Posted on 01/19/2016 1:28:47 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
As we've been made painfully aware this campaign, Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton.
But what should worry Hillary is that Ted Cruz just might be.
In last week's debate, Marco Rubio lit into Cruz with a lengthy harangue of supposed flip-flops on immigration, trade, ethanol and other issues. Rubio charged Cruz was no "consistent conservative."
In short, Rubio was calling Cruz out as being politically "slick."
If so, he shares certain attributes with successful two-term presidents -- the ability to engage seemingly contradictory elements of the party base and ideological, ahem, "fluidity" that drives other members of the party nuts.
Ronald Reagan made his career in Hollywood, yet managed to "sell" himself so successfully to the working class and blue-collar voter that these people became known as "Reagan Democrats."
Clinton was the Harvard-educated Rhodes Scholar who nonetheless managed to keep himself beloved by the "Bubba" white Southern voters that Democrats began to lose in the 1970s and have hemorrhaged in the two decades since Clinton's last election.
Barack Obama married the black Democrat base to the more elite, academic and lifestyle liberals (now swarming to Bernie Sanders).
In Cruz, Republicans have a man with a double-Ivy League education -- Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law -- who successfully ran a Senate campaign as a grassroots, anti-elitist, populist Tea Party candidate while married to a Goldman Sachs banker. He plays the part of tough-talking Texan comfortable in his cowboy boots perfectly -- just as well as Yale lawyer Bill Clinton wore his Arkansas on his sleeve....
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
EXCERPTED FROM CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE The FEC forms were the only way Texas voters could have known about the loans. Obviously, if the Texas electorate discovered candidate Cruz was using his connections to Goldman Sachs and Citibank (CitiGroup), while simultaneously campaigning against the same institutions, his political opponents would have been able to point to a particular ideological hypocrisy in that regard.
However, this is actually the BIGGER issue. Why does the FEC require a federal candidate to disclose a loan taken out to finance their campaign?
<><> The FEC requires candidates to disclose bank loans taken out to finance their bids for office simply because such loans can be used to subvert campaign finance laws.
<><> If a candidate takes out a loan, in any amount, any entity can repay the loan on the candidate/s behalf – and that’s a way to subvert rules on the amount of contributions.
<><> If, as an example, those who control/influence policy objectives within Goldman Sachs wanted to hold influence upon a candidate, they could simply loan him/her money and then allow repayment by their own group. This is also why FEC rules only allow candidates to take out loans, to finance campaigns, that have traditional collateral to back them up.
Think about it this way. A candidate has $500,000 in traditional assets: a house, bank account, investment account etc. That candidate is, by FEC regs, allowed to take out a $500k loan against such assets. This is traditional loan/collateral, equity, considerations.
A candidate CANNOT, however, take out an unsecured signature loan for their campaign. If a candidate could take out an unsecured signature loan, it opens the door wide open to corrupt exploitation by external influence.
The candidate with $500k in assets, or a Manchurian candidate with zero in assets, could be given a $2 million loan – which the loan originator would not expect to get back.
In this example, third parties, who are part of the influence equation, could pay back the loan on the candidate/s behalf, avoid FEC/public scrutiny and hold influence over what the elected political official does in office.
Plus Cruz/s wife gets a $700,000 a year G/S salary to keep them on the reservation
I can’t think of anyone less like Bill Clinton than Ted Cruz, other than they both have in common that skin-meltingly-high-IQ and ambition.
Bill was — and still is, to a remarkable extent — glowingly charismatic. You will look long and hard for anyone who won’t say they didn’t love Clinton on first meeting him, pretty much regardless of what they think of his politics. He’s a shmoozer and a go-along-to-get-along guy par excellence. The entire point of his political rise was to be a middle-way centrist post-ideologue marginalizing the Jesse Jackson extremist and Mondale / Dukakis yankee left tendencies of the Democratic Party.
Ted ain’t that. He’s awkward in person and on the stump. He’s legendary for the instant and lasting dislike he inspires in many people who meet him. He won’t play nice in institutions like the US Senate. He’s a proud ideologue.
Bill Clinton scored a 1032 on the SAT, which may have been top 10 percentile for Arkansas but was well behind that dufus George W. Bush who had a 1206. Bill is a great salesman but not at all brilliant.
<< Cruz supporters are looking more like that by the day. It/s as if they/ve completely given up......they just want to find somebody to bash. This is not the profile of a winning campaign. >>
This is the coup de grace, if TRUMP nets Palin-Fallwell endorsement, together with the governor’s vote in Iowa, or is it New Hampshire. I forgot already.
Cruz has peaked. Done.
Ted’s got a bent schlong?
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.