Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on January 26, 2016 by Allahpundit

Five years ago, as Ted Cruz plotted his path to the U.S. Senate, the anti-establishment crusader sought a private audience with and the backing of one of the faces of the modern GOP establishment: George W. Bush.

In a never-before-reported meeting in Bush’s Dallas office, Cruz began to outline his 2012 campaign playbook for the former president, according to people familiar with the conversation. Cruz explained how he would consolidate conservatives yearning for a political outsider, how he would outflank the front-runner on the right, how he would proudly carry the mantle of the ascendant tea party to victory over entrenched elites.

It was impressive foreshadowing. But Bush cut Cruz off before he could finish.

“I guess you don’t want my support,” Bush interrupted. “Ted, what the hell do you think I am?

***

In my conversations with Republican policy types and Senate aides about Cruz, this lack of regard for his colleagues, and for the niceties that have traditionally governed the upper chamber, was a common theme. As Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader, told me last week, referring to the time Cruz called McConnell a liar on the Senate floor: “You just don’t do that. Are we not still gentlemen, and respectful of each other?”

Another criticism of Cruz is that his antics are disruptive and damaging to the Republican Party. The shutdown nearly led to a national default, terrifying the business community. It led to the lowest approval ratings for the GOP in decades. Even the Kochs came out against such tactics. Groups like the Chamber of Commerce generally support a conservative platform, but not at the price of government ceasing to function. “It’s not what he’s trying to accomplish or what he says he’s trying to accomplish that bothers people,” former McConnell chief of staff Josh Holmes told The Washington Post. “It’s that he’s consistently sacrificed the mutual goals of many for his personal enhancement.”…

But a Republican policy expert close to a number of top GOP operatives and donors insisted it’s not about Cruz’s style or his positions. It’s his disingenuousness—and inability to produce results. “He knows his tactics are bound to fail, but pursues them to debase his Republican colleagues under false pretenses and endear himself to the base as the only authentic conservative,” said the expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he runs an organization that does not endorse candidates. But the effort doesn’t result in smaller government or the end of Obamacare—all it achieves is drawing attention to Cruz. “He is incapable of delivering anything but theater,” the expert added.

***

“The bottom line is many people around here think Cruz would be worse for our chances of keeping the majority,” said a senior Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak about Cruz frankly. “He’s so polarizing, it could be a wipeout.”…

“Trump says things that drive you up the wall — he says he doesn’t like guys who get captured and that he’ll make Mexico pay for the wall — but he’s not mean. Cruz is mean,” said the senior Republican…

Another GOP senator who requested anonymity said that while neither Cruz nor Trump would be ideal ticket toppers in states such as New Hampshire and Florida, it will be easier for vulnerable incumbents to distance themselves from Trump than from Cruz.

“Trump’s not really seen as a Republican, while Cruz is much more identified with the party,” the lawmaker said. “Trump would be better heading the ticket than Cruz.”

***

“The Republicans’ presidential nominee must build a winning coalition that extends beyond the Republican base,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania. “Running a campaign and expanding the coalition is an exercise in addition, not subtraction.”

Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who has been chasing Mr. Trump in the polls in early primary states, is popular among religious conservatives and hard-right Republican voters. But Mr. Trump’s unusual bloc, such that it is, pulls in registered Democrats and other nontraditional Republican primary voters. Indeed, some polling has shown overlap in views among those who favor Mr. Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“Ted Cruz is a rigid ideologue,” said Mr. Dent, who is not supporting Trump and has yet to endorse anyone. “Donald Trump is ideologically scattered and malleable. In my view, a more rigid ideology would have a much harder time assembling a winning general election coalition than the less doctrinaire candidate.”

***

Campbell tells me that the Cruz campaign is overlooking another fundamental aspect of his work: The party itself needs to be united behind its nominee, and the open warfare that has broken out over the prospect of Cruz becoming the GOP’s standard-bearer suggests that’s unlikely to happen should he best his Republican rivals. “A candidate who appeals only to the establishment or only to the true-blue conservative can’t win” the general election, Campbell says. “You need them both together. Even if you got every conservative out to vote, you still need moderate support as well. And the establishment can’t hope to put together a winning ticket without conservative support.”…

I ask Campbell if he thinks Cruz can muster the establishment support necessary to unify the party and pull off a general-election victory. “I don’t think so,” he says, “and he hasn’t made much of an effort to do it. My dream ticket would be a Rubio-Kasich ticket.” Rubio, Campbell argues, is the only candidate who has shown the ability to appeal to both ideological conservatives and establishment moderates…

Like Campbell, Sides offers a word of caution about deeply ideological candidates. “There is some research that shows that candidates who are strongly ideological do suffer a penalty at the ballot box,” he says, pointing to the performance of Republican Barry Goldwater, who lost a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Democrat George McGovern, who was clobbered by Richard Nixon in 1972.

***

The think­ing goes as fol­lows: If Cruz loses Iowa, he peters out in New Hamp­shire and doesn’t pose a risk of fin­ish­ing in a re­spect­able second place. That al­lows the es­tab­lish­ment win­ner out of the Gran­ite State to build mo­mentum as the anti-Trump al­tern­at­ive…

These strategists are look­ing at Trump’s in­creas­ingly bel­li­cose at­tacks against Cruz with glee. In their view, only Trump can suc­cess­fully put a dent in Cruz’s sky-high fa­vor­ab­il­ity among Re­pub­lic­ans, which is a pre­con­di­tion to block­ing him from the nom­in­a­tion.

But there’s one big prob­lem with the the­ory be­ing em­braced by many party pooh-bahs. It risks hand­ing the elec­tion to Trump on a sil­ver plat­ter—help­ing knock out his strongest rival while watch­ing help­lessly as more-mod­er­ate al­tern­at­ives blow each oth­er up in the pro­cess. The wish­ful think­ing be­hind such a strategy is that Cruz is ut­terly un­elect­able, while Trump is un­pre­dict­able enough to win a gen­er­al elec­tion. In real­ity, Cruz looks like an elect­able stand­ard-bear­er, while Trump could blow the party to smithereens…

One thing is clear: Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers de­test Cruz so much that they’re will­ing to run the risk an un­elect­able Re­pub­lic­an will glide to the nom­in­a­tion. In­stead of com­ing up with a con­cer­ted strategy to deal with Trump from the be­gin­ning, they’re now play­ing with fire with some last-ditch im­pro­vising—the con­sequences of which could burn the party down.

***

It may be that members of the Republican establishment, in their trolling of Cruz, don’t address Trump’s own electability because they recognize it for what it is. “Of course, this willingness to accommodate Mr. Trump is driven in part by the fact that few among the Republican professional class believe he would win a general election,” the New York Times reported in a separate piece about the establishment’s supposed détente with the mogul. “In their minds it would be better to effectively rent the party to Mr. Trump for four months this fall, through the general election, than risk turning it over to Mr. Cruz for at least four years, as either the president or the next-in-line leader for the 2020 nomination.”

There’s the tell. Are we really to think that the Republican Party establishment has already come to terms with losing this election? The purpose of the Republican Party establishment is not primarily ideological; it is to win elections for the Republican Party so that the Republican Party will have more ability to do the bidding of the interest groups that prop it up. If the establishment was already prepared to lose the election, they’d be better off going with Cruz to at least scratch the conservative movement’s itch for one of their own as the nominee in order to prove that this path won’t actually work…

Their first objective is to take out Cruz. That means stopping him in Iowa. If he loses Iowa, a narrative sets in about how he blew it, and he might then finish out of the top three in New Hampshire. From there, he would likely not be able to make the dominant sweep through the South over the next month that his delegate strategy requires. If we look at Cruz’s Iowa trend line over the past week as he’s been taking incoming fire from all sides, it seems that this part of the plan is working.

***

“This has been overblown because a small number of people who really don’t like Cruz are happy to say he’s worse than Trump,” said Rory Cooper, a Republican strategist and former House GOP leadership spokesman. “People have been personally burned by Cruz and really don’t like him but if they give Trump long enough, he’ll burn them too.”

A senior congressional Republican aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, agreed with Cooper. “People hate Cruz because they’ve had to deal with him. Haven’t had that experience with Trump yet,” the aide said, confessing that he’d vote for Cruz if they were his only two choices.

There’s no consensus within the party’s establishment as to which of the two candidates represents the greater threat. According to numerous GOP strategists with establishment connections who spoke on condition of anonymity, Trump’s upside is that he’s a businessman who they believe may be more pragmatic than ideological when push comes to shove, while Cruz’s upside is that he’s a longtime devotee to conservative causes (unlike Trump, who has famously voiced liberal views in the past) and more predictable.

***

Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz really does detest the federal government, and has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views. When Cruz said “we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation,” he wasn’t referring to jihadist terrorism but to Obamacare…

He’s more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game (as he’s shown in Iowa). Cruz’s legal career entailed a sustained use of the courts to achieve conservative ends, and he plots his moves carefully…

Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. Most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate detest him. And Cruz is eager to destroy: He has repeatedly crossed to the other side of the Capitol and led House Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the Fall of 2013, Cruz’s strident opposition to Obamacare – including a 21-hour talking marathon — led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

***

These arguments are so weak that they can be understood only as rationalizations for a passionate hatred of Cruz felt by Republicans whom he has challenged. I’m a friend of Cruz, but you need not be one to see that anger is leading the officials to make a mistake — or, rather, three of them…

[I]t is not at all clear that Trump would make a stronger general-election candidate. Some Republicans say he has more potential than Cruz among white voters without college degrees. Maybe so. But Trump could also do worse among college-educated whites and among nonwhites. What little evidence we have suggests he would be a weaker candidate overall: He’s doing a bit worse than Cruz in head-to-head polling matchups with Hillary Clinton, and much worse in polls that measure whether voters view the candidates favorably or unfavorably.

Some Republicans believe a Trump loss would not hurt their congressional candidates as much as a Cruz loss, because voters will see Trump as his own man while viewing Cruz as a symbol of the party. Dream on. Any nominee will be the de facto leader of the party…

[I]t’s likely that congressional Republicans would find it easier to work with Cruz than Trump in the White House. Cruz’s Senate colleagues think he has been selfish rather than principled when he has picked fights with them. But his self-interest as president would point him toward passing conservative legislation — replacing Obamacare, for example, something that Cruz and congressional Republicans have said mostly the same things about for several years. Trump would be much less predictable.

***

Why does the Establishment hate Cruz so much? He threatens their livelihood, unlike Trump, whose real estate and casino business has required friendly dealings with politicians of all stripes for half a century. Permit me an anecdote: a couple of years ago I attended the annual dinner of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs where I was then a Fellow, and had the honor to sit next to Allen West. Col. West had just lost his Congressional seat in Florida to a massive Democratic campaign to dislodge him. We were discussing supply-side economics. Sen. Lindsey Graham sauntered over and flashed a smile with more teeth than a Great White. West and I stood up. I told Sen. Graham, “We should make this man president.” Graham showed even more teeth and declared, “First, we’re going to make him rich.”…

Corporate America wanted nothing to do with Ronald Reagan in 1980. Not a single Fortune 500 CEO backed him–all of them supported George H. W. Bush or John Connally in the primaries. When informed of this (Jude Wanniski, who was at the meeting, told me), Reagan said that he didn’t need them–he would be the candidate of the entrepreneur, the small businessman, the farmer, the workingman. Cruz wants to be Reagan redux. The Establishment remembers Reagan; in particular, it remembers that the corporate powers-that-be of 1980 were dwarfed by the entrepreneurial newcomers whom the Reagan reforms unleashed. It didn’t like Reagan the first time, and the last thing it wants is a younger incarnation of him.

Without a return to entrepreneurship, America’s economy will stagnate and America’s middle class will continue to lose ground. Donald Trump represents the triumph of resentment over hope. I don’t know what American voters will do. But I’m frightened.

***

***

***

“If it come downs to Cruz and Trump, I’m a big Trump supporter.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Apparently there will be a snowstorm hit iowa on caucus night

cmsinaz on January 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM

Buckshot Bill on January 27, 2016 at 6:14 AM

Well, I’ll just point out Michael Reagan’s take on Trump.

Last fall:

Ronald Reagan’s son says of all the 2016 Republican presidential candidates, Donald Trump is the least similar to his father.

Today–he hasn’t changed his mind.

Another View — Michael Reagan: Trump is no Reagan Republican

And let me give you some background on that Iowa debate that Reagan skipped:

Reincarnating Reagan by Richard Allen

…One such meeting on the topic took place in December 1979 at a hotel at Los Angeles International Airport, the final briefing and strategy session before the presidential campaign began in early 1980. It was a small group that met, chaired by then-campaign manager John Sears, who had earlier succeeded in driving off several key Reagan folks such as Michael Deaver, Lyn Nofziger, and Martin Anderson, and was working on getting rid of others. Sears insisted that Reagan would not participate in the Iowa caucuses, principally because it was a “beefcake show” and Reagan would win anyway. No one contested the Sears mandate, though it was apparent that Reagan was not entirely comfortable with the assumption that his absence would not be noticed.

Sears was wrong about the Iowa caucuses (Bush won and gained “big Mo,” for “momentum”) and Reagan lost; he was wrong that it was clever to spend nearly all the campaign money up front, and became increasingly estranged from the candidate (and, importantly, Nancy Reagan). Thus Sears was unceremoniously fired by Reagan at 4pm on the very afternoon of the New Hampshire primary, which Reagan won (because after the Iowa disaster, he took direct control of the New Hampshire campaign).

A major point of this article was about Reagan’s principled pro-life stand in the face of Sears telling him it wasn’t politically expedient, but this nugget about the Iowa caucuses should be noted.

INC on January 27, 2016 at 6:39 AM

The media will follow the story, but will this turn their opinion of him to the good? And more importantly, will it bring him any new voters that would put him over the top in Iowa? I don’t think so. I know I had been leaning Trump the last couple of weeks, but I’m now back to leaning Cruz.

Racistanyway on January 27, 2016 at 6:41 AM

cmsinaz on January 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM

Good morning.

INC on January 27, 2016 at 6:42 AM

Good question RA

Hiya INC

cmsinaz on January 27, 2016 at 6:46 AM

Racistanyway on January 27, 2016 at 6:41 AM

Good morning to you as well.

Come to the dark side. We have cookies.

We also don’t believe in pitching a fit and slandering someone who failed to endorse you.

INC on January 27, 2016 at 6:46 AM

But the light side has Megyn Kelly and she’s very pretty!

Racistanyway on January 27, 2016 at 6:51 AM

RA, joking–I meant come back to Cruz.

INC on January 27, 2016 at 7:04 AM

President Trump and Senator Cruz will make great deals together and it will be beautiful…

mjbrooks3 on January 27, 2016 at 7:04 AM

INC, I figured that out after clicking your link! No worries.

Racistanyway on January 27, 2016 at 7:17 AM

Howler Monkey OverLoad:
(sarc)
———————–

Jenna Johnson [email protected] 9h9 hours ago

Guy at Trump rally in Iowa City starts yelling: “Fascists out of Iowa!”
=========

https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/692181349063618560

canopfor on January 27, 2016 at 7:30 AM

Just as I predicted, Trump is getting tired of the game of running for President and is using this as the excuse to effectively quit his campaign.

He will lose Iowa because of it. Way too much drama for them.

Johnnyreb on January 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM

Howler Monkey OverLoad:
(sarc)

canopfor on January 27, 2016 at 7:30 AM

Goes right up there with the individual in my area who decided to write Trump is Hitler in 5′ letters on a snow covered tennis court.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 7:46 AM

Just as I predicted, Trump is getting tired of the game of running for President and is using this as the excuse to effectively quit his campaign.

He will lose Iowa because of it. Way too much drama for them.

Johnnyreb on January 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM

I heard an interesting take on Trump’s bailing from the debate because he can’t handle questions from a girl.

Polls are showing that the evangelicals are going to come out hard for Cruz. Trump can’t afford to lose Iowa now that he’s all but claimed victory. Using Megyn Kelly as an excuse, he will claim that he lost Iowa because his message was muted by not debating. The reality is that the douchebag has arrived at the point where he needs to be more than a celebrity candidate. He’s clearly an idiot when it comes to the issues and so all that is left is bluster and the inevitable temper tantrums when he loses.

You can’t convince me that the douchebag is a good negotiator. He, for certain, is a vile human being that only his howler monkeys could love.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 7:50 AM

“What the heck is he doin’?”

My take: https://kingsjester.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/trump-fox-news-the-democrat-elite-and-the-art-of-the-deal/

”Trump, Fox News, the Democrat Elite, and “The Art of the Deal”

kingsjester on January 27, 2016 at 7:54 AM

Trumpbots: Too far gone to engage in a rational discussion.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/trump-assault

WordsMatter on January 27, 2016 at 7:57 AM

Trump will be raising millions for veterans, and attacking Obama/Hillary for the ongoing VA debacle, all while the other candidates waste 2 hours arguing over who is the bigger flip-flopper, and piling-on Cruz. Trump wins that round. It doesn’t hurt that most people are bored with debates at this point anyway. There are just way too many people still on the stage for the debate to have much purpose; even Rand is back.

Really, there is a lot of downside for Cruz as well, and not much upside. Most likely he’ll be getting piled-on by Jeb/Rubio/Christie, and be stuck on the defense the whole debate. And without Trump there, FOX may well take the opportunity to push Jeb/Rubio and keep Cruz sidelined all night.

Cruz’s best hope is that Megyn attacks Trump and gives Cruz an opening to defend Trump and attack FOX for being biased/trying to control the narrative. Basically what he did in the CNBC debate when he attacked the moderators. That would engender some good will with Trump supporters, and heal this growing rift between the two campaigns. And Cruz would pick up some more anti-media cred again, a market which Trump has largely cornered recently.

Buckshot Bill on January 27, 2016 at 8:08 AM

Trumpbots: Too far gone to engage in a rational discussion.

WordsMatter on January 27, 2016 at 7:57 AM

That’s been clear for a couple months now. Formerly sane posters who have turned into irrational and uncivil howlers. They are uninterested in rational discussion. Any dissent is met with personal attacks and lies about the other candidates.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 8:12 AM

That’s been clear for a couple months now. Formerly sane posters who have turned into irrational and uncivil howlers. They are uninterested in rational discussion. Any dissent is met with personal attacks and lies about the other candidates.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 8:12 AM

Exceptionally reminiscent of the Obamabots.

WordsMatter on January 27, 2016 at 8:16 AM

Formerly sane posters who have turned into irrational and uncivil howlers.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 8:12 AM

Ironic post of the day.

fossten on January 27, 2016 at 8:21 AM

Goes right up there with the individual in my area who decided to write Trump is Hitler in 5′ letters on a snow covered tennis court.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 7:46 AM

Talking about yourself?

fossten on January 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM

In a never-before-reported meeting in Bush’s Dallas office, Cruz began to outline his 2012 campaign playbook for the former president, according to people familiar with the conversation. Cruz explained how he would consolidate conservatives yearning for a political outsider, how he would outflank the front-runner on the right, how he would proudly carry the mantle of the ascendant tea party to victory over entrenched elites.

It was impressive foreshadowing. But Bush cut Cruz off before he could finish.

“I guess you don’t want my support,” Bush interrupted. “Ted, what the hell do you think I am?”

Nice hit-piece at Politico.
Makes me kind of like Cruz more.

Cruz wouldn’t talk about what was said when seeking W.’s backing for his first Senate run. “I don’t believe I’m at liberty to do so,” he told Politico. “I sought out the meeting and traveled to meet with him as a show of respect. I spent a number of years of my life working for George W. Bush and poured a great deal of time and energy and effort to helping him get elected and to help him win the recount battle in Florida so that he could serve as president.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-2016-establishment-george-bush-213561#ixzz3yS63GMnr

So, if Cruz didn’t talk, who was familiar enough with the private conversation to tell the story?
And just why did Bush wonder what Cruz thought he was?
It’s a very enigmatic story all the way down the line.

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 8:46 AM

But the effort doesn’t result in smaller government or the end of Obamacare—all it achieves is drawing attention to Cruz. “He is incapable of delivering anything but theater,” the expert added.

Seriously, dude, with the drama king DT in the race, you’re accusing TC of delivering theater! I don’t know who you are since you don’t like putting your name to your statements, but I do think you have a future in comedy or back stabbing.

Kissmygrits on January 27, 2016 at 8:52 AM

Talking about yourself?

fossten on January 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM

No, contrary to what you howlers believe there is considerable opposition to Donald the Douchebag.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 8:53 AM

…there is considerable opposition to Donald.

Happy Nomad on January 27, 2016 at 8:53 AM

There is considerable opposition to all presidential candidates.

“The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.” – Jack Handy

Fallon on January 27, 2016 at 9:16 AM

Trump walked away from the deal.

I’ve done it myself many a time in the business world.

The person who needs what you have ALWAYS screams bloody murder.

She needs HIM to be there for her plan to play out … for HER to be IN CONTROL.

Which is what he has refused to let her do from the very beginning.

How is this surprising ANYONE?

PolAgnostic on January 26, 2016 at 11:30 PM

I guess we will find out tomorrow if this was a stroke of genius or a blunder.

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM

On a general note: how jacked is it that there are TWO GOP candidates that the establishment can not stand and yet we’re arguing more over the two than anyone else on either side?

Personally opinion – pretty messed up.

smokeyblonde on January 27, 2016 at 2:00 AM

Yep.

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:35 AM

I truly take exception to that statement my friend.
Born in Shamrock, TX USA
A proud native American.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on January 26, 2016 at 11:41 PM

Having been born in Henrietta TX myself, there’s something in the water that allows to fully understand the phrase “all hat and no cattle”.

Tater Salad on January 26, 2016 at 11:46 PM

We almost ended up in Henrietta right out of school – job didn’t go through but we had a nice visit there.
My Granny had her first job in Henrietta, as a school-marm.

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:38 AM

smokeyblonde on January 27, 2016 at 12:09 AM

I doubt entrepreneurs like that will ever be on the deportation bus, Trump or no Trump. Same for those currently employed via agencies and paying taxes under a fake identity. The whole anti-Mexican sentiment is about safety hammock abusers and drug cartel members.

Rix on January 27, 2016 at 12:16 AM

I think this was certainly the tipping point.
And then add the open pipe-line for terrorists.

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:39 AM

MORE…..
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/26/anti-trump-network-fox-news-money-flows-open-borders-group/

Garyinaz66 on January 27, 2016 at 12:22 AM

Follow the money …

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:40 AM

Can We Get The Councilman’s Handcuffs Removed, So We Can Swear Him In?

In the state of Indiana, it’s hard to imagine that city officials have ever had to do what they did on Friday: actually swear in an elected City Councilman while he sat behind bars on murder and drug charges.

That’s the exact situation unfolding with Democrat Robert Battle, who won his reelection campaign in November, despite having just been arrested on charges from the federal government. He was sworn in from behind bars at Porter County Jail.

Lime in the Coconut on January 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM

And people wonder if the Dems will elect Hillary after indictment …

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:41 AM

No, its called a tactical flanking maneuver. That is how you avoid a ambush. You change the battlefield to one where you have the strategic advantage. Where the enemies superior numbers become a tactical disadvantage. Where they no longer control the strategic choke points.

oscarwilde on January 26, 2016 at 11:47 PM

Can Trump make a deal with Sun Tzu?

AesopFan on January 27, 2016 at 9:42 AM

What’s with all these gutless politicians who are trashing Cruz but request anonymity? Or are these all lies propagated by the squish writers at Hot Air? I suggest to Hot Air that if they don’t report the author of such attacks then don’t report them at all, otherwise you portray to your audience that it’s really YOU who are the unprincipled hacks attacking the only true conservative in contention for the nomination.

payday on January 27, 2016 at 10:10 AM

“a Republican policy expert close to a number of top GOP operatives and donors”

Oh, THAT guy. Ignore him.

mojo on January 27, 2016 at 10:27 AM

irony much

endorsed by a quitter

quits debate a week later.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on January 27, 2016 at 11:12 AM

I love that Sen. Cruz is called disingenuous and is lacking in results….how is that different from the Republican Congress that we were assured would fix everything?

Cindy Munford on January 27, 2016 at 11:17 AM

The Democrats seem to think they can do business with Trump, but not Cruz. That’s almost an accolade for Cruz.

I want a true believer in the White House. It’s time we had one.

unclesmrgol on February 7, 2016 at 11:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5