February 2-6, 2016
Feb 02 03:20 Rubio finishes strong, Bush whines Feb 04 03:16 Cruz's exaggerations exposed Feb 04 12:42 Chris Christie's flailing isn't helping Feb 04 13:32 Rebecca Otto's futile lawsuit Feb 04 14:19 Trump-Cruz fight helping Rubio? Feb 04 16:39 Dayton's pro-union power play Feb 04 23:18 Will McCain be Trump's demise? Feb 05 04:14 Sen. Cruz diminishes himself Feb 06 10:39 Bush and the right to run a terrible campaign
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Rubio finishes strong, Bush whines
On a night when Sen. Rubio exceeded expectations, Gov. Jeb Bush, who finished with 2.8% of the vote in Iowa, sounded totally unlike his dad and his brother. Gov. Bush sounded like a total sourpuss , saying "Speaking of Rubio and Cruz Monday night, Bush said they don't have the experience to win. And the two other candidates that are likely to emerge in Iowa are two people that are backbenchers that have never done anything of consequence in their life. They're gifted beyond belief. They can give a great speech. But I think it's time for us to recognize that maybe what we need is someone who can lead."
Bush's supporting super PACs spent almost $25,000,000 attacking Sen. Rubio in the hopes of building Bush up. Rubio far exceeded expectations, finishing with 23.1% of the vote in Iowa. Meanwhile, the guy who thinks we need "someone who can lead" finished a mere 20.3% behind the guy who Jeb thought should wait his turn. That doesn't sound like a guy who entered the race saying that he wanted to run a joyous race. That sounds like a bitter man who didn't see this impending defeat coming.
What's particularly insulting is Jeb's suggestion that Sen. Rubio is incapable of leading people. Part of leadership is understanding what's important to people, then offering a vision that inspires them to achieve their goals. If there's anyone on the GOP side that can do that, it's Sen. Rubio. Half the battle of leading is directing people to where they already wanted to go. People want to prosper. Sen. Rubio offers that. People want to feel safe from the advances of ISIS. Sen. Rubio certainly passes the commander-in-chief test.
People have tried crippling Sen. Rubio's campaign by saying he's an inexperienced first-term U.S. senator. It's indisputable that he's a first-term senator but that isn't a strike against him. When Barack Obama started running for president, the truth is that he was just 2 years removed from being a state senator in Illinois. He spent the first 2 years playing politics and not taking policy seriously.
That isn't what Sen. Rubio did. Sen. Rubio took his responsibilities seriously on the Intelligence and Armed Services committees. He learned national security issues until he could recite them backwards or frontwards.
The Bush dynasty should go into hibernation. The American people aren't interested in dynasties.
Posted Tuesday, February 2, 2016 3:20 AM
Comment 1 by Michael Braden at 02-Feb-16 08:46 AM
Oh and BTW: Congratulations to Sen. Cruz for winning the Iowa caucus...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-16 10:24 AM
Which I wrote about here. Sen. Cruz put together a great organization & he ran a great campaign. I don't want to diminish that accomplishment.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Feb-16 12:33 PM
Rubio, that was neither win, nor place, but show.
Gary, are you anticipating a better Rubio outcome in New Hampshire, and if not there, South Carolina?
And do you have a figure on the Rubio spending, including Super PAC indirect investments?
Sort of like asking about show spending, relative to win and place? Bush finished out of the money, while spending lots of it. Any link to the top three in outcome, relative to spending by their campaigns and more significantly, by related PAC operatives?
I think the jockeys are to blame . . . all the horses were thoroughbreds, right? No plow horse or gelding in the pack?
My favorite, Rand Paul, how did he do? Do you have a convenient link to the full report?
Last: Where was Fiorina, ahead in caucus percentage or behind in percentage, relative to JEB!?
Comment 3 by eric z at 02-Feb-16 12:39 PM
Sorry, Gary, I did follow your link, and the image there gave caucus performance percentages. So, given that, have you any link to reliable campaign/PAC spending for each, including the 2% finishers? I'm not pushing you to search, but if you know, it would be interesting. What I'd really like to know is Rubio spending trending down the stretch, where GOP donor class concerns with Cruz and Trump might have factored in. It's likely the campaigns each have a good read on such spending data, but the public should also have spending:outocme ratios; as in what's a GOP caucus percentage point cost in Iowa these days?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-16 09:47 PM
Eric, Rand Paul finished IA with 4.5% of the vote, which translates into 8,481 votes. Sen. Cruz won with 51,666, followed by Trump with 45,427 & Sen. Rubio with 43,165.
I don't know how much money Sen. Rubio spent but I know various super PACs spent almost $35,000,000 on negative ads attacking Sen. Rubio. Most of that came from super PACs supporting Gov. Bush.
Frankly, the people who contributed to those super PACs should ask for a refund ... with interest. They're pathetic. They actually worked against Gov. Bush.
As for NH, what I'm hearing is that Trump will win it, followed by Sen. Rubio, then Gov. Christie. If that's what happens, it'll be the last rodeo for Kasich & probably some others.
Right now, it's really a Trump-Cruz-Rubio race & not necessarily in that order. Rubio is the guy that should frighten Hillary the most.
He's articulate. He's got a fantastic, optimistic stump speech. It's really kinda fun watching him speak or take questions. His charisma will win people over, too. He's the real deal.
Comment 5 by JerryE9 at 03-Feb-16 08:17 AM
Somewhere it was posted that Jeb! paid something like $2500 for every vote he got. I'm sure the number for the other candidates is better. As for being a leader, I think Mr. Bush needs to look around. A leader without followers is just a guy out for a walk. An expensive walk.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Feb-16 10:57 PM
Jerry, Jeb! paid $2,884 per vote in IA.
Comment 6 by eric z at 03-Feb-16 08:43 AM
Another morning, Rand Paul has dropped his presidential bid.
The low numbers, and the Kentucky seat being up this election means he realized where priorities were most rewarding. He should retain that seat.
Santorum and Fiorina need to speak to their inner persons at this point.
JEB! needs to drop the explanation mark, and say Bush IS the last name, everyone sees that; story over.
Jeb exiting leaving Kasich is better for Rubio's positioning, but that may be why Bush hangs on.
That seems indirectly what you, Gary, are saying or possibly thinking.
Aside from Rubio, the rest of the remaining field is unattractive, but to my view Cruz for all the ease in disliking him, is more presidential than Rubio [a.k.a. smarter and more broadly educated, Rubio being Florida - regional]. Rubio is not dislikeable, but he is quite a lightweight.
Yet if Hillary Clinton is the Dem candidate, any in that remaining GOP pack likely feels he has a chance [discounting Fiorina, clearly, by using that pronoun].
The Clintons' becoming mega-wealthy from politics, plus her demeanor, are factors that cut against Clinton; and she IS as Wall Street as Bush.
But in Clinton's favor, she'd appoint better Supreme Court Justices than Cruz or Rubio, or Christie who'd be better than the other two on appointments.
Cruz and Christie seem close in their aggressive, off-putting demeanor, but Cruz never shut down any traffic, nor does he have the cronyism baggage that attaches to Christie per the NJ - NY Port Authority and how he politicized Sandy relief.
Either of those two, Cruz or Christie, against Clinton would show to Clinton's advantage, lessening the objections to her aggressive demeanor.
BOTTOM LINE: Iin a heartbeat I'd prefer Trump to Rubio. Rubio is too much a plodder. Smooth talking, but not the brightest bulb. Trump has experience in a broader way than Rubio, who in fact is a career politician and nothing else.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Feb-16 11:00 PM
Eric, I don't know why you think Sen. Rubio is a lightweight but it isn't from anywhere that reality is practiced. Sen. Rubio's understanding of the economy and national security are the best in this field. If he's the nominee, he'll beat Hillary without much of a problem.
Comment 7 by eric z at 03-Feb-16 09:04 AM
Gary, as a hypothetical, would a Rubio-Kasich ticket vs a Clinton-Franken ticket be feasible? Kasich would balance Rubio's regionalism - inexperience, and Franken would be a fine choice to perhaps keep the Bernie hope alive and participating into November. Any thoughts there, Gary or others??
Where would that leave Trump, other than out in the cold and the Trump support possibly staying home, possibly falling in line (falling in line being my guess with more certainty guessed there than about the most rabid arm of the Cruz support)?
Would Cruz take second spot on any ticket, and would any of the others want him there?
Or is all such speculation far, far too premature?
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Feb-16 11:06 PM
Teaming Hillary with Franken would be a dream matchup for Republicans. As for the GOP ticket, there are tons of great options. There's Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Mike Pence, Bobby Jindal and Tim Scott. The list is lengthy, appealing and talented.
Comment 8 by eric z at 04-Feb-16 07:07 AM
Thanks, Gary, for the replies. Rubio? We wait and see.
Comment 9 by JerryE9 at 04-Feb-16 08:53 AM
Don't you find it amusing that the lamestream media hasn't ONCE talked about how "special" electing the first Hispanic President-- Rubio or Cruz-- would be?
Cruz's exaggerations exposed
Donald Trump isn't the only presidential candidate that doesn't hesitate in laying things on a little too thick. Based on this article , Ted Cruz fits that description, too. Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Cruz sat down for an interview with Jeff Kuhner. Kuhner opened by asking "Is Marco Rubio a genuine conservative?" He asked that after listing Rubio's support for "open borders," "NSA spying," and the Obama administration's Trans Pacific Partnership during an onstage interview.
Sen. Cruz's reply was predictable, though a bit dishonest. Cruz said "On each of the issues you just listed, Marco's views are virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton. Let me say this, if we nominate a candidate who's pro-amnesty, we'll lose. It's not complicated. It's real simple."
First, Sen. Cruz's support for taking tools away from the NSA is disappointing. If Sen. Cruz wants to defend taking away a valuable tool from our intelligence-gathering community, let's hear him make that part of his stump speech. Sen. Cruz has the opportunity to explain why he thinks it's wise to seriously limit the NSA's abilities without hurting people's civil rights. I'd love to hear Sen. Cruz's explanation.
Further, Mrs. Clinton doesn't support TPP . Apparently, Ted won't let little things like the facts get in the way of an old-fashioned ad hominem attack against one of his chief rivals.
Third, Sen. Cruz isn't being honest when he says that Marco supports amnesty. Here's what Sen. Rubio supports :
Marco has consistently advocated fixing America's immigration system, beginning with securing our border, enforcing immigration laws in the workplace, and implementing effective visa tracking systems.
That sounds a lot like Sen. Cruz's plan. This does, too:
Starting on Day One of his presidency, Marco will be focused on immigration security.
He will:
- Cancel President Obama's unconstitutional executive orders
- Eliminate federal funding for sanctuary cities
- Deport criminal illegal aliens
- Hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents
- Finish all 700 miles of walls on our southern border
- Implement an entry-exit visa tracking system
- Implement a mandatory eVerify system
- Install $4 billion in new cameras and sensors on the border
If that doesn't sound like the Gang of Eight bill, it's because it isn't similar to the Gang of Eight bill.
If Sen. Cruz is serious about this, then we're in trouble:
Cruz pointed to the 2012 election as evidence for his theory and noted the Republican Party got clobbered after nominating Mitt Romney, whose record on healthcare caused headaches for conservatives seeking contrast with Obamacare.
That's breathtaking. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Tim Scott with Mitch McConnell. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Trey Gowdy with Lindsey Graham. It's a preposterous comparison. Nobody thought that Mitt Romney was a conservative. No less a conservative's conservative than Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Rubio "a legitimate, full-throated conservative."
Listening only to Sen. Cruz, you'd think that Sen. Rubio was an establishment RINO. It isn't just that the facts don't support Sen. Cruz's opinion. It's that a conservative's conservative, Rush Limbaugh, rejects this opinion.
This points to a simple question: when will Sen. Cruz stop with the exaggerations?
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2016 3:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Feb-16 07:19 AM
Just a detail. Clinton flipped on TPP. The item you link to is clear on that while your short sentence is not clear that way. The article quotes her, "As of today . . .".
That's known as rewriting history to fit pragmatism.
A.k.a. what about tomorrow? Not lying, just subject to change.
It is understood that detail was not part of the point you were focusing upon in writing; but it is worth noting.
We all learn and evolve, but we do not tailor thoughts to polls and political circumstances. We try to make sense of political circumstances.
Last, after the last few days, one thought might be to secure our borders - in Minnesota, against Iowa; build a big wall. Those folks are unreliable when they caucus.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-16 10:26 AM
With Hillary, qualifiers are always subject to 'modification'.
Chris Christie's flailing isn't helping
Since the results in Iowa were announced, Chris Christie has been criticizing Marco Rubio with a constant barrage. Based on the latest polling , Gov. Christie's criticisms are failing. If things don't change dramatically for Gov. Christie, this is likely his last full week on the campaign trail. Apparently, he knows that, which is why he's going down throwing haymakers .
It isn't difficult to prove that Gov. Christie's strategy is flawed. When ABC News reports that "Christie is attempting to reframe the New Hampshire primary as a race between him and Rubio in a last-ditch attempt to validate his candidacy following a disappointing tenth place finish in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire polling numbers floating in the single digits", it's reporting that Gov. Christie is fighting from a position of weakness.
It's essentially saying that Gov. Christie is operating from the belief that there are 2 lanes in this race, with Donald Trump and Sen. Cruz in the 'Outsiders lane' and Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Sen. Rubio and Gov. Christie fighting to be the finalist in the 'Establishment lane'. That's flawed analysis. There are 2 lanes but they're the populist lane and the conservative lane. Right now, Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio are the only contestants in the conservative lane.
The fact that Gov. Christie is only drawing 5% of the vote according to the U Mass-Lowell poll suggests that Gov. Christie isn't resonating with New Hampshire voters. It's time for him to either change strategies or start writing his I'm-dropping-out speech. This is absurd:
'I would challenge anyone to show me the significant accomplishment that Sen. Rubio has done while he is in the United States Senate; I can't find one,' Christie said at a news conference after accepting the endorsement of the New Hampshire Speaker of the House.
Gov. Christie didn't look very hard. NRO found something significant without difficulty:
Indeed, [Sen. Rubio's] the architect of the single-most effective legislative assault against ObamaCare since its passage.
Sen. Rubio's legislation prevents the Obama administration from bailing out the health insurance industry. Most people think that's significant. If they don't, they should.
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2016 12:42 PM
No comments.
Rebecca Otto's futile lawsuit
Rebecca Otto has been threatening to file a lawsuit against a bill signed into law by Gov. Dayton. Apparently, Ms. Otto isn't too bright in terms of the law and Minnesota's Constitution. Article V of Minnesota's Constitution talks about the executive branch of state government. Specifically, it says "The executive department consists of a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, and attorney general, who shall be chosen by the electors of the state. The governor and lieutenant governor shall be chosen jointly by a single vote applying to both offices in a manner prescribed by law."
Nowhere in Article V, Section 1 does it outline the duties of the State Auditor. That's properly left up to the legislature and governor to determine through state statutes. If the court sides with Ms. Otto, it will be clear proof that the DFL has turned them into a super-legislative body.
Rep. Sarah Anderson, the chair of the House State Government Finance Committee, issued a statement, saying "Just one day after the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor's report was released on county audits which definitively stated that it is within the legislature's power to define the duties and authority of the Office of the State Auditor , State Auditor Rebecca Otto has decided to waste taxpayer dollars to file a frivolous lawsuit against the State of Minnesota and a select group of counties," said Rep. Anderson. "The legislature acted in a bipartisan manner last session to expand the options counties have for their audits to save local governments and taxpayers money, as well as expedite the audit process. This lawsuit has no merit, and I am disappointed it will come at the expense of hardworking Minnesota taxpayers."
This is important:
On February 3, 2016, the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor released their report on county audits done by the OSA. Here are several key highlights from that report:
The Minnesota State Legislature has always defined the duties and authority of the State Auditor
Jim Nobles is a serious man. When he says that the legislature "has always defined the duties of the State Auditor", it's because he's thoroughly researched the Constitution and state statutes. From a legal standpoint, Nobles' research is probably air tight. Then there's this:
- 34 percent of counties stated they were not satisfied with the cost of OSA audits
- The 2015 law change allows for price competition while still giving the OSA significant authority to continue to ensure that all audits meet certain standards and to hold counties accountable in how they spend public dollars
- 32 percent of counties said that audits done by OSA were not timely, and many expressed frustrations that the reports came too late to be useful in saving taxpayer dollars for their annual budget process
That's poison from a political standpoint. It just isn't surprising.
Originally posted Thursday, February 4, 2016, revised 18-Apr 1:30 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Feb-16 05:37 PM
Ms. Otto isn't too bright? Well what do you expect from someone not qualified to do their job? How she ever became auditor is beyond me. Oh that's right, the D behind her name.
Trump-Cruz fight helping Rubio?
Chris Stirewalt writes in this article that Donald Trump is intent on re-litigating the results of the Iowa Caucuses. Stirewalt's conclusion is that "if [Mr. Trump] doesn't stop re-litigating Iowa, he could find that his next bunch of sour grapes will be of the Concord variety."
Meanwhile, Rick Tyler has let himself get trapped inside the MSM's echochamber. He's fighting a war of words with Anderson Cooper instead of getting Sen. Cruz's message out. There's just 5 days left until the New Hampshire primary and Tyler is fighting the last state's fight. That isn't that bright.
Here's another meanwhile. Meanwhile, the Rubio campaign has to be smiling ear-to-ear. They got a boost coming out of Iowa. They've picked up the endorsements of Tim Scott, Pat Toomey, Rick Santorum and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland. Chris Christie and Jeb! are nipping at his heals but they're mired in the mid-single digits in New Hampshire. Best of all, Rush Limbaugh rejected the notion that Sen. Rubio is an establishment candidate, saying that Sen. Rubio is "a legitimate, full-throated conservative."
In the first polling after Iowa, Rubio jumped 3 points in a single night. Add that to the growing, lively crowds that Sen. Rubio is drawing. It isn't a stretch to think Sen. Rubio will maintain the Marcomentum that started in Iowa and carry it into South Carolina.
With any luck, this will be a 4 person race before we hit Nevada.
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2016 2:19 PM
No comments.
Dayton's pro-union power play
Last year, Gov. Dayton signed a bill into law that expands "the options counties have for their audits to save local governments and taxpayers money , as well as expedite the audit process." This afternoon, the AP is reporting that Gov. Dayton " supports his state auditor's lawsuit " challenging the law he just signed, saying that "the measure passed last year was an unwise breach into Otto's constitutional duties."
I can't wait to hear Gov. Dayton explain which part of the state Constitution the new law violates. There are 14 articles in Minnesota's Constitution. The articles relating to the different branches of government are Article IV, which deals with the Legislative department, Article V, which deals with the Executive department and Article VI, which deals with the Judiciary. Article V is the article that deals with the Office of State Auditor. There are 7 sections in Article V. Section 1 deals with "Executive officers." Article V, Sec. 1 states "The executive department consists of a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, and attorney general, who shall be chosen by the electors of the state. The governor and lieutenant governor shall be chosen jointly by a single vote applying to both offices in a manner prescribed by law. [Amended, November 3, 1998]"
Section 2 deals with "term of governor and lieutenant governor; qualifications". Section 3 deals with the "powers and duties of governor". Section 4 deals with the "terms and salaries of executive officers". Nowhere in Article V, Section 1 does it say how often audits have to be done, who is authorized to audit local units of government or whether the state auditor must be a CPA. Each of those specifics is defined by Minnesota state statutes.
As I said earlier, Otto's audit doesn't rise to the level of frivolous. Otto's lawsuit is likely based on the fact that she's fighting to preserve public employee union (PEU) jobs. The minute that counties and other local units of government can get their audits done faster and cheaper, the PEUs will be tossed aside like scrap metal. I don't have documentation that AFSCME or MAPE or whichever union represents the people working in the Office of State Auditor, aka OSA, is pressuring Gov. Dayton and Ms. Otto but it's the only explanation that makes sense.
Why else would Otto care whether she's doing the audit or whether a private CPA is auditing a city or school district?
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2016 4:39 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Feb-16 05:38 PM
Why else? Power.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 04-Feb-16 05:59 PM
IF - a big IF - we retake the Legislature, maybe a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the Auditor's Office could happen, like the old Treasurer's Office. I have to believe some savvy Democrats would also support this, fearing Otto is close to a Debbie Wasserman Schulz/Tarryl Clark moment.
Will McCain be Trump's demise?
A super PAC announced tonight that they're hitting Donald Trump with some hard-hitting ads featuring Sen. McCain. When I read the part about Sen. McCain, I was skeptical. After reading the Our Principles super PAC probably shift strategy "to remind voters in New Hampshire about the disgraceful things that he said about John McCain", it makes sense. Katie Packer, who was Mitt Romney's deputy campaign manager in 2012, is now "the leader of Our Principles PAC." She noted that "McCain has long and deep ties to New Hampshire" because "he's considered to be a war hero."
The great thing about Our Principles PAC is that it doesn't attack Trump. It simply uses Trump's own words against him. With Mr. Trump stagnating in New Hampshire and Sen. Rubio rising fast, this round of advertising couldn't be better timed. Saying that the race is fluid is understatement. That doesn't mean that Trump's support will crater. I'm just saying that with 40+ percent of voters either undecided or willing to change their votes, Trump's victory-in-waiting isn't a certainty. It's a likelihood but it isn't a certainty.
Packer sees Trump as wounded, saying "He was getting a lot of great publicity because of this air of inevitability and that nothing could take him down. [But] we started seeing his negatives go up considerably almost immediately after we went up in the air and started dropping mail."
That air of invincibility is disappearing. It isn't entirely gone but Trump's act is getting boring. The cable networks aren't falling over themselves to have him on like they did a month ago. TYhis isn't good news for Trump:
"We have a little bit more time in South Carolina, which is nice, so we will be able to hit with more content," Packer said. "You can expect to see some more delving into his business stuff as we move into South Carolina. Because we have more time to put more lead on the target."
South Carolina is a rough-and-tumble primary. Mr. Trump will have lots of incoming in the days before the First in the South primary. It isn't a state that's a good fit for him. (Before I get the emails, yes, I know he's leading there by a gazillion points. That will change before the New Hampshire Primary and it'll change even more after the First in the Nation Primary.)
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:18 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Feb-16 08:29 AM
Gary: Do you suppose there will be much political candidate pro and con advertising during the Super Bowl broadcast, aside from in New Hampshire, South Carolina?
Do you have any idea how the various superPAC leaderships pick outlet channels? Is talk radio advertising chosen, or FOX primetime, or what else?
I have always wondered that, I remember among the auto, beer, and retirement fund advertisements on sports broadcasts the occasional 30 sec political spiel, in the past, and it did not strike me as effective or even proper.
Is Trump broadcasting much advertisement in primary states; did he in Iowa? Is it mostly negative ads by the superPACs or candidate positive advertising?
Gary, do you know if that's been studied? It seems a slam dunk topic for some university PoliSci prof. after tenure.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-16 02:11 AM
Eric, Here's an article that should answer some of your questions about advertising.
Trump hasn't run much of a campaign. His 'campaign', if it can be called that, consists of flying into a city, holding a well-hyped rally, then getting out of Dodge quickly. His organization in Iowa was virtually nonexistent. The bad news for him is that he has less of an organization in NH & SC than he had in IA. It's a very high-profile campaign but it isn't a muscular organization by any stretch.
Comment 2 by Elise Lee at 14-Feb-16 09:50 PM
So, now you know McLame is not as revered as you thought. I'm a vet and I thank McLame for his service; I have nothing but contempt for his unapologetic RINOism. #Vets4Trump #Blacks4Trump
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Feb-16 09:59 PM
I despise McCain's RINOism, too. I'm just not willing to vote for a man questions Sen. McCain's patriotism.
Sen. Cruz diminishes himself
Reid Epstein's article on Sen. Cruz isn't a flattering portrayal of Sen. Cruz. Frankly, Sen. Cruz's statements sound whiny and jealous. When Sen. Cruz said "I understand that in the media newsrooms and in the Washington establishment circles, Marco is the chosen one", it came across as if Sen. Cruz is jealous that Sen. Rubio is getting glowing attention from reporters. At some point, Sen. Cruz should examine why he isn't getting positive coverage in the press.
It isn't a secret that Sen. Cruz loves bragging that he isn't liked by "the Washington cartel." He wears like it's a badge of honor. If Sen. Cruz wanted more positive coverage, it might help to not wear his disdain on his sleeve.
That isn't to say that Sen. Cruz should thirst for the MSM's approval. Conservatives shouldn't want that. There's a difference in degrees, though, between wanting fair coverage and wanting the MSM's approval.
Launching into bitter-sounding diatribes won't improve Sen. Cruz's image with voters. Already, Sen. Rubio is reaching out to the entire Republican Party, something that Sen. Cruz should've already started. Instead, Sen. Cruz did this:
Later, inside the packed bar while a repeat of Wednesday night's hockey games played on the flat-screen TVs, Mr. Cruz launched into another tirade against Mr. Rubio, seeking to cast doubt on the Florida senator's argument he's the most electable in the GOP field.
"The media adores him," Mr. Cruz said. "These are the same people who told us Bob Dole was the electable one, that told us John McCain was the electable one, that told us Mitt Romney was the electable one. You're always the electable one until you win the nomination, and then you cannot possibly win the election."
First, comparing Sen. Rubio to Dole, McCain and Romney is like comparing Cadillac Escalades with a Prius. While they're both vehicles, that's where the similarities end. Rush Limbaugh never said that Dole, McCain or Romney was "a legitimate, full-throated conservative."
What's worse is that Sen. Cruz's unscripted complaining diminishes him. Rather than being bitter, Sen. Cruz should work on not being as antagonistic as he's been thus far this campaign.
The reason why the press likes Sen. Rubio is because he's actually an interesting, positive person. What person, whether they're a member of the media or not, doesn't appreciate listening to calm-tempered people over bitter-sounding people?
Rather than complaining about Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz should try changing his approach towards the media. Loosen up a little. Don't be an antagonist. It might help.
Posted Friday, February 5, 2016 11:14 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Feb-16 08:20 AM
Cruz did win Iowa.
Rubio did not.
Cruz is popular among local GOP thought leaders, or was a while ago when Strib reported on an Inner Party straw poll.
Rubio seems a compromise candidate. His militarism and persona remind me of George W. Bush. Others may see other qualities I miss.
Who are Rubio's advisors? Is that something with a known answer, and if so where online might that information be found? These seem to be questions that media coverage has ignored. Should such questions be regarded as irrelevant? Are Rubio funding sources irrelevant? What then would be relevant? What the man says? Words can come easy.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Feb-16 09:19 AM
I need to understand some parameters, so Gary and/or readers help me.
If Rubio comes in third again, in New Hampshire, and then third again, in South Carolina; would those again be establishment victories? Touted as such in MSM and by party regulars?
What then, would it take to constitute a Rubio defeat?
Aside from somebody else getting the brokered convention nod when that time arrives?
Presuming the scenario, third again in New Hampshire, third in South Carolina, then endorsed as the candidate at the convention, would that leave a few disgruntled people?
Just wondering.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-16 01:57 AM
Eric, Sen. Rubio will finish 2nd in NH. Trump's margin of victory won't be as big as polling now suggests. If Sen. Rubio finishes strong in NH, he'll have gained momentum heading into the friendly territory of SC, where 2 of the state's 3 most popular Republicans, Trey Gowdy & Tim Scott, have endorsed Sen. Rubio. Also, SC has lots of Christians & lots of military bases. SC is a good fit for Sen. Rubio.
If Rubio wins SC, NV & Florida, which is a distinct possibility, he'll have a legitimate path to the nomination. Cruz has the organization & the money to compete but so does Sen. Rubio. Rubio's advantage is that he's got a better message that appeals to more parts of the GOP.
I'd put the odds of a contested convention, which is different than a brokered convention, at no better than 10%.
Bush and the right to run a terrible campaign
Some GOP senators want Jeb Bush's super PACs to stop attacking Sen. Rubio with their ads. Sen. Orrin Hatch said "I would rather have any leadership PAC support the person they were formed to support, not by running down others. I would not do that. I'd tell them to do things that support Jeb." Sen. Pat Roberts put it more succinctly, saying "I agree with Orrin. I don't think it's working for Jeb. I certainly don't think it's working for the best course of action that [Speaker] Paul Ryan [R-Wis.] talked about for the party to be successful."
Saying that Jeb's ads aren't working is understatement. Right to Rise has spent $20,000,000 attacking Sen. Rubio. Sen. Rubio is more popular now than he was when R2R started attacking Sen. Rubio. That's because the ads are terrible. Whatever the management of R2R is getting paid, it's too much. They should be sued for advertising malpractice. They're that unimaginative. They're that forgettable.
Still, it's Jeb's right to run a pathetic campaign and look out of touch with voters. If only coherent, in-touch candidates could run, Chris Christie would have to return to being a governor instead of playing a spoiled brat in New Hampshire.
Posted Saturday, February 6, 2016 10:39 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Feb-16 07:58 AM
He's running a terrible campaign spending money attacking instead of saying why he would be a better candidate. Of course people being sick and tired of the Bush's probably factors into why he is floundering so badly too. Now if progressives would just feel the same way about another Clinton.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Feb-16 08:42 AM
If he loses Florida to Rubio he's toast. So go figure.
