Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: 3 Reasons Ted Cruz Could Win
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/23/3-reasons-ted-cruz-could-win/
Published: Mar 26, 2015
Author: Ben Domenech
Post Date: 2015-03-26 06:47:33 by Abraham
Keywords: None
Views: 521
Comments: 43

Welcome to Thunderdome, Ted Cruz! And wow, that’s a video straight out of the consultant minds of Veep. Maybe throw in a puppy? Seriously, though, if announcing via Twitter is the new thing, I’m all for it. It could’ve saved us sending a reporter to Lynchburg this morning. Maybe somebody will announce via Meerkat and we can all stay at our desks and not drive somewhere to see candidates give the same speech they gave at CPAC but with a couple more paragraphs? It’d save us all a lot of time and it’d be environmentally friendly, too. Lower your carbon footprint: announce by Tweet.

The Acela corridor mindset about Ted Cruz is basically: “he has no path”, “why is he doing this”, or “he’s a disruptive pain in the butt and should shut up and go away”. Allow me to quote one of the emails I received last night on this topic: “he’s a disruptive pain in the butt and should shut up and go away”. Yes, I understand that Cruz’s approach to politics and speechmaking rubs some people the wrong way, but there is actually a counterintuitive case to be made that he has a clearer path to the nomination than his critics might like.

First: Ted Cruz matches up with the activist base better than any other significant candidate in a long time. I don’t think people outside of that base really understand how powerful Cruz’s appeal is to the populist energized conservative voter, which is of course just a faction of the right, but is a sizable faction. Cruz’s critics need to hope that he is limited to this faction, and incapable of appealing outside of it. But that may not prove to be the case, particularly if Cruz is able to cut into the appeal of, say, Walker for pro-business types, Huckabee for social conservatives, Paul for libertarianish Republicans and the like. And he doesn’t just match up with them on policy, he matches up with their brashness, their yearning for someone who loves the taste of blood in his mouth. Cruz was the only guy on the stage at the Iowa Ag gathering to basically give the whole room the finger on ethanol. His words are sweet music to the conservative right which has wanted a capable fighter for so long. Here’s a guy who’ll fight the lion and the midgets at the same time.

Second: To the degree that this is a nomination battle about who has done the most to fight the Obama administration about two key issues – amnesty and Obamacare – Ted Cruz can claim that mantle and beat his opponents over the head with their stances on these topics. We underestimate how going soft on both of these issues is going to play in the GOP primary this cycle, particularly in the early going. As I’ve noted before, most of the candidates this time around are in roughly the same position on immigration: either full throatedly in favor of reform or tepidly in favor of it. But there is no indication that the position of the party base is at all moderated compared to 2012, and Obama’s approach to executive amnesty has made the issue all the more toxic. Cruz can argue that his only fault is boldness – that when the party balked about doing its utmost to stop Obamacare, he went to the mattresses, and it led to sweeping wins at the ballot box. And when it comes to immigration, he will attack Jeb, Rubio, Christie, Huckabee, Walker, and others as being soft on the issue or tacitly in favor of what Obama did by executive action. The faction of the right that will punish him on both these counts was never going to support him anyway, so he can afford to be the full-throated champion on both fronts.

And third: While the “purest” conservative candidate rarely wins, that assumes a divided right. Cruz may end up running in a field where the other candidates are scrabbling over support from the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, and establishment dollars while he could corner the populist talk radio base. Cruz’s critics need to hope that Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul and others horn in on this area of the right – because if the election includes a crowded field outside of that faction – including Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio, and say Kasich – that only serves to help Cruz’s case.

Now, this isn’t to say Cruz’s path is a clear one. Historically, outsider conservative candidacies like his are not very successful. But it’s clear he believes he’ll be the exception, and not without good reason. The traditionally powerful factions of the Republican Party have less control than they used to. What’s also clear is that his campaign is likely to be one of the most aggressive of all of those who are playing with the idea of running. He’ll go after the other candidates directly and have no hesitation about causing trouble. It’s the sort of thing that endears him to the right, but may make him a lot of enemies in the process – but when has Ted Cruz cared about that? He’s Sonny Corleone, and he’s here for a fight.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.

#1. To: Abraham (#0)

Blah, blah, blah. Cruz is a very typical zionist puppet. His wife (Heidi): Heidi Cruz is a managing director at Goldman Sachs, the investment firm she joined in 2005. She runs the Houston wealth management unit, which handles portfolios for clients with an average net worth of $40 million.

The Banking cabal is killing America and the world.

noone222  posted on  2015-03-26   7:57:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: noone222 (#1)

Cruz is a very typical zionist

That's supposed to be a bad thing?

Abraham  posted on  2015-03-26   8:08:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Abraham (#2)

Cruz is a very typical zionist

That's supposed to be a bad thing?

That is a very bad thing. The State of Israel is a banker machination (Rothschild) and most of its inhabitants have absolutely NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM on the land as a "right of return" since 90% are Ashkenazi converts to Judaism. Additionally most are atheists claiming the God they don't believe in promised the land to their ancestor, Abraham ... when they are in no way descendants.

Israel is a State of Bullshit, mandated by the godless UN and enforced through western connivers. (Where else in the larger scheme of things has a State been given its existence based upon a 4000 year old UNWITNESSED promise made by an invisible God.

Not one drop of American blood should ever be shed for that fraud. And, any politician that supports the notion of Israel and / or the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM should probably be executed but at a minimum ignored.

The two most deadly frauds on Earth are Israel and the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

noone222  posted on  2015-03-26   8:57:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: noone222, abraham, neoconsnailed (#7)

Israel is a State of Bullshit, mandated by the godless UN and enforced through western connivers. (

Most mainstream GOPers pretend to hate the UN but when it comes to israel they fully support the UN and its mandates. They can't have it both ways. Zionists like Abraham fully support and endorse the UN therefore.

Whereas probably most all posters at 4um are actually conservatives who support ABOLISHING the UN and hold the position that the UN holds no valid authority.

The neocon zio-loons therefore are right in line with the loony left who love the UN for their gun bans and climate change b.s. and one world garbage like gh bush. Heck, even gw bush said that the UN "shares our values".

No, the UN does not share the values of decent people, but the UN does indeed share the value of the bushes and cruz.

All this might be too complex for those who are wetting their panties trembling in fear of iran, which hasn't attacked anyone in hundreds of years.

Artisan  posted on  2015-03-26   9:47:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Artisan (#21)

Most mainstream GOPers pretend to hate the UN but when it comes to israel they fully support the UN

The UN is hardly a friend of Israel.

Abraham  posted on  2015-03-26   11:37:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Abraham (#25)

Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

The country now called israel would not even exist if it were not for the un. That's why supporters of israel by definition respect the authority of the UN. I do not.

Artisan  posted on  2015-03-26   13:34:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 29.

#34. To: Artisan (#29)

Throughout 1947

Almost 70 years ago?

Abraham  posted on  2015-03-26 17:26:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Artisan (#29) (Edited)

Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

The country now called israel would not even exist if it were not for the un. That's why supporters of israel by definition respect the authority of the UN.

Appending additional info.

The Origins of Imperial Israel: A Buffer Against Arab Nationalism by Andrew Gavin Marshall - Part 1 of 2 samples from a chapter on the American Empire:

The notion of a “Jewish State” as a ‘buffer’ for the West had been a long-held desire among imperial strategists and was even a popular means of promoting the Zionist cause from leaders within the Zionist movement. In the early 20th century, the Zionists, keenly aware of the British and French imperial rivalry in the Arab East, “knew how to convince London of the value of a British-controlled Jewish buffer-state in Palestine for the protection of the Suez Canal and imperial communications to India.”[1] In 1907, the London Colonial Conference emphasized the increasing interest in establishing a ‘buffer state’ for British imperial interests in the Near East. The Conference agreed “to establish a strong but alien human bridge in the land that links Europe with the Old World which would constitute, near the Suez Canal, a hostile power to the people of the area and a friendly power to Europe and its interests.”

4um Title: New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle

Post #3: A summary of the WWI Arab alliance with the British for their independence and Palestine's from the Ottoman Empire. British Mandate administration under the League of Nations and the transference of it to the United Nations after WWII. Partition and legal issues: internationalization of cities, etc. Arab requests for International Court of Justice ajudication.

4um Title: Can a Gold Plated Military Counter ISIS

Post #1: Internet Archive/Wayback Machine access for the site, Britain's Small Wars on the British Mandate period and those issues at the Index for Palestine [1945-1948]: Exodus & Outrage

4um Title: JONES: ISRAEL-BASHERS ARE "SCUM"

Post #42: Neturei Karta speech excerpt re: WWII

Post #46: Summary of the regional historic issues with video + links to palestineremembered.com and
the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (14 July 1915 to 30 January 1916) during WWI that predates
the Balfour Declaration by nearly 2 years.

Post #64: Reference to the Jewish Refugees from Poland sheltered by Iran during WWII known as The Tehran Children. [ Wikipedia and article review of a book titled "The Children of Esfahan" ]. Biblical discussion points.

Post #65: Birobidjan, an autonomous homeland zone alloted for [Jews] in the USSR -- "The Pale" from which is derived the phrase "beyond the Pale"

Post #66: Discussion points on Native American issues here in comparison to issues of Israel and Palestine.

Additional References:

The Damascus Protocol of the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (14 July 1915 to 30 January 1916): The documents declared that the Arabs would revolt in alliance with the United Kingdom and in return the UK will recognize the Arab independence in an area running from the 37th parallel near the Taurus Mountains on the southern border of Turkey, to be bounded in the east by Persia and the Persian Gulf, in the west by the Mediterranean Sea and in the south by the Arabian Sea.

Sykes–Picot Agreement: a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East [...] occurred between November 1915 and March 1916. The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.

Balfour Declaration: a letter (dated 2 November 1917) from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community [...] Jewish national home vs. Jewish state: Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper [denied] that a state was the intention.[a]

San Remo conference: an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held at Villa Devachan in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I [...] During the meetings of the "Council of Four" in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was a treaty obligation and the agreement with Hussein was the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement which proposed an independent Arab state or confederation of states.

White Paper of 1939: a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in which, among several key provisions, the idea of partitioning Palestine was abandoned. (It was also known as the MacDonald White Paper after Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over its creation). The paper also provided (as alternative to partition) for creating an independent Palestine to be governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews [...] The White Paper was published as Cmd 6019. It was approved by the House of Commons on 23 May 1939 by 268 votes to 179. [...] Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

'The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.'

Formatting edits.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-27 13:55:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest