Posted on 02/20/2016 11:24:11 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson reportedly met privately in a storage closet Thursday night in Greenville to try and cool relations between the two campaigns ahead of the primary here. But the clandestine meeting allegedly did not go well.
Cruz called the meeting, The Daily Beast reports, to smooth over what has been a contentious public spat with the Carson campaign ever since the Iowa caucus. Carson accused Cruz of using dirty campaign tactics after one of Cruz's staffers saw a CNN report and told voters Carson was dropping out of the race right before voting started in Iowa.
The meeting, which the Carson campaign confirmed to The Beast, took place prior to the Conservative Review convention and lasted nearly 25 minutes despite Carson only agreeing to five minutes, a source said. It took so long Carson was late to his speaking arrangement during the convention.
"We weren't going to comment to the press on it, but it seems pretty clear that the other party involved had a different agenda," Jason Osborne, a spokesperson for Carson's campaign told The Beast. "How else could we perceive that to be?"
Osborne said that "the meeting did not go well" and was on short notice, so he didn't have time to prepare Carson.
The former neurosurgeon reportedly told Cruz "we agree to disagree." As Carson put it, "we disagree on accountability and culpability," according to Osborne.
The meeting apparently had no chairs and it's even unclear if the lights were on in the closet as Secret Service waited outside.
After speaking to the convention, Carson crossed paths with Cruz in a hallway, and the Texas senator reportedly didn't even look at Carson, his campaign said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Hee Hee.
What does this mean?
“We weren’t going to comment to the press on it, but it seems pretty clear that the other party involved had a different agenda, Jason Osborne, a spokesperson for the Carson’s campaign told The Beast. How else could we perceive that to be?”
The Daily Beast went to the Carson campaign and the Carson campaign ‘confirmed’ to The Beast......... confirmed what exactly....
There is a whole lot of baloney but apparently you are reading right over the baloney.
No more like :
Oh please don’t sue me for not being eligible. I know you have damages but can’t we work something out. ( carson backer is filing suit in Illinois. He just has to add a one paragraph petition to court to be included. He has standing because of the damage in Iowa )
That would take a 25 minute conversation... IF it did happen that way, Carson might have been given some free 'legal' advise.
Carson is holding all the TRUMP cards.
Reads like a 'greeting' card.
Neil Cavuto said they couldn’t get the Cruz campaign to say anything. Show me anyplace where a Cruz person is cited. This article clearly comes from the perspective of the Carson campaign. It has one quote from the Cruz spokesman, saying they had a good talk.
The Carson spokesman’s quote doesn’t even make sense. Either he doesn’t know how to speak English, or Daily Caller chopped up his quote “We weren’t going to comment to the press on it, but it seems pretty clear that the other party involved had a different agenda. How else could we perceive that to be?”
Perceive what to be? That they had a different agenda? How else than what? The quote doesn’t make sense. It was clearly butchered. Why? To make it seem like the Cruz team had leaked information about a disastrous meeting so nobody would think that Carson’s team was dwelling on this to stab Cruz in the back again?
Where are you pulling this crap from? The article says NONE of those things!
C&P the quotes from the article where it says that “Cruz’s campaign spokesman did do the talking”. This has half a page of Carson’s people and one paragraph from Cruz’s spokesman. And the article makes everything appear to be Cruz’s fault and Carson to be the happy gloater after it was all done. Obviously reported from the viewpoint of the Carson team.
The 'snitch' is yet to be identified.... Obviously in this particular piece the Carson campaign was not the one who went to the Daily Mail as per what is written. At the bottom of the story is a link to Cruz's campaign guy .... but hidden in all this is an unidentified 'republican operative'... a snitch...
IF you read the entire article there is a link under Rick Tyler and another whole article...
It’s clearly a hit piece. Probably written by the dude on this thread with the reading comprehension of a pre-schooler.
The more I see of Freepers, the more I think I should just prepare my family for what is to come and give up on trying to preserve the blessing that this nation has been in the past, because there are not 10 righteous people to be found in all of this Sodom that we call America. Nobody cares about the truth. It stinks like sulfur everywhere.
Zenjitsuman says “one low blow deserves another”. Meaning
Doc Carson had every right to “get even” with Milhous Cruz.
Doc should have kicked Tricky Dick Milhous Cruz in the BALLS and exited the closet.
lol ...
I think Carson stays in as a blocker for Trump to hold his 7% from Cruz and Rubio.
Carson will be Trump’s VP. Trump will tell him to STHU and go sit in the corner.
Or a Convention deal will have Rubio as VP.
In the linked article (at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/19/cruz-carson-held-secret-meeting-about-dirty-tricks.html?via=twitter_page ) the “Republican operative” (as this thread’s article described him/her) who said Carson smiled but Cruz wouldn’t look at him is identified as the CARSON campaign:
“After Carson spoke at the convention, and saw Cruz in the hallway again, Cruz didn’t even look at Carson, according to the latter’s campaign.
“There was a political play there and it didn’t work for them,†a Republican operative close to the campaign told The Daily Beast. “The meeting didn’t go as well as Cruz wanted it to go. Carson had a smile on his face and was looking right at him.â€
It also says,
“Reporters were allegedly already calling the Carson campaign as the meeting was going on, with the two full-grown men in a closet that allegedly had no chairs, which indicates that someone leaked details in advance of The Daily Beast being informed about the meeting.”
And...
“Ted Cruz called a private meeting with the former neurosurgeon in South Carolina on Thursday night, the Carson campaign told The Daily Beast. It did not go as planned.” (IOW, it was the Carson campaign who told Daily Beast about the meeting. They claim it was after reporters were already there, having been told about the meeting in advance. But according to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-presidential-candidates-met-in-storage-closet-to-discuss-dirty-tactics/ , this Daily Beast report was the first report about it. Strange that those reporters outside the door didn’t get the scoop but this Daily Beast hit piece did...)
“Carson’s campaign confirmed the meeting—which was was supposed to be short and off-the-record—and blamed the Cruz campaign for leaking the fact that it occurred in an attempt to rectify his public image.”
At the above link it says,
“In a statement provided to CBS, the Carson campaign said, “Clearly they (the Cruz campaign) thought the meeting would produce something for them politically” and that “it appears that Cruz still resists accepting any responsibility.”
So the Carson campaign reported to the Daily BEast and that was the first report that came out, but they blamed Cruz for the story leaking out... And the Carson campaign immediately gave a statement to CBS saying that Cruz refuses to accept responsibility - dredging up the whole thing again.
The CBS report also says:
“Carson wanted the meeting to remain off the record, and suggested that the Cruz campaign leaked it to the press. The retired neurosurgeon said earlier this month that Cruz had asked for a one-on-one meeting to discuss what happened on the night of the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.”
IOW, Carson had leaked the story of Cruz asking for a meeting earlier in Feb.
If the Cruz campaign had leaked information about this meeting that was supposed to be private, then it would be strange for reporters to be contacting the CARSON campaign while the meeting was going on. The Carson campaign made it sound like the meeting was arranged quickly, and if the Cruz campaign had reported it as soon as they knew it was going to happen then, the reporters would have gotten back to the person who leaked it - their source for even knowing anything about it. But then again, the reporters that Cruz supposedly leaked the story never actually reported on it.... strange.... It was the people that CARSON’s team leaked it to that actually reported it.
Carson’s Secret Service people were in the hallway and told reporters that Cruz and Carson were in the room. Cruz’s Secret Service people were not mentioned. All the sources I can see in this article are Carson’s people, often referred to as “Republican operatives”. The article is extremely poorly-written with many factual errors - always benefitting Carson. Both articles read like hit pieces.
For instance, “In the weeks after the Iowa caucus, the 2016 Committee, a PAC affiliated with Carson, has spent a great deal of time fundraising off of Cruz’s lie.”
Lie? Nobody has been able to point out a factually-incorrect statement that the Cruz team made. But then, this reporter got wrong what Cruz’s people even said so nothing surprising about the author inaccurately claiming that Cruz had lied.
Another example: “Most recently the Rubio campaign slammed Cruz for a ridiculous photoshopped image that depicted Marco Rubio shaking (left) hands with President Obama.”
Ridiculous? That’s commentary, dude. You’re supposed to be pretending to be a reporter, remember?
The whole thing smells to me of a stab in the back from Carson’s people.
I’ve already lost respect for Carson and a lot of other people over this whole claim that Cruz’s team deliberately lied, but this very much looks like Carson’s people lied to frame Cruz’s people as politicizing this, leaking the story against Carson’s wishes, making Carson late, and Cruz refusing to take responsibility... when THEY leaked the story to one of their own supporters (or at least somebody who has a vendetta against Cruz) who was then the only media entity to report it, in spite of not being right there when the meeting occurred, as a bunch of reporters Cruz had supposedly leaked to were (but after rushing there to get the scoop none of them actually wrote a scoop...) And after this meeting (where Carson still insisted that Cruz should fire people for reporting what CNN had accurately reported about what CArson’s crew had told them - even though Carson didn’t fire whoever told CNN the supposed “lie”) Carson was seen in the hall smiling and gloating while Cruz acted upset.
This stinks. Royally stinks.
Right. Cruz’s team tells people what was in a CNN report, and for that CArson would be justified kicking Cruz in the balls.
As he very Christianly refuses to forgive Cruz for a lie Cruz never did. All while calling Cruz un-Christian.
And then getting a reporter to write a hit piece about Cruz, claiming that Cruz leaked the story to the media against Carson’s wishes, when the first media report made was the hit piece solicited by CARSON’s team - a piece that was factually incorrect and framed everything to make Cruz look bad. And then giving a statement to CBS saying that Cruz did this for politics and still wouldn’t “accept responsibility”. And then going on Neil Cavuto on the morning of the SC primary and again smugly claiming it was leaked by Cruz...
If Carson is his VP I will never vote for Trump.
Not after this.
I will write in my Dad, even if he’s died already by then.
There’s little interest in the truth these days it seems.
It wasn’t even a closet, it had a table and chairs was pretty big. But never mind, we’ll beat our enemies over the head with fake but accurate “news” to achieve our goals.
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.