Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us his take on New Hampshire:
So there you go. My disclaimer and opinions. We’ll wait and see what happens.
The GOP primary now comes down to Trump and everyone else. If it becomes a one on one contest Trump is toast. If it becomes Trump and two other candidates Trump is likely toast. Dave is quite correct that Jeb Bush is running for no discernable reason except that the GOP establishment wanted him to. I expect him to drop out after Super Tuesday if he cannot win a state. Rubio’s main problem now is whether his money starts drying up. Nothing is more deadly for someone who is claiming front runner status than to be humiliated, and that is what happened to Rubio in New Hampshire. Cruz is in it for the long haul. Thus far his strategy is working, and I expect him to keep hammering away at Trump, which will cause Trump to attack him and, Cruz hopes, cements the idea in the minds of the public that it is really a two man race. Kasich will stay in and may have a shot if he takes at least one state on Super Tuesday. Some of the Rubio money is probably already moving his way.
Please, Dear Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy and prevent the election of:
.
The philandering playboy gambler
The murderous pathological liar
The commie pinko geriatric
Absent a first or strong second place in South Carolina, Rubio’s toast, which leaves the race really a two-man showdown between Trump and Cruz. The primary field strongly favors Cruz immediately after South Carolina, and polling consistently shows Cruz handily defeats Trump in a head-to-head race. Trump could theoretically emerge victorious from a three-man race, but it’s doubtful. Hopefully Carson and Bush wake up and realize they’re going nowhere. Kasich can stay in but he’s not gonna make a dent in the SEC primaries.
A Trump-Cruz showdown would be fascinating, pitting two ostensibly anti-Establishment candidates. The choice would then come down to one candidate (Trump) whose historical (and even most current) stances indicate he is in fact at one with the more moderate wing of the party, and a candidate who truly represents change.
Griffey makes a rather silly argument in denouncing Cruz. We must dispense with this fiction that Barack Obama’s main problem is that he is “divisive” – the main problem with Barack Obama is that he has enacted policies that are disastrous for this country and has acted in a unilateral fashion undermining the core of our republican form of government. Cruz is the only candidate remaining who would actively work to reverse this.
It’s curious that Cruz’s supposed lack of likability keeps being discussed. Mr. Unlikable has managed to poll ahead of the boy wonder, Marco Rubio, in two successive state elections, and he’s almost certainly going to do so for the next dozen or so. I guess some people like him well enough.
Matt Walsh has more on why Cruz’s supposed charisma defect is actually a positive sign: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/ted-cruz-has-no-style-and-no-personality-thats-why-its-a-good-sign-hes-winning/
From a purely speculate point of view, I wonder something. If, despite all the media coverage, polling, Iowa, and New Hampshire, somehow Hillary and Bush do well enough during Super Tuesday and at the conventions behind the scenes that they limp to the top of their tickets, I wonder whose side would revolt the most.
Cruz has consistently represented his constituents which has had him in the position of going against the entrenched republican leadership in Congress. Our country is bankrupt and we can’t admit it. This President has, with the consent of Congress, led us to the cliff and many Americans are not willing to go for the rest of the ride. The republicans in power have not done what they said they would do, they have not done what we have asked them to do. Cruz has done so and he is one of the few that has had the courage to continue the fight. Trump has a history and it’s liberal. He has not been consistent with his positions. I don’t care if some say Cruz is abrasive, it’s time for some sand paper in Washington.
Dave Griffey’s analysis is flawed in many places. Kasich anti-traditional marriage, anti-family, and anti-life. He also has no problem using Scripture to advance liberal causes, which I’m sure is one reason why the NY Times endorsed him. People keep saying Rubio is too young. He’s only 6 months younger than Cruz. If the party and press could not forgive Perry’s “Oops” moment, I do not see Rubio surviving his robotic moment unfortunately. (Yet, Joe Biden is VP.) Cruz is not abrasive. He is principled. Comparing him to Obama is silly because Obama is not abrasive to the GOP. The GOP loves to get along with him. Don’t want to be called “abrasive.”
Paul,
I’d support Cruz in a heart beat over Trump or the “other” Democratic candidates. He is fortunate, however, that his is likability-deficit is pretty much limited to people who have actually met him, which of course does not include the vast majority of the electorate.
Well Mike, I certainly know people who have met Cruz and like the man, but I can see how he is not as superficially appealing as Rubio. It’s worth keeping in mind that Hillary Clinton might be the least charismatic, and most ethically challenged nominee we’ve ever seen. And if she is not the nominee, then we get a socialist. So I’m not too concerned about Cruz’s electability (or Rubio’s) quite yet.
Paul, I agree with you re the bottom line. I don’t know either Rubio or Cruz personally, but I do know people who worked closely with Cruz at Justice. He is without question bright, but he is also over-the-top ambitious even by politician standards and caustic as a matter of default. Getting things done in DC (or anywhere for that matter) almost always requires some ability to persuade, and if Cruz is elected (and certainly I hope he’d prevail over either Dem) he will have to further develop that skill to be successful. For the record, the men I know who worked with him, while they don’t support him as the nominee, will vote for him without hesitation should he be the nominee.
Finally, I think Rubio’s record demonstrates that he is hardly a superficial man. Those of us who have not been TR’s “man in the ring” can find it all too easy to be unfairly dismissive.
He is without question bright, but he is also over-the-top ambitious even by politician standards and caustic as a matter of default.
How well do you know them?
I ask because my husband sometimes gets complaints that he is caustic (welly, they usually say “mean” or “too harsh”), and has been told he needs to be less “enthusiastic,” because he followed (and enforced) the rules in letter and spirit when people didn’t expect him to, because it wasn’t in his interest, it was just right.
Some of the people who complain are friends, they’re just…better to have as a friend than as a co-worker.
Foxfier,
I don’t know Cruz at all, just lawyers who worked with him. These lawyers have a pretty high threshold for caustic, and their experience comports with his general reputation. Of course their experience could have been idiosyncratic and the reputation unfair and false, but that would seem pretty unlikely. My pro-life friends in DC tell me that basically Cruz has a hard time avoiding making enemies out of those who should be his friends. If that is true, it is not an attribute of leadership. In contradistinction, RWR was successful precisely because he made friends of his opponents, not enemies of his friends.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’d vote for Cruz without reservation if he is the GOP nominee. As I’ve said many times on this very forum, Jesus isn’t running and we always must choose between imperfect candidates. But even I have my limits. If Trump is the nominee, I’ll stay home and say a rosary or two.
I meant how well do you know those lawyers?
Clearly if you trust their judgement, they’re not bad people, but if they’re of the “get things done” perspective and he’s on the “follow the required process” one, they’re going to clash. (And it will burn all the more because he’ll be unlikely to trust them without checking in the future, and it’s not really something a body can complain about.)
I know these lawyers very well. They are very meticulous, and I don’t think that their assessment can be attributed to a clash of perspectives. Please understand — I’m not saying that Cruz is a bad person or would be a lousy president, but he apparently has a nack for making enemies unnecessarily. His supporters say that is because he won’t go along with the established status quo. Perhaps, but my friends are not exactly status quo guys. An effective leader leads by achieving the consensus he prefers, and this normally requires avoiding artificial acrimony.
Just gathering data.
I like Trump and when all is said and done he will be our next President. We are now in the age of the anti-politician, the age of the independent. Trump will pull a lot of Democrat votes. Trump is non-ideological and this is good. As a business guy he knows how to work with folks to get the job done. We need actions, not words. Besides that Trump is a charming guy. He he a winner. We need a winner after Obama. The country is desperate for it. Even if it means electing Donald Trump whose gifts some conservative folks fail to appreciate.
“Trump will pull a lot of Democrat votes.”
He should. Trump is a pro-abort liberal Democrat. Let him run for President if he wishes, but in his party not in mine.
If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, I will do the following: I will deregister from the Republican party, because it signifies that the party has been fully taken over by people who completely reject everything I stand for. I will then not only not vote for Donald in November, I will do everything in my power to make sure neither he, nor Hillary, nor Bernie, nor Bloomberg ever occupies the Oval Office. It would be an uphill climb, I know, but I’m not going to just sit by and see some version of a leftist authoritarian take over.
We need actions, not words
What a load of crap coming from the backer of someone who is all talk, and has offered absolutely no concrete specifics on how he will get things done. I mean look at your comment – it’s a string of cliches backed with zero evidence. It’s the same meaningless talking points repeated by every Trump fan.
He he a winner.
Except for Iowa, after which he was just a whiner.
More and more I am becoming inclined to agree with Paul Zummo’s last comment.
<We are now in the age of the anti-politician, the age of the independent.
You know Trump has admitted greasing a lot of palms. He’s not a politician, but he does play politics.
Trump is non-ideological and this is good.
Trump’s ideology is himself and “winning!” And by winning, I mean when he wins.
People talk about electability. Trump has the highest negative of any candidate by far. He has a history of foot in mouth disease, so much they gave it a name, “Trumpisms.”
This stuff is an entertaining read, but do we really want the Rodney Dangerfield character from Caddy Shack in the Oval Office.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/nine-tales-of-trump-at-his-trumpiest/article/2000697#.VqI9Ga9h1a4.google_plusone_share
Agreed, Kyle.
Such an odd election.
The GOP is threatening to nominate the one candidate who cannot beat Hillary (Trump). And the Dems are threatening to nominate the one candidate who cannot beat Trump (Sanders).
Just for fun:
Cruz had to pull an ad because it turned out that one of the actresses in it had done porn, he stated she hadn’t been vetted. I take this to mean his staff never heard of IMDB.
Also, how many votes did Bernie Sanders steal? In this video a campaign worker says all the out of state staff and volunteers voted:
In defense of Cruz, folks familiar with these campaigns appreciate how fast-paced they can be. Balls are dropped, tasks overlooked, and mistakes are made. But non-residents voting is a bit harder to explain away.
IMDB has porn listings? I must’ve not run into any of them, I know some of the folks I talk to who are big fans of a specific artist (for the stuff she did that isn’t porn) have complained that her listings are quite incomplete.
*looks around*
Oh, not porn. “Erotica.” That is on IMDB, but looking at the covers and the listings…the titles in connection with her being a reporter that minored in drama would suggest more supposed to be deep than lookie, softcore!
Unless, of course, someone recognized the titles. Are we supposed to be upset that they didn’t have any fans of her work on that project?
****
Here’s the “about” on her facebook:
Born a Buckeye but raised a Longhorn, Amy Lindsay burst onto the Hollywood scene shortly after arriving in LA when she was cast opposite Luke Perry in the biographical drama “8 Seconds”, where she was directed by Academy Award winner John Avildsen. Guest turns soon followed in episodes of “Silk Stalkings”, “Pacific Blue” and “Star Trek”, which launched Amy into starring roles in more than 50 feature films over the next decade. Amy co-starred in the hit series “Black Tie Nights” for HBO, and in 2010 played the title role in the teen comedy “MILF”, one of Netflix most downloaded films of that year.
One of the most sought-after voiceover artists by casting directors in the business, Amy is also an Emmy-nominated associate producer; having overseen 9 documentaries for the National Endowment for the Arts and collaborations with such stars as Tom Hanks, Kevin Costner, Christina Applegate, and Bill Pullman. Amy is a proud graduate of the University of Texas with a degree in Journalism and a minor in Drama.
Perhaps Trump’s winning New Hampshire is a cloud having a silver lining. Absent Trump, Cruz would still be the bête noire of the GOP Establishment. Now, he may come to be their savior.
The unfortunate sad truth is that many in the GOP establishment would prefer to lose with Trump than win with Cruz.
Perhaps, but they should re-think it. They might thereby hasten the death of the GOP. If they were to so demonstrably place their notion of party above country, I’d send back my plastic card in one hundred slivers and join the Constitution Party with Alan Keyes.