Friday, February 12, 2016

Limbaugh: Cruz is 'closest in our lifetimes to Ronald Reagan'

"If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz... This is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan."
Well, it's doubtful that the non-stop doting, praise and adulation will end, but after months of talking up Trump, Rush came clean with conservatives...
NewsMax: With conservatives across the country facing a critical decision whether to back Donald Trump, top radio talker Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday that true conservatives have no choice but to vote for Ted Cruz.

Limbaugh told his radio audience, "If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz…."

Limbaugh gave his powerful imprimatur to Cruz by adding, "This [Ted Cruz] is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan."

Cruz has finished first in Iowa caucuses, but performed, not unexpectedly, poorly in New Hampshire, coming in third place behind Trump and Gov. Kasich.

Now the election turns to South Carolina and a slew of southern states that will vote on Super Tuesday in March.

Soon, the Cruz campaign believes that his strong conservative and evangelical backing will put him ahead of GOP front-runner Donald Trump.

Limbaugh described Trump as a non-ideological candidate.

"Trump's not a Republican; he's not a Democrat," he said.

"He's running as a Republican, but he's way beyond any of this. His definition of conservatism was we're gonna conserve. We're gonna conserve our money. We're gonna conserve our whatever…. Donald Trump is not an ideological candidate. He doesn't look, for example, at Chuck Schumer and see a screaming liberal. And, by the same token, he doesn't look at Ted Cruz and see a screaming conservative."

Limbaugh praised Trump for creating a broad, new coalition of voters and turning the political system upside down, but offered little doubt about his own political leanings.

"This is not a criticism of Trump. But for those of you that conservatism's the answer and conservatism is the way, you have no choice here. Ted Cruz has got to be your guy. There's nobody even close. Nobody."
So there you have it. I would argue with Rush on one account: Trump IS in fact an ideological candidate; however, he's not a principled one. This notion is derived from the understanding that liberalism is an agenda-driven ideology, whereas conservatism is based upon principle and experience (h/t: Levin). Two very different sources.

Now the question remains, do Republican voters want to recapture the Reagan Revolution and revive the party as a continuance of the thriving conservative party it is capable of being? Or do we continue meandering down the road of unprincipled mystery until there's no more purpose in an opposition party to the democratic socialism brewing on the left? This is the very real difference we face between a man who is extremely lacking in the moral center department and another who we know to be the closet to Ronald Reagan that anyone born this side of the 70's has experienced...with a record to prove it.

Related links: Talk Radio Giant Tells Listeners to Vote for Ted Cruz
Rush Limbaugh: Ted Cruz is the closest we’ve gotten to Ronald Reagan in our lifetimes
Trump believes in God, but hasn't sought forgiveness
Why HOW Trump Is Winning Over DUPING Christian Conservatives

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Debunking Establishment smears against Cruz as South Carolina primary nears

Unable to cope with a conservative victory for Ted in Iowa, as well as ranking third in liberal New Hampshire, the Branstad-Establishment Machine is still going after Cruz in South Carolina (with mostly old debunked Rubio attacks):
America’s Future Fund, a political action committee that opposed Sen. Ted Cruz in Iowa, has purchased $1.5 million in negative advertising against Cruz that will run on television in the weeks leading up to the Feb. 20th South Carolina primary.

The ad, “Weak,” attempts to discredit Cruz’s national security bona fides in a state with a heavy military and veteran population.



America’s Future Fund is run by GOP establishment operative Nick Ryan. As CR’s Rob Eno wrote in “Why The Establishment Fears Cruz More Than Trump”:
“Ryan is a longstanding force in Iowa politics, allied with the moderate Governor Branstad. On his website, Ryan describes himself as having investments in renewable energy—i.e. ethanol—in Iowa. Ted Cruz is very much against ethanol mandates.”
After suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of Senator Cruz in Iowa, it seems Branstad and the ethanol lobby want to strike back at conservatives.

Can Sen. Cruz overcome the opposition once again for another win in South Carolina?
Well, if I can easily disprove these smears with a little detective work, I believe Cruz can undoubtedly overcome the opposition for another WIN in South Carolina!

So let's debunk these claim by claim, shall we...

Claim 1: Cruz voted with Bernie Sanders against defense spending in 2013.

Fact: This is an establishment falsehood tagged by Branstad and Rubio alike over opposition to Rand Paul's budget proposal.

"The fact is, in supporting the Paul budget, Cruz did not support a cut in defense spending, but a more responsible rate of increase." ~ Cruz spokesman Brian Phillips



PolitiFact: Rubio said that the only budget Cruz "ever voted for in his time in the Senate is a budget that cut defense spending by more than Barack Obama proposes we cut it." Rubio was referring to Cruz’s vote in favor of Paul’s budget proposal in 2013. But Rubio mischaracterized Paul’s plan when he called it a "cut." That proposal included an increase in defense spending each year from 2014 going forward a decade, although it did not keep pace with estimated projections in growth... [even if] Paul’s proposal for defense was below Obama’s request.


Claim 2: Cruz sided with Obama to weaken our ability to track terrorist.

Fact: This is about those who want to preserve the Fourth Amendment (Cruz) and those who would trade liberty for perceived security (Rubio).
TheFederalist: In June, Cruz voted in favor of the USA Freedom Act, a bill intended to limit government agencies’ ability to collect and store citizens’ private data. President Obama signed the bill into law just hours after Congress passed it, reigning in some of the surveillance programs established by Bush-era national security measures.

In the aftermath of 9/11, then-President Bush signed the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to collect massive amounts of data on citizens, including cell phone records, to monitor potential terror activity. In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked classified information revealing the National Security Agency’s surveillance program to journalists. The revelations spurred congressional debate over the scope of the programs authorized under the Bush administration.

On Sunday, some aspects of the National Security Agency (NSA) data collection program came to an end because of the Freedom Act, which passed the House with 388 votes and the Senate with 67 votes. Now government agencies no longer have an open invitation to look at citizens’ phone data whenever they want. Instead, agencies must submit a request to a phone company for the information that belongs to a specific phone number they already suspect as being connected to terror activity. ...

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects American citizens from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. In other words, it provides that one’s possessions or correspondence won’t be collected and examined without probable cause. In May, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of data was unconstitutional.

Claim 3: Cruz proposed mass legalization of illegal immigrants.

Fact: This has been exhaustively disproven time and time again that Sen. Cruz employed a legislative ploy in the form of an amendment to expose the motivations behind his opponents' Gang of 8 amnesty bill. Simply stated, he called their bluff!



Claim 4: Cruz praised Edward Snowden.

Fact: Cruz wasn't reactionary like so many and reserved final judgment while weighing out all the evidence.

In 2013, Cruz presented the qualifiers, declining to label him a 'patriot' or a 'traitor':
“I don’t know if what Mr. Snowden has said is true or false. We need to determine that. We need to determine what his motives were, whether he was telling the truth.

If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light.

If Mr. Snowden has violated the laws of this country, there are consequences to violating laws and that is something he has publicly stated he understands and I think the law needs to be enforced.”
Then in January of this year, Cruz cast final judgment:
"​It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason. Today, we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia. Under the Constitution, giving aid to our enemies is treason."
So, there you have it. To the AmericanFutureFund, Branstad, Rubio and any others who'd take this route: It's one thing to label a candidate's national security record 'weak', but it's quite another to make one's case with dishonest smears, particularly when the ones casting stones have their own credibility problems...





These can't be debunked.

Related links: WATCH: Debunking anti-Cruz myths (video)
RINO Iowa Governor Terry Branstad: Stop Ted Cruz Before He Stops Cronyism In My State!

Sanders and Trump: different sides of the same coin? (a PLEA for Baby Boomers to reconsider)

Donald Trump is wrong when it comes to defining conservatism as being just about attitude. Conservatism is about an underlying philosophy where the Constitution, limited government, and Judeo-Christian values take center stage. ~ ML, 6/9/16
The Tea Party movement was not populist, nationalist or agrarian, but was and is a movement of patriots. The rise of the Tea Party movement was a result of what George W. Bush did at end of his term and what Pres. Obama did at the beginning of his. Americans should consider where, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Donald Trump were, during the Tea Party revolution. Trump was donating money to the establishment Republicans and Democrats during that time. Senator Ted Cruz was a child of this movement and was faithful to supporting its conservative principles. Also, we have the establishment on the run in this election. Americans have a choice between remaking the Republican Party as a populist socialist party or remaking it into a constitutionalist, conservative party. In addition, the U.S. doesn’t need another tariff war like those caused by the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which helped make the Great Depression worse. Americans should look at history before getting behind a Trump or Bernie Sanders tariff. ~ ML, 2/10/16
As socialism swept New Hampshire earlier this week, it's not only the Democratic lean towards tyranny that voters need to recognize and be concerned with...
No wonder South Carolina, at least on the Republican side, quite often gives New Hampshire a middle finger a week later with a totally different result among a much bigger population.

We can all agree that Senator Sanders is of course a socialist. He's said it, proudly, loudly, and often. A good percentage of our precious safe-spaced Millennials think socialism is great, and they think Bernie is great. And apparently many of them are trying to decide between Bernie and...Hillary. No, wait, Bernie and Trump!

And why not? Trump has flirted with socialist talking points and ideas for decades, including quite often recently.

Now, I'm sure some of you are giving me the middle finger by calling out Trump as a once and now again socialist – but I defer to Trump's own words in the final rallies of his New Hampshire campaign. I'm not making this up. Words mean things – especially in the specific context of politics – and the fact that Trump parrots Bernie Sanders quite often doesn't make me a RINO or establishment shill or even "Yeb Bush."

It makes Trump a damned dangerous option for conservatives...
On an unfortunate litany of issues, Sanders and Trump are the same totalitarian candidate, which leads one to ask, are they simply different sides of the same coin?
On the surface, there’s not much in common between New Hampshire GOP primary winner Donald Trump and Democratic primary winner Bernie Sanders. Trump is a billionaire businessman; Sanders is a career politician. Trump’s personal favorability is the lowest of all candidates on either side; Sanders’ is the highest. But the impulse that drove New Hampshire voters to the polls for Sanders is the same as the impulse that drove them to the polls for Trump: the desire for a powerful authority figure to fix everything using the power of government. In fact, before the New Hampshire primary, CNN reported, “Because independents can register as ‘undeclared’ in New Hampshire and then vote in either party’s primary, the Vermont senator’s campaign has noted some of these voters are wavering between Sanders and Trump.”

There’s a reason for the confusion: Trump and Sanders aren’t that different on policy. Really.

They’re both anti-establishment candidates who bash Wall Street. ...

Trump and Sanders are on the same page on trade, which they see as a zero sum game at which America is losing. ...

Both Trump and Sanders want to do away with Obamacare in favor of a more universal system. ...

Both Sanders and Trump vow to enshrine programs like Medicare and Social Security. ...

And while Trump has run on the basis of a uniquely strict anti-illegal immigration policy, Sanders has historically opposed illegal immigration on the basis of driving down American wages...

On foreign policy, too, Trump and Sanders sound alike. [From Trump] 'very much opposed to the war in Iraq' [to] back in October, Trump said we should let Russia handle ISIS, and added that he wanted to cut military spending. ...
Now at this point, some of you are probably saying, 'well, not all of these agreements are bad.' Heck, I see at least three that I could find agreement with. However, the motivation behind them is what's worrisome (and if you heed nothing else in this post, READ and HEED THIS!)...
So why are Trump and Sanders soaring? Because they both represent a reaction to the corruption and entitlement culture of Washington D.C. – and both of those reactions are anti-democratic. Neither candidate ever talks about the proper role of government. They just talk about how they’ll increase its power to use it for their own purposes.

That’s what many of their supporters want. Many Trump supporters frequently comment that he “wins,” that he will “win” for America, that he’s capable of “making deals,” that he’s not beholden to anyone or anything. Sanders supporters say the same thing.

Many Trump supporters – the ones who believe he is a transformational figure – ignore the fact that Trump won’t change the nature of government in any real way. They’re looking for a singular authoritarian solution to the problems of their lives. They believe it takes a power broker to stop the power brokers. Hand Trump the ring of government power, and watch what he can do! He may not cast it into the fiery chasm from whence it came, but he’ll use it to fight Mordor sometimes.

Sanders’ supporters also object to a corrupt government – but they think that more government is the solution. They think the government is bought and paid for by outside parties, and they want an honest socialist dictator in charge to clean house. They want a Hugo Chavez to ride in on the wind and use the power of government to punish their enemies. Sanders may proclaim that his motivating feeling is hope, but the real motivation behind his campaign is bitter jealousy and petty vengefulness.

These are the wages of big government and an unendingly powerful executive branch. Too many people gain too much by its existence to do away with it; too many people want to control the guns and the money to back a true reformer. Every four years we now pick our dictator. It’s just a question of whether that dictator does the stuff you want, or whether you’re his target.
And when you've got a chameleon saying this...



...who knows where that wager is gonna land! If it's anywhere near Bernie's cost, we're in deep trouble...


Take this for what it's worth: a PLEA for Baby Boomers to reconsider the most promising leader for GenX, Millennials and GenY (i.e., their children and grandchildren)...for the fulfillment of their future preservation and reinstitution of liberty. It's past time to think beyond our own generations as socialism's tentacles constrict.









Related links: Does Donald Trump represent us?
Sanders, Trump, Clinton: Why 2016 is the last hurrah of the baby boomers
This election feels like a reunion of the Woodstock generation
Trump is fooling baby boomers
Every Donald Trump Insult Of 2015
Our Principles PAC

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Cruz pulls third in hopelessly 'moderate' New Hampshire

When your rate of Evangelical voter dives by a third, you know it’s gonna hurt candidates like Cruz and Carson. New Hampshire is filled with Godless heathens. ~ soopermexican
Among the hopeless states, is there any wonder that moderately blue New Hampshire has gone for Trump and Sanders? Nope. And laughably, Kasich in second among supposed GOP voters!
It's obvious that they like their Republicans malleable, and their Democrats more so (i.e., socialistic!).

And though there's somewhat of a myth with independent voters, even that comes with a caveat...
FiveThirtyEight: New Hampshire: the land of pot roast, fleece-lined jeans and independent-minded voters. Truisms about freethinking New England voters are trotted out every primary year thanks to New Hampshire’s system, which allows unaffiliated voters to participate in either party’s primary so long as they register at the door. (And they can make sure their voting status reverts to independent on the way out — they’ve thought of everything, these Yankees.)

This year’s horse race will place the indie vote on no stumpier a pedestal than usual, though perhaps more idiosyncratically, the most pitched battle on the GOP side is over who will place or show, not necessarily who will win. ... undeclared voters may affect who finishes second, third and fourth on the GOP side...
Don't we know it! But even while the Live Free or Die motto has lurched to 'Free Stuff or Die' in the Granite State, the conservative Cruz astonishingly managed to pull third place after the Big Business loudmouth and the moderate suck-up (the latter of whom is going nowhere). Though they're vastly outnumbered, the sensible citizens of Faith and Freedom stepped up, and we say, "THANK YOU!" 


TexasTribune: A week after his win in the Iowa caucuses, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz was jockeying with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for third place in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, finding himself among a tight pack of also-rans swamped by real estate magnate Donald Trump.

The finish said relatively little about the state of Cruz's campaign — there were a few delegates to be won here, and Cruz never invested much time or energy. Instead, he appeared to be displacing other candidates who did bet their futures on the Granite State, a possible death blow to at least one or two campaign rivals.

New Hampshire is a moderate state, not a traditionally receptive place for Cruz's evangelical political style. But the junior Texas senator was able to capitalize on a glut of establishment-minded candidates by consolidating enough of the...libertarian-minded conservative voters to complete a substantive finish.
Bumping'em out one by one. Now on to South Carolina, Nevada and the SEC! 



#CRUZ2016!

Related links: Why Ted Cruz is now the Republican front-runner
New Hampshire is a fraud

Cruz Mocks Fox News’ Reporting on Rubio: ‘Looking Forward’ to ‘Wall-to-Wall Coverage’ of My Third-Place Finish

Saturday, February 6, 2016

A relaxed Cruz SOLID in Granite State debate with substance, wit and poignance

Looks as if one man took some pertinent debate tips from the Gipper! Not taking the media-ratings bait or diversions, but staying substantive, above the fray and on topic throughout Saturday night's New Hampshire debate, Ted Cruz showed himself to be the adult in the room, the serious candidate we so desperately need in the White House...















Also of significance was Cruz’s very personal response concerning his half-sister's battle with drug addiction, which may have been the most poignant moment of the night, humanizing Cruz in a way that many haven't seen before through these pseudo-debate settings...



At the end of the night, it once again comes down to a time for choosing, New Hampshire.


#ATimeForTruth
#TrusTed
#CRUZ2016!

Happy 105th, Mr. President! The inspiration of Reagan lives on, as the mantle of conservatism is passed along...

Today marks the 105th anniversary of the Gipper's birthday, the 20th century's premier conservative president who made a difference, President Ronald Wilson Reagan...
WT: Saturday marks what would have been Ronald Reagan’s 105th birthday, a significant and heartfelt occasion still celebrated with much ado. Consider the major event at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, complete with the Camp Pendleton Marine Division Band, a color guard, the blessings of a chaplain, a brass quintet, a 21-gun salute, an aircraft flyover, the placing of a White House wreath at the grave site and remarks by Brigadier Gen. Edward D. Banta, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and Marlin Fitzwater, Reagan’s press secretary.

Then there is the new statue. It’s a doozy. The 11-foot tall, 11-foot long bronze tatue by sculptor Donald Reed weighs in at 2,500 pounds and will be unveiled outside the library’s spectacular Air Force One Pavilion. It depicts the 40th president astride his favorite horse El Alamein and is titled “Along the Trail.”

The heroic but cheerful work — privately funded, incidentally — has a secret. One of Reagan’s personal belt buckles and a piece of the Berlin Wall were wrapped in muslin and placed inside a fireproof security box — to be tucked inside the sculpture itself. Also debuting: The Ronald Reagan Presidential $1 Coin and the Nancy Reagan First Spouse Coin — both from the U.S. Mint.
...and as such, his inspiration provides a perfect opportunity while in the midst of the media circuses once known as 'debates' leading up to an eventual nominee and our next presidential election. It seems only fitting to remind both media and candidate alike what that substantively looks like, and I can think of no better example than the Great Communicator...



Related links: Ronald Reagan's famous line, "I am paying for this microphone"
Reagan-Carter Oct. 28, 1980 Debate - "There You Go Again"

And never forget to add a dash of witty humor!





Related link: Reagan Retrospective Ep. 9 (Season 1) — Peggy Noonan

It's no more of a secret that I wholeheartedly support Ted Cruz for the eventual Republican nomination, than is the inextricable fact of who the most conservative candidate running in this race has been since it began... 
“On Ronald Reagan’s 105th birthday, we celebrate a leader who inspired Americans to once again believe in America’s promise. In the late 1970s, the economy lagged, people faced soaring prices, and Communism was on the march around the world. Ronald Reagan invited our nation to once again believe in the Divine gift of human freedom and to not simply “contain communism” but “transcend it.” Because of Reagan’s vision and resolve, the Iron Curtain became the ash heap of history. Freedom again overcame the stronghold that sought to extinguish it. As it always will.

“The world is more free and prosperous because of President Reagan’s courage to speak the truth and defy the norms of Washington. And today, as I join my fellow Republican candidates on the debate stage in New Hampshire, we are reminded of when then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan came to New Hampshire 36 years ago. He was the underdog despised by the Washington establishment and dismissed by the media. He was thought to be 15 to 20 points behind, but the people in the Granite State propelled him into first place and against all odds he went on to win the nomination. Right now, we face a similar time for choosing, and if we once again unite to stand courageously for freedom, prosperity, and security, we can once again ignite the promise of America.” ~ Ted Cruz
It is again indeed A Time for Choosing. May we choose wisely in the coming days, for America, for conservatism, and in memory of a great American President we'll never forget. Happy Birthday, Mr. President!



Related links: Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan, You Still Inspire Us To Hope
Happy 105th Birthday Ronald Reagan, he trusted the people and believed in the ‘magic of the marketplace’
Farewell Speech - President Reagan's Farewell Speech from the Oval Office 1/11/89

Friday, February 5, 2016

NBPC president questions Admin on usurpation of immigration law before Congress

"There are no legitimate reasons not to secure the border. America needs to know if immigrants are enemies or friends, what their visas say, when they come in and when they leave. We need to fix Congress which is following the administration in failing to enforce immigration laws." ~ ML, 2/4/16
Yesterday, President of the National Border Patrol Council, Brandon Judd, testified before Congress that border patrol agents are being ordered to stand down and release illegal immigrants caught crossing into the U.S. He says that open-border amnesty is happening right now, bringing in more criminals and gangs like MS-13. Obama and his cronies are usurping federal immigration law, but everyone seems too concerned with tweets and other distractions to care...
WashingtonExaminer: In a shocking reversal of policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are being told to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings, essentially a license to stay in the United States, a key agent testified Thursday.

What’s more, the stand down order includes a requirement that the whereabouts of illegals released are not to be tracked.

“We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether,” suggested agent Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.

Testifying on the two-year border surge of immigrant youths, Judd said the policy shift was prompted by Obama administration “embarrassment” that just over half of illegals ordered to appear in court actually do.
Judd's testimony begins @ 56:00...

Though it is refreshing to hear an HONEST assessment from the NBPC president, it is equally disheartening and outrageous to know that those empowered at the highest levels of government tasked with the singularly authentic power granted them by the Constitution to protect our national sovereignty seem to care least about that duty.

Related links: Border agent testifies Obama Administration ordering release of illegals
Border agent: 'We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether'

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Ted Cruz appeals to blue-collar voters, while the establishment looks to anoint Rubio

The candidate who happens to appeal the most to blue-collar Reagan Democrats and younger voters also happens to be THE MOST CONSERVATIVE candidate, Ted Cruz! How could this be? Because, despite the naysayers, CONSERVATISM WORKS!
WeeklyStandard: In the aftermath of the 2012 election, conservatives/Republicans generally split into two camps about where the movement or party needed to head next. One camp thought the key was to do a better job of making the case for conservative principles and policies (and to do a better job of developing specific policies consistent with conservative principles), especially to Main Street Americans, many of whom are blue-collar voters.

This camp was particularly frustrated with Mitt Romney's failure to fight on the issue of Obamacare or to champion a conservative alternative to it, and it argued that Republicans couldn't win national elections without advancing a conservative message that would appeal to the old Reagan Democrats. It blamed the 2012 loss squarely on Romney's shoulders (and on the shoulders of those who failed to answer the bell and thus gave Romney an open path to the nomination).

A second camp maintained that Romney's defeat was the nearly unavoidable result of changing racial demographics, and it set out to pursue open-borders immigration "reform," more lenient criminal-sentencing policies, and the like, in an effort to try to negate, or at least to minimize, Democrats' success at playing racial-identity politics. Apart from these targeted efforts, which largely seemed designed to exonerate Romney and his allies, this camp showed little interest in changing the way Republicans do business.

As has been widely reported, Donald Trump's appeal has mostly been to blue-collar voters, and he has risen to the top of the polls by blasting open-border immigration policies and the business-as-usual way of Republican—and American—politics. It is therefore striking that the Iowa entrance polling suggests that Trump lost among blue-collar voters (or, more specifically, among voters without college degrees) to Ted Cruz.

According to entrance polling, among the roughly half of all Republican voters without a college degree, Cruz won 30 percent of the vote, eclipsing Trump's 28 percent. Marco Rubio was a distant third, winning the support of just 17 percent of voters without college degrees. Cruz did 5 points better among voters without college degrees than among college grads (30 percent to 25 percent), while, among all candidates included in the entrance polling (Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders), Rubio was the candidate who had the lowest portion of his support come from those without college degrees—he did 10 points worse among voters without college degrees than among college grads (17 to 27 percent).

According to the entrance polling, Cruz also fared better than Trump or Rubio among younger voters. Among voters under the age of 30, Cruz won 26 percent of the vote to Rubio's 23 percent and Trump's 20 percent. Among voters in their 30s and early 40s, Cruz won 30 percent of the vote to Trump's 23 percent and Rubio's 21 percent. (Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton got clobbered among younger voters, winning less than 30 percent of the vote among those under the age of 45.)

Cruz's strong numbers among blue-collar voters lend credence to his expressed determination, emphasized in his victory speech, to win Reagan Democrats back into the Republican fold. Cruz could certainly do more to appeal to such voters—for example, he could champion a winning Obamacare alternative, a move that would also help convince GOP primary voters that a Cruz nomination could result in an electoral win in 2016 and a huge policy win in 2017. Yet, even already, Cruz's appeal to blue-collar voters has helped him notch an impressive win in a crucial state.
This proves to the moderate RINO camp that "the key was to do a better job of making the case for conservative principles and policies, especially to Main Street Americans, many of whom are blue-collar voters," following the '08 and '12 losses. Yet, this message falls on deaf ears among the media elites and the political establishment. While they're settling to assist Trump over Cruz, they're tirelessly anointing Rubio as their go-to boy. But why would the Republican Party nominate someone for president who has such an electability problem when it comes to illegal immigration, amnesty and the threat to citizenry and sovereignty?
PJMedia: There hasn’t been this much excitement in the luxury boxes since the 1991 Kentucky Derby when Mane Minister showed at 87-1. Marco Rubio’s expected third-place showing set off a frenzy of spin and sly promotion in the commentary class. The conventional wisdom is that Rubio is the more electable Republican in November as compared to Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

The conventional wisdom is wrong, just as it was in 2012 and 2008.

Marco Rubio has two significant problems that render him a problematic November candidate. The first is his record on the most important issue of the year. The second is being the newly anointed preferred candidate of the Washington establishment.

The strongest supporters of Marco Rubio are those who think the political rules of 1996 still govern election outcomes in 2016. They believe a candidate cannot win without appealing to the moderate middle. They still believe the incentive and reward system of the pre-polarized world governs election outcomes (or they are themselves politically moderate).

They are unfamiliar with the revolutionary role of data analytics that now enable candidates who appeal to the base to drive deeper into their base. It allows them to turn out ideological allies at a far cheaper marginal rate than appealing to the hard-to-mobilize moderate middle.

In other words, the strongest supporters of Marco Rubio will be the same folks who thought Mitt Romney and John McCain were the most electable in November because they were moderate, or not as conservative.

Romney won the moderate middle and independents in 2012 but still lost the election.

This happened because Obama used the Catalist database. Catalist gave him the ability to identify and motivate the most extreme ideological voters who came with the smallest marginal cost to turnout. While Obama was driving deeper into the leftist base and turning out ideological allies at 1 unit of marginal cost, Romney ignored his base. Romney spent time trying to persuade independents, who by their nature were tough to persuade at, say, 5 units of marginal cost.
The piece moves on to Rubio's biggest problem (i.e., his advocacy of amnesty) and how the establishment is getting this just as wrong as they did with Romney...
In 2012, the Republican Party nominated the one candidate who could not hammer President Obama on the central issue of the year -- government-managed health care. Mitt Romney was a champion of government-run health care as governor of Massachusetts and that effectively destroyed his ability to press fire on the president. The Republicans who nominated Romney in February and March abandoned the most mobilizing issue for November.

But Romney was sure to appeal to the moderate independents in November, right? Romney was more electable than Gingrich or Santorum, we were told.

After Iowa, it appears the same people who brought you Mitt Romney are now smitten with Marco Rubio (Ann Coulter excluded). We’re hearing the same thing we heard in 2016. Claims that Rubio is the most “electable” candidate are wrecked on the history of 2012.

Rubio's flirtation with amnesty does more than keep the base home -- it limits his rhetorical weaponry.

Romney couldn't effectively attack Obamacare because he once supported something similar. How will Rubio credibly attack the lawless deferred-action policies of Obama when he shared the same goals? Is it enough for Rubio to say: "I wanted legislation to grant amnesty; Obama does it by edict!"? To the base, the distinction is meaningless.
So right. And though this piece focuses mostly on his amnesty record, ring-leading the Gang of 8, there's also Rubio's neocon tendencies towards surveillance and Democracy projects leading to unwanted wars that disables him from the conservative fight that MUST happen in order to turn this sinking ship around.

It's crazy when even I have to agree with Chris Christie, of which I'm no fan...enough with the establishment coddling! It's time for THE PEOPLE to wake up and decide, dammit!





Related link: Ted Cruz Best Choice to End Lawlessness at Justice Department
Why Are So Many Millennials Feeling the Bern?

ADDENDUM: via Levin...
Conservatives have a real opportunity to explain to the American people why their agenda is way more important than the lefts. Right now, Republicans are throwing away the opportunity to reach young people and other Americans with a conservative message. Instead, they and their media surrogates are focusing on tweets. Why not discuss and articulate real issues like an over reaching EPA, national security, and immigration? That was the problem with Mitt Romney and John McCain, they claimed conservatism but couldn’t articulate conservative principles and issues.
...and as Romney was to RomneyCare, so will Rubio be to the Gang of 8. Indefensible.

Related link: Horowitz: Is Rubio Really the Most Electable Candidate?

Carter chooses Trump because he's "completely malleable"

A great new ad is out from the Cruz campaign which puts the difference between himself and Trump in crystal clear perspective utilizing the endorsement of Mr. Peanut himself, Jimmy Carter...



Got that? By commie Carter's Democratic account, Trump has no values and can be molded like clay, whereas Cruz is a solid conservative! This ad needs to run nonstop in New Hampshire, South Carolina, everywhere.

Related links: WATCH: Does Jimmy Carter Prefer Trump or Cruz?
White Supremacists Form A Super PAC. Take A Wild Guess Who They’re Supporting?
How can someone so UNFAVORABLE be so popular?

How can someone so UNFAVORABLE be so popular?

How indeed? Besides the seduction of populism, it's gotta be something more than the stardom...
Inquisitr: To hear Trump stumpers tell it, Donald is the clear and dominant choice for president. However, Gallup is suggesting the exact opposite. According to the popular polling service, Donald Trump is viewed unfavorably by three out of every five people asked about the Republican candidate.

That 60 percent of those asked view Trump unfavorably might not be surprising given his recent controversies. However, the Washington Post points out why this poll result is so remarkable.
“[Donald Trump’s unfavorability is] the highest among the Republicans and the highest of any candidate in the race at this point.

It’s so high, in fact, that Gallup’s Frank Newport wanted to see how it compared to the peak unfavorable ratings earned by every candidate back to 1992, when Gallup began tracking the data as it does now.”
What Gallup determined is that Donald Trump is the most unfavorable candidate within the past 25 years of American history. Democrat or Republican, no person running for the office of president has managed to be viewed so unfavorably.
A similar assessment could be made of Hillary Clinton, who earned a 52% unfavorability rating. This piece tosses around some theories as to 'why?', but here's the crux of why this populism is likely detrimental...
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that outside of his base and the large bubble of support is an even greater bubble, one filled with Americans far too embarrassed by the notion of a Donald Trump type in office. This, more so than the recent Gallup poll, might prove to be Donald Trump’s undoing.
Allow me to also contribute the simple notion of idiocracy. It's one thing to supposedly 'tell it like it is,' but it's quite another if that telling isn't backed by consistent principles proven to benefit our civil society (i.e., conservatism, constitutionality, Judeo-Christian values). Else, stupidity replaces ignorance in the pursuit of political bliss.

Related links: Gallup: Trump Highest Unfavorable Rating Ever Recorded
Trump's Negative Image
SHAME On Evangelicals! How Can You Choose Trump Over a Man Like Ted Cruz?