Posted on 01/27/2016 9:00:11 PM PST by Aria
Let it not be said that we fail to follow through.
Outlined below is part of the video from a 19 minute segment Megyn Kelly ran on her show allowing Glenn Beck to launch an attack against Donald Trump without any push-back.
The entire “interview†(actually a one-way diatribe) was targeted to a Fox audience that has not, and does not, pay attention to political comings and goings 24/7/365; in essence, the casual political follower.
There is a lot of misinformation in that entire exposition; but one very specific part of the misinformation that needs to be showcased, and, as luck would have it, exists within our archives – because of the intense importance the moment provided in understanding what was going on in DC.
More specifically, this is part of the accountability we promised in 2009/2010 when we campaigned for and financially supported the Tea Party Candidates.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Real great way to win friend (assume someone is low info because they don’t hold your view), sheesh..
You are the one who said it wasn’t credible. Beck and Kelly are not credible, they fill low info people with slop.
Are either Beck or Kelly credible in your view?
But Scott [Dilbert] Adams brilliantly explains how Trump is playing in 3-dimensions .
In Scott's hierarchy, conservatives are playing pin the liberal tail on the donkey - they are arguing about definitions and they lose. Trump is working on a much higher plane. He set the agenda for this election, As everyone acknowledges, - competence, immigration, political correctness, incompetence against ISIS, firing competent people for political correctness, the incompetence of the folks in DC - the code word for which is "Making America Great Again." 90% of voters can identify with that agenda (identity is the top of the hierarchy in Adams ranking).
Trump wins on identity. Trump is that agenda.
So Megyn comes along with a gotcha debate. Trump wins that debate by not showing up, because he is telling everyone, hey this isn't about gotcha. Cruz can win THAT debate. The real debate is Making America Great Again. I care - I am over here with the greates of all living Americans - guys (identity) who were wounded fighting for America and the even greater Americans we all mourne because they could not be there because they lost there lives so your country could be great again - everyone tearing up at this point.
So Trump has everyone tearing up an making America Great Again and Cruz is over losing I gotcha against Megyn because he lost when he showed up for that debate.
And Cruz can't win. If Trump is "Making America Great Again" Cruz has to distinguish himself from Trump, but that means distancing himself from the winning agenda. As Scott Adams explains it is a classic Trump move - heads I win, tails I win. You can join with winners or you can be a loser - but you did it to yourself. He either plays Trumps game and Trump wins, or he plays Megyn's game and Cruz loses.
Even Solon gets it that Conservatives found themselves holding a losing hand and need to fold. See the recent Solon Article subtitled Conservative activists have spent a generation building up their movement — and the Donald is ruining it all
There is a lot wrong with the article. It is snarky and I won't defend it, but the thesis is worth paying attention to. Conservatives have gotten a lot of mileage from folks who don't care about 50-90% of their agenda because they have been the historical opposition to an out of control political establishment. But they have become entrenched and comfortable in that roll and have not advanced an agenda anyone cares about. They have become doctrinaire and inflexible, clear violations of two of Russell Kirk's Ten Rules of Conservatives.
So Trump comes along, identifies a few key things everyone agrees upon to Make America Great Again, and destroys liberals and conservatives all in one blow - not Russell Kirk conservatives, but doctrinaire conservatives.
Conservative Treehouse isn’t credible, it’s a pro-Trump (and anti-Cruz) blogging site, and this poster’s “blogs” are trash, imo.
Valuable insights at post 36 - ping.
Truth.
Conservative Treehouse isn’t credible, it’s a pro-Trump (and anti-Cruz) blogging site, and this poster’s “blogs” are trash, imo.
Some feel that the same could be said for proCRuz blogging site Conservative Review (CRuzervative”Review”), which happens to be headed up by CRuz BFF Daniel Horowitz and proCRuz talk show host Mark Levin and contributer/CRuz staff Amanda Carpenter.
CTH has been around since 2011 and has done good work reporting on 0bie admin, the Trayvon/Zimmerman stories, as well as many other exposes’.
That’s fine, just don’t argue with me that’s it’s credible and we’ll agree (on both points).
Mama, it's OK to criticize. But, when you do, you really need to be telling the truth.
First, Cruz wasn't even on the sidelines in the Mississippi Affair. That was a Senate leadership show, McConnell's, conducted outside the bounds of the NRSC.
And, when Cruz discovered what had happened, by whom, he immediately resigned.
As to Lawrence v Texas, the SCOTUS took the case in December, 2002, they scheduled briefs in January, 2003 and oral arguments in March, 2003.
Cruz wasn't appointed Solicitor-General until February, 2003. Cruz could NOT have represented the state in Lawrence vs Texas.
As a Texan -- and as a conservative -- you should've known this.
Since he was appointed in February and the case heard in MARCH of that year, there is no reason that he couldn't have.
Mama, with all due respect, that's a ridiculous assertion.
Oral arguments stem from the briefs and preparation involves months.
As skilled as Cruz was in oral argument, he would know that he was not prepared to defend that case when it came to court. He'd had nothing to do with it at any stage.
Did you even look at the info at the link?
Walter Dellinger, a former U.S. assistant attorney general and solicitor general who's argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court.
Cruz started the solicitor general's job Feb. 10, 2003 and the Texas brief was filed on Feb. 17. Yet Dellinger notes that the court argument wasn't until March 26, which gave "plenty of time to prepare." "One would expect the state solicitor to argue a case of this magnitude," said Dellinger.
Someone who seems to know about Supreme Court cases thinks otherwise.
Call it 'ridiculous' if you like, but if Cruz were such a crusader for conservative principles as he considers himself to be, he would have found a way.
The timeline I referenced showed the briefs delivered in January.
Lambda Legal, who represented Lawrence.
Perhaps, your source is correct and mine in error. But that is still a telescoped schedule to deliver a SCOTUS brief from a standing start. And be aware there would be other cases awaiting attention, too, with their own priorities.
Net:net, it's unrealistic to attack Cruz for not being the front man for the Lawrence vs Texas SCOTUS case.
Finally, allow me to point out that Walter Dellinger, your source, probably has an agenda. He was a Clinton appointee. Per Wikipedia...
"He served as the acting United States Solicitor General for the 1996-1997 Term of the Supreme Court. Prior to his appointment as acting Solicitor General, Dellinger was an Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bill Clinton. He has also appeared as a commentator on This Week, the ABC News Sunday morning program hosted by George Stephanopoulos."
HOLY COW! Well, there ya go ... “Mr. Conservative” is not so much. I knew there was something that rubbed my gut the wrong way. I just could not put my finger on it, other than having a constant bad vibe - and the presence of Beck confirmed my gut sense beyond all doubt ... This info sets it into stone.
“The NRSC, the actual Republican Party itself, was funding racist attack ads against it’s own party candidate.
Gobsmackingly UNREAL !
And… who do you think was in leadership of that NRSC making those decisions?”
______________
You will appreciate this, Bratch. The NRSC (and the NRCC) has been scamming Trump supporters for months.
The NRSC, along with it’s house counterpart the NRCC, is corrupt. There is no other way to put it. I’m still waiting for Ted to condemn their current scam of stealing campaign money from Trump supporters, as he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from them.
Here’s how it works. You see a NRSC prez poll on Facebook and vote for Trump and get on their mail list. Soon you are swamped with email selling Trump gear, stickers, tshirts, you name it. NOT ONE CENT ever goes to the Trump Campaign. This is where it goes:
From open secrets, donations to Cruz: 2. Senate Conservatives Fund $315,991
Here is the FB poll: https://yourvoice.nrsc.org/landing/presidential-poll/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=20160104_nrsc-lb-votetrumprubiocruz_facebook&utm_content=nrsc&utm_term=83920800
This is the National Republican Senatorial Committee and they are CONNING you to hurt the Trump campaign!
They have been doing this for months and it’s cost the Trup campaign likely millions. http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2015/09/more-gop-fundraising-on-trump-name-now.html
Wow. It just keeps getting harder and harder to like Ted. How right was Mr. Trump when he said Ted was nasty. The Snake comes to mind.
All this research and you post a 2 word response? Speaking of not credible.
You better have another once over at what was provided.
If politicians words don’t add up it’s usually because the truth wasn’t included in the equation.
We need a leader not another law clerk lawyer turned politician.
Still bitter over the loss, huh?
And WHY should I waste my time on biased BullS?
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.