Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cruz seeks to quash Rubio surge in Iowa

Cruz seeks to quash Rubio surge in Iowa

Goes negative.

There is lots of buzz that Marco Rubio is inching up in Iowa.

There also seems to be a loose consensus that Rubio had the better of the debate last night.

So Ted Cruz is turning his attention to Rubio with a negative ad campaign that previously was focused on Trump. The NY Times reports:

Senator Ted Cruz, scrambling to put down a growing threat in Iowa from Senator Marco Rubio, is shifting nearly all of his negative advertising from Donald J. Trump to Mr. Rubio for the final three days of the caucuses.

Mr. Cruz intends to direct his firepower at his Senate colleague after days of seeing Mr. Rubio inch up both in public polling and his own private surveys, according to two advisers to Mr. Cruz who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After leading in the polls in Iowa for much of the last month, Mr. Cruz has slipped into second behind Mr. Trump in most public surveys.

The change of direction marks an abrupt shift, reflecting how volatile the race in Iowa remains: Mr. Cruz’s campaign only began airing negative spots against Mr. Trump this week and just put their first attack ad up against Mr. Rubio on Thursday on Iowa television.

Cruz also is running positive ads, but the negative turn could be a sign of trouble.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This means Cruz has given up on thoughts of winning Iowa. Now he’s playing to try and hold onto second place in Iowa. After last night’s spotty debate performance by Cruz and better performance by Rubio, Rubio is positioned to pull votes from Cruz.

One thing the debate did last night was make clear yet again how Cruz supported amnesty and paths to legalization previously, and how both Cruz and Rubio have flip flopped around on Amnesty and illigal immigration.

Only Trump is left as the ONLY candidate clearly against amnesty, for deportation, and the enforcement of our laws.

Here is Politico’s description of the destruction of Rubio and Cruz on immigration last night:

Kelly flummoxed Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, currently polling second and third in Iowa, with brutal video montages that vividly demonstrated their flip-flops on immigration reform. To make things even more delicious for Trump, his other favorite bullying target, “low-energy” Jeb Bush, helped twist the knife into Rubio. And another one of his punching bags, Rand Paul, helped deliver the beatdown to Cruz.

It’s hard to see how the debate could have gone any better for Trump than if he had actually participated.

Takedown Cruz:
Cruz once filed an amendment to Rubio’s bill that would have created a path to “legalization,” but he has argued that it was really a poison pill designed to kill reform. Last night, though, Kelly effectively quashed that argument, playing several clips of Cruz insisting that he did want reform to pass. “Was that all an act?” Kelly asked him. “It was pretty convincing!” After Cruz flailed around for a few minutes, arguing that it was unfair for Kelly to focus on 38 words in a 1,000-page bill, Kelly turned to Rand Paul, yet another frequent target of Trump’s barbs. “Senator Paul, you know how Washington works,” she said. “Do you buy that?”

Paul—who has denounced Trump as unfit for office, and who has been mocked by Trump for his poll numbers and even his looks—obligingly continued the evisceration of Cruz. “He can’t have it both ways,” he said. “What is particularly insulting is, he’s the king of saying ‘You’re for amnesty.’ Everyone’s for amnesty except for Ted Cruz. But it’s a falseness, and that’s an authenticity problem … I was for legalization. So was Ted—but now he says he wasn’t. That’s not true.”

Takedown Rubio:
She began by airing several video clips of Rubio promising to oppose amnesty when he ran for Senate in 2010, at one point arguing that an “earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” She then pointed out that in the Senate, Rubio helped lead the push for a bill that included an earned path to citizenship.

“Haven’t you already proven that you cannot be trusted on this issue?” Kelly asked.

CHECKMATE TRUMP 2016

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Last night, though, Kelly effectively quashed that argument, playing several clips of Cruz insisting that he did want reform to pass. “Was that all an act?” Kelly asked him. “It was pretty convincing!”

    And here you are PROVING again that you’ll tell any lie to #SuckTrump!

    Kelly had to admit later she was WRONG, you lying SOS.

    Oh, and Gaghdad Bob (T-rump butt boi nonpareil)…

    “Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate on FOX News Channel scored 12.5 million viewers, making it the second-highest rated telecast in the network’s history.

    The debate topped all television shows — including broadcast programs — on Thursday night in total viewers. It also pulled in 3.5 million viewers in the advertiser-friendly demo of adults aged 25-54, according to Early Nielsen Research.

    The debate beat CNN and MSNBC combined in both total viewers and the 25-54 demo. Those networks aired segments of a Donald Trump rally, which was scheduled after the GOP contender withdrew from the Fox News debate.”

    So it looks like Donald Ducks screwed himself by running like the pussy he certainly IS…

    And HEH…!!!

      That is a good little Troll running interference for poor little Roger Ailes.

      Here is the TRUTH:

      Donald Trump’s counter-programming stunt succeeded in stealing viewers from Fox News’ Republican presidential debate.

      Thursday night *marked the second lowest rated GOP debate of the season*. And Trump was the most-talked-about candidate without even being there.

      *Trump, who had refused to attend the debate, showed off his ratings magnetism by depriving Fox of it.*

      Fox’s Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen.

      Fox News averaged a record-smashing 25 million viewers for the last debate they did. So this debate was *down by 50%*.

      CNN’s December 15 debate had 18 million viewers. So last night’s debate was *down 33% from just one month ago*.

      CNN and Fox News are on a relatively even playing field in terms of reach into cable homes. And Thursday’s debate didn’t come close to matching December’s totals.

      CHECKMATE TRUMP 2016

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 5:48 pm

      Last night, though, Kelly effectively quashed that argument, playing several clips of Cruz insisting that he did want reform to pass. “Was that all an act?” Kelly asked him. “It was pretty convincing!”

      And here you are PROVING again that you’ll tell any lie to #SuckTrump!

      Kelly had to admit later she was WRONG, you lying SOS.

      #SuckTrump

      Liar.

        No She didn’t. Not according to Politico and not according to Rand Paul. Got a link to Kelly admitting she was wrong??

        Of course you don’t.

        Cruz is a flip flopper on many things. The most important of which are Obamatrade, Immigration, and paths to legalization for illegals.

        Cruz can’t be trusted.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 6:56 pm

        OTOH, Donald Ducks (Running Pussy, NYC) DID support the bill that Cruz KILLED in 2013.

          DuraMater in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 11:48 pm

          How many Trump supporters know that in June of 2013 while Cruz was on steps of Capital rallying against gang of 8 bill, Trump was meeting in NY with “DREAMERs”. One was from my locale. She and her family had been sucking my tax dollars and evading deportation for years.
          Head lines quoting Trump after that meeting, “You’ve convinced me!” Yes, lets give anchor babies and illegals more preferential treatment than American children, right Mr. Trump. Are these some of his so-called “good ones” who will be expedited through the “beautiful door” in the wall?
          Those who swoon over Trump’s supposed hard line on immigration are being duped. Photo-op deportations and touch back amnesty are what is actually being offered.

          As for the Rubio ad, Professor, this is not negative, it is factual. Indeed, I’ve wanted more of this kind of exposure of Rubio (also from my neck of the woods and well known).

          Also in need of reveal is Rubio’s most recent ploy, still promoted by him but stuck in committee, the I-squared bill.
          In a prior debate when pressed on G of 8, Rubio pivoted and tried to spin the topic to threats from ISIS saying, “they know how to game the system and are posing as doctors, engineers, professionals..”, suggesting he was now a tough guy on limiting entrants with VISAs.
          Rubio’s I-squared bill is designed to augment and expedite just these types of foreigners entry into the US, ostensibly to satisfy a nonexistent dearth in STEM and professionals.

      PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 6:01 pm

      Republican Debates

      CNN 09/16/2015 23 million viewers 12/15/2015 18 million viewers (-21.74%)

      FBN 11/10/2015 14 million viewers 01/14/2016 11 million viewers (-21.43%)

      FNC 08/06/2015 25 million viewers 01/28/2016 13 million viewers (-43.00%)

        FBN which still beat last night’s debacle on Fox News is not a fair comparison because FBN reaches far fewer homes than does FNC.

        Fair comparison is FNC last time to this time. 25 million down to 12.5 million.

        And CNN last month to FNC this month 18 million down to 12.5 million.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 6:19 pm

          Gary I did that. Look closer.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 6:59 pm

          So if FNC got the same decline as the other 2 networks (about a 21.5% decline) then the FNC audience should have been about 19,500,000 viewers. They attracted 13,000,000.

          So the Trump effect is approximately 6,500,000 viewers.

          Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 6:29 pm

          I salute your efforts, but recall my late father’s favorite sayings about similar encounters:

          1. Waste not your breath upon a fool, for he will not hear the wisdom of your words.

          2. Arguing with an idiot is like wrestling a pig in his sty: you end up covered with crap, and the pig enjoys it.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 6:45 pm

          You’re comparing apples to oranges. The whole point of the debates is to attract VIEWERS. The FNC crew lost almost half their audience. FBN and CNN each lost 21% of their viewers. That’s what counts. Just imagine if FNC only lost 21% of their audience instead of losing 43%

          The candidates want to make their case to the voters. It makes sense they want as many people to see them as possible. You could factor seasonality into this a little bit but given how much publicity this debate had, it probably is less meaningful.

          Next up are the polls on Sunday/Monday.

    damocles in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Gary, Trump is for amnesty .Touchback amnesty to be exact. http://www.newsweek.com/who-knew-trump-favors-amnesty-undocumented-immigrants-395512

    Trump’s supporters loved his promise last week to create a “deportation force” to remove all 11 million illegal immigrants living in America, and his repeated declaration that everyone here illegally will “have to go.”

    But his supporters tend to overlook his other promise—repeated in the Fox Business debate in Milwaukee on November 10—that under his immigration plan “they will come back.”
    That’s right. Under Trump’s immigration plan, almost all of the 11 million illegal aliens (save for a small minority with criminal records) will get to return and get permanent legal status to stay here in America….

    On Fox News on November 12, Trump’s son Eric expressed frustration that the media overlooks this:
    The point isn’t just deporting them, it’s deporting them and letting them back in legally. He’s been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it, but it’s deporting them and letting them back legally.

    Eric Trump is right. His father has been crystal clear that he wants all the illegals to return and live in America.

    Listen closely to what Trump is actually proposing. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash earlier this year, Trump explained his plan this way:

    I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal…. A lot of these people are helping us … and sometimes it’s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.

    This is a policy called “touchback” and it was first proposed in 2007 by moderate Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas). She offered a “touchback” amendment on the Senate floor that would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries to apply for a special “Z visa” that would allow them to re-enter the United States in an expedited fashion and work here indefinitely.

    Her amendment lost by a relatively close margin, 53-45. It was supported by most Republicans and even got five Democratic votes—senators Claire McCaskill, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Byron Dorgan and John Rockefeller all voted for it.

    The idea was considered so reasonable that in an April 22, 2007, editorial entitled “Progress on Immigration,” The New York Times declared:

    It’s not ideal, but if a touchback provision is manageable and reassures people that illegal immigrants are indeed going to the back of the line, then it will be defensible.

    So what Trump is proposing today—sending illegal immigrants back to their home countries and then allowing the “good ones” to return in an “expedited” fashion—was endorsed by the liberal New York Times!

    If anything, the “touchback” plan Trump endorses was attacked by conservatives back in 2007. In an editorial, National Review called touchback a “fraud” that gives illegal aliens “their own privileged pathway” ahead of “applicants who have complied with US immigration laws.”

    That is precisely what Trump is proposing. Under his plan, illegal aliens don’t have to go to the end of the line behind those who have complied with our immigration laws. They get an “expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal.” They get to cut the line and then stay in America.

    So if you get past Trump’s bluster, the plan he is proposing is so liberal that it earned the support of The New York Times and the opposition of National Review.

    The reason is simple: Trump’s plan is in fact a form of amnesty—you just have to leave the country briefly to get it.

    So when Trump says of illegal immigrants “they all have to go,” don’t overlook the fact that under his plan almost all would be able to immediately return—and stay.

      Trump’s immigration plan is from Jeff Sessions. There is no better oerson on immigration than Jeff Sessions.

      Trump says he wants the “good ones to come back legally” What qualifies as a good one and how long it takes to come back and under what rules and conditions are not stated. It could take years.

      I trust Trump and Sessions to get these details right.

      Everyone else’s plans are deport no body and provide direct amnesty or legalization, including Cruz.

      Only Trump’s plan includes active deportation. The come back provisions would only apply to the “good ones” in that actively deported group. Since nobody else is going to actively deport a single person whatever Trump does with those actively deported is tougher and better than everyone else. Because everyone else isn’t actively deporting anybody.

      There is absolutely no question that Trump willbdeport more illegals and be tougher on illegals than any other candidate.

      So if you think Trump is going to be too lenient just remember everyone else 8s worse.

        DuraMater in reply to Gary Britt. | January 30, 2016 at 12:00 am

        “Everyone else’s plans are deport no body and provide direct amnesty or legalization, including Cruz.”
        Wrong, sir. Interior enforcement with deportation IS in fact articulated in Cruz plan.

          Ragspierre in reply to DuraMater. | January 30, 2016 at 7:00 am

          That’s just one of his blatant, in-your-face lies.

          Seriously, the idiot could teach Obama a thing or two about lying!

          You are wrong. Cruz’s plan is to use everify to get people to self deport. He has specifically said that he isnt going to round anybody up and deport them like Trump will do.

          Trump will also use everify and all the other tools that Cruz will use. BUT in addition to that Trump will actively round up and deport people. Cruz won’t. Some of those rounded up and deported might be allowed to come back if they are the “good ones”.

          Since Cruz nor anybody else will round people up their plan is don’t leave and stay. Then the Cruz people try to make this false claim that Trump will do what they will not do and then might let some of them come back. That is still WAY better than what Cruz or anybody else will do.

          Jeff Sessions is no fool and it is Trumps plan than he designed and supports.

          Ragspierre in reply to DuraMater. | January 30, 2016 at 12:02 pm

          https://www.tedcruz.org/news/ted-cruz-announces-policy-to-stop-illegal-immigration/

          More straight up lying by Gaghdad Bob.

          Cruz will not form a new BIG GOVERNMENT corps of jack-booted thugs (who would be legally shut down before the water got hot).

          Cruz will use the TOTALLY adequate LEOs we have all over America right now, and people will be legally deported, and many will self-deport.

          Again, same goal: different approach. T-rump BIG GOVERNMENT and false bullshit promises he can’t make happen. Cruz, just the Conservative approach.

      DuraMater in reply to damocles. | January 29, 2016 at 11:56 pm

      I wrote the same point before seeing your post which is far more informative on the history of Touch back amnesty. Well done, sir. So good to know some of us are paying attention.

    I thought you said that you boycotted the debate last night, Gary, in solidarity with Candidate Onesie McStompyfoot. How is it, then, that you keep giving such detailed analyses of “your” thoughts, ideas and impressions on it?

DINORightMarie | January 29, 2016 at 5:24 pm

That is NOT a “negative ad.” That is Rubio speaking his promise, then Rush relating how Rubio betrayed that promise.

It’s making it CRYSTAL CLEAR that Rubio is NOT trustworthy, and that he betrayed his constituents the moment he found that it would be lucrative, thinking it would feather his nest.

Bad, bad decision.

    DuraMater in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 30, 2016 at 12:05 am

    Absolutely correct! It is not “negative” but fact, nor does it bode ill for Sen. Cruz campaign. Now Cruz should go after Rubio’s I-squared bill languishing (hiding) in committee.

DINORightMarie | January 29, 2016 at 5:27 pm

May I ask – is it just me, or is EVERY SINGLE BLOG being hijacked by these Trump trolls, these Trumpsters?!

I’m so tired of reading, over and over, the same lame Trump talking points, the same nonsensical attacks, and the overall non-logic logic these Trumpsters keep posting all over the blogs. Because it is nonsensical, irrational, and even insulting the BS that they keep posting…….

(*cough cough* Gary Britt on this site *cough cough*)

    I’m so tired of reading, over and over, the same lame Cruz talking points, the same nonsensical attacks, and the overall non-logic logic these Cruzbots keep posting all over the blogs. Because it is nonsensical, irrational, and even insulting the BS that they keep posting…….

    I couldn’t agree more. And the debate polls when done here clearly show the cruzbots outnumber the trumpbots on LI by 1.5 – 2.0 to 1.

    Possibly you only see what you want to see?? Ya think??

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 5:40 pm

      Then you need to go away, you lying, cowardly, bullying POS. Take your poor, tired, suffering SOS self off, and lie in a corner somewhere.

      Nobody asked you here, and nobody needs to hear your lies any more. Most all of us can ape them better than you do.

      Nobody but you feels that they have to lie every day to stay in the game.

      Just leave.

        Fuck Off Troll.

          damocles in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 8:59 pm

          Perhaps that level of foul language is appreciated in Trump venues, but it is not appreciated here. If you cannot express yourself in decent language then please avail yourself of some further education so that you can engage in discussion on a more polite level. Perhaps that is your problem, a lack of education has inhibited your ability to understand that Donald Trump is an imposter playing on the vulnerabilities of the under-educated.

          Damocles you should stay out of matters you no nothing about Rags routinely and constantly speaks to me and others in vulgar and base language for no reason whatsoever. You need to stay silent and read more and you will see what I mean. When it comes to Rags I don’t give a crap what you think so save your little bullshit speeches for sokeone who does.

          The Heather Mac Donald case against Trump: “The culture has been coarsened enough already.” http://www.city-journal.org/2016/eon0128hm.html

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 5:50 pm

        You know, Bierhall Bully Britt, I just realized that you managed to up-thumb yourself with every post you post. Who else is inflating your lying, SOS, T-rump sucking presence here?

      damocles in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 8:39 pm

      Well, perhaps if you actually read the logical rejoinders of your illogical arguments and the evidence that proves you are incorrect you wouldn’t have to read the same thing so many times Gary.

    PhillyGuy in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 29, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Now you’re whining about the millions of Trump voters defending their candidate. that’s juvenile. If you don’t like it don’t read it. There are many blog posts I don’t read because I know what is going to happen.

      Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 29, 2016 at 7:00 pm

      Nobody is “whining” you T-rump sucking POS.

      We are tired of every thread being tread-jacked by slobbering Donald Ducks myrmidons.

      This is a thread about Cruz and Rubio, you moronic phuc.

      Either post something RELEVANT to the root post or STFU.

      damocles in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 29, 2016 at 8:42 pm

      We would just appreciate it, if you would add something that was either accurate or logical to the discourse, with accompanying evidentiary links that are not from the Conservative Treehouse website(which makes a habit of providing false information and dubious propaganda). Thank you.

    DuraMater in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 30, 2016 at 12:07 am

    No. It is NOT just you. We are seeing the same mentality and behavior observed since ’08 with the ObamaBot brigade.

Where’s Rubio’s big Mo coming from?

If the establishment wants to Rally around Rubio, then that’s a good thing in the long run for everybody, even if it costs Cruz some short term votes.

And yeah, Cruz did terrible at the debate. His jokes bombed with an audience who was confused about whether they were serious. Plus, The other candidates, Fox News, and the audience all ganged up on him. He looked Extreme without Trump standing next to him.

Teddy the Canadian Anchor Baby whine whine whine, it’s alright baby. Its almost over then you can go home.

    Ragspierre in reply to Notanymore. | January 29, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/29/trump-ted-cruz-may-not-be-a-u-s-citizen-because-hes-a-canadian-anchor-baby/

    So, here’s this lying puke who will literally say ANY-flucking-THING, and he expects you to eat it like candy.

    And there’s ANYTHING “conservative” about this Progressive, lying sack of shit…???

    Seriously…???

    How many more crap sandwiches are some of you morons DEMANDING…???

      damocles in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 8:52 pm

      I will never vote for Trump. Cruz has fought against the establishment. Cruz stopped the Gang of Eight Bill while Trump was supporting the Dreamer Act. Trumps own son said Trump was for touchback amnesty. I will not vote for Trump. I am for Cruz.

        Notanymore in reply to damocles. | January 29, 2016 at 9:24 pm

        Good thing the General election is so far removed from the Primaries. It will give you a chance to warm up to Trump and forget you first voted for a loser.

      DuraMater in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 12:16 am

      Days ago I sent Trump campaign a question asking why they had not reached for the low hanging fruit regarding Rubio as the prototypical anchor baby?

      His parents arrived in the US in 1956, during Batista regime and continued to go back and forth to Cuba for years after. Rubio was born in ’71 but his parents did not apply for citizenship until almost 4 years later.
      Rubio’s book and senate campaign hyped his family as being political refugees who fled Castro in 1959. They were NOT. Few people have called him out on this.

New Mitchell FOX 2 Detroit Poll of Michigan: Trump has 51 percent compared to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz who is in second place at just 15 percent and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio who is in third with 12 percent.

In a head to head matchup, Trump holds a 47 – 43 percent lead over Clinton with 10 percent undecided.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/83147628-story

    Trump is the most electable in general election by far. Trump will put pennsylvania in play, along with Michigan, and maybe even Massachussets and New York.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 7:23 pm

      Thread-jack by #SuckTrump.

      Note the “up thumb” as soon as the post hits.

      What a piece of shit.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2016 at 8:43 pm

        This is relevant to what’s going on between Cruz and Rubio. The intention of the powers that be vis a vis the debate was to use Cruz to take down Trump, in the hopes that then would open the way to diminish Cruz and boost their GOPe pick. Trump’s avoiding the debate thwarted this plan and left Cruz exposed to attacks by Rubio.

        Cruz was able to rise by sailing in Trump’s wake. It worked well up to the point he got too close. He made a mistake in not seeing this (and ditto his supporters — of which I was one until Trump entered the race and it became clear why). Cruz does not have the strategy skills that Trump has, nor the BS facility of little sweaty Rubio, nor the ability to win a general election. I hope Cruz hasn’t blown all of his good will with Trump.

          damocles in reply to janitor. | January 29, 2016 at 8:49 pm

          Trump did not show up because he was afraid he would be hit on his admission that he would work well with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. He opened his very large mouth and stuck his foot right in it. Fox had the video and it would have been played. In the same video he called Nancy Pelosi a very nice woman and said he was very close to Chuck Schumer, he called Cruz a nasty guy. How do you think that was going to play? Trump was scared. admit it. Cruz would have hammered him on it. You know it and I know it. Your fearless leader ran off with his tail between his legs. His lies caught up with him, because he lets his big mouth run away with him and the truth comes out.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | January 29, 2016 at 9:01 pm

          I doubt that Trump would have had a problem wtih that since he’s openly admitted from the beginning that he’s given money to all of them, that he’s attempted to get along with all of them, etc. He says this at every rally. No gotcha there.

          To the extent you have a point in that the debate would have put Trump in a position of accepting potential risks with no potential upside, then that, of course, would have been another consideration.

          I’m quite sure that he weighed all of the pros and cons, as well as all of the multifarious movements in various directions by various players.

          Notanymore in reply to janitor. | January 29, 2016 at 9:30 pm

          So after 6 debates last night was going to be the one he waded into Trump. So for 6 debates Cruz was afraid to take on Trump.. As I recall the last time they were on the stage together Cruz was a mere pimple on Trumps rear. When he spoke he was swatted like a fly. No my friend Trump has never had anything to fear in Cruz. He after all is a whining Canadian Anchor Baby.

        “Note the “up thumb””

        LOL, you really need to take your medication, you are unhinged.

        Fuck Off Troll

      damocles in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 8:45 pm

      Perhaps you have not considered all those who will go out and vote for the Democratic candidate to spare us from the Trump monster?
      After all, a raving socialist will have to fought against by the establishment, whereas they will capitulate to a crony capitalist like Trump. I prefer the honest fight against the raving socialist loony myself.

        Steve D in reply to damocles. | January 29, 2016 at 8:58 pm

        Well, I personally think a blubbering narcissist is marginally better than either a raving socialist or a criminal sociopath but to each their own.

        Still, in that case I’d advise voting for the Libertarian party. They won’t win but if they can increase their vote count each election it won’t be long before they will be influencing policy and forcing the country into the debate it desperately needs.

        janitor in reply to damocles. | January 29, 2016 at 9:03 pm

        “All those” Democrats who might be motivated to vote against any perceived “monster” would be the very same folks who perceive every Republican, and especially every conservative in that way.

        Perhaps you should consider all the Reagan democrats that will vote for Trump. Trump is tge only general election winner for republicans.

    damocles in reply to janitor. | January 29, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    Oh, yeah, cos we always win Detroit in the general! DUH!

‘This means Cruz has given up on thoughts of winning Iowa.’

No. Second place means little. If you put away your bias, love the truth and think about this hard, there is a much better and more logical reason why Cruz is doing this.

By the way anyone who thought that Trump bowing out of the debate would lower the ratings doesn’t understand ratings or the public. The hooplah generated by his antics could only increase their ratings. Maybe Fox paid him off, eh?

    janitor in reply to Steve D. | January 29, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Anyone who thought that Trump bowed out of the debate for the primary purpose of lowering Fox ratings doesn’t understand what’s going on.

    Ragspierre in reply to Steve D. | January 29, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    He ran. Being the pussy he is. He didn’t want to have his ass waxed on national TV.

    I agree for Cruz second place means little for Cruz but 3rd place is even worse and that is what Cruz is trying to stop now.

    It is clearly established that the debate ratings without Trump were down 6.5 million from what the would have been with Trump.

    If you don’t understand that it isn’t us who doesn’t understand ratings.

      Steve D in reply to Gary Britt. | January 30, 2016 at 4:01 pm

      No, it is never possible to clearly establish a hypothetical like that. The best you can do is an educated guess or as in the case of most of the commenters here, a wild guess. The fact that the ratings went up from the previous debate is telling and in favor of my tongue in cheek hypothesis but I don’t know the answer.

      What I do know is that a second hander like Trump is an effect not a cause; made possible only by our post modern degraded culture. He would have never made business man a hundred years ago much less presidential contender.

      Whether he wins or not he (like Sanders) is a milestone, marking our next stage in the slow motion decades long American shamble toward dictatorship.

        The ratings did not go up. The lat fox news debate had 25 million. This debate had 12.5 million. That is a decline of 12.5 million. The debate last month on CNN had 18 million. The FNC debate is down 6.5 million from that.

        There is no question that tge ratings dropped at least 6.5 million.

        It is pretty simple.

      Steve D in reply to Gary Britt. | January 30, 2016 at 4:07 pm

      Look at ALL the polling data and apply unbiased logic. Cruz is trying to prevent something but its not finishing third.

        I have. The polling data says Trump is in the lead by 3% to 7%. If Cruz was fighting for first place he would be continuing attacks on Trump. Since he has switched from attacking the leader to attacking Rubio he is trying to protect his rear and trying to make sure Rubio doesn’t over take him.

        Des Moines register poll out tonight Trump increases by 7% and Cruz has lost 8% for a total swing in favor of Trump of 15%.

        Let’s see how the Cruzbots spin this news.

just typical campaigning, everyone’s been throwing mud @ Cruz for how long?? forever so delaying throw back until last minute is not unusual or panic… it will only be remembered that Cruz fought back and was not a wuss

Well, the Stormtrumpers have marched in and basically wrecked another thread.

I can’t imagine what they think they’re accomplishing when they do this, though. Do they really think that with enough cut & pastes from Trumpbart, the Trumperservative Treehouse, and Politico, plus liberal carpet-bombings with the F-bomb, they’re going to convince those trying to read a post on Cruz & Rubio that it’s actually the Trump Train they want to be on?

    Excellent, including their citing Politico as a factual basis.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Amy in FL. | January 29, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    Why would we convince people who can’t see what is happening in front of their own eyes? If you haven’t seen it by now you won’t ever. I’m having fun, sorry that you are not.

    I’m afraid you have it backwards Civil and intelligent on topic comments are posted by a pro Trump person and then Rags and the other Cruzbots instead of responding in a thoughtful manner to have a civil and intelligent discussion start with all the name calling, vulgar insults, etc so we defend ourselves. It is Rags and the Cruzbots that cause all the back and forth. It is ALWAYS Rags and the Cruzbots that prevent any kind of mature discussion. It seems like it is there plan to prevent any adult discussion of points of view that are different from there own.

      While we all usually let this stuff go by, in part because we sometimes do it ourselves, it seems appropriate to point out to you, who seem to be proclaiming yourself “intelligent,” that in the last sentence of your 10:12 comment you manage twice to write “there” instead of “their.”

        Barry in reply to Rick. | January 29, 2016 at 10:30 pm

        ” …you manage twice to write “there” instead of “their.””

        OH MY GOD. There usin Porr grammer.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 29, 2016 at 10:26 pm

      “It is Rags and the Cruzbots that cause all the back and forth. It is ALWAYS Rags and the Cruzbots that prevent any kind of mature discussion.”

      And yet, oddly enough, Rags does NOT lie.

      You do it constantly.

      This is but another instance. You lying POS.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/01/thunder-over-iowa-over-500-faith-and.html

“In endorsing Ted Cruz for President Tony Perkins spoke for many faith leaders and cultural conservatives when he said, “I trust Ted to fight to pull America out of the political and cultural tailspin that President Obama’s policies have put us in. This is no normal election; this election is about the very survival of our Constitution and our republic.”

Perkins added a key consideration in the minds of many faith-first voters; Ted Cruz’s record of keeping his promises.”

Yes. There IS that…!!!

Ted Cruz is sending out voter shaming letters, telling people’s neighbors who has and who hasn’t voted lately?

https://twitter.com/rumpfshaker/

https://twitter.com/rumpfshaker/status/693293747543474176

Of all the many things said about Donald Trump, what was said by Roger Ailes, head of the Fox News Channel, said it all in just two words: “Grow up!”

It is amazing how many people have been oblivious to this middle-aged man’s spoiled brat behavior, his childish boastfulness about things he says he is going to do, and his petulant response to every criticism with ad hominem replies.

He has boasted that his followers would stick by him even if he committed murder. But is that something to boast about? Is it not an insult to his followers, if it is true? Moreover, his cockiness is misplaced, because he still does not have a majority among Republican voters, while you need a majority of all the voters to win any state in the general election.

Trump has a showman’s talent for telling people what they want to hear. But you can listen in vain for a coherent argument from him, based on facts and logic, much less an understanding of the inherent limitations of the office of president.

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said: “Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.”

In other words, the personal character of the people to whom you entrust the powers of government matters even more than what kinds of government institutions there are.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/01/30/grow-up-n2112211

Dr. Sowell is right. This is why so many of us support Cruz. It’s just rational.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 9:39 am

    You know I originally supported Cruz too. But he doesn’t have a chance to win. Last time around I supported Gingrich. After the inexplicable fiasco in the Florida primaries, I set about to educate myself and get more involved in the politics. A person can learn a lot in four years. At the beginning of this current race, I was horrified to see the same behind-the-scenes shenanigans going on, this time to boost Jeb Bush (who “inexplicably” was getting media attention as the “front runner” right after he entered the race.)

    Trump entered the race and started trying to educated people about the same behind-the-scenes manipulations that I had already figured out.

    Whatever anyone else thinks, this is not a man who wanted to run for president. Rather, he was one of the power brokers. I believe him when he says that he got fed up, is alarmed at how bad things have become over the past decade, and cares about the future of this country for his children and grandchildren.

    I fully realize that Trump is not ideologically perfect. But those of us who have seen him in action up close for decades know that he is a patriot, cares deeply about this country, is supremely competent, and will take advice. The choice otherwise was, unfortunately, not Cruz (the best hope for boosting Cruz was for him to have let Trump do that — and I hope he hasn’t blown it.) Trump is not a politician, and his speeches are somewhat awkward, unscripted and crude. But he stepped out of the background to “do it himself” for good reason.

    You may not like to hear this, but it is the way it is.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 10:02 am

      Speaking only for misef, I don’t mind “hearing this”. It’s fine for you to have opinions that I consider wrong and even loopy. They are NOT, “the way it is”, but you’re entitled.

      Take, for instance, “…I was horrified to see the same behind-the-scenes shenanigans going on, this time to boost Jeb Bush (who “inexplicably” was getting media attention as the “front runner” right after he entered the race.)”

      That’s as “inexplicable” as the Sun rise. And it was not some vast eGOP conspiracy. It was just what the media does every day. Bush has obvious traits that made his entry into the POTUS race news, and, as I’ve pointed out before, to the extent he “led” in polls so early as to be entirely meaningless, it was very likely simple name recognition.

      The rest of your homage to T-rump is your opinion, to which you’re entitled, but many feel is based on blind faith and poor thinking. Both of which are WAY too common in the American body politic today.

      Many of us think Duh Donald is an outright threat to our republic, and we have very sound reasons for that conclusion. He’s just Obama with a different slant on crapping on the Constitution. It’s still crap.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 10:30 am

        So why did Newt Gingrich suddenly tank when the Florida primaries hit in 2012? Wasn’t a name recognition issue. As for Jeb Bush — another Bush, who so flipped out the country with his mistake in Iraq that it gave us Obama — that name recognition thing should have gone both ways, a wash. And that doesn’t even figure in that this country would have been averse to electing yet another Bush.

        The threat to our country is to lose this election.

        And it also won’t do so hot even to have a business-as-usual opportunist Republican be the winner, someone who is controlled by his campaign contributors. That is Rubio is spades.

        These lessons should have been learned post-2010 and 2014 elections.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 10:38 am

          Your first paragraph is a complete logical non-sequitur as a response to what I said about Jeb! I tried, but can’t find anything rationally tied to what I pointed out.

          “And it also won’t do so hot even to have a business-as-usual opportunist Republican be the winner, someone who is controlled by his campaign contributors.”

          But it goes completely past you that Duh Donald…Mr. Establishment…sold out to the cronies of BIG CORN in Iowa first test of the election. That’s simply amazing. It SCREAMS of PROGRESSIVE POLITICS as usual.

          It graphically PROVES everything I’ve been saying about Donald Ducks.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 10:48 am

          My first paragraph goes to your assumptiong regarding Jeb Bush’s entry into this race, i.e. “name recognition”. My point addressed that the same reasons were behind both Gingrich’s tanking and Bush’s initial polling. Your response about Bush did not address both, and was a hypthesis that fit only one.

          As for Trump’s “selling out”, the guy is loathe to advocate for anything right now in this climate that could hurt the economy of Iowa and the people. Additionally, it’s not high on the to-do priority list. Trump has no ties to corn producers and unlike the candidates other than Cruz, isn’t getting campaign boosts from them.

          Priorities. Cruz could be right as rain on every single position he takes, but that won’t matter if the president is Hillary Clinton.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 11:12 am

          “As for Trump’s “selling out”, the guy is loathe to advocate for anything right now in this climate that could hurt the economy of Iowa and the people. Additionally, it’s not high on the to-do priority list.”

          That’s simply rank…and I DO mean RANK…rationalization. You have to lie to yourself to get there, and you know it.

          A five-year phase out was not going to “hurt the economy of Iowa”.

          T-rump’s sell out calls for INCREASES the crony programs.

          If ceasing market distorting and tax-payer money wasting programs for fat cat pols is “hurting the economy”, you are not a conservative. And he nation is totally screwed.

          You simply ASSume that Cruz could not win against ANY likely Deemocrat. I don’t see any support for that, and I HAVE seen plenty of support that Duh Donald is the weakest of candidates in that department.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 11:27 am

          Okay.

          Please vote for Trump then when Cruz tanks in later primaries. If you listen to Levin carefully, even while he adamently tries to educate on the conservative issues and why Cruz is correct on them (and I agree that he is), he is still walking a careful line to not dismiss supporting Trump if Cruz cannot prevail.

          I readily will admit that I am “afraid” for the future of this country and for my kids, one of whom is in the Persian Gulf right now and another in the air piloting a Blackhawk.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 11:40 am

          I’ve made it clear I WILL NOT vote for either Collectivist puke if T-rump is the nominee.

          I made it clear WHY.

          Thank your kids for their service, please.

          Barry in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 12:16 pm

          “I’ve made it clear I WILL NOT vote for either Collectivist puke if T-rump is the nominee.”

          Which is perfectly fine with me. You should not vote for someone who you view as bad for the country. I may disagree with your assessment…

          Question: Did you vote for Romney and McCain?

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 12:24 pm

          I voted for Palin and Romney (just like Palin, Rush, Levin, etc.)

          Not that that’s any of your flucking business or has any relevance to T-rump, the Mr. Establishment Collectivist.

          Romney for all his warts was not a positive danger to the republic. Duh Donald IS.

          Barry in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 1:49 pm

          “Not that that’s any of your flucking business or has any relevance to T-rump, the Mr. Establishment Collectivist.”

          You shouldn’t have answered then. I really don’t care. Just trying to understand your hatred of trump.

          Just for the record, I voted for McCain. Did not plan to, but just couldn’t lodge my protest when in the voting booth. I did not vote for Romney. And wouldn’t. I had learned my lesson with respect to the GOPe by then.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    That’s not an “ask”. That’s an opinion that Megyn Kelly should not have been put on as a moderator by Fox. It’s a commentary on Fox’s bias. The Trump-Fox dispute was on a number of bias issues.

    Of am I missing something?

      Barry in reply to janitor. | January 30, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      “Of am I missing something?”

      Yea, a pathological hatred of anything trump. It causes one to read whatever they like into anything said.

      Of course it was his opinion. One I share. She is doing the attack dog function for Fox/Donor class GOPe whores.

      She attacked Cruz unfairly as well. But trump hatred blinds the haters to any fact.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    So, to make sure I have this T-rump suckery straight from you BOTH…

    T-rump never ASKED, never DEMANDED that Kelly be removed as a moderator?

    Really? Is THAT your testimony?

      janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 3:10 pm

      The document speaks for itself. Do you have another?

      My response was to your link to a “tweet” and that was not a “demand”.

      I cannot say he never made the demand, but I never heard it in a direct manner. If you have that post it up.

      So, to make sure I have this Trump hatred straight from you…

      You believe Fox and Kelly are neutral, not out to get Trump or Cruz? That is what you believe?

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 30, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/trump-calls-for-megyn-kellys-removal-as-moderator-from-fox-news-debate/

    I dunno… The Dim Jim Hoft fan boi site sure had it the way I depicted it.

    Didn’t they?

      “Didn’t they?”

      Not that I can see. Never a direct Donald trump demand to remove Kelly, not even close.

      Got anything better?

      So, to make sure I have this Trump hatred straight from you…

      You believe Fox and Kelly are neutral, not out to get Trump or Cruz? That is what you believe?

      And let us remember the statement:

      “See? The man is a pathological liar. Like Obama”

      Based on this headline (in part): “trump-leaves-up-tweet-demanding”

      Either he made the “demand” or he didn’t.

      You’re a lawyer. Did he use that construction of words, or not?

Then I guess we should have started this sixty years ago right?

I am making a point not being sarcastic. I understand the desperation but our opponents are playing the long game. That’s how we got into this mess. We need to stop lurching from election cycle to election cycle and start working on challenging the cultural mess. We need to think in terms of decades. It took decades to fall this low; it will take decades to recover. No one man will save us. We won’t vote ourselves out of this mess until we think ourselves out of this mess.
We may have to make some compromises for the sake of buying time, but Trump is not a compromise. He is the most left wing Republican candidate running, he should be competing for the Democratic nomination and if he wins, we will have two Democrats fighting it out for the presidency. We’d be down to one party and the worst one at that. That’s what I mean by another milestone toward dictatorship.
Of course that’s coming eventually but I will not welcome it. I want to leave a legacy of freedom for my son.

    Barry in reply to Steve D. | January 30, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    “We’d be down to one party and the worst one at that.”

    We’re already down to one party, with two factions. The ruling class / donor class party.

    Name one democrat that has vowed to build a wall to stop the illegals from coming in.

    Dole, McCain, Romney, and two bushes. That is the R party nominee’s since Reagan. And you’re worried about Trump?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend