Posted on 12/02/2015 5:50:15 PM PST by Isara
Political endorsements don’t matter like they used to. In the age of twitter, cable news, and the blogs, people depend less and less on other so-called thought leaders to tell them what to think. Less and less does anyone really care what leading figures – even those with huge and recent impacts on GOP history like George W. Bush – think about who they should vote for.
There’s a different kind of endorsement that matters quite a lot, however, and that is the kind of unintentional endorsement that Congressional leaders have given Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Republican voters are angry – and justifiably so – at the entire apparatus that created both the shellacking that brought Obama to power in 2008 and the separate apparatus that has cowered servile before Obama during his entire second term. Endorsements from key George W. Bush personnel, from Bush himself, from Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) – these would serve to harm a candidate more than help him.
In fact, if the cadre of long-time power brokers in the GOP really want to stop Donald Trump, they should Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) out in public as often as possible to support him.
The New York Times’ designated Republican concern troll Frank Bruni has unintentionally written what I consider to be the definitive, authoritative argument for voting for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Of course, it is titled “Anyone but Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX),” and it lays out the compelling case for a man who is hated by literally all the right people:
More and more Republican insiders talk about a battle between Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the nomination, or about a three-way, if you will, among Cruz, Rubio and Trump.
And in the voices of these insiders I hear horror, because Trump and Cruz are nasty pieces of work.
* * *
So does Cruz's experience in the policy shop of George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. After Bush took office, other full-time advisers got plum jobs in the White House. Cruz was sent packing to the Siberia of the Federal Trade Commission.
The political strategist Matthew Dowd, who worked for Bush back then, tweeted that "if truth serum was given to the staff of the 2000 Bush campaign," an enormous percentage of them "would vote for Trump over Cruz."
Another Bush 2000 alumnus said to me: "Why do people take such an instant dislike to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)? It just saves time."
Asked about Cruz at a fund-raiser last spring, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) responded by raising a lone finger - the middle one.
More recently, Senate Republicans denied Cruz a procedural courtesy that's typically pro forma.
"That is different than anything I've ever seen in my years here," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Arizona Republican, told The Washington Post.
Many politicians rankle peers. Many have detractors. Cruz generates antipathy of an entirely different magnitude. It's so pronounced and so pervasive that he's been forced to acknowledge it, and he spins it as the price invariably paid by an outsider who challenges the status quo, clings to principle and never backs down.
No, it's the fruit of a combative style and consuming solipsism that would make him an insufferable, unendurable president. And if there's any sense left in this election and mercy in this world, it will undo him soon enough.
One of the main legitimate arguments against the Cruz candidacy is that he has accomplished relatively little during this time in the Senate, but Frank Bruni reminds us that’s not entirely true. He’s accomplished rankling people who needed to be rankled in a way that no one else before him has. He’s shone lights in dark places many didn’t know existed, and for that he has been hated.
Voters in this primary do not want someone who has his piece on an abominable monstrosity of omnibus legislation, forged through compromise with Democrats and feckless Republicans. They want someone who stands against the status quo, even if (or especially if) doing so makes them unpopular with people like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).
And that’s the best endorsement Cruz could hope for.
They just want to lick the feet of the master and don’t really care who it is.
I predict that a president Cruz will sidestep the current house and senate leadership and create de-facto leadership with guys like Mike Lee and Louie Gohmert. Guys who will actually fight for constitutional conservative principles without negotiating them all away.
Completely agree with you.
Good post.
The problem is that if his fans manage to elect him, who will they blame for his liberalism then?"
Everybody but themselves, which is where the blame will lie.
LOL!
Shove some butter in that mouth!
I was thinking about charging admission for the faithful to see it.
Oh, you’ll clean up...I guarantee it.
Ebay might be even more lucrative.
Trade deals are a non-issue with me. I completely disagree with Trump’s assertion that trade deals have had any significant or noticeable negative effect on our economy. He’s been saying the same thing since the ‘80s and our economy’s been up and down and all over the place since then. He hasn’t proven his case by a long shot.
Technological advancement has been the driving force of change in our economy for at least over a century. That will always leave some workers behind. I don’t know how you deal with that other than better education or re-training.
The idea of putting up barriers to trade so that I can’t sell my product overseas or so that I can’t buy products made overseas is offensive. Trump says he’s for free trade. So am I. Is he going to negotiate a slightly “better” trade deal? Maybe. But I’m sure that will have no visible effect on me or my life and make a tiny, insignificant difference to the economy overall.
There are many, many issues that are important to me. The Supreme Court, flatter taxes, lowering the national debt, banning abortion, banning same-sex marriage, religious freedom, banning affirmative action, fighting Islam, having a strong military, dismantling the surveillance state. Trade deals are down there just above global warming in terms of being an issue I care nothing about because it has no effect on my life.
Not themselves....that’s for sure.
I see your drinking that Trump koolaid.
So Trump wants to force Israel to “ Sacrifice “ in other to make some kind of sham deal with the terrorist , those who want to wipe Israel off the map ?
Talk about crazy...
You don’t realize how obsurd your statement is by calling Ted Cruz supporters “ mentally ill “ while supporting Trump’s forcing Israel to give up more land.
It wasn’t all to long ago here on Free Republic that even the hint of some kind of talks between Israel and the Palestinians was rightfully frowned upon.
My how things have changed here.
Must be to much Trump YUUGIE Koolaid.
Now we have the Palestinians cheering section here on Free Republic just because Trump uttered and spoke the word.
Trump wants to bring back the N.S.A’s bulk data spying on American citizens program.
What is next ?
What will Trump utter next and his KOOLAID drinking followers will agree with him.
Trump is looking more and more like he is adopting Obama’s platform than what the TRUMP supporters are saying in their LA LA adoration of Trump as he is running on Reagan’s platform.
We told you that Trump can’t be trusted.
I didn’t call Cruz supporters “mentally ill”. I called people who deny the fact that Trump exists and is the frontrunner mentally ill. Trump has been the frontrunner three times longer than there is time left before the voting starts. And not just by a little. To say it’s shaping up as a race between Cruz and Rubio is to deny clear reality. Denying reality that doesn’t conform with your wishes is a symptom of mental illness.
As usual you are completely mischaracterizing what he actually said. Ne never said anything about forcing Israel to do anything. He said if there was to be a real deal they would have to make tough sacrifices. So would the Arabs. But he also said they have already made many concessions they don't get credit for, and it has to be their decision. I think he's being naive about the nature of the Arabs, but so has every administration in the last 40 years. But your claim about "forcing" Israel to give up land is a lie.
who made the endorsement?
the writer apparently so entranced with getting his number of words, he put forth endless BS and forgot to mentions the endorser
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.