Posted on 11/09/2015 9:11:34 AM PST by Isara
The prediction business is a tough racket. I'd love to say that I hate to say "I told you so," but, as much as I hate to say it, I love to say "I told you so."
One March 23, our old friend Jamelle Bouie of Slate made what he called a "definitive prediction," that there was simply no way in Hell that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas would ever be president of these United States. It was published under the deck: "Let's not even pretend that the Texas senator has a chance of becoming president."
I responded under the headline, "Of course Ted Cruz could win." I didn't think-and don't think-that it's necessarily the most likely outcome, but it is one possible outcome. I noted that all the best people a generation ago (including many conservatives) were writing columns about how Ronald Reagan couldn't possibly win, that his presidential campaign was "preposterous," etc. Bouie, whose main occupation is the detection of covert racism (see if you can spot the secret racist fraction!) got his dress over his head-"Kevin Williamson sneers at this (and similar) arguments" etc.-and argued that the guy from National Review simply didn't have the keen insight into the Right's internal dynamics that the covert-racism detector at Slate does. The Reagan example, Bouie insisted, was inappropriate: If you are looking for a Reagan in this cycle, he wrote, then you should be looking at Scott Walker.
(Remember Scott Walker?)
This morning, Bouie writes: "Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the accomplished, theatrical avatar of grassroots conservatives, has a real shot at winning the presidency of the United States."
I'm not sure what has changed; in March, Bouie insisted that Senator Cruz is "bombastic"; today, Senator Cruz is, in Bouie's estimate, "almost bombastic."
Some time ago, I argued that pundits should be obliged to make significant wagers on the predictions they make. Fortunately for Jamelle Bouie, that requirement has not come to pass.
Ted is the Constitutional conservative in the race.
Anything else is just sliding scale progressivism.
We knew that.
Kevin D. Williamson is the smartest writer they have at National Review. His articles are always excellent! He is currently my favorite writer amongst the conservative pundits.
Ted is the Constitutional conservative in the race.
I agree.
What are the three times married Trump’s bona fides?
They think hilLIARy has a better chance against Cruz, then Trump.
And they are probably right.
I LoVE Ted Cruz but he is not drawing the crowds AND ESPECIALLY the Reagan Democrats like Trump is. We would be silly not to take advantage of that (and the YUGE coat tails it would bring to GOP winners in big and small races)
My ideal ticket right now is Trump/Cruz for 16 years.
For example, that stupid Bet $100 casino game they play on Fox News hardly saw a mention of Cruz until the Third Debate. Christy, Fioria, Kasich and Walker were vote getters long before anyone bet a nickel on Cruz.
Trump got pretty much the same treatment.
Fair and Balanced? I don't think so. Stupid? Perhaps. Agenda Driven? You betcha.
I like Cruz, I truly do, but as long as he is advocating the H1B visa program, he’s showing that he is owned by the same puppet masters as the rest.
Williamson wrote something REALLY, REALLY STupid and Juvenile the other day!
Apparently Slate is scared of Cruz anymore.
RE: I Told You So (Slate’s Bouie admits that Ted Cruz has a real shot at winning)
Yes, a good shot at winning the Republican nomination maybe.
But even I, as an ardent Cruz supporter am not sure how he will fare among the general electorate against Hillary.
His lips to God’s ears.
I didn't see it. What was it about?
Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.
Budget, Spending & Debt | ||
Civil Liberties | ||
Education | ||
Energy & Environment | ||
Foreign Policy & Defense | ||
Free Market | ||
Health Care & Entitlements | ||
Immigration | ||
Moral Issues | ||
Second Amendment | ||
Taxes, Economy & Trade |
More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates
Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"
Hot wife x 3.
It was in the middle of a battle which Ted Cruz and a few senators fought against the 'Gang of 8' amnesty bill. He offered an amendment to counteract pro-illegal immigration provisions of the amnesty bill.
I, and many people, are grateful that Ted Cruz led this fight. Otherwise, they would have approved amnesty already.
Remember this fight in 2013?
Ted Cruz Crushes Amnesty Proponents: Compares 'Gang of 8' Bill to 'Obamacare' (Video)
Ted Cruz Exposes the Amnesty Bill... $5000 Penalty for Hiring Citizens Over Legalized Aliens (Video)
Sen. Cruz Presents Measure to Strengthen, Improve Legal Immigration
Offers amendment to increase H-1B visas to help improve, retain high-skilled labor force
So tell me, why do you think the gang of 8 rejected his proposal to raise the cap on the number of H1b visas?
I'm glad you asked that question, because I've got the BEST bona fides! You want bona fides? I got bona fides that will make you jump out of your seat!
“But even I, as an ardent Cruz supporter am not sure how he will fare among the general electorate against Hillary.”
He’ll fare just fine. He has as good or better chance than the other candidates.
Don’t buy into the “He can’t win the general election” meme repeated by the Trumpeteers.
Do you realize that Clinton has a warehouse full of opposition research on Trump?
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.