Posted on 01/28/2016 1:36:43 PM PST by justlittleoleme
To many outside observers, the wave of seasoned Republican officials and strategists sounding increasingly comfortable with Donald Trump as the GOP’s presidential nominee is a sign of surrender. Whether it’s Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad rooting for Ted Cruz to lose the Iowa caucuses or Orrin Hatch “coming around a little bit” on Trump’s candidacy or the paucity of money spent attacking Trump on the airwaves, it feels like official Washington has sided with Trump over Cruz.
In reality, many are trying to salvage the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (or any other more-mainstream alternative), and are betting that it’s easier to defeat Trump in a one-on-one showdown than Cruz emboldened by a strong showing in Iowa. To diminish Trump at this point, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos wrote in an email Monday, “perversely helps both Cruz and Trump, which is not what many conservatives intend.”
The thinking goes as follows: If Cruz loses Iowa, he peters out in New Hampshire and doesn’t pose a risk of finishing in a respectable second place. That allows the establishment winner out of the Granite State to build momentum as the anti-Trump alternative. A decent number of Cruz’s supporters, when asked to choose a second candidate, gravitate to Rubio. Polls show many more of Trump supporters, by contrast, would support Cruz. And even with Trump’s improving favorability numbers within the GOP, there are more Republican voters who wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances than say the same about the senator from Texas.
These strategists are looking at Trump’s increasingly bellicose attacks against Cruz with glee. In their view, only Trump can successfully put a dent in Cruz’s sky-high favorability among Republicans, which is a precondition to blocking him from the nomination.
But there’s one big problem with the theory being embraced by many party pooh-bahs. It risks handing the election to Trump on a silver platter—helping knock out his strongest rival while watching helplessly as more-moderate alternatives blow each other up in the process. The wishful thinking behind such a strategy is that Cruz is utterly unelectable, while Trump is unpredictable enough to win a general election. In reality, Cruz looks like an electable standard-bearer, while Trump could blow the party to smithereens.
Cruz, despite being loathed by his colleagues in Washington, is a better general-election candidate than his detractors believe. His general election favorability ratings are currently respectable, and he runs competitively with Clinton in early matchups. His professional resume and academic credentials are exceptional. The political environment for Democrats is dismal, and is as ill-suited for an establishment figure like Hillary Clinton as it is for a hardline conservative.
-snip-
It’s a clear sign of how emotion is clouding strategic thinking when The New York Times reports that many Cruz critics believe it would be “preferable to rent the party to Trump for four months … than risk turning it over to Cruz for at least four years.” Some Republicans admit they’d rather lose to Hillary Clinton than win with Cruz. That’s a remarkable statement.
Well, I am equally and SOOOOOOOOOO tired of Trump supporters who can’t face the reality that there are several Republicans besides Donald Trump who could win the 2016 presidential election. Why should we waste this opportunity to elect a GOP president on a man who has been a Democrat much of his life. The man has no consistency and no moral compass. It may hard for some people to see but Hillary Clinton is in a peck of legal trouble and if by some miracle that she survives, she could well lose the nomination to the socialist-leftist. And we’re really supposed to believe that only Donald Trump can win. That’s funny.
Just after the Texans’ election in November 2012, GOP leader Mitch McConnell – now the Senate majority leader—asked Cruz to serve as NRSC vice chairman in charge of grassroots outreach. In effect, he sought to bring the tea partier into the tent by making him the liaison to tea partiers.
But it quickly became obvious that Cruz wasn’t so much of a team player.
He sought to recruit and promote like-minded conservatives ahead of the 2014 GOP primaries. He worked with outside groups that sometimes backed candidates other than those picked and approved by the NRSC – in particular, the Senate Conservatives Fund, which backed challengers to a number of incumbent Republicans, even including McConnell.
The NRSC’s chief goal is to protect incumbent Republican senators, with growing the GOP’s ranks a close runner up.
In the Senate itself, Cruz regularly bucked party leadership – most notably in instigating the government shutdown in fall 2013, over demands to defund Obamacare.
Outstanding.
Don’t you think the Canadian citizenship will be an issue if he were ever nominated? He’s not a Democrat so you know they would take him to court and the media is counting on this.
Sure, he’s a US citizen but the fact that he had dual citizenship is undeniable and could very well pose a huge obstacle. All the Dems I know talk about it and are chomping at the bit for Birther payback.
I’m saying none of that. Cruz would have no chance to win CT, NJ or NY. Trump will win them against the witch or against the witch and Bloomberg.
That campaign was 37 years ago .
You’ve already seen that play out with Obama. If he were a Dem even FReepers would be filing suits - everywhere. HIs campaign would have to have a litigation department. That he’s not taking care of it himself now shows that he isn;t concerned enough with a death knell risk.
Concur, and it needs to be repeated a lot.
“Just NEVER, NEVER vote for a Democrat. Cheers.”
I did once, in 1991.
Lived in Louisiana and voted for the Democrat running for Governor Eddie “Vote for the Crook’ Edwards. He was later found guilty for federal crimes and locked up in a penitentiary.
You may ask ‘why did you vote for him?’.
His GOP opponent was David Duke.
Never say ‘Never’.
“That campaign was 37 years ago .”
And Reagan’s was 152 years after Andrew Jackson’s.
What exactly is your point?
Dickly, would describe the way you write. The economy, demographics and culture are nothing like they were in 1980. It’s cro-mag to ignore that.
“Dickly, would describe the way you write. The economy, demographics and culture are nothing like they were in 1980. It’s cro-mag to ignore that.”
My writing skills will never be perfect, but it is just plain stupid to be ignoring history like apparently you do.
But, since you wish to talk about changes since 1980, how about the fact that Ted has something going on now that we did not have in 1980: There are a LOT more Latino voters out there. Regean won only 35% in 1980.
Think the first Hispanic nominee running for President will not pick up a few more?
“Are you a Trump birther? Because it seems to me you can’t say Cruz is ineligible now, but that he might be illegible later.”
No one is dealing with the age or residency requirements, because Cruz clearly meets them, so those 2 qualifications are off of the table .
So, we are left with the issue of whether he is a “Natural Born Citizen.” The answer to that question quite naturally depends upon HOW THE TERM IS DEFINED. Why? Because the term is not something used in every day language, and the issue hasn’t really come up in the past. It deals ONLY with the qualification to become President, and only 43 men have ever held that office since 1789.
OK, so then what is the definition? To my way of thinking, it could mean one of two different things:
1) That a person was the child of 2 people who were both American citizens at the time of his/her birth. The reasoning behind this position is that the Founders could have simply said that the person had to be a citizen, or had to be a citizen at birth, but that they used this particular term to ensure that there would be no divided loyalties in the household of the future President. By the way, the place of birth in this case is irrelevant - it depends on the citizenship status of your parents, and NOTHING else.
2) That a person was a citizen at the moment of birth, whether by “natural law” (i.e. they were born on US territory and both parents were citizens at that time - there is NO question that such a person is a citizen AND a “Natural Born Citizen” in those circumstances), or by legislated law (i.e. Congress passes, and the President signs, a bill stating that someone with one U.S. citizen parent is automatically a citizen, or that such takes place only if the U.S. citizen parent intends to return to the U.S., etc.).
OK, so what are we to conclude? Under the first definition, Ted Cruz is NOT a NBC, and thus cannot be the POTUS. Under the second definition, Ted Cruz IS a NBC, and can be the POTUS.
No conspiracy theories necessary, no name-calling necessary, just the bare, essential facts: either he is or he isn’t, ALL DEPENDENT UPON THE DEFINITION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Just to avoid any confusion, I am NOT certain that one of these 2 definitions is correct. I tend to believe that the 1st is the correct one, since the Founders had just fought a war in which roughly 1/3 of the population was loyal to the other side, so loyalty was a big issue, but I simply do not know the answer. What I DO know is that once the term is definitively defined, then the answer is simple for both Ted Cruz and any other person.
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.