While Trump, Rubio and their minions scamper about South Carolina and other parts, attacking the character of Cruz with more silly accusations, all the while glossing over their own mixed bags of dishonesty, the Texas Senator took a unique opportunity to lay out the case before the cameras of just how severely lacking his opponents records truly are...
Earlier today, the Cruz campaign handed out fliers (accompanied by an easel exhibit!) at a press conference which lists The Real Donald Trump's donations to, surprise, Democratic politicians. Hey, if the truth offends, then look to Donald, because it's his own record! How is this possibly justified?!
So with Trump threatening to file some bogus suit against Ted for daring to tell the truth about Donald, Cruz takes off the gloves and doesn't simply just dare Trump to, but calls his bluff in a bigger way, saying, "I may not use outside council, I may take the deposition myself!"
1st cut from Cruz's presser:Cruz looks fwd to getting Trump under oath."didn't work out v well for Bill Clinton" https://t.co/DUVNYon4d3
Then of course with Rubio, much of it has to do with the denial of an immigration record that echoes Obama, while hiding behind a foreign tongue...
TRS: Ted Cruz has just released a brutal new ad exposing Rubio’s amnesty betrayal and how Rubio was using Obama’s amnesty talking points to sell it. There’s even a clip in it where Obama is praising Rubio for his amnesty efforts.
TRS: Ted Cruz has released another blistering ad aimed at Marco Rubio, exposing his lies about his Univision interview on DACA:
Nice touch on that last one with the Rush soundbite & Beck at the end!
Cruz says Rubio is "behaving like Donald Trump with a smile."
Cruz called in to Levin tonight to discuss how he's gone on the offense with a powerful defensive strategy that exposes Trump and Rubio's wobbly records...
On Wednesday’s Mark Levin show, Sen. Ted Cruz calls in to defend himself against Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. For one, Trump keeps threatening these frivolous lawsuits against Cruz. Donald Trump’s lawyers are numb-skulls if they move forward with a lawsuit against Ted Cruz. A defamation lawsuit against Cruz brought by Trump would be thrown out of court. Trump is used to getting his way, by threatening lawsuits and it won’t work with Cruz who is inviting Trump to sue him. Many who support Trump would have supported Ross Perot in the 90’s. Also, the Republican establishment has now gotten behind Marco Rubio. It is made even more obvious because now Gov. Nikki Haley in South Carolina has endorsed him. The establishment is willing to elect Rubio in spite of his support of the Gang of 8 and pledged not to immediately rescind Obama’s executive order on amnesty.
In talking to several Trump fans over the weekend, who after watching his damnable behavior Saturday night at the South Carolina debate proceeded one after another to tell me how they were "Done!" with this clown, you can imagine the anticipation shared by those of us who want an actual conservative as our nominee to see what the Big Boys in talk radio would have to say about it on Monday...and it was as precisely critical as it only could have been...
First this morning, El Rushbo...
TRS: Today on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that Trump sounded like the Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground, and your average MSNBC host at the debate on Saturday night:
TRS: Mark Levin didn’t hold back tonight as he went nuclear over Donald Trump’s comments blaming Bush for 9/11 and saying Bush intentionally lied about WMDs. He said Trump sounded like a radical kook, pointing out that Ronald Reagan would have never said what Trump said. Levin defended Bush from the slanderous allegations made by Trump, arguing that we know exactly what happened because it’s been investigated over and over and there’s never been any evidence of Trump’s claims.
Levin called Trump a liar and said he’s crossed the line.
The news of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's death throughout Saturday evening, preceding the South Carolina GOP debate, just up'd the stakes in two major ways: 1.) on preventing our current imperial despot from nominating/appointing a radical to the bench, and 2.) on the importance of who's nominated as the Republican candidate in the state primaries to then become our next president...
RedState: It seems now to be confirmed that Antonin Scalia, one of the most influential figures in the history of American jurisprudence, has died after serving 30 years on the Supreme Court. Scalia’s influence went well beyond being one of the nine votes who decided the most important cases in the land. Scalia’s quick-witted and acerbic pen, used most often while writing in dissent, breathed life into a coherent conservative judicial philosophy that can correctly be credited with the fact that judicial restraint is even a topic of discussion in America, much less a growing force within the judicial branch itself.
When Scalia came to the bench, he joined a Supreme Court that had been drunk on its own power and self-importance for decades, following the lead of Earl Warren, a staunch liberal who expressed no reservations or qualms about second guessing the text of the constitution, the original intent of the framers, the constitutionally-expressed will of Federal and State legislatures, or the verdicts and wisdom of the average jury. Warren’s days were heady ones, for a Supreme Court justice, as judges could play the robed betters of the entire country without fear of serious contradiction.
Scalia and his writing changed all of that. For the first time, someone who actually sat on the Supreme Court gave voice to frustrations that millions of ordinary Americans felt at watching the Supreme Court brush away the America they once knew with the stroke of an arrogant pen. And while the Supreme Court still strays from its constitutional prerogatives with dismaying regularity, the days of the completely conscience-less Warren court are gone, likely forever.
Most importantly, Scalia’s writing gave rise to an entire generation of lawyers and lower-level judges who followed in his intellectual footsteps. Armed with a clear vision of how the judiciary should work and the constitutional limitations on judicial authority, the Federal judiciary has forever been changed due to Scalia’s influence.
Where do we go from here? Well, it’s difficult to say. McConnell and Cornyn have already signaled publicly and privately that Obama is unlikely to get more judicial nominations through, but a Supreme Court vacancy is a different political beast than a district or circuit vacancy. If Obama were smart, he would nominate a true moderate judge – someone nominated to an appeals Circuit by a Republican but with a moderate record – and defy Republicans to block it for an entire year. Since Obama is instead the nation’s first troll President, I expect he will instead nominate a liberal firebrand and use the upcoming year as a wedge issue, banking on the Senate’s long-established history of caving to get his way. In the meantime, Scalia’s absence will have a profound impact on a huge number of meaningful cases that are coming before the Supreme Court this year.
Either way, there’s at least a decent chance that Scalia’s replacement will be chosen by the next President, rather than by Obama. Regardless of whether that happens or not, Scalia’s death is likely to bring back to the forefront an issue that has receded to the background in the year of Trump – the importance of a conservative judicial philosophy.
It’s also worth noting that right now, the current Republican front runner has cited exactly one legal mind favorably during the course of eight publicly televised debate, and that was noted liberal Harvard professor (and avid Hillary Clinton supporter) Laurence Tribe. The chances that Trump would be able to even correctly identify someone who shared a judicial philosophy with Scalia, much less have the will or courage to fight for such a nominee, are virtually zero.
Do these things even still matter to Republican voters? We are about to find out, and the seat held by one of the most important legal minds in this country’s history hangs in the balance.
One need not forget about Trump's praise of his sister either, a pro-abortion extremist judge! (Also of note is the below mentioned SCOTUS decision by a margin of one)...
NR: Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”
If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”
Laws against partial-birth abortion had strong bipartisan support. They were attempts to mark an outer limit to the abortion right of Roe. If unborn children could not be protected within the womb, could they at least be protected when partway out? That would be illogical, said Judge Barry. But if the location of fetal death does not matter, then it could hardly matter if the child was all the way outside the womb. Laws against infanticide, too, must be dismissed as irrational line-drawing. The intellectual architect of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Hadley Arkes, mentions Judge Barry’s decision in his book on the origin of that law, explaining that it was in part designed to head off the dangerous implications of such rulings.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that partial-birth abortion could be outlawed—but it did so by a margin of one.
It’s understandable that Trump would praise his sister. But when candidates praise relatives who have served in public office—whether they’re members of the Bush, Paul, Clinton, or Trump families—voters are entitled to keep those relatives’ records in mind.
Yes, the stakes are this high, folks. And this MUST be a quintessential decider for voters as they enter their respective primaries, not later, but NOW...we cannot chance life or liberty on this...
(Extended interaction is HERE to witness the full Trump meltdown!)
TRS: Ted Cruz was interviewed by Hillary hack and Clinton Foundation contributor George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” and he laid out the case against the Senate taking up Obama’s attempt to seize the Supreme Court with a Marxist nominee.
There’s no better candidate on this issue than Ted Cruz, who himself defended the Constitution before the Supreme Court many times. IF the American people care about the Constitution any more, and that’s a big “if” unfortunately, Ted Cruz needs to be taken seriously as their choice for President.
ADDENDUM II: Levin says if Republicans fail to block Obama's SCOTUS pick, "You can kiss what's left of the Constitution goodbye!"
CR: On his radio program, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin laid out what is at stake in the fight to replace Antonin Scalia. He warned that the Constitution was on the precipice of becoming irrelevant as 'judicial oligarchy' is a real possibility.
Brian Darling wrote how exactly the Senate can block an Obama nominee earlier today at Conservative Review. He explains that "it is a myth that the president nominates and the senate must vote on the nomination."
ADDENDUM III: Cruz brings this discussion back to the point of LIFE...
"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.
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...that can't be debunked.
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 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.
...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.
In a one on one townhall on MSNBC, Morning Joe Host Mika Brzezinski lists a series of traits to Donald Trump and asks him who he thinks she is describing. It's not who Trump thinks it is.
I share in the facepalm sentiment of that guy over Trump's shoulder...sheesh...
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!
Only 23 pct of NH GOP voters are born-again or evangelical, in exit polls. Compare Iowa: 62 pct.
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!
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.
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...
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!
