sounds like you could use them :-)
Posted on 06/10/2015 3:16:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Tea Party hero's roadmap to the presidency borrows from the failed presidential runs of Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani.
It’s sometimes easy to forget that Ted Cruz is running for president. While other 2016 Republican candidates are out giving big speeches and attaching themselves to causes and making trips to Europe, Cruz has stayed relatively quiet, which is strange given that his animating purpose up to this point has been to loudly remind you that Ted Cruz exists. The biggest headlines Cruz has earned for himself lately were for a dumb joke he told about Joe Biden just after the vice president’s son died (Cruz quickly apologized).
That’s not to say he hasn’t been busy, though. Despite middling poll numbers and no shortage of people who despise him, Ted Cruz thinks he’s got the perfect plan to win the White House. As Politico reports this morning, “Ted Cruz is embracing a novel strategy for winning the nomination: He’s lowering expectations in the early states while investing in later-voting states that hardly see a candidate before March.” At the same time that he’s downplaying Iowa and New Hampshire, Cruz is talking in terms of a drawn-out delegate fight that will win him the nomination by virtue of attrition:
But Cruz’s team is bracing for a long fight based on picking up delegates — a battle they plan to stretch all the way to the convention, where, the theory goes, he’ll be the last conservative standing — though a contested convention hasn’t happened in nearly 40 years.
Politico calls this a “novel” strategy that “defies the usual wisdom – and historical precedent.” But Cruz’s plan isn’t quite so original. It’s actually a mash-up of two failed strategies from two recent failed Republican presidential candidates: Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul.
While he exists now as a corrupt and cartoon-like political punchline, there was a brief period of time in which Rudy Giuliani was a well-regarded public figure. He was “America’s Mayor” or “Mayor of the World,” depending on who you asked. Rudy leaned on that image of post-9/11 tough-guy heroism to run for president in 2008, and quickly emerged as the popular and well-funded runaway favorite for the nomination. Then Republican voters got a close-up look at him and realized that he was relatively moderate, didn’t actually care about campaigning, and was very much a weirdo.
His support in the early states plummeted, and so Giuliani started telling reporters that his strategy all along was to forget about Iowa and New Hampshire and focus on Florida, where he planned to score a big win that would slingshot him to the nomination. He lost badly in all the early states, but kept insisting that his forthcoming Florida victory would set things right. That didn’t happen – Rudy finished third in Florida behind John McCain and Mitt Romney, then dropped out of the race. The problem with the Giuliani strategy was that when you lose contest after contest, it’s tough to convince people to stick with you, especially if your response is to downplay the significance of those losses. They’d rather be with someone who’s putting up victories and has “momentum,” not someone who’s making excuses for why more people aren’t supporting him.
As for the delegate fight, this was the longstanding dream of Ron Paul supporters who envisioned a guerilla campaign that would upset the establishment and tilt the nomination their way via a brokered convention. Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign manager said as much during an interview in March of that year, explaining how – like Ted Cruz now – they were going to fight in traditionally overlooked states like Texas and California and “stay in this race until he’s the nominee or another candidate has 1,444 bound delegates. We see a brokered convention situation as very likely.”
The problem here is the problem that bedeviled Paul: money. Running a long-slog campaign and fighting hard for every delegate is an expensive proposition. Moneybombs from Ron Paul’s base of fanatical devotees kept his lean campaign operation afloat, but he just couldn’t fight on the same level as other late-game candidates like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Cruz’s own fundraising operation seems to have some punch to it now, but the trick is making it last. It’s one thing to tell donors at the outset that you’re fighting to the finish, and quite another to convince them to stay on board while everyone else is defecting to the frontrunner’s camp.
“Our strategy is taking it to the convention,” Cruz’s political director told Politico, “which is why you’ve seen us announcing chairmen in California and New Jersey, as well as Iowa and New Hampshire.” Cruz’s campaign is banking on two assumptions: that Republican voters will rally behind a candidate who doesn’t win early, and that the party will forsake the convenience of coalescing behind a frontrunner in favor of a bruising delegate fight. Different candidates have tested these assumptions before and lost. Cruz seems to think the key to success is to test them both at the same time.
Simon Maloy has that faggie smirk. Chick Fil-A employees know it well.
CRUZ or lose!
Ted Cruz has more dignity, integrity and honesty in his little finger than you would if you lived to be a thousand years. The very idea that he would compromise his principles for some campaign contribution is so totally against the grain as to be laughable and ludicrous. Only an out and out rogue and demagogue would make such a suggestion. You may need to crawl back to the hole you came from.
I've just posted it and they came out from the woodwork.
Top Nine Myths About Trade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3298996/posts
It would be impossible for anyone to forget Ted Cruz is running not least because Salon keeps keeps pumping out several juvenile, idiotic anti-Cruz articles per day, every day. The homoerotic obsession with Ted Cruz from the panty wearing, perfumed girly men at Salon is getting old fast.
The easiest way to know you are over the target is when the flak is heaviest. Cruz has em jumpy.
Because they gottsta keep getting their agenda to stick by repeating it over and over again no matter how many times it has been explained to them, even though they conveniently left out some truth about what Ted Cruz actually did with this bill.
Isara, it seems some have a agenda here to stop Ted Cruz and spread false propaganda, and then there are those who’s hearing is defective.
For all you Ted Cruz haters, and those spreading false propaganda here on Free Republic about Ted Cruz.
For TTP he said ( yes, himself , Ted Cruz said ) “ that he thought it was stupid to have it classified text. “
Now what part of he said, that would be Ted Cruz, that he thought it was stupid that it was classified text, that you don’t get ?
The parrots agenda of propaganda.
Now shut the heck up !
It’s been explained to you over and over and over again, time and time again.
NOW SHUT THE HECK UP YOU !
you are asking a hypothetical. no one knows who will be on the ballots yet. and no one has to disclose their vote to anyone. forcing others to disclose their vote is intimidation. forcing others to disclose their vote in advance is inviting irrational decision making.
you can label yourself all you want. i never labeled you. if you take offense that i did, it does not reflect well on your ability to think logically and handle your emotions. can you handle your emotions? are you a danger to other people, if not? apparently you are. you try to threaten or hurt me. my advice to you is back off. this is my last response to you. have a nice day.
The Salon telling us that Ted Cruz is finished is sorta like the Japanese telling America you better watch that Atlantic coast line fellas...........
Thanks but no thanks. I’ll get my Republican news from someone other then a far left leaning liberal rag..........
I did not threaten you and if you truly believe I did, you should report me to the moderators and ask that they disappear me.
I see the rest of your post as nothing but complete nonsense.
As for your last post being the last time you will post to me, I say..... “Good”.
free trade promoters tend to overemphasize benefits.
intelligent people recognize that benefits are not likely to be derived from something that is offered as “free.”
if something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
sounds like you could use them :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sznh5AjageI&feature=youtu.be&t=3127
Excellent link!
Thanks.
Steve, since you have no adequate response, who is your preferred candidate? Aren’t you the one whining about Cruz anyway?
>>intelligent people recognize that benefits are not likely to be derived from something that is offered as “free.”<<
Funny, I seem to derive a lot of benefit from living in a “free” country.
Do you think “free trade” means that we’ll be dealing in free goods? Seriously?
While we’re at it, maybe we should set up some trade restrictions between the states? And why stop there? Let’s build trade fences around individual cities too.
Only economics illiterates fail to understand the obvious benefits derived from a system of free trade. Those same illiterates also generally have no understanding of the importance of free markets and, unfortunately, there are far too many of them who vote and even hold elective office.
It comes down to this: Ted should NEVER be on the side of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Mitch and Boehner. Why Ted would trust any of these people to do what’s right for America is beyond me. What reason do YOU think he supported this pabulum? I don’t think he expected the backlash on this.
I DO believe that Ted has integrity. That’s why I’m so depressed about this vote right now.
Isara, you KNOW that even if this deal sells America down the river (and what else might we expect from Obama?), they will be able to cobble together enough people from both sides in each house to pass it. When did any of these sordid deals ever get defeated?
this is a very old discussion. it has been going on since NAFTA (1992-1993).
google “free trade debate,” “the cost of free trade,” etc.
quasi populist politicians traditionally are against free trade, until they suddenly switch and are for it.
free trade represents the ascendance of the multinational corporation over sovereign nations. that means, the power of national governments subside and are replaced by the power of moneyed multinational corporate interests in determination of an individual’s fate.
a free country implies responsibilities such as individual contribution to the national defense, so use of the term free is an automatic misnomer. your derivation of benefits from living in a free country is an abuse of logic.
most economists are stuck on stupid these days since their salaries are paid by multinational corporations (directly or through academic grants) or from government institutions which are in turn influenced by multinational corporate lobbyists. economists are the guys that keep telling us all, month after month, that we have turned the corner on the 2008 recession and that unemployment has been trimmed back to normal. you really believe economists? i can sell you a brooklyn bridge.
since you seem to exclude yourself from the category of “economic illiterates,” you would probably love to join the euro, since economists advised europe to do that, and only an economic illiterate would turn that opportunity down, huh. look what is happening to the euro now. how do your vaunted pointy headed economists like that? if you make decisions based on asshat thinking, you get asshat results.
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.