Posted on 08/18/2015 1:11:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It's good to be Ted Cruz.
He may not have the buzziest campaign of the 2016 cycle thus far, ceding the stage to standouts — like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina — who have hit a populist nerve. But Trump, Carson, and Fiorina — even more so than Sanders — are outsiders, and despite Cruz's penchant for making enemies and alienating people, he's playing a deeply inside game.
It's working like a charm. And his fellow insiders should be at least mildly terrified.
Here's the Cruz playbook. First, count on the other insider insurgents to flame out or fade. That's already happening to poor Rand Paul. (Things are so dire in the Paul camp that he's had to fall back on his father as a fundraising surrogate.) It's happening, in slow motion, to Scott Walker, whose lunkheaded approval of $80 million in public subsidies for a new NBA arena is just the latest indicator that he's not as conservative or compelling a candidate as his supporters had hoped.
The next puzzle piece to fall into place is Rick Perry. Even for Cruz, who has happily made himself a hate figure in the oh-so-collegial Senate, dumping on Perry would be bad form. It's essential to the Cruz campaign that Perry take himself out — and that's nearly a done deal, now, too.
With Cruz holding steady in the polls, the stage is just about set for him to emerge as the only "true conservative" in the race with the brains and the chops to match the purity. Although those qualities definitely prevent Cruz from beating Trump or Fiorina in the invisible populist primary, establishment types know full well that Cruz is the only viable candidate who the right's populists and elites can both stomach.
Of course, if Marco Rubio woke up tomorrow and decided to run to the right, that calculus would be upset in a hurry. But Rubio can't do that. He has to win the invisible elitist primary first. Rubio's playbook required that he keep pace with Jeb Bush, then let the party come to terms with the fact that Rubio had all the advantages of a Bush without the liability of the Bush name. But then Ohio Gov. John Kasich entered the race and showed surprising strength in the elitist primary, which makes Rubio's task more difficult and complicated — great news for Ted Cruz, because it means Rubio has to tack more to the center to protect his slice of the anti-populist vote from going either to Bush or Kasich.
Not long ago, people were convinced that more moderate candidates were destined to win GOP primaries. John McCain's and Mitt Romney's victories indicated that conservatives had to make do with vice presidential nominees. But neither McCain nor Romney had to contend with someone as savvy and put-together as Cruz. You don't have to be an Oscar-winning screenwriter to visualize how Cruz would have brought the boom down on those two.
Bush and Rubio are harder nuts for him to crack. But his ace in the hole is the populist vote, which at this point seems decidedly unwilling to settle for a Palin-esque consolation prize.
Then there are the billionaires. When Walker, Perry, and company falter and fail, the donors who backed them won't just take their marbles and go home. In fact, they're much more likely to bail beforehand, throwing their support to the most conservative candidate they think can stave off a full-blown populist revolt, sucking the disillusioned and disaffected back into the fold. And again, unless Rubio cuts right in a hurry, there's only one place for them to turn: Cruz.
That's why people jumped at the chance to believe recent (bogus) rumors that the billionaires, led by casino magnate Steve Wynn, had already decided to back Cruz. The logic behind that kind of backroom deal isn't some farfetched conspiracy theory. It's an open secret.
If you're a Republican who thinks Cruz can win in the general election, this is all great news. But if you don't, it's fairly scary. Because it means a sure loser has the surest path to the nomination — and the confidence to pursue it with no reservations.
Yes, that's right. Barring some unfathomable twist, Cruz will lose. For all his brilliant campaign strategy, that's one contingency Cruz still can't crack.
1985
Wrong.
“Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson and Donald Trump were criticized by pro-life activists this week after they waffled on their positions regarding abortion, research on aborted baby body parts and funding Planned Parenthood.
After Carson indicated support for the abortion drug RU-486 in the case of rape or incest, Cavuto asked Carson, “At the point of conception do you see that as life Doctor?”
“Certainly once the heart starts beating, certainly at that point,” replied Carson.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3324910/posts
More:
My entire professional life has been devoted to saving and enhancing lives. Thus, the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me. Many of us turn a blind eye to the wanton slaughter of millions of helpless human babies who are much more sophisticated than some of the other creatures, when nothing is at stake other than the convenience of one or both parents. I am not saying that we should abandon our efforts to save baby seals and a host of other animals. Rather I am saying shouldn’t we consider adding human fetuses and babies to the list?
Source: Washington Times, Ben Carson Op-Ed, “Physician’s View” , Jan 21, 2014
Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.
Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”
Source: Andrew Kirell on mediaite.com , Mar 3, 2013
Is it moral for us, for example, to take advantage of cheap labor from illegal immigrants while denying them citizenship? I’m sure you can tell from the way I phrased the question that I believe we have taken the moral low road on this issue. Some segments of our economy would virtually collapse without these undocumented workers—we all know that—yet we continue to harass and deport many individuals who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Is there a way to apply logic to this issue and arrive at an intelligent solution?
All we have to do is look to our northern neighbor, Canada. They have a guest worker program, which allows people to enter the country as officially recognized guest workers who pay taxes, receive benefits, and are able to come and go as they please without infringing on anyone else’s rights.
Source: America the Beautiful, by Ben Carson, p.102 , Jan 24, 2012
Virtually ALL handguns are semi-automatic....That means that each time you pull the trigger, the gun fires 1 round. Gene Autry and Roy Rogers used six shooters which did exactly that. A fully automatic weapon only requires that the trigger be pulled once for multiple rounds to be fired...a single shot....some .22 inexpensive rifles only hold 1 shell and must be reloaded after each shot.
You do understand that Carson knows nothing about guns but thinks that the Second Amendment should be applicable depending on where people live?
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.