Posted on 07/31/2012 7:12:36 PM PDT by lbryce
HOUSTON — Ted Cruz, an insurgent backed by the Tea Party, defeated the candidate favored by Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday in a runoff election for the Republican Senate nomination that revealed a wide rift in Texas between the party establishment and restless, anti-incumbent activists on the right.
With the come-from-behind victory, he is heavily favored to win the Senate seat being vacated in November by Kay Bailey Hutchison and appears likely to become a star of the national conservative movement.
Mr. Cruz, 41, is the latest conservative rebel to bring down an established party leader, tapping into simmering anger and anti-incumbent frustration within the Republican ranks nationwide.
These dissident triumphs include, in this year’s primaries, the defeat of Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana by Richard E. Mourdock and Deb Fischer’s win over a veteran Republican for the Senate nomination in Nebraska. They also echo Marco Rubio’s Senate victory in 2010 over a sitting Republican governor, Charlie Crist of Florida.
Mr. Cruz, who is Cuban-American, has drawn comparisons to Mr. Rubio, another 40-something Cuban-American who quickly became an icon of fiscal and religious conservatives around the country. Mr. Cruz’s rapid ascent has already shaken up the Texas Republican Party.
“Mr. Cruz’s success shows that the center of the state party has moved decisively to the right,” said James Henson, a political scientist at University of Texas. “The Republicans are in much more treacherous terrain, not because of threats from Democrats, but threats from within the party.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The also described Dewhurst as “deeply conservative”. Had his record been that of a “deeply conservative Texan”, he probably would have never lost the primary. Of course they probably think that Brown, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, et al are also “deeply conservative”.
It was a slam. I rewound my TV 2 times to make sure I wasn’t missing something. They are “politically dangerous” (according to Mr. Klein) because they “turn out” and can get “their” candidates elected. Wow! People get excited about a candidate and vote. How terrible.
Cruz is serving Chick Fil A at his victory party lol. Liberal heads are exploding!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you for real? If this is true, that is AWESOME!!!
I’ll say it again. Your graphics are amazing. Thanks.
Hopefully, reading in the New York Times about how the Tea Party helped a little known conservative candidate, who was outspent 3 to 1, trounce a sitting Lt Governor whose personal worth exceeds $200 million dollars, will cause a whole lot of liberals to re-think any plans of moving to Texas.
I certainly won't be. I've never really liked the guy, and only voted for him (twice) because he was the least putrid of the bunch running.
He got the 'Romney' vote in the last two gubernatorial elections, but he won't get lucky again, I can guarantee you. Both he and his Dem-RINO buddy Dew-worst need to go.
That's actually a fair characterization of the Tea Party, and I'm damn proud of it, to tell you the truth.
Tigers are dangerous. Grizzly bears are dangerous. American G.I.s are dangerous. The Founding Fathers were dangerous.
Trust me, it's a compliment, whether the GOP-e bot knows it or not.
Nice-LOL.
Thank you very much!!
“Notice that the New York Slimes still could not resist calling us ‘insurgents’ and ‘rebels’. Lol they are so predictable.”
Well, in a way we are. We are standing up the GOP establishment. The same establishment that gave up Romney. I just wish we “insurgents” had of stood up sooner before Romney and his GOPe buddies could steal the primary process and give us the Republican Obama as candidate.
One more comment re: this: He could have said the Tea Party is a “Political force to be dealt with” or the Tea Party “has proven to be a strong grassroots effort”.... but to call them politically “dangerous”.... Dangerous to who???
Good morning! I know what you mean. I think we did stand up but the establishment diluted our vote with so many conservative candidates to split our vote. It was planned all along. Hopefully, next time we will choose our own and only one!
I think current black letter law (not advocating here, just saying what seems to me to be the case, rightly or wrongly) would allow the son of American citizens (oh, wait...was his dad an American citizen by then?) born abroad to be a “natural born citizen”.
I “think” that is the consensus out there in the legal world (again, rightly or wrongly...I am not advocating).
I don’t think Cruz will see being born in Canada as a barrier to running for POTUS. (I do think if his dad wasn’t naturalized by his birth, though, that does tend to make things a little murkier).
One step at a time, though.
They used to stamp your voter card (paper) when you voted in the primary. I used my driver’s license for both the primary and runoff but they properly gave me the GOP ballot in the runoff.
I do question the process by which someone who did not vote in any primary can vote in the runoff election. Not the legality of it, but why does the process permit this? You declare your party membership when you vote in a primary. You ain’t in the party if you skip the primary (although you can vote for “whoever” in the general election).
With no presidential contender in the DNC primary (and the GOP nominee was already sewn up), some sat it out. No sense in tolerating them mucking with the GOP’s runoff election. Only a subset of those who vote in a primary (and there were multiple contenders, reduced to two for the runoff) will show up for the runoff.
You can’t vote in a primary and sign a petition to get a third party candidate on the ballot. There are still ways to express yourself politically if you skip the primaries.
“But no, none of their friggin’ egos would allow that to happen. Maybe we learned a lesson this time around and won’t let it happen again. But then again, probably not. We are our own worst enemy.”
Unfortunately, egos go with being a person to run for POTUS. It is always going to be a problem. While a big amount of blame goes to that, I still hold the GOPe responsbile, because they were manipulating things behind the scenes. Stuff like candidates not being on ballots, etc.
The REAL problem is the primary system used to pick a candidate. There should be NO causcusses or open primaries. The party needs to install rules requiring ALL states to chose their candidates entirely by closed primaries or they have NO voice in the selection process. Also, the process of winner that all should not be allowed, unless some high standard (like getting 60% of vote) is in place. There should also be some form of runoff elections late in the primary cycle......all first state primaries should be by NLT March in the election year. If no candidate has sufficient delegates by that time, a nationwide runoff of the top two highest delegate holders should happen by the end of May, so people may change their minds and those that backs someone that missed the cut can get a second choice chance.
Actually, I am certain that many here on FR could come up with someone better than what I have proposed.
Whatever, the current system is broken.
“But no, none of their friggin’ egos would allow that to happen. Maybe we learned a lesson this time around and won’t let it happen again. But then again, probably not. We are our own worst enemy.”
Unfortunately, egos go with being a person to run for POTUS. It is always going to be a problem. While a big amount of blame goes to that, I still hold the GOPe responsbile, because they were manipulating things behind the scenes. Stuff like candidates not being on ballots, etc.
The REAL problem is the primary system used to pick a candidate. There should be NO causcusses or open primaries. The party needs to install rules requiring ALL states to chose their candidates entirely by closed primaries or they have NO voice in the selection process. Also, the process of winner that all should not be allowed, unless some high standard (like getting 60% of vote) is in place. There should also be some form of runoff elections late in the primary cycle......all first state primaries should be by NLT March in the election year. If no candidate has sufficient delegates by that time, a nationwide runoff of the top two highest delegate holders should happen by the end of May, so people may change their minds and those that backs someone that missed the cut can get a second choice chance.
Actually, I am certain that many here on FR could come up with something better than what I have proposed.
Whatever, the current system is broken.
What you propose makes too much sense; the RNC will never go for it.
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.