Saturday, December 1, 2012

Ted Cruz is clearly not a Romney fan


It's rather interesting to me that so many GOP pols are openly criticizing Romney in the wake of the election. It happens so frequently, I have to assume they perceive a political benefit to doing so. Some of them are probably looking for an alibi after months of arguing that Romney is more electable than his GOP primary rivals. Others, like Ted Cruz, never formally endorsed Romney, and therefore had no skin in the game.

It really is stunning.

What do you guys think is going on here?
...."You want to know why Barack Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote?" he said Thursday night at a gala for the conservative American Principles Project, reports the Huffington Post. "Tone on immigration contributed, but I think far more important was '47 percent.'"....
 ...."'We don't have to worry about them' is what the clip famously said," Cruz added. "I cannot think of an idea more antithetic to the American principles," he said.... 
...."No one is going to vote for you," Cruz said, "if they think you don't like them."....
More here

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

RW - haha, you just love to stir the pot. But seriously, is this the beginning of a new coalition? Nothing he said, or you pointed out was defamatory but I predict a negative comment in 3,2,1...

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

JR,

I agree it's not defamatory, but you have to admit that it's a stunning development. I don't think they openly went after Palin in this way. That was more behind the scenes with anonymous comments. They obviously don't fear any consequences for hammering on Mitt.

Anonymous said...

That's true, but the McCain/Palin loss was more about Bush's Presidency than it was about the Republican Party as a whole. Romney, the ultimate Technocrat, should have been the perfect candidate...we've been hearing it for years. When he lost, the Republican brand took a major loss, and like always this party needs a scapegoat. I don't blame Cruz for his comment, there's truth to it, and I don't think it's negative towards Romney as much as it is negative to the career campaign staffs that have been ruining national elections since 2006.

Jerseyrepublican

cimbri said...

Palin was not at the top of the ticket. If you lose because of Bush 43, and you had an incompetent VP nominee, the latter problem is superfluous.

But, from what I've seen of Cruz, he seems like a typical jughead, who I will probably not support.

Anonymous said...

Cimbri - Palin was a net positive for McCain, exit polling already proved that.

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

Cimbri,

"A typical jughead" who has argued multiple cases in front of the US Supreme Court.

Cruz was Solicitor General of the U.S. state of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas, the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and had the longest tenure in the post thus far in Texas history. He is currently a partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he leads the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice.[6]
He previously served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. In addition, from 2004 to 2009 Cruz was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Right Wingnut said...

Disagreeing with Mitt's campaign tactics, and pointing out his errors makes him a "jughead?"

This type of arrogance from Romney's campaign and his supporters contributed significantly to his loss. JMO.

Anonymous said...

My theory is the 47% remark did hurt Romney badly. I'm with Santorum on this; Romney was so focused on entrepreneurship and business ownership that he seemingly ignored the larger blue-collar class of voters. Not saying Romney was wrong in essence, just that he came across more supportive of bosses (business owners) than worker bees (blue-collar workers). Ted Cruz, in my opinion, simply recognizes that the majority of Hispanics relate to actual hands on blue-collar work rather than entrepreneurship.

Rob said...

Everyone knows how to correct a campaign...AFTER it fails. Enough handwringing already. Obama won because the country refuses to understand basic economics. How many people can comprehend $16 trillion in debt? But free birth control pills and class warfare? That's a winner! Maybe the whole system needs to crash so we can get back to the constitution.
As for latinos - Reagan gave 2 million amnesty in 1987 and the Latino vote has gone more and more Democrat every Presidential election since. What do Latinos want? Read about it on www.rightwingsoup.com

narciso said...

The problem was 'practicing sociology with an open mike' Romney's statements happens to be true, but also irrelevant, it's the worse possible way to frame the argument, speak of American's natural inclination toward freedom, and a better life for their kids,

BOSMAN said...

I wonder how many Romney fans are Cruz Fans? Especially after his remarks.

Now I wouldn't hold that against him.....hahahaha,,,,who am I kidding!

Right Wingnut said...

Bos,

People became temporary Romney fans, because he was the only one who could ultimately boot Obama from the White House. His natural constituency is a rather small group of folks. No offense intended. JMO.

BOSMAN said...

There's a difference between fan and "settled for".

I believe many of those settle for became fans and are not fond of all the Romney bashing and UNPRODUCTIVE Monday morning quarterbacking.

Right Wingnut said...

I really like how Larry Sabato sums it up.

"“I just don’t think Romney ever established an emotional connection with much of anybody in the party,” said Sabato. “He was essentially a cyborg designed to win the presidency, and when he failed he was placed in the disposal bin.” - Larry Sabato


Read more: http://www.sportsmenvote.com/news/republicans-run-from-romney/#ixzz2Dp0S2rro

Right Wingnut said...

Bos,

That was the crux of my post. Why are they openly bashing Romney? It seems atypical of the party to do so to this degree. They wouldn't be doing it if they thought it would harm them politically, either now, or in the furture. These are calculated comments. Cruz's comments have all been in prepared speeches.

BOSMAN said...

After a month of doing my own thinking on trhe election, it ALL comes back to the MEDIA crucifixion of Romney that began the day he announced and intensified once he was the nominee.

All the other theories are a few votes here and a few votes there.

Romney did better than McCain and the media for the most part ignored him until Palin arrived.

It was the MEDIA plain and SIMPLE.

BTW PHASE 2 will be their war on the GOP Congress. Obama wants the fiscal cliff. He has nothing to lose. ANYTHING BAD that happens after January will be spun into the Republicans caused it. THE MEDIA will spin this for 2 years until elections. And THE DUMMIES will fall for it.

narciso said...

So what will do next time, will it be 'pastels or bright colors' as Reagan put in 1975, he lost his primary channel, but he set the stage for the mandate of 1980.

newark hawk said...

I agree, BOSMAN.

Ted Cruz and other high profile Republicans should focus their wrath on the corrupt liberal media - and the corrupt FCC which empowers the corrupt liberal media - instead of hammering away at Mitt Romney.

Romney wasn't perfect, as I've explained before, but he was BY FAR the best the GOP had to offer.

Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Perry all would've lost to Obama by far larger margins than Romney lost by.

And Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee?

Please, don't make me laugh.

narciso said...

No, he was the only one left standing after he pummeled his primary opponents mercilessly, with Abram's 'misleading' assertions about
Gingrich's views on Central America, about the reiterations of the bogus Brokaw report, but when it came to attacking Obama, they used 1/100th of that effort,

newark hawk said...

@ narciso

The misrepresentations and lies that his opponents and Talk Radio told about Romney during the primaries far outnumbered those that went in the opposite direction.

I agree that Romney should've been more aggressive against Obama, but please, spare us the sob story about how mean Romney was to his primary opponents.

newark hawk said...

The entire "RomneyCare = ObamaCare" meme was started by Team Obama in order to hurt Romney's chances in the GOP primaries.

It was a BOLDFACED LIE that was endlessly repeated not only by Romney's primary opponents, but by the ENTIRE MASS MEDIA, including FOX and Talk Radio.

newark hawk said...

If Ted Cruz wants to hammer other Republicans, first and foremost he should hammer his fellow Texan, George W. Bush, who so DESTROYED THE GOP BRAND that even Abraham Lincoln would've had a tough time defeating Obama in 2008 or 2012.

newark hawk said...

@ BOSMAN 11:56 AM

I actually liked Ted Cruz a lot before his recent backstabbing of Romney - even considered him a potentially strong GOP presidential or vice-presidential nominee.

But now, I'm having second thoughts about him. Serious second thoughts.

newark hawk said...

@ narciso 12:49 PM

Wrong again.

What set the stage for Reagan's 1980 landslide was Jimmy Carter's total incompetence both domestically and overseas.

Benghazi was small potatoes compared to the Iranian hostage crisis that dragged on forever, with a disastrous rescue attempt by the U.S. military to boot.

Reagan also didn't have to deal with an extremely hostile Talk Radio & FOX News during the GOP primaries like Romney did.

Had Talk Radio and FOX News been around in 1980, Reagan would never have gotten through the primaries, not to mention the general election against Carter.

Joel2012 said...

The statements about who were/weren't Romney fans is ridiculous. Romney had huge support and it was not from a small minority, it was from the huge majority. Having stated what should be obvious, pundits like this individual (Cruz) and others are digging a huge hole for themselves with their criticism against our former candidate. It serves no purpose and it is indicative of an individuals character, or lack thereof.

narciso said...

What a joke, seriously, just like Ford lost because of talk radio, no because he gave little reason to vote for him, as would Baker had he run in 1980.

Right Wingnut said...

Obama was perhaps the most vulnerable incumbant we've had in the last century. I really don't know what more to say, and I don't know how anyone can make a credible argument to refute that.

Right Wingnut said...

Whatever the reasons, the loss is totally unacceptable. I doubt l'll many credible rebuttals to that one either.

cimbri said...

When I referred to Cruz being a jughead, I was kind of thinking about that dumb french kiss remark.

People can spin the election defeat any way they like, bottom line is Obama bought Ohio, and bought his constituencies, and Romney was battling jugheads too long to be able to combat this. Next time let's unify behind a non-Mormon and non-Yankee early on. Then everyone can be happy.

Right Wingnut said...

For starters, can anyone name the last president to be elected despite losing their home state?

I haven't researched it, but off the top of my head, I can't name one.

Nobody expected Romney to carry Massachusetts or California, but he should have been more competitve in Michigan and New Hampshire. I suppose you could even throw in Colorado, where I believe he owns a ski mansion. That's 0 for 5 in "home states."

No more nominees from blue states.....period. That rules out the loud mouth from New Jersey.

narciso said...

Well was the last time, a Northeasterner won, Obama's technically from the mid West, JFK, that's about 50 years, almost all presidents have come from the West, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and the South,
Clinton Johnson, Carter.

Anonymous said...

Mitt is the right man for the job but he is not a politician and doesn't know how to say to get voter connection to him,a business man is differentiated from a political. Look all comment don't get the point or don't know the true Mitt lose, he lose because his comment "I love to fire people, I don't concern the poor, the 47% comment, the FEMA comment,he pick the wrong VP ticket,on June and July Mitt GET MORE FUND RAISING THAN OBAMA but on August he get less than Obama after he pick the VP,the most population of the country are poor,if you don't be there to help them they won't be there for you too,is easy get their votes because the country was worse than 4 years ago, why Mitt didn't say that I love the poor,they get poor and poorer because Obama fail policy,if I get elected I will give them a good job and good take home pay,so they will have better life,the 47% cause by Obama fail policy by half of them,if I become president they will have better life, i will give them the job they need, i don't just talking but I have done it before I have my success record, believe me please and give me all your votes so I can help you, the FEMA is the federal fund for Mitt just support them as fast as they can to help the victim, there are so many most qualify for the VP ticket as Mike Huckabe, Jeb Bush, and Christ Christie, Paul Ryan is a smart guy but he is not the right ticket at this time, so my conclusion is you must stand by all class of people in the country, stand there for their hope and ready for their need.

Right Wingnut said...

Narciso,

Good points. If I was really bored, I'd go all the way back, and figure out how many presidents have been elected despite losing their home state. I has to be a very small number.

cimbri said...

Narciso, Republicans win governorships in the NE all the time. If they are not winning national elections, it's because someone might be pouting and staying at home. Some people confuse kindness or good manners with weakness. It's a primitive response but there it is. I cannot blame a candidate for the deficiencies of citizens.

The 47% remark didn't lose a single vote and may have even got some fence sitters to the polls. If you were in that category, then you weren't voting for Romney anyway; and please, let's not play the liberal game and pretend he was talking about social security recipients who are receiving their pension. He was referring to people on the dole who are milking the system.

newark hawk said...

@ narciso 3:15 PM

Romney offered the voters little reason to support him?!?!?

Romney offered the voters less federal spending, taxes & regulations; a balanced federal budget; lower gas, oil & coal prices; tougher & better trade policies; worker retraining programs; a growing economy, rising incomes & less unemployment; secure borders; a foreign policy based on peace through strength, and a President we could be proud of with a lifelong track record of success and of fixing nearly everything he laid his hands on.

Yup, you nailed it narciso, Romney offered the voters little reason to support him.

For those voters who are deaf, dumb and blind!!!

narciso said...

The German barbarian, is rather clueless, I asked when was one elected to the Presidency, there
are precious few, the 47% approach
was possibly the worst way to approach the subject,

Anonymous said...

narcisso, welcome. You have to excuse the manners of the people who frequent this site on a regular basis. Dissenting opinions do not go over well here. If you don't recognize that Mitt Romney was the smartest, most qualified Republican to ever run for President than you are an idiot who probably voted for Obama. Even though some of regulars admitted to voting for Obama because McCain chose Palin instead of Romney in '08. They're just in denial. And if you have ever supported Palin, they will take every comment you make and spin it into a negative comment about Palin. I'm not sure why I even come around here.

jerseyrepublican

cimbri said...

Narciso, there was no 47% approach. Romney simply mentioned it in a private meeting with donors, and as usual, some socons and Democrats, working together starting attacking Romney.

JerseyRepublican, no one has a problem with any kind of opinion from what I have seen here. But we're also not required to agree with you.

Nyspec said...

Cimbri,

You wrote, "let's not play the liberal game and pretend he was talking about social security recipients who are receiving their pension. He was referring to people on the dole who are milking the system."

The 47% that does not pay any federal income tax is not composed entirely of those "on the dole who are milking the system". The large majority of them are, in fact, those on Social Security, active duty servicemen in war zones, and working people who do not earn enough to have to pay federal income taxes. Claiming otherwise is a refusal to recognize facts. And Romney said he didn't care about the people on welfare who didn't pay taxes, he said he didn't care about the 47% who don't pay income taxes. You know the saying, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

Nyspec said...

Sorry, I wrote, "And Romney said he didn't care about the people on welfare who didn't pay taxes, " This should have read "And Romney didn't say he didn't care about the people on welfare who didn't pay taxes, " Should have proofread better.