Could Ted Cruz Win?

The New York Times ^ | The March 25, 2016 Issue | Ross Douthat

[lentulusgracchus]

Other than a few Cruz supporters who are either delusional or just too angry or myopic, ....

Then there are the Cruz supporters who support their guy even when the going gets rough and don't drop everything and run for the tall grass at the first sign things are going the wrong way.

You forgot those Cruz supporters.

[lentulusgracchus]

Cruz is Far Right.

Cruz pretends he is Far Right.

Trump pretends he's some kind of Republican.

Maybe some of you Trump supporters might want to think about supporting a conservative once in a while.

Everybody in the GOP wants conservatives to show up, money in hand, but nobody wants them to put a conservative in the White House, even when the alternative is another Communist traitor in the White House, frittering away our national strategic weapons stocks and giving things to our enemies both "soft" and "hard".

Anytime you guys want to play straight with the rest of us, let us know. We got jobbed in 1964, shot down in 1976, played to a tie (and then pencil-whipped on the sidelines by the Bushmen) in 1980, dumped on in 1988, '92, '96 (remember "gravitas"?), 2000, 2008, and 2012 ..... and still you want us to show up for the general election or else whaaaaaaa!!!, Hee-a-ree gonna win!

So ..... where's our stake in all this? Being told we're stupid, ignorant, and malevolent every four years by our own party?

So when do we get to play? Or should we be planning a day off in November, like you're still bitching about from four years ago?

Your guy said about the Texas primary that year, when Texans got jobbed by a phony-baloney "civil rights" lawsuit pushing a beef so bad that the Supreme Court prorogated, and then clubbed back down on fire, dismissed with prejudice, your Party and your guy Mitt stood around with their hands in their pockets watching while the 'Rats took Texas right out o f the primary race by forcing a six weeks' delay just as the race was peaking.

Someone asked Mitt Romney if he was going to campaign in Texas at all. He said no, no need to. "They'll come to me when I'm the last man standing." That's what your e-GOP players that you esteem so much more than Cruz supporters think of Texas's right to hold an election.

[itsahoot]

That's what your e-GOP players that you esteem so much more than Cruz supporters think of Texas's right to hold an election.

Are you saying Cruz is the fix for all these traitorous misdeeds while he is joining them? Yeah right.

[Persephone Kore]

I’ve always been under the impression that, during the 1964 campaign, Goldwater did not run on what we now consider the issues of social conservatism. His calling card was plain libertarianism: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

As a Senator, Goldwater took positions explicitly opposed to social conservatism; as I recall, he was pro-choice, for medical marijuana, for gay rights, etc. I don’t know which of these positions extended back to 1964 and which he might have adopted later. But his libertarian core was constant throughout his political life.

[Persephone Kore]

So-called “crony capitalism” is misnamed. It should be called simply “cronyism”; capitalism has nothing to do with it. In fact, it’s the antithesis of capitalism — bringing government in to take sides, to pick winners and losers, and to grant or withdraw favors.

This misnomer is no accident. The label “crony capitalism” is an Alinsky-like trick of the left to try to discredit capitalism in general.

[lentulusgracchus]

Good argument. We seldom do ourselves much good using the language -- the verbal land mines -- of the Left.

[lentulusgracchus]

Barry Goldwater's definitive speech in which he shows both strains of conservativism together is his May, 1964 campaign stump speech (a major speech, actually), as a useful benchmark.

Like the Framers', Goldwater's social conservativism was foundational, all questions being framed in a Judaeo-Christian perspective. He didn't pound the table about the moral foundations of his arguments, because he didn't have to. Except in Hugh Hefner's offices and lefty-trendy (NKVD-penetrated) faculty lounges, middle-class morality ruled everywhere in easy tandem with small-"r" republicanism under the epithet "Americanism", and Goldwater needed not make any special effort to footnote where his social values came from.

Later on, when one of his relatives unburdened himself of his homosexuality, Sen. Goldwater became defensive of his kinsman -- after the fact -- as people very often do. (This became a focus of the loathesome Human Rights Campaign, which immediately began to surface people close to socons -- Newt Gingrich, Dick and Lynn Cheney, Jerry Falwell, Robert Dornan -- in an effort to force them to repudiate their morals publicly. The oberdyke of the HRC pursued Mary Cheney for 10 years, badgering her to come out so the HRC could make that "fork play"` on her parents. She did, and they cratered. Big win for the HRC and their overspread of society with a caul of sexual dysfunction and squalor.