Ted Cruz Proves His Political Opportunism Is More Important Than His Conscience

In which Ted Cruz endorses the guy who called his wife ugly and said his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Trump Cruz Debate

When we last heard from Texas Senator Ted Cruz, he had refused to endorse Donald Trump by name and called on delegates and Republicans around the country to ‘vote their conscience,’ rather than urging them to rally around the party nominee. This followed a long and bitter primary battle during which the fight between Trump and Cruz became more personal by the day, especially when Trump attacked Cruz’s wife and accused Cruz’s father of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy0000000. At one point, in fact, Cruz specifically said that he could never support a candidate who had insulted his wife and lied about his father and Trump, who had taken to calling Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” during the primary campaign, said he would never accept Cruz’s endorsement if it was offered.

All of that was seemingly forgotten yesterday when Cruz, to the surprise of many, announced his support for Trump:

Senator Ted Cruz said on Friday that he would vote for Donald J. Trump for president, two months after Mr. Cruz pointedly declined to endorse his former rival in a speech at the Republican National Convention.

“After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump,” Mr. Cruz wrote in a statement on Facebook.

For Mr. Cruz, who has fashioned himself as the unbending conscience of modern conservatism, the decision to endorse Mr. Trump is the latest remarkable gamble in a career defined by them, placing him in the corner of an ideologically elastic candidate who savaged Mr. Cruz — and, often, the senator’s family — at every turn during the nominating contest.

But Mr. Trump’s rise in the polls, combined with a handful of political overtures from Mr. Trump and his team in recent days, left Mr. Cruz effectively boxed in, raising the possibility that a narrow Trump defeat could be laid at his feet.

In his statement, Mr. Cruz said he had based his decision on two factors: a prior pledge to support the Republican nominee — which Mr. Cruz said in July had been “abrogated” by Mr. Trump’s personal attacks on him — and his desire to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.

“If Clinton wins, we know — with 100 percent certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country,” Mr. Cruz said. “My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.”

But Mr. Cruz’s statement went beyond the perfunctory, praising the policy aims and recent campaign promises of a man he once called a “pathological liar.”

Daniel Larison sees this as part of Cruz’s “boundless opportunism”:

As I said after he refused to endorse Trump, Cruz is nothing if not an opportunist. When Trump first started running in 2015, Cruz didn’t attack him and praised him on occasion, and then when Trump became his main rival Cruz became fiercely hostile. Once Trump secured the nomination, Cruz calculated that Trump was doomed in the fall and that the smarter bet to distance himself from the nominee. Now that the race has tightened and Trump still has an outside chance at winning, his calculation has changed once again, and he is ready to get on board the Trump bandwagon in one form or another. Of course, all politicians are self-promoters and opportunistic, but Cruz is an extreme case of a politician who jumps at each new chance for self-promotion without considering the efficacy or long-term consequences of what he does. He refused to endorse Trump because he bet that his stock would rise inside the GOP as a result. Instead, his favorability among Republicans cratered, and now he has to reverse course to repair some of the damage that has been done.

The trouble for him is that Cruz’s self-seeking maneuvers have mostly done his political career great harm, and because he has tried to sell himself as the “consistent conservative” his record of switching back and forth between pro- and anti-Trump positions is all the more damaging.

There appears to be much truth in Larison’s statement. Prior to this endorsement, Cruz’s approval numbers back home in Texas were seen to decline significantly, and while there are still two years before Cruz has to face voters again, there’s already talk that he could face primary challenges from both pro-Trump elements inside the Texas GOP and from the so-called party establishment, which was already frustrated with Cruz over his conduct as Senator since winning election in 2012. Lining up behind Trump is no doubt part of his effort to repair some of the damage that his convention speech had created. Instead, it just appears to be creating more problems:

As news of Mr. Cruz’s plans surfaced, first on Politico, some Cruz allies wasted no time registering their displeasure.

“I’m just trying to get this Cruz sticker off my car,” Rick Tyler, the senator’s campaign spokesman, said shortly after the endorsement was announced. “I don’t want anybody to get the wrong idea and think I’m a Trump supporter.”

Steve Deace, a prominent Iowa conservative radio host who had supported Mr. Cruz, called the senator’s decision “the worst political miscalculation of my lifetime.”

Voters’ responses were often no kinder.

“I am ashamed to have supported you,” one man wrote.

“Conservatism is dead,” said another.

Honestly, I’m not sure why anyone is really surprised by this. It’s always been rather obvious that, for all of his appeals to purism and conservatism, Ted Cruz is a political opportunist who will do whatever it takes to advance his own interests. That’s why he was backing a government shutdown strategy that could never work three years ago, and it’s why he behaved the way he did during the primary. You’ll recall, for example, that for the better part of 2015 Cruz refused to join his fellow candidates in attacking Trump even though he was arguably the candidate best situated to do so. The reason for that was that he calculated that, if and when Trump crashed and burned, it would be easier for him to pick up Trump’s supporters if he wasn’t one of the candidates who constantly attacked Trump on the debate stage. When it became apparent that this strategy wasn’t going to work, he turned quickly negative on Trump and stayed there even during a convention speech during which one might have expected him to endorse the party nominee. Now that it appears that he could politically harm himself by withholding his endorsement, he’s folding even though Trump has never apologized for the attacks on Cruz’s family. So much for that conscience, I guess.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Donald Trump, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Tony W says:

    It’s just a privilege to watch the Republicans put “Country First”

  2. CSK says:

    Does Cruz expect something from Trump in return, if Trump wins? A cabinet post? A seat on the Supreme Court? If he does, he’s not too shrewd, is he? Trump will throw him under the bus just as he does everyone else.

  3. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Not to restate the obvious, but when has this ever not been true about Ted Cruz? This isn’t exactly a revelation

  4. Stormy Dragon says:

    Hang on, let me go put on my surprised face.

  5. stonetools says:

    Ted Cruz Proves His Political Opportunism Is More Important Than His Conscience

    Sigh. Was there any doubt?
    I doubt that President Trump is going to reward Cruz of for this act of raw cynicism , nor does Cruz expect him to . Cruz is probably looking to lock up Trump supporters for the 2018 election.Also, this happened:

    On Monday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick warned U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz he’d be left “in the rearview mirror of the Republican Party” if he refused to endorse Donald Trump.

    “You know, I stay loyal to my friends, and Ted’s a friend, but obviously I’m disappointed,” said Patrick, who was recently named Trump’s Texas state chairman, during a radio interview on The Laura Ingraham Show. “I’m hoping there’s still time for him to come forward, or I think he and all the other people you named will be left in the rearview mirror of the Republican Party moving forward. So I’m hoping Ted comes forward. I’m visiting with him on that issue, of course.”

    Many Republicans have chastised Cruz for refusing to endorse Trump at the Republican National Convention earlier this year. Following Cruz’s speech, some Republican donors and state politicians encouraged U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, to run against Cruz in the 2018 party primary.

    Ponder this : that in Texas, it’s possible to run to the RIGHT of Cruz. If that doesn’t frighten you…

  6. Bob@Youngstown says:

    It also says something about the Trump Campaign. Weeks ago DJ said he didn’t want Cruz’s endorsement; today the DJ campaign is saying “We are pleased and welcome the Cruz endorsement”.
    Sounds just a tad contradictory. ( no surprise )

  7. Pch101 says:

    When did Ted Cruz have a conscience?

    Mr. Trump’s rise in the polls, combined with a handful of political overtures from Mr. Trump and his team in recent days, left Mr. Cruz effectively boxed in, raising the possibility that a narrow Trump defeat could be laid at his feet.

    I would say that it’s the opposite. If Trump loses and Cruz withholds his endorsement, then Cruz gets to say “I told you so” (in his smarmy kind of way.) But if Trump wins and Cruz withholds his endorsement, then he has real problems going forward due to the fact that Trump would be the de facto leader of his party.

    If Trump was guaranteed to lose, then Cruz would have held off. It’s the possibility that Trump might win that makes endorsing him a safer choice. Cruz is hedging his bets, and he won’t be the only Republican to make that choice.

  8. edmondo says:

    But when Bernie endorsed the woman who manipulated the primary schedule, mocked his religion and threatened to kick him off the Appropriations Committee if he refused, somehow you consider that an act of “political realism”?

    Face it Doug, this site has just become click bait for the same 200 people who come here 20 times a day.

  9. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    Cruz is hedging his bets, and he won’t be the only Republican to make that choice.

    Agreed – ifwhen Trump loses, it will undoubtedly result in statements about having been pressured to make an endorsement they never wanted to make, accompanied by the requisite “Trump is everything that’s wrong with our otherwise perfect party” and “sack Priebus!!” gems.

    The sad thing is that over the years I’ve gotten to know quite a few Republican strategists / party leaders, and they’re exceptionally bright people. To a man they all get that they’re headed for the iceberg, but have no idea how to turn the ship in time. The terrible weight of this thing that they’ve put into motion over the last 30 years or so has resulted in a base that either doesn’t care or refuses to believe that it will sink.

  10. charon says:

    Of the two main GOP camps (“Values Voter” and “White Priveledge”) the white folks won this time around.

    Cruz realizes he can’t win just by out-Christianing the field, he also needs to at least show some respect to the racist/nativist/xenophobe camp. Hence, this – planning ahead.

  11. charon says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Agreed – ifwhen Trump loses, it will undoubtedly result in statements about having been pressured to make an endorsement they never wanted to make, accompanied by the requisite “Trump is everything that’s wrong with our otherwise perfect party” and “sack Priebus!!” gems.

    Maybe not – the Trumpets are trending to increasingly being the “Strong Horse” within the GOP – denouncing racism/nativism is now passe, the white privaledge people now are to be pandered to openly.

  12. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @charon:

    Maybe so, but in my mind the strong horse within the GOP is, and always has been, the guys writing the checks.

  13. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @edmondo:

    the woman who manipulated the primary schedule, mocked his religion and threatened to kick him off the Appropriations Committee if he refused

    Source(s) substantiating these rumors? (Note: Breitbart, Hot Air and that Lucianne looneytune are not legitimate sources).

  14. Slugger says:

    @edmondo: Edmondo:
    are you saying that Cruz is just like Hillary? Some people might consider that a bigger takedown of Cruz than anything said by anyone else on this site. You must really despise him.

  15. charon says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    What about the people casting the votes? Here is an article that has a lot of interesting data and graphs:

    http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit

    Showing some trends, too – bottom line, this racism stuff trending, at least within the GOP

  16. Lenoxus says:

    edomondo:

    But when Bernie endorsed the woman who manipulated the primary schedule, mocked his religion and threatened to kick him off the Appropriations Committee if he refused, somehow you consider that an act of “political realism”?

    Even if all these accusations are true, only one — the religion thing — is possibly comparable to the things Donald has said about Ted and his family. And I’ve never before heard anything about Hillary mocking Bernie’s “religion” (although he is Jewish by birth, as far as I know, he’s agnostic or atheist).

  17. liberal capitalist says:

    Not a surprise.

    Simple math.

    1 – Does he want to run for president after this election cycle?

    1 – Did Priebus not vow to punish Republicans that did not get behind Trump?

    1 + 1 = “I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump”

    No surprise at all. Party before country.

  18. mannning says:

    @liberal capitalist:

    Cruz was definitely in a box. He would never vote for Hillary, Bernie, or libertarians, or the greens. Nor would he abstain. So…he will vote for Trump. Big surprise!

  19. gVOR08 says:

    @liberal capitalist: I’m sorry. Why would anyone expect to be punished just because Reince Priebus said they would be. Cruz’ real problem is that he’s dying in polling. A chart from Huffpo via Balloon Juice. Supposedly primary challenges are being planned from both the right (Of Ted Cruz. It’s TX) and the establishment.

  20. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @charon:

    Without the checks, the party isn’t viable in a general election.

  21. Gustopher says:

    Do we really believe that Lying Ted is going to vote for Trump? He’s just lying again… he probably gets that untrustworthiness from his father, who conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald.

  22. miguel torres says:

    Birds of a feather flock together.

  23. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @gVOR08:

    Why would anyone expect to be punished just because Reince Priebus said they would be.

    Money.

    It’s the only real power in politics.

    Money can be withheld in a campaign and that is a death knell for opertunity.

    It has such gravity for GOP that people are drawn like moths to a light.

    Which explains the Trump phenomena, I suppose.

  24. Andrew says:

    Just a thought…

    What if Trump is going to win? Let’s entertain that thought. However you want. Just let go of the hope you may feel about Clinton pulling out a victory.

    This country elected Bush/Cheney twice less than twenty years ago. And now we have Trump. You can not deny the fact that big banks, and business, run the politicians. And if history has taught us anything it is that they do much better under Republican presidents and Congresses.

    As other have said money is god to these people. Party before country. Money before all else.
    McCain, Romney, they underneath it all had a conscience, and therefore could not be everything these companies and banks needed. Can we say the same about Trump?

  25. Mikey says:

    @Andrew:

    This country elected Bush/Cheney twice less than twenty years ago. And now we have Trump.

    Trump makes Bush look like a model of articulate astuteness.

  26. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I just looked at LucianneLooneytunes. The Trump Fan Club over there is absolutely denying that Trump ever suggested that Rafael Cruz was involved in the JFK assassination or said anything nasty about Cruz himself. They live in their own reality.

  27. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @Andrew:

    You can not deny the fact that big banks, and business, run the politicians.

    I can admit that I do not agree with your perception. While some say that we are an oligarchy, I am not ready to admit that myself and throw in the towel.

    And if history has taught us anything it is that they do much better under Republican presidents and Congresses.

    That is patently incorrect. Read on…

    Democrats better for Wall Street than Republicans, research shows. Analysis of stock market returns under every president since 1900 shows Democrats do almost twice as well as Republicans

    (source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2012/aug/29/democrats-better-wall-street-republicans )

    … as far as Wall Street is concerned, it is better to vote Democrat. The average monthly return on the stock market has been 0.73% under Democrat presidents, almost double the 0.38% under Republicans.

    Returns were highest under Calvin Coolidge, a Republican president during the Roaring 20s, when the stock market boomed ahead of the Wall Street Crash. But the next two presidents in the league table were Democrats – Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt. Obama’s performance, using this yardstick of economic health, has been above average – only slightly below that of Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

    Normally higher stock market returns would be associated with higher levels of risk. But when adjusted for volatility, Democrat presidents still come out comfortably on top.

  28. Barry says:

    @CSK: “Does Cruz expect something from Trump in return, if Trump wins? A cabinet post? A seat on the Supreme Court? If he does, he’s not too shrewd, is he? Trump will throw him under the bus just as he does everyone else.”

    He probably figures that the way to the nomination is through the Trump/Tea Party. He is repeating his primary strategy of trying to pick up Trump supporters after Trump fails.

  29. TN Volunteer says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    …Libs don’t like it when Conservatives use their tactics!

  30. dennis says:

    @edmondo:

    I suppose that makes you #199, edmondo?

  31. Barry says:

    @Pch101: “I would say that it’s the opposite. If Trump loses and Cruz withholds his endorsement, then Cruz gets to say “I told you so” (in his smarmy kind of way.) But if Trump wins and Cruz withholds his endorsement, then he has real problems going forward due to the fact that Trump would be the de facto leader of his party.”

    If Trump wins, Cruz stays a Senator until 2024, at the bare minimum, so I don’t think that it’s that.

    What’s likely happened is that it’s clear that Trump will not lose in a blow-out, which means that the Trump wing of the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with after Noevember, and so Cruz is reckoning with it.

  32. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Bravely bold Sir Robin
    Rode forth from Camelot
    He was not afraid to die
    Oh, brave Sir Robin
    He was not at all afraid
    To be killed in nasty ways
    Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin

  33. Barry says:

    @HarvardLaw92: “Maybe so, but in my mind the strong horse within the GOP is, and always has been, the guys writing the checks.”

    And were they backing Trump?

  34. CSK says:

    @Barry:

    I have no doubt that Cruz could be hoping to recapture the Trumpkins, but it seems from what I’ve been reading over at Trump Central (lucianne.com) that he’s lost most of them permanently. Another miscalculation on his part. They won’t forgive Cruz’s initial betrayal of their savior.

    Trump = Jesus
    Cruz = Judas

  35. Jen says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: A fitting tribute, given the news about Terry Jones. Touche.

  36. Gustopher says:

    I was not aware the lizard people had consciences to betray. I believe Cruz was just moving to a warmer rock, as the sun was no longer shining as brightly on his previous perch.

  37. charon says:

    @Barry:

    If Trump wins, Cruz stays a Senator until 2024, at the bare minimum, so I don’t think that it’s that.

    That is, unless Cruz loses his primary in 2018 to someone like Perry, or maybe someone else – as seems probable.

    “I would say that it’s the opposite. If Trump loses and Cruz withholds his endorsement, then Cruz gets to say “I told you so” (in his smarmy kind of way.) But if Trump wins and Cruz withholds his endorsement, then he has real problems going forward due to the fact that Trump would be the de facto leader of his party.”

    I see Trump as the de facto GOP leader post-November, regardless win or lose.

  38. gVOR08 says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    Money can be withheld in a campaign and that is a death knell for opertunity.

    But I don’t think Reince can withhold much. That’s the Republican’s problem. Anyone seems to be able to go out and get adopted by a billionaire or two and run in a primary without depending on the RNC for anything. This is why the GOP establishment was unable to exert much influence on this last GOP Prez primary. If the GOPs want to survive, they’re going to have to fix this.

  39. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Jen (reply button no worky), so sad to see that TJ, but truth be told I find Monty Python’s commentary on the human condition to be quite timeless and apt for almost all situations. I just go there.

  40. john430 says:

    Sanders + Cruz = opportunism.

  41. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @gVOR08:

    That’s the Republican’s problem. Anyone seems to be able to go out and get adopted by a billionaire or two and run in a primary without depending on the RNC for anything

    You raise an interesting point.

    When there are no limits on a super-PAC, then what is the need for a political party?

    Still, the perception of Party Control will likely be a YUUGE part of the GOP Platform redefinition following Trump’s loss.

    It’s clear that they will write in all sorts of items that will prevent another Trump from taking over the GOP.

    However, likely that will be moot. if party no longer has the power of the threat of money over a candidate, then what remains of the GOP is Oligarchic.

    Like many have suggested, the GOP is dead. People voting for the party are doing so for many personal reasons, but likely not for party platform reasons,

  42. Hal_10000 says:

    “Vote your conscience!”*

    (*Unless you don’t have a conscience, in which case, vote Trump.)

    Now we’re seeing why many GOPers who opposed Trump didn’t want Cruz to win the nomination either.

  43. charon says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    When there are no limits on a super-PAC, then what is the need for a political party?

    There are restrictions on what PAC money can be spent on. No can hire campaign staff or open campaign offices, for example.

  44. CSK says:

    @Hal_10000:

    Cruz was never anything but a sleazy opportunist, as his totally pointless filibusters and shutdowns proved. He never expected to be outmaneuvered by an even sleazier opportunist.

  45. Mister Bluster says:

    “After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump,”…

    @Pch101:..When did Ted Cruz have a conscience?

    I am far more curious about any prayer to his ju ju he may have uttered and more importantly just how does he now know that this is what his diety wants him to do.

  46. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @charon:

    There are restrictions on what PAC money can be spent on. No can hire campaign staff or open campaign offices, for example.

    Agreed on these limitations… but are these becoming quaint antiquated methods?

    Enough money buys enough airtime. the message gets out there.

  47. Loviatar says:

    @charon:

    I see Trump as the de facto GOP leader post-November, regardless win or lose.

    So you’re saying Republicans will be upfront with their bigotry, sexism and racism.

    Interesting thought, with plausible deniability going away, I wonder what the press will do when Republicans no longer whisper, code word and dog whistle their hatred of other Americans.

  48. Andrew says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:
    Okay, that’s Wall Street.

    What about the the military industrial complex? No-bid contracts? The lowering of taxes?

  49. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Barry:

    Imagine what Trump’s campaign, imploding disaster that it still is, would look like if they’d decided to close their checkbooks and head for the Bahamas instead.

  50. Barry says:

    @HarvardLaw92: “Imagine what Trump’s campaign, imploding disaster that it still is, would look like if they’d decided to close their checkbooks and head for the Bahamas instead.”

    As far as we can tell, that’s what they did (after, of course writing a bunch of checks for congressional races).

  51. Barry says:

    @Gustopher: “I was not aware the lizard people had consciences to betray. I believe Cruz was just moving to a warmer rock, as the sun was no longer shining as brightly on his previous perch.”

    I want to softly caress that comment, running my hands over its curves……………..

  52. liberal capitalist says:

    @Andrew:

    What about the the military industrial complex? No-bid contracts? The lowering of taxes?

    Can you be more specific in what you are asking? I can’t understand what you are trying to say.

  53. Monala says:

    @Lenoxus: in the DNC email hack, a DNC staffer suggested attacking Sanders for his alleged atheism. Note that it wasn’t Clinton, it wasn’t about Sanders’ Judaism, and no one acted on the suggestion.

  54. Barry says:

    @Loviatar: “Interesting thought, with plausible deniability going away, I wonder what the press will do when Republicans no longer whisper, code word and dog whistle their hatred of other Americans.”

    The Trump campaign has been an exercise in determining that. The answers has been to normalize it.

  55. Guarneri says:

    Shocking news indeed. Good thing the two who hate each other, Clinton and Obama, only act out of conscience. How long until Hillary asks Obama to get her coffee? And when she does will his reply email come from a pseudonym?

  56. DrDaveT says:

    @Mikey:

    Trump makes Bush look like a model of articulate astuteness.

    Yes, but. W wasn’t driving that train, and both Rove and Cheney are scary SOBs. Trump doesn’t defer, or listen for more than 30 seconds.

  57. charon says:

    @Loviatar:

    Before November, many need to worry about Trump’s unpopularity with general election voters.

    After November, they need to plan ahead for primaries, and the Trumpets will be too large a faction to prudently antagonize in intra-party struggles.

    As per the link I posted upthread, the trend with GOP voters is toward increasing resentment of minorities, which is what is the main driver of Trumpism – this is the future I see for the GOP.

  58. charon says:

    @charon:

    Note that many GOP officeholders come from places like rural Texas that are basically one-party, so the only real election is the primary.

    These people have two big factions they must cultivate – the uber-Christians and the racial resentment / white priviledge people – Trump’s base.

  59. Loviatar says:

    @Barry:

    The Trump campaign has been an exercise in determining that. The answers has been to normalize it.

    Then, it will only get worse before it gets better.

    Damm, we’re fucked as a country.

  60. R. Dave says:

    The cravenness of these Republican candidates is just amazing to me. I know primary opponents usually end up endorsing their party’s nominee even after bitter primaries, but Trump is so personal and vulgar in his attacks, so transparently alpha-dogging them, that I can’t comprehend how their pride as men – and yes, it’s in part a gender thing – would allow them to endorse the guy. It’s like that “go wait on the plane” moment with Christie. How are these guys so willing to play the role of submissive lickspittle in the face of Trump’s undisguised dominance displays? I just don’t get it.

  61. R. Dave says:

    Whoops – Double post.

  62. CSK says:

    @R. Dave:

    It’s possible they believe that since Trump is a) lazy, b) ignorant, and c) has zero interest in the work that’s involved in being president, that they can control him. They let Trump play with all the cool toys (AF 1, Marine 1), throw parties, and amuse himself insulting celebrities on Twitter, and in return, others (Pence, for one) do the actual work.

  63. Andrew says:

    @liberal capitalist:

    I was referring to the that even though (D) are better for Wall Street. What about the Military Industrial Complex. With spending, contracts?
    Or what about tax rates for businesses, are they not usually better under Republicans?

    Other than H.W Bush, I was under the impression that spending goes way up for the MIC, while taxes go down for big businesses. Allowing LARGE profit margins. Or am I wrong, and this something that happens no matter the President and the consonant next to their name?

  64. barbintheboonies says:

    It`s all a bad joke and we all have egg on our face. We had protesters in Portland Or and a 30 something man asked me what I thought of all them liberals acting like assholes. My response was I don`t really know if I agree with their cause, but I do defend their right to protest. Well this young man treated me as if I had committed treason. It has got this bad. He asked for my opinion, but could not accept what it was. This is going to happen on election day The stale mate will be decided and then what will happen? Does it just keep going on and on without any compromise?

  65. An Interested Party says:

    Shocking news indeed. Good thing the two who hate each other, Clinton and Obama, only act out of conscience. How long until Hillary asks Obama to get her coffee? And when she does will his reply email come from a pseudonym?

    Does anyone else recall Hillary accusing Obama’s father of being part of a presidential assassination or attacking Michelle Obama’s physical appearance? No? Me neither…

  66. Alternative title: “Ted Cruz Proves His Conscience Is Really Political Opportunism”

  67. MBunge says:

    Before anyone gets too self-righteous about Republicans supporting Trump, did you see Michele Obama get all chummy with George W. Bush at the opening of the African-American museum?

    People are dead because of George W. Bush. Hundreds of thousands, arguably.
    People were tortured because of George W. Bush.
    Millions and millions have suffered for years because of George W. Bush and millions will continue to suffer for years to come.
    And remember that whole little thing about the NSA spying on Americans?

    If Michele Obama can’t be expected to shun a man arguably guilty of actual war crimes, why should Republicans be expected to shun the legally nominated Presidental candidate of their party?

    Mike

  68. Andrew says:

    @MBunge:

    shun a man arguably guilty of actual war crimes

    I get what you are saying here. The whole giving a pass thing.

    Hilary this whole election has been about bringing people together. It is political theater that hurts no one. Obama is a (D), Hilary is a (D)…see where I am going with this?

    Yes, Bush was at the helm when really bad $hit went down. Nothing is going to come of it. It is a dead issue. I wish it was not, but it is. Learn from history and all that.

    Trump could also arguably be much worse. Nothing about what Trump shows has anything to do with humility. Something Bush is showing by being at this event with the Obama’s. You know, acting presidential. If Bush was that bad, Trump and his inability to be humble in anyway…the world can not imagine all the possibilities.

    Clinton at least keeps the $hit Ship afloat and steady. Trump is a wildcard.

  69. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @Andrew:

    Andrew – your concern for the .01 % is fascinating.

    As real corporate tax rates are at about 10%, and the Republicans are squealing to pay off the debt (which is a large part military spending and Bush 43 stimulus, I can’t see why you would want to cut corporate taxes more and increase your own tax burden.

    I will admit I’m in the top 5%, and I would like to see corporate taxes go up. Statstically, the USA economy does better when corporations have a higher tax rate.

    I’m sure you would like to see Trumps taxes, to see if he’s paying 10%, or more like the 30 % the the middle class pays.

    As for me, I have always said that I want to make so much money, that I won’t care how much I’m taxed.

    Not there yet, so please don’t volunteer me for another military build out and proactive war, Thanks.

  70. Andrew says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    Except I am not. You misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not on-board with anything you listed or stated. I am commenting on the fact that the MIC and Big Business do better under (R) and it has been almost a decade since that time. And how those sorts of special interests have a lot of sway in politics.

    I asked people to entertain the thought of a Trump win. Not that I wanted it to happen. BIIIIIIG difference. It seems I have to be far more specific or else people take it differently than intended.

    Just a thought…

    What if Trump is going to win? Let’s entertain that thought.

  71. Pch101 says:

    @Barry:

    If Trump wins, Cruz stays a Senator until 2024, at the bare minimum, so I don’t think that it’s that.

    When did senators become elected to12-year terms?

    In any case, it isn’t great for a member of Congress to be on the s**t list of his party leader. One of the added “benefits” of a Trump presidency would be to have a party leader who isn’t shy about maintaining an enemies list and who would have the power to use it; why would any Republican wish to be on it if that can be avoided?

    If When Trump loses, he won’t be a player within the party. Others will vie to take over his wing of the Tea Party, and Cruz probably wants to be one of those leaders, which would provide him with another motivation to offer his endorsement. It might pay off for Cruz if Trump is elected, while it probably won’t cost Cruz anything if Trump isn’t elected.

  72. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @Andrew:

    Andrew – around here, in this little corner of the internet, we are a fairly plainspoken bunch.

    We say what we mean, and we use facts in our conversations.

    Innuendo and mistaken perception doesn’t fly here. Just want to let you know that before you go down a rathole

    So: we have already proven that wall street does better under Democrats. Great, but somehow you think american business is somehow separate of wall street.

    Then consider this: if you propose that businesses do better under a republican president, then why have none of the Fortune 100 donated to the trump campaign?

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842?mod=e2twp

    Business has already entertained the thought of a Trump Presidency, and chose experience and stability.

    Consider these facts from Forbes magazine:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#1ccef87d67a1

    * Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

    * Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

    * Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

    * Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

    * Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

    * The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

    Andrew – I politely suggest that you let this one go.

  73. charon says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    The interests of big business and corporate America do not exactly mesh with those of corporate officers like CEO’s.

    Business and corporate shareholders may do better under Democrats, but the rich guy CEO’s etc. get their big tax breaks such as inheritance tax elimination from the Republicans.

    And yeah, boondoggles like the F-35 do better with the GOP.

  74. Andrew says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    Wow, I’m sorry I missed what you said. The distance from me to you on top of your high horse was just too much. Can you speak a little louder?

    I have been posting here for years. And lurking. Previously known as Mr. Replica or just Replica.

  75. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @Andrew:

    Wow, I’m sorry I missed what you said. The distance from me to you on top of your high horse was just too much.


    Glad we have that cleared up. Have a nice day.

    @charon:

    The interests of big business and corporate America do not exactly mesh with those of corporate officers like CEO’s.

    Business and corporate shareholders may do better under Democrats, but the rich guy CEO’s etc. get their big tax breaks such as inheritance tax elimination from the Republicans.

    And yeah, boondoggles like the F-35 do better with the GOP.

    Yeah, true… however our friend Andrew, or Replica, or Mr Replica, or … whoever … was not just wrong, he not even close to his perception of the economics of the USA since well, the great depression.

    However, yes Charon, I absolutely agree with your point (and the point that Andrew seems to be trying to make): People lining their pockets with boondoggles and outright monetary policies based on self-serving greed seems to do better under Republican presidents.

    But still, if NONE of those CEO’s choose to donate to a Trump campaign… it goes back to the point of “entertaining” a Trump campaign. Those folks did donate to Romney, but nothing for Trump.

    Those who want a successful economy and a stable 4 years will likely vote for Clinton.

    Those who want to buy the government to get policies like inheritance tax revocation will likely vote Trump. Orjust vote trump because they have been told that they must vote GOP.

    I mean, seriously… just consider it, if we take Trump at face value:

    1) Further eliminate corporate taxes
    2) reduce taxes on the rich
    3) increase taxes on the poor
    4) build a wall
    5) eliminate the deficit
    6) increase tarrifs

    So, magical thinking means that we reduce taxes on everyone, and then eliminate all services (except the military) to wipe out the deficit, destroy most government agencies that protect us from getting killed or poisoned on a daily basis… and somehow the economy will flourish? Not gonna happen.

    For a review of policy:

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/17/Experts-Weigh-Donald-Trump-s-Tax-Plan-and-Find-It-Wanting

    And who benefits the most?

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-11/donald-trumps-economic-policies-will-cost-americans

    Working-class voters who like that Trump sticks it to the “elites” might want to know that his across-the-board tax cuts benefit high-income taxpayers the most. In fact, the Tax Policy Center reports that middle-class households would receive an average tax cut of $2,700, or 4.9 percent of after-tax income; the highest 0.1 percent of taxpayers (those with incomes over $3.7 million) would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017, or nearly 19 percent of their after-tax income.

    I think that most see this as a recipe for disaster, rather than “doing better” under this potential republican.

    Unless of course, one is constitutionally incapable of considering various views based on fact.

    And for those who welcome destroying the country in order to save it… well, enjoy the clown car ride.

  76. Liberal Capitalist says:

    Looks like I’m not the only one with this opinion… Ultimately, by tomorrow this time, we’ll know for sure.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/26/investing/donald-trump-first-debate/index.html

    Expect stocks to tumble if Donald Trump has a great first debate night.

    Wall Street doesn’t want a President Trump (with the exception of a few hedge fund managers and Trump supporters, like Carl Icahn). As the old saying goes, the market loves good news, it can deal with bad news, but it hates uncertainty. And Trump is the motherlode of uncertainty.

    In a new report out this week, Wells Fargo (WFC) puts the probability of a Clinton win at only 50%. The bank says that would be “neutral” or “slightly positive” for investors. In contrast, a Trump victory would be “negative” or “slightly negative.”

    Many Wall Street banks have reached a similar conclusion: Clinton would be better for the economy and market.

    “Markets, in general, are apt to do better under a Clinton Administration,” said UBS in late August.

  77. barbintheboonies says:

    Glen Beck is pissed Hee Hee

  78. al-Alameda says:

    “After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump,” Mr. Cruz wrote in a statement on Facebook.

    … please pass the popcorn

  79. Jack Spratt says:

    @stonetools: When you observe that in the great lone star state, even catastrophically damaged individuals like Louis Gohmert, can be elected, then Ted doesn’t surprise me. I think maybe he should ponder the fate of Christie…., does he think he’ll get any better treatment from the great pumpkin?