Time Will Vindicate Ted Cruz

by C. Edmund Wright7/22/16

The fullness of time will vindicate Ted Cruz’s actions at the National Convention this week, and as a bonus, the reaction has exposed that Donald Trump has indeed jumped in between the sheets with the Republican Establishment.  On the second point, let’s not quibble over who seduced whom.

I know that the conventional wisdom is that Cruz committed suicide.  Good.  Let’s check the scorecard of conventional wisdom.

Almost everyone thought it was crazy in the fall of 2013 to say Cruz’s Obamacare filibuster would actually help Republicans in 2014 and that it would help Cruz’s career.  Those with egg on their faces would include the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, most elected Republicans – and perhaps you.  Or perhaps not.

Time vindicated Cruz on that one.  To be fair, Rush Limbaugh and some other conservatives were on board with that belief, too.

But heck, nobody was on board in 1992 as I warned about the cancer that was John McCain to the party and to conservatism.  G. Gordon Liddy and I even had a contentious fight about it on his show in early 1993.  You might remember the drill: hey, he’s a war hero and he’s pro-life and the media loves him!  McCain can’t be a problem!

How did I know?  Easy.  McCain was out there claiming that George H.W. Bush was too extreme, so the media would adore him.  Yes, H.W. Bush!  How did almost all of humanity miss that?

Now everyone knows.  In fact, Trump’s first big burst onto the scene was questioning McCain’s war hero status.  I actually agree with Trump on that one, and it has worked to Trump’s advantage.  Trump tapped into something with McCain that the elites still don’t fully understand, even the ones now working with Trump.

El Rushbo finally figured McCain out during the S.C. primary season in 2000.  Welcome to the party.  There’s still plenty of cake and punch left.

And everyone thought I was even crazier in 2001 when I warned about Karl Rove, and even secured the website www.firekarlrove.com.  I combined it in early 2013 with www.tokyrorove.com to promote the book WTF?  (I have non-renewed the URL now, as Rove is history as a major player anyway.)

Back then, especially after 2004, we heard that Rove was “the architect” and “the boy genius” and my favorite, “Rove, you magnificent bastard.”  Now he’s just a dumb bastard to the people who said all that, which was almost everybody.  This new anger at Rove helped me sell a lot of books in 2013 and ’14.

The point here is not my track record, although I do draw confidence from it.  It’s that history is replete with examples of how the initial conventional wisdom is so often wrong.  And not just wrong, but “180 degrees out of phase with reality” wrong.

There are specific reasons I am confident about this particular episode as well.

First, about this whole notion of political suicide: I thought what we were looking for was someone willing to put truth ahead of career expediency and the next election cycle.  I obviously misjudged what some of you wanted.

Moreover, I’m hearing people rant on about how Cruz is being selfish and self-promoting – and also for being a fool who has committed political suicide.  Well, which is it?  In this narrow construct, those concepts are mutually exclusive.

Then again, so is the notion of a Reince Priebus Mitch McConnell John Boehner Chuck Schumer Nancy Pelosi TARP Stimulus bailout ethanol crony being some kind of “wrecking ball” to the establishment.

On this pledge issue, I would like a few questions answered.  First, didn’t Trump threaten not only to break the pledge, but even to run third party multiple times?  And didn’t his legions adore him for it?  He did, and they did.

Are there no circumstances under which the honorable thing to do is to break a pledge, a promise, or a contract?  We all know there certainly are.  And by the way, breaking contracts and promises is a large part of Trump’s business career.  Hell, it’s the art of the deal, after all.  Declaring bankruptcy four times is indeed the breaking of four significant pledges!

I won’t even mention the multiple infidelities.  That would be tacky.

And why do you supporters even want a Cruz endorsement?  If he’s Lyin Ted, he did Trump a favor.  Dittos if he is this tool of Goldman Sachs.  Is it even necessary to bother with the detail that Trump is considering a Goldman appointee as Treasury secretary?

Then there’s the “well, Reagan endorsed Ford” thing.  No, he did not.  He did tiptoe a little closer to the line than did Cruz, but he didn’t cross it and endorse.  This was on purpose, a point top Reagan biographer Craig Shirley made clear this week, speaking with Mark Levin on the 20th.

And no, I don’t think Cruz threaded the needle as deftly as Reagan did at the ’76 convention, but let’s be fair: Cruz’s language had to be a little different from Reagan’s for obvious reasons.  Melania had already shown the folly of plagiarizing direct quotes. Ouch.

This brings me to Trump’s obvious and mindless strategy, which was to set Cruz up for public embarrassment.  Why?  What good could possibly come from that?  Trump will not win the White House if he continues to insult Cruz and the 8 million people who voted for him.  Period.  Besides, he has already won that fight.  Why pick at the scab?

And yet he does.  And his keyboard cowboy battalions jump in at every instance.  So what gives?

Perhaps two factors are in play here.  First, Trump is above everything else vindictive and petty, and he’s inspired those traits and brought them mainstream in GOP politics.  In other words, he just can’t help himself.

Second, and this is a little more pernicious, is that he’s doing the dirty work of the Republican establishment.  Yes, you know, that group Trump was going to be a wrecking ball to?  Yeah, right.

The Republican establishment hate Trump in general, but they hate Cruz more.  Comments by many, including from John Boehner, make this perfectly clear.  Moreover, they’ve signed onto the Trump train out of expedience and have apparently demanded some quid pro quo on two fronts.

Rush Limbaugh agrees, though he whitewashes it as simply a unity ploy.  Then again, his show alone was worth $400 million to Trump from July 2015 through May 4, 2016.

POWER: On night one, we saw the Trump people orchestrate a power-grab by Reince Priebus and the RNC that is breathtaking and unprecedented – and the balance of power now between the party apparatus and the grassroots has never been wider.

Thank you, Mr. Wrecking Ball.  These consequences will plague us for years.

KILL CRUZ: And on night three, Mr. Trump and his minions jumped in with the RNC to set up Cruz for what is supposed to be a career-ending nightmare.  More than a Trump presidency, the establishment lust for an end to Cruz – and they think they have it now.  But be warned: truth is the long game.  These same people thought Ted had committed suicide as a result of the filibuster.  Instead, Cruz became a leader in the anti-Washington cartel movement and a prominent conservative figure because he was right to take that stand.  He’s not even on the radar without that stand.

He was right to take the stand he did this week as well, and time will vindicate him once again.

What will that look like?  That’s not knowable.  What is knowable, even as so many refuse to know it, is that Trump is almost certain to be a disaster for limited-government conservatism and liberty at some point.  Maybe in the election, giving Hillary the White House.  Or maybe in the White House, reverting to his 40-year big-government proclivities.  It’s who Trump is, and it will happen.

And when it does, those Gideons who were watchmen on the wall will be vindicated.  I am now on record.


CEdmundWrightC. Edmund Wright is contributor to StubbornThings, American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. • (926 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Time Will Vindicate Ted Cruz

  1. And in a post-convention wrap up this morning, Trump picked at the scab again, going so far as to justify his actions with regard to Cruz’ wife and father. Trump has the ego and the mindset of a tin-horn dictator.

    Great article. I agree 100%.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I saw Trump’s act this morning during which he attacked Cruz. This display was disgraceful and gave a real insight into Trump’s being.

      He is the winner. He had nothing to gain by attacking Cruz (except the mental masturbation of ego gratification) yet he viciously went after Cruz. He hurt himself with lots of people such as myself.

      As the author says, Trump is vicious and petty. He displays characteristics of a spoiled child, which are dangerous in an adult.

      I have no doubt, that should he win the election, he will take up the reins of power which Obama has so abused and take lawlessness to another level. Anyone who believes this man is a conservative is delusional.

      To all those Christians who think God has a plan for this country, you may be correct. Considering the two individuals who are now running for the greatest office on earth, I think the plan may be the downfall of America.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        He is the winner. He had nothing to gain by attacking Cruz (except the mental masturbation of ego gratification) yet he viciously went after Cruz. He hurt himself with lots of people such as myself.

        Although I think any hash-tag label is stupid, you may consider me a “never Trumper.” I’m also a “never Castro-er,” a “never FDRer,” and a “never Karl Marxer.” There are ample reasons to oppose Trump, regardless of what party his type associates with.

        Of course, if what you want is the “Progressive” view of society, then by all means vote Trump because that is most likely what you will get. But let’s be honest about that and enough of this “Oh, but Hillary is much worse.” Maybe. It’s also possible that with a Republican House and Senate, she could pivot more towards the center as her husband did. But does Trump have any other pivot but his ego?

        Good call, Mr. Kung. I think Trump would take lawlessness to another level. But I seriously doubt he’ll win. I think the stay-home voters who plagued Romney will be a drop in the bucket compared to those who stay home because of Trump.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          But I seriously doubt he’ll win. I think the stay-home voters who plagued Romney will be a drop in the bucket compared to those who stay home because of Trump.

          We can dream Trump wins and then keels over from a stroke on the swearing in podium.

        • Bell Phillips says:

          Once again, I’m going to be the contrarian here and state that it is vital that Trump wins this in November.

          No, I’m not expecting much from him. I think he’ll accidentally get a few things right, as opposed to his opponent, who will intentionally get everything wrong. But that’s not an endorsement.

          The critical issue is still the F’d uppedness of the republican party. As long as they are putting up a good fight, the dangers of the democrats are limited. When they roll over and play dead because they think that being a bunch of pussies is the way to power and personal wealth, we have destructive near dictators like barry zero getting their way.

          If Trump loses this fall, the establishment will say (to themselves, especially), “See. If you’re not polite and bipartisan and don’t get along and aren’t PC, you’ll be a loser.”

          If Trump wins this fall, there is the slim possibility that they will come away with some other ideas.

          The next four to eight years aren’t going to be good. The best move to make right now is to come up with some emboldened opposition to limit the immediate damage and be in a better position down the road.

          Staying home to ensure a Shrillary default won’t be helpful.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            If Trump wins this fall, there is the slim possibility that they will come away with some other ideas.

            Bell, I think the case for Trump has doubled. In addition to:

            + A vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary

            …which I see as a legitimate reason to vote for him. We now also have…

            + He might be a media figurehead while the real ideological work is handled by Mike Pence and other conservatives (or even RINOs such as Paul Ryan, who are still better than Harry Reid).

            I’m more than okay with an eyes-wide-open evaluation that it’s *possible* that Trump won’t be a complete disaster and we *might* end up pleasantly surprised by a thing or two that he does. I think that is a rational and reasonable point of view.

            But people lose me when they try to build up Trump as anything but the bum that he is.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Byron York suggested that Cruz, in his non-endorsement, was making a long-term gamble, and only time will tell if it works. (And since he lost this time and will face strong opponents next time, there’s no guarantee he will win even if it “worked”.) But Trump, meanwhile, was making a short-term gamble when he had his supporters boo Cruz, thereby highlighting party disunity. We’ll learn in November if this worked.

    One argument made against Cruz was that we should forgive those who injure us. But the point is also made that forgiveness should be preceded by penitence by the sinner.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Byron York suggested that Cruz, in his non-endorsement, was making a long-term gamble, and only time will tell if it works.

      I think that formulation by York is more or less correct.

      First, let me say that I think Cruz is a political animal. That’s not a criticism as much as a fact. The point is whether he is a reform-minded, Constitution-based, integrity-filled, America-loving political animal.

      But being of that species has its inherent downsides. The upside is that you have people who are skilled at understanding how politics works. As much as the image of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is pleasing, Mr. Smith will likely always be eaten up by the entrenched powers because Mr. Smith doesn’t know his way around. Good intentions (even real, authentic, non-PC good intentions) are not enough.

      So I don’t mind that Cruz is a political animal and that, as such, he will make cold-blooded political animal mistakes. His speech at the convention was not artful. The associates at Kung & Nelson Political Consultants could have written him one (free of charge, mind you) in 30 minutes that was better than what he gave.

      As much as people want to compare Cruz to Reagan, Reagan had a certain artful verge and vigor that Ted Cruz does not. I certainly don’t have a Reagan-like personality. Give me speaking time at the convention and you would hear an earful. But I would likely be booed because political conventions are about theatre, not truth.

      Still, there is a way to make a point by being artful. Reagan could have (and did regarding Ford) make his point without seeming as if he was groveling and caving to the nominee. Again, Kung & Cruz Political Consultants are ready and willing to meet with Mr. Cruz (absent his current advisors) at any time. Our rates are extremely reasonable.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Again, Kung & Cruz Political Consultants are ready and willing to meet with Mr. Cruz (absent his current advisors) at any time. Our rates are extremely reasonable.

        And like those tax consultants, one hears on the radio, we wouldn’t charge Cruz for the first meeting.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    One of the very disturbing things about Trump is that he does not appear to have grown in character, moral or otherwise, over his run for the presidency. I guess he is either incapable of such growth or believes he is already perfection itself.

    • His confidence in his own perfection is precisely the problem as I see it. In last night’s speech he said: “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” Trump may know the Washington crony-capitalist system better than anyone, but his crony-capitalist connections won’t enable him to keep his contradictory promises when he himself is the crony-capitalist of last resort.

      If he is elected, what happens when the raw economics of trade, deficit spending, debt and the FED’s printing press blow up in his face and expose him as a wannabee emperor with no clothes? As a crony-capitalist he could “fix” things when the harsh reality of the market ruled against him by running to government friends who could rig the system for him, or he could use bankruptcy to foist his losses on unsuspecting creditors. Not so when HE is the government.

      So, when his adoring sycophants become restless with his inability to work miracles, what is Trump likely to do to save face, this thin-skinned egoist who finds himself in charge of the largest, most well-funded and most powerful bureaucracy on the face of the earth?

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was listening to a little Mark Levin just now. He played a few clips of Trump obsessing on Cruz.

    I don’t know what to say but that this guy is unbalanced. As Levin said, the primaries are over. He should be running against Hillary. Instead he’s obsessing (and lying) about Cruz. The clip I heard was the belligerent Trump obsessing over a line that Cruz supposedly added to his speech…a line that just said something like “I hope we hold to the principles of the Republican Party.” That’s controversial? This guy, Trump, is a complete kook.

    As Levin noted, Trump has no problem reaching out to Bernie Sanders voters but he is going out of his way to alienate Cruz voters (and thus conservatives).

    How many danger flags does this guy have to wave before people see that he could be *as bad* as Hillary, if not worse? Has even Hillary been as critical of Ted Cruz? Isn’t this a pattern amongst RINO Republicans, to bash the conservative? And here the deranged and mentally unstable Trump is doing so long past the primaries having been decided.

    He can pal-up to Putin but not Ted Cruz?

    What an absolutely despicable and petty man.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      He can pal-up to Putin but not Ted Cruz?

      Heh, Stalin admired Hitler and Hitler admired Stalin.

      Good salesmen admire other good salesmen. Good athletes admire other good athletes. Tyrants tend to admire other successful tyrants. I truly do fear that there is a tyrannical streak in this man.

      Furthermore, if anyone thinks this man will not take up where Obama left off ignoring our constitution, then I believe they will be very surprised if he gains power.

      Trump has trumpeted loud and clear that he is one of those types who are only interested in “results”, and has little respect for the constitutional process which is legally required to pass laws?

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    David French has a very good strategic article: Trump’s Speech Makes It Official: It’s Democrat v. Democrat in 2016. It’s worth a read.

    I had missed this earlier, but Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece regarding “Lyin’ Ted” speaking at the mobvention: I Choose Ted. Again, worth a read the whole way through, not just for one paragraph hidden in it.

    Jonah has another article, The Magical Thinking of the Trump Movement that is also worth a read, including this:

    It’s clear many of my friends on the pro-Trump right are giddy with resentment-justifying glee at the alleged comeuppance of Trump opponents. One need only listen to quite literally anything Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity say about Trump critics to see how large a role spite plays in the now-unbreachable divide between the new nationalists and the old conservatives . . .

    . . . The Trump movement in its glandular core is a movement about resentment and payback. It makes sense to conclude that at least some of its most ardent disciples are psychologically inclined to resentment and payback as well.

    It’s not difficult to see how Hitler was elected. Grievance is not a good motivation for choosing leaders. Has it work for the “Black Lives Matter” folk?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      It’s not difficult to see how Hitler was elected. Grievance is not a good motivation for choosing leaders.

      Interestingly, the Nazi’s high point in terms of electoral results was about 37%. This was in a multi-party system.

      I would bet this in higher the percentage of really pro-Trump people. Many of the others will vote for him because we only have two viable parties and they hate Hillary.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        They got about 44% in the final ballot in 1933, though that wasn’t an entirely free election anymore. The Nazis and Nationalists won a narrow majority, which was enough to rule but not enough for their Enabling Act, which required the complicity of most of the other parties.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Of course, resentment and payback were the essence of Obama’s purpose, and that of his most dedicated supporters. Still, an old-line liberal like Trump isn’t as much of a busybody as Slick Hilly, and preferable at least to that extent. I still see no way in which she’s better than Trump, and many in which she’s worse (or at least likely to be). Goldberg, interestingly, never pointed out that Cruz didn’t call for anyone to vote against Trump — he said to vote your conscience and support constitutionalist candidates up and down the ticket. If that doesn’t include Trump, then why are his acolytes so eager for him?

  6. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Loved Edmund’s takedown of the vastly overrated E-man Karl Rove, but I have to disagree with him here on the issue of whether or not Ted Cruz was right not to endorse Trump at his convention speech (and I will confine myself to that narrow issue and not the broader questions surrounding Trump). Cruz was actually in a tight place, as no matter what he did he was sure to alienate a lot of people: if he withheld his endorsement, he would be criticized for not being a team player, not supporting his party, and helping Hillary Clinton; if he endorsed Trump, many would say that he had deserted his principles. And Trump certainly did not do all he could to mend fences with Cruz, something that would have been beneficial to party and country. Nonetheless, I think Cruz should have endorsed Trump in his speech. There are two basic reasons: his pledge and the fact that he accepted an invitation to speak specifically at the convention and not some other venue.

    First the pledge: Cruz and the other candidates, including Trump, all agreed to support the eventual nominee. I personally would not have taken the pledge but only promised not to run on a third-party ticket, but they accepted. (Kasich agreed, but his monumental ego propelled him to predict that the nominee would be himself!). Here’s part of the debate on FOX News:

    BAIER: Senator Cruz, yes or no, you will support Donald Trump is he’s the nominee?

    CRUZ: Yes, because I gave my word that I would. And what I have endeavored to do every day in the Senate is do what I said I would do. You know, just on Tuesday, we saw an overwhelming victory in the state of Texas where I won Texas by 17 percent.

    So it’s even worse than having agreed to support the generic nominee – Cruz specifically agreed to endorse Trump if he were the nominee!

    Now Edmund says that Trump threatened to break the pledge, too. But threatening and actually doing are two different things, and if Trump was wrong to make the threat, Cruz must certainly have been wrong to actually carry it out.

    There remain Trump’s remarks about Heidi Cruz and about Ted’s father Rafael. Trump had the bad form to re-Tweet an unflattering photo of Heidi, and certainly anyone as impulsive as Trump should be banned from using social media, but the fact is, he didn’t originate the thing. As for Rafael Cruz, all Trump did was allude to a crazy conspiracy theory printed in National Enquirer, based on the resemblance of Rafael to an unidentified man who appears in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald. (Of course Rafael had at one time been a Castro supporter, and Oswald had been part of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but that hardly establishes a connection between the two men). This has been blown up by the #NeverTrump-ers as “Trump accused Cruz’s father of being involved in the JFK assassination”! No, he didn’t, but he shouldn’t have referred to the Enquirer’s article, either.

    So does all this relieve Cruz of his pledge? I would say no, but the issue is certainly debatable. That still leaves us with a problem though – the fact that Cruz spoke at the convention.

    Now it is absolutely true that Cruz never promised to endorse Trump in exchange for being allowed to speak at the convention. But he was being allowed to speak – it’s not like his status as the second-place finisher gave him some sort of right to be heard. Moreover, the convention had just formally nominated Trump, who was going to appear shortly after Cruz and give his acceptance speech. In that context, Cruz should have endorsed Trump, as Reagan endorsed Ford in 1976 (and to disagree with Edmund again, Reagan did endorse Ford by urging “unity” and “victory” in his speech at the convention – “unity” had to mean behind Ford, and victory meant Ford winning the Presidency).

    In contrast, Cruz exhorted Republicans to “vote your conscience” which was an open invitation to desert the Party’s nominee. This was entirely out of place in a speech being given to a convention which had just chosen that nominee. It was a slap at the delegates and therefore rude, rather like insulting your host at dinner. If Cruz wanted to make such a speech, he should have given it somewhere else. Cruz came across, at least to me, as someone overwhelmed by bitterness at his loss to Trump, a man he plainly despises, and that’s the kind of thing you keep to yourself – it doesn’t look good in public.

    Neither man has distinguished himself here and each could have by putting the country’s interests first. Trump should have tried to reconcile with Cruz and perhaps offered him the Vice-Presidency, but apparently his ego wouldn’t let him do it. Cruz for his part should either have endorsed the Party’s nominee or else stayed away from the convention completely. He comes across as bitter and self-centered, and that’s bound to hurt him in the future whether Trump wins or loses this time around.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think he could have found a way, by adding at the end of his speech come reference to the fact that Trump was running as something of a constitutional conservative (at least regarding SCOTUS), and Hillary most definitely isn’t. This would provide his minimal endorsement without sacrificing his principles.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      but the fact is, he didn’t originate the thing.

      How did he not originate the thing? Some PAC sent out pictures of Trump’s naked wife posing on the front of a magazine asking something like, “Is this the picture of your first lady which you want to see”? The Cruz campaign did not originate this.

      The magazine is a fairly well know publication which is seen on newsstands in the US and Europe as well as some countries in Asia. Trump’s wife was paid to pose. She was not forced to do this and Trump even bragged about how good his wife looked. These points are absolutely factual.

      Until recently, to most thinking people, it would have been unseemly for a woman who might become the first lady, to pose in a provocative almost nude magazine photo. But if Trump is ok with this, then why did he start making personal attacks on Heidi Cruz?

      Let me go further and ask you Nik, do you believe it an unreasonable point, which the PAC made with the photo? Do you think Trump’s attack on Heidi Cruz were equally, less or more reasonable than the PAC’s sending out pictures which were “more or less” in the public domain? (and no I don’t want to get into a discussion about the actual ownership of the photo)

      As regards, Trump’s allusions to Cruz’s father being connected somehow to the JFK assassination, I think you are down playing the game which Trump personally was involved in. Had the man had any class, which is of course impossible, he would not have said a word.

      As to Cruz’s speech, you will see that I thought it was the worst possible choice he could make. That was his big mistake.

      But that being said, I think the bit about his “pledge” is much overplayed. One can make a pledge in good faith and, after receiving new information, decide that the pledge was based on incorrect or incomplete data.

      I submit, Cruz was overloaded with new data on Trump’s scurrilousness. Pls carefully note that last word.

      Again, I must chuckle at how seriously so many people seem to take the question of pledge when Trump has shown himself to be a professional liar. Trump’s lies don’t seem to bother people.

      And for all those people who take political “pledges” seriously, I would like them to keep an eye on the Donald and see how many of those pledges in his acceptance speech he will keep, should he win? Hint: very few as most of the things he promised are beyond his control.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I mostly agree with you, but I’ll point out that my understanding at the time was that the Melania Trump photo was from many years ago, when she was a professional model. I don’t know if she was married to The Donald yet, particularly since she evidently wasn’t yet a citizen.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          What one does becomes part of one’s history. I have never heard Melania or Trump say it was a mistake for her to make those pictures. In fact, in her speech at the convention, she went on a bit about her career in modeling.

          I don’t think her marital status or citizenship have any bearing on the photos or how people react to them.

          It is not like she made some youthful mistake and some bad person was taking advantage of private photos. The woman made a living doing this.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    One thing to notice in yesterday’s primaries in Arizona and Florida is that McCain and Rubio won renomination against candidates running hard on supporting Trump. Rubio’s win wasn’t even close. This follows on Paul Ryan’s overwhelming win earllier against a similar Trumper. Clearly, Trump’s appeal is unique to himself. Once he’s gone, so will be a great deal of Trumpism.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think that’s a fair analysis. Doesn’t bode well for Trump’s presidential aspirations if he has no coattails.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Breaking news: Ted Cruz endorses Donald Trump. And if that’s old news to you, well, I haven’t been listening to Rush or anyone else today.

    He will receive a slight bounce in the polls from this.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    My eyes almost popped out of my head. I thought Mr. Kung wrote this article (although I shouldn’t assume his agreement with the premise). It’s entirely forthright and full of blunt common sense.

    David French is (to my ear) remarkably reality-based in his analysis of why Cruz has supported Trump: The Lesson Ted Cruz Taught Us

    Whatever. Now he’s on the Trump Train, and in heeding the GOP conductor’s call of “all aboard” he’s teaching us once again an important lesson about the contemporary American political elite. They’ll take risks to achieve upward mobility, but the prospect of truly diminished influence is apparently too terrifying to contemplate. To quote the Hamilton musical, once they get in the “room where it happens,” they just don’t want to leave.

    That’s why you saw fading Republican stars jump on the Trump Train early – he was their hope for continued relevance. That’s why you see establishment Republicans falling all over themselves to endorse Trump despite his manifest ignorance, mendacity, and unfitness. They want to remain in the establishment. That’s why religious right leaders keep endorsing one of the sexual revolution’s most ardent practitioners. They can’t abide the thought of political irrelevance. They all do it by convincing themselves – down to the very core of their beings – that the nation would be worse off without their unique talents, wisdom, and judgment.

    Let’s be clear, between the Republican convention and this weekend, absolutely nothing changed about either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Trump and Clinton are the same politicians with the same towering self-regard and same unfitness for the presidency. Trump is the exact same person who Cruz once said could “plunge” this nation “into the abyss.” Clinton is the exact same person we’ve seen throughout a quarter-century of dreary, corrupt years in national public life. What changed is all this “pressure” I keep hearing about. “The pressure is building,” people say. It’s time to get in line behind Trump.

    What pressure? You might get primaried? The terrifying Reince Priebus might get angry? You might – gasp – lose your Senate seat? Good heavens – the nation just can’t survive without Cruz in the Senate!

    We’re all replaceable. All of us. I’m reading Nathanial Philbrick’s Valiant Ambition, and I’m struck by the extent that perhaps the closest thing to an irreplaceable person in all of American history – George Washington – intentionally exposed himself to British volleys. Why? Because he knew what great commanders have known for millennia — while there are substitutes for even the best generals, there is no substitute for valor. That’s no argument for mindless recklessness (Washington hardly led every charge), it does reflect the reality that there are times when you pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor for the cause you hold dear.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      As I always say, “They are all politicians.”

      I must agree with everything French writes. Having studied history since I was a young boy, having gone to school and worked overseas and just having dealt with numerous representatives of the species Homo Sapiens, has taught me that the vast majority of people are anything but noble, particularly those who seek power. And for the sake of us all, the “great and the good” need this characteristic more than anybody.

      French is correct about George Washington, the greatest man who ever lived.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m glad you agree. But I was pleasantly stunned to read someone write unvarnished about reality. Really was refreshing. I like Cruz. But he’s a political animal like all the rest in certain ways. And that shows through.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *