See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Ted Cruz Is The Frontrunner For The Republican Nomination
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/cruuuuuuuuz#.bt3qarb5Q
Published: Mar 28, 2015
Author: Katherine Miller
Post Date: 2015-03-28 04:30:39 by Abraham
Keywords: None
Views: 857
Comments: 53
The next week will involve a lot of talking about the “wide open” contest for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, about the strong field, about whether the strong field is irretrievably damaged, about how there isn’t a clear frontrunner. This isn’t true. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — the true outsider, the tribune of the grassroots, the ruthless lawyer — is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. This is not trolling. This is serious. Conservatives vote in Republican primaries. And Cruz is really good at talking to conservatives. Even his enemies will concede Cruz is smart. And his resume is strong — Princeton and Harvard Law School; success at the highest level of American law; serious jobs in federal and state government; and an underdog Senate victory in 2012. The strikes against Cruz as a Republican candidate usually run something like this: He doesn’t poll well; the shutdown freaked people out; he can be grim; he’s not well-regarded among Senate Republicans. Cruz, who quickly replaced Jim DeMint as the most hated man on Capitol Hill, has been underestimated for what is basically a credential: Even Republicans in Washington hate him. Let’s work through the rest of this like a geometric proof. Yes, in the first big Iowa poll last month, Cruz trailed some other Republican contenders. But more than a year before the Iowa caucuses, presidential polls are just tests of name recognition. And so they tell us one thing: The Democratic field is very closed; the Republican field is very open. That’s it. Mitt Romney polls very well for that reason — high name recognition in a field of parity. There’s actually a much more important poll number out of Iowa, one that’s much more telling about the voters there, and bodes better for Cruz than anyone else considering a run for president. Check out, from this weekend’s big Des Moines Register poll, the top reason voters say Joni Ernst is worth voting for: No single issue has united Republicans more for five years now. No one — not Rand Paul, not Marco Rubio, certainly not Chris Christie, who expanded Medicaid under Obamacare — has fought Obamacare’s implementation in a more demonstrated way than Cruz. Clearly, he shut down the government in a ridiculous, nonstarter effort to “defund” the law. On Sunday, Cruz told the Washington Post that Republicans should “pursue every means possible to repeal Obamacare.” Merits of the shutdown past and reconciliation future aside, dismantling Obamacare has been the core issue of Cruz’s political career — he ran on it in his Senate bid. This was his pitch in 2012: “I’m not running as a lawyer. I’m running as a fighter.” The portfolio has to go beyond Obamacare, though. And based on the speeches Cruz has been giving lately, here’s the kind of pitch Cruz is probably going to make to conservatives: I will lower taxes, I will protect religious liberty, I will enforce immigration laws strictly, I will defend Israel, I will restore America’s robust presence in the world. Stumping for Republican Senate candidate David Perdue in October, he emphasized the Hobby Lobby case, the threat of ISIS, and immigration. He has a small library of failed legislative efforts to back these up. In print and on stage this year, he’s gone hard defending Israel. It all sounds like a lot of the conservative priorities right now. And presumably, these are not random choices. “As Sun Tzu said, every battle is won before it is fought,” he told Texas Monthly’s Erica Grieder, who’s written the best profiles of the senator. He was speaking of his litigation career, but he could have been talking politics. “It is won by choosing the terrain on which the battle is fought.” Then there’s this, perhaps the most important thing, and something that may surprise reporters who find him stiff and distant: If you put Cruz on a stage and then on the ground in the middle of a bunch of Republican families, he is warm, funny, and sincere. Cruz’s dour image might actually play to his advantage a little, insofar as it dramatically manages your expectations. I was in Georgia last month, outside Savannah, watching Cruz campaign for Perdue. Here’s what he opened with: “You’ve seen the news about people jumping the fence at the White House — the guy who jumped over the eight-foot fence in front of the White House earlier this year. The Secret Service tries to run him down. They finally catch him, and they turn to him and say, ‘I’m sorry, Mr. President, you’ve got two more years!’ This week, somebody again jumped over the fence. The Secret Service catches this one, too, and this time they say, ‘I’m sorry, Hillary, not yet!’” The laughter cut through the crowd — mostly families and older couples at a farm — and then turned to loud applause at the real punch line: “And not ever!” It’s, like, not a bad joke. He had others. He delivers them well. Ted Cruz can be funny. The biggest applause of the afternoon, though, may have been for Cruz’s bill to strip Americans who join ISIS of their U.S. citizenship. “You want to know how radical and extreme the Democrats are? The Democrats stood up on the Senate floor and blocked that legislation,” Cruz then said to a small gasp of a reaction. “Jesus,” one man said. Cruz left out the full details of the bill’s outcome: He asked for the bill to be passed by unanimous consent, despite the complex legal issue of stripping citizenship. One senator, Mazie Hirono, objected on reasonable procedural grounds — the bill hadn’t been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It sounded good in Georgia, though. And Cruz is good in this kind of setting. He thanked person after person for coming to the event, intent and serious, posing for photos and talking to little kids like they were adults. And while Cruz kind of talks to reporters like a character in a 19th century novel — performative and clipped — his rapport with supporters is far more natural. “I just wanted to shake the next president’s hand!” one woman told Cruz after the event; a number of others offered similar sentiments. Cruz radiated sincerity in Georgia, and complex mental gymnastics aren’t involved to imagine it working in Sioux City, Iowa, or Spartanburg, South Carolina. He can fluidly shift from an emotional appeal to a one-liner and back. And if he exaggerates, if he leaves out critical details, if he turns the somewhat reasonable into the outrageous — well, Ted Cruz isn’t running as a lawyer, he’s running as a fighter. You can trust him to always fight for conservative principles. And conservatives are the ones voting in Republican primaries. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
#2. To: Abraham, Jethro Tull (#0)
Gagged on that one. I admit being last one off the turnip truck, but that was some time ago, not yesterday.
It's sad that there is not one person running on a Peace Platform.
War is always more popular. It's definitely easier to sell at the commercial level. Remember, our government is nothing but a huge money-changing outlet. War is profitable, as long as it is, and as long as those making the decisions to engage us in war are far more insulated from its damaging and lethal affects, other than political unpopularity forcing them from office and into a job in the MIC or high finance that nets them ten times more, peace will not even be on the table as a discussion point. Besides, we have to make the world safe for corporate expedience ...., er, a, I mean democracy.
There were signs of preparation for war in the ME in the 80's, but it was subtle. The developement of the Abrams tank, Cobra choppers and other battle platforms designed for use in desert environments. The switchover of uni's from G.I. olive green to tan khaki's. The bombing of the marine barracks in '83. (false flag op?) The signs were there if you were paying attention.
Well, as I said, I distinguished between direct and indirectly. By that logic spending even a dollar on anything related to defense while not at war qualifies as preparing for war. As I said, terms need to be defined, they're too broad. That's like saying that the cops have been preparing for a police state ever since the force was around. Clearly not true although the logic is the same.
Obs was correct. Before Versailles was signed, German army had drawn up plans for the next invasion of France, plans that Hitler used. Japan was busy fortifying their new Pacific islands. The US got busy preparing Manilla Bay. All knew war was coming and were preparing. War is war, offensive or defensive.
I did not comment on pre-WWII. Otherwise, that's an incorrect statement. Germany's pre-WWII efforts were entirely defensive in nature. Germany had plans to invade France through Belgium over a decade before WWI even began, but that wasn't a plan to war or start one, it was a just-in-case thing. You really need to brush up on your history Cyni. Seriously, you'll never come to accurate conclusions using false premises. That's what the establishment does to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
[Excerpt] Katniss at #11 to Cynicom at #8: I lived through a part of the period that you said had war or preparations for war but did not. I have no idea what you're talking about. Did we or did we not have a period from the end of Vietnam until the start of Desert Storm (which was only arguable that it was a war as it was more of a brief action, nonetheless) for approximately 15 years from '75 or so to '90 or so where we were either not engaged in a major war or were making preparations for one? [Excerpt] Katniss at #26 to Cynicom at #25:: I did not comment on pre-WWII. Obnoxicated at #17 to Katniss, Cynicom #7: There were signs of preparation for war in the ME in the 80's, but it was subtle. The developement of the Abrams tank, Cobra choppers and other battle platforms designed for use in desert environments. The switchover of uni's from G.I. olive green to tan khaki's. The bombing of the marine barracks in '83. (false flag op?) The signs were there if you were paying attention. Timeline of United States military operations 1977 and 1979 are the only years not listed there as actions of war, intervention or preparation somehow between the end of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. I don't understand what your definition of a major war is, Katniss, if not the massive Desert Storm strikes and invasion of Iraq in 1990 that's estimated to have killed 20-35,000 Iraqis and wounded 75,000; in addition to our casualties, including the Gulf War Syndrome numbers since that are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Prior to that, we invaded and regime-changed both Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989-1990). Also in 1983, 28% of our entire force of 850 in Lebanon were killed by the Beirut barracks bombing (false flag?) and many others wounded. But you didn't even acknowledge at #24 what was the worst Marine death toll for one day since Iwo Jima and the highest US Military losses for one day since Day 1 of the TET Offensive. Why limit an octogenarian's real-time observations of our country's various war-footings to just a Post WWII timeframe of 15-years or so that later generations can relate to? And why a strictured but vaguer definition of what amounts to war, as if that's to be calculated merely by duration rather than severity? I'm from a Post-Korean War age-group and see the 15-year period in question now as much more Militarily turbulent than I fully realized at the time. I could be wrong but get the impression that the unspecified duration element (to measure actions of war as major enough to count as one or not) and the Gulf War stopping-point for the discussion seems geared to hopscotch over Clinton and Obama's multiple moves of war. Clinton, I would say, has the most dubious distinction of not only preparing inadequately for the numerous war actions he ordered, he was busy preparationally degrading our Military capability as much as he could get away with -- de-armoring it, etc., etc., etc. P.S. Ted Cruz is Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Edited formatting + next to last sentence above the post-script section.
This is why we have these semi-idiotic exchanges. You; Me, even as quoted by you; You: Me, even as quoted by you; If you consider those to be major then I'm speechless. You: To that latter one, read the entire thread before you blindly stick up for Cyni on this. Otherwise, either you're not reading or you're being entirely disingenuous. You cite things that I wrote and then leapfrog them as if I never said them. That I don't understand, it's completely illogical. Either way, this has officially become a waste of our time at this point, I merely responded out of courtesy. I addressed every single one of your contentions but you've ignored them completely.
oOo semi-idiotic exchanges. I hadn't noticed that but do now and will get back to you on this ASAP.
What do you call them, when it's beyond well documented, even by you, the exact opposite of what you're stating? Intellectual? Well thought out? Smart? What? Help me out. Just curious.
Me at #39: oOo semi-idiotic exchanges. I hadn't noticed that but do now and will get back to you on this ASAP. You at #40: What do you call them, when it's beyond well documented, even by you, the exact opposite of what you're stating? Intellectual? Well thought out? Smart? What? Help me out. Just curious. List of All Posts from GreyLmist to Katniss: 13 total in 10 topics including this thread. List of All Posts from Katniss to GreyLmist: 11 total in 7 topics including this thread. Of your 9 posts to me in other topics, one was just a requested video link; one was "Good point"; one was the word "OK"; and one was a flag to your input about another poster's comments that were addressed to me regarding a debate with someone else. Of the remaining 5, I can't even find an actual difference-of-opinion exchange with you except my Post #2 of the thread, "Ruin Is Our Future", on Darwinism followed by your electronics commentary in redirect at #3. In two replies here from you, not only does it look reaffirmed at #40 that you're just making up stuff from nothing (like the Fed Res does) to suit yourself for another one of your "Kat" fights, you divertingly still haven't provided a timeframe for what you'd count as a notably qualifiable war. I'll address that and your other astray issues in the next posts. Edited punctuation and spelling.
There are no replies to Comment # 41. End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis is not trolling.
#3. To: Cynicom, 4 (#2)
#7. To: Lod (#3)
It's sad that there is not one person running on a Peace Platform.
#17. To: Katniss, Cynicom (#7)
#24. To: Obnoxicated (#17)
There were signs of preparation for war in the ME in the 80's, but it was subtle. The developement of the Abrams tank, Cobra choppers and other battle platforms designed for use in desert environments. The switchover of uni's from G.I. olive green to tan khaki's. The bombing of the marine barracks in '83. (false flag op?) The signs were there if you were paying attention.
#25. To: Katniss (#24)
By that logic spending even a dollar on anything related to defense while not at war qualifies as preparing for war.
#26. To: Cynicom (#25)
#35. To: Katniss, Cynicom, Lod, Obnoxicated, Abraham (#26)
(Edited)
Cynicom at #4 to Lod at #3: I am eighty three years olde, and have not seen one year of no war or not preparing for war. There has never been true peace, only a cessation of hostilities for a period.
Katniss at #6 to Cynicom at #4: I think you'd have to insert major in front of war. I'm nowhere near 83 and I distinctly remember no major war and no direct preparations for war from the mid-70s until approximately 15 years later when the first Desert Storm or whatever it was called happened. I was in the military then and recall not even a remote threat of going to any war. Unless you call merely having a military and the standard maintenance of that military directly preparing for war, I disagree. You need to define your terms.
Lod at #13 to All: wars of the us - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...volving_the_United_States A rather amazing history US has. [Site title notation: List of wars involving the United States]
Katniss at #24 to Obnoxicated at #17: Well, as I said, I distinguished between direct and indirectly. By that logic spending even a dollar on anything related to defense while not at war qualifies as preparing for war. As I said, terms need to be defined, they're too broad. That's like saying that the cops have been preparing for a police state ever since the force was around. Clearly not true although the logic is the same.
#37. To: GreyLmist (#35)
I don't understand what your definition of a major war is, Katniss, if not the massive Desert Storm strikes and invasion of Iraq in 1990 that's estimated to have killed 20-35,000 Iraqis and wounded 75,000;
until approximately 15 years later when the first Desert Storm or whatever it was called happened.
Prior to that, we invaded and regime-changed both Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989-1990).
I think you'd have to insert major in front of war.
Why limit an octogenarian's real-time observations of our country's various war-footings to just a Post WWII timeframe of 15-years or so that later generations can relate to?
#39. To: Katniss (#37)
#40. To: GreyLmist (#39)
(Edited)
#41. To: Katniss (#40)
(Edited)
You at #37: This is why we have these semi-idiotic exchanges.
Replies to Comment # 41.