[nathanbedford]

For a second time in as many issues, Phyllis Schlafly has revealed herself to be out of touch.

Worse, she betrays a puerile inclination to seek after a political Messiah. She believes that voting in the right politicians will right the Republic as it careens toward the cliff. She has stated in her explanation for her endorsement a perfectly fatuous proposition:

It sounds like Donald Trump is the only one who has any fight in him. He will fight for the issues that we really care about and are very hot at the present time, such as the immigration issue. I don't see anyone else who's eager to fight.

There is no one who has actually fought for conservative issues including immigration as hard as Ted Cruz and he did so while Donald Trump was cutting corrupt deals with politicians to advance his crony capitalist empire. Her assertion is preposterous.

In abandoning the cause of constitutional reform offered by the article 5 movement and by this endorsement, Phyllis Schlafly has demonstrated a distressing inclination to be seduced by personality over principle.

[TangoLimaSierra]

I agree. I don’t have a problem with her endorsing Trump, but to say he is the only one who will fight is disappointing.

[E20erer]

Cruz will likely be Vice President under President Trump.

2017 will be the best year ever once President Trump and Vice President Cruz are sworn in.

Great endorsement and exciting news for future President Trump and VP Cruz.

[WTFOVR]

Perhaps she is just one more pissed off American, who wants to see the establishment turds gets their ball sacks crushed between two large bricks - and see the media castrated just for the fun of it.

Or, maybe she’s just getting senile.

No matter ... I’ll take Trump or Cruz - but Trump is top on my list.

Look at it this way ... We can either watch Trump figuratively lynch the establishment, or we can go about the truly bloody business ourselves.

Take your pick - I don’t care ... But I’m prepared to go either way: ballot box or cartridge box.

[Duchess47]

I’ll grant you Cruz has fought. He just hasn’t won.

[skeptoid]

You are correct,sir.

Her vehement opposition of the Article V amendment proposal belies a very disturbing lack of understanding of the constitution's very plain language, and the dire straits in which this republic exists.

[Lakeshark]

I have my doubts that she is entirely out of touch. I think she's displaying the shock that most conservatives experience who are watching what Trump has done, and is doing to the race.

When she says he's the only one who fights, she's pointing out something that has become quite obvious to me about the way Cruz fights, and the way Trump fights. The main difference is in degree and intensity. Cruz has been fighting in the senate, and prior to that, tis true. Cruz is a consistent conservative (well, there are a few things he did this year that weren't), while Trump is not. Cruz has been fighting for the soul of the party long before Trump.

Here is what she's saying and here is where you may be missing what she's saying: Trump has taken the most important issues of our day, angrily proclaimed them, and has slammed them in the face of the media, for all the world to see. Once he did that, he got the leftist media over the top treatment that makes most shrink back, and then apologize. Instead, he doubled down, didn't apologize, and eventually won his arguments. He is forceful, has totally changed the face of the race as a result, has shown how you needn't be meek and mild in the face of leftist opposition, and is (for the most part) beating the crap out of the media.

He fights hard, mean, and effectively. Without him in the race, the issues of illegals, the loss of American preeminence, of the American way, and now the Islamic war we are in would hardly be a ripple. Because of him they are a tidal wave.

I love Cruz, but he sometimes comes across as a professor; yes he's smart, yes he can articulate, yes he can beat interviews with the leftist media, he's done a lot of great things. I do think his manner is not naturally forceful, he prefers the life of the intellect, and sometimes comes across as too much of a brainiac. Perhaps in this time, that is not the best way or most effective way to fight.

One thing I am certain of, is that Trump has pushed the envelope in such a manner that Cruz can be heard. He has taken the heat in a way that no one else can, and that for the issues most conservatives think are of greatest import right now. Without Trump, Cruz would be taking the heat. Without Trump pressing, Cruz could be laughed off the stage by the media every day. Without Trump, Cruz would be fighting off the GOPe all day, every day. Without Trump it's likely one of the GOPe candidates is the front runner. Without Trump, the Alynskyite media would be winning. Without Trump, we could not see clearly how to beat back the democrat/media complex.

So yes, I understand what she's saying, and so do a lot of conservatives. To turn on her because she has a different opinion on fighting effectively is to not understand what she's saying, and is frankly a bit over the top.

[dragnet2]

Hey nate, were you not the guy who a month or two ago predicted as the polls came in Trump would steadily decline?

[SteveSCH]

We are at war with cultural marxism and their main weapon against us is Political Correctness. Trump is the only one who is currently out there day in and day out blasting PC culture with two barrels.

Cruz is a rock solid constitutional conservative but he will be overwhelmed and destroyed by the PC media without Trump on the field.

[Plummz]

Maybe Schlafly didn’t want to endorse a Canadian.

[moehoward]

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”.