You Say You Loathe Ted Cruz? You Still Might Want to Vote for Him


#1

As someone clearly to the left of center, I’d much rather the Democrat face off against Cruz than Rubio. The former will turn off many more moderates than will the latter. I think with a little luck and skill Rubio could beat Hillary. In terms of where the country over all is, the pendulum swings. Recent terror fears certainly pull that pendulum to the right a bit, as fear always does. Best-case scenario from where I sit is for the G.O.P. to nominate one of their selection of extremists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/upshot/you-say-you-loathe-ted-cruz-you-still-might-want-to-vote-for-him.html?_r=0

Clearly at least these liberals are worried most about Rubio. I’m pretty sure Rubio is the one Hillary’s crew is most afraid of not that that makes Rubio the best candidate. Cruz is a smart guy and if he gets the nomination he will go to work on the independents.


#2

What is it about Establishment GOP apologists that cannot resist letting the Democrat Propagandists have an authoritative seat at the table where they choose their candidates?

If this buffoon author really believed what he was writing then he and all of the other Leftist Propagandists would not be working so tirelessly to destroy Trump, instead of trying to blow everything he says out of proportion they would be silently allowing the GOP to nominate him in blissful anticipation of an easy general election victory for Clinton.

Now they are watching Cruz rise in the polls who is supposedly another “easy target” because he is so “Extreme” but they are not being silent about Cruz either, they have however not uttered a single word of condemnation or told any lies about Rubio; if Rubio was really “the one they fear” then why would they not be putting all of that effort into making sure that he is seen in a negative light?

The answer is obvious to anyone without a stake in the preservation of Statism, the Democrats NEVER want to face a candidate that will tell the truth without regard to political correctness or “advice from pollsters and focus group guru’s”; these fearless candidates WIN OVER new voters as opposed to running a campaign of pandering.

The Democrats saw what happened when Reagan was nominated, he created the “Reagan Democrats”; they want an adversary who looks at the polls TODAY and assumes that nobody can ever be convinced to another view.

These Liberals are NOT “worried about Rubio”, they just think that of all the unelectable Establishment hacks still in the GOP Primary race Rubio is the only balloon with any air left; they are trying to preserve themselves and they know that can only happen if the GOP nominates a Statist who hates Conservatives again.


#3

WRONG! By telling us that they “disfavor” Rubio as the GOP candidate, they are revealing what I’ve said all along. Democrats praise the “political acumen and skills” of the Republican they’d LIKE to have oppose their anointed candidate. Why ANYONE would believe that ANY Democrat or Democrat-organ such as the NYT have the best interests of the GOP in mind when they talk about our candidates is unfathomable and idiotic. Democrats and their sycophants in the media are “nudging” (or attempting to) GOP voters to place the laurels on the heads of those they think they are MOST likely to be able to defeat in the General. When they tell you they view Cruz or Trump as the guy they’re MOST certain they can beat in a run against Hillary and that they “fear” Rubio, what they’re REALLY saying is “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!” and lots of Republican voters fall for it.


#4

It’s really a matter of demographics. Rubio is most feared by Democrats because he has the potential to draw GOP votes from those groups that Dems rely on as part of their plantation - Hispanics, other minorities, and millenials. Then there’s the larger group of middle-of-the-road independents that are more likely to be attracted to one of the candidates branded by the folks here as “establishment” on the basis of characteristics like experience, integrity, empathy, competence, temperament and, yes, moderation. Not sexy stuff, but it’s what a lot of us look for in a President. A candidate who can’t get his fair share of those voters cannot possibly win.

Let’s not forget that both Cruz and Rubio have less experience than Obama did when he was elected President. It is a potent argument that those disappointed with Obama should think twice before voting for another new face.

I think the GOP needs to face the almost certain reality that if Trump is denied the nomination (as he must be), he will run third party. If that happens, Trump will garner the mooks and the GOP and the Dems will be left battling over everyone else. What candidate presents best in the context of a three-way contest?


#5

Suits me if he goes third party right now. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP.


#6

Trump as a 3rd-Party candidate is what I predicted months ago, if you’ll remember. It worked TWICE for Bill Clinton–remember that he NEVER received a majority vote–so why not once for Hillary? It’s really pretty simple. Run a bombastic candidate like Perot or Trump who talks in terms that appeal to conservatives so when he DOES run as a “3rd party choice,” he’ll draw off enough conservative votes to give the Democrat a “plurality” in a 3-way race. Everyone seems to forget that it came out in 1997 that Perot was a close associate of the Clintons when they were in the Arkansas governor’s mansion and often had dinner there with them. He appeared on the political scene at about the same time Clinton was contemplating a run for the White House. Coincidence? I don’t believe in them. We’re seeing an almost identical pattern here. Trump was a friend of the Clintons, even attending Chelsea’s wedding and “donating” thousands of dollars to the Clinton’s Slush Fund “Foundation.” Before all is said and done, I think Trump WILL file as an “alternative” candidate STRICTLY in order to draw enough conservative support to give Hillary the plurality she wants. I don’t think, like Perot, that he has ANY interest in BEING President…just in helping his friend get elected. The man’s worth $10 BILLION, most of which he made by gaming the system set up and designed BY Democrats and RINOs. Why would he want to change that?


#7

Agreed. I’d like to see the party leadership take off the gloves prior to Iowa, and just do their best to piss off the man (won’t be hard to do). It’s time to bait the hook and get him to bolt the party.


#8

So, the GOP establishment promises to treat him fairly, if he agreed to not run as a third party candidate, and now, since he continues ot kick the crap out of the rest of the GOP hopefuls, you and they feel justified in reneging on their word? Why not? Seems they do that a lot.

“Give us the House, and well repeal Obamacare.” We did, and they didn’t.
“We need the Senate to be effective.” So we gave them the Senate, and they gave us the finger.
“Give us the House and Senate, and we’ll pass a 20 week abortion ban.” So we did, and they didn’t, again.
“Elect us to Congress and we’ll stop Obama’s Executive Orders on illegal Immigration.” We did, and they folded again.

So, it does not really surprise me that you, and they, seem fine with lying like Democrats. They, and you, deserve what you get.


#9

What I’d “like to get”, Tiny, is a GOP President. What you’ll get (and you will richly deserve it) is Democrat control of both the Presidency and the Senate.

Just don’t (edited by RWNJ) complain when social conservatives and gun owners get the starch kicked out of them for the next four years (and beyond, as the Dems will transform the SCOTUS). You have more to lose than I do.


#10

What you want is another milque toast President who gives your liberal views credence. You don’t want someone who’ll hold the GOP accountable. You don’t want someone to FIX problems, just someone who’ll pacify the liberals and keep governing from the left. When you exclaimed that you’d vote for Hillary, your mask came off, and we saw who you really are, and funny thing is, I was right about you all along. You are a liberal, with liberal preferences and a liberal’s love for Gooberment intrusion into our lives.
Being a liberal, is bad enough, but being a lying liberal is being a good GOP German.


#11

So I’m a “liberal” because I’d vote for Cruz but won’t vote for Trump? I fear you’ve lost your mind.


#12

No, you are a liberal because you have liberal ideals, spew liberal nonsense, and now, support liberal candidates.
Yeah, you’d like to believe I have lost my mind, since that would give you ammunition to refute my claims that you are in fact, a liberal. Just like a Democrat, you say one thing one election, and completely reverse gears the next. Your credibility is damaged, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

You claim to be a conservative. But you espouse liberal mantra.
You claim to be a Christian. But you attack Christian morals, and deny Christian tenets.

Give me a break. I was born at night…
…but it wasn’t LAST night.


#13

I’m a conservative of longer standing than you. What I’m not is a social conservative. SoCons are statists, not limited government, liberty-loving conservatives.


#14

[QUOTE=Jazzhead (C&P from quote)]So I’m a “liberal” because I’d vote for Cruz but won’t vote for Trump?[/QUOTE]
No; you’re a liberal because you’d vote for Hillary if the GOP nominee is Trump.


#15

Social conservatives are FAR from “Statists,” Jazzhead and I REALLY wish you’d quit repeating that mantra. We OPPOSE the federal government (and federal COURTS, for that matter) interfering in matters that should be left up to the States. That includes abortion, drugs, gay “marriages,” education, global warming, etc. and ALL of the things the feds have stuck their noses into where they don’t belong.


#16

Bovine excrement.
You are not a conservative. Nothing about you, including the State in which you reside is conservative.
You constantly spew propaganda about Social Conservatives, calling us Statists.
But you are the one who wants to force people, with the force of government, to do business with people that would violate their religious beliefs.
And you want to use the government to force people to accept abortion, even though it clashes with their moral and religious beliefs.
And, you want Government to force people to redefine marriage for everyone, to cater to someone’s sexual urges, at the expense of others’ religious tenets.

You truly think SoCons violate a woman’s liberty by trying to protect unborn babies. Contrary to your dishonest posts, we do not want to violate her liberty, we want to protect the baby’s life. To me, killing a living human, in the womb or not, is murder. Would you protect a murderer, to keep him free? To murder again?
But, since you are a liberal, you confuse the living human baby, as a tumor, to be extracted like an abscess. That is the only premise you have for calling us Statists. All the rest, is Progressive Fluff.


#17

All your usual SoCon garbage. I’m more genuinely pro-life than you are, in no small part because what I advocate to reduce the number of abortions will actually work, without trampling on the Constitutional rights of women. And I hardly want “government to force people” to redefine marriage or accept abortion. Don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t marry a guy. Don’t accept abortion? Then don’t get or authorize an abortion. No one’s forcing you to violate your beliefs. But don’t use the government to force your moral beliefs on others.


#18

Nonsense, Jazz. OF COURSE you advocate using the power of government to FORCE people to change their beliefs AND violate their moral sensibilities. Your reason for approving the closing of that baker’s shop was that he “violated the law”–a “law” that FORCES people to effectively PARTICIPATE in an immoral and, at the time, ILLEGAL “ceremony.” What ELSE is that but government force? If Americans CANNOT protect the innocent, unborn children from being murdered, who will do so? YOU, with your “persuasion” BS when “persuasion” has resulted in the murder of one million babies per year because their “mothers” refuse to be so persuaded and the abortuaries fight “persuasion” at every step so the money will keep flowing–and BOTH have the power of government on their side because of an immoral and unconstitutional SCOTUS decision?


#19

All your usual liberal garbage.
Saying you are conservative does not make it so. Saying you don’t want what everyone here has seen you advocate, is the true meaning of dishonesty. I am not sure whether you are truly deceptive, or just in denial. Everyone knows your way won’t work, but you still spew that nonsense.
Forcing my moral beliefs has zero to do with protecting the life and limb of unborn human beings. All I ever want is people to be accountable for their actions. Splitting hairs, as you so often do, does not negate your liberal attitude toward unborn children. You treat them like a growth to be removed at will. And you agreed with forcing a business to close the doors, because they couldn’t participate in a gay wedding, without violating their religious beliefs. You call us bigots, Bible Thumpers and Bunker dwellers, and lately are referring to people as Good Germans, insinuating they are Nazis. All liberal BS.

Most people here have told you that you are not a conservative of any stripe, and your decision to vote for the most liberal woman in Washington, is telling. Democratic Underground is looking for a few good liberals. You’d be welcome there.


#20

[quote=“Pappadave, post:6, topic:47939”]
Trump as a 3rd-Party candidate is what I predicted months ago, if you’ll remember. It worked TWICE for Bill Clinton–remember that he NEVER received a majority vote–so why not once for Hillary? It’s really pretty simple. Run a bombastic candidate like Perot or Trump who talks in terms that appeal to conservatives so when he DOES run as a “3rd party choice,” he’ll draw off enough conservative votes to give the Democrat a “plurality” in a 3-way race. Everyone seems to forget that it came out in 1997 that Perot was a close associate of the Clintons when they were in the Arkansas governor’s mansion and often had dinner there with them. He appeared on the political scene at about the same time Clinton was contemplating a run for the White House. Coincidence? I don’t believe in them. We’re seeing an almost identical pattern here. Trump was a friend of the Clintons, even attending Chelsea’s wedding and “donating” thousands of dollars to the Clinton’s Slush Fund “Foundation.” Before all is said and done, I think Trump WILL file as an “alternative” candidate STRICTLY in order to draw enough conservative support to give Hillary the plurality she wants. I don’t think, like Perot, that he has ANY interest in BEING President…just in helping his friend get elected. The man’s worth $10 BILLION, most of which he made by gaming the system set up and designed BY Democrats and RINOs. Why would he want to change that?
[/quote]Yup. I think he might be a shill for Hillary. At the very least, he may be running one of the biggest trolls in election history.

No, no, Tiny. He does not confuse the living human baby for a tumor. That is a perfectly understandable pro-abortion argument. He views abortion as immoral and wrong in some way. If he viewed it as a tumor, he would not see it as anything more than a minor quality-of-life medical procedure. Instead, he wants to persuade people to stop murdering other people (violating the rights of other people) with words, ya know the thing our government is actually supposed to do with force (Declaration of Independence).