Posted on 06/29/2016 3:49:56 PM PDT by Sybeck1
HOME 2016 ELECTION POLITICS POLICY MAGAZINE OPINION WATCHDOG BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL MEDIA VIDEO NEWSLETTERS PODCASTS EMPLOYEE RIGHTS ACT ABOUT US SCROLL DOWN FOR NEXT STORY
"They say it was the roughest campaign ever in the history of Republican politics, but what you do is you go to sleep for a couple of days and you wake up and you honor [the pledge]," Donald Trump said. (AP Photo) Trump unloads on former GOP opponents who refuse to back him
By GABBY MORRONGIELLO (@GABRIELLAHOPE_) • 6/29/16 5:26 PM SHARE TWEET SMSMore Donald Trump railed against several of his Republican primary opponents on Wednesday night for declining to endorse him in the general election, going so far as to suggest "they should never be allowed to run for public office again."
"I have guys out there and if you really think about it, they're really sore losers," Trump told supporters during a campaign rally in Bangor, Maine.
Trump was referring to at least seven GOP presidential hopefuls who signed a loyalty pledge to support their party's presidential nominee and have since declined to do so. Such candidates include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, businesswoman Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
"It was a rough campaign," he conceded. "They say it was the roughest campaign ever in the history of Republican politics, but what you do is you go to sleep for a couple of days and you wake up and you honor [the pledge]."
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
Enter your email Signup
The presumptive Republican nominee continued, claiming that he considered the pledge to be "legally binding" and assuring his supporters that he would have honored it had Kasich, Cruz or any other GOP candidate clinched the nomination instead.
"There are people I don't like or particularly respect on that stage, but I would have honored it," Trump said. "I wouldn't have gone crazy, yelling it from the loudest building."
Trump himself routinely changed his position on the pledge during the primary, threatening more than once to leave the Republican party and launch an indepedent bid.
"But you know what, we have people who haven't honored the pledge and that's a terrible thing," he told the crowd. "They signed a pledge saying they will abide, they will back the candidate of the party and now they sit back and ... they broke their word."
"In my opinion, they should never be allowed to run for public office again because what they did is disgraceful," he added.
Some of the billionaire's former opponents have said that in addition to declining to endorse Trump, they will not attend next month's GOP convention.
There was nothing easy about Brat’s defeat of Cantor. When you say, Cantor wouldn’t have been defeated “as easily,” it merely shows you don’t know the first thing about it.
First of all, nobody is saying he did it single handedly.
In 2014 it was universally accepted that Cruz was instrumental in defeating amnesty. He publicly criticized it every step of the way from 2013 to 2014. He publicly criticized Cantor and the rest of the leadership. The issue of amnesty was central to Brat’s election. The reason it was even a topic of discussion was because Cruz was working so hard to kill it. When it ultimately failed, Cruz was applauded by the conservatives. He was shunned by the mushy Republicans. He was denigrated by the media. He was attacked by the Democrats. It was universally understood that he had a huge hand in it’s failure.
Jeff Sessions (-the Trump backer, Luircin), who is unarguably the grand master of opposing amnesty, credits Cruz for being instrumental.
I guess you geniuses here in 2016 know better than everybody back in 2014. Congratulations.
Is English your first language?
Jeff Sessions said that Brat defeating Cantor is what stopped amnesty. It’s in the Breitbart link.
Cruz didn’t lift his littlest finger to help Brat. He didn’t give Brat’s campaign one thin dime. If he was campaigning so hard against amnesty, he’d have campaigned against Cantor.
But he didn’t.
*Yawn*
Liar liar, or just deluded.
Cruz sold America out with his support of it. You know, the whole WSJ editorial penned by him in favor of TPP? Only turned against it when it A: became unpopular, and B: was too late to make a difference.
Cruz sold America out and you still worship him.
Delusional.
If you were to say that the Enola Gay and the U.S. Air Force ultimately stopped the Japanese in WWII, that would be a factually correct statement.
What would NOT be a factually correct statement would be to say, "The U.S. Marines had nothing to do with defeating the Japanese in WWII. They didn't do anything. They probably even wanted the Japanese to win. If he really wanted to win so bad, why were the Japanese able to win so many battles? All the Marines did was just take all the credit. The thing that really won WWII was the U.S. Air Force and the Enola Gay."
Do you see how stupid that sounds? That is how you sound.
BOL! Now Cruz is all the Marines who fought in WWII. Can’t you just throw in Superman and Captain America, to make it a trifecta?
Here is some background on the Brat race, of which you seem entirely ignorant. Namely, no one gave Brat any chance at all of defeating Cantor. Brat was a pathetically underfunded college professor going up against the lavishly funded second-most-powerful member of the House. It was anticipated that Cantor would crush him.
This is why Cruz never set foot in the district. He didn’t endorse Brat, didn’t contribute any $, or even send a supportive tweet. Cruz wanted no part of Brat’s doomed-to-fail quixotic quest.
Yet here you are, trying to credit Cruz for Cantor’s defeat. It’s unseemly, not to mention perversely divorced from reality.
However, I’m willing to make a deal with you. If you can find and link one credible source, which cites Cruz calling for the defeat of Mr. Dream Act himself, Cantor, I’ll concede Cruz played a role in Cantor’s defeat. If Cruz is all you claim, it shouldn’t be at all difficult for you to locate such a quote.
I’ll wait.
Stop.
Please.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-congress-in-charge-on-trade-1429659409
It's called Trade Promotion Athority. TPA.
While I disagree with Cruz on this topic, it is a failure of judgement not principals.
He wanted to pass TPA because he though a better trade deal could be negotiated by a single party rather than having it negotiated by 435 parties in Congress. TPA gives the administration the authority to negotiate the deal and then Congress the authority to accept or reject the deal that has been negotiated.
It was first put in place in 1975 and has been renewed several times since.
In theory, it is a good idea. When you have a Marxist in the White House it is a bad idea in practice.
I wish Cruz hadn't supported it. It is not TPP as you claim, which is a terrible, sovereignty killing, job killing atrocity. It is TPA
I feel like I am talking to a monkey.
I have never seen anyone so determined to remain uninformed as the Cruz bunch. If they'd spend even a small amount of time using a search engine, they'd learn the truth which you so patiently are trying to explain to them.
They take some perverse sort of pleasure in being not just LOW information but NO information.
They need to self-deport from FR. Cruz is also the petulant child who will stick a knife in Trump if given a tiny chance before or during the convention. He STILL hasn't SURRENDERED. Cruzers need to get out of here and go find a pro-globalism site, a pro North American Union, pro cheap labor express site, anyway...but to campaign for Cruz while Cruz is still and active saboteur of Trump is disgusting.
I don’t know if he said anything specific about Brat or not.
What I do know is that the primary reason Cantor was defeated was because of his position on immigration.
I also know that one of the main firewalls against the amnesty getting easily pushed through and one of it’s most publicly vociferous opponents was Ted Cruz. It had passed the Senate a year earlier and he immediately got to work speaking out against it and organizing the House to stop it.
If it had sailed through the House with little or no opposition in late 2013 or early 2014, do you think Brat would have won?
Again, the Air Force was able to deliver the kill shot to the Japanese because the groundwork that had been laid by the Marines. One would not have worked without the other. Neither I nor Jeff Sessions would be as obtuse as to ignore Brat’s efforts as you are to ignore Cruz’s.
>They need to self-deport from FR. Cruz is also the petulant child who will stick a knife in Trump if given a tiny chance before or during the convention. He STILL hasn’t SURRENDERED. Cruzers need to get out of here and go find a pro-globalism site, a pro North American Union, pro cheap labor express site, anyway...but to campaign for Cruz while Cruz is still and active saboteur of Trump is disgusting.
Dude, stop with the purging crap until after the convention. There’s Cruz supporters here who are real assets to the comunity who will undoubtedly get on board after Cruz endorses Trump at the convention.
‘he immediately got to work speaking out against it and organizing the House to stop it.’
No he did not. It is impossible to oppose amnesty without opposing the Dream Act. (The Dream Act would have legalized them ALL.) It would have been equally impossible to oppose the Dream Act without opposing the one person principally responsible for pushing it: Cantor. But you cannot find One Single Quote from Cruz opposing Cantor.
And that is because There Was None.
As I have said many times, I will gladly vote for Trump. Nationalism and populism might end up being more important at this point in American history than liberty and conservatism. We will see how that works out in the years to come if he ends up beating Hillary. I hope he has the chance to show us.
What I won’t do, is sit back and watch people on a supposedly conservative forum trash the man who has done more for conservatism in the past decade than anyone else.
Who was fighting the McConnells and Boehners and Ryans and Cantors of the world before Cruz arrived on the scene?
The answer is nobody. THAT is the truth.
I still think you get way too excited about these things when they're done by someone other than your guy. And you lost me at the turn. What's that expression?
"Asserted without evidence--refuted without evidence."
Boy, you need to do some research.
TPA and TPP. Cruz supported them both until he realized that he couldn’t pretend to be a conservative and support them at the same time. If you want to get into technicalities, he didn’t vote for TPP, just spoke glowingly of it (and TPA) and then changed his tune as soon as the text actually came out—and after he got an earful from actual conservatives.
Of course, he COULD have just made a mistake and realized that it was a terrible thing. Maybe he changed his mind. I’d be willing to accept that explanation without having to call you a monkey.
Of course, if we use your standards, no one is ever allowed to make a mistake. Ever. And anyone who ever supported something wrong in the past is a demon and must be killed. Except Cruz, of course. Everything he does has to be excused.
Read a book or learn to use The Google instead of sacrificing a goat in your closet St. Ted shrine.
1996. 1992. 1980. 1964. . . 1912. . .
Off the top of my head. I have a lot of gaps before WWII.
[Cruz was sending out this pro-TPP letter in January 2014. It’s all over the Net; do a little research, why not?]
Recently, I sent the Canadian-born Senator an email asking him not to vote to the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Here is his auto-generated response:
“Thank
you for sharing your thoughts regarding trade policy. Input
from constituents significantly informs my decision-making and empowers
me to better represent the state.
One of
my top priorities as your Senator is to promote policies that
facilitate economic growth and opportunities. An important component of a
growing economy is the freedom to trade. Free trade creates a
competitive marketplace, spurring innovation and investment. We benefit
with more access to higher quality goods and services for less. We see
jobs created and our incomes go further due to greater economic
productivity.
Under
President Obama, annual economic growth is anemic and job growth is
stagnant. I hope the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) produce agreements
that reduce government-created barriers to trade, enabling increased
prosperity for all involved. More economic growth will expand
opportunity to those working to climb the economic ladder and achieve
the American Dream.Thank
you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact
me in the future about any issue important to your family. It is an
honor to serve you and the people of Texas.”
For Liberty,
Senator Ted Cruz
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=0ee_1402768882
See the Cruz letter above; Ted couldn’t have been more committed to TPP—he was all in.
See the Cruz letter above; Ted couldn’t have been more committed to TPP—he was all in.
***
Thanks, Fantasywriter.
WHO’S THE MONKEY NOW?!
I guess I don’t understand what you are saying.
Are you claiming that this whole article from October of 2013 (9 months before Cantor’s defeat) is made up?
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/188422-ted-cruz-looms-large-over-comprehensive-immigration-reform
Is this all fiction. Cruz didn’t actually oppose the Gang of 8? Like the people giving quotes in this article don’t know what they are talking about? Or maybe they are all lying? Maybe some evil globalist Trump hater went back and edited the article. Is that it? Good thing we have you here in 2016 to tell us what Cruz actually thought and did at the time.
Dude, wake up. Ted Cruz was instrumental in leading the charge against amnesty. The fact that there was a battle over amnesty helped Dave Brat get elected. I don’t know why you can’t understand that.
It would be like saying an outspoken Soviet critic getting elected to the House in 1984 had nothing to do with Reagan because Reagan didn’t specifically endorse the guy.
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.