Posted on 01/08/2016 12:27:17 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Senator Ted Cruz is the most interesting candidate in the US presidential race right now. As a darling of the Tea Party, in 2012, he swept into the Senate, representing Texas, having campaigned on deeply conservative principles and policies. At the time, many dismissed him as a rabble-rouser who would wind up as a less successful version of George W Bush. Now, not only is he leading in the polls in Iowa, but he has also beat out senator Marco Rubio as the dark horse of the race thus far.
Cruz has been criticised for having some of the most conservative views in the contest. Though his conservatism is rooted in a strict interpretation of the US constitution - not the modern populism that has propelled candidates like former senator Rick Santorum and former governor Mike Huckabee to call for heavy defence spending and further government interference - his extreme views on abortion and the death penalty have many questioning if he can appeal to moderate Republicans, let alone independents.
Despite these views, however, Cruz has found support in some of the most unlikely places. Alan Dershowitz, the famous liberal law professor at Harvard, said of Cruz: "One of the sharpest students I had... I've had 10,000 students over my 50 years at Harvard... he has to qualify among the brightest."
During his career, Cruz has worked as both a law clerk to Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist, as well as the solicitor general of Texas; a job which led him to argue several cases in front of the Supreme Court himself. His experience easily pegs him as the most knowledgeable candidate on state and individual rights, a helpful title to hold when vying for conservative votes.
With a few obvious exceptions - including his anti-immigration stance and support for building a wall at the Mexican border - many of Cruz's policy proposals adopt progressive conservatism, meaning they rest more on evidence than ideology. He strays from the pack when the facts are clear, evidenced just this week when, according to the Wall Street Journal, he became "the first leading presidential candidate to oppose the federal Renewable Fuel Standard" - a farming handout that is protected heavily by the agricultural lobby.
When the TV debates kicked off, many thought Rubio was the one to watch: moderate, charismatic, with both "grassroots" and "establishment" likability. But Cruz has come out far ahead in Iowa and, if the polls are to be believed, he will be determined the winner in that state's caucus in just a matter of weeks.
My bet is that Rubio still has a small edge on Cruz to secure the Republican nomination. While the Iowa caucuses play a pivotal role for under-performing candidates, for whom it is the last chance to stay in the race, its voters are very socially conservative and have failed to choose the candidate that resonates most with the rest of the party in recent years.
But this is still anyone's race, and Cruz's prospects are looking up. If he wins Iowa, the feat will deliver a crushing blow to Donald Trump and potentially trigger the billionaire's downfall. Trump's main pull is that he's a "winner" - when he's not winning anymore, his campaign will inevitably decline.
When it does, someone will reap the lost votes. Six months ago, Cruz seemed like an after-thought; today, he may be peaking at just the right moment.
That’s it, all right. Trump feeds off the adulation; Cruz doesn’t need the constant ego massaging.
You should post that on Twitter.
Hell, most Americans regardless still buy into Bill Clinton's Urban myth of "popularity." Both times Clinton ran for president, most voters opposed him, more than half, twice. The MSM loved him and its spin reflected it. And many people still haven't seen through that illusion, and go on believing the urban myth of Clinton's "popularity." He was popular with the MSM, that's all.
They say be careful what you wish for, because this could happen easily enough. But if every "regular" American went for 12 months, one year, in a home FREE of television and cable and instead filled that time doing other things -- just one year, they'd start to gain a better perspective, they'd get out of the fog. The information that TV and cable provides, can all, every single bit, be found better elsewhere. Even breaking news -- turn to radio for that. TV and cable are absolute frills, extras, time killers. "Time does not die. Only people." (a favorite line from a Japanese hack-em-up Samurai movie).
For what it's worth.
Too much mainstream media consumption is bad for America's political health. Better to consume it second-hand in DVDs (I love watching some old TV shows like Columbo) during dinner "movie" hour or some such. Extreme moderation is a personal choice and I believe with my heart, a good one.
True flyover country people have no use for unnecessary nastiness. Urban people seem to think of themselves as more sophisticated
Worse are self-described pro-capitalist conservatives who perceive rejection of ostentatious wealth as a sign of envy, when in fact it is a value statement.
FRiends, I first-hand know of A) a self-made hard-working multi-millionaire bereft of family in a beautiful empty home and B) a broke man with a ratty truck, four kids mostly boys and a great wife who live in the most low-rent fashion, have built a veritable paradise enjoyed by many and filled with love, and would certainly be perceived as "white trash" by many even here --
-- and I tell you that the wealthier man by far is the guy whose house Trump would promptly bulldoze and replace with garish opulence. I have seen it first-hand; wealth or the ability to accrue wealth is ONLY that.
Yup, I noticed that too.
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.