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: 513
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 # 31.

#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  


#6. To: Abraham (#2) (Edited)

Yes, it's a bad thing as you know very well. It's criminal for Washington to favor one country over another to that extent, especially one that's known to be terrorist from the word go.

I'm still waiting for an answer on why we can't have presidents who are at least native-born. Wouldn't two aliens in a row be at least questionable by basic logic? Two points determine a line, and this one is right in keeping with the "nation of immigrants" h******** we've been force-fed for half a century, e.g. for the entire first third of Crudz' speech.

Now I'm reading the speech, and it is scary as hell. Get this Zionist dementia: 'imagine a president who says “I will honor the Constitution, and under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.”' Excuse me, where is Iran mentioned in the Constitution? What gives Washington the right to push other countries around just because Israel hates them?

Madness, utter madness. Evil treachery. Criminally insane.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-03-26   8:48:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)

Excuse me, where is Iran mentioned in the Constitution?

provide for the common defense?

Abraham  posted on  2015-03-26   9:13:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Abraham (#9) (Edited)

and when was the last time iran invaded the usa? what US territory is iran attempting to occupy?

titorite  posted on  2015-03-26   9:19:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: titorite (#13)

and when was the last time iran invaded the usa? what US territory is iran attempting to occupy?

This ain't 1776. With nukes and an airplane or ICBM, they won't need an invasion, just as we didn't need to invade Japan.

Abraham  posted on  2015-03-26   9:24:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Abraham (#16)

This ain't 1776. With nukes and an airplane or ICBM, they won't need an invasion, just as we didn't need to invade Japan.

you did not answer my questions. is their a reason why? After all, only barbaric terrorist nations invade other nations without cause and in my opinion the only just cause for war is to repel invasion.

is the usa being invaded by iran?

titorite  posted on  2015-03-26   9:27:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: titorite (#18)

Iran has declared war on the US

Abraham  posted on  2015-03-26   11:33:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Abraham (#23)

Iran has declared war on the US

Are you on anti-psychotic medicine? If not you should be, if so then you should ask your doctor for stronger meds.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-26   11:35:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: FormerLurker (#24)

meds

Fl you're above that. Let's not resort to tactics remeniscent of freerepubllic et al.

Artisan  posted on  2015-03-26   13:41:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Artisan (#30)

Fl you're above that. Let's not resort to tactics remeniscent of freerepubllic et al.

So if someone were to tell you face to face that the nation of Iran has declared war on the United States, you'd agree with them?

Myself, I call them as I see them. And for anyone to actually BELIEVE that Iran has declared war on the US, then they ARE in need of meds.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-03-26   13:50:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 31.

#33. To: FormerLurker (#31)

So if someone were to tell you face to face that the nation of Iran has declared war on the United States, you'd agree with them?

No.

I'm saying that old canard of the neocons & statists spewing "take your meds" is from the 1990s & is a very childish ad hominem, not to mention a pet peeve of mine. You can win this debate easily without that. Just my 2 cents.

Artisan  posted on  2015-03-26 15:28:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest