Posted on 12/22/2015 6:53:13 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Phyllis Schlafly who wrote “The Power of the Christian Woman” gives this thread the virtual title: “Mrs Conservative Christian Coalition America Endorses Trump”
I think it’s a big deal that Schlafly is willing to gamble on Trump BECAUSE of his courage and consistency throughout this process.
What it means, first, is that Cruz would be a great match with Trump.
Second, it means that demographic politics is being carefully considered in some non-Trump conservative circles.
I am VERY encouraged by that, because it says that their is a great desire for victory, and that some tradeoffs will be okay if it increases the likelihood of victory.
If you were Cruz why would you want it? Ted Cruz wants to be president. Being vice-president is not a path to that in the best of circumstances. Being vice-president to someone like Trump who completely sucks the air out of every room he enters would mean eight years of being a total non-entity. Eight years of hewing to Trump's less-than-conservative line and loyally supporting the administration. And that would kill any chances Cruz ever had of being president himself.
Eight years of being "one heartbeat away" from the presidency and then a lifetime of Jeopardy trivia questions. "I'll take 'Whatever happened to...' for $500, Alex."
I want Cruz to be president. Being Trump's veep would kill that.
In my lifetime, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and George HW Bush were vice presidents elevated to the presidency.
Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Al Gore have been their party’s nominees, even though they lost.
That means that vice presidents have been more than relevant in ensuing elections. I’m one who has long believed that Dick Cheney would have been a far more formidable opponent for Barack Obama than was John McCain.
and how old is she?
Just sayin......
Saying that Cruz as VP would doom him to trivia is "then" thinking.
His very presence in the Executive Branch very well might elevate that office from being a "warm bucket of spit" as some former VP described it.
To repeat, we are in uncharted waters now.
btw, David Clarke is hosting for Beck today. I don't have to change my radio station.
It's "then" thinking. It's "now" thinking. And given Trump then my position is "right" thinking. No president under the best of circumstances will allow a veep to take attention away from the him. In eight years as veep to a narcissist like Obama the only time you heard from Biden was when he screwed up or when someone died. And Trump of all people is less capable of sharing the center stage. Trump will do what Trump wants to do, his policies will be what he decides, he doesn't take advice and he doesn't take disagreement from anyone. Under him the vice presidency will be worth even less than a bucket of warm spit, at least as far as the holder of that office's ambitions are concerned. Eight years as veep would be eight years wasted for Ted Cruz. Eight years of breaking ties and going to funerals. If he doesn't get the nomination then I could see Cruz stay in the Senate where his opinions and actions matter, and perhaps run for Texas governor and then the presidency again in 2024.
Two gained office through the death or resignation of their predecessor, and I assume you would not hope for Cruz to become president under those circumstances. One lost when he ran as sitting veep, and neither party would be likely to nominate for a second time a candidate who already lost one presidential election. Not in this day and age. So only one sitting veep won. In fact before Bush you have to go back to Martin Van Buren to find a sitting vice-president who became president. Not good odds.
Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Al Gore have been their party’s nominees, even though they lost.
The key there being that they lost. And Mondale was not the sitting veep when he ran.
That means that vice presidents have been more than relevant in ensuing elections.
Not as winners. And I do believe Cruz would like to win.
The point I am trying to make is that for Conservatives to have one of our own in the Executive Branch (and presiding in the Senate) changes the game as it has previously been played. We (and our aligned media) would have a focal point to rally and Cruz would have his own Bully Pulpit.
I guess the real question is whether a candidate who has, thus far, not exactly addressed fealty to the Constitution (Trump) would even want the man who does exhibit such fealty (Cruz).
What conservative victories has Trump won?
What accomplishments in the name of conservatism does he have under his belt?
Oh, yeah, that's right.
He talks.
I agree. And whatever the VP position is, it would be a hell of a lot better than Mitch's Senate.
Besides ... I could see a President Trump getting bored and make headlines by stepping aside for his Apprentice early ....
Either way, a Trump VP will have LOTS of latitude and assignments to implement the plans.
Too many conservatives confuse bombast with accomplishment."
Unfortunately true.
They also have allowed themselves to become much too feverishly emotional about a political candidate. Some of them can't post without caps and multiple exclamation points to express their excitability.
Don’t you think that’s a little disingenuous? Since Trump is not in public office.
You will have to admit that in the six months that Trump has been running he has changed the face of American politics tremendously. Without him this country would not be focused on illegal immigration, building a wall or stopping refugees. Other candidates on both sides are now being forced to discuss it.
It’s been pointed out to you more than once that Cruz was proposing a wall when Trump was hosting a reality show. Despite your willful ignorance of that fact, it is, nevertheless, just that.
Disingenuous to point out that you’re willing to support a candidate who has not accomplished a single thing for the cause of conservatism? Who has a progressive past and who, almost weekly, makes some slip that reveals his core progressivism?
LOL
Okay.
No, Cruz has been supporting a fence. He apparently thinks the invaders don’t have wire cutters.
No it doesn't. Administration direction will still be set by Trump, who is not much of a conservative. Senate agenda will be set by McConnell, who is even less of an conservative. Cruz would be, at best, a lone voice of conservatism in a centrist administration. At worst he would be completely marginalized. If I can't have him in the White House then I'd much rather have him in the Senate as the conservative voice of the GOP. At least there he can get his message out.
I guess the real question is whether a candidate who has, thus far, not exactly addressed fealty to the Constitution (Trump) would even want the man who does exhibit such fealty (Cruz).
Deep down I think we both know the answer to that question. And it's "no".
I'm conflicted on who would be the more capable candidate to take the prize, but lean towards Trump.
whatever happens with the R nomination, I still think Cruz would have been marginalized without Trump.
I still agree with you. Cruz could not have fought through that onslaught. They’d already had him labeled and radioactive.
Trump on the other hand, used the element of surprise and they still haven’t figured out how to get him in their gun sights. That’s the case for that point of view. I think it’s strong, but it is, of course, proving an opinion. Always a hard thing to do.
I think Trump is most likely to win due to cash, connections, and combativeness. I also think he has dirt on Hillary....hinted at it anyway.
His research and response team has been outstanding so far. And more than purity, I want a victory provided I don’t give away the farm in terms of principle. With Trump the gamble isn’t that his current positions lack conservative markers but that his conversion was expedience. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and the more I see his gut reactions to events, the more I see a conservative response coming out of his naturally.
To be clear, I no longer see Cruz as ‘pure’ either.
First you’d need to define what constitutes a “fight”.
Rudio and Cruz call for “secure” border first. They only differ on terminology and the following steps. I like nostalgia as much as the other guy, but we know, where this story ends.
Trump calling for deportation along with a wall sends the right message from the get go.
I’d say Schlafly is correct about who is willing to “fight”.
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.