Third Party & Independents Archives

A Polished Speech That Cruz Would Rather not Have Given

It was a silly little joke by Fox’s Neil Cavuto, but it actually had some bite. While showing video of Leicester (as in England as in soccer) fans in screaming, bouncing, beery ecstasy over their franchise finally winning the league after 100 and who-knows-how-many years of existence, Cavuto joked it was footage of voters being told the primary season was over. Ha. Ha.

Actually, it is rather funny. And just a little telling. When you have the top two GOP contenders exchanging, on the one hand, crazed conspiracy theory accusations, and on the other side, retorts over supposedly how heroic their opponent considered his (apparently successful) attempts to avoid venereal disease to be ... you get a little ... tired.

So is Trump really an oversized version of the notorious honey badger, rather than the alpha predator who threatens his opponents into submission? The one who just doesn't care - to phrase another silly video a little more politely? Why go after Ted Cruz's father on the eve - or morning - of what was and has turned out to be, a key victory? Clearly, uniting the party does not include Ted Cruz, or most of his followers, in the view of Donald Trump. Or he can't help it.

Yes, so far it has worked out fine. And perhaps this nasty little exchange will be written off as typcial heat-of-the-battle stuff. But did Trump have to start this not-so-micro spat? Why do it?

And why did Ted Cruz wait 6 or more months to express his true feelings towards The Donald? Yes, apparently it was his love-fest and hug-a-thon strategy that was going to leave just him and Donald standing. And then just him. So, that one did not work out. But you can understand his desire to shape his own rebel message away from the media whirlpool surrounding Trump. The swirling unpredictable media buzz that has sucked away nearly every contender in this unique GOP primary process.

In the end Ted could not avoid the whirlpool. His campaign team, a very effective machine on the ground; his conservative values as a D.C. troublemaker upsetting the status quo with gusto; his razor sharp legal mind. None of it worked in helping him avoid the whirlpool in the end.

So Senator Cruz gave the speech he would have at least liked to give after a closely fought contested convention - like Reagan in 1976. But it was not to be in Cleveland, but rather Indiana. And he tried to aim as high as Reagan did in 1976. A noble effort. A polished speech. The constitution that offers the chains to bind the mischief of mankind (ok - he really meant the mischief of the Democratic Party). But people in revolt don't want to hear that.

Posted by AllardK at May 4, 2016 7:42 PM
Comment #404512

I am looking forward to the contest between Trump and Clinton (if she is not indicted).

What seemed to me to be impossible has happened. We truly will have a race between the beltway and everywhere else. Perhaps it will end in a pistol duel between the two candidates on prime-time TV. Who knows. In this strange world of politics who can predict anything?

Will the election be a nail-biter or a landslide? Who knows? Anyone who says they do know is either an idiot, a talking head, or one of our liberal friends.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2016 8:11 PM
Comment #404514

Seems to me the delegate=super delegate thing is pushing Hil to the WH and Bernie to the outhouse.

I want Trump to win but based on the 2008 election I think better of committing to a fer shure Trump win.

I’ve been around for 3/4 of a century and share many of the feelings of the Trump supporters.

I’ve been ranting against the corpocracy for years and now we have this guy, Trump, who is likely to be the next Pres. asking the same questions.

NAFTA,and the AFTA’s: While I don’t doubt that the agreements have been real good for the rest of the world, they have served to set the US back maybe 50 years.

Immigration policy has been conducted for the main purpose of forcing worker wages down. That’s despicable and Trump has spelled it out for what it is.

Obamacare is not affordable for many people and if ever fully implemented would speed up the impending crash.

TRump questions much of the way we have been governed for the last 50 or so years. So do I.

I doubt he will be very effective and is likely to be a one term President but if he can shake up the system and be a bully pullpit for his supporters that will be appreciated greatly be me and many others.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at May 4, 2016 10:12 PM
Comment #404515

It really is an astounding thing. A political outsider has won a major party’s nomination for president. It tells us many things. First, the weakness of the supposed ‘deep bench’ was exposed. Second, the weakness of conservative philosophy was also exposed. In “The National Review,” 23 conservative pundits weighed in against Trump. Nearly every major political figure refused to endorse him. Despite all that, Trump crushed the GOP bench and ran roughshod over the tenets of conservatism.

The day of the IA primary was just as astounding, as noted in the article. Senator Cruz called Trump a “pathological liar,” “arrogant buffoon,” and more. Trump suggested the Senator’s father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. It really was astounding.

Now a political outsider has taken the reins of a major party. He has no political experience. He has no knowledge of foreign policy. His recent foreign policy speech promoted ‘America First,’ the pre-WWII catchphrase of those who wanted the US to stay out of the fight against the Nazis. Does this mean Trump is an isolationist? He knows nothing about the military. There are no coherent policy ideas. Literally none. There is a loud, yet vague, demand to do something about trade. His insults, name calling, and bigoted remarks are legion. The fuel for his rise seems to be based upon an unfocused anger, hatred, and resentment. The base consists primarily of poor, white males with no college educations. Women, blacks, Hispanics, foreigners, and others are the target of this anger, and any attempts to deny the nature of his odious attacks are dismissed as political correctness.

When a nominee becomes clear and the convention takes place, it is normal for a party’s political partisans to rally round the flag. This will happen with Trump, but not to the same degree as past candidates. The personal attacks and dismissal of conservative philosophy will encourage far more voters to refuse to support him than anything we have seen in the past. Opposition to the opposing party’s candidate, will also unite, and this will be the case with Hillary Clinton, but her moderate stance on many issues will not drive as many away as one might suspect.

Polls show HRC with a double digit lead.

Some conservatives will bank on conspiracy theory to bail them out of a very harsh reality. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will be indicted! Never mind that it was not a criminal investigation in the first place, that she was never the target, and that the last of 55,000 e-mails were released a couple months ago.

Perhaps a picture will surface of Hillary Clinton high fiving Rafael Cruz on the grassy knoll.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2016 10:23 PM
Comment #404546

McCain is Trump bashing by stating if Trump becomes Pres then he will have the fight of his life trying to keep his Senator seat in Az as 30% of the population is Latino.

What an amazing statement from an ‘open borders’ Senator who has worked his ass off to bring immigrants in. Worse yet, he brought them in for a major purpose of forcing worker wages down.

But, do believe that Az will vote in McCain again as he is long tenured and can ‘bring home the bacon’ and so on - - -

Run Trump Run

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at May 5, 2016 8:03 PM
Comment #404553

The key for Hillary to defeat Trump is to find a way to deny him all that free media coverage. Easier said than done. The networks want the ratings that Trump generates.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2016 11:24 PM
Comment #404556

The information you have deliver here is really useful to make my knowledge good. Thanks for your heavenly post. It is truly supportive for us and I have accumulated some essential data from this blog.

Posted by: madhu at May 6, 2016 6:09 AM
Comment #404562

I understand the lib/soc angst with a Trump/Clinton face off. The candidate for the Reps the last two times had virtually no chance of winning. This time around the Reps have a candidate who excites Reps, Dems and Inds. He has caused huge turnouts at primaries and caucuses.

With ones head above ground level, there is hardly anyone who doesn’t understand how much the general electorate despises the insider politicians. Hillary is the poster person for Washington insider.

Obama has increased the misery and plight of the average working American. Hillary tells her audiences how bad things are without blaming Obama. She can’t blame Obama as she supported every move he made. She can’t run away from him and she can’t deny the carnage he has wrought.

McCain and Romney were patsies for the Party. Trump is neither. GO TRUMP!

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 6, 2016 3:03 PM
Comment #404564

phx, not relative. Hil has the buck$ to buy as much media as she feels needed to counter Trump.

Her base will support her to save Obamacare and the free stuff. I do feel that perhaps 1-2% of dems will vote rep this time around.

The GOP will rally bigtime as they are afraid of 4 more years of dem rule. I think the GOP will come out in historical numbers, bring a majority of Indies and a few dems. Whether that will be enough in numbers, I don’t know.

Posted by: roy ellis at May 6, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #404567

Recently heard that Priorities USA, a Hil PAC, has built up a war chest of $90M to spend on anti-Trump ads.

Posted by: roy ellis at May 6, 2016 4:16 PM
Comment #404568

HRC will have the money; but then, so did Jeb! We all know how that ended. The difference is that HRC is already well defined in the public eye. Looking back, Jeb! carried the legacy of his brother, Iraq, and so on and it crushed him. HRC carries a positive legacy from both the Clinton and Obama legislations, with both receiving approval ratings of over 50%. This will make it very difficult for Trump to do to her what he did to Jeb! In addition, she is a much better, more seasoned and experienced politician than Jeb! or some of the other members of the ‘strong bench’ that Trump crushed in the primaries.

She is much better organized. Trump has very little in the way of organization. For a businessman he proved very poor at creating and using his campaign organization. Cruz ran circles around him and added dozens of available delegates simply by having a cagier staff.

What Trump does have is free access to the airwaves. HRC needs to find a way to undermine this.

Roy, current polls show HRC with a 13% lead over Trump. Recent ones showed her tied with Trump in Utah and Mississippi. Unless Trump has something amazing up his sleeve, he is in very serious trouble, and everyone knows it.

Posted by: phx8 at May 6, 2016 5:00 PM
Comment #404569

Paid media is not equivalent to free media.

Considering how much of a statist Trump is, isn’t his ascension big trouble for conservatism?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 6, 2016 5:03 PM
Comment #404571

Voter suppression
Koch Brothers
And now you guys are adding “free access to the airwaves” to the list of ‘excuses to use just in case we lose’? LOL
That’s almost as funny as Warren warning us that Trumps “one of us” or “an other” way will divide us, when Obama’s “one of us” or “an other” rule has been dividing us for the past seven years.

As has already been proven, the liberal candidate (in this case Hillary) will receive any amount of air time they desire. Plus some.

Relax lefties. Hillary will get 62 or so million votes. Trump will be lucky to hit 58 million.

Posted by: kctim at May 6, 2016 5:16 PM
Comment #404574

When has Obama ever suggested that some Americans ought to be castigated in the manner that Trump treats Muslims or illegal Immigrants? There’s no “other” with Obama, for him, we are all Americans regardless of our creed, our skin color, our sexual orientation, our gender identity or whatever else. The Democratic Party has been one of inclusion not exclusion for my entire life. Indeed, the Republican Party has spent the last few decades doing its best to fight against the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 6, 2016 6:02 PM
Comment #404578

I am surprised to see you write “GO TRUMP,” considering you have been a Cruz supporter and have spoken highly of your state’s Senator. Trump called him Lyin’ Ted and suggested his father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. And more. Much more. Is Trump right? Cruz has called Trump “an arrogant buffoon,” “a pathological liar,” and criticized Trump for saying his battles with venereal disease were his own personal Viet Nam.” And that’s just for starters.

Just thought you might want to clarify the contradiction.

Posted by: phx8 at May 6, 2016 6:59 PM
Comment #404580

Surely, Gary Johnson is a much better fit for advocates of limited government such as Royal Flush? To be honest, it is quite likely that I’ll end up voting for either him or Jill Stein in November. I have already promised myself that I won’t support Hillary given her record of colossally poor judgement. She shares many of Trump’s flaws including arrogance, narcissism and entitlement. Her tendency for military interventionism just makes things even worse.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 6, 2016 9:43 PM
Comment #404584

It seems like a lot of presidents & candidates for the office has been accused of narcissism over the past 20 years. Perhaps that personality trait is necessary to be a politician on a national stage. Personally, I don’t see it in either HRC or others. If anyone was a narcissist, it would be Trump, but I don’t care; as long as he is a functioning narcissist, then I will just roll with it.

I’m more concerned with Trump’s personality. He talks off the cuff all the time and responds to every negative comment about him with an extremely angry and very personal counterattack. Every criticism is meet with an escalation, as if this somehow constituted strength.

The off-the-cuff comments are dangerous. Today he talked about paying off the federal debt at a discounted rate, however, the federal government is not a business. Bankruptcy is not an option. The US backs our currency and our debt with the full faith and credit of the US. The world relies on the dependability of the US to make good on its bonds. What Trump said was admittedly nonsensical, and no one believed he knew what he was talking about, but still, to say things like that is incredibly inappropriate for a presidential nominee.

There is plenty to criticize about HRC, but she never says things like that. We do not have to go through an almost daily ritual of pretending she didn’t say something bigoted or ignorant or outrageous. Is she too hawkish on Middle East policy? Fair criticism. Although she apologized, her vote on going to war in Iraq will always haunt her. Was the policy in Libya failure? It certainly wasn’t as bad as the Neocon’s failure in Iraq, no Americans died, the expense was relatively small, we protected the civilian population from attack by Khaddafi’s military, and Libya may yet be salvageable; but in any case, that is also fair game for criticism. Perhaps we would have been better off letting Khaddafi put down an uprising by slaughtering his own people, to stay in power and provide stability.

But HRC at least offers a liberal take on the social agenda. She may not be very inspirational as a speaker, but she shows intelligence and thinks before she blurts out wild ideas about defaulting on the debt, or suggesting Trump’s father of helping Lee Harvey Oswald.

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2016 12:52 AM
Comment #404590

Trump’s flaws do not excuse Clinton’s shortcomings. Time after time, she has made poor decision rather than demonstrate shrewd judgement. This issue with her e-mails is the best example. While, I am confident that she did not break the law, her haphazard negligence is very troubling to me. As a civil servant, she betrayed her duty to us. Putting personal convenience over public safety is a big no-no in my book and Clinton should have known better. Of what use is all of Clinton’s “experience” if she isn’t willing to use it?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 7, 2016 2:04 PM
Comment #404591

“Trump’s flaws do not excuse Clinton’s shortcomings.”

In a way, they do.

One or the other is going to be the next president. Trump suggested a competitor’s father was involved in the JFK assassination, and thought defaulting on the debt by paying 90 cents on the dollar, or whatever, might be a good idea. Either of those alone would be a deal breaker for me. HRC cast a vote on Iraq that was a mistake. That probably cost her the Democratic nomination in 2008. But she does, in fact, have a long record and a lot of legislative experience. She also has experience serving in the cabinet at the highest level, and has also seen government operate from the point of view of a First Lady from AK, and then in the White House.

A record of votes and political stands gives plenty of firepower to use against HRC. Trump, on the other hand, has not record and no experience, and his statements render him utterly unfit to serve as president. So for all her flaws, HRC still looks like the clear choice to me.

As for the server, HRC did not violate policy, never mind the law. She did the same as her predecessors, Rice and Powell, by keeping a private server. As for the question of personal convenience versus cyber security, I do not expect politicians to be knowledgeable about IT issues, especially ones from her generation. A basic awareness of security is necessary, of course, and she demonstrated that. No compromising material was sent, and as far as we know, the server was not hacked. THAT is the purpose of this investigation, and it appears protocols were observed.

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2016 2:52 PM
Comment #404593
But she does, in fact, have a long record and a lot of legislative experience. She also has experience serving in the cabinet at the highest level, and has also seen government operate from the point of view of a First Lady from AK, and then in the White House.

What’s the point of having so much experience if it doesn’t lead to improved decision-making? If a relative neophyte had organized a bootleg server like Clinton’s, I would easily forgive them. With Clinton, not so much. She should have known better. I expect my civil servants to uphold not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of it as well. Clinton seems capable only of the former.

She did the same as her predecessors, Rice and Powell, by keeping a private server.
I’m not voting for Rice or Powell either.
, I do not expect politicians to be knowledgeable about IT issues
No, but they must be humble enough to recognize their ignorance and request the consultation of someone who is more knowledgeable. This is precisely why Obama has been such an excellent President. He strikes a good balance between experts’ advice and his own intuition. Most importantly, he understands the limits of the latter.
especially ones from her generation
Sorry, if advanced age is going to be an excuse for these things then HRC is too old to be President.

As far as I am concerned, HRC is my 3rd choice among the party nominees. Either Johnson or Stein is better and I am still making up my mind between the two of them. I am not going to vote for Trump.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 7, 2016 4:44 PM
Comment #404610

Obama has treated everybody on the right as the ‘other’ for the past 8 years. He constantly attacks his fellow Americans on the right and with more contempt than he does non Americans.
His actions have been deliberate and they have severely divided the people.

“doing its best to fight against the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law”

Equal protection has nothing to do with the special treatment that the left promotes.

Posted by: kctim at May 9, 2016 10:28 AM
Comment #404611

Cite three examples of Obama attacking fellow Americans on the right.

Take Trump. Recently he called Hillary Clinton a “mean, nasty enabler” in reference to her husband, he called her “Crooked Hillary” without cause and declared her “guilty as hell” for the e-mails even though no criminal investigation ever took place, and he suggested Ted Cruz’s father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald & the Kennedy assassination, on the basis of a story in the National Enquirer.

It was very easy for me to cite those examples. Since Obama has been “constantly”- your word- “constantly” attacking Americans on the right, it should be even easier to name examples. So go for it.

Obama did not seek to divide people. Remember, literally from the he was inaugurated, GOP leadership decided to oppose everything he did and to obstruct all legislation and nominations. Compromise was denounced, and any Republicans which did faced primaries from far right obstructionists.

We see the result of this decisiveness on the right. NOT on the left.

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2016 11:41 AM
Comment #404612

While Obama may occasionally mock people’s ideologies, he never denigrates someone on the basis of race, gender, $exual orientation, religion, etc… Nor has he ever scapegoated America’s problems onto a vulnerable class of people such as Muslims or American immigrants from Mexico.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 9, 2016 12:46 PM
Post a comment