Posted on 11/23/2015 10:16:11 AM PST by gwgn02
Legendary conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh explained to his vast audience a key difference between current Republican presidential frontrunner, real estate tycoon and reality TV star, Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who has been running in third or fourth place behind Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, with Marco Rubio also in the mix.
On Mondays broadcast, the influential Limbaugh gave an analysis of the GOP race to the nomination, praising Cruz as being ideally positioned to be the nominee should Trump or Carson falter, and as the only " thoroughbred conservative."in the race.
"I think that there is a dark horse in this entire thing, and I think there is one candidate who is positioned here," Rush said. "There has been somebody trucking along here, steady-eddy, that has continued to be who he is and continues to lay down foundational markers for himself and thats Ted Cruz. And I think Ted Cruz is, is positioned, I would say ideally, "he contended.
(Excerpt) Read more at politistick.com ...
RE: Right, but Cruz paved the way to give Obama TPA (and TPP), whereas Trump is unequivocally against that sort of giveaway.
Let’s not pinpoint it to Cruz alone. let’s say he voted with Tom Cotton.... that makes just two of them.
So he is NOT SOLELY responsible for it.
As I said, it was a strategic mistake — Something that even Reagan himself did many times.
I am a Trump fan, but I agree with you on the 3rd party thing;)
RE: Ted was never a real estate developer.
Get off your high horse. Donald is the man for the job because of his experience in business and international trade.
_____________________________
I am not sure what you’re trying to drive at.... I mentioned KELO vs CITY OF NEW LONDON. Trump syupported the decision. Ted Cruz opposes it.
Just because you are a real estate developer does not mean you should not understand the constitution.
So YOU get off your high horse.
Cruz has a few mistakes? What mistakes?
Do they compare to Trump’s:
*for eminent domain
*supports lifting sanctions on Cuba
*thinks socialized medicine is great, says “sorry, conservatives, but we’re going to cover everyone” in his speeches
*will not reform Medicare or SS
*for NSA phone tapping
*calls Snowden a traitor who should be punished harshly
*daughter Ivanka is best friends with Chelsea Clinton and she fund-raised for Corey Booker, supported same-sex-marriage events, says women don’t receive equal pay for equal work
Just as a matter of interest, who is your candidate?
You have my sincere apology. (Unless you are for Bush ;-)
Was Trump eligible to vote in the Illinois Senate race?
“Cruz has huge general election issues... I know he excites the chior, but he alienates a lot of others, and will motivate folks who are dejected at the prospects of Hillary to crawl over glass to vote against him.
Cruz’s biggest issue is to overcome is convincing folks he can win a general election, and I just don’t see it happening.... that and Trump has to collapse before he’s going to go anywhere, which also seems less and less likely daily.”
At the end of the day, there are questions about everyone’s electability — depending on your perspective. For example, many think Trump is unelectable in the general because his many controversial statements will come back to bite him. Others point to Carson’s weak answers, particularly on foreign policy and Rubio’s boyish appearance, over-rehearsed talking points and general appearance of someone running for student council, and of course Jeb! and his last name, which is a liability both in the primary and general. Then there’s Cruz, who even though some here say he is not to be supported because of TPA, TPP, or whatever, is just too “conservative” to win a general.
I think in this election cycle, the whole electability argument is overblown. Hillary, IMHO, is a very weak candidate, nothing like the current WH occupant and certainly far from her husband. I think all the aforementioned candidates, with the probable exception of Jeb!, can easily beat her in a general. That being the case, I go for the most consistently conservative of the remaining viable candidates, which is without a doubt Cruz. I would, however, be just fine with a Trump/Cruz ticket in the (increasingly likely) event that Trump does not implode.
That's exactly the logic behind Kelo and the over 100 years of court decisions (such as Berman v. Parker from 1954, specifically ruling on a case involving real estate development) and state action that mirrored Kelo. The courts had consistently ruled that private entities may receive private property in eminent domain-- even cities looking to developers to improve blighted areas-- provided there is a public good. If anything, the law has improved from more than a hundred years ago, since in the late 1800s the individual states were taking over run down orchards or hovels WITHOUT compensation.
I disagree with it being used to serve the interests of a private interest and, knowing how Atlantic City works, the aroma of public corruption and pay offs.
But then a bad use of eminent domain doesn't mean that there are no uses of eminent domain where it is appropriate and positive for the public good.
Trashing Trump, and his daughter, doesn’t fix TPP, McConnell cave in, and unlimited H-1B’s. Cruz would likely make an exceptional AG, not POTUS.
Bush is both dumb and evil. Hillary incarnate, with the same globalist overlords.
When Team Cruz calls Marco Rubio a liar for saying that Cruz supported granting legal status for illegal aliens and expanding H1-B Visas, and then turns around and says legalization is still on the table, in all of this, is Team Cruz honest or lying?
Unfortunately for our side (Right), the REAL difference won’t be known until AFTER the election (should one of these two be the Republican Nominee). The reason for this is simple; Which one of these two (Trump or Cruz) will survive the awaiting Cultural and Media onslaught once the Republican candidate is known? At the end of the day, Cruz maybe able to get 100% of ALL the Conservatives but will be made into some kind of monster he’s not, by the MSM, Cultural Elites, etc....that he won’t be able to get “working class” blue collar workers from the Upper Midwest (among other places),10-15% of the African Americans (like I believe Trump WILL GET)- to offset the Hispanic Vote going 75% towards the Democrats, and so on! As for Trump....I think he will either surprise a lot of people in the General Election by getting over 50% or he will lose in a landslide “if” we’re to believe “conventional” wisdom- which hasn’t held up with Trump so far!
Thank you. RIGHT ON!
First of all, take the log out of your own eye. You're one of the nastiest people on this website. Remember back when you were even questioning whether or not I was a Christian just because I don't support your candidate? You've been silent on that for awhile. Assuming I'm not confusing you with someone else though. There are multiple nasty people whose names begin with "C," and I have a hard time remembering them (they are so forgettable to begin with).
Trump
RE: but I don’t operate under the illusion that either of them is pure.
Do we have a “Bible” that tells us what “pure” conservatism is?
How is it possible that we have railroads and an interstate system in this country without eminent domain or something of that sort?
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.