Ted Cruz 2016

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Another point; almost no candidate will be able to deliver what they promise when they are running. The Government has institutions that are too entrenched and things have become far too partisan.

What they end up doing is delivering some promised Governmental positions and ambassadorships…and throwing out some chum here and there to their base.

Mufasa[/quote]

But that’s not the problem. Nor do I feel that is an accurate representation of what most of us here want. We all know it is quixotic to expect that a candidate deliver ALL of what they promise, or even most of it. That is entirely the point of Legislative and Judicial branch: to check them.

What I am speaking about, and although I don’t want to speak for beans or anyone else who has said things along the lines I posted in this thread, is the idea that the candidate actually ATTEMPT to govern along the lines of his promises. Merely attempting to follow through in the face of opposition would be enough to show any candidate had serious intentions about trying to follow through on his word.

If all Obama had done was to make his administration transparent as he said he wanted to, he would have set a powerful precedent. If all he had done would be to post his positions on bills online days in advance like he said, it would have been a sizable precedent. This isn’t rocket science, and many of the things Obama said he wanted to do did not face ANY appreciable opposition in his ‘honeymoon’ phase of the presidency.

Not only that but many of his commitments were non-partisan and concerned with his own administration. Nothing to do with partisan issues like the ACA.

142

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Agree on all points, but I would take a business leader over a junior Senator…or most Senators for that matter. Businessmen have more large scale executive experience than most all Senators, even if they have far less applicable experience than governors.[/quote]

Yup.

Having newbie senators be a serious contender for office just makes no damned sense at all.

Sorry for saying this (cause I know a couple here voted for Obama for precisely that reason), but I find it rather absurd that so many people bought into Obama’s “I can bring change!” claim.[/quote]

He might have been able to if he hadn’t been a damned petulant egotist. He had so fucking much political capital to work with when he was inaugurated it’s absolutely asinine that he fucked it all up so fast.

What have I said before so many times now? Absolutely zero negotiating and diplomacy skills. It would not have taken much to ride the political capital and make real change happen–of the non-partisan kind–but he was unable to do it.[/quote]

Completely right. Imagine if Obama - elected with a big majority, control of the House, and a supermajority in the Senate - had focused on stimulus and financial issues, and did so with an eye to passing big, bipartisan legislation? Then, start making his case, piece by piece, of whatever major reforms we wanted to accomplish. He would have earned trust and grown that capital, and likely presided over some version of a second New Deal, which is what he desperately wanted.

Instead, he blew it, and blew it big, and decimated his own party’s power in ways that haven’t been seen in nearly a century.

It became about him, his ideology, and his hubris. That coupled with his inherent limitations as you note - he lacks skills for the job - has basically wasted an entire presidency that could have, on balance, been a decent one.

EDIT: typo fixed.
[/quote]

Bingo. Way better than the way I tried to say it to Mufasa just above this post. Your assessment is spot on regardless of whether one is ideologically in agreement with him or his opponents. The practical matter is just that: he wasted–ruined–what had all the raw material and timing to be a great presidency and legacy.

143

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Marketing has never been in the Republican party’s bag.[/quote]

Boy ain’t that the truth. I must have a near permanent welt on my head from hitting it in frustrated amazement at a lot of the things the GOP has done to waste potential and miss voters.

144

[quote]pushharder wrote:

LOL, you may be right. If so, you’re brilliant!

Ah, you’re brilliant anyway.[/quote]

Hey thanks man. You’re pretty quick too.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m personally still waiting to see what Walker has to say.

(Maybe his “silence” is saying it all?)

What do you guys think?

Mufasa[/quote]

I have very high hopes that the best dirt they can bring up on him is “he didn’t finish college”. That would be epic. It would be the left’s 47%, IF the republicans could play it right, which they won’t but one can dream.

145

[quote] pushharder wrote:

Losers.[/quote]

The first Bush won, before lost. Reagan - tax-raising, amnesty-loving Reagan - won twice. The second Bush - pretty right-wing, but in a conventional sense, he never called for a return to the 18th century - won twice.

The closest comparison in the modern era to Cruz, Barry Goldwater, did not.

Different kinds of right-wing-ish types have won, but their moderation was a reason they did, and the reasons the others lost was not on account of their moderation.

146

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The closest comparison in the modern era to Cruz, Barry Goldwater, did not.

.[/quote]

Fair enough but Goldwater wasn’t following Obama… He was going up against the man credited (in some ways, falsely; again with republicans branding like shit) with ending Jim Crow, and riding the JFK wave. LBJ would have smoked Jesus in 64.

147

Off topic, one of the smarter and well read men I know, particularly in history, is convinced LBJ had JFK killed. Convinced. It’s hilarious to watch him talk about it.

148

[quote]
LOL, you may be right. If so, you’re brilliant!

Ah, you’re brilliant anyway.[/quote]

You guys can make me so mad sometimes that I can’t post for a week (and maybe I frustrate you sometimes too!)

But more times than not, you all have greater insights than many “experts”.

Mufasa

149

I doubt Cruz wins the primary and he has no chance for winning the general election. I don’t understand the notion that republicans would have a better chance with a more fringe candidate. Just b/c some people frame McCain and Romney as RINOs or moderates doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go with someone like Cruz. Those two were shitty candidates, plain and simple (hindsight proves this to be true). Most Americans didn’t/don’t like either of them and their attitudes and messages didn’t resonate well.

I am confident Cruz is not going to resonate well with pissed off democrats or centrist types. That shouldn’t require much explanation. His first problem is that too many important people in the republican party loathe him. When is the last time someone who was loathed by their own party representing that party for the presidency?

Cruz represents a lot of things that have hurt the republican party and/or what people hate about the republican party in recent years. Government shutdown, filibusters, bullheaded style, lacks empathy, focuses on far fetched goals that won’t be achieved. Cares more about blabbering on about his ideals (sometimes in an angry fashion) than doing his job as a senator. I’m sure the people he resonates with love these attributes about him, but these people are in the minority.

Most people do not like these attributes and the important republicans realize this and know that Cruz has damaged the republican brand in the eyes of many Americans. Cruz is clearly proud of his “anti establishment” reputation, but how is that supposed to help him win the presidency? You need rich people backing you up and elected officials backing you up to have any shot. I don’t think Cruz can reverse this because he’s too proud for his own good. He has excited supporters, sure, but it’s irrelevant in the grand scheme of a presidential run. He can probably hold his own in the primary for awhile, but ultimately he’s a marginal figure that doesn’t appeal to enough people and is proud of pissing off his own party. I don’t think he’ll be relevant in 2020 or 2024.

I agree with Thunderbolt in that he is sort of like a right-wing Obama without the charisma and without the sense to market himself correctly. Obama was also fresh, Cruz is not and neither is the tea party. He won’t get any meaningful momentum from new tea party converts. I think he’s a narcissist and an ideologue and is proud to show this off. It won’t help him win the primary or presidency.

153

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]
LOL, you may be right. If so, you’re brilliant!

Ah, you’re brilliant anyway.[/quote]

You guys can make me so mad sometimes that I can’t post for a week (and maybe I frustrate you sometimes too!)

But more times than not, you all have greater insights than many “experts”.

Mufasa[/quote]

You don’t make me mad at all. More often then not you offer a good reality check, as in I have to think about my position.

154

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
a good post.[/quote]

I just want to note that you can swap “cruz” for “Obama” in A LOT of that post and it is still very accurate.

Difference being important demographics that came out for Obama, don’t have the same poll power those that will come out just for Cruz has.

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I’m not so sure about that, my Friend.

I’ve had History Professors who didn’t understand the Political Progression of this Country from it’s inception until the 18 Century quite like I’ve seen you articulate it.

Mufasa

158

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

When is the last time someone who was loathed by their own party representing that party for the presidency?

[/quote]

Your youth is quite evident with this post.
[/quote]

Fair enough, I was born in the mid-80s. I don’t know enough about Reagan’s initial run in the late 70s to discuss how the republican establishment viewed him. I did think of a few of the modern presidents before I made that post and did think of Reagan. I do know that Reagan absolutely crushed the electoral map in 1980 and figured he must have been a popular figure. Why did the establishment hate him?

In any case, Reagan and his attitude and messages clearly resonated with most Americans at that time based on his landslide victory. So even if Reagan was able to overcome his own party, I don’t think Cruz has it in him to do it. I understand polling at this point is nearly meaningless but I’d need some really good convincing to believe that Cruz can repeat Reagan. Reagan was also uber charismatic even if you thought he was a madman. For clarification, I know you were only pointing out one specific point and weren’t telling me Cruz = Reagan.

Republicans would do better with another candidate. To me it’s Jeb versus the field and Jeb isn’t necessarily the favorite over the field. I don’t think Jeb’s eventual contender is going to be Cruz, based on the points I made in the other post.

I’m an obnoxious conservative turned centrist and I honestly want the best candidates to come forth from both parties. I don’t think Cruz has a chance and don’t want either party to have a cake walk to victory.

159

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

I’m an obnoxious conservative turned [/quote]

I’m a reformed Contemporary American Liberal… Nice ot meet you.

This thread is like AA.