Rush Limbaugh: Ted Cruz is the closest we’ve gotten to Ronald Reagan in our lifetimes

posted at 10:01 pm on February 10, 2016 by Allahpundit

You can read his extended comments at his website. A Twitter pal tagged me this afternoon after Rush said this and claimed that he’d just endorsed Cruz; Redditors are interpreting it the same way. It does seem to follow logically that the biggest name in conservative talk radio, who’s been preaching Reagan conservatism to millions for 30 years, is dropping an endorsement when he calls a candidate the next best thing to Reagan himself. (Rush quasi-endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2008 primary in a similar way, complimenting him as the only Republican candidate who represented all three legs of the conservative stool.) But I assume Rush himself will deny that tomorrow, partly because he doesn’t formally endorse candidates in primaries and partly because of the noteworthy caveat he drops here:

They were going left as fast as Deion Sanders can backpedal. They were moving left faster than anybody I’ve ever seen go left. And I opened the program yesterday saying, “You will never, ever have to worry about that with Ted Cruz.” And then I expanded on it. And let me say one thing: 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, because you are exactly right: This is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan.

In terms of doctrinaire, understandable, articulated, implementable conservatism, there’s nobody closer. But I think the electorate at this point in time… We don’t know, Brian. If you look at Trump’s coalition, there’s a lot of assumptions being made about it, because he’s running as a Republican and in the Republican primary, and it’s assumed the Republican base is who’s voting here. Therefore, it’s assumed the majority of Trump’s coalition’s conservatives. And there are a lot.

But he’s broad. He’s all over the spectrum.

That’s the last eight months of Trumpmania and talk radio synthesized in one bit of audio. We’ve got the truest conservative candidate since Reagan in the race this year, which, one would think, would merit some sort of enthusiastic endorsement — but Rush puts the brakes on. Cruz is the candidate you should support if “conservatism is your bag.” At best, it’s a qualified endorsement. Hearing that on his show of all places, that you may want to consider this or that if you’re into conservatism, is like hearing someone on the NFL Network say you may want to consider this or that if you’re into football. On the one hand, he’s simply recognizing reality: As he himself recently said, for some people (although not for him) “nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.” True enough. For those people, Trump’s the guy. On the other hand, Cruz is facing a primary in 10 days that may very well decide the fate of the Republican nomination. Given the stakes there, with South Carolina forced to choose between a true-blue disciple of Reagan and a populist who seems capable of smashing the Republican coalition, the vote on February 20th is arguably the most momentous night the conservative movement will have experienced since 1980. If talk radio, which has been preaching conservative populism since the Reagan era, wants to give Cruz a boost over the nationalist Trump, now would seem to be the time. The fact that the quasi-endorsement comes with a qualifier anyway — vote Cruz, if conservatism’s your thing — feels like a bad sign. Just one more reason why I think Trump’s a heavy favorite for the nomination.

Actually, there’s another significant element to this clip. Would Rush praise Cruz quite so effusively, implicitly elevating him over Rubio (and everyone else) in terms of his conservative credentials, if he thought Rubio was still a plausible nominee? Remember, Rush has had warm words for Rubio lately, defending him as a bona fide conservative despite attacks on Rubio from the right that he’s some establishment water carrier. If Rubio had finished a strong second last night, creating a three-way race with Trump and Cruz, Rush might have felt obliged to hedge on Cruz being Reagan’s true heir or even included Rubio in the praise. Some of this, I think, is him bowing to the reality that, at least for the moment, Cruz is the only game in town if you want to stop Trump before he’s unstoppable.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You’re confused. The collateral damage was to the credibility of both Rush and Levin. Trump won big on Tuesday. Trumpbots are feeling fine. Rush and Levin, though, are apparently annoyed by this. They’re openly being opposed by big chunks of their own listening audiences. How does that play out in terms of their own reputations? Why are they sounding these days like the Republican establishment?

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 12:39 PM

You’re right and wrong. It was Levin and Rush and Sean and Savage that BACKED Trumped and celebrated what he was doing to the “establishment” and breaking the rules. For Months. Why? It was great for business. Talk Radio is in a death spiral, they both have contracts coming up and it made sense to rattle that cage.

BUT…..they never thought THIS would happen and he might win. Now they have to distance themselves from Trump b/c they know he’s not a Conservative and that’s their brand. I predicted all of this months ago. The next thing that will happen is they’ll back Cruz until until or only IF it appears he has a real chance…..Mid March and if Trump becomes inevitable, they’ll slyly flip back to backing Trump.

It’s a rigged game writeblock, they always give themselves outs and their listeners are forgiving. However, this time, the listeners might now change along with the hosts.

I misspoke. Trumpers aren’t the collateral damage. The Constitution is. Trump cannot win a national election.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 12:46 PM

So, inform us, tell us his strengths…so far, no one has been able to. Except “he talks tough” and calls people names.

right2bright on February 11, 2016 at 12:32 PM

short and sweet:

– Trump is strongly against illegal immigration and has stated he’ll build the wall
– He has proposed a significant cut in personal and corporate taxes to 15% (much better than Cruz’s VAT)
– He has said he’ll rebuild the US Military
– He has said he’ll restructure the services we provide to our vets, including getting rid of the VA
– He has said he’ll repeal Obamacare and replace it with a market based competitive system that forces
insurance companies to compete across state lines, he’s said he’s in favor of personal medical savings
accounts and other market based alternatives to Obamacare
– He has spoken strongly against the stupid trade deals the US has negotiated and he has said that he
will seek to reverse the destruction that export platforms in China, Mexico and elsewhere in Asia have
done to US manufacturing
– He has called out the republicans for the unwillingness to fight Obama, specifically he has called
them out on the recent 2 year Omnibus sell out orchestrated by Ryan
– He like Cruz is attacking the GOPe

I could go on, but i said i’d be brief. I believe Trump loves this country and unlike you i’m not willing to distort who Trump is just because i like Cruz.

WestportSC on February 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 12:46 PM

Glad to hear you are good to go.

HonestLib on February 11, 2016 at 12:50 PM

Trump is the anti-Obama, but pulling support from a wide swath of people, left and right. Rich Lowry, NR editor, stated exactly that after his mag devoted an entire issue against Trump. This is the same man who, along with other Republican\conservative pundits, declared Obama a man with our best interests at heart amongst other accolades.

——–
“In February 1980 the Republican establishment said that a staunch conservative Hollywood actor could never be president ‎and he won two landslide elections. Trump isn’t Reagan — but he’s one of the most talented retail politicians in modern times. For nine months everyone has been underestimating this man, saying that he was surely going to go away. He’s not going away. He’s rising and proving his critics on the left and right dead wrong. That’s Reaganesque.”
———–
http://spectator.org/articles/65447/america-trumped

———_-

Cruz, while hard core conservative, is not pulling the in broad base. It’s just not happening.

———

Trump is not only conservative on almost all things, he has support that resembles what Reagan had.

——

Thus, Rush is flat out wrong on this.

TexasDude on February 11, 2016 at 12:52 PM

Chuckle.

Like herpes, the internet is forever.

HonestLib on February 11, 2016 at 12:39 PM

LOL.

What conclusions did I jump to as a result of not seeing your video?
DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM

let’s all note that like fossten, this one won’t discuss policy either…and resorts to name calling as a response.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:09 PM

Since you parsed it as plurals, please list all of my jumped to conclusions.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM

It’s called “Jumping to Conclusions bias.” Look it up, anti-Trump. I am not doing your homework for you like every one of you demand others to do.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM

Oh, and btw, Sessions has actually appeared with Trump at one of his rallies. Sessions may have approved of what Cruz did in one particular instance, but he appeared with Trump at a rally.

dominigan on February 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM

eh…Sessions said that at one of Cruz’s first rallies. It was the first in Alabama on Dec. 15, 2015.

Trump also hired yuge and beautiful accountants and financial directors but somehow ended up filing bankruptcies four times. The question I was responding to was what had he done vs Cruz re: illegal immigration and Sessions’ comments answered that.

As I said, I am glad Trump has the issue remaining front and center and he is one of the few who can do that. I’m not sold he will not change his mind like his record shows and his comments confirm. If I didn’t have that doubt he would be my first choice and I will gladly vote for him if he wins the nomination.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM

It’s called “Jumping to Conclusions bias.” Look it up, anti-Trump. I am not doing your homework for you like every one of you demand others to do.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM

It’s important for anyone dealing with NWConservative to understand something very basic.

He’s all in. He is impervious to any attempt to reason when it comes to Trump. A video could emerge of Trump tossing babies into a fire pit and he would rationalize it. All in. Spitting into the wind, hitting a brick wall even attempting to reason.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM

you have to do homework to answer those two questions? such simple straight forward questions? bless your heart

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:56 PM

Rush is worried Trump’s becoming unstoppable. More and more I hear the panic in his repetitive rambles.

WestportSC on February 10, 2016 at 10:17 PM

Yup.

He was sure that the Rubio robot meme was fake and concocted by the MSM. “No one in realsville thinks Rubio was robotic”(paraphrased). How clueless? – actually it was not clueless. He running a desperate interference.

Now that his Rubio show turned out to be 100% wrong (his 99.8% accuracy should take a hit) he’s backing Cruz and upping the rhetoric. Cruz is Reagan – though no one in realsville would confuse the stiff lawyer/preacher walk and talk with a smooth, concise, and amiable Reagan.

The two are completely different. Reagan was not a debate team guy. Reagan was an actor. A smart and knowledgeable actor but a man who knew how to play to the camera and was hard to not like. Cruz is about as far from that as it gets. Cruz is a terrible actor who makes it hard for most people to like him. He’d beat Reagan easily though in an Oxford style debate. If Cruz was anything like Reagan he’d be winning this in a landslide.

Trump, who is nothing like Reagan, is more like Reagan than Cruz.

Rush is panicking. He’s going to lose listeners if he keeps up this dog and pony show for Cruz – and the hostility towards Trump. He can’t really believe that Cruz is like Reagan.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 12:57 PM

I agree the Cruz/Reagan comparison is false. Ideologically, yes. But Reagan was a master retail politician. Cruz is not.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM

The only thing more giggle-worthy than establishment types declaring the new and improved downfall of Trump is the Trump supporters declaring the new and improved downfall of Limbaugh.

Immolate on February 11, 2016 at 1:04 PM

eh…Sessions said that at one of Cruz’s first rallies. It was the first in Alabama on Dec. 15, 2015.

Trump also hired yuge and beautiful accountants and financial directors but somehow ended up filing bankruptcies four times. The question I was responding to was what had he done vs Cruz re: illegal immigration and Sessions’ comments answered that.

As I said, I am glad Trump has the issue remaining front and center and he is one of the few who can do that. I’m not sold he will not change his mind like his record shows and his comments confirm. If I didn’t have that doubt he would be my first choice and I will gladly vote for him if he wins the nomination.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM

Yet Sessions’ aid of 7 years moved to the Trump Camp and Trump is the only one to have a response for his list of questions to the candidates.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:04 PM

I agree the Cruz/Reagan comparison is false. Ideologically, yes. But Reagan was a master retail politician. Cruz is not.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM

When you don’t snark you make some good points.

HonestLib on February 11, 2016 at 1:04 PM

He’s got my vote…

… which will be cancelled out by an illegal.

So…

Seven Percent Solution on February 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM

I agree the Cruz/Reagan comparison is false. Ideologically, yes. But Reagan was a master retail politician. Cruz is not.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM

When you don’t snark you make some good points.

HonestLib on February 11, 2016 at 1:04 PM

My “good points” are points that you agree with and those you don’t are “snark.”

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM

It’s important for anyone dealing with NWConservative to understand something very basic.

He’s all in. He is impervious to any attempt to reason when it comes to Trump. A video could emerge of Trump tossing babies into a fire pit and he would rationalize it. All in. Spitting into the wind, hitting a brick wall even attempting to reason.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM

It’s important that everyone knows this:

I’m Catholic btw but I support the notion of an American Empire.
AYNBLAND on October 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM

If Webb says ALL LIVES MATTER, I may vote for him.
AYNBLAND on October 13, 2015 at 9:53 PM

I was pretending to be a Cruz supporter (I do like him) to burnish my conservative bona fides as rhetorical gimmick to discuss Trump. I’ve owned up to that.
AYNBLAND on October 3, 2015 at 8:52 PM

I’m not a one issue voter, so Immigration isn’t the purity test I ascribe to. Defeating progressives is.
AYNBLAND on October 3, 2015 at 5:34 PM

“I’m a progressive” -Mitt Romney.

I stand by my statement, Mitt Romney is a good man and would have been a great President.

AYNBLAND on October 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM

Well Reagan and Cruz both support amnesty so I guess they are pretty close. Then again, Cruz says he is against it now so I’m not sure if he would actually go through with amnesty like Ronald Reagan the Great One.

proverbs427 on February 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM

I heard Rush praise Rubio, and I heard Rush praise Cruz.

When Perot ran, Rush warned his listeners something didn’t add up. In that case, Rush was correct. Perot didn’t fold, IMHO Perot folded his tent when he had sufficiently weakened Bush and withdrew like Texas rattlesnake under the nearest rock.

At that time, I believed Rush was simply warning his viewers something didnt add up

However, the past year Rush has been pushing the idea that the DEMs want open borders to import voters, while the GOP want open borders for cheap labor – both bad

Then Rush started gushing over Rubio as a true blue conservative. But Rubio is well documented on amnesty, and Rubio has followed party line on TPP, and Assad as the Great Satan.

Now, as AP correctly points out, Rush is giving Cruz the Rubio promotion, which begs the grey areas in Cruz’s stand on open borders, and the sleaze tinge to the Cruz stand on TPP, having worked with Ryan to promote TPA, and then reversing his position and grandstanding against TPA on vote day, with the weak pretense that the Senate had refused his amendment.

Cruz is conservative on social issues, but he is a soccer ball on open borders, and no Phyllis Schlafly on TPP

Because Rush spent so much of last year expounding on the evils of open borders it didnt add up when he called Rubio the real conservative. Now Rubio tanks, and Rush starts giving Cruz the GOPe massage.

I’ve always listened to Rush and valued his opinion. But I trusted him. Now I am thinking back to his warnings on Perot. Were his warnings for us, the listeners, or to help the party candidate? Rubio is pure RINO. Cruz is borderline GOPe on trade and borders until proven otherwise

Jeff Sessions published five questions on immigration

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/05/exclusive-test-senator-seeks-answers-presidential-candidates-trade-immigration-crime/

Only Trump has answered

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/08/exclusive-donald-j-trump-first-candidate-reply-sessions-test/

Rush surprised me with his U turn. I hate being jerked around

entagor on February 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 12:57 PM

sounds like you appreciate style over substance. Reagan was also an accomplished sports and political radio commentator and his favorite topics were typically conservative politics and patriotic themes.

Reagan was conservative pretty much his whole life, which compares favorably to Cruz’s career as well. In temperament I would put Cruz closer to Reagan than Trump.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM

I agree the Cruz/Reagan comparison is false. Ideologically, yes. But Reagan was a master retail politician. Cruz is not.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Oh really? I was there when Reagan ran and Cruz is every bit as good at retail politics as Reagan was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM7xLtSVeD8

fight like a girl on February 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM

NWConservative has a dossier on me. LOL.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM

My “good points” are points that you agree with and those you don’t are “snark.”

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM

Down from the high horse shorty. By good points I did not mean ones I agreed with. Just ones that made me think.

You will understand one day.

HonestLib on February 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM

My “good points” are points that you agree with and those you don’t are “snark.”

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM

Down from the high horse shorty. By good points I did not mean ones I agreed with. Just ones that made me think.

You will understand one day.

HonestLib on February 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM

I’m 42 and have worked in the media/politics game all of my life. I’ve forgotten more about this stuff than you’ll ever know. Any of you.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:12 PM

you have to do homework to answer those two questions? such simple straight forward questions? bless your heart

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 12:56 PM

No, you want me to do YOUR homework.

All of their positions are easily found.

Like Cruz’s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDnuWLuAbCw

I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform – Ted Cruz

Senator Mike Lee

As you know, I’m friends with both of these guys, I have enormous respect for both of them, I serve on the Judiciary committee with Ted Cruz, the entire time, as we spent weeks working on the gang of eight immigration bill.

I was there with him as we both drafted and presented amendments trying to make this really bad gang of eight amnesty bill not as bad.

At no time during that process, at no moment did Ted Cruz take any action that was tantamount to supporting Amnesty. He filed amendments designed to make the bill less bad.

That does not mean, ever meant, and will not ever mean that he was going to vote for that bill, he was just trying to make it less bad.

Insofar as anybody is trying to suggest that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had the same position… that is absolutely false, 100%

He didn’t support citizenship, which is what DC politicians call amnesty now, not the legal status which is the actual amnesty that he supported.

I very much want commonsense immigration reform to pass, but if this bill becomes law as currently written, it will not solve the problem. Instead it will make the problem of illegal immigration worse,” Sen. Cruz said. “We must work together in a bipartisan manner to fix this problem in a way that secures the border, improves legal immigration and respects rule of law so we remain a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues and am confident my proposed amendments will effectively address the current problems with this bill.”

The poison pill was the citizenship provision in the bill, Cruz wanted to remove that aspect because he wanted the bill to pass. Otherwise he would not have voted for Jeff Sessions’ amendment capping legal immigration, because he did not want that to be in the final bill he wanted to pass.

His four amendments (Border security, welfare removal for illegal aliens, striking citizenship provision, increasing H1B’s by 500%, doubling green cards) would have satisfied him enough to have voted for the gang of 8 bill.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM

NWConservative has a dossier on me. LOL.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM

All easily searchable from Google.

But I should have one, given the amount of insane or contradictory statements that you make.

Are you still not going to tell us what does Hillary Clinton have in mind for healthcare policy?

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:16 PM

This is very clearly in context with political ideology and I’m surprised that anyone would even attempt to argue otherwise.

anuts on February 11, 2016 at 1:16 PM

As President, I’ll Repeal Every Word of Obamacare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMSz_hbyaVo

Viator on February 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM


Reagan was conservative pretty much his whole life, which compares favorably to Cruz’s career as well.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM

The lack of knowledge people have of this man astounds me. :)

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM

Reagan was conservative pretty much his whole life, which compares favorably to Cruz’s career as well.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM

The lack of knowledge people have of this man astounds me. :)

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM

He wasn’t “pretty much his whole life.” His conversion took place over a couple decades but it was complete long before he became President.

Trump has never been a Conservative and still isn’t one.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:21 PM

We don’t worship him, we’re not brainwashed, etc. we have just made a pragmatic decision that for a number of reasons – not least of which is his private sector experience – he’s the best candidate. Doesn’t mean we don’t see the good qualities in Cruz, but with many of the Anti-Trump posters here at HA i don’t get the feeling they see the good things Trump brings to the debate as we all figure out who to vote for.

WestportSC on February 11, 2016 at 12:19 PM

For my part it was a toss-up between Cruz and Trump after Walker dropped out. The more I listened to Trump, the more sense he made despite his malapropisms and garbled logic. I took note of his business acumen and his refreshing agenda. He was saying things no one else was saying–and he was especially savvy when it came to handling the media. Meanwhile Cruz sounded like what he was–a too-calculating lawyer. I doubted he could succeed in the general and IA compounded my doubt, especially when he deliberately misinterpreted a CNN report on Carson, giving him unfair advantage. This, added to his vote for TPA and his secret ties to Wall Street, makes him just another politician imo. I’m all in now for Trump, warts and all.

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM

look at all those words!! again I ask

Do you think Cruz supported the Gang of Eight bill? surely your answer can be gleaned from all those words right? Remember, I have a Jeff Sessions response waiting for your wrong one.

Do you agree Trump supports increasing ethanol subsidies? The answer is only two weeks old. Be careful.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Reagan was conservative pretty much his whole life, which compares favorably to Cruz’s career as well. In temperament I would put Cruz closer to Reagan than Trump.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM

OK. This is a long one. Forgive tyzpos bad grammar lack of commas speling etc….

1st Why not Rubio? Rubio is more Reagan than Cruz.
Anyway.

Reagan was accomplished/successful in entertainment, leading a union, fighting communism, pitching products, paid speeches, campaigning for an insurgent, Governing a state, leading a party insurgency, running for President (76 – he over performed).

Cruz was accomplished/successful in arguing some case law, getting elected to a term in the senate(If you don’t think Palin won it for him).

Reagan was not overly religious. He was a believer but he was a divorcee. He paled around with some of Hollywood’s greatest delinquents. He was not strict enough on abortion for my tastes. Reagan never talked of his earthly campaign donning Gods Armor. Or his Kstreet donors and advisors were going to awaken the body…

Cruz is almost holly roller (at least now).

Reagan echoed a distilled (for public consumption) Hayek and Friedman often through his talented speech writers. And Reagan was talkingto a pro American America – both dem and Republican.

Cruz echoes Reagan’s speeches. But it’s not 1980 any more. Reagan talked to the times. Cruz apes Reagan but it’s out of context. That’s why Cruz now mostly does the preacher walk and talk(Reagan NEVER DID) because his Reagan impersonation is substandard and doesn’t speak to the times.

Eminent Domain is not on the table in 2016. VAT is not on the table in 2016. That’s Cruz’s “substance” but he knows he can’t win on that so he’s going Preacher.

Immigration and globalism is on the table for 2016. Cruz doesn’t speak to it.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM

This, added to his vote for TPA and his secret ties to Wall Street, makes him just another politician imo. I’m all in now for Trump, warts and all.

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM

ahem, Cruz voted against TPA and did all he could to delay the vote altogether. And he also voted against TPP.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-votes-to-advance-trade-promotion-authority/

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM

I agree the Cruz/Reagan comparison is false. Ideologically, yes. But Reagan was a master retail politician. Cruz is not.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Oh really? I was there when Reagan ran and Cruz is every bit as good at retail politics as Reagan was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM7xLtSVeD8

fight like a girl on February 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM

Me too and I just don’t agree. I live in Texas, he’s my Senator and while he’s not my first choice, I’d vote for him.

People like Reagan and frankly Obama and Clinton (old days) operate on an entirely higher level in terms of retail politics. I’ll even admit that TRUMP has turned out to be operating on that level.

Cruz has way too many affectations that hurt how he comes across to people. Sad but true.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:33 PM

He wasn’t “pretty much his whole life.” His conversion took place over a couple decades but it was complete long before he became President.

Trump has never been a Conservative and still isn’t one.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:21 PM

You heard it here first!

The judgement has been sent down from on high:

People can never change their minds!

So:

“I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, it should be sustained and supported. And I sustain and support that law and support the right of a woman to make that choice.”

“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”

“I think the global warming debate is now pretty much over and people recognize the need associated with providing sources which do not generate the heat currently provided by fossil fuels.”

“If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people . . . I will always come down on the side of public health.”

“I’m concerned about the preservation of our natural resources. I will file legislation to protect our oceans from off shore drilling and commercial development. The oceans should not be up for grabs like some Wild West land rush.”

“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.”

“We are the first state to enact a cap on CO2, implementing regulations that, by 2008, will reduce these emissions by 10%, removing 6,750 tons of Co2 per day.”

“I believe that our joint work to create a flexible market-based regional cap and trade system could serve as an effective approach to meeting these goals.”

“Once upon a time, I said I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education … I see that the Department of Education can actually make a difference. So I supported No Child Left Behind. I still do.”

You voted for that. And since people can never change, you voted for a Democrat.

Or is the rule only that AYNBLAND gets to determine who’s conservative or not?

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:34 PM

Immigration and globalism is on the table for 2016. Cruz doesn’t speak to it.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM

But he does. Go for Trump buddy. I’m in Texas and we hope to deliver 155 delegates.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:34 PM

Look at all his cutting and pasting!!!

Can’t answer those two simple questions? aw man look at at you go!

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:38 PM

look at all those words!! again I ask

Do you think Cruz supported the Gang of Eight bill? surely your answer can be gleaned from all those words right? Remember, I have a Jeff Sessions response waiting for your wrong one.

Again, you don’t want to have a discussion. You want to have a back and forth nitpick “gotcha” game. In any case, I answered you if you would bother to read what I posted. Have a little intellectual curiosity and try it. You might like it.

Do you agree Trump supports increasing ethanol subsidies? The answer is only two weeks old. Be careful.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Nope. There are no ethanol subsidies. But you were the same guy saying that Reagan was conservative “pretty much his whole life,” soooo, I don’t expect you to know the difference.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:38 PM

ahem, Cruz voted against TPA and did all he could to delay the vote altogether. And he also voted against TPP.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-votes-to-advance-trade-promotion-authority/

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM

You again confirm that you don’t know what you are talking about. The TPP hasn’t come up for a vote.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM

But he does. Go for Trump buddy. I’m in Texas and we hope to deliver 155 delegates.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM

He talks immigration because of Trump. TPP – maybe for one second in order to cover his tracks.

Fine. Maybe TX. Trump will get FL 99 Penn. 70 Alabama’s 50 Mississippi’s 40 Ohio’s 66 …

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

OK. This is a long one. Forgive tyzpos bad grammar lack of commas speling etc….

1st Why not Rubio? Rubio is more Reagan than Cruz.
Anyway.

Reagan was accomplished/successful in entertainment, leading a union, fighting communism, pitching products, paid speeches, campaigning for an insurgent, Governing a state, leading a party insurgency, running for President (76 – he over performed).

Cruz was accomplished/successful in arguing some case law, getting elected to a term in the senate(If you don’t think Palin won it for him).

Reagan was not overly religious. He was a believer but he was a divorcee. He paled around with some of Hollywood’s greatest delinquents. He was not strict enough on abortion for my tastes. Reagan never talked of his earthly campaign donning Gods Armor. Or his Kstreet donors and advisors were going to awaken the body…

Cruz is almost holly roller (at least now).

Reagan echoed a distilled (for public consumption) Hayek and Friedman often through his talented speech writers. And Reagan was talkingto a pro American America – both dem and Republican.

Cruz echoes Reagan’s speeches. But it’s not 1980 any more. Reagan talked to the times. Cruz apes Reagan but it’s out of context. That’s why Cruz now mostly does the preacher walk and talk(Reagan NEVER DID) because his Reagan impersonation is substandard and doesn’t speak to the times.

Eminent Domain is not on the table in 2016. VAT is not on the table in 2016. That’s Cruz’s “substance” but he knows he can’t win on that so he’s going Preacher.

Immigration and globalism is on the table for 2016. Cruz doesn’t speak to it.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM

You shouldn’t have made the effort. The dim bulb can’t read more than two sentences…

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

But he does. Go for Trump buddy. I’m in Texas and we hope to deliver 155 delegates.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM

He talks immigration because of Trump. TPP – maybe for one second in order to cover his tracks.

Fine. Maybe TX. Trump will get FL 99 Penn. 70 Alabama’s 50 Mississippi’s 40 Ohio’s 66 …

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

Texas is proportional with a 20% threshold. Cruz won’t get all the delegates.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM

You again confirm that you don’t know what you are talking about. The TPP hasn’t come up for a vote.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM

Right.
He voted for TPA before he voted against it. He penned a(the) pro TPP article for WP with Paul Ryan. It was a big deal article. Now he said he’s against TPP for some obscure technical reason. And he doesn’t say it anymore. It’s not a part of his campaign.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM

You shouldn’t have made the effort. The dim bulb can’t read more than two sentences…

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

I’m bored :) No work today.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM

“Remember, it was the Republican Party, with the help of Conservatives, that made so many promises to their base, BUT DIDN’T KEEP THEM!”

oh my!

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Texas is proportional with a 20% threshold. Cruz won’t get all the delegates.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM

If you get 50% plus, it’s winner take all.

AYNBLAND on February 11, 2016 at 1:48 PM

You again confirm that you don’t know what you are talking about. The TPP hasn’t come up for a vote.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM

doh!

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/06/so-who-voted-for-tpp-fast-track-in-the-senate-list/

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM

Texas is proportional with a 20% threshold. Cruz won’t get all the delegates.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM

remember Batman fighting the villians? NWCon is getting smacked around today…bam!….pow!

still can’t answer? poor baby

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM

**Warning**
Don’t go down this path.
*******
If it’s any consolation – many commenters got stuck on this so you are not alone.

TPA is the vote in your link. TPP is upcoming in 60-90 days(Maybe?).
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-tpp-usa-house-idUSKCN0VK1W1

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM

I shouldn’t have made the effort, the dimbulb can’t answer two questions…

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM

Checking in… 200 comments later and the Trumpbots are still whining… lol

WordsMatter on February 11, 2016 at 1:55 PM

You again confirm that you don’t know what you are talking about. The TPP hasn’t come up for a vote.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM

Right.
He voted for TPA before he voted against it. He penned a(the) pro TPP article for WP with Paul Ryan. It was a big deal article. Now he said he’s against TPP for some obscure technical reason. And he doesn’t say it anymore. It’s not a part of his campaign.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM

Cruz has flip flopped on so many things, yet his dim bulb supporters like DanMan refuse to see it.

You shouldn’t have made the effort. The dim bulb can’t read more than two sentences…

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

I’m bored :) No work today.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM

Ah, that was me yesterday.

Mine is a little spotty today so I have time to play.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM

“Remember, it was the Republican Party, with the help of Conservatives, that made so many promises to their base, BUT DIDN’T KEEP THEM!”

oh my!

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Finally someone says it.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM

Trump has never been a Conservative and still isn’t one.

I’m tired of listening to this talking point. He’s pro-sealing the border, he’s pro-life, he’s pro-second amendment, he’s pro-military, he’s pro-cutting taxes, he’s pro-cutting spending and balancing the budget, he’s pro-eliminating huge trade deficits, he’s pro-moratorium on Muslim immigration, he’s pro-repealing Obamacare and Common Core. How is any of this not conservative?

I don’t give a rat’s behind what Cruz claims or what Rush claims. Cruz voted for TPA. No true conservative would have done that. His wife works for Goldman-Sachs. Why shouldn’t this raise our suspicions? He hid his low-interest loans from Goldman-Sachs and Citibank but ran for the Senate posing as a self-funder beholden to no outside interests. How was this not dishonest.

He pretends to be one thing–but when the chips are down, he does something totally different–like vote for the Corker bill or going soft on immigration. He showboated on issues he knew would give him a high profile as a “conservative”–issues like defunding Planned Parenthood or Obamacare which he knew in advance were going nowhere. Once he established his reputation, he behaved exactly as we’d expect of a Washington politician–he voted for TPA, blaming McConnell to cover his rear-end.

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM

doh!

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/06/so-who-voted-for-tpp-fast-track-in-the-senate-list/

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM

ROTFLMAO!!

You are the king of dim bulbs!!

LOL!!

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM

I shouldn’t have made the effort, the dimbulb can’t answer two questions…

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM

What effort? Now you can’t even come up with a different insult you have to use the Trumpers one? :D

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 1:59 PM

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM

The senate voted for it last summer on June 23rd. The house is expected to vote for it during the lame duck session coming up. They don’t want to vote before the elections. I’m sure by the time I post this NWCon will have opened another door into his nose. I think this was during the era Cruz called McConnell a liar on the senate floor re-inserting the Ex-Im bank after he had made assurances he would not.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM

meh, that was an easy call

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 2:02 PM

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM

TPP fast track authority is TPA. It’s not the final TPP.

BoxHead1 on February 11, 2016 at 2:09 PM

“Remember, it was the Republican Party, with the help of Conservatives, that made so many promises to their base, BUT DIDN’T KEEP THEM!”

oh my!

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:48 PM

I do remember because I believed them and voted for them and I remember the betrayal very well. NEVER AGAIN!

Trump for President 2016! The GOP can rot in hell.

earlgrey on February 11, 2016 at 2:14 PM

ahem, Cruz voted against TPA and did all he could to delay the vote altogether. And he also voted against TPP.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-votes-to-advance-trade-promotion-authority/

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM

He voted for TPA and pushed it strongly the first time around. After it passed the Senate, the bill went into conference with the House for reconciliation. By that time it was a done deal. When the reconciled bill returned to the Senate, Cruz voted against it and claimed McConnell lied to him. He certainly knew the bill had no chance of being rejected by then, so by voting against it the second time around, he stood to lose nothing of his reputation as a conservative. A classic Washington maneuver, having his cake and eating it too–satisfying special interests while appearing to oppose them.

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 2:16 PM

All institutions that are not securely moored to their ideological foundation will eventually drift away. We see this today in the hundreds of Christian colleges and universities that are no longer recognizably Christian. After Nixon, the Republican party was adrift, with no person to embody conservative values who could effectively make themselves heard above the din of confusion and upheaval.

The party was composed primarily of quislings and rent seekers (sound familiar?). The bankruptcy of the Republican party made both Nixon and his legacy, Jimmy Carter, possible. When Reagan emerged in the 1980 presidential election cycle, it was an answer to the ills of the status quo of the day. He was an imperfectly doctrinaire conservative, not as conservative as Ted Cruz, but quite conservative. He was an effective salesman, not flashy like Donald Trump, but effective. He was also a student of history and politics and economics who thought a lot about the lessons of these disciplines. He was a close observer of people, and knew how to appeal to them on a deeper level that avoided gross manipulation.

Reagan won by sharing with us his simplest understandings of how the world worked, and how he would change the circumstances so that Americans benefited from it. He brought hope by sharing hopeful plans with us. He brought pride by reminding us of who we were and what we could do. He exuded wisdom and charm and grace and was utterly, entirely believable. He breathed new life into a atrophied organization, and it conformed to him whether it wanted to or not.

But Reagan didn’t announce his master strategy to defeat the Soviet Union and through it Communism as an ideology. He may not even have thought of it in those terms, but rather as broad strokes of what needed to be done to significantly improve our position while weakening theirs. But he had a strategy, and he kept it close enough that the press assumed he was an idiot. Oh they hated him from day one, but over time they migrated from hate to contempt. Terms like “Reaganomics” and “Star Wars” were bandied about as epithets, and even the newsreaders, who at the time struggled mightily to feign impartiality, had difficulty disguising their disdain for the old man. They honestly thought he was senile.

Reagan proved them wrong in every way, and to a degree that should have resulted in at least a third of them throwing themselves from a rooftop in shame and disgrace. Of course, you don’t get to be that thoroughly disconnected from common sense if you have a strong inclination to self-examine. Not only were they unambiguously wrong, the very tenets of their philosophy and beliefs were undermined and destroyed.

That was a lot for one man to accomplish but Reagan did it.

There is no Reagan in today’s race, not by a country mile. Cruz is a doctrinaire conservative, but he’s not an effective salesman because he doesn’t exhibit the vision to inspire and show us a world that we want to live in. If he has a plan to pull America back from its self-hatred and licentiousness, nobody is “getting it”.

Trump is a solid retail politician, but there is no sense that he operating under the influence of any definable ideology. He is a consummate showman, but of the WWE ilk, and coarsens rather than elevates our political conversation. He communicates effectively, but whether the content of his communication is positive, destructive, or simply inane seems completely random. He is the reality show of presidential candidates, warts and all.

What Trump and Reagan share, other than a talent for retail politics, is the ability to get inside their opponent’s OODA loop, sometimes referred to as their “decision loop”. The concept is that everyone has a process by which they internalize input, and this process takes time. When you’re inside their loop, you are executing your plan before they recognize and react to it. If I remember correctly, this came from fighter pilots, a USAF Colonel named Boyd specifically. In air combat, if you keep your opponent reacting to what you were doing rather than what you are doing, you’ll kill him.

Reagan did this by understanding the larger goal that he was pushing toward, while his opponents didn’t. What he did therefore didn’t make any sense to them, and they couldn’t possibly predict what he’d do next.

Trump does this by, I think, a lifetime of competing with others to get the better of each deal, and a genuine talent for anticipating what the other side wants, and skill in manipulating them into a position where they’d accept less and give more. This requires excellent perception, and an instinctive knowledge of human nature. It is certainly an art, as it requires both experience and technique, plus a gift. Lacking the gift, you may be a reliable mechanic, but you’ll never be a true artist. Lacking the other, you gift will only manifest sporadically. Trump has both.

Rubio lacks Reagan’s intellectual heft and his natural gravitas. Although he is charming and personable, he carries no sense of purpose and seriousness.

Trump’s tactical fluency is easily the most powerful of the strong qualities observable in the current slate of candidates. If he were a man of principle and seriousness, he’d be worthy of consideration as a potential future peer of Reagan’s. As it is, his demonstrated lack of ability to resist the lure of an insult from pretty much anyone makes him too easy to bait, and his lack of discernible ideology beyond patriotism makes it impossible to predict whether any decision he makes will be intended to benefit us, himself or some limited objective. A weapon that you cannot aim is as dangerous to you as to your opponent.

Today, I don’t think that Trump is worth the risk. I’m not past the point of no return on that, although I’ve felt that way a few times. I can’t seem to stop hoping that Trump will find himself on his own personal road to Damascus and the terrible seriousness of the office that he is attempting will fall on him like a load of bricks. I am hoping that this wishful event will imbue him with a sense of purpose beyond narcissism, and transform him into the sober, gracious person we’ve seen him briefly become. Someone I could vote for with a sense of confidence or even hope.

Immolate on February 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM

Okay so I google “who voted for TPP in the senate” and got a link showing how the senators voted on June 23, 2015.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/06/so-who-voted-for-tpp-fast-track-in-the-senate-list/

I hit Boxhead’s link to TPP and it is a house vote labelled TPP

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-tpp-usa-house-idUSKCN0VK1W1

What the hell did Obama’s emissary sign in New Zealand on Feb 4th?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pacific-trade-agreement-signed-20160204-story.html

and to writeblock’s point, how does Cruz have fingerprints on a bill he voted against but has 47 repubs out of 60 yays? (including Rubio btw)

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Do you agree Trump supports increasing ethanol subsidies? The answer is only two weeks old. Be careful.

RainMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM

So are all our comments explaining that there are no ethanol subsidies, but a mandate.

And the vote for “fast tracking” TPP was the vote for TPA. TPP hasn’t come up for a vote yet, as NWConservative and others have pointed out to your dumb @ss.

Dim-bulb anti-Trumpers gotta be dim. Be careful!

Joseph K on February 11, 2016 at 2:45 PM

You’re right and wrong. It was Levin and Rush and Sean and Savage that BACKED Trumped and celebrated what he was doing to the “establishment” and breaking the rules. For Months. Why?

Easy to see where Rush at least was coming from. He backed Trump early on because he was driving the numbers down for Bush and Rand and Walker and Carson–major competitors against his man, Cruz. It’s also why Cruz had a “bromance” with Trump till he became a major threat in IA. It’s why Rush turned against Trump the morning of the IA caucuses–a strategic hit intended to help Cruz win. It’s why Rush helped Rubio after the debate–to preserve Rubio’s momentum out of IA and keep Trump from a huge win in NH–another strategic ploy. I dont know about Levin. I don’t listen to him. As for Savage and Sean–they remain favorably disposed to Trump. So does Ingraham.

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 3:02 PM

You know I always had some respect for Rush until I heard him lying today. He said he had new polling in SC and Nationwide. All he did was cite RCP avgs and say that he thought Trump’s numbers were down and Cruz’s numbers were up. What a BSer

rik on February 11, 2016 at 3:07 PM

hey Special K!

So are all our comments explaining that there are no ethanol subsidies, but a mandate.

I’m sorry you don’t get the connection but what I was showing is Trump pandered the very first time he had the chance. You, NWCon, fossten and all the other Trump firsters can’t hide from the fact y’all take Cruz’s move to the right on immigration as a flip flop, one that he explains very well by virtue of the abuse he sees in the H-1b visa deal yet won’t even acknowledge Trump’s lurch to the left on one of the biggest crony capitalist bag of crap that impacts the USDA and Dept of Energy with some EPA gravy thrown in and most of all us consumers.

The name calling is all on y’all though.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 3:20 PM

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 2:16 PM

Can you tell me what exactly passed and what remains to be passed in the agreement that was signed on Feb 4th that is being called the TPP?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-little-surprise-obama-quietly-signed-the-tpp/article/2582370

It seems only the senate will be allowed to weigh in on any trade deals but one of the earlier links has Paul Ryan saying there is no interest in taking up the vote in the house until after the elections.

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 3:28 PM

Cruz will never fix immigration, to my liking, anyway.

I’m voting for TRUMP.

stenwin77 on February 11, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Immolate on February 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM

A very thoughtful — and I hope thought-provoking — post. The blind ‘enthusiasm’ with which many are holding forth in support of their various candidates is most troublesome, especially when there are really no bright lights in the firmament on either side of the aisle.

It is a result of the lack of leadership we have lived through the last seven-plus years on top of the sense of betrayal that most of us share in our elected officials. The remedy however is not going to be found in zealotry and blind faith.

If Cruz could “paint in bold colors instead of pale pastels” instead of only parroting the phrase, he would be on fire by now. It doesn’t look likely at this point.

If Trump can convince skeptics like me that he has more to recommend himself than “winning”, he should be able to walk away with the nomination and proceed to trounce whomever the Dems put forth.

I can only hope that the level of discourse is elevated as the primaries wind down and November approaches no matter the candidates, but I am skeptical that it will come to pass.

Terms like “Reaganomics” and “Star Wars” were bandied about as epithets,…

They never tired of trying to demean him with the “Cowboy” and “Ronald RayGun” tags, either. Heh.

A weapon that you cannot aim is as dangerous to you as to your opponent.

Worth repeating.

I can’t seem to stop hoping …

Also worth repeating.

Thank you.

hillbillyjim on February 11, 2016 at 3:43 PM

Do you agree Trump supports increasing ethanol subsidies? The answer is only two weeks old. Be careful.

RainMan on February 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM

So are all our comments explaining that there are no ethanol subsidies, but a mandate.

And the vote for “fast tracking” TPP was the vote for TPA. TPP hasn’t come up for a vote yet, as NWConservative and others have pointed out to your dumb @ss.

Dim-bulb anti-Trumpers gotta be dim. Be careful!

Joseph K on February 11, 2016 at 2:45 PM

He’s too stupid to debate at this point because he refuses to educate himself after repeated slow walks to the conclusion by Boxhead1.

NWConservative on February 11, 2016 at 3:55 PM

poor NWCon….why can’t you debate issues? you skeered man?

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM

DanMan on February 11, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Ted Cruz says he supported TPA.

Ted Cruz says he wanted the Gang Of Eight bill to pass.

Is Ted Cruz lying about this?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-ryan-urge-senate-to-pass-fast-track/article/2563423

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., penned a joint op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Wednesday calling on Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority legislation. The two conservative lawmakers argue that the legislation, also known as “Fast Track,” is urgently needed to strengthen the U.S.’s ability to negotiate future trade deals.

Ted Cruz on the Gang Of Eight bill…

Cruz:

I believe that if my amendments were adopted, the bill would pass. My effort in introducing them was to find solution that reflected common ground and fixed the problem.

CRUZ:

I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 6:37 PM

Top Contributors
Senator Ted Cruz

Campaign Finance Cycle:

Club for Growth: $705,657,
Senate Conservatives Fund: $315,991
Woodforest National Bank: $186,700
Morgan Lewis LLP: $136,400
Goldman Sachs: $96,700
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: $77,500
Avalon Advisors: $65,800
Sullivan & Cromwell: $65,513
Jones Day: $63,500
RE Janes Gravel Co: $60,600
RIDA Development: $60,075
McCombs Enterprises: $58,950
Ashford Hospitality Trust: $58,100
Jackson Walker LLP: $55,549
Teligistics Inc: $50,550
Baker Botts LLP: $50,448
Saulsbury Industries: $49,400
Redman Management: $48,200
Pachulski, Stang et al: $44,600
Credit Suisse Group: $44,235

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00033085&newMem=N&recs=20

Ted Cruz statement: “I will never get–nor do I want–money from the D.C. lobbyists or the special interest billionaires.”

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/11/who-is-the-real-ted-cruz/#more-112234

writeblock on February 11, 2016 at 7:27 PM

RR was the closest to RR in my lifetime.

Carnac on February 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Ronald Reagan, wasn’t a charlatan. “Ted” Cruz is a charlatan, selling snake oil to his faithful.

Rush, insults Ronald Reagan.

Sharr on February 11, 2016 at 11:08 PM

I don’t trust Cruz. He talks a good game, but I see lots of manipulation from him and have many questions about his true agenda based on the apparent inconsistency of his talk and his actions. The conservative radio hosts I think should be vetting him are promoting him instead. So I no longer trust the conservative radio hosts.

Cara C on February 12, 2016 at 3:41 AM