Cruz Endorses Trump

Saturday, September 24, AD 2016


Well, he says he will vote for him.  Here is the text of what Cruz said:


This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.


In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”


After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.


I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.


Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.


Six key policy differences inform my decision.


First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”


For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.


Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.


Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.


Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.


Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.


Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.


These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.


If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.


My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.


We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.


Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.


The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.


Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.


A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Cruz Endorses Trump

  • Hopefully, truly Cruz realizes that Hillary will inflict fatal damage to the Republic. The rest of the lame never-Trump crowd needs to get off their high horses and help stop Hillary.
    Didn’t they also take the pledge? The Bushes, Kasichs, et al need to get with the program.

  • As I posted on Facebook, I would prefer a GOP candidate other than Donald Trump, but … I shall vote for Trump even if I have to pinch my nose, suppress my gag reflex and tighten my sphincter. I can excuse Jimmy Carter (an incompetent idiot), George H. W. Bush (senility), William Jefferson Clinton (an adulterer and the husband of the lying murderess opposing Trump) and Barack Hussein Obama (a traitor who merits the punishment reserved for treason). But I cannot excuse George W Bush whom I respected and admired. That he too has revealed he will not support Trump as the GOP candidate means that he will knowingly and willingly vote for a murderess and a pathological liar. Trump may be thrice married, a gambler, and a foul mouthed opportunist, but compared to Poppaea Sabina Caesar, he is a saint. And PS, Trump never denies what he is. About that he has been honest, a virtue rare if not non-existent in anyone running for political office.

  • “…a murderess and a pathological liar…” Well said. There is no choice. Glad to see Ted Cruz agrees.

  • Pulling the lever against Hillary gets easier by the day. Lists of priority issues may vary, but that woman’s promises are just plain horrifying. And what if she dies in office—plausible—and her wonderfully devout Catholic veep becomes our overlord? Shudder…

  • This is good news. Nice to have the family getting back together again–sort of.

    I understand some Trump supporters are upset about Cruz’s endorsement. Just because it was slow in coming and back handed should be no reason for such childish peevishness.

  • This strikes me as strange coming this late in he game. I think it could possibly hurt Trump because it can make him look desperate. Trump made it a point the day after the convention that he didn’t want Cruz’s endorsement. Now it looks as though Trump is groveling. In the short term it makes Cruz look like he caved. But it’ll be long forgotten two years now when Cruz seeks reelection for the senate, let alone four years from now. In any event, I think it proves once again that Cruz’s political acumen is highly overrated.

  • I think the impact will be very good– along with the Catholic advisory board which includes a guy I really like – Rick Santorum.
    Cruz and The Catholic advisors are showing leadership at a time that a lot of mugwumpers looking for someone help them decide to vote for Trump.

  • Lucius, Did “W” actually say that he would vote for Hillary? Saying that one will not vote for Trump does not mean that there will be a vote for Hillary. IHO I don’t think Pres. George W. Bush would vote for Hillary as he has integrity. I agree with you about his father.
    .Anzlyne, thank you for bringing up the Catholic advisory board. I do believe they are quietly working behind the scenes with results.

  • As far as I’m concerned, the only reason why Cruz got on the Trump Train is to secure his reelection to the Senate two years from now. He may not get re-elected, because a lot of folks in the Lone Star state despise him,

  • Funny, that doesn’t look like an endorsement to me…. it looks like a natural development on party unity and trying to figure out who is the least bad option.
    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus- wasn’t that story in the same vein, but even less supported? Some guy who went to a small group event reported W said he was worried about stuff?

Exit Ted Cruz: For Now

Thursday, July 21, AD 2016


Only Trump knows why he decided to give a prime time slot to Ted Cruz when he knew, based upon an advance copy of his speech, that Cruz would not endorse him.  It might well be a final sign of contempt for a defeated adversary who Trump believes is now harmless.  “Let him say what he wants”, Trump might have thought, “what do I care?”

As for Cruz after the personal attacks that Trump had made against his wife and father, he could not endorse Trump. He plans to run in 2020.  He knows that there are two possible outcomes in the fall.  If Trump loses he will not be associated with what most Republicans will then regard as a mad episode in the history of their party.  If Trump wins, Cruz likely assumes that his Presidency would be a train wreck of epic proportion and that if Trump runs again he will be vulnerable in the 2020 primaries.

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Exit Ted Cruz: For Now

  • I confess I was for Ted Cruz. Now, I know better.
    He’s (and the #NeverTrump die-hards are) helping elect Hillary, who will appoint three to four even-more progressive Supreme Court justices.
    Millions of GOP primary voters are (what?) “chopped liver.”
    He pledged to support the duly-constituted nominee and now he refuses. In my book, that’s lying. He’s stabbing all of us in the back.

    Exeunt Ted: forever.

  • 2020? 2020!!?? Give Hillary four more years of fundamental transformation: And, what of America and our way of life will have survived?
    It don’t mean nothin’.
    After giving Hillary a big assist, #NeverTrump jackasses will tell us that Trump couldn’t have won, even with their assist.
    It don’t mean nothin’. There won’t be anything left.

  • Catholic “Never Trumpers/”I’m not voting!” are paving the way for Hillary. Their pseudo-moral objection to voting is so self-important it makes me sick.

    T. Shaw is absolutely right. I have no idea what you Never Trump people are thinking. There will be nothing left by the time Hillary is done and you prigs will have it on your consciences.

  • What Catholic Never Trumpers are to this election are what open boarders Islam apologists are to Europe.

  • Actually T.Shaw Trump has been adamant in his contention that he will win, with or without Republican party unity. I happen to think he is right, but win or lose this is Trump’s ballgame. If he were a conventional politician I wouldn’t give him better than a 20% shot. But he is a highly unconventional politician in a highly unconventional year and his success or his failure will be all Trump.

  • They welcomed Cruz like it was Palm Sunday. He spoke of principles. By the end of the speech, they were chanting “Crucify him!” Cruz. Genius.
    If Trump is so great and nothing will stop the Trump train (“You’re be sick of winning so much.”), what’s the big deal? If Trump supporters are so confident in their candidate, a call to vote your conscience should not rattle any Trump supporter, unless there is something bothering their conscience. If Trump and supporters want me to vote Trump, you have to have something better than “He’s not Hillary.” Give me affirming reasons.
    Ditto what Donald said.


    I’m a jackass, huh? Sound like a Trump man for sure.

    That’s how they treated the runner-up for President, too. And his wife, the almost First Lady. She needed a police escort to exit the building and ensure her safety from these people.

    I want no part of it. I will never support a man with character that produces such as that.

    And truth be told, you don’t really know WHAT Trump’s policy goodies are that you base so much on. Because he’s never really said Anything more than “It’s going to be great!”

  • If Trump is so great and nothing will stop the Trump train (“You’re be sick of winning so much.”), what’s the big deal? If Trump supporters are so confident in their candidate, a call to vote your conscience should not rattle any Trump supporter, unless there is something bothering their conscience. If Trump and supporters want me to vote Trump, you have to have something better than “He’s not Hillary.” Give me affirming reasons.

    For the same reason they booed Cruz when he urged Republicans to “vote their conscience.” Why would such a statement elicit boos unless those in attendance were implicitly acknowledging that a vote for Trump was a vote against their conscience? These people feign confidence, but in their heart of hearts they understand they are backing an inept, morally bankrupt, left-wing Democrat who is substantively no different than Hillary Clinton. Thus they are left with mathematically and logically implausible cliches such as “not voting for Trump is the same as voting for Hillary,” as though the Cheetoh Messiah (or any GOP candidate, for that matter) is owed obeisance.

  • If “don’t stay home, vote your conscience, choose who you think will be the best for the constitution” means “don’t vote Trump” to the Trump supporters, why exactly am I supposed to be willing to vote for him?
    The guys who SUPPORT THE GUY think he’d be worse for the constitution than Hillary? Whu?
    He pledged to support the duly-constituted nominee and now he refuses. In my book, that’s lying. He’s stabbing all of us in the back.
    Exeunt Ted: forever.

    So you’re a #NeverTrump, then?
    He DID publicly announce he wouldn’t keep his pledge, after all, before he won. Far as I’m concerned, that freed anybody else who joined in the deal and was still running from at a minimum supporting him, even before one points out again that support =/= endorse and the Trump supporters are the ones implicitly arguing he’s to be considered worse for the constitution than Hillary.

    It was beyond moronic when the Federation ignored that the Romulans were violating their treaty, and bound themselves by it even when dealing with open violations; the stakes here are real, rather than plot points.

  • Cruz acted like someone loyal to the principles of the party, even if that means working with someone you loath.
    Trump acted like the party should be loyal to his personal whims.


    Is worth reading. Trump cannot fix what’s wrong with the country. Both he and Hillary are in many ways the object lessons of what needs fixing.

    Prudential judgment will have to be used to determine which candidate is most likely to create circumstances that could ever save our nation.

    Perhaps admitting the solution will not be political is a start for us Catholics. And admitting what would save Catholicism here in the US isn’t politics.

  • It is madness to think that Hillary could be of any utility in improving, let alone saving, the nation. No prudent prudential judgment could ever reach that conclusion. I doubt if Trump would be of utility either. I know that Hillary would be a disaster as President, and I suspect the same of Trump. I guess that makes Trump marginally preferable, but not enough for me to vote for him, especially when he spouts nonsense like this:

    Trump is deeply ignorant and wrongheaded. Hillary Clinton is simply an evil crook. What a Hobbesian choice!

  • “Let him say what he wants”, Trump might have thought, “what do I care?”

    if so that is a greater degree of magnanimity than the Democrats showed Gov. Bob Casey in 1992.

  • T. Shaw – You’re a liar, your wife is ugly, and your dad killed Kennedy.

    I expect a civil reply.

    Paul – I’m sure they weren’t angry because their consciences were nagging them. They were angry because that was the spot in the speech where he would have said to vote for Trump, and he conspicuously didn’t.

  • Pinky,
    The Trump supporters are still angry long after the speech is over and have not properly digested the gift Cruz gave them with “vote your conscience.” That’s what happens when you are consumed with anger; the ability to think is clouded.
    I love The Federalist’s comparison of “vote your conscience” to a Rorschach test.
    As it turns out, “vote your conscience” wasn’t just a line in a speech. It was a Rorschach test, and the Trump campaign failed miserably.

  • Kyle, I don’t quite agree with the column. It seems like you don’t have to spin it (even though it’s a convention) and you don’t have to take offense at it (even though this is politics). You could ignore it. You could say, yeah, well, we don’t have to agree on everything.

  • If Hillary wins, her party will be unleashed to do as much damage as possible to our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law. Obama has done many things that ordinarily would not stand but for the opposition party’s fear of being branded racist. Trump would enjoy no such immunity. He would be tightly restrained. My favored candidate did fail to keep his word. He should have known the meaning of his pledge to support the ultimate nominee. As to Trump’s apparently unforgiveable insults, “Et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
    sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris”. I suppose that means I must forgive Ted Cruz, so I do but the bumper sticker has outlived its usefulness and will be removed. Hillaria Delenda Est

  • In order for Cruz to make an effective presidential run in the future he has to learn that when speaking less is more. He gets way too verbose. For example, during the debates he went after Rubio about the Gang of Eight. Great! I too thought the G8 bill was a scam and proved that Rubio is the two faced piece of political excrement I had hitherto thought. But the way Cruz went about it allowed Rubio to spin Cruz’s adding poison pill amendments as support for amnesty. All Cruz would have to have done is ask, “Senator Rubio, would a President Rubio veto a Gang of Eight like piece of legislation should it reach his desk?” And more than likely, Rubio, being true to form, would not have given a straight yes or no answer to that question. To which Cruz could respond ladies and gentlemen the fact that Senator Rubio is not willing to give a yes or no answer to that question tells you that he is not being honest with you. And he still has not disavowed that bill. And then let the mic hit the floor!

  • Can we please get over this ridiculous pledge thing. As outlined below, Trump broke it months ago.

  • Both parties are taking the country to hell. I guess you could compare them to the tortoise and the hare……one is just going to get us there FASTER, and that would be Hillbillery’s party. If this convention didn’t expose the corruption, and diabolic narcissism of both parties and the people that run them to ‘the people’, NOTHING will. Can’t wait to see the Dems’ party of death in action next week.

  • TLM, Yes. Both parties are taking the country to hell. I am a lifelong 5’decade Republican and Imsay pox on those people. Don’t recognize it any more.

    I think Cruz, statesman that he is, recognizes this as the fundamental point. The current Party system (both sides) is played out and we are about to see some real revolutionary (in the strictly political sense) never seen in our lifetimes.

    GW Bush worries that he will be the last Republican President. I think that’s possible. I think Trump will lose. And when he does, the Party will never recover from it. Cruz will emerge as the only adult on the stage who knows how to salvage conservative principles instead of compromise them. So many people are yearning for this. And he will do it by forming a “Constitutionalist” political Party. THAT was the point of his speech. Trump is doomed. Cruz is setting the stage for the inevitable next.

  • The pledge is kind of a sophomoric idea….especially in a year and a field of contenders like this. I think my two favorites, Santorum and Rubio both took the pledge, but they grimaced a bit when put on the public spot during the “debate”. Neither of them went to the coronation party last. Rubio sent his in, ( and he really is very busy with a very tough contest in Florida. I haven’t head about Santorum’s support yet…. It may be tacit and it may take the form not fighting against Trump.

  • Perhaps the most significant thing, and easily the most amusing, is Mark Shea putting up an oblique defense of Ted Cruz:

  • Shea has definitely become deranged:

    Booing a defeated candidate speaking at a convention nominating the winning candidate is a strike against religious liberty? Of course Shea, never doing any research, failed to realize that the “vote your conscience” reference by Cruz was a reference to the earlier attempt by the Never Trumpers to change the Convention rules to allow delegates on the first ballot to “vote their conscience”, and have a free choice as to the candidate they voted for, never mind that some states bind their delegates to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters of the state. Cruz was basically baiting the Trump loyalists at that point, and I doubt he was surprised by the boos, but rather relished them. Of course all of that zoomed over the head of Mark who never has let ignorance stand in the way of his pontificating.

  • Mr. Zummo, If you break a pledge that doesn’t give me the right to break mine. Mr. Cruz knows better he was brought up by a God fearing man who is a preacher. I’m sure Cruz was taught “Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.” I’m sure he is hurting right now,for he is a good man and he broke his word.

  • Ludicrous. No morality requires a man to keep a contract when another party to it has breached it.

  • I”m not talking about a contract. I’m talking about my word. You are a lawyer you think in contracts, I’m just a mother, Grandmother and a great grandmother and so I think different then you. I just want all my family to be men and women of there word. My grandmother said that is what people will judge you on.

  • So how do judge Trump then?
    Just curious, since he went back on his word too.

  • If you are talking to me, Mr. Schreiber, I am judging no one. I just said that’s what my grandmother said and that is what I tried to teach my children and they taught their children and I hope my grandchildren are teaching their children.

  • I”m not talking about a contract. I’m talking about my word
    If you hold contracts to be a different matter than giving your word, that speaks to you, not others.
    This isn’t an ancient Irish tragedy; we do not have a geis forcing us to ignore the spirit of the pledge for the words alone.
    Imagine there are two farmers. Their co-op asks that, as a condition of joining, they state that the guy who gets his stuff bailed first will have everyone else helping him load it.
    Months before harvest, when it looks like he’s going to lose, one starts talking about how he’s only going to help folks with their loaded if he likes the guy who gets his stuff bailed. He also starts calling around suggesting that other farmers are bankrupt and won’t pay their bills, so they have trouble getting help. The co-op does nothing.
    The one who announced that he wasn’t bound by his agreement manages to get his hay bailed first.
    And suddenly the agreement is important, again.

  • If you are talking to me, Mr. Schreiber, I am judging no one. I just said that’s what my grandmother said[.]
    Spoken like a lawyer.
    So allow me to rephrase: Is Donald Trump a man of his word?

  • Based on some of the stuff I’ve heard to day, Donald Trump is more interested in making sure Ted Cruz stays beaten than he is in beating Hillary Clinton. I don’t know what that bodes for Donald’s (McClarey, not Trump) November prediction, but it’s an ill-omen for the future of conservatism in the GOP.

  • Your not saying to me “Spoken like a lawyer” Please!! That is funny! All of you are so much more educated then I. I am just a very simple old woman from a different time. I just got through high school with very low grades! Y’all have made a mountain out of a mole hill in what I wrote. No I don’t think Mr. Trump is a man of his word. But I don’t think it bothers him (to brake his word). On the other hand I do think it bothers Mr. Cruz.

    Mr. Schreiber are you a lawyer?
    have to go finish my ironing, Blessings to all

  • Not a lawyer.
    Not a mind reader (“I do think it bothers Mr. Cruz. [to break his word]”) either, for that matter.
    And the issue here, it seems to me, isn’t whether or not keeping or breaking one’s word bothers or doesn’t bother any particular candidate. The issue is whether or not it bothers you as a voter.
    Because politicians are only going to get worse until we start demanding that they get better.

  • It also matters if we consider his actions to be breaking his word.
    Kind of like the endless “Israel violates cease-fire by shooting back” stories.

  • Yah but 🙂
    just out of curiosity Donald, did the pledgers make the pledge or contract with the GOP or with the other candidates- it seems to me that if one of the other pledgers breaks his word to the party that would not release all the other pledgers from their bond

    Even though I didn’t like the pledge idea- it reminded me the ornery big brother knuckling the other brother under and insisting he cry uncle..,

  • Y’all make me smile. I am not in your league to argue any point. Most of the time I have to go look up some of the words y’all use. All I can do is to vote. I am an election judge I do my best to see to it that everyone gets to vote if they need help, help them and it doesn’t matter if I agree with their vote or not. In my state we had the voter ID but the powers that be have cast that down. We that worked the poles really liked it. Please don’t ask me why it just made it easier for us and I don’t see where it discriminates

  • My father told me that a man is as good as his word. He also said some people will never lie when the truth will serve. Apparently the truth about the Benghazi attack did not serve the political interests of Hillary and Obama. But Hillary’s fabricated stories about being “under sniper fire” and ducking for her safety, or that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary who climbed Mount Everest when she was five years old, serve no purpose at all. One can only suppose she has a rich fantasy life, something William Safire speculated upon twenty years ago. If one lives in a state that goes Democrat always, an abstaining vote can be a statement of principle. I live in a state that can go either way. So I must vote for Trump to keep Hillary away from the levers of power. If we just charitably presume poor judgment on the part of Hillary and Obama, their policy decisions have resulted in the loss of thousands of lives here and abroad, to say nothing of the vast sums of money wasted for no good purpose.

  • In case of you are wondering if Cruz was right for not endorsing Trump, this ought to convince you he was absolutely right:

  • Greg, would that be a video of proud Trumpilles dragging the corpse of slain Cruztor behind his chariot as he circles the fabled walls of Quicken Loans Arena?

  • If the Clinton people are smart, they’ll realize Trump has just laid out the roadmap to beating him in November with that bit of self-indulgent crowing.

Ted Cruz Talks to A Trump Supporter

Monday, May 2, AD 2016


Ted Cruz talks to a Trump supporter.  Cruz is intelligent and patient, the Trump supporter, like his candidate, is ignorant, obnoxious and belligerent.  If Cruz loses tomorrow in Indiana then Trump will be the Republican nominee.  If Cruz wins, it is likely that Trump will not win on the first ballot and he probably will not be the nominee.  It all comes down to the Hoosier State.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Ted Cruz Talks to A Trump Supporter

  • While I am critical of much of Cruz’s communication style. He often drones on for far too long, just listen to his speech announcing Carly as his running mate. And the his recent exchange with Megyn Kelly where he wouldn’t shut up and let her ask a question. And it was on her show, for crying out loud ! But Cruz absolutely shined in this exchange. I especially like how he calmly, but explicitly, told that guy that Trump was playing him for a chump. I have long believed that politicians need to challenge voters more and stop pandering to them. And the way Cruz dealt with that Trump supporter is an example of what I am talking about.

  • Please, God, inspire the solid men and women of America’s heartland in Indiana to stop the Trumpish acid that is infecting social discourse. Return Trump to his Trump tower to do whatever it is he does there, no longer a danger to the rest of us. Elevate Ted Cruz, a most patient, learned and humble man who sees a vision of America that respects our Founders and honors their Constitution. Please, God. May Donald J Trump begin his long, slouching slog to ruin tomorrow. And may America heal from the charlatans that have infected Her political discourse for too long.

  • This exchange also illustrates that you’d have better luck pulling teeth with tweezers than reasoning with a Trump supporter.

  • Crus’s father should have been there to smite this trumpish barbarian upstart.

  • Trump is currently leading in Indiana:
    Trump would not have been a possibility if the Republicans had defied Obama and the Democrats. And ironically Trump supporters are the same kind of imbeciles as their Democrat opponents.

  • Trump evidently appreciates Cruz’s talents. He is rumored to be considering him for a nomination to the Supreme Court when he is the President. Donald truly knows the art of the deal. One approach is to co-opt the enemy. Pretty shrewd particularly now.

  • Actually Trump on Fox this morning was peddling the ludicrous National Enquirer smear that Cruz’ father was in league with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Trump is beneath contempt.

  • So obnoxious. Surrounding an unsuspecting person with security and reporters and droning on and on and on about Donald Trump. Then calling him a chump. If you respect the guy so much leave him the hell alone and stop using him for your talking points. And then later he threatens to spank a little kid. Classy guy that Ted Cruz.

  • Written like a true member in good standing of the Trump cult. The bozo Cruz was trying to have a conversation with obviously was pleased to have an opportunity to spew his hatred and ignorance. He was playing to his fellow cult members who were present. I will give him this however, he was just as articulate as Trump tends to be.

  • All you Trumpsters: I have a dollar that says that you will never see a wall on the southern border, you will never see any deported, and that you WILL see total AMNESTY for all illegals. You will get it one way or the other.
    God help us. Six months in office the Donald will announce that the wall will be too expensive and that something “smart” needs to be done like AMNESTY! And, more likely Hillary and her majority democrat/liberal/progressive Congress and liberal-packed Supreme Court will do it all day-one.
    What are you going to then, Trumpsters?

  • P@triot,

    Cruz is indeed a classy guy. He gave a Trump supporter considerable personal, unscripted time to engage on the issues with YouTube cameras rolling. He respected him enough to let the Trump supporter choose the topics, and Cruz engaged him on his own topics. Not a photo op; a true interchange on ideas. Brave man to go one-on-one like that with a rowdy Trump protester, not knowing the outcome in advance. It is not Cruz’s fault that this Trump supporter does not have an original idea in his head and cannot explain in even one sentence what Trump is going to do on the issues. Trump HIMSELF has not explained this. “Lyin’ Ted”. That’s all he’s got. Cruz gave him considerable time there. Much more than he deserved. And he revealed to Indiana voters not just his position on issues, but his steady, fearless, polite character.

  • Brian.
    This was another losing moment for Cruz. It was probably a set-up by Trump to make Cruz look bad which it did to most folks. Cruz should have thanked the guy and walked away. In politics to explain and defend is to lose.

  • “This was another losing moment for Cruz.”

    No this was a winning moment if one does not limit winning to this campaign. I can imagine the “conversation” that Trump would have had with a Cruz supporter. Trump is a child in an adult body and so are many of his supporters. God help the country.

  • Sadly, Donald, the infantile minds supporting Trump seem to have the upper hand. To paraphrase Theoden, what can man do against such reckless stupidity?

    A republic, if you can keep it. Not for much longer.

  • “Sadly, Donald, the infantile minds supporting Trump seem to have the upper hand.”

    I think that four years of Trump as President might cure that. The essence of being a snake oil salesman is not sticking around after the mark purchases the snake oil. If Trump beats Clinton, and I would not bet against that occurrence, that option will not be available to him.

  • I have to confess a part of me hopes that Trump does win the general if he is the nominee, only because I look forward to squeals of horror roughly a year from now when he’s pushing an amnesty bill.

  • Michael, only in Trumpian politics is an explanation considered a loss. Only a Trumpster not want one. “It’s all about the emotive I suppose.

  • I hereby announce that if Trump becomes President, a TrumpWatch column will chronicle his various betrayals and misadventures. I will glean whatever amusement I can from the Trump Years!

  • It was probably a set-up by Trump to make Cruz look bad which it did to most folks.

    In what universe?
    It made folks who think Trump’s manner is awesome think Cruz looks bad, but that’s because Trump is a shallow bully. Cruz didn’t act like a drunk with serious insecurities about his masculinity, he acted like an adult who is really confident– that does not make him look bad to “most folks.”

  • What made Cruz “look bad” here is that he gave a group what they claim to want– and they choked on it.
    He provided what Trump supporters have demanded– honesty, a direct response, listening– and when they could find nothing of substance or behavior to complain about, they decided to declare that he just “looks bad.”

  • It seems like it is more about Trump-hate, than any actual support for Cruz amongst the Cruz supporters. At least amongst DT supporters they can say they want him because he will stop the flood of illegals, or he will protect gun rights , or won’t kiss Wallstreets butt. All Cruz supporters do is tell you how much they hate DT. And that’s why he’s losing. Look at the video. Cruz spends most of the time talking about DT. He can’t run on his congressional record because he did nothing.

  • Foxfier. My remark was based on good authority.

    “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

    ― Ronald Reagan, The Reagan Diaries

  • It seems like it is more about Trump-hate, than any actual support for Cruz amongst the Cruz supporters

    I’ve supported Ted Cruz throughout the campaign, and with great enthusiasm. My only trepidation was his lack of gubernatorial experience, thus why I initially preferred Walker, Perry, and Jindal. Once it was clear those three were heading nowhere, it was an easy transition to support Cruz.

    he will stop the flood of illegals, or he will protect gun rights , or won’t kiss Wallstreets butt.

    Oh, you guys are so cute because you really think this is true.

    He can’t run on his congressional record because he did nothing.

    You’re really going to pit Ted Cruz’s political record against that of one of the Democrat’s biggest donors? Oh, I do hope you’re kidding.

  • “least amongst DT supporters they can say they want him because he will stop the flood of illegals, or he will protect gun rights , or won’t kiss Wallstreets butt.”

    None of which of course is true: Trump has hired illegal aliens over the years, been in favor of amnesty, been in favor of gun control and is a crony capitalist from the start of his career. Few political movements in history have been more delusional than the support of members of the Trump Cult for a man completely antithetical to the political positions they claim to adhere to.

  • Six months in office the Donald will announce that the wall will be too expensive and that something “smart” needs to be done like AMNESTY!

    Really? That long? As I recall, it took Bill Clinton less than a month of working harder than he’d ever worked in his life to renege on that middle class tax cut he promised in 1992.
    I also recall Obama joking with some late-night chatterer about telling his daughters that all of that talk about getting a puppy for the white house was what is called a “campaign promise.”
    People never seem to learn.

    “Sadly, Donald, the infantile minds supporting Trump seem to have the upper hand.”
    I think that four years of Trump as President might cure that. The essence of being a snake oil salesman is not sticking around after the mark purchases the snake oil. If Trump beats Clinton, and I would not bet against that occurrence, that option will not be available to him.

    I think they’re going to be even angrier and more infantile than they are now.

  • The only thing Trump supporters can honestly say about Trump is that Trump says alot of things people like.
    And if they don’t like what he says?
    He’ll just say something else!

  • You Trump and Reagan have much in common in their mutual histories: both former Democrats, both actors, both formerly pro abortion, both divorced and remarried, etc.

    Personally, I see Donald Trump as the new Ronald Reagan, only bigger and better. Now, perhaps some on this site might tend to disagree or it seems to appear that way from the remarks above.

  • You Trump and Reagan have much in common in their mutual histories: both former Democrats, both actors, both formerly pro abortion, both divorced and remarried, etc.

    You missed a bunch: They were both carbon-based life forms, both had ten fingers and ten toes, both flew on airplanes, and both never appeared in my kitchen.

    Personally, I see Donald Trump as the new Ronald Reagan, only bigger and better. Now, perhaps some on this site might tend to disagree or it seems to appear that way from the remarks above.

    Gee Michael, what gives you that idea? Is it the vast number of times people have pointed out the innumerable ways Trump is nothing like Reagan? Did Reagan donate millions of dollars to pro-abort Democrats? Conversely, did Trump take the stump and deliver speeches and radio addresses promoting conservative ideals? Did Donald Trump ever win elective office as a Republican, governing the largest state and proving his credentials? Did Ronald Reagan personally insult his opponents?

    You’re free to wallow in your delusion Michael. You may have even convinced yourself your support for Trump is not purely emotion-based nonsense based on an incoherent stream of talking points you’ve swallowed whole. Whatever gets you through the day. Sadly your vote counts as much as the person who actually is informed. Ain’t democracy great?

  • The attempted Trump analogy to Reagan reminds me of this statement of a political candidate:

    My opponent reminds me of Lincoln, if one could imagine a short, fat, bald, corrupt and lying Lincoln!

  • Michael,

    Reagan had a sense of humor and an infectious joy in life. The Happy Warrior. He deeply loved America. His profound respect for Her institutions guided his public life. He was a statesaman whomsurroundednhimself with men and women of similar quality.

    Trump? Like Reagan? In our alternate reality of 2016 perhaps; the reality of the insane.

  • Thanks Paul and Donald, I needed that. Frankly, I was trying to be funny. The idea of Trump = Reagan is simply outrageous, preposterous, absurd or whatever you got.

  • I didn’t care for Cruz. Watching him here made a big difference! Too bad that he didn’t do more of this earlier on because this kind of experience does bring out a lot of honest feelings. Anybody who has had to face people like this can appreciate what he is doing. It does bring out more sincerity in some people. I think he is genuine here. This is the kind of person we need, someone who as President, will at least try, like he is doing now! Hell, we will all go down the drain if we don’t learn to give and take and care about each other I am a Democrat, but I care about having leaders that truly want the best for us and too bad Cruz didn’t show more of this side!I

  • “Trump is beneath contempt.”
    So are those hosts at Fox for not even challenging him on the Rafael Cruz/Oswald claim.
    Delirium Tremens or Donald Trump supporters? Come to think of it, what’s the difference?

  • Michael Dowd- oh, wow, you did a somewhat related one-line quote from Reagan! I shall now shut down all objections because of that appeal authority, never mind the lack of coherent arguments or rational support for claims, or failure to answer arguments.
    Mind the puddle, sarcasm can be a bit caustic.
    With zero context, it’s impossible to know what Reagan was saying– assuming it was him, since it was an edited book– but “to explain and defend is to lose” is not the same as “if you are explaining, you are losing.”
    A search of the book’s text on google books turns up no such quote, and only one result for “explain” (it wouldn’t show it); a search for the quote suggests that a politician did say it, but he wasn’t Reagan.
    “Attack, attack, attack…. if you’re explaining, you’re losing.” – Lee Atwater're%20explaining%20you're%20losing%22&f=false

Who Is the Buddy of the GOP Establishment?

Friday, April 29, AD 2016




One of the frustrating thing about this campaign for sentient observers is the absurd claim of the crony capitalist Donald Trump to be an outsider running against the establishment.  John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, put paid to that notion yesterday:

A few months ago I asked a Washington insider for the scoop on Ted Cruz. His first words were, “No one likes Ted.” Well, John Boehner certainly doesn’t:

The longtime Ohio powerhouse had not been very outspoken on the race since retiring last year, but he held little back when asked about the Texas senator and underdog GOP presidential candidate during a forum at Stanford University.

“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life,” he said, according to The Stanford Daily.

Boehner also called Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh.” Trump, on the other hand, he described as a “texting buddy.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Who Is the Buddy of the GOP Establishment?

  • Darkly amusing, isn’t it?

  • Boehner – RINO and CINO.

  • After 40 years a registered Republican (that’s after being a South Chicago born 3rd son of Catholic Democrats whose older brother was the VP of Will County Young Democrats who introduced John Kennedy to the Joliet town center rally in 1960) I registered out of the Democrat Party as a “non partisan” because of the Democrats support of legal abortion. When the Republican Party adopted a Right to Life constitutional amendment, I registered Republican to support their principled position. last year, 40 years later, I registered out of the GOP because of disgust with the lose of principles the Congressional GOP leadership exhibited after we voters gave them the leadership positions in Congress to fight Obama and his dictatorial actions as President, which they said they would do if they won the majority. Well, we gave them the majority, first the House, second the Senate, but they never would fight for what they said they would when running for reelection. The only person who did fight Obama was Senator Cruz. I had to re-register as a Republican this year in order to vote for Cruz in the CA primary this June 7th because it is a closed election for Republicans, i.e., only registered Republicans can vote in the CA Republican Primary.

    John Boehner’s resent public comments about Cruz is the best evidence that Ted Cruz is the best and only man running who will change what is happening in Washington D.C. That is why the Republican leadership despises Ted Cruz. Cruz, given the power of President, will force the Republicans in Congress to fulfill their campaign pledges to their constituents or they will not get reelected. They will be replaced with men and women that Cruz endorses.

    We Catholics need to back Cruz to win back our freedom of religion rights and to have a very knowledgeable person in the White House to fill Scalia’s vacancy plus those of 2 or more Supreme Court vacancies in the next 4 years, to be sure our original Constitutional Rights will be protected for decades to come. He will also push and sign an anti-funding bill ending taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood saving the lives of hundreds of thousand of unborn babies we say we believe God created . A Democrat president, no matter who it is, would pack the court with more anti-constitutional judges, like the 4 on there now, and they will destroy our Constitution and the unborn will never get their rights back to be born.

  • Opps, a bit of confusion in what I just wrote concerning when I registered out of the Republican Party, and prior to the that, the Democratic Party I was “born into.” I left the D party in ’74, and was registered “non- partisan” while working in a grass-root pro-life political organization electing pro-life Congressmen all of whom were Republicans. I registered Republican because of their principled position in adding a RTL Constitutional Amendment to the GOP platform. I stayed registered Republican up until March of 2015 when they controlled both the House and the Senate but wouldn’t fight Obama and the Democrats on anything. I re-registered Republican last month when I was notified by the Register of Voters office in O.C. that not being in the GOP Party I won’t be allowed to vote for their Primary. The CA GOP Party has closed their primaries to only registered Republicans.

  • I do find it odd that a billionaire is not somehow part of the “elite,” that the GOP “dumps” Boner as speaker and replaces him with Ryan, who is just as bad, and thinks sentient people won’t notice, and Ted, while being vilified by fellow GOPeratives, still has a Goldman Sachs wife but is an “outsider.”

    Appears to me they are all insiders to some degree or another. Perhaps Ted is less of one, but there is no politician who can be trusTED.

  • A “Goldman Sachs wife”?
    Horrors, is she supposed to be a librarian? A model? A community organizer? Stay-at-homes aren’t allowed, we know, and likewise unmarried isn’t OK– but what, exactly, is the wife of a candidate allowed to do?
    Is Cruz supposed to have divorced her for being an investment banker?

  • @c matt “Perhaps Ted is less of one, but there is no politician who can be trusTED.”

    It there ever is a politician that can be trusted in our day and time, LION Ted Cruz is the one. If you can’t see that, that only goes to show how poorly informed you are. And that is what is wrong with our system, people have to inform themselves to defend against getting what we have been subjected to these past 8 years. Boehner’s disgusting attack of Cruz’s character is a testimonial Cruz is for real the guy who will return the power of government to the people; that is why he is hated so much by the establishment. For gosh sake, a number of them are saying they will vote for Hilary if Cruz gets the nomination. That means they care less about our country and more about keeping their establishment in tack. It is disheartening so many Americans don’t see that.

Ted Cruz Names Carly Fiorina as Veep Running Mate

Wednesday, April 27, AD 2016


Taking a tip from Ronald Reagan’s playbook, Ted Cruz names Carly Fiorina as his running mate.  Back in 1976 Reagan was behind Ford.  Prior to the Republican convention he named Senator Richard Schweiker (R.Pa) as his running mate.  Schweiker was a moderate Republican, although a strong pro-lifer.  Reagan came close to taking the nomination away from Ford at the convention.  Interestingly, Schweiker’s voting record became much more conservative thereafter.  In 1981 President Reagan appointed him as Secretary of HHS.

So, will this work?  Quien sabe?  It will get Cruz a lot of publicity going into the crucial Indiana primary.  Fiorina is an articulate and tough campaigner, and she should be getting intensive coverage for the next few weeks.  Trump, in the truly classless manner that he normally displays, will probably go over the top in his attacks against Fiorina.  All in all, I like the move.  It is unusual, but when you are behind doing the usual is a recipe for slow defeat.   Better to be bold and do the unexpected.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Ted Cruz Names Carly Fiorina as Veep Running Mate

  • I like the move to and for the reasons you give, but it’s still a hail mary pass.

  • Ted certainly has nothing to lose here. It looks about certain that DaDonald is gonna get the nomination. Perhaps Carly can bait Trump into a classless rant. But that hasn’t hurt DaDonald yet. I don’t know what worries me more, a Trump nomination or a Trump presidency.

  • One major network pointed out that Trump won in an affluent county of Maryland where Republican leaders live and in Bucks county PA which is affluent…meaning he won in areas that were not angry middleclass this week and he won at percents above those predicted by polls in many cases…and in a week wherein he reached 50% favorability for the first time. Strangest election ever. Convention leaders will have no leverage to deal with him if he goes above the 1237. ISIS staging an attack in September or October in Europe might put him in the white house easily. Pope Francis in the Vatican…Trump in the white house…Kim Jong-un in North Korea. The young have a shaky world before them…..but it all proves that God alone is one’s real security….so it is a very religious time in which to live.

  • I was pro Carly early, and thrilled at how pro life she was. I was also pro cruz. I’m thrilled that Cruz will have another engaging, pleasanr, smart person on his team able to genuinely articulate what’s wrong with Trump’s position on abortion, on trans identity in elementary school, tariffs, national security, etc.

    It may be a Hail Mary pass. But I’m saying a whole lot of prayers to Our Lady for our nation. Trump v Hillary is too terrible to contemplate.

  • Let us hope that Ted will be as gracious in defeat as he is tenacious in battle.

  • Carly was best candidate but was treated shabbily when it came to the debates. It may not work but it was a classy move.

  • Like the move. She is an articulate, smart woman who achieved her way to the top. She is an example of the American story. She is a classy, solid person who could fill the Office well. She has articulate answers to current problems. She seems prepared to meet the pressures, anger and violence of our day and lead in such times, as well as anyone.

  • Good ticket but it won’t help.

  • Well said Brian. You captured my thoughts exactly.

  • I like the ticket – 2 people with principles. People who can’t stand Cruz, like John Boehner, don’t have principles.

  • Brian likes Carly. Bad move Brian. Carly only makes Ted look desperate and weak. The classy thing for Ted to do now is pull out and try to heal all the wounds. Since he has no chance this would do the honorable thing to do.

  • The honorable thing Michael would be for Trump to realize he would be a disaster as President and for him to withdraw as an act of patriotism.

  • “The honorable thing Michael would be for Trump to realize he would be a disaster as President and for him to withdraw as an act of patriotism.”

    Good luck with that!

  • Trump might realize he shouldn’t have been so loose with his lips during this a campaign and he might have been able to have such a great running mate.

  • Donald’s right, Michael.

    What professional team do you know that walks off the court or the field with nine more games in the season left to play, and a chance to make the playoffs? This presidential delegate nomination system has been in existence for well over 150 years, with each state party having control over how they want it to occur. According to your “reasoning” in this 2016 Republican presidential nominee contest, if it were followed 156 years ago, as you suggest Cruz do, Abraham Lincoln would never have become President. He won a contested nomination contest because nobody won the minimum number of votes to necessary to win it outright. Lincoln, who was way behind the leader in 2nd or 3 place in delegate votes, won the nomination on the 3rd ballot in a contested election.

    Lets let the process work its way out, instead of caving into a spoiled brats demanding to be given the nomination even though he has not obtained the minimum number of votes required to win it outright.

  • Stillbelieve:

    If the choice is between two idiots pick the one that makes you laugh.

  • Michael, I don’t think a guy who has won 9 U.S. Supreme Court cases out of 9 is an “idiot.” However, I do think people who don’t recognize the seriousness of this election and are falling for Trump’s antics are idiots. If Hillary Clinton gets elected she will have 3 picks for the U.S. Supreme Court and that will destroy the Supreme Court, and our Constitution forever. Polls indicated Trump will lose 48 or more states if he is the Republican nominee. Trump’s “pattern” in his life is “buying influence.” He is the epitome of “inside Washington D.C. crony capitalism.” Furthermore, Trump has said “Hillary Clinton is a great Secretary of State” and has contributed to her campaigns. How will he ever be able challenge her effectively? And now, John Boehner’s saddling up to Trump as a “texting and golfing buddy” confirms Trump is the “establishment” in the flesh. And speaking of “flesh.” Boehner (the former GOP Speaker of the House run out of his job by conservatives the people elected) saying Cruz is “Lucifer in the flesh” and a “son of a bitch” is all Cruz has to run on TV ads as proof of who the real anti-establishment conservative is who will honestly fight for the peoples’ well being both in jobs and safety of the nation.

  • Stilbelieve:
    Excuse please. Just trying for a little humor to lighten things up what with all this ideological madness and all. No slur on Ted’s intelligence intended.

The Solid South Goes for Trump

Wednesday, March 16, AD 2016

Donald Trump’s clean sweep of southeastern states has taken many pundits by surprise, but it shouldn’t have. Trump’s performance in the south among evangelical voters is actually quite in keeping with the strain of evangelical conservatism prevalent in the bible belt.

Many moons ago in a prior blogging life I wrote a multi-part series detailing the different strands of American conservatism, and reading it now I may have forecasted the rise of Trump. First, I noted a type of conservatism (cranky conservatism) that seems to typify the Trump voter.

On the other end of the spectrum, the paleo-conservatives and crankycons seem to hate everything.  And yet they are most comfortable with populist schemes that betray the Framers’ original plans.  Their anti-elitism runs so deep that they would bequeath to the masses enormous power.  Their enemies are the ghouls in the academies with their fancy ideas.  But while they would have you believe that they are the true inheritors of the conservative mantle, their philosophy is a deep betrayal of the republican tradition.  Their ultimate designs are no less radical than the hated neocons they so regularly disparage.

Sounds like a typical Trump supporter to me.

As related to religion and conservatism, this is what I wrote back in 2005 (please ignore the horrible misspelling of hear as “here”):

Traditional conservatism is generally less concerned about the temporal world.  This strain of conservatism dates to Augustine, who saw utopian schemes for the foolishness that they were.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that the intellectual impetus behind this brand usually comes from the Roman Catholic Church, or its near neighbors in the Episcopalian version.  Buckley, Kirk, Ponnuru, Reagan: all thinkers who are Catholic or whose religion was close to that of Roman Catholicism.  This is no mere coincidence.

We here a lot about religion and the conservative movement, and indeed religion has played a crucial role in all conservative parties throughout the world.  But what many fail to understand, principally because they fail to understand Christianity is that there are crucial differences in the religious outlook of Evangelicals and Catholics, and these differences play out in the political world.  The steadfast pessimism of the Catholic faith is mirrored in the political outlook of most conservative Catholics.  They see this as a fallen world.  And while we should strive to make this world as good as we can, our expectations for the temporal world should not be so high.  Consequently, we should not put much stock in government and its ability to change the world.

I am not as well-versed in Evangelical religion to speak authoritatively, but it seems to me that the Evangelicals are much more optimistic about reshaping this earthly realm.  Their fervor for conversion seeps into their political consciousness, thus they have grander visions for reform than does the Catholic conservative.

It would be easy to simply paint as the essential demarcation in conservative thought as the interplay between Catholic and Evangelical theology.  It would be easy because it is essentially correct.  We share many of the same values, but at some point there is a rift in our fundamental vision of the government because there is a fundamental rift in our theological outlook.  That is not to say that all Catholics are all of a particular political stripe, and all Evangelicals of another.  But if one wants to understand the divergence in American conservative thought, there would be worse starting points than this examination of the difference between Catholicism and Evangelical religion.

None of the developments of the previous decade has changed my thinking on these matters. To be sure, not all Evangelicals are utopian, nor are all Catholic conservatives necessarily fierce opponents of “big government.” Indeed the lone remaining standard bearer of traditional conservatism is Ted Cruz, a fervent Evangelical himself. Yet the populist appeal of Trump in the south indicates there is something to this distinction. Meanwhile Cruz has done better in the southwest and midwest, areas of the country that have a more libertarian hue and better represent the traditional strain of conservatism.

Contrary to the narrative, this primary is far from over. Trump is likely to be the nominee, but Cruz still has a fighting chance. This is the ultimate showdown of the two types of conservatism I detailed many years ago. Regardless of who wins, I believe we’re just seeing the beginnings of a much fiercer war for the heart of conservatism.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Solid South Goes for Trump

  • Eight years ago there was a lot of talk about how the Republicans would turn toward libertarianism in order to win the presidency again. After eight years of Obama, they would drop their losing social issues and then return to power as libertarians.
    I always thought this was wrong. I thought that eight years later we would see a big movement toward economic nationalism (anti-free trade, anti-immigration) that would be combined with not reducing the size of the government. Essentially the opposite of what libertarians propose on economic issues.
    These views on fiscal issues would need to be combined with views on social issues. Here was where I was wrong. I figured the person would be a fairly conventional social conservative as we see them today (anti-abortion, pro-guns, etc.). What we got was George Wallace 2.0 (racism, talk of crime, downplaying of abortion and gay marriage).
    I was thinking someone in the mold of Mike Huckabee, not what we have in Donald Trump. Not that I would have been happy with Huckabee, as I am a more conventional conservative and free trader. However, in the general I could probably have supported him because of the social issues. With Trump I don’t even have that.

  • Reading this again now, Paul, I am reminded of how quickly and seamlessly I adopted your articulations. Ultimately, what you four gave me was a way to express what I had come to understand to be true. For that, I am most grateful.

  • Thomas Sowell – conflict of visions – might be time to read that, Paul. 😉 Oh and if we’re compiling list of conservatives – Sowell [unknown], Jonah Goldberg [secular jew], Kevin Williamson [catholic], Charlie Cooke [atheist], John Derbyshire [atheist], John C Wright [catholic] (off the top of my head) – actually maybe we should establish what our criteria is. Ponnuru is the one that throws me off your list since he’s pretty “recent” as far as writings go (otherwise I agree with the Kirk-Buckley-Reagen).
    As I’ve seen, there’s nothing really dividing the anointed vs tragic (Sowell’s terms) and certainly nothing endemic to any Christian branch that inoculates against either style (need we go fishing on Shea’s facebook or the st blogs for plenty of examples of what we might call utopian Catholics?)
    I think the answer may simply be pride. Utopians ultimately believe themselves or their systems far better and more capable than they can ever be

  • Ted Cruz and his preacher father Rafael Cruz propose a different kind of “let’s change this world” ideology. Trump preaches something like the prosperity gospel of Joel Olsteen, Joyce Meyer and Creflo Dollar: “We’re gonna’ make America great again / you name you claim it.” Cruz is a Seven Mountains Dominionist. Such Dominionists believe God has called on his elect (i.e., these Protestant fundamentalists) to punish secular society and redistribute wealth from the ungodly to the godly. I have watched You Tube videos of Rafael actually preaching stuff like that, and then praying over his son, saying that he is anointed to become one of these Godly kings who will do exactly that.
    We are rightly repelled by Trump’s foul mouth, uncouthed antics, his ignorance of conservative principles and American history, and his personal life of philandering and adultery. But we should also be concerned about giving the reigns to a Seven Mountains Dominionist. Of course, of the two, I prefer Cruz. He mouths words about Constitutional adherence and so far has a good trackk record. Yet when push comes to shove after he’s given the reigns of the Presidency, let’s see what he is going to do.
    Of course, the GOP could have a brokered convention and give the nomination to Mitt Romney who for Mormons would be the fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s White Horse Prophecy (yeah, I know that the LDS Church disavowed that prophecy in 1916, I think, but nevertheless, let’s see what happens).

  • My Catholic faith is not pessimistic, Jesus lived died and rose to bring hope. That is what the Mass is about… And we are given the mission to go out and give the Good News. Catholics know from the spiritual and corporal works of mercy that we are to do good works to a good effect for Love. The Catholic outlook is one of doers, of people who know that faith is reasonable and that faithful reason can make the difference in the lives of people even in this vale of tears.
    There used to be a common canard about catholic guilt – a Protestant view of Catholic understanding – seeing Catholicism as pessimistic may be similar more secular misunderstanding of accepting God’s will about what can’t be changed
    Catholic faith is optimistic- not the cockeyed optimism of the health and wealth preachers, but the optimism that made Catholics facing plagues build hospitals, and fight the Crusades, and build great schools.
    As far as the so called evangelicals of the south going for Trump, I think they are just that- so called.
    Cranks are cranks anywhere but the Catholic viewpoint has had a positive effect on thinking evangelicals and on the world.
    Catholics know that God is good and that we are called to the same. We are not concerned about conservatism for conservatism’s sake, but for the sake of what it is conservatism today is protecting.

  • Such Dominionists believe God has called on his elect (i.e., these Protestant fundamentalists) to punish secular society and redistribute wealth from the ungodly to the godly.,/blockquote>
    Good. He ought then to get along fabulously with Catholic preferential-option-for-the-poor social justice warriors.
    He said exacerbatedly

  • If I’ve learned anything during this primary, it’s that I was clearly wrong about the meaning of Evangelical. I thought it had something to do with living the commandments and being pro-life and things of that nature. Obviously if Donald Trump can be their standard bearer I was wrong.

  • Folks, evangelical Protestantism is a heresy. That does not mean that all Protestant evangelicals are wilfully heretical. But it is an error against the Faith – many errors in fact. For instance, they deny the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. True, most of them so deny because they were taught error from birth and know nothing else. But their errors are fundamental and at the very root of authentic Christianity. So of course they surround a demogogue like Trump who offers fruition of the prosperity gospel nonsense which the likes of Joel Olsteen teach.
    Catholics are similar when they go all liberal and embrace the social justice nonsense of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. It’s the same prosperity gospel idiocy just with a different name. And those Catholics similarly to their Protestant brethren likely don’t really believe in the real presence, either. It’s just a communal cracker after all. If they believed, then they would not abort and contracept like their Protestant cousins.

  • And I like to wear black and tan on St. Patrick’s Day.


  • Good analysis Paul Z. Now instantly to the bottom line. I think Trump and Cruz would be just the right ticket to compromise the internal Republican war and settle Hillary’s hash. It would be in both their interest to make this happen soon. As far as religion is concerned the two of them are about as religious as the Pope.


    @ Donna Ann.
    I came across this today.
    Might help to shed some light on evangelical trump-pet.

National Review Endorses Ted Cruz

Friday, March 11, AD 2016

No doubt this will only embolden a portion of you to oppose Ted Cruz all the more, but NR’s editorial endorsing Cruz lays out, with eloquence, the case for Cruz (and saves me a lot of time writing).

We supported Cruz’s campaign in 2012 because we saw in him what conservatives nationwide have come to see as well. Cruz is a brilliant and articulate exponent of our views on the full spectrum of issues. Other Republicans say we should protect the Constitution. Cruz has actually done it; indeed, it has been the animating passion of his career. He is a strong believer in the liberating power of free markets, including free trade (notwithstanding the usual rhetorical hedges). His skepticism about “comprehensive immigration reform” is leading him to a realism about the impact of immigration that has been missing from our policymaking and debate. He favors a foreign policy based on a hard-headed assessment of American interests, one that seeks to strengthen our power but is mindful of its limits. He forthrightly defends religious liberty, the right to life of unborn children, and the role of marriage in connecting children to their parents — causes that reduce too many other Republicans to mumbling.

That forthrightness is worth emphasizing. Conservatism should not be merely combative; but especially in our political culture, it must be willing to be controversial. Too many Republicans shrink from this implication of our creed. Not Cruz. And this virtue is connected to others that primary voters should keep in mind. Conservatives need not worry that Cruz will be tripped up by an interview question, or answer it with mindless conventional wisdom when a better answer is available. We need rarely worry, either, that his stumbling words will have to be recast by aides and supporters later. Neither of those things could be said about a lot of Republican nominees over the years.

Of course the Trump forces will just say that this is proof that Ted Cruz is really a member of the Establishment (as indeed one wag on Twitter suggested immediately upon seeing this news), but basically anyone who doesn’t think Donald Trump is the Messiah is deemed to be part of the evil Establishment by Trump supporters.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to National Review Endorses Ted Cruz

  • I’m independent. Cruz has been my choice from day one. Second was Dr. Carson.

  • Cruz, even without the much needed charisma.

  • Too late

  • A republic, if we can keep it….

  • “Of course the Trump forces will just say that this is proof that Ted Cruz is really a member of the Establishment (as indeed one wag on Twitter suggested immediately upon seeing this news), but basically anyone who doesn’t think Donald Trump is the Messiah is deemed to be part of the evil Establishment by Trump supporters.”

    Funny thing is, the Republican Establishment hates Cruz more than it does Trump.


  • I believe that Cruz is a man of integrity who stands by his principles regardless of pressure to do otherwise. He would make a good president, but I feel uncertain whether he can beat Clinton because I fear he will not go on the offensive and attack strongly and relentlessly as Trump will. Trump will continuously make media headlines, keeping him before the public eye. Whereas Cruz has not demonstrated this ability. He could use an expert to help him in this area. I am still upset at the way Romney wimped out and did not hit Obama strongly regarding his Benghazi negligence.

  • Interesting and noteworthy. Now that Rubio has imploded, Cruz is the best option About time Catholics took a stand. Obama was elected by professed “Catholics” despite being the most antii-Catholiic president since the Know-Nothings.

    the third entry is also interesting.. It was an answer on Jeopardy last night. I had never heard about it

  • Cruz’s wife Heidi works for Goldman Saks, and is a member of the Globalist Council on Foreign Relations. Funny how no one ever speaks of this. He is a long time insider and was a staffer on the Bush Campaign. He is just another politician.

  • First of all, it’s spelled Sachs, and Trumbots repeat this meaningless bit of information roughly every three minutes.

  • I fear he will not go on the offensive and attack strongly and relentlessly as Trump will.

    There is literally nothing in either man’s respective backgrounds that would suggest the above is true. If anything, Cruz has already demonstrated a far greater willingness to go on the offensive against Hillary than the man who invited her to his wedding.

  • By way of full disclosure, I have been a subscriber to the National Review since my puppy-hood Goldwater campaign days. WFB Jr. has gone to his reward but his spirit yet guides his absolutely not establishment magazine. Anyone who thinks NR is establishment is a borderline anarchist. Of course, I generalize.

  • I feel uncertain whether he can beat Clinton because I fear he will not go on the offensive and attack strongly and relentlessly as Trump will.

    The guy called Mitch McConnell, the leader of his own party, a liar. On the floor of the Senate no less.
    I don’t think you have to worry about Cruz unless your idea of a strong, relentless attack is calling Hillary Clinton a nasty, shriveled old hag or some such.

  • What did Mrs. Cruz say in her involvement with the CoFR?
    I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses.
    This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for
    the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such,
    instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed
    in conjunction with market participants.
    Heidi S. Cruz

    I can see how someone supporting property rights, business at the service of people, and subsidiarity would be horrifying to those who think Trump does great stuff with his business choices, but it’s not the track I’d use for arguing how evil a lady’s husband is on a Catholic blog.

  • Subtly put madam. Too subtly perhaps.
    But then, I’m a blunt instrument. Or an obnoxious, loudmouthed jerk.
    take yer pick

  • I’m happy for National Review writing this, but seriously…this has got to be the easiest call in my lifetime, in terms of primary support. Usually you have to balance the issues, the personalities, who you’d like to win versus who you think can win in the general election, et cetera. This time around? There’s one candidate who is as good or better than each of the others in every aspect that would drive my vote. It’s not a choice between the legal conservative versus the social conservative, between the candidate with experience versus the one with vision. I was discouraged at this campaign early on because it looked like the best people weren’t getting any traction. I’m discouraged now, for a different reason, but I couldn’t be happier with the lever I’m going to pull this time around.

  • They could have attacked Hillary and Bernie for not denouncing the violent attacks on Trump’s First Amendment campaign activities.
    Who on Cruz’s stellar staff advised him to execrate Donald Trump for suffering attacks organized by Black Lives Matter, Moron.Org, and terrorist bomber Bill Ayres?
    I will file it under “bad form.”

  • Bad form, yes. And also failure to correctly identify the enemy. I forgive him.

  • T – Has National Review ever failed to criticize Hillary or Bernie?

  • Yes, Paul. What he said. This is not a fine point in an academic debate, and it’s not a matter of casual speculation. Calling on your supporters to commit assaults always leads to the same thing. We can’t say “he’s a thug but he’s our thug”, because the fact of being a thug means he’s not ours. He is opposed to our founding principles of liberty and justice, and he campaigns on his opposition to them, and his campaign embraces the opposition to them as a matter of practice.

    This country is a rarity: we have believed that no one should be able to gather all our possessions up, even if they promise to allocate them out in our favor At least, one party has believed that. whether by erosion of principles or fear of the other guy’s thugs, a part of our party has come to believe that we need a thug of our own. But there’s no such thing as a thug in defense of self-governance.

  • Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is supposed to be holding a nationally televised “town hall” meeting in Springfield IL on Monday, the night before the IL primary, but to date she hasn’t announced where it’s being held or who’s been invited. A secret town hall meeting? Guess she’s not taking any chances….

  • BTW, Cruz finished fourth in the DC primary. If ever finishing last was better than victory, this is the time. It’s the equivalent of an anti-endorsement. Yes, DC cronies prefer Trump to Cruz.

    Rubio won the DC primary. I don’t think the Mondale map is what he envisioned as the path to victory.

And Then There Was, Let’s Face it, One

Tuesday, March 8, AD 2016

There have been roughly 456,343,455 articles written explaining the Trump phenomenon. My estimate might be off by one or two, but it’s in the ballpark. While I’ve long maintained that Trump is the most inappropriate vehicle possible for those who rightly feel dissatisfied with the Republican party, to me the anger expressed in the pro-Trump movement is entirely justified.

You would think by now that Republican party boosters would have a firm grasp on the political culture in which we’re operating in. Alas, based on the continued intransigence of a certain subset of the #NeverTrump movement, it is clear that they are as pigheaded and foolish as any Trump supporter.

#NeverTrump, for those of you who (smartly) don’t use Twitter, is a hashtag to express the solidarity of a movement that not only seeks to deny Trump the nomination, but which has also indicated its unwillingness to support Trump in the general election, no matter what. This group – and I am or was a part of this movement – has advocated strategic voting meant to deny Trump the ability to win the needed delegates before the GOP convention to secure the nomination. Many anti-Trumpsters advocated strategic voting wherein people voted for non-Trump candidates that were not necessarily their first choice but who had better chances in select states. So, for example, Cruz supporters should back Rubio in Florida, while Rubio backers were advised to go with Cruz in Louisiana.

We are now nearly two-fifths of the way trough the primary season, and it has become manifestly obvious to all but the most strident of Rubio and John “let them bake cakes” Kasich boosters than Ted Cruz is the only viable option to Donald Trump. Cruz has now won six states, and finished ahead of Trump in another. He has, moreover, won in the northeast, the northwest, and the heartland. In other words, the GOP electorate is coalescing around Cruz, while Rubio and Kasich struggle to even win enough votes to garner delegates. Cruz continues to poll the strongest against Trump, and regularly maintains an advantage in a two-man race.

Unfortunately Rubio supporters have acted much like Homer Simpson chasing the pig in the clip above. They deny the reality of the situation, and instead insist on strategic voting despite evidence that such a strategy will, at best, simply deny Trump getting the required 1,237 delegates. If this strategy works we’re left with a nominee being selected at the convention. If that nominee is anyone other than Donald Trump (unless it’s someone like Cruz who garners a similar amount of delegates during the primary season), then the result would be just as disastrous for the long-term future of the Republican party as a Trump outright win in the primary.

Considering the mood of the electorate – Democrat and Republican alike – a brokered convention that nominates Marco Rubio or, even worse, John Kasich, would completely turn off not just Trump supporters, but a fair number of other voters as well. Sure, it would be within the rules (as people are fond of repeating), but such a nominee – again, if it’s someone who didn’t have at least 1,000 or so delegates going into the convention – would be utterly damaged. Whatever your opinion of Trump supporters, completely turning them off and making them feel disenfranchised is an awfully stupid election strategy.

No, this thing needs to get settled in the primary, and the only two men who can win the Republican nomination outright are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Rubio backers have relied to a great extent on the argument that Marco Rubio is the most electable Republican in the general election. This argument from pragmatism – which is dubious to begin with – is countered by another pragmatic reality: Rubio is not nominateable. Neither is Kasich. It’s over for them, and any process that gives them a nomination through the back door of a contested convention will damage any general election chance they have.

So if you live in Ohio, Michigan, or Florida, and you don’t want Donald Trump to be the nominee, here’s your strategic play: vote for Ted Cruz.

NB: Rubio backers might argue with some credibility that Rubio’s poor numbers are due to strategic voting. While I can’t deny that there might be something to this, it’s hard to believe that the enormous gap between Cruz  and Rubio/Kasich is due to any great extent to Rubio/Kasich backers voting strategically. Voters are not quite that sophisticated.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to And Then There Was, Let’s Face it, One

  • Dumb question time. Is a brokered convention the only way one candidate can pass delegates to another candidate? If Rubio were to bow out in the primary, could he say he endorses Cruz and passes his delegates to Cruz? I’m thinking the answer is no.

  • Delegates are obligated to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. After that they are free agents.

  • “So if you live in Ohio, Michigan, or Florida, and you don’t want Donald Trump to be the nominee, here’s your strategic play: vote for Ted Cruz.”

    I disagree. If you live in Ohio vote for Kasich. If you live in Florida vote for Rubio. If you live anywhere else vote for Cruz, probably. Cruz is not winning those states and since they are winner take all it is important to keep their delegates from Trump.

  • In Michigan, I took your advice this morning before I read it.

  • There’s another famous traditional “pig saying” in America-l (sometime it is about an ox) … that saying is:
    “When the pig is in the ditch, get the pig out of the ditch”
    A great old saying and one of my dad’s favorites… get to work and do something about the problem instead of continuing the fear talk and what if talk
    Lets start talking positive about Rubio and Cruz and not talking so much about trump, except to point out his slipperiness. Cruz and Rubio and Romney are trying to do that but so many people would rather talk about the phenom than the good possibilities we have to move forward as a country.

  • “If you live in Ohio vote for Kasich. If you live in Florida vote for Rubio. If you live anywhere else vote for Cruz, probably. Cruz is not winning those states”

    Only because of people voting as you suggest.

  • Good advice Anzlyne. I hope to get something more substantive up about Cruz in the coming days.

  • “Only because of people voting as you suggest.”

    Do you think Cruz has a chance of winning Ohio and Florida outright?

    Cruz is doing well in large part because of strategic voting, but if you make a suggestion that people strategically vote for someone other than Cruz, all of a sudden it is a bad idea.

  • I was going to say something about either Kasich or Rubio delivering the nomination to Trump on the second ballot in a madcap dash for the bucket-o-warm spit boobie prize. . .
    . . .bur Anzlyne told me not to!

  • Paul is right, by the way. Voting for Kasich instead of Cruz in Ohio and Rubio instead of Cruz in Florida only serves to encourages both also rans to remain in the race as spoilers. They may or may not succeed in denying Trump the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. They will succeed in preventing Cruz from closing the gap and overtaking Trump.
    Personally, I think the GOPe we’re all knocking here looks on that prospect as a feature and not a bug.

  • I swear I closed that tag

  • 🙂 no wrath here

    You’ll get plenty of positive Cruz stuff on Christian radio!

    1. immigration
    2. 2nd ammendment
    3. anti-establishmentarian

    my thoughts:
    rubio good on immigration, end amendment, best on international concerns, Catholic outlook, practical on working together with people, seeking good advisors, independent thinker -not a pre-determined template for tea party nor establishment. he has a lot to offer
    its not a two man race yet- I started out for Cruz but something niggles- don’t know what.
    when things seem a foregone conclusion in human thinking, I sometimes think of God’s overnight change 2 Kings 7 — actually chapters 6 and 7

  • “They may or may not succeed in denying Trump the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. They will succeed in preventing Cruz from closing the gap and overtaking Trump.”

    The first statement is a lot more important than the second. Also keeping Trump from adding 165 delegates helps with Cruz overtaking Trump.

    While Rubio dropping out helps Cruz, I’m not sure Kasich dropping out before New York does help. Kasich does well in states that Trump is likely to beat Cruz, so he keeps Trump from reaching 50% limits. Kasich also does less well in states where Cruz is liable to do well thus keeping him from winning winner-take-all states like Arizona. I think this is why Cruz hasn’t put any pressure on Kasich to drop out like he has Rubio or why Cruz has not really made any effort in Ohio. My guess is that Cruz is fine with Kasich staying in until after Connecticut but before Indiana.

  • thanks for the link- I think that was a pretty biased reporter buying all the tea party aghast at the attempt of Rubio to work across the aisle–
    but I don’t really think Cruz could win nationally against a Democrat. He is polarizing. His brand of Christian doesn’t like too many other brands of Christian. HIs brand of republican doesn’t really like other brands of conservatives.

  • Here are 2 paragraphs from an article By Ed Morrissey that make a good argument:
    “Both Rubio and Cruz have had high and low points in Washington. Rubio’s low point came with the Gang of Eight bill, which he admits now was a mistake. Cruz led a poorly conceived shutdown over the fantasy demand that Barack Obama sign a budget defunding ObamaCare, which ended up leaving Republicans on the defensive in 2013 and nearly overshadowed a catastrophic failure in the program’s rollout. Neither of these mistakes did any long-term damage, but the two mistakes reflect a key difference between the two candidates. Rubio tried too hard to work with others and made a bad deal but eventually recognized that, while Cruz doesn’t work well even with members of his own party and makes the kind of impossible-to-keep promises that end up disillusioning voters.”
    “Rubio, on the other hand, saw a way to block crony payoffs to the insurance companies that pushed for that mandate with the restriction on funds for “risk corridor” payments. Rubio demanded a rider on the 2013 “cromnibus” that blocked general-fund payouts under that program, limiting them to taxes collected specifically for that function. Rubio’s effort remains the only effective Republican legislative limitation of ObamaCare since its March 2010 passage, and the one that has pushed most of the government “co-ops” out of business.”


  • I’ve never bought that Cruz can’t win in a general. First of all, the polls consistently show him ahead of Hillary. Admittedly such polls are not incredibly meaningful, but honestly Hillary is such a damaged candidate any actual Republican should be able to defeat her in a general election. For all of his supposed unlike-ability, Clinton is markedly moreso, and might also be under indictment.

    A Cruz-Sanders showdown would be multiple levels of fascinating.

  • fascinating,but not very funny ! ( remembering 🙂 “Laugh-In”)

    The fact that she might be under indictment is not a deterrent to some– but if she were Actually hauled in by the FBI- that would be any Republican’s ticket to ride.
    The division among voters between those who want to carry on Obama’s legacy and those who don’t doesn’t break 50/50. conservatives are at a disadvantage because of the division in the ranks, and they need to find a way to gather a crowd.
    Trump’ does pull people in- they are the happy “hell-yes voters” who are having fun just b being kids again.. It looks to me like Cruz may represent some very angry voters – and their anger may frighten other voters- even more than Trumps voters do since Cruz’s see themselves as Righteous and smarter than everyone else. Talk to Cruz supporters and you see that while Trump’s are against the secular establishment, Cruz’s are against the secular. Americans will not vote for a theocracy. that’s why I say he won’t win nationally.

  • sorry Ernst- didn’t follow my own advice

  • In case you were wondering what the optimal strategy is if you live in Illinois:

    move to a different state.

  • Now that the floodgates are opened: You know what the strongest ticket would be to overcome the polarization /enthusiasm gap through base turnout?
    . . . wait for it . . .
    (particularly if the GOPe presses ahead with their brokered convention strategy)

  • Anzlyne, it isn’t that Cruz cut a bad immigration deal, it is that he sponsored a bill that was so awful that everyone involved should be unemployable.

    The bill was horribly constructed, both internally and externally inconsistent. It referenced sections of law that have been abolished, or would be by the bill itself. It included provisions that barred immigration authorities from pursuing fraudulent filers, from using statements and documents presented in other proceedings, and circumventing security checks. It even included a provision for waiving ALL fraud… Not just fraud in filing for Amnesty but all fraud… Of every type.

    Now, I know that holding together a 1000+ page text is a challenge and I am well aware that most legislators have about as much to do with legal drafting as I have over car repair, once the vehicle is in the garage BUT, Rubio was charged with serving our interests and either should have known or did know that the bill was so very bad.

    Do we ignore such derelictions of duty under a rubric of “yeah, but he can beat our opponents?”

    I just don’t think saying “I should have mad a different deal, sorry… My bad” covers it.

  • I guess an essay that bemoans mid 20th century anti-catholic rhetoric about divided/subverted loyalties of Catholics before going on to employ precisely the same kind of rhetoric could be described as provacative.

  • Good post. Good comments. BTW, Cruz is a Seven Mountains Dominionist. He believes in a sort of Baptist theocracy. Visions of Oliver Cromwell come to mind. Maybe that is what we need. The Catholic Church in America (as well as the Vatican from the Seat of Peter on down) needs a drastic pruning (Romans 11). I am not saying Cruz would do that. But he is a Protestant fundamentalist.

  • He’s also a Constitutionalist who respects Freedom of Religion. Unlike the current occupant of the Whitr House or either of his would-be successors on the Democrat side.

  • That’s what I am hoping for, Ernst, but even if he is a theocrat I would vote for him just to see Democrats go into stroke on his winning.

  • Looking at the returns in the Mormon portions of Idaho and in other polling data so far, Mormons at least are not buying Trump at all.

Palmetto Pitfight

Saturday, February 20, AD 2016



An early evening.  Trump wins with a third of the vote, which appears to be his ceiling.  Rubio and Cruz are battling for second place with each of them approximately at 20%.  A good night for Rubio in that he gets back into the top three.  A bad night for Cruz in that South Carolina was a state made for him to win, or at least be a close second.  Kasich and Bush are each at nine percent and Carson is at 6%.  Jeb Bush spent a huge amount of money in South Carolina.  Back in 2000 his brother won soundly against McCain after McCain won in New Hampshire, putting Bush in front for the nomination.  History did not repeat itself for the Bush family, South Carolina this time underlining that Jeb Bush has no chance for the nomination.  Jeb hates Trump and I expect him to drop out and endorse Rubio.  I expect that Carson will soon do the same.

On the Democrat side there are no results in South Carolina as the Democrats hold their primary next week.  In the Nevada caucuses, Clinton squeaks by with 52% of the vote.  The Republicans hold their caucus on February 23.

Bottom line:  a good night for Trump, a bad night for Cruz and perhaps a great night for Rubio if both Bush and Carson swiftly drop out and endorse him.  A meh night for Clinton as she remains locked in a tight battle with Sanders, and a good night for Sanders as he remains locked in a tight battle with Clinton.


Update:  Well that didn’t take long.  In his concession speech Jeb Bush just announced he is “suspending” his campaign.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Palmetto Pitfight

  • Well at least I got one thing correct fight from the start – I said Jeb Bush would not be the nominee and tonight I am finally proven correct.

    Kasich appears to be dwelling in some fantasy world where he still has a path to the nomination. Carson would drop out but he still has a few more books to sell, so it looks like he might stay in a little longer as well.

  • At this point I think Kasich is running for Veep.

  • I agree, Donald. He’s trying to play kingmaker.

  • Watch the GOP establishment throw behind Rubio big time.

  • Greg has got it right. But I still say Trump will win the nomination if Cruz doesn’t drop out.

  • Greg has it right. But Trump will be the nominee unless Cruz drops out.

  • Jeb made a classy exit,he had all the money but the wrong message.People are angry,frightened,,and disgusted with the state of the country.Two Bush presidencies,12 years, helped create the current state of affairs.

  • I submit that Clinton’s policies, actions and inactions had as much to do with the collapse that led to Barack Obumbler getting elected in 2008 as much as anything either Bush did, if not more.

    The pressure put on banks to loan money to uncreditworthy people was increased by Clinton. Clinton let Red China get anything they wanted out of Los Alamos. Clinton and is party officially supported “regime change” in Iraq. The 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas under Clinton. The embassy bombings and the USS Cole happened under Clinton.

    He is as guilty as the Bushes …..and we elected them and brought it all on ourselves.

  • (1) Trump will be the nominee. (2) The GOP is forever changed, a good thing since it is rotten to its core and does not differ significantly from the Democrat Party, also completely corrupt. (3) The Bush name is history in national politics, a patriotic service for which much is owed Donald Trump. Trump’s denunciation of W Bush’s disastrous foreign policy is another signal service to the nation and to conservatives who no longer need pretend it was anything else but catastrophic. (4) Trump will win the presidency by correctly tying traitorous foreign fund-raising connections (Iranian and other Mohammedan groups) around the neck of the inept wife of Bill Clinton. The nation has had quite enough of these kinds of turncoats at its helm for far too long.

  • “The GOP is forever changed, a good thing since it is rotten to its core and does not differ significantly from the Democrat Party, also completely corrupt”

    Trump is a Democrat.

    “The Bush name is history in national politics, a patriotic service for which much is owed Donald Trump. Trump’s denunciation of W Bush’s disastrous foreign policy is another signal service to the nation and to conservatives who no longer need pretend it was anything else but catastrophic”

    Trump supported the invasion of Iraq.

    “Trump will win the presidency by correctly tying traitorous foreign fund-raising connections (Iranian and other Mohammedan groups) around the neck of the inept wife of Bill Clinton.”

    Trump has been the one Republican candidate that Clinton has consistently beaten in election polls.

    Trump is a man of immense ignorance and vanity who has managed the feat of convincing a large number of Americans that he is against illegal aliens after a career of hiring illegal aliens and supporting open borders:

  • Re: Jack Gordon.

    Here is what my son Matt has to say about what’s it’s going to take to stop Trump.

  • Here is some insightful commentary about why folks support Trump from the New Yorker.

    Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 19:16:02 -0500
    Subject: THE NEW YORKER article
    > “Who is Donald Trump?” The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?” The answer? A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.
    > Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the “Republicans In Name Only.” They know there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.
    > Ben Carson is not an “establishment” candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson; and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides – lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened (the nation elected an[islamo-]Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)
    > Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why?
    > Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.
    > No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation’s major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.
    > Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:
    > · Anyone named Bush
    > · Anyone named Clinton
    > · Anyone who’s held political office
    > · Political correctness
    > · Illegal immigration
    > · Massive unemployment
    > · Phony “official” unemployment and inflation figures
    > · Welfare waste and fraud
    > · People faking disabilities to go on the dole
    > · VA waiting lists
    > · TSA airport groping
    > · ObamaCare
    > · The Federal Reserve’s money-printing schemes
    > · Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
    > · Michelle Obama’s vacations
    > · Michelle Obama’s food police
    > · Barack Obama’s golf
    > · Barack Obama’s arrogant and condescending lectures
    > · Barack Obama’s criticism/hatred of America
    > · Valerie Jarrett
    > · “Holiday trees”
    > · Hollywood hypocrites
    > · Global warming nonsense
    > · Cop killers
    > · Gun confiscation threats
    > · Stagnant wages
    > · Boys in girls’ bathrooms
    > · Whiny, spoiled college students who can’t even place the Civil War in the correct century… and that’s just the short list.
    > Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, “Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!” The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. All the others argue that the voters will eventually “come to their senses” and support an establishment candidate.)
    > But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts – and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it. Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won’t hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.
    > “How dare they revolt!” the “elites” are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it. “But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!” That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved “Maverick” McCain down GOP throats in 2008 – knowing he would lose to Obama. But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America’s greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both – and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.
    > Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wander[ing] through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world’s glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O’Donnell is a fat pig.
    > Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city’s water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions. Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don’t care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of
    > property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations. While Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed [islamic] lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.
    > The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much.
    > You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, … [their] cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we’ve seen before. The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush’s Karl Rove or Clinton’s John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little. If the establishment wins, America loses.
    > We are that close to losing it all……. >
    > John (Jack) McCandless
    > “You will become way less concerned with what other people think of you when you realize how seldom they do.”
    > David Foster Wallace