.

Yes. This isn't about their campaign planks. This is about saving their skins, which ought to be removed, tanned and hung in the public square.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Here is the thing. Who said this:

“But he doesn’t just want to finish the physical fence that’s already there in bits and pieces. He wants a high-tech fence: you remember, the one that was tried, wasted a billion dollars, and didn’t work.

“As I have said many times, it is critical that we redouble our efforts to secure the borders.”

That was Mitt Romney. Also a businessman. Also a proponent of a border fence. Taking that into consideration, the only difference between Trump and Romney is Trump’s mouth. I like Trump and believe he is beholden to know one. But we have heard that before from other people.

Given this, why will Trump win any blue states? If it stays the same, the same conservatives will stay home, Trump will lose and there goes the Republican party.

[AndyJackson]

Beltway Values and NY Values are essentially the same thing.

Oh BS. There is a lot wrong with NY. But if you want ideas, vibrancy, life lived to its fullest you go to NY. You don't come here to D.C. which is about whores buying off whores with whores.

[Solson]

The establishment hates Cruz so much they’re financing his campaign.....

[central_va]

I can't go to NYC because the bastard Gov of NY told conservatives to stay away.

Gov. Cuomo to conservatives: Get out of New York !

[cripplecreek]

"The mobs of great cities add just so much to support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body,"
-Thomas Jefferson (who also never apologized)

NY and DC are Syphilis and Gonorrhea