Ted Cruz And Marco Rubio Reject Chris Christie As A Model For Winning The Latino Vote

RightWingNews.com ^

[SoConPubbie]

As a Latino myself, I totally agree with Cruz and Rubio. The GOP establishment is making too much over a “non-race” in New Jersey. The Democrat Party didn’t compete for the New Jersey governorship because they want Christie as the GOP nominee in 2016, so that the media can turn around and destroy him. It’s all a set up!

Fox News reports while the spotlight shines brightly on Gov. Chris Christie, and more moderate Republicans see a glimmer of hope to winning back the White House, two prominent Tea Party stars are very publicly rolling their eyes – senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Both senators on Wednesday downplayed the view that Christie’s victory in Democrat-leaning New Jersey, and his strong showing among Latinos – he got 51 percent of this crucial electorate’s vote – was a model for the GOP to follow on a national level.

Cruz gave what, at best, could be considered a backhanded compliment.

“I think it is terrific that he is brash, that he is outspoken, and that he won his race,” Cruz, who is from Texas, told ABC News. “But I think we need more leaders in Washington with the courage to stand for principle. And in particular, Obamacare is not working.”

The ABC report then added: “Asked whether Christie is a true conservative, Cruz walked away. Aides said he didn’t have time for more questions.”

Cruz, Rubio and Christie are all considered potential presidential candidates in 2016. But given the dismal performance of the GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012 among Latino voters – he got only 27 percent of their support, while President Obama’s was 71 percent – political experts say Christie’s more moderate image and his broad appeal now put him in a stronger position to be the GOP nominee in 2016.

Rubio, Cruz’s fellow senator and fellow Cuban-American, expressed similar tepid feelings in an interview with CNN.

He said, essentially, that Christie’s style may be just fine for New Jersey, but that people should not be so quick to think it’s the magic GOP wand for the nation.

“I think we need to understand that some of these races don’t apply to future races. Every race is different–it has a different set of factors – but I congratulate (Christie) on his win,” he told CNN.

On the night of his victory, and the next day, Christie did not hesitate to gloat about achieving the kind of broad support that has eluded his party.

“We won the Latino vote last night,” Christie said on Wednesday at a speech in Union City, traditionally an immigrant gateway, just a few miles from Manhattan, where 85 percent of the population is Latino. “Now find another Republican in America who’s won the Latino vote recently. Why? It’s because of the relationships. You get in, you build relationships, you build trust, and then people are willing to give you a chance. And of all the things that happened last night, that’s the thing that I am most gratified about.”

More here

[SoConPubbie]

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton "We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[SoConPubbie]

Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

[cll]

I am Puerto Rican, which makes me an American, and I soundly reject the Latino label.

[raybbr]

The fact that they are having this “Latino” discussion means the GOP has surrendered to progressive onslaught.

[EEGator]

Are Latinos like the Borg?

[BlueStateRightist]

This fact bears repeating over and over: if Romney won 70% of the “Latino” vote in 2012 he still LOSES!

[FreeReign]

I am Puerto Rican, which makes me an American, and I soundly reject the Latino label.

Dems and RINOs love giving you a label. Glad to see that you prefer individualism.

[1010RD]

There are several problems with the thinking here. First, we need a GOP POTUS. If we bicker amongst ourselves we only play into Hillary's hands. Twelve years of socialism would be ruinous. Please don't try to convince me that Romney would be worse than Obama. Christie is an improvement and better than the alternative of another eight years of Clintons.

That said, this is a misleading comment:

“We won the Latino vote last night,” Christie said

What Christie won was the New Jersey Latino vote. They know him and didn't like the alternative. There's no reason to extrapolate that across the nation or to all Latinos. The national divide is deep and wide. There's no way Christie will win without the conservative vote, which is essentially white, marrieds.

[SoConPubbie]

This fact bears repeating over and over: if Romney won 70% of the “Latino” vote in 2012 he still LOSES!

The exact opposite, from what the GOP-E, the Consultants, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and Romney's people were saying, was the truth.

Mitt Romney, with his Progressive Liberal background, with his constant lying, with his support of Abortion and the Gay Agenda, was the person LEAST LIKELY to win an election to the worst possible Dem candidate Obama.

2012 should have been a cake-walk, it would have been if we would have had an actual Republican, and even more likely, if we had had a conservative as our nominee.

[GeronL]

The question is why did conservatives vote for him?

[SoConPubbie]

There are several problems with the thinking here. First, we need a GOP POTUS. If we bicker amongst ourselves we only play into Hillary's hands. Twelve years of socialism would be ruinous. Please don't try to convince me that Romney would be worse than Obama. Christie is an improvement and better than the alternative of another eight years of Clintons.

If you think that line of thinking is going to work in 2016, I refer you back to 2008 and 2012 where that failed strategy in on full display.

No more "our guy is less evil than their guy"!

No more "we have to move to the left(middle) to win the election"!

These have been shown in four major Presidential elections in recent history to be losers:

1. GHB 2nd term attempt - 92'
2. Bob Dole in 96'
3. John McCain 2008'
4. Myth Romney 2012'

How many more times will you and others keep doing the same thing that leads to failure and expect different results?

[loveliberty2]

In a NYT Editorial, Bob Herbert once referred to the current President as: "He's smart, deft, elegant. . . ."

But, we might have asked, does he hold fast to the principles of liberty stated so "elegant(ly)" by the Author of our Declaration of Independence and President of the U. S., Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 Inaugural Address--wherein Jefferson laid out what might be considered to be "qualifications" for the American presidency:

(Excerpt, "Our Ageless Constitution," p. xiv, reformatted)
"Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation;

- entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them;

= enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man;

- acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter

—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?

- Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

- This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you,

- it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.

- Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;

- peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;

- the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies;

- the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;

- a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;

- absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;

- a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them;

- the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;

- economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened;

- the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith;

- encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;

- the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason;

- freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.

These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

Now, does Herbert's standard of "smart, deft, and elegant" qualify one--anyone-- to lead us to "retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety"?

Now, there's all this GOP talk about Christie, and we must be careful not to mistake hubris, bravado and compromise for the kind of bold, principled leadership future generations deserve and America must have if it is to turn away from the "deft" and "elegant" and false appeals of socialism and forward to "the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

[jjsheridan5]

How many more times will you and others keep doing the same thing that leads to failure and expect different results?

They will do that forever. The ability of the human mind to ignore the obvious is quite impressive.

But the problem is much deeper than that. People like Christie, even when they win, are far more damaging to conservatism than a democrat could be. Conservatives have no way to create a consistent, cohesive message, as long as there are prominent Republicans who have little belief in conservatism.

Too many people are short-sighted in this. They think because a Republican like Christie would be less damaging than a democrat (in terms of governing), they assume falsely that it is therefore better to have the Republican in office. What they miss is the bigger picture. That relatively marginal "gain" is dwarfed by the damage it does to conservatism, in that it guarantees that "conservatism" will be defined by its opponents (liberal and Republican alike).

[conservaKate]

What Christie won was the New Jersey Latino vote. They know him and didn’t like the alternative. There’s no reason to extrapolate that across the nation or to all Latinos. The national divide is deep and wide. There’s no way Christie will win without the conservative vote, which is essentially white, marrieds.
____________________________________________________________

I agree w/ your thinking. NY ain’t middle America. NJ isn’t even like the rest of the NE states. I just don’t believe that Christie’s brash style and all the video available of his lashing out at everyone...will play well in most of the country.

We need a conservative politician who can articulate strong, conservative...AMERICAN values and a vision of America that adheres to traditional AMERICAN values. There’s no reason to bring race into the mix. Traditional values know no color. But yes, the base of the Republican party are white, married couples.

For the R candidate to win the election...the candidate must appeal to a broader coalition of voters. I don’t think you get that broader coalition by pandering...you get there, IMO, by laying out your vision that gives people hope of better prospects for all hard working Americans. Not this divide and conquer garbage.

[dfwgator]

We need true believers and not actors who try to act like they think a conservative should act, without really believing in it....People can spot those phonies from a mile away.

[elcid1970]

Christie only has to tell Latino voters that he’s so fat he has to carry euros in one pocket, and pesos in the other.

[1010RD]

1. Perot.

2. Flawed candidate from the get-go. It’s my turn isn’t a campaign slogan.

3. Was going to be a Democrat year no matter what. McCain played with both hands tied behind his back and then tossed in Palin. A decision John “Maverick” McCain regrets to this day.

4. Here’s a dose of reality: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0

We’re not going to turn this around in a single election. The most critical thing to do between now and the next presidency are:

1. Elect as many conservatives to the House as possible, strengthening our hand there.

2. Ditto the Senate, but in the big picture a RINO is better than a Democrat because once you gain a majority you control committees, assignments and the legislative agenda. All the stuff Reid does to us, we can now do to them.

3. We need a GOP President. It’s that simple. A guy on our side of aisle is more likely to deal with us, than resist and fight us.

There isn’t a Reagan on the horizon. We fight with the army we have. The most important point is to control the legislative agenda for a generation or more. The House and Senate are the key, long term. That’s the only way.

We didn’t get here in a single leap. It took 2 generations of liberalism and we blocked a lot of stuff for decades. That’s the history and the truth. You don’t have to like the reality, but you do have to live it.

[RobbyS]

Add to the list George W. Bush in 2000. Bush failed to win the popular vote and probably without a confusing ballot to confuse the old Jewish ladies, he doesn’t win Florida. That and the unappealing personality of Al Gore.

[1010RD]

You mean NJ conservatives? Because they are smart. The alternative is always worse. Here in Illinois we have complete control by the Dems. We just got SSM and they did pension reform for the Chicago Park District by... raising taxes. It’s a nightmare that even a flock of RINOs wouldn’t have done.

[slowhandluke]

Please don't try to convince me that Romney would be worse than Obama.

Then please don't try to convince me of the opposite.

Really, if you have such a closed mind, why are you attempting a conversation?