McCain: Cruz 'Crossed Line' by Mocking GOP Presidential Losers

[DCPatriot]

No, he left it clear to the audience that McCain, Dole and Romney are not true Conservatives.  Indeed, they are not.

It seems to me all he was doing was pointing out that other than GWB, we've gotten creamed at the polls during Presidential elections.

His usage of "President" before each of their last names was pour salt water on your cut.

Who started this faux outrage about Cruz' statement?   Which media outlet and reported/blogger?

Getting Conservatives to act NUTZ is soooooooo easy sometimes........

[katzenjammer]

No, you're not.  That ship sailed in 2012, 2013 at the latest.  Right now you're in a fight that will guarantee the democrats win this Nov.  It's too late to continue this noxious in-fighting; if we - that means everyone - don't close ranks, start focusing on defeating the democrats rather than each other, and don't start doing so based on practical realities rather than abstract theoretical "principles", then we've done nothing more than guarantee that this country will go down to defeat - precisely the result you say you're fighting against.

And I'm tired of hearing the corollary "argument" of "we will if they will" with the implicit "but they have to go first"; that is so utterly childish that I am surprised that anyone who isn't still in training pants thinks it's an argument.  If nobody takes the first step, then everybody ends up losing.  It's the grownup, the one more dedicated to principles than ego, who would take the first step and would rise above the childishness of the other side.  So far I don't see any adults in the crowd, not Cruz, not McCain, not Boehner, not ....   You name it.  Look, fundamentally we're all on the same side, we just seem to have forgotten that point.  That means that the side that rises above the other first is not simply setting itself up to be cannon fodder; we will listen to each other in much more good faith than the enemy - the democrats/libs/progs - ever will.

Here's what I would like to see:  a ringing defense, in plain English and with a focus on positives, not on negatives - I am so tired of hearing how our side is going to trash their side - of why small 'c' conservativism and republicanism is the real medicine for what ails this country.  First, how about a straightforward articulation of the fundamental principles the republican party sees as being important to the US?  Other than some rancid xenophobic immigration fantasies, big government nostrums to combat some unrealistic stereotypes about homosexuals, and a quixotic fascination with abortion - quixotic because (a) it will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever come to fruition, and (b) provably runs off otherwise sympathetic voters - I really no longer understand what the republicans - including the so-called conservative republicans - stand for; all I get is a sense that some factions are against this, some against that, and right now each faction in the republican party is more against the other factions than against the democrats.

Second, how about a straightforward application of those principles to reality and an explanation for why those principles will lead to an improvement in peoples' lives that cannot happen under the sirens' song that passes for democrat party principles and policies?  This is very important because, quite frankly, some of the benefits to be had from republican principles are counterintuitive (keeping in mind that those "principles" are as I imagine they might be, using Reagan as a benchmark of sorts).  How does taking away unemployment benefits help the people whose benefits got taken away?  How do we plan to manage short-term pain in order to ensure that we reach long-term benefit? 

Why is it, exactly, that private businesses in competition with each other can provide better services at less cost than the government and nonprofits can, given that private businesses are expected to provide dividends to their owners that government and nonprofits do not have to provide since they have no owners?  It is that point, more than most others, that democrats/libs/progs cannot understand (or wish to cover up if they do understand because it gets in the way of their totalitarian motivations), and that takes more than a grade-school education in economics for the average nonpolitical person to understand.  Answer that question and you basically refute the arguments in favor of government as single-payer for health care costs.

No matter how rosy the Promised Land is, it's still off in the distance and unless you can convince people to make the grinding march over the hot desert sands to get there, they simply won't go.  And so far, all I see is squabbling over who's going to be the leader of that march and precious little concern for how we're going to get everyone else to make that march.

I'm sorry to have to just focus in on that one phrase in your lengthy and well articulated post, but I think that is a fundamental point of disagreement.  There are many of us (I count myself among them) that simply don't believe that we are all fundamentally on the same side.  By their words, and more importantly their actions, the leaders of the GOP (particularly at the national level) have shown themselves to no longer believe in, nor support, limited Constitution-based government.  It's been pretty clear that the only time they pay lip service to it is when they are looking for our $$$ and/or votes.

So because of this fundamental disagreement, I don't think the course of action that you describe is ever going to fall into place.  That is why I view the prospects as less than rosy.  In my view, the "sides" are the "Tea Party" candidates, politicians, and voters, versus the political establishment, regardless of what party letter they choose to wear.  It is not certainly the optimal situation, and I am sure that most of us here would have preferred that it didn't evolve in this fashion, but it is, what it is.  And I think that people are just sick and tired of being lied to, and aren't going to play the game any longer.  Just my two cents.

[katzenjammer]

To Olivia:
In a word, NO.

The GOP Establishment is not on the same side as the Conservative movement and hasn't been for quite some time. These people are perfectly satisfied with the way things are as long as they have control of the party. As long as they can attend the Washington parties, take their little junkets to exotic places on our dime and have their perks and benefits while at the same time NOT having to be accountable, responsible or accomplishing anything at all, they are happy.

Winning brings expectations of results and that's not acceptable.

John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John Wayne McCornyn and John McCain are perfect examples of what I am talking about. They are perfectly willing to see our country deteriorate as long as they can stay in positions of limited power as long as they have the perks.

You pretty much nailed it there, Howie!!

[Oceander]

Cruz never said he was "better" than Romney, et al, only that he was a true Conservative and they are not.  Cruz is much more Conservative than those three losing candidates.  He did not insult them, unless speaking the truth is considered by the GOPe as "insulting."   Cruz merely distinguished himself from them on ideological grounds which is necessary to led the GOP away from the path of inevitable defeat.

 Of course, the GOP "moderates" can't handle the truth.

Splitting hairs.  The claim that Cruz "never said he was 'better'" depends, to paraphrase Mr. Clinton, on what "said" means.  Mr. Cruz said they didn't stand for principle and he did.  To say someone doesn't stand for principle is to say that they're unprincipled.  The word "unprincipled" is pejorative; it's an insult and necessarily implies that the speaker is better than the people whom he's labelled as unprincipled.  Mr. Cruz called Mr. Romney et al unprincipled and therefore necessarily implied - which is as good as said - that he's better than they.

Right now Mr. Cruz seems just as capable of leading the GOP to inevitable defeat as does anyone else.  Someone who is unable to prioritize his principles, decide which of those can be compromised, and what the price of compromise must be, is not a good leader, other than a leader into the pit of inevitable defeat.

Reagan is a good example.  One faction always likes to claim that he was a principled conservative.  Another faction always likes to claim that he was a pragmatist who compromised any principle whatsoever when it suited him.  Both factions are oblivious to the fact that Reagan was a principled leader who understood his principles, prioritized them, and knew which could be compromised, how far each could be compromised, and what the price of compromise would be.

Until and unless Mr. Cruz learns the art of the strategic compromise he is just as likely to lead us to inevitable defeat as is any of the people he maligned.

[MBB1984]

What is a "true conservative"?  I keep hearing that term bandied about, but I have yet to hear anyone unpack it and lay out in detail what it means.

Here you go:  Supports the Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendments, Supports free enterprise, supports limited government, prioritizes and supports America and its citizens including their defense,  supports lower taxes, supports Judeo Christian ethics, is against unnecessary regulation by big government, is against amnesty, is against abortion, is against gay marriage, is against deficit spending, is against political correctness and is against discrimination based on race (affirmative action).

[DCPatriot]

I don't know if he ever expected that it would be analyzed and dissected to this level.  It was merely a rhetorical device, it's been used before.  "We all remember President {fill_in_the_blank_of_a_candidate_that_lost}!!"  It certainly wasn't anything new, and I believe that those pre-disposed to not like Cruz tend to jump on it, his fans cheer him for it, and the vast majority of the public doesn't even know that he said it!!

 

Thanks for explaining that to the [fill-in-the-blank]-challenged among us! 

[Bigun]

If Mr. Cruz can't stand the heat, then perhaps he shouldn't be in the kitchen.  Criticism is never fair, never even-handed, never evenly distributed, and - in particular - is generally aimed first and foremost at the newcomer, the boat-rocker, etc.  And that is not limited to politics, it happens in almost every field of human endeavor:  criticism of Cruz pales in comparison to Galileo's travails regarding heliocentrism.

Show me an instance of Cruz complaining about the the heat in the kitchen!!! Seems to me that all the complaining is coming from those who Mr. Cruz isn't afraid to confront!

[Oceander]

I'm sorry to have to just focus in on that one phrase in your lengthy and well articulated post, but I think that is a fundamental point of disagreement.  There are many of us (I count myself among them) that simply don't believe that we are all fundamentally on the same side.  By their words, and more importantly their actions, the leaders of the GOP (particularly at the national level) have shown themselves to no longer believe in, nor support, limited Constitution-based government.  It's been pretty clear that the only time they pay lip service to it is when they are looking for our $$$ and/or votes.

So because of this fundamental disagreement, I don't think the course of action that you describe is ever going to fall into place.  That is why I view the prospects as less than rosy.  In my view, the "sides" are the "Tea Party" candidates, politicians, and voters, versus the political establishment, regardless of what party letter they choose to wear.  It is not certainly the optimal situation, and I am sure that most of us here would have preferred that it didn't evolve in this fashion, but it is, what it is.  And I think that people are just sick and tired of being lied to, and aren't going to play the game any longer.  Just my two cents.

As you wish; would that I could persuade you otherwise.  To be honest, however, I don't see nearly as much black-and-white as you do.  Conservatives have their own pet oxen and they squeal just as loudly when those oxen are gored as do the moderates and the dems/libs/progs.  Case in point: Ryan's changes to the retirement benefits for the military.  Just about everyone cheered loudly when Ryan proposed exactly the same sorts of changes to social security back in 2012 and before, but when it comes to the military ox, the shrieking is as loud as were the cheers.  The fact of the matter is, Ryan's cuts are sensible and should be implemented, and since everything has to start somewhere, and since the democrat/lib/prog resistance to those changes is least where the military is concerned, that was the best place to start.  Not only that, it presented a very nice political optic:  a true leader is one who is willing, when necessary, to gore his own ox first in order to convince everyone else that their oxen should be gored as well.  But that opportunity was chucked, and Ryan villified, because conservatives don't want their oxen gored any more than do moderates or democrats/libs/progs.

[DCPatriot]

Here you go:  Supports the Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendments, Supports free enterprise, supports limited government, prioritizes and supports America and its citizens including their defense,  supports lower taxes, supports Judeo Christian ethics, is against unnecessary regulation by big government, is against amnesty, is against abortion, is against gay marriage, is against deficit spending, is against political correctness and is against discrimination based on race (affirmative action).

I have one serious question....

Why is it too difficult for Conservatives to drop "abortion/gay marriage" from their lexicon of issues/planks?

Just STFU about it.   Don't speak it.   Treat it like our own little "N" word.

My point is that it's a stellar list of things to be for....and should coalesce enough cross-over voters without alienating up to 50% of the electorate.

[andy58-in-nh]

The GOP Establishment is not on the same side as the Conservative movement and hasn't been for quite some time. These people are perfectly satisfied with the way things are as long as they have control of the party. As long as they can attend the Washington parties, take their little junkets to exotic places on our dime and have their perks and benefits while at the same time NOT having to be accountable, responsible or accomplishing anything at all, they are happy.

Winning brings expectations of results and that's not acceptable.

John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John Wayne McCornyn and John McCain are perfect examples of what I am talking about. They are perfectly willing to see our country deteriorate as long as they can stay in positions of limited power as long as they have the perks.

Sadly, all of what you say is true: there is a schism between elected GOP "leaders" and movement conservatives, as was more than evident at CPAC 2014. 

Being a conservative voter today is a bit like hiring a contractor to build you a classic Cape Cod house, but after taking your money he instead constructs a post-modern, Frank Lloyd Wright concept house because that's what he likes, and besides, it will get him Architectural Digest awards and big contracts with those influential artsy-types in the suburbs.

Strained analogies aside, what conservatives (and conservative-minded libertarians) need is not a backward-looking fight with those who clearly do not represent our interests, but a forward-looking agenda that speaks of what we believe, why we believe it, and what we will do to solve our growing national problems.

And then find someone who can both articulate ideas and deliver on their promise.

[Oceander]

Show me an instance of Cruz complaining about the the heat in the kitchen!!! Seems to me that all the complaining is coming from those who Mr. Cruz isn't afraid to confront!

Since he's a big boy then people ought to stop whinging on about others attacking him; that is, if he can stand the heat, then why not let him?  It'd be a shame to waste a perfectly good asbestos suit.  Why not rise above the pettiness of those who attack him and refuse to stoop to insulting them and attacking their lack of principle?  Does the eagle stoop to insult the pigeon?

[Bigun]

No, you're not.  That ship sailed in 2012, 2013 at the latest.  Right now you're in a fight that will guarantee the democrats win this Nov.  It's too late to continue this noxious in-fighting; if we - that means everyone - don't close ranks, start focusing on defeating the democrats rather than each other, and don't start doing so based on practical realities rather than abstract theoretical "principles", then we've done nothing more than guarantee that this country will go down to defeat - precisely the result you say you're fighting against.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this point! We WIN only when we draw a clear distinction between us and them!

And I'm tired of hearing the corollary "argument" of "we will if they will" with the implicit "but they have to go first"; that is so utterly childish that I am surprised that anyone who isn't still in training pants thinks it's an argument.  If nobody takes the first step, then everybody ends up losing.  It's the grownup, the one more dedicated to principles than ego, who would take the first step and would rise above the childishness of the other side.  So far I don't see any adults in the crowd, not Cruz, not McCain, not Boehner, not ....   You name it.  Look, fundamentally we're all on the same side, we just seem to have forgotten that point.  That means that the side that rises above the other first is not simply setting itself up to be cannon fodder; we will listen to each other in much more good faith than the enemy - the democrats/libs/progs - ever will.

Here's what I would like to see:  a ringing defense, in plain English and with a focus on positives, not on negatives - I am so tired of hearing how our side is going to trash their side - of why small 'c' conservativism and republicanism is the real medicine for what ails this country.  First, how about a straightforward articulation of the fundamental principles the republican party sees as being important to the US?  Other than some rancid xenophobic immigration fantasies, big government nostrums to combat some unrealistic stereotypes about homosexuals, and a quixotic fascination with abortion - quixotic because (a) it will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever come to fruition, and (b) provably runs off otherwise sympathetic voters - I really no longer understand what the republicans - including the so-called conservative republicans - stand for; all I get is a sense that some factions are against this, some against that, and right now each faction in the republican party is more against the other factions than against the democrats.

Second, how about a straightforward application of those principles to reality and an explanation for why those principles will lead to an improvement in peoples' lives that cannot happen under the sirens' song that passes for democrat party principles and policies?  This is very important because, quite frankly, some of the benefits to be had from republican principles are counterintuitive (keeping in mind that those "principles" are as I imagine they might be, using Reagan as a benchmark of sorts).  How does taking away unemployment benefits help the people whose benefits got taken away?  How do we plan to manage short-term pain in order to ensure that we reach long-term benefit? 

Why is it, exactly, that private businesses in competition with each other can provide better services at less cost than the government and nonprofits can, given that private businesses are expected to provide dividends to their owners that government and nonprofits do not have to provide since they have no owners?  It is that point, more than most others, that democrats/libs/progs cannot understand (or wish to cover up if they do understand because it gets in the way of their totalitarian motivations), and that takes more than a grade-school education in economics for the average nonpolitical person to understand.  Answer that question and you basically refute the arguments in favor of government as single-payer for health care costs.

No matter how rosy the Promised Land is, it's still off in the distance and unless you can convince people to make the grinding march over the hot desert sands to get there, they simply won't go.  And so far, all I see is squabbling over who's going to be the leader of that march and precious little concern for how we're going to get everyone else to make that march.

Real conservatives do exactly that all the time but because of the complicit media it NEVER gets any coverage much less an honest debate!

[Olivia]

Splitting hairs.  The claim that Cruz "never said he was 'better'" depends, to paraphrase Mr. Clinton, on what "said" means.  Mr. Cruz said they didn't stand for principle and he did.  To say someone doesn't stand for principle is to say that they're unprincipled.  The word "unprincipled" is pejorative; it's an insult and necessarily implies that the speaker is better than the people whom he's labelled as unprincipled.  Mr. Cruz called Mr. Romney et al unprincipled and therefore necessarily implied - which is as good as said - that he's better than they.

Right now Mr. Cruz seems just as capable of leading the GOP to inevitable defeat as does anyone else.  Someone who is unable to prioritize his principles, decide which of those can be compromised, and what the price of compromise must be, is not a good leader, other than a leader into the pit of inevitable defeat.

Reagan is a good example.  One faction always likes to claim that he was a principled conservative.  Another faction always likes to claim that he was a pragmatist who compromised any principle whatsoever when it suited him.  Both factions are oblivious to the fact that Reagan was a principled leader who understood his principles, prioritized them, and knew which could be compromised, how far each could be compromised, and what the price of compromise would be.

Until and unless Mr. Cruz learns the art of the strategic compromise he is just as likely to lead us to inevitable defeat as is any of the people he maligned.

Good gosh!  I hope Rachel Maddow doesn't see this post.  It's sounds like something she would care to emulate and use.

[Bigun]

I'm sorry to have to just focus in on that one phrase in your lengthy and well articulated post, but I think that is a fundamental point of disagreement.  There are many of us (I count myself among them) that simply don't believe that we are all fundamentally on the same side.  By their words, and more importantly their actions, the leaders of the GOP (particularly at the national level) have shown themselves to no longer believe in, nor support, limited Constitution-based government.  It's been pretty clear that the only time they pay lip service to it is when they are looking for our $$$ and/or votes.

So because of this fundamental disagreement, I don't think the course of action that you describe is ever going to fall into place.  That is why I view the prospects as less than rosy.  In my view, the "sides" are the "Tea Party" candidates, politicians, and voters, versus the political establishment, regardless of what party letter they choose to wear.  It is not certainly the optimal situation, and I am sure that most of us here would have preferred that it didn't evolve in this fashion, but it is, what it is.  And I think that people are just sick and tired of being lied to, and aren't going to play the game any longer.  Just my two cents.

Well said!

You can include me as being firmly in that group as well!

[Bigun]

Here you go:  Supports the Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendments, Supports free enterprise, supports limited government, prioritizes and supports America and its citizens including their defense,  supports lower taxes, supports Judeo Christian ethics, is against unnecessary regulation by big government, is against amnesty, is against abortion, is against gay marriage, is against deficit spending, is against political correctness and is against discrimination based on race (affirmative action).

With the exception of dropping the phrase ",particularly the First and Second Amendments," I fully concur!

[Bigun]

Sadly, all of what you say is true: there is a schism between elected GOP "leaders" and movement conservatives, as was more than evident at CPAC 2014. 

Being a conservative voter today is a bit like hiring a contractor to build you a classic Cape Cod house, but after taking your money he instead constructs a post-modern, Frank Lloyd Wright concept house because that's what he likes, and besides, it will get him Architectural Digest awards and big contracts with those influential artsy-types in the suburbs.

Strained analogies aside, what conservatives (and conservative-minded libertarians) need is not a backward-looking fight with those who clearly do not represent our interests, but a forward-looking agenda that speaks of what we believe, why we believe it, and what we will do to solve our growing national problems.

And then find someone who can both articulate ideas and deliver on their promise.

I agree with that and would offer that Ted Cruz or Dr. Ben Carson fill that bill as well as anyone I know of currently in the arena!

[truth_seeker]

Cruz never said he was "better" than Romney, et al, only that he was a true Conservative and they are not.  Cruz is much more Conservative than those three losing candidates.  He did not insult them, unless speaking the truth is considered by the GOPe as "insulting."   Cruz merely distinguished himself from them on ideological grounds which is necessary to led the GOP away from the path of inevitable defeat.

 Of course, the GOP "moderates" can't handle the truth.

What makes you think going hard right with a nominee will do any better than Goldwater did?

(Goldwater btw would fail as a "true conservative" today, as would  Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush I and Bush II.)

IOW NOBODY can live up to the ideas held by a narrow, but deep and loud minority of center-right citizens.

GOP moderates won several elections. True conservatives but one, and have to distort his true more moderate record about abortion, about immigration, about taxes etc.

[mountaineer]

I have one serious question....

Why is it too difficult for Conservatives to drop "abortion/gay marriage" from their lexicon of issues/planks?

Just STFU about it.   Don't speak it.   Treat it like our own little "N" word.

My point is that it's a stellar list of things to be for....and should coalesce enough cross-over voters without alienating up to 50% of the electorate.

If the federal government is going to continue to fund abortion with our money, isn't it something we should address?

[DCPatriot]

If the federal government is going to continue to fund abortion with our money, isn't it something we should address?

Of course.....but wait until you have a majority in BOTH houses and the WH before you do so.

Why allow the LEFT to destroy us before we even put a baseball bat in our hands?

[Rapunzel]

That's all well and good.  But what was the purpose of Cruz naming names?  He certainly must know that every word will be parsed, every move dissected. What was the net-net result he expected?  Call it instinct, call it savvy, call it what you like... It is woefully absent too often.

What was the purpose in McCain calling him a Whacko Bird?  McCain is the one who started the name calling.

[Oceander]

I couldn't disagree with you more on this point! We WIN only when we draw a clear distinction between us and them!

Who's the "us" and the "them" here?  The only distinction drawing I see is intra-GOP, with each faction desperately trying to distance itself from the other.  I see very little coherent distinction-drawing between the GOP as a whole and the democrat party, except for the occasional negative barb that's tossed out.

On top of which, drawing distinctions is not sufficient to win.  The democrats are quite good at drawing distinctions between them and the GOP, but they then take the next step and say why that distinction matters, which includes a healthy dose of "because the republicans want to take __________ away from you."  The GOP doesn't seem to be able to get out of first gear on this one, other than to say "we have to cut this and that and, ... oh, wait, not that, and that over there ..." without ever giving a good, down-to-earth explanation for why, in a way that would convince, e.g., a union member who's becoming dissatisfied with what he sees union management doing.  Not only does that sort of distinction-drawing not work, it in fact aids and abets the democrats because it feeds right into their narrative about how republicans want to take away everything the poor and middle class have ever gotten.

Real conservatives do exactly that all the time but because of the complicit media it NEVER gets any coverage much less an honest debate!

They have yet to do it here and, with all due respect, Myst and R4P&C are not exactly "complicit media."

[Rapunzel]

If Mr. Cruz can't stand the heat, then perhaps he shouldn't be in the kitchen.  Criticism is never fair, never even-handed, never evenly distributed, and - in particular - is generally aimed first and foremost at the newcomer, the boat-rocker, etc.  And that is not limited to politics, it happens in almost every field of human endeavor:  criticism of Cruz pales in comparison to Galileo's travails regarding heliocentrism.

Cruz isn't the one complaining...He made a very valid statement, the same statement many here have made for a long time.. McCain took umbrage.. never mind he's the one who actually used name's... aka whacko birds..

[Oceander]

If the federal government is going to continue to fund abortion with our money, isn't it something we should address?

Sure.  Address it from the point of view, first and foremost, of fiscal policy; it's an unnecessary draw on the public coffers.  But keep in mind that unless it's addressed as just one little piece in a much larger discussion of social entitlements, it'll just provide more fodder to the democrats for their (false) argument that conservatives hate women and wish to keep them pregnant and barefoot.

[Rapunzel]

Oh, for crying out loud!  We get a good man, a good conservative and his every word is picked apart like vultures devouring their prey.  Aren't we all on the same side?  Didn't Mitt Romney play Mr. nice guy and where did that get him? 
Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney are all part of the Mr. Nice Guy club according to them but they don't win elections.  Wonder why?
It's no wonder republicans don't win most elections.  A few little words taken out of context and they all develop the vapors at the uncouthness of it all.  Sheesh! 

Just to set the record straight, I voted for Rand Paul on this board but I'd take Ted Cruz as well.
If we don't get behind our own men and support them, who is going to do it?

 

[Rapunzel]

It seems to me all he was doing was pointing out that other than GWB, we've gotten creamed at the polls during Presidential elections.

His usage of "President" before each of their last names was pour salt water on your cut.

Who started this faux outrage about Cruz' statement?   Which media outlet and reported/blogger?

Getting Conservatives to act NUTZ is soooooooo easy sometimes........
[/quotet]

FEB barely won.  We've not had a decisive e in since Reagan... a CONSERVATIVE