Image 01 Image 03

GOP Establishment stuck on Stage 2 of Grief with Cruz, at Stage 5 with Trump

GOP Establishment stuck on Stage 2 of Grief with Cruz, at Stage 5 with Trump

Cruz represents a systemic threat to the powers within the GOP, while Trump is ready to cut deals.

Anyone who a year ago picked Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to be the two leading Republican candidates heading into the Iowa Caucuses either (i) is a liar, or (ii) should invest heavily in the lottery because they are beyond lucky.

Certainly, the powers that be in the Republican Party were not expecting it. Here’s what a Fox News poll looked like in January 2015:

The pollster didn’t even bother to ask about Trump. And Cruz was in low single digits. Now Trump is on top in the national polls and Cruz is in second place. In Iowa, three polls released today show Cruz leading, a dead heat, and Trump leading.

When Trump rose over the summer, the Republican establishment lampooned him as a circus clown who would fade quickly. But he hasn’t faded, and if anything has grown in influence. Cruz, hated intensively by many of his fellow Republicans in Congress because of his willingness to take on the leadership, also was a suprise. Jeb Bush was supposed to be at the top, and then Scott Walker was the acceptable conservative candidate. Jeb has faded and Walker dropped out.

So how has the Republican establishment reacted to the fact that two people it didn’t want are commanding the polling as of now?

I think the Kübler-Ross model of the stages of Grief is helpful:

1. Denial — The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.

2. Anger — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: “Why me? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to me?”; ‘”Who is to blame?”; “Why would this happen?”.

3. Bargaining — The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief.

Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.

4. Depression — “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “I’m going to die soon, so what’s the point?”; “I miss my loved one, why go on?”

During the fourth stage, the individual becomes saddened by the mathematical probability of death. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.

5. Acceptance — “It’s going to be okay.”; “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”; “Nothing is impossible.”

In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. People dying may precede the survivors in this state, which typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable condition of emotions.

Something interesting has been happening. The establishment is nearing Stage 5 for Trump — acceptance. The new talking point is that Trump is the lesser of two evils; someone the leadership can deal with, as distasteful as it might seem; a deal maker who will do okay in a deal town like D.C.

As to Cruz, the GOP establishment is still in Stage 2 – Anger.

They hate him. Bob Dole and Trent Lott side with Trump, as does Orrin Hatch. While the hate might be very personal for some, I think it goes deeper.

Cruz would create systemic change in the GOP, whereas Trump would change only the top spot:

It was no accident that two Iowa GOP icons — Chuck Grassley and Bob Dole — attacked Ted Cruz the day after Iowa’s Republican governor said a vote for the Texas senator would be bad for the lead-off caucus state.

It is part of a fascinating and once unthinkable calculation by leading establishment figures that Donald Trump is the lesser of two evils at the top of the Republican presidential pack — and defeating Cruz in Iowa is now part of this strategy.

To be sure, these establishment figures still worry that both Trump and Cruz would hurt Republican candidates down ballot. So why settle on Trump as the least objectionable of the two?

One leading GOP strategist involved in the effort put it this way: “If Trump loses we wash our hands of him. Cruz will think we need to be more crazy and be a long-term nightmare.”

Translation: Trump would be a one time worry, but Cruz, just 45, would likely blame the moderate establishment if he lost as the GOP nominee and run again — having had a national campaign to build a stronger organization.

The hate for Cruz also is about the party’s power, and the access and jobs for those who think they can cut deals with Trump. One RNC insider summed it up for The New York Times:

“We can live with Trump,” said Richard F. Hohlt, a veteran lobbyist, reflecting his colleagues’ sentiment at a Republican National Committee meeting last week in Charleston, S.C. “Do they all love Trump? No. But there’s a feeling that he is not going to layer over the party or install his own person. Whereas Cruz will have his own people there.”



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Bums, the lot of them. Who care what they ‘accept?’

They’re just along for the ride – and that’s being generous. Too generous, after their corruption treachery.

Dump all of them.

2nd Ammendment Mother | January 21, 2016 at 9:19 pm

Funny thing is that all of the informal reader polls from the conservative blogs kept Cruz in the top tier since last year when we were still making guesses about who would declare.

The hubby listened to Cruz this afternoon on Limbaugh (or Levin) while working in the farm shop. Then, made a special trip into the house to tell me he thought a Ted Cruz/Condeliza Rice ticket would be “just the thing”.

Michael Medved seems to be in the “Trump 5”, “Cruz 2” stage. Today I briefly heard him say that anyone who has ever had anything to do with Cruz can’t stand him. This sounded like unattributed slander to me, so I quickly changed the channel.

A couple of months ago, Medved was on a one man crusade against Trump.

In the primary, I intend to vote for the person I think can do the best job of being president of the United States (as defined by the Constitution). In the election, I intend to vote for the non-Democrat.

Since I no longer live in NY, my votes might actually matter!

Yep. Just like I’ve been saying for months…

T-rump IS Mr. Establishment, a Progressive deal-making crony.

You want politics as usual? Look at Iowa an ethanol. The whole story in one act.

    PrincetonAl in reply to Ragspierre. | January 21, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    No trolls out to get Rags tonight, that’s funny. Must have gone to bed early 🙂

    Couldn’t agree more. Trump may be an exceptional entertainer, but he is no exception to the rule that most big business guys are deal-making crony capitalists, and every conservative voter should be super suspicious when approaching them. Rarely are they anything else.

    That’s what makes the Kochs and a very few others very unique and so hated by the Democrats, is that they can’t be bought off or intimidated – they are principled. They know what Lenin’s comment about selling the rope that hangs themselves means.

    Trump is smart about deal-making and power, but like others has precious few clues about policy beyond a few vague business ideas about lower tax rates (always good) and eminent domain (super bad) …

    … on regulation big business guys support more (if it inhibits competition and we get positive press for supporting our own oppression, no problem!), tariffs are great (if it helps my business, who cares if the consumer is screwed?), subsidies (for everyone! see, we aren’t selfish or picky), monopolies (let’s extend copyright to 1,000 years – think of the composer’s widow’s great great great great grand niece! if you don’t you are heartless!), free goods (gee, if I can help the poor and profit – why, making money off virtue can’t be bad! … just because someone still has to sell the free goods to the government for real money doesn’t mean its not free!)

    Yeah, I appreciated Trump playing the media and breaking the hold on political correctness temporarily (I’m not sure Repubs will manage to benefit from this), but beyond that there is no policy there, and policy voids always get filled with bad things.

    Never are policy voids filled with good ideas.


    I can’t wait to vote for Cruz in the primary.

    MarlaHughes in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2016 at 9:58 am

    “Yep. Just like I’ve been saying for months…
    T-rump IS Mr. Establishment, a Progressive deal-making crony.
    You want politics as usual? Look at Iowa an ethanol. The whole story in one act.’

    I disagree that he’s Mr. Establishment but the rest makes perfect sense since he’s always bragged about buying politicians, even when they refused to be bought such as in JEB’s case when he was Florida’s governor.

Which one will most likely suspend their campaign to go focus on the financial crisis on Wall Street?

The 2008 McCain campaign… the low water mark for the establishment.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Andy. | January 21, 2016 at 10:39 pm

    Well, GOPe form dictates it must be much, much closer to the actual election before they do something that stupid.

Any idiot can “make a deal”. Anyone also can blow a negotiation and walk away with nothing.

That’s not Trump. That’s a mis-focus on the word “deal”.

    Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 21, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    A LOT of the T-rump cult is built on myth.

    He’s made some absolutely idiot deals for his ego, and left people who trusted him in the grease.

    Trump wanted a fancy hotel to make his portfolio look good, regardless of the cost.

    Just a few years later, the Plaza wound up in bankruptcy protection, part of a vast and humiliating restructuring of some $900 million of personal debt that Mr. Trump owed to a consortium of banks. Never one for regrets, Mr. Trump today regards the purchase as a triumph.

    “To me the Plaza was like a great painting,” he said in an interview in late December. “It wasn’t purely about the bottom line. I have many assets like that and the end result is that they are always much more valuable than what you paid for them.”

    These are the not the words of a smart businessman; these are the words of an irrational narcissist.

    But we know that T-rump cultists will eschew all evidence and follow him slavishly. (Not all T-jrump supporters are like this, but many are.)

I prefer Cruz but would be happy with either of them. Both are a huge improvement over the status quo. And vastly superior to the rest of the Republican pack.

Mostly I’m tired of the ridiculous drama-queening nonsense directed at Cruz supporters by Trump supporters and vice-versa. Save your powder for the real enemy.

So, Big Government and the Open-Borders Lobby’s best friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), took to CNN today to trash GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz:

“I think we’ll lose if he’s our nominee,” said Orrin Hatch, the most senior Republican in the Senate.

“There’s a lot of people who don’t feel he can appeal to people across the board,” Hatch said. “For us to win, we have to appeal the moderates and independents. We can’t just act like that only one point of view is the only way to go. That’s where Ted is going to have some trouble.”

Let me be polite here: Go blow it out your ear, Sen. Hack. Er, Hatch.

You are often best appraised by your enemies. Ted Cruz has some really GREAT eGOP enemies, and he wouldn’t have it any other way.$5000-reward

It would appear that someone is trying to intimidate Mark Levin, with is about as stupid an endeavor as could be imagined.

He’s come out very strongly denouncing T-rump’s ethanol sell-out in Iowa in recent days, along with Duh Donald’s attacks on Cruz from the LEFT, which I think is where his center really is, based on the evidence.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2016 at 12:53 am

    There are bigger fish to fry right now.

    Trump has come out solidly over and over again saying that the government should not be picking winners and losers. But there is no reason to hurt Iowans and do everything “immediately”

    Cruz is not Reagan; he’s not electable in a general election unless he’s lucky enough to be running against Sanders. He belongs in the Justice Department or on the Supreme Court.

    I made that mistake supporting Gingrich last time around, and I’m not going to make it again.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 22, 2016 at 1:06 am

      “Trump has come out solidly over and over again saying that the government should not be picking winners and losers. But there is no reason to hurt Iowans and do everything ‘“immediately”’.”

      Which, being that Cruz is neither an economics illiterate or ignorant of the fact that market distortions like the whole “bio-fuel” boondoggle lead people to make decisions BASED on those distortions, has led Cruz to propose a five year phase-out.

      T-rump, on the other hand, is calling for the mandates to be INCREASED. Calling for the government to INCREASE picking winners and losers, contrary to what you say. You made the mistake of believing him.

      “Cruz is not Reagan”.

      Neither was Reagan, according to the conventional wisdom prior to his election. In a FLUCKING landslide.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to janitor. | January 22, 2016 at 10:25 am

      “Trump has come out solidly over and over again saying that the government should not be picking winners and losers.”

      OK. Two words: eminent domain. Trump loves it, used it, supports it. Reconcile your claim with that, please.

        Eminent domain was loved by the founders. That is why they put it in the constitution. Deal with it. Presidents don’t have anything to do with Kelo style eminent domain takings that is the province of b local politicians.

        You repeat this bullshit often and have been given the answer often.


          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 22, 2016 at 12:56 pm

          Kelo takings would have been spat upon by the Founders AND

          a POTUS who DEPLORES the property rights of Americans is a positive danger to the rest of us, you lying POS.

          Your T-rump sucking is BOTH boring and worthless.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2016 at 12:56 am

    Levin also said that he does not think that the “investigation” of him is coming from the Trump camp, but from someone in the capital, possibly not even another campaign.

Well, I don’t know if the Party faithful understand Cruz, but it certainly looks like they don’t understand Trump at all.

They continue to try squeezing him into a familiar mold, something resembling the minor Washington toadies they’re familiar with—basically, nobodies like themselves. And when they find a mold that almost seems to fit … at least superficially … around the edges, maybe … then they think they have him pegged.

Trump may be a jerk, but that doesn’t make it safe to assume that he’s one of the standard types of Washington jerk.

this assumption that Trump can be bought is just nonsense … sure he’ll do a deal to enrich himself … but not as President … as President he understands his job is to cut deals for the enrichment of AMERICA … why is that so hard to understand ?

    Ragspierre in reply to dorsaighost. | January 22, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Market-distorting crony capitalism in Iowa makes us POORER.

    You have the model for his conduct in office. You just have to have the courage to believe your lying eyes.

Stage 6: Make America Great Again!

“As President he understands his job is to cut deals for the enrichment of AMERICA … why is that so hard to understand ?”

It is nice to know you not only have have Trump’s ear, but that you live inside his head.

Your statement belies the fact that deal making is what got the country in the position it is in now. Over the past few years the Congress has moved the left wing agenda along briskly. Even when the GOP is in charge of both houses.

You only need to look at the contents of the omnibus spending bill just passed by the Republican controlled Congress to see that the administration and Democrats got just about everything they wanted to the detriment of conservative principles.

The bill funded the Syrian refugees, Planned Parenthood, the money Obama committed at the Paris Climate summit. They even funded some items into 2017. Heck, they even fully funded sanctuary cities, and dramatically increased work visas, fully-funded the resettlement of illegal aliens youth and their families crossing the border, and locked-in tax credits for illegal aliens.

The new president will not only have to hold the line against the left wing’s radical agenda, he/she will need to reverse the gains made by the left. He/she will have to fight the Congressional Republicans to do it.

A new Republican president will have to be grounded in conservative principles to have any hope of carrying out the task.

    I’m sorry but you express a small child like understanding of deal making. Deal making is not two children with a knife and salami each taking turns making equal sized slices till they have cut the salami in half. Real deal making involves many more things and the use of leverage. The salami may not get sliced at all and go entirely to one side. In fact that is the kind of deal making the GOP with Boehner McConnell and Ryan have been doing. They just give the entire salami to the democrats because before negotiations begin they take their only leverage off the table (i.e. they take government shutdown off table).

    Trump understands leverage. How to get it and how to use it.

Never imagined Trump would make more than a boisterous ripple in the campaign.

But, I was betting money that Cruz would be our next POTUS last March – the night he did that Late Night interview with Seth Meyers.

Tpump is no William F. Buckley Jr. conservative from New York. Big Top Tpump is Barnum and Bailey come to town.

Mr. Big Top Tpump stands athwart history yelling “Look at my poll numbers! (and pay no attention to what’s behind the curtain.)

Tpump finds the rest of us in Stage 6: “Good grief”

Lucien Cordier | January 22, 2016 at 8:21 am

It’s moot. I said it back in the summer when Clinton was the heir apparent, and I’ll say it again now that Sanders is beginning to throw dirt on her political corpse. Sanders will be the next President. That’s how diseased this country has become. As horrifying as that will be, we all should be prepared to deal with the grief (and societal upheaval), each in his own fashion. What were those 5 stages again?

I have a few questions for those who are projecting their own confirmation bias on assessments of what other people think and will behave. Yes, that includes the Prof, as much as my fingers tremble in trepidation in bearding my favorite lion in his own den.

Assumption: “The Establishment” has selected Trump as it’s standard bearer due to it’s fear of Cruz. (If that’s incorrect, please feel free to correct it.)
1.) The Establishment of the GOP currently is composed of Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell as the tip top. By designation and party rules.
Which one has come out in support of Trump and/or in direct opposition to Cruz’s candidacy? (McConnell, due to the fact that he supports Rand Paul almost openly might get one check box (anti-Cruz w/o getting the other: pro-Trump.)
2) Considering the fact that leadership of the GOP has openly stated that the candidate, whoever it is, will be expected to take second fiddle to the agenda embodied in Opportunity Lives, which they kicked off in an event that both the leading candidates refused to attend, how would any questions about Cruz or Trump be resolved re: Establishment support/opposition?
3) Was Trump the selected candidate of the Establishment when Cruz was calling him “Terrific” on social media and saying that “The Establishment wants me and Trump in a cage match but that’s not happening.” ? (paraphrased)
a)If no, as Cruz seems to think by that statement, what changed? Why?
b)If yes, how was Cruz fooled into supporting him instead of attacking him like every other candidate, including those largely assumed to be those in the Establishment wing?

    How ironic it is watching T-Pobeic Jackobites side with the RINO establishment to prove their “Conservativism.”

    Excellent post. What changed? Cruz realizing Trump wasn’t going anywhere and Cruz was not rising above 2nd place.

    ““The Establishment” has selected Trump as it’s standard bearer due to it’s fear of Cruz. (If that’s incorrect, please feel free to correct it.)”

    OK, correction: Trunp has been selected by republican poll responders. The “Establishment” believes these polls to be correct, I.E. Trump is going to win the R nomination. Since the “Establishment” has proven powerless to change that, they would prefer to be on the winning side and are grudgingly offering some support. Their only alternative, an unlikely one at that is Cruz, who they despise more than Trump. Where else can they go?

I think the GOPe, are trying to become revelevent. Both Party Leadership are very weak. Both sides should have been replaced back in about 2010. This election is so important to the future of this Country, That important moves MUST be made to protect us. Get the UN out of our Country.

I get a big laugh every time I see the constant repitiiton of the failing Cruz talking points here and elsewhere. As if those who post these mindless repititions think the 100th time they mindlessly repeat their phony talking points will be the time it actually persuades someone to stop supporting Trump.

Here in the order of their inanity and comedic effect I give you Cruz’s big thoughts:

Ethanol/Corn. Bet the farm the country will cast their votes based on being incensed that Trump doesn’t join Cruz in supporting a 20% reduction in the ethanol fuel standards that are already set to expire in 5 years.

Crony Capitalist/Collectivist. Complete nonsense but they think it is a magic dog whistle like a democrat shouting racist in a crowded movie theater.

Not Conservative Enough. Only relevant if the point of the election is to find a conservative. Funny because of the failure to understand the election is about leadership winning and restoring the country to its prior greatness. In other words it is about national pride success and wealth.

Establishment. Trump takes this away with a single mocking gesture and a GMAB.

These ladies and gentlemen are the biggest and best thoughts Cruz can think of in a battle for his political life.

Cruz is a small ball loser with no experience and qualifications to be president. But he us the m I st conservative natural born Canadian in the race.

I see just as I predicted I ver a week ago that Trump has started hitting Cryz on his weakness and flip flops on immigration and amnesty and h1b visas. These attacks will drive down Cruz’s numbers another 5% on top of what Sarah Palin has cost him.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 22, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Yah, but T-rump’s a liar, just like you.

    He can attack, but I don’t know how much good it will do him.

    “I skimmed a few of the columns and they make the case persuasively that Trump is not a conservative. You know the arguments already. He’s for activist big government, a populist with no conservative ideological compass, and is not what he purports to be even on his core issue of immigration (where he may be to the left of Marco Rubio in reality).”
    Bill Jabobson

    So, HEH…!!!

      Good thing for me as a Trump supporter that it doesn’t matter who is most conservative

      BECAUSE that is NOT what the election is about. If it was, then Cruz would be winning instead of being beaten badly.


Henry Hawkins | January 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Address the fact if you can: Trump loves eminent domain and he loves it whether used for ‘the public good’ – or for the good of some private businessman… like Trump. He’s a statist – when it lines his own pockets.

    There is nothing wrong with eminent domain. That’s why it is in the constitution. The founders understood that eminent domain would be necessary to promote the public good. Without eminent domain we wouldn’t have the intercontinental railroads in the 1800s and the interstate highway system in the 1900s, or public parks and schools, etc. etc. So a person who says they love eminent domain is NOT saying anything bad or unpopular. Cruz is again playing small ball trying to run commercials on this issue.

    Now, there is one modern aspect of eminent domain that has become controversial. That has to do with the Supreme Court decision in Kelo. Kelo allowed local politicians to use eminent domain to assist a private developer get a persons property. The only public benefit from the taking was an anticipated future increase in property tax revenues. Many people, including a minority on the supreme court found Kelo type takings to not really be for the public good or “public use” as required by the constitution.

    I happen to agree with those who think Kelo was a bad decision by the Supreme Court. However, I would hardly expect a real estate developer to have that opinion. Further, since the President has absolutely NOTHING to do with Kelo type takings because those are done by local politicians it is irrelevant as regards a qualification for the presidency.

    Small ball. Irrelevant. Nobody thinks this has anything to do with who is best choice to solve the many very important issues of the day like immigration, economy, and security.

    When Cruz and his supporters argue eminent domain is an important issue to selecting a president at this time in our history, it makes Cruz look small and out of touch with the IMPORTANT issues facing the electorate.

    Ask voters to list the top 50 things most important for the next President to tackle and see if ANYONE lists eminent domain abuse.

    Its simple. Not smart. And Cruz is supposed to be smart but this isn’t smart.

      Eminent domain is just a variation on the theme “Trump isn’t the most conservative”.

      Problem is this election is NOT ABOUT WHO IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE.

      Who is the most conservative is an election from decades ago, and that line of attack hasn’t won a presidential election EVER.

      Reagan didn’t win because he was the most conservative. Reagan had to win in spite of being the most conservative. Bush 41 didn’t win because he was the most conservative. Bush 41 won because he was supposed to be 3rd Reagan term. Clinton didn’t win because he was the most conservative. Bush 43 didn’t win because he was more conservative than Al Gore. He won because he was running against Al Gore. Obama didn’t win because he was the most conservative.

      I can’t think of any election where it can truthfully be said that the guy who won did so BECAUSE he was the most conservative and that was the overriding issue of the day.

      Can you think of one?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Gary Britt. | January 22, 2016 at 5:56 pm

        Ronald Reagan. Duh.

          Reagan won in spite of being the most conservative. NOT because of being the most conservative. Duh..

          To a great extent Reagan won because Carter was awful and Anderson sucked enough votes away from Carter for Reagan to win. Also, because Reagan was such a great public speaker. So inspiring. The only politician inspiring enough to get me to go work a phone bank for them. Still love the man.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 22, 2016 at 6:44 pm

      “Without eminent domain we wouldn’t have the intercontinental railroads in the 1800s and the interstate highway system in the 1900s, or public parks and schools, etc. etc.”

      HERE we go with not just LIES, but THUMPINGLY stupid AHISTORIC lies.


      HOLY Obama, Batman!

      But EVEN the TRANScontinental railroad had almost NOTHING to do with eminent domain, you MORON.

      And the interstate hiway system was not STARTED until the Eisenhower administration. And THAT was a legitimate application of ED.

      MOST parks are not ED prizes, but part of a planning scheme.

      What a complete idiot.

        Its posts like this that demonstrate what an important, informative, and constructive addition you add to the discussion here at LI.

        Thank you for the very meaningful correction that I should have said transcontinental railroad. It wouldn’t exist without eminent domain and how the government gave 25 square mile patches to the railroad all along the route to give them incentive to build the railroad and fast. So the rest of your waste of bandwidth is just your usual bandwidth.

        Then you add the very important information that the interstate highway system started during the Eisenhower administration, and unless your calendar is different than mine the Eisenhower administration was during the 1900s as I stated so thanks for that wonderfully meaningful explication. Doesn’t change anything or alter the premise of how important is eminent domain but thanks for playing.

        There are many federal public parks and preserves that have benefited by eminent domain.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 22, 2016 at 8:10 pm

          “It wouldn’t exist without eminent domain and how the government gave 25 square mile patches to the railroad all along the route to give them incentive to build the railroad and fast.”

          Which awards of land had NOTHING to do with eminent domain. That land all belonged to the government. Liar AND historic moron.

          Of course, some land was purchased by the railroads in the east, and not taken by eminent domain either.

          You lying SOS.

          Intercontinental RR Britt…!!!

          Nope you are wrong as usual Rags. Many home steaders and settlers were forced off what was their land due to the eminent domain grants given to the railroads.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 23, 2016 at 1:15 pm

          You are a liar, as well as a historical moron.

          Put up your links. Liar.

Source: Emerson College

Method: Phone

Date: 01/18/2016 – 01/20/2016

Voters: 271 (Likely voters)

Margin of Error: 5.9 %

Full Result:

Trump 33%
Cruz 23%
Rubio 14%
Carson 9%
Bush 5%
Huckabee 2%
Paul 3%
Santorum 0%
Fiorina 2%
Christie 5%
Kasich 3%

– See more at: