Trump or Cruz: Which Revolution Will it Be?

Conservative Review ^ | November 30th, 2015 | Steve Deace

[Isara]

I often come away from the conservative/Christian conferences I’ve attended around the country with the feeling that we’re trying to drive the car by hitting the gas and the brakes at the exact same time.

Although I have met many wonderful people at those events, and received no shortage of inspiration from the speeches I have heard, there is also a shadow that looms over everything. This shadow taunts us with visions of an army, whose soldiers run away or whose weapons jam right at the very moment in the fight when resolve and execution matter most.

And those shadows have names.

McCain. Romney. Boehner. McConnell. We may preach the antithesis of their failure theater at our gatherings, but they snuff out our song nonetheless with equivocation and platitudes. We may wave the flag for a new birth of freedom, but they break off the flag stick and stab us in the back with it.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Are we are tired of it? Yes. But how tired are we, really? Many in the conservative punditry class seem like they would give anything for Donald Trump to stop upsetting the applecart so they could simply go back to peacefully writing their nagging columns about what’s wrong with Democrats. All the while never really coming close to drawing the enemy’s blood or actually risking their lives, fortunes or sacred honors. My colleague here at CR, Daniel Horowitz, not-so-graciously refers to this far too prevalent wing of the conservative movement as the “thumb suckers brigade.”

We insist that isn’t us. That we are the tried and true foot soldiers of American Exceptionalism. That if only we had our chance to seize the battlefield’s high ground, we’d take it and never look back.

Well, then, this Christmas is the time to ante up.

A field general with an organizational army of over 100,000 volunteers. A supply train of cash as rich as anyone could hope to amass. A consistent track record of putting principle over position. And the valor to be the first one to charge into battle, and take a bullet for the cause, is standing taller than we could have possibly hoped for when the 2016 GOP presidential field began auditioning last January.

His name is Ted Cruz, and while I have long been a supporter of his, I am also stunned by the simple arithmetic now undeniably calling his name forward.

The deepest presidential field in our lifetime, including the last two Iowa Caucus winners, figured to be a battle royal from the outset. So many respectable candidates would be vying for the same conservative base that even a narrow top three finish would be viewed as a huge success.

Yet with a dozen candidates still in the race, there are only two left who, barring disaster, seem to have a shot at securing 30 percent of the vote when the Iowa Caucus sorts things out roughly 60 days from now: Trump and Cruz.

If you are an actual conservative who has supported somebody other than Cruz up to this point, let me put in plainly: I couldn’t care less what your inner child thinks about that. In politics, it is the rare man who should be considered bigger than the movement. And if that does happen, such a man will have grown to that stature exactly because he is the most capable embodiment of what that movement stands for and hopes to achieve.

Everybody has had a chance at pulling the sword from the 2016 presidential stone. If Huckabee, Santorum, or Rubio (or several others) had built the campaign Cruz has, I would happily be on board. But they didn’t. Cruz did.

A population of die-hards who have attended more conservative book signings and rallies than they can count should no longer be starry-eyed about what is going on here. We can’t proceed as if we are little more than baseball card collectors or NASCAR fans obsessed with a single driver.

None of our gatherings have frankly been worth a warm pile of spit if we can’t coalesce now around a man who can grant American Exceptionalism the booster shot it desperately needs. So if you have a book shelf at home full of preachy tomes and autographed conservative memorabilia, but are still waffling about the path to victory in this race, you missed the whole point of our movement. If indeed a movement we really are, as opposed to an industry. 

The 2008 and 2012 Iowa Caucus/GOP presidential primary involved a genuinely difficult decision for voters. That is not the case this time. Either gather around Cruz, on behalf of the values that won the American Revolution, or Trump’s “burn it down” French Revolution will likely win.

For this cycle is about revolution, which is why all the non-revolutionary candidates have been weighed, measured, and rejected by GOP primary voters. And this revolution will be televised, too. It’s just a matter of which revolution’s mission—American or French—will smile for the cameras.

As I wrote here earlier this week, Trump could be unstoppable if he wins Iowa. While his loyalists are people conservatives have often shared common cause with in recent months, and who are justifiably angry by the state of their country and their personal fortunes, let us not pretend we haven’t known all along how raw and unfocused the Trump road into the future will likely be.

And I say that as someone very appreciative of Trump undeniably destroying Jeb Bush and the GOP establishment’s stranglehold on the primary process. Our movement owes him a debt of gratitude for that. But let us also not pretend, on the other hand, that someone who held progressive positions on virtually every meaningful issue just a couple of years ago is really one of us.

If the conservative movement has been about anything other than glorified water cooler talk these many years since Ronald Reagan walked off into the sunset, there is a far better way for them to champion their cause. The pagan-progressive moment that is currently unravelling us has the most to fear from Cruz. If only we will acknowledge he has done everything we have asked for from a standard bearer. He has fought every fight we’ve ever asked someone to take on, and built a professional campaign the likes of which we’ve never seen from a conservative presidential contender.

He has earned our movement’s support. Now it is time for our movement to show it is one, after all, and put all our book sales and sold-out conferences where our mouths have been since the Reagan Revolution.

If not now, at this tipping moment for America, then when?

[Isara]

"Either gather around Cruz, on behalf of the values that won the American Revolution, or Trump's "burn it down" French Revolution will likely win."

[TBP]

John LeBoutillier pointed out that in Trump, Carson, and Cruz, the Republican Party “has three insurgencies in a party that never has insurgencies.”

[Isara]

Presidential Candidates Comparison (Bush vs. Carson vs. Cruz vs. Rubio vs. Trump)

Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.

Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"

[Isara]

TRUSTED.

[dforest]

If it isn’t Trump, the Clinton revolution will win.

[GonzoII]

"Trump or Cruz: Which Revolution Will it Be?"

Not Trump or Cruz, but both, the Trump and Cruz Revolution.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Both.

Trump/Cruz 2016, then Trump goes back to being a billionaire and it’s Cruz/Somebody Else 2020.

[TBP]

No, Trump is a crony capitalist/populist. Cruz can win and begin to dismantle the revolution. About 6 Republicans lead Her Majesty right now.

[Vendome]

“Everybody has had a chance at pulling the sword from the 2016 presidential stone.”

Quite the apt analogy and funny.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Winner.

[cripplecreek]

[Jane Long]

Trump....all the way.

Only candidate not owned by any of the COC/Cheap Labor PACs/donors.

We the People are tired of the DC career politicians/govt employees.

We need a time tested business person (one who has negotiated billion $ contracts AND had to make/cover payroll....for thousands worldwide) to turn this mess around.

[Isara]

Trump supported TARP, auto bailout and Porkulus bill, i.e., Trump is for big government and big businesses.

Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)  This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN) 

Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN) 

Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller) 

Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC) 

Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post) 

Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review) 

In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)

[Isara]

Presidential Candidates Comparison (Cruz vs. Trump)

Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.

Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"

[Signalman]

Trump for President of the United States.

Cruz for President of the Senate of the United States.

[Isara]

"And I say that as someone very appreciative of Trump undeniably destroying Jeb Bush and the GOP establishment's stranglehold on the primary process. Our movement owes him a debt of gratitude for that. But let us also not pretend, on the other hand, that someone who held progressive positions on virtually every meaningful issue just a couple of years ago is really one of us."

[SandRat]

Cruz or loose. Period!

All the others but Cruz are just noise makers and nothing more.

[Isara]

Trump's Record on Civil-liberty Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

"Trump has an inconsistent record when it comes to civil liberties. He supported the NSA mass surveillance program but did not weigh in on the recently passed reforms. Overall, he has avoided commenting on religious freedom, but says he would be an advocate for Christians. Trump supports an individual’s right to make unlimited campaign contributions, but advocates for an end to soft money in politics. Most concerning is Trump’s belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property for economic benefit for others."

Trump supports the NSA’s metadata collection program, saying, “I support legislation which allows the NSA to hold the bulk metadata. For oversight, I propose that a court, which is available any time on any day, is created to issue individual rulings on when this metadata can be accessed.” This position was identical to the NSA’s mass surveillance program before being reformed by the USA Freedom Act. (Newsweek) 

Trump has avoided commenting on religious freedom since Indiana passed its Religious Freedom and Restoration Act into law. Instead, he has said that he will be the “greatest representative of the Christians they've had in a long time” if elected president. (Christian Today) (Breitbart)  

Trump believes political soft money should be banned, while individuals should be allowed to make unlimited contributions. "If I were drawing a political cartoon to represent the situation, it would include a very large guy with a huge bag of money. On that bag would be written one word: soft. Soft money is the bane of the current system and we need to get rid of it." (The America We Deserve) 

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors. Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)

Trump highlighted his support for prosecuting "hate crimes" against homosexuals in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. “Hate Crime” is a term used to extend special protections for a specific classes and in essence elevates the importance of these classes above others. For example, murder of homosexual or heterosexual should be viewed equally under the law and punished equally. Creating special classes is a liberal tactic used to divide and segment society.(Google Books)

Trump said that Kim Davis should not have been jailed for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses. He also said that she should allow her deputy clerks to do so, but also said that 30 miles away you can get a license so people should do that. He added, "The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land." (CNN)

Much like his stance on eminent domain, Donald Trump has shown a troubling tendency to want to use the power of government to stifle political speech. When the conservative Club for Growth released an advertisement regarding Trump's changing positions on taxation, Trump responded with a legal letter calling for them to cease and desist the advertisements. A chilling move towards the silencing of political speech. (Politico)

Donald Trump attacked SuperPACs (political action committees) in the third Republican debate. By suggesting they should be outlawed he came out against the First Amendment protection of speech, and echoed progressive talking points. (Time)

[Dana1960]

I may be in the minority, but I want a clean break from elected officials. And despite my admiration for him, that includes Cruz. He has to raise money, just like the others, and it will involve many people I’m not exactly in love with. His contemporaries in the elected class already detest him, so it’s unlikely he’ll be able to accomplish much. His best bet is a nom to SCOTUS just because the Senate would like him to be out of there. I have not forgotten for one second how Sen. Cruz enabled the nearly inevitable passage of TPP, despite his poor explanations for his vote. If he is as brilliant as many say, he couldn’t possibly have been so bamboozled. The other explanation is that he knew what he was doing. There are no other options, folks. And no, I don’t think Cruz will build a wall or deport anyone.

Count me in the “Burn it down” camp.

We’ve tried everything else. We have nothing else to lose, now.

[Sybeck1]

” If Huckabee, Santorum, or Rubio (or several others) had built the campaign Cruz has, I would happily be on board. But they didn’t. Cruz did. “

Guy would have eagerly supported Rubio the Amnesty Prince if he had just got the ground game going. Deace is a putz