the senator from Arizona said on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”
Poor ole McCain still smarting over not making the grade to the Oval office........ Frankly Cruz didn't say anything "most" of us here have not said... Dole was pathethic, so was McCain... Romney should have won - but watch the Movie "Mitt" - his heart was not in it....
McCain just can't face the fact that his 'war hero' card is old, and faded, and worn out. You can only play that card so many times, and McCain has made an entire career of playing it.
How dare you criticize Bob Dole! Bob Dole was in the war! (of course, indirectly referring to himself as well, doncha know...)
Ted Cruz is a bombthrower who doesn't care who he maligns as long as it splashes back favorably on him.
Teddy boy should be careful. VOTERS picked Dole, and McCain, and Romney. He's dreaming if he thinks most Republican voters would vote for him for the 2016 nomination.
And yet we have posters on this board who are advancing General Mattis who doesn't stand in the shadow of war heroes like Dole and McCain.
Stop twisting this. Cruz was saying these men were RINO's period. McCain (if he did say this) is twisting it like you are. Cruz said nothing about their service to their country. This is not about comparing these military men.
And yet we have posters on this board who are advancing General Mattis who doesn't stand in the shadow of war heroes like Dole and McCain.
VOTERS picked Clinton and Obama over Dole, McCain and Romney. And, Cruz doesn't need the vote of most Republican voters to win the nomination. He only needs to win a majority of votes in several of the state primaries. Cruz will have enough money to bury his competition.
Cruz owes Dole a personal apology, because Dole felt he was insulted.
Cruz made a mistake. It will be the measure of him, if he owns up and takes appropriate steps.
Cruz "service" as a government paid politician all his career, comes nowhere the level of Dole's military service.
Do NOT insult vets, and expect to hold my respect.
So what? I get it already. They were in the war. I get it. So was I. So were 10s of thousands of people in America today. So what?
That doesn't give you some kind of 'get out of jail free' card whenever you do something stupid, which is the way McCain plays it. Go talk to some of the disabled veterans and ask them what they think of McCain and his 'war hero' status.
Anyone can crash a jet and get caught. That is not exactly a 'Medal of Honor' military record.
Agreed, he needlessly made it personal even with his qualifiers. To war vets no less. Horrible instinct... regardless of the crowd.
If Cruz is the Republican nominee in 2016, he will be lucky to win ten states.
He joked about would-be presidents Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney — and said the reason they didn’t win the White House is because they didn’t draw a clear enough contrast between themselves and the Democrats they ran against.
“Those are good men, those are decent men — but when you don’t stand and draw a clear distinction, when you don’t stand for principle, Democrats celebrate,” he said.
Those principles, he said, include defending the Constitution, abolishing the IRS, expanding school choice, establishing term limits and combating “lawlessness” and corruption in the government.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ted-cruz-cpac-2014-104345.html#ixzz2vQtAfBQv
Cruz owes Dole a personal apology, because Dole felt he was insulted.
Cruz made a mistake. It will be the measure of him, if he owns up and takes appropriate steps.
Cruz "service" as a government paid politician all his career, comes nowhere the level of Dole's military service.
Do NOT insult vets, and expect to hold my respect.
That's probably more than what he needs. Win enough of the first few primaries and it is over.
McCain never single-handedly shutdown the federal government. That's Cruz's claim to fame and one reason he's got a helluva hill to climb if he ever wants to be the GOP nominee.
LOL! Cruz never insulted any of those losers in their role as veterans. He rightly criticized them as politicians, for not standing up for Conservative principles.
LOL! Cruz never insulted any of those losers in their role as veterans. He rightly criticized them as politicians, for not standing up for Conservative principles.
He contrasted Dole, McCain and Romney to himself, by implication.
What has Ted Cruz done in his 42 years beside shutdown the federal government?
Neither did Ted Cruz. Obama singlehandedly shut down the government.
Well, he graduated from Princeton, graduated from Harvard Law school with high honors, and clerked for Chief Justice Renquist. He was elected twice by the voters of Texas to public office and is one of the most prominent freshman Republican Senators.
By the way, he also has a huge list of names to obtain even more donations.
Polls say otherwise. It doesn't matter who really did what; it matters what voters think.
He shouldn't have. His shotgun mouth got ahead of his BB gun ass, as it does quite frequently.
Polls smolls.. I care about FACTS and not spreading untruths to absolve the President of his follies.
Polls smolls.. I care about FACTS and not spreading untruths to absolve the President of his follies.
Very nice. Very cogent and well thought out response. Wonderful. You have exposed your irrationally and outright hate with that statement. There is no talking to you. You are a fanatic and are not rational.
Are you being paid? Who is funding you to get on sites like this and defend the old, old, status quo from the 1950's?
In the political world, polls matter from the standpoint of who is getting credit or blame. Obama and Reid shut down the government. Because of his tactics, Cruz largely gets the blame. Reality.
I simply don't believe that poll results reflect reality. I do believe that they reflect the position of the sponsor of the poll.
You must have forgotten the polls in 2012 which showed Obama up over Romney but were decried by Republican consultants who insisted Romney would win.
Polls serve a vital function, which is why people are willing to pay for them.
My point exactly. I will never be convinced that Romney lost the election. Don't even try.
(Yes, they pay for them to publicize their positions.)
Perceptions become facts in the minds of voters. And the perception is that Ted Cruz engineered shutting down of the government and, had he had his way, would have done it again last month over the debt ceiling.
My point exactly. I will never be convinced that Romney lost the election. Don't even try.
(Yes, they pay for them to publicize their positions.)
They only become "facts" when people - like yourself - persist in spreading the untruth instead of the truth.
They only become "facts" when people - like yourself - persist in spreading the untruth instead of the truth.
BTW have you forgotten Newt Gingrich criticized Bob Dole for being the “tax collector of the welfare state.It was bad policy and worse politics, though it added up better than war and welfare with nobody paying the bill.”
And just as Cruz was correct this week at CPAC, so was Gingrich correct in his assessment of Bob Dole Majority Leader.
When Dole was running for President he told Goldwater he could be the "liberal" of the Republican Party only to turn around and tell someone else that he "could be Reagan" if need be to win the election... in other words Bob Dole - like John McCain and even to a degree Romney had no core beliefs. Voters sense this every time and we keep losing elections because of this lack of core beliefs in our candidate.
How can I argue with that? Sheese Rap. Truth - Cruz had inept instinct. Obama and Reid shut down the government and gleefully watched Cruz take the hit.
Rap, I thought your comment was directed at me. I now see I was wrong - but my post is salient.
Some time ago, before Bob Dole turned 70 years old, he described Ronald Reagan as "a befuddled septuagenarian." Some time ago, before Mr Dole started to rely on teleprompters, he called Mr Reagan "a programmed line-reader." And, right after Mr Reagan won a landslide victory in 1984 by issuing vague promises of tax reform, Mr Dole addressed a Florida crowd. "I've just obtained a copy of President Reagan's secret tax plan," he announced, holding up a blank sheet of paper.
Perceptions are more important than facts in politics, and the perception that Dole created was that he overreacts. This is not a helpful perception about a possible President, since we want our Presidents to be strong men who see a clear picture and are not distracted by minutiae.
Dole, in a magazine article early this year, claimed it was Richard M. Nixon who taught him his talent for handling issues. "Run to the right until you are nominated," Nixon had presumably said, "and then move to the center." Not bad advice in its day, but if Dole thinks he is implementing this advice by what he is doing, he's crazy.
What Nixon meant (and what he did) was to emphasize during the nomination process those issues he and conservatives agreed on, then, as the election unfolded, move to those on which there was disagreement. Then there were those matters he did not have strong feelings about, that could be used to fine-tune his position in the center, or right of center, of the political spectrum. Nixon used to refer to these issues as the "paint- our- backsides- white- and- run- with- the antelopes" issues.
But everything Nixon said was something he was willing to stand behind. He was for dealing from strength with the Russians, against the busing of children to achieve racial equality, for putting more conservative judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was also for open housing, for black capitalism, for creating a new agency to deal with the environment. Dole flits back and forth about what he's for until the conclusion is hard to escape that he doesn't know what he's for.
Earlier this year, at a GOP gathering, Dole said, "I'll be anything you want me to be; I'll be Ronald Reagan if that's what you want." Certainly, Nixon would never have told him to make such a statement. He may have wished he could be Dwight D. Eisenhower, but he also knew he'd just have to be himself.
Reagan, incidentally, never had any of these problems. He was for you, or against you, and you could count on it. But even if he was against you, he found ways to make you feel comfortable. Certainly no advocate of the gay agenda in the late 1970s, he campaigned against an initiative on the California ballot that would have denied gays and lesbians the right to teach in the California education system. Certainly no advocate of organized labor's agenda, he received the votes of millions of working-class Democrats who felt he cared about them. Certainly no fan of the Soviet Union, Reagan politely accepted its surrender.
Reagan never gave back any contributions or apologized for any support. It was always, "They're supporting me, I'm not supporting them" as far as Reagan was concerned. And this was true.
Dole also had trouble figuring out how to highlight Clinton's potential weakness on ethics issues. In the spring, the Republican nominee spoke vaguely about "trust," suggesting at one point that people would feel better entrusting their children to Dole's care than to Clinton's. But most in the Dole camp had argued strenuously that the candidate himself -- already saddled with a reputation for nastiness -- should not go on the attack because critics would say he was being mean.
I posted half a page of 'facts regarding Obama, the election and cheating to Sinkspur before. He is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing and get your goat. Hold onto your goat ^-^ You know he is near losing the argument when he corrects spelling, grammar, mouths off the word ad hominem and asks repetitive questions.
Yes, Obama and Reid did shut it down, you are 100% correct. I applauded Cruz trying to stop congress from funding Obamacare, and I still think he was correct... when someone is drowing - as this country is currently - then it is no time to play nice.
I posted half a page of 'facts regarding Obama, the election and cheating to Sinkspur before. He is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing and get your goat. Hold onto your goat ^-^ You know he is near losing the argument when he corrects spelling, grammar, mouths off the word ad hominem and asks repetitive questions.
I believe if an election was held today Romney would defeat Obama.
Right now I'd take a Mitt Romney over a Ted Cruz, thank you very much.
Very nice. Very cogent and well thought out response. Wonderful. You have exposed your irrationally and outright hate with that statement. There is no talking to you. You are a fanatic and are not rational.
Are you being paid? Who is funding you to get on sites like this and defend the old, old, status quo from the 1950's?
:nometalk:
LOL!
I had just seen Lando's post saying he was leaving the thread and thought...."Now that's a much better idea!"
Bob Dole said Nixon had ideas. Here's one of Nixon's ideas:
The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order.
Hey, establishment Republicans. How's that idea working out for you?
LOL!
I had just seen Lando's post saying he was leaving the thread and thought...."Now that's a much better idea!"
Bob Dole said Nixon had ideas. Here's one of Nixon's ideas:
The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order.
Hey, establishment Republicans. How's that idea working out for you?
Waters are calming down and here comes the cannonball!!
Such principle to make your comment needlessly personal. Noble, even.
Such principle to make your comment needlessly personal. Noble, even.
McCain feels the clock ticking and is flailing as a result. I also think he is growing senile or has grown senile - his angry outbursts are typical of some cases of senility. If we can get rid of Light Lindsay then perhaps McCain will retire in 2016, however won't hold my breath as he has no life other than his job as senator.
I'm done with trying to play nice with the few of Sinkspur's ilk around here!
I agree that McCain should be eating from a bag of oats out in a pasture somewhere. But if you look at his very narrow point in this case, he has a valid comment regarding Ted Cruz' remarks. What was Cruz' calculus here when all he needed to do was take issue with with what those candidates were trying to sell and how it failed? Why did he make it personal and risk chaffing some veterans? Poor calculation, I think.
And red herrings abound here. Nixon's EPA is germane? What Dole said in 1970 is somehow pertinent to a dart thrown at him now as he sits in a rocking chair with a blanket on his lap?
What was Cruz' calculus? What did he achieve? Maybe he got a cheeky grin and a "you betcha" from Sarah! See, another cheap shot! They're easy.
I agree that McCain should be eating from a bag of oats out in a pasture somewhere. But if you look at his very narrow point in this case, he has a valid comment regarding Ted Cruz' remarks. What was Cruz' calculus here when all he needed to do was take issue with with what those candidates were trying to sell and how it failed? Why did he make it personal and risk chaffing some veterans? Poor calculation, I think.
And red herrings abound here. Nixon's EPA is germane? What Dole said in 1970 is somehow pertinent to a dart thrown at him now as he sits in a rocking chair with a blanket on his lap?
What was Cruz' calculus? What did he achieve? Maybe he got a cheeky grin and a "you betcha" from Sarah! See, another cheap shot! They're easy.
I see your point I really do but go back in the thread and read the Cruz quote. He never dissed their military service. Possibly he could have done this without naming names but way too big of a deal is being made of this. It was not a 'you betcha; from Palin- point. That characterizes it in the wrong vein. We will have to agree to disagree. :laugh: :beer:Of course he didn't disparage their service. In fact, someone upthread pointed out he referred to them as good and honorable men. But he had to know there would be backlash. If he didn't, he misjudged. Or, he didn't care. Either way, poor. My opinion.
Of course he didn't disparage their service. In fact, someone upthread pointed out he referred to them as good and honorable men. But he had to know there would be backlash. If he didn't, he misjudged. Or, he didn't care. Either way, poor. My opinion.
:beer:
Why is it that Ted Cruz's statements are picked apart for some underlying slanderous statement when all democrats and most of the GOPe say what they want to say, including John McCain and it's OK?
Isn't McCain the one that called Ted Cruz a "wacko bird?"
He's nothing but a jealous old man that can't stand the popularity of Ted Cruz and some of the other young guns that are trying to wrench the party from these old fossils that have ruined this country!
Isn't McCain the one that called Ted Cruz a "wacko bird?"
Ted Cruz is a bombthrower who doesn't care who he maligns as long as it splashes back favorably on him.Let's make something clear.
Teddy boy should be careful. VOTERS picked Dole, and McCain, and Romney. He's dreaming if he thinks most Republican voters would vote for him for the 2016 nomination.
Cruz believes, in his heart, that he is so damned much better than Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. He's unique, you see; there's been no one like him in the conservative movement, ever. He's way better than you and me.If you mean the guy who won the Presidency, twice, despite the fiercest opposition in decades the second time... I fail to see how that's a bad thing for our side.
He's a man of principle. There are no other men of principle in the conservative movement, let alone the Republican party. Or so Ted Cruz would lead you to believe.
He's heroic.
He's courageous.
He's messianic, even.
Sound like somebody else who came on the scene ten years ago?
If you mean the guy who won the Presidency, twice, despite the fiercest opposition in decades the second time... I fail to see how that's a bad thing for our side.
Don't worry, Gazoo, I gave up arguing on message boards long ago. I simply don't care what people think. I post my opinion, and leave it at that.
Why is it that Ted Cruz's statements are picked apart for some underlying slanderous statement when all democrats and most of the GOPe say what they want to say, including John McCain and it's OK?
Isn't McCain the one that called Ted Cruz a "wacko bird?"
He's nothing but a jealous old man that can't stand the popularity of Ted Cruz and some of the other young guns that are trying to wrench the party from these old fossils that have ruined this country!
Why is it that Ted Cruz's statements are picked apart for some underlying slanderous statement when all democrats and most of the GOPe say what they want to say, including John McCain and it's OK?
Isn't McCain the one that called Ted Cruz a "wacko bird?"
He's nothing but a jealous old man that can't stand the popularity of Ted Cruz and some of the other young guns that are trying to wrench the party from these old fossils that have ruined this country!
I agree with you totally. In my view, Senator Cruz needs to develop better savvy and craft. His message is right, but his delivery and tactic ruins it at times. A lot of times. He did not need to call out a man such as Bob Dole by name in the way that he did, for example. He simply didn't.
I will say, as I have said before, it seems to me that Rand Paul has that savvy. But still... so unseasoned.
Why is it that Ted Cruz's statements are picked apart for some underlying slanderous statement when all democrats and most of the GOPe say what they want to say, including John McCain and it's OK?
Isn't McCain the one that called Ted Cruz a "wacko bird?"
He's nothing but a jealous old man that can't stand the popularity of Ted Cruz and some of the other young guns that are trying to wrench the party from these old fossils that have ruined this country!
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.
We are in a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party and our county as well! That being the case, anyone who thinks I'm about to shut up and let the establishment LOSERS win the battles has another think coming!
Aren't we all on the same side?
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?
That they are "good and honorable men" was a throwaway line. Because, you see, they are not men of principle.
He left it for the audience to conclude that they are not, in fact, good and honorable men because they have no principle.
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.
No, he left it clear to the audience that McCain, Dole and Romney are not true Conservatives. Indeed, they are not.
I'm done with trying to play nice with the few of Sinkspur's ilk around here!
If Mr. Cruz & Co. are so much better than Romney, et al, then why do they feel the need to stoop to Romney's level and insult him? Does the eagle waste his time insulting the sparrow?
I am deeply offended to be classified as "Sinkspur's ilk"!
:laugh:
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.
No, he left it clear to the audience that McCain, Dole and Romney are not true Conservatives. Indeed, they are not.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.What makes you think going hard right with a nominee will do any better than Goldwater did?
Of course, the GOP "moderates" can't handle the truth.
I have one serious question....If the federal government is going to continue to fund abortion with our money, isn't it something we should address?
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?
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.
I couldn't disagree with you more on this point! We WIN only when we draw a clear distinction between us and them!
Real conservatives do exactly that all the time but because of the complicit media it NEVER gets any coverage much less an honest debate!
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.
If the federal government is going to continue to fund abortion with our money, isn't it something we should address?
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?
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
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).
Good gosh! I hope Rachel Maddow doesn't see this post. It's sounds like something she would care to emulate and use.
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.
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?
Because compulsory, taxpayer-funded abortion is morally wrong, that's why, and we need to say so. But we must understand how to say it, and in what context. The problem with our current GOP leaders is that they are unwilling to address the issue nor to provide any context to it. Our problems as a nation are great, and this is only one element among many. But it needs to be addressed calmly, reasonably and with reference to shared moral values, the assault upon which is rending the very fabric of our society.
Why is it some are so afraid to have this long past due discussion... fight... whatever... and will do anything to shut them down. The GOP is bleeding voters... I'm one that left.. and they are bleeding because of the Doles, McCAin's and even Romney's... remember Romneycare? You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how hard you try. Instead of telling us conservatives to shut up, sit down and be seen, not heard, but be sure to vote in November. Tell us what makes YOUR progressive Republican candidates vote worthy. Tell us why your position is any more important than mine..
No, he left it clear to the audience that McCain, Dole and Romney are not true Conservatives. Indeed, they are not.
Totally agree, Andy!
...but as Christie said...getting him a standing ovation....".....first, you need to WIN! Then you can fix things that need fixin...." (paraphrased)
You're right, they're not extremists in the Cruz mold. But they ARE conservatives.
They have yet to do it here and, with all due respect, Myst and R4P&C are not exactly "complicit media."
I call bull on that as well!
It happens all the time here but there seems to be little interest from anyone when it does!
.....which is the way free speech and proper decorum works. :beer:
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.
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.I'm not so sure if it is really about either of us (or anyone else here) persuading each other of anything. I think that it is more of watching to see how things play out. I only state my opinions on what I see happening around me, and of course, my own personal thoughts. I just happen to believe that there is a much larger (and substantive) chasm across what we call the GOPe and "Tea Party" camps. I could certainly be proven wrong about that.
Why is it some are so afraid to have this long past due discussion... fight... whatever... and will do anything to shut them down. The GOP is bleeding voters... I'm one that left.. and they are bleeding because of the Doles, McCAin's and even Romney's... remember Romneycare? You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how hard you try. Instead of telling us conservatives to shut up, sit down and be seen, not heard, but be sure to vote in November. Tell us what makes YOUR progressive Republican candidates vote worthy. Tell us why your position is any more important than mine..
So it is human nature to some extent to simply want it to all be put back in the bottle as fast as it can be.
I don't think it will work this time no matter how uncomfortable the discussion makes some people.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. In my view, the time to have had this discussion ideally would have been 100 years ago. At the latest, 50 years ago.
Is there anyone here who will vote for Hillary if Cruz is the nominee?
Of that I have no doubt.
Why is it some are so afraid to have this long past due discussion... fight... whatever... and will do anything to shut them down. The GOP is bleeding voters... I'm one that left.. and they are bleeding because of the Doles, McCAin's and even Romney's... remember Romneycare? You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how hard you try. Instead of telling us conservatives to shut up, sit down and be seen, not heard, but be sure to vote in November. Tell us what makes YOUR progressive Republican candidates vote worthy. Tell us why your position is any more important than mine..
Of that I have no doubt.
Names
I think that we can agree that we certainly "fundamentally want the same thing," it is just a matter of seeing how the players on the field in DC go about deciding if the majority of them do as well.
Agreed.
Look at what the GOP tried desperately to do to Reagan. If we'd had these boards back then we'd have been having these exact same discussions. Reagan had to fight the elite in party and they hated him for it... As soon as he left office his VP could not wait as the new president to move the party back to "their" more comfortable position. Had he continued to steer the course of Reagan there likely would never have been a successful Ross Perot challenge and he would have been a two-term president - saving us from Clinton.
Okay a series of hypotheticals with a common theme:
Is there anyone here who will vote for Hillary if Cruz is the nominee?
What about Christie?
Or Rand Paul?
Or Palin?
You see, we have far more in common than not.
(I know, I know... there are some who would choose not to vote in some cases. Frankly, they have nothing to say as far as I am concerned.)
That is all to true and I think history will record it just that way. Reagan rocked boats that the elites decidedly did not want rocked and that had to be "fixed" quickly.
and, they were too wedded to their progressive philosophy to actually look at all the good Reagan did in his 8 years of office... I love how people who were still in diapers when he was president like to tell us how it was before and during and immediately after Reagan. Did I agree with everything he did? Absolutely not. But compared to Carter he was a total hero and what he did vis-à-vis facing down the former Soviet Union was brilliant.
I also vividly remember day in and day out the same crap we read now about Cruz, etc. being reported as gospel on the hourly news reports. I was so sick of hearing about Nancy this and Nancy that... and who can forget the news media going wall-to-wall on every single Iran Contra hearing - the same media who today pretents there isn't a single hearing on Capital Hill re: IRS, Benghazi, NSA.....
I remember all that as well but the thing most imprinted on MY memory is the fact that the Mullahs in Iran, who had held 52 Americans captive for 444 days under Jimmah Caata suddenly decided that the release of those hostages would be in their best interests just days before Reagan took office!
It is clear to me that the majority of the players on the field in DC do not want the same things we do! That is why we have a TEA party movement in the first place!
I would also add that those of us on my side of the argument have been FAR to accommodating of those types in the past and I, for one, am done with that!
Relax....not going to happen.
I know. I have observed enough to know that. But, he had "no doubt".
The ad hominem shots are very subtle.
In the end there is no one here who will vote for Hillary over whoever gets the Republican nomination but I will assure you that this time around I'm going to work harder than ever before to see that the person who gets that nomination will be someone I can vote FOR instead of just casting a vote against Hillary!
How many of the current crop of people currently representing the GOP fit the template the Founders imagined when they created this Republic. I'd say only three or four... in the senate and maybe 70 max in congress.
Given the hatred some people have for Cruz, there will be at least one who would vote against him out of spite. Who? You can figure that one out for yourself.
Thanks for posting the video, Bigun......... good reminder that this "infighting" is nothing new
infighting is a major indicator of health in ANY movement! When everyone moves in lockstep the end isn't far down the road!
infighting is a major indicator of health in ANY movement! When everyone moves in lockstep the end isn't far down the road!
said the man who uses the 'ignore' button proudly. :laugh:
You said that the person would either not vote or vote for Hillary.
THAT ain't gonna happen, IMO.
Just in case anybody thinks that's me, you lose. I'd vote for Cruz over Hillary any day of the week. I voted for him in the General last time.
What, you think I'm crazy????
You are wrong about the proudly part! Anything but in fact but when someone continues to LIE regardless of the fact that he has been proven to be lying many times what else can one do?
His hatred of Ted Cruz has consumed him!
Are you talking about Cruz, or someone else?
Just in case anybody thinks that's me, you lose. I'd vote for Cruz over Hillary any day of the week. I voted for him in the General last time.
What, you think I'm crazy????
Quote from: sinkspur on March 09, 2014, 11:57:58 PM
Just in case anybody thinks that's me, you lose. I'd vote for Cruz over Hillary any day of the week. I voted for him in the General last time.
What, you think I'm crazy???
Thanks for confirming that which isn't a surprise to many of us here, Sink! :laugh:
Cruz ran in the general election? When?
:sword: (http://vichorse.com/forum/images/custom_avatars/2784.gif)(http://www.rangersquad.com/smf/Smileys/rssmiles/th_smiley_horseshit.gif)
November 2012. He beat Paul Sadler, the Democrat.
It is clear to me that the majority of the players on the field in DC do not want the same things we do! That is why we have a TEA party movement in the first place!
I would also add that those of us on my side of the argument have been FAR to accommodating of those types in the past and I, for one, am done with that!
I had no idea you were a Texan. Do you work for any particular campaigns? Do you think Perry can rise above and do well in the debates?
I don't. I find there are peculiar views here. No, it's not the views. The righteous indignation of some seems over the top.
Peculiar views predominate everywhere. What passes for righteous indignation here would pass for the plainest of milque toast in many other places, left as well as right.
No. I don't work for any campaigns. I have never given a dime to a political candidate in my life.So there's no "put your money where your mouth is" with you, huh?
Ok. And there are plenty of reasons why I would not vote for a so-called "true conservative." Why isn't the Fourth Amendment, or any of the other amendments, or the rest of the Constitution, just as important as the First and Second Amendments? While we're at it, why have conservatives so often pushed to make it a crime to burn the American flag? One cannot pick and choose who gets the benefit of the First Amendment. Second, the number of inconsistencies implicit in that list are frightening. Limited government is inconsistent with being against gay marriage because it interposes the State between two individuals. Furthermore, the recognition of various relationships between individuals and the attendant legal obligations is generally a matter of state law - one of the amendments you downplay - and so the federal government's presence in the issue of gay marriage is doubly offensive. Abortion is another issue where the government has no business, and yet conservatives consistently want the federal government to ban abortion. A blanket opposition to amnesty in any way shape or form is simply a refusal to recognize reality, and I'd rather not vote for someone who cannot discern reality. Deficit spending? Then I suppose a true conservative would be opposed to people using mortgages to buy a house? Borrowing to buy a house is deficit spending.
The constitution is not a menu from which to pick and choose. It's the whole enchilada or it's nothing but Democrat stew. (Dang, must be getting close to lunchtime here)