Posted on 05/04/2016 12:43:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
He stood by yesterday’s comments not just in his interview with Stephanopoulos, as you’ll see below, but in the Today show interview that Ed blogged earlier. (Skip to 2:50 of the first clip here.) I don’t know if there’s anything more to say than what Kevin Williamson said to Republican voters last night about the race to come: “Remember, you asked for this.”
I’ll say something. First, Cruz did deny Trump’s insinuation about his dad and Oswald. He called it “nuts.” Second, Trump probably cares less about alienating Cruz and his fan base than about preserving the Enquirer’s reputation as a trash tabloid that nonetheless publishes newsworthy stories from time to time and therefore deserves the benefit of the doubt even on seemingly outlandish claims. No doubt he’s going to use the paper as a pipeline for hit pieces on Hillary. (Team Hillary, if they’re smart, will woo a rival checkout-counter tabloid and use that as a conduit for hit pieces on Trump in order to reach the same audience.)
He could have done that here, though, by praising the Enquirer but also saying that perhaps everyone had been too credulous about the old photo with Oswald and that he’d only mentioned it because he was wounded by what Rafael Cruz had said about him. He complimented Cruz last night in his victory speech as a smart, tough competitor; it’s weird and goofy to go on antagonizing him this morning as the presumptive nominee, knowing that Cruz is one of the few people in the party whose support might make some embittered conservatives reconsider their opposition to him. But we needn’t grasp for strategic explanations. Trump probably refused to apologize because he’s (a) too much of a narcissist to admit wrong, even when he stands to gain by doing so, and (b) a conspiracy theorist by disposition. He might actually believe the Enquirer story. Why would he walk it back?
And in fairness to him, his instinct that he won’t pay any political price for pushing stuff like this may well be right. I already confessed my grievous error this morning in ever believing righties were too smart and principled to buy what Trump is selling. The Lyle Lanley of the GOP knew better. Now he’s doubling down, betting that there’s a deep, hungry market for the Trump monorail among the general electorate too. You’d be a fool to bet against him at this point. Three clips for you then, one of his chat with Stephanopoulos, another from his chat with Hannity yesterday in which he insisted that the Enquirer wouldn’t have published the Oswald photo if they had reason to think they might be sued (which went unchallenged by Hannity, of course), and a third of Jake Tapper deluding himself into believing that Americans would prefer facts when they could have sensational lies instead.
Wrong. Don’t be naive, they have been battling over these positions for months. The RNC advisory committee was told too be quiet at the convention in Hollywood last month - they had no real authority anyway.
The convention rules committee is packed with Cruz delegates and they meet in July, just prior to the convention. They have changed their rules several times, including in 2012 to make sure only Romney could obtain the nomination.
The convention committees include Platform and the powerful Rules Committee, a key panel given the prospect of the first contested convention in 40 years. The RNC convention is July 18-21 in Cleveland, Ohio.
- See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/NHGOP_chair_Horn_seeks_prominent_RNC_seat&source=RSS#sthash.0Gy9FvdR.dpuf
What Trump was implying was, who is or was Rafael B. Cruz? Really? A man whose name and birthdate match those of someone who died in 2012?
And thus who is Ted Cruz, really?
There sure is some interesting stuff here about the old man’s past and his identity ... Aside from questions about his ties to Cuba Russia and/ or certain interests operating in the US during the events that led to Kennedy’s assassination
Maybe there was a lot more to be discovered... But now that Ted is out of the race, the past may yet again stay in the past
Your thread management may be marginally better than 2DV -- as you two are the primary posthounds here, and presumably, post-Tedlims -- but neither of you ever show any grasp of the actual facts at hand, or the meta paradigm in play.
The only truthful thing the Tampa Bay Times (a liberal rag since inception) ever does with Politifact is run the Mailbag, where nearly every single negative Meter rating is diametrically refuted by ordinary people, who are -- shockingly! -- actually vested in the facts.
In journalism, this would be cause for retraction - at Politifact it's just more chum for their clickbaiting. That charlatan Poynter would be proud that TBT clickbaits the afflicted, and clickbaits the the comfortable...and succors suckers ordinary rubes like you...
He’s one sharp cookie. { :-))
Yes, it was the warning shot over the bow. Can’t wait for Hillary. But the downside is that if he blows her up too soon, they will switch her for Biden. Then we have to start all over.
Trump got sick of having to keep the charade up and the strain of the schedule when he should be facing off with Hillary. Ted wasn’t going anywhere until he lit this fire.
Cruz went ballistic in response.
But give Freepers some credit for the exposure. Some are good at compiling all the FOIA request and have done some amazing digging. It seems like everyone needs to be vetted ‘before’ they announce they’re running for potus. Many Cruz supporters were deeply vested in his campaign and this has got to hurt.
We project onto a candidate everything that we want for him or her to be.
Donald knows more than he is letting on. Could be that he wanted to whet the presses appetite so that they would continue with this very intriguing story.
RE: Crazy, just desperately crazy, that you would even cite Politifact here. I don’t really care about what Tedlim Sr did in Kuba, now that his buckwheat son cratered, but if your idea of a valid cite to any degree is Politifact, you are way, way beyond help.
Unlike you, I do not dismiss certain sites just because of their name or just because they have not exactly been accurate in the past.
I look at the sources they cite and the REASONS they give for concluding as they do.
In this particular case, their conclusions are more REASONABLE.
What I want YOU particularly to tell me is this — why should I not give credence to THIS PARTICULAR analysis of theirs and give credence to what Trump is saying, especially when he cites the National Enquirer?
If you make general statement like this without even looking at their sources, then your mind is made up. In other words NOTHING but nothing they say is truthful, which on its face is ridiculous.
RE: Donald knows more than he is letting on
Or, he does not know what he is talking about and he is saying it simply to plant suspicion and doubt.
RE: Wrong.
That would describe your argument, not mine.
RE: Don’t be naive,
Ha ha ha, who is the one being naive? I think it’s you. You want so badly to believe that there is a conspiracy to not let Trump be the nominee even when he wins 1,237 ....I wonder why....
RE: they have been battling over these positions for months.
Cruz and Trump have been battling over this for months because Cruz was hoping he could deny Trump 1,237 delegates in order to go to a contested convention.
But hey, a contested convention is the rules if you fail to get 50% + 1 delegates. It has always been this since the time of Lincoln ( who was not even in the lead and won on the third ballot ).
RE: The convention rules committee is packed with Cruz delegates and they meet in July, just prior to the convention.
Cruz won those delegates based his campaign’s understanding of the rules of each state, some of which Trump did not even bother to contest.
RE: They have changed their rules several times, including in 2012 to make sure only Romney could obtain the nomination.
OK, let’s seem them change the rules when Trump wins 1,237 ( as he is now on his way to do ), then I’ll believe you but not until.
As of now, Trump WILL BE the nominee when he reaches 1,237. All these so called conspiracy mongering is simply your desire to project some dastardly motives of the RNC.
RE: What Trump was implying was, who is or was Rafael B. Cruz? Really? A man whose name and birthdate match those of someone who died in 2012?
So, you’re telling me that this man Ted Cruz calls father is not really his father and the real Rafael Cruz died in 2012?
Now we’ve entered the twilight zone.
RE: And thus who is Ted Cruz, really?
Well, I think it would also be fair to ask the question about Donald Trump since he has changed his positions so many times I am not really sure which Donald Trump will emerge next.
I can give a list of Trump vs Trump statements that will make the question relevant if you wish.
RE: Maybe there was a lot more to be discovered... But now that Ted is out of the race, the past may yet again stay in the past
Listen, you give me adequate evidence of the accusations against Cruz ( you can start with the insinuation that I keep reading from some FReepers that he isn’t even an American Citizen ), and then we’ll talk but not until.
Citing a blog isn’t going to cut it for me. If this Mary lady were so credible, I’d see media like Fox and others citing it by now.
Look at the posts of the Cruz family history. Has a familiar look about it doesn’t it? Replace the name Cruz with Obama and you would know what I am talking about. I don’t know if that is Ted Cruz’s dad with Lee Harvey Oswald but there is definitely something very strange about that family. They are Manchurian candidates.
Fox news hahaha.
Or maybe RATs.
RE: Fox news hahaha.
Mary Cummins.... ha ha ha.
RE: Look at the posts of the Cruz family history.
Yes, such posts exist. Why should they be given credibility?
RE: Has a familiar look about it doesn’t it?
Yes it has. They all lack good evidence. And any evidence presented against them are dismissed. Why is that?
RE: Replace the name Cruz with Obama and you would know what I am talking about.
No I don’t. I am an opponent of Obama’s policies as any other ( Ted Cruz included), but I do not for once believe that his birth certificate is fake.
RE: I don’t know if that is Ted Cruz’s dad with Lee Harvey Oswald but there is definitely something very strange about that family. They are Manchurian candidates.
You can make that statement all you want. But I look at Ted Cruz’s RECORD as Solicitor General and the Senate and he has been nothing but STERLING.
A person who led the fight to preserve our second amendment rights in the Supreme Court (AND WON ) and against Obamacare to the extent that he becomes disliked by men like Boehner and McConnell deserves my respect, not someone who is a Manchurian candidate.
No doubt about it!
As for Ted’s Dad, I just find the man to be very odd. Some of what he has said is too far out there for my taste.
Raphael Cruz was actively campaigning against Trump. IMHO, this makes him fair game.
The National Enquirer printed a story that has been making the rounds on the Internet. Donald Trump publicly asked about the article.
This morning Trump was asked again and he responded. What was he suppose to say?
The bigger picture is the press still believes this is a story that will drive a wedge between the Trump and Cruz camps. The are hoping for an emotional response. Just recognize it for what it is and move on.
A conservative is honorable—Ted Cruz is not because he lied by omission about his Canadian birth.
A conservative respects the rights of the American voters—Ted Cruz does not because he ignores all of the many millions of voters who voted for Trump while stubbornly pushing for a contested convention which would be disastrous for the party and would contribute to the election of Hillary Clinton.
A conservative respects God Almighty—Ted Cruz does not because he uses God as a gimmick. God is his personal sock puppet. He takes the name of the Lord in vain in order to gain personal power. Rafael Cruz plays the role of God the Father who *anoints* Ted Cruz-(God the Son) and Glenn Beck plays the part of prophet John the Baptist. This is sick.
Re: Ted Cruz is not because he lied by omission about his Canadian birth.
He did not lie by omission about his Canadian birth. It has been known since he was Senator that he was born in Canada. How do I know that? I visited his Wikipedia page when he won his Senate seat in 2012.
RE: Ted Cruz does not because he ignores all of the many millions of voters who voted for Trump while stubbornly pushing for a contested convention which would be disastrous for the party and would contribute to the election of Hillary Clinton.
Let’s not forget one thing — Trump, prior to the North eastern primaries, was averaging between 37% to 40% of the primary votes. For example, he won ALL of South Carolina’s delegates while winning just 32% of the votes.
That tells us that about 60 to 63% of Republicans are not convinced that he should be their nominee.
To say that he ignores the many millions of Trump voters (many of which came from open primaries where dems and independents can cross over and vote) is also to say that we should ignore the many millions of NON-TRUMP voters.
So, that is NOT a good reason to call Ted Cruz dishonest. He has every right to run as far as he can to win the nomination.
RE: A conservative respects God Almighty—Ted Cruz does not because he uses God as a gimmick.
Really? I hardly ever hear Ted Cruz invoking his Christian faith or using God as a crutch in his campaign speeches. In fact, it is Donald Trump who kept trying to tell us what a strong Christian he is.
RE: Rafael Cruz plays the role of God the Father who *anoints* Ted Cruz-(God the Son) and Glenn Beck plays the part of prophet John the Baptist. This is sick.
You cannot choose your own father, it has been chosen for you. You are only responsible for what you say.
Cruz is always invoking the name of God or religious themes. His father prays with him before his rallies, the sickening Glenn Beck is always praising his virtue and holiness. His father called him *anointed*, this is cultish.
As far as the election results, well of course it would be very difficult for anyone to win over 50% since there were 16 people running! Do you not think that the establishment wanted it that way so that the people’s vote would be divided up many different ways? They used this ploy previously in 2012 and 2008 and they will always use it as long as it serves their purposes.
If Ted Cruz had won as many votes as Trump, I would not deny you your vote. I would respect the fact that Cruz won. Cruz personally tried to deny me my vote and the great majority of voters who chose Trump.
RE: Cruz is always invoking the name of God or religious themes. His father prays with him before his rallies, the sickening Glenn Beck is always praising his virtue and holiness. His father called him *anointed*, this is cultish.
You keep mentioning his father. His father is a Pastor, I would expect him to pray for his son. Cruz cannot control what Glenn Beck says about him. What Glenn Beck says is his responsibility, not Cruz’s.
Cruz does not bring up his faith in debates ( unless he was asked ). He argues POLICY.
RE: As far as the election results, well of course it would be very difficult for anyone to win over 50% since there were 16 people running!
Well, what does that tell us? You DO NOT KNOW how the early primaries would have gone had there been something like a Clinton-Sanders election.
Suffice it to say that over 60% DID NOT VOTE for Trump. So to say that Cruz should defer to the 37% to 40% and not woe the other 60 to 63% and then on that basis, call him dishonest is not a good argument.
Cruz has the right to try as far as he can to win and convince the others who supported the rest of the 15 candidates to come to his side.
RE: If Ted Cruz had won as many votes as Trump, I would not deny you your vote. I would respect the fact that Cruz won.
Well, we are on the same side here. If Trump wins 1,237 delegates I would not deny him the nomination. But then did Ted Cruz say that he would fight to deny Trump the nomination if he got the requisite 1,237 delegates? If so, show me where.
RE: Cruz personally tried to deny me my vote and the great majority of voters who chose Trump.
You use the word — PERSONALLY. REALLY?
How did he deny you your vote? Did he put a gun to your head and tell you not to vote for Trump? If so, that is grounds for prosecution. Why not come out and testify openly if this really happened? I’ll support you if you are telling the truth.
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.