Ok, I Admit It: I Was Wrong About Ted Cruz

The Blaze ^ | Nov. 25, 2015 | Justin Haskins

[21twelve]

Well, six months ago this same writer was saying no way that Cruz could beat Hillary, so.....

[central_va]

That “1” issue separates the wheat form the chaff.

[Calpublican]

{”I’m damn sick of people who complain about the GOPe betrayal of conservatives only to have them turn around and tell me that America can only be saved if I betray my most deeply held ideals and vote for a big government progressive because he’s right on 1 issue.”}

Worthy repeat.

[deport]

Well, six months ago this same writer was saying no way that Cruz could beat Hillary, so.....

******************

He’s saying that it is now a possiblity, but he isn’t clear how likely that possiblity is.
I do think it will come down to Trump and either Cruz or Rubio. We are 67 days from
the first test to see what some of the voters (caucus) goers actually think.
Take care......

[zeugma]

Bumnp for Cruz

And a sig change.

[oldvirginian]

Pardon me, but that last sentence should be: “We are playing badminton games with people who *HAVE KILLED* for what they want.”

I firmly believe “Arkancide” is fact rather than fiction.

[C. Edmund Wright]

you’ve never been published have you?

[CatherineofAragon]

I have a feeling we’re going to see this from more and more people as time goes on...

[CatherineofAragon]

That is excellent.

[pgyanke]

So, as I became convinced someone had to talk some sense into the well-intentioned but delusional conservative masses, I penned a reasonable critical assessment of Cruz' chances against Clinton in the general election, warning Cruz supporters that he probably couldn't beat Clinton and that any money given to his campaign would likely be wasted.

This is why so-called "Conservatives" are our own worst enemies. Rather than voting conscience, they play the "electability" game and shoot down the best candidates before they even get a hearing.

I have a better idea... how about you vote (and cheer) for the candidate that best reflects your values in the Primary? I'll do the same. We'll end up with candidates that actually reflect our values for once!

[VanDeKoik]

“you’ve never been published have you?”

So please let us know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Apology accepted 8-)

[Unmarked Package]

Cruz knows how to make real, LASTING change in my opinion. I don't see that in any of the other candidates.

You make an excellent observation here and it touches on something I believe is the most important aspect of the 2016 presidential election.

Cruz can cause lasting, revolutionary change in the current government (American Revolutionary War type of change) by reclaiming our Constitution which will reduce the size and power of the federal government as the original Founders intended and restore Rule of Law.

Obama has set some frightening precedents in extra-Constitutional lawlessness, permitted by an impotent GOP Congress, that must be repudiated completely by the next President.

If the Republic described in the U.S. Constitution is to survive (it's hanging by a thread) only a leader with complete knowledge and commitment to the original blueprints can make that happen. I truly believe 2016 is our last chance.

An autocratic future President driven by ego, while appealing if he shares our views, only serves to reinforce the dangerous precedents set by Obama, thus proceeding further down the current path we're on leading away from the Constitution. If both sides try to make laws by executive order, it will be exploited in truly terrible ways by a Democrat President in the future and the constitutional Republic ceases to exist.

Released from the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and without a moral people it was designed to govern, through misapplication of great wealth and technology to control every part of our lives, the U.S. federal government has the terrible potential over coming decades to become one of the most tyrannical, oppressive regimes the world has ever known.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I’m so glad you asked.....I set a trap for you and you stepped right in it.

You made the point that this author was obviously directed by this publication to write a certain thing towards a certain end game. Thus, you don’t have any clue that in ALL of these conservative sites, the writers are NOT ASSIGNED articles for this reason, and not all these writers and editors agree on everything. Thus, since you obviously don’t know that, I knew you weren’t.....and yeah, I baited you into this trap.

If you had been published so much as once, you would have known this.

[Finny]

What do you mean Isara left that sentence out? I saw it in the excerpted piece.

[Finny]

Yes ma'am it still is there. But you still left it out of your post.

So ...? In that post, it wasn't an article that she was quoting, it was an excerpt of her choosing from the article leading the thread. FReepers have been doing that all the years I've been here.

[Finny]

Excellent post.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Just decide who represents what you believe in and then support them. To hell with everything else."

It's not that simple. I represent myself better than anybody else; I don't run, because I know I'd never win. Similarly, I would argue that by and large that holds true for most people: they are best capable of speaking for, and representing their own views, but don't run for office either out of apathy or because they have assessed their chances of winning as somewhere between slim and none.

Supporting a candidate therefore is not just a matter of 'who best represents me,' but electability has to figure somewhat into the calculus. Hypothetically, suppose there was a candidate who represented you with 100% agreement but didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning even with all your support, and a second candidate who only represented 85% of your views but would have the election locked up if they obtained your support.

Note that I'm not drawing any parallels to any candidates in the GOP right now regardless of what you or others may infer from the above. I'm simply saying that unless we as individuals throw our own hat into the ring, we are ceding our representation to somebody else, and in doing so must (if was have any brains) throw our support to somebody we believe is electable. It has to be part of the consideration.

[EternalVigilance]

Respectfully, that’s exactly why we no longer have representative self-government, why our politics has devolved into political bookie-ism, and why generally the GOP ends up nominating someone that the base of the party viscerally hates.

[Joe 6-pack]

I understand your point, but disagree over a subtle point. The reason, 'our politics has devolved into political bookie-ism,' is not that people are making an assessment of who is electable. Rather, they have been allowing others to tell them who is 'electable' (i.e. Romney, McCain, Dole, etc.)

Moreover, electability is not a static quality. Just as a candidate can do things to make himself more or less electable, supporters can also influence that as well. My original contention was, and remains, that by not running for office ourselves, we are by default, accepting someone who will not represent us perfectly, but, 'good enough,' but in order to do so, we have to hitch our wagon to somebody who we reasonably expect to win. Sometimes that expectation is founded in reality and sometimes in false hopes.