STONE: CRUZ/BUSH TIES RUN DEEP

http://www.drudgereport.com/ ^ | 3/10/2016

[silverleaf]

He has called for border security, a wall, deportation and fought amnesty since before 2012.

and the results have been..... (crickets)
No one was talking seriously and publicly about a wall or other illegal immigration issues until Trump brought it up as a campaign issue last summer. After which Trump took the heavy flack over target As Cruz coasted - still is
Ask folks who can get a wall built, they will not say Ted Cruz

[DestroyLiberalism]

SgtHooper wrote:
<<
You seem to have a case of microagression.
>>

************************************************************

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Lucky9teen]

Heidi Cruz Heidi Cruz was the daughter of missionaries who spent a lot of time overseas helping people and bringing them not only relief, but the Christian values we embrace. She eventually went on to graduate from Harvard (again, on her own dime and not from some fabulously rich family). Heidi worked for the Bush administration on economic policy, eventually becoming the director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in 2003. In 2005, she joined Goldman Sachs, serving as a private wealth manager. That means handling accounts of over $40 million and giving investment direction. She took a leave of absence without pay for her husband's 2016 presidential campaign. Allegations about her supporting and contributing to a New World Order are completely false and the whole smear against her was done in Ted’s Senate campaign by the opposition. Heidi was an international investment banker who was invited to be part of a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations which reviewed a notorious 2005 paper called “Building a North American Community” which was largely authored by Robert Pastor and is the presumed origin of the idea of the North American Union, though Pastor has repeatedly denied that it contains anything like that. Heidi Cruz’ role in all of this was as one of a large panel of readers and her sole identifiable contribution to the project is a one-paragraph response in the final appendix in which she says: ​ “We must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us — truly the measure of our success. As such, investment fund sand financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.” So basically, her role here is to say that free markets and free trade are the answer to greater regional prosperity. Amazing. Republican principles in a few sentences and suddenly she is accused of being part of the NWO? You can read more here – Anatomy of a Smear Please do some research on your own. If you see something negative about Ted or Heidi, I am willing to bet the real story is quite different than those using it to smear a great patriot couple.

[Lucky9teen]

Heidi Cruz
Heidi Cruz was the daughter of missionaries who spent a lot of time overseas helping people and bringing them not only relief, but the Christian values we embrace. She eventually went on to graduate from Harvard (again, on her own dime and not from some fabulously rich family).

Heidi worked for the Bush administration on economic policy, eventually becoming the director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in 2003. In 2005, she joined Goldman Sachs, serving as a private wealth manager. That means handling accounts of over $40 million and giving investment direction. She took a leave of absence without pay for her husband's 2016 presidential campaign.

Allegations about her supporting and contributing to a New World Order are completely false and the whole smear against her was done in Ted’s Senate campaign by the opposition. Heidi was an international investment banker who was invited to be part of a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations which reviewed a notorious 2005 paper called “Building a North American Community” which was largely authored by Robert Pastor and is the presumed origin of the idea of the North American Union, though Pastor has repeatedly denied that it contains anything like that.

Heidi Cruz’ role in all of this was as one of a large panel of readers and her sole identifiable contribution to the project is a one-paragraph response in the final appendix in which she says:
​
“We must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us — truly the measure of our success. As such, investment fund sand financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

So basically, her role here is to say that free markets and free trade are the answer to greater regional prosperity. Amazing. Republican principles in a few sentences and suddenly she is accused of being part of the NWO? You can read more here – Anatomy of a Smear

Please do some research on your own. If you see something negative about Ted or Heidi, I am willing to bet the real story is quite different than those using it to smear a great patriot couple

[true believer forever]

His complete statement, in context.

Ted Cruz: “Listen, Donald does well with voters who have relatively low information, who are not that engaged and who are angry and they see him as an angry voice. Where we are beating him is when voters’ get more engaged and they get more informed. When they inform themselves, they realize his record. He’s what they’re angry at. He is the corruption, and if you want someone to stand up to Washington, the only one who has been doing so in this race is me.”

And not once did he call anyone stupid, dumb or even illicit that idea. It’s true, that people who are not informed and not engaged in ANYTHING, tend to be less aware of what is going on and therefore tend to not be fully informed to make important decisions.

I just love all how people are once again taking it out of context, reading into it what isn’t there and starting the usual attacks, because they can’t argue it on logic or on it’s merits.

Cruz is 100% correct in his statement.

What do you get when a Trump supporter vets candidates?

A Cruz supporter

Cruz used that term "low information voters" which Rush and others on the right use to disdainfully describe stupid Obama voters and other dem voters. Cruz is a lawyer, remember, he seldom says exactly what he means. It is left to us to decipher his legalese. He really thinks Trump voters are ignorant. He otherwise has said that Trump appeals to a "certain demographic". What would that demographic be, Messiah Ted?

oh, and please forgive me for speaking up to one of my betters, as a mere Trump supporter, but you chose the wrong word in your artful statements: it should be elicit not illicit.

Now I'll go back and sit on the ground and promise I won't come up on the porch again.

[John W]

Breaking News?

[dangus]

>> Bull!! Cruz was a flunky in 2007 and was not even in office as Senator. <<

You’re reading comprehension isn’t so good. I referred to Cruz’s work for CANDIDATE Bush. That was in 2000. He couldn’t be working for Candidate Bush if he was a senator.

As a policy advisor for CANDIDATE Bush, he got CANDIDATE Bush to promise no amnesties. He couldn’t stop Bush from breaking that pledge, but by having to break that pledge in order to push for his amnesty, Bush lost all credibility. So the pledge that CRUZ wrote for CANDIDATE Bush made certain PRESIDENT Bush’s amnesty proposal failed.

[dp0622]

can we see the ENDLESS list of people who robbed us on this one without going to jail before making assertions

Gotti was clean compared to congress.

[Lucky9teen]

Condescension is unnecessary.

But since you prove my point, by not actually being able (or apparently willing) to discuss the issues on logic or on their merits, I’ll leave you be.

[lquist1]

Is this the same Trump lackey that assured us Cruz was dropping out after Super Tuesday to support Rubio in exchange for a future SCOTUS nomination? Yeah, lot’s of credibility here...

[tallyhoe]

Right, the Bush dynasty hates Cruz. That’s why Cruz is now running on and supported by the Bush dynasty insider money.

What ever you guys must be smokin something.. That is what it is your in a daze!!!

[Conservative Gato]

Ted Cruz: “Listen, Donald does well with voters who have relatively low information, who are not that engaged and who are angry and they see him as an angry voice. Where we are beating him is when voters’ get more engaged and they get more informed. When they inform themselves, they realize his record. He’s what they’re angry at. He is the corruption, and if you want someone to stand up to Washington, the only one who has been doing so in this race is me.”

I see you are busy here, on this thread, with your attempt at damage control. I don't believe anyone has taken what he said out of context, he is just revealing the elitist he really is.

What's also crazy about what Cruz said here is if he truly understood the anger towards the GOP establishment he would not have embraced the GOP establishment like he is doing.

One could come to the conclusion, Cruz is completely out of touch with the American people, much like the elitists that dominate Washington DC.

CGato

[MaskedMan]

• Cruz used the term "low information" and not "low information voter"
• No one has blamed Trump for the remarks from Cruz
• I'm very much conservative - take the time and read any of my posts here on FR and you'll see that very clearly - I'm just not all gaga over Trump like you clearly are. If Trump's the Republican nominee, he has my vote - until them I think Cruz is the better option and will be casting my vote for Ted this coming Tuesday (or before)

[Catsrus]

Stone is NOT a sleaze. He has worked in 9 presidential campaigns and has moles in every campaign out there. Ignore him at your own peril - you Cruzobts sure have a brick between your ears when it comes to truth.

[CA Conservative]

Stone is NOT a sleaze.

Oh really???

"A 2008 New Yorker profile headlined "The Dirty Trickster" laid out some of Stone's political history. For example, Stone once "adopted the pseudonym Jason Rainier and made contributions in the name of the Young Socialist Alliance to the campaign of Pete McCloskey, who was challenging Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1972. Stone then sent a receipt to the Manchester Union Leader, to 'prove' that Nixon's adversary was a left-wing stooge."

He also hired a Republican operative to infiltrate Democrat George McGovern's campaign. After that behavior was uncovered during the Watergate hearings, Stone was forced to leave his job on the staff of Senator Bob Dole."

You still claim he is not sleazy?

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Look folks......the only thing Ted Cruz voters will believe that Cruz is the number one sleaze bag, is when he is elected POTUS (Hillary Clinton will wipe up the floor with Cruz), and continues to do what the GOP & Democrat establishment do so well...tear down our great country and destroy the middle class!!! These folks are not too bright in the reality department....but, they like others never learn!!!

Support and vote for Donald J. Trump!!!

[MaskedMan]

Oh for crying out loud, people!! Just because a member of the Bush family decides to support Cruz or Trump, that DOES NOT MAKE EITHER ONE AN ESTABLISHMENT HACK! Bottome line, the Establishment HATES both candidates and would love nothing more than to take BOTH of them out!

Thank You!

[dragnet2]

[x]

Not really a surprise, is it?

If you were a Republican activist in 2000 you probably supported Bush.

If you were lucky enough to be higher up, you had "ties" to Bush.

Just like if you'd been in the same position in 1968, you had "ties" to Nixon, as Roger Stone did.

If you gave to the Clintons and associated with them, as Donald Trump has, you had "ties" to the Clintons.

This is all getting pretty tiresome: if you've been involved in politics, you've probably supported or been involved with people who lost or people who disgraced themselves or people who are now out of fashion.

And if by some miracle you've managed to avoid all that, it's no guarantee of how well you'd perform in office yourself.

[DestroyLiberalism]

Right back at’cha! Thank you for being a person of reason and seeing the forest for the trees!