Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 24, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 632)

Hillary-Clinton-NH-Speech

Hillary Clinton gave a speech after the results of the New Hampshire primary were revealed, Feb. 9, 2016. (Photo: AP)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has defeated socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Nevada Democratic caucus, PPD projects. Clinton’s margin in Clark County, 52% to 47%, will push her ahead of Sanders who basically dominated the rest of the state.

Entrance polls showed Clinton holding the lead among the state’s influential union voters. PPD has learned that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is retiring this cycle, made a call to the head of the culinary union the night before the vote to give Clinton the edge.

Reid had previously said he would not endorse. Earlier returns and entrance polls gave the Clinton campaign reason for concern as it relates to Hispanic caucus-goers, but Clark County, which represents 70% of the vote in the Nevada Democratic caucus, completely changed the results of the returns.

The win gives a stumbling Clinton a boost heading into South Carolina and the rest of the South, where black voters make up at least half of the Democratic primary electorate. Sanders has all the energy and is far stronger than Mrs. Clinton among younger voters, but they will not be as influential in the coming contests.

Clinton eked out a weak win in Iowa and got trounced by roughly 20 points in New Hampshire. Taking a roughly 5-point lead in Nevada, which could very well expand, gives her the wind at her back and slows the Bern in the coming weeks.

More on Entrance Polls

Union households backed Mrs. Clinton 56% to 43%, according to entrance polls, while women backed the former secretary of state 56% to 41%. First-time caucus-goers went for Sanders 54% to 43%, and he is winning under 45 years-old by a huge 76% to 20% margin.

Only 9% of Nevada Democratic caucus-goers said terrorism is the most important issue facing the nation today. A whole 30% said they went into the caucus persuadable, with only 70% saying they were firm on their candidate.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has

SC-Republican-Primary-Debate

Donald Trump, right, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, left, get into a contentious debate with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, center, caught in the middle at the ninth Republican primary debate in Greenville, South Carolina on Feb. 13, 2016. (Photo: Getty Images)

When the South Carolina Republican primary results start coming shortly after 7:00 p.m. EST Saturday night, here is are the top counties we will watch. You should watch them, too, because they will decide the election.

Now, with that being said, we do not believe the map will look much like it did in 2008–when Sen. John McCain carried the state with a split vote–or in 2012, when former Speaker Newt Gingrich carried the Palmetto State against Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The state really needs to be broken down into three regions to understand the returns and what they mean for the overall result and margin.

(Updating to Results)

Northern Up-Country

Greenville County, Spartanburg County and Anderson County are voter-rich counties that are heavily evangelical and help to propel their share of the electorate to roughly 60%.

Eastern Coastal

Horry County, where there has been a heavy influx of retirees from the North and Midwest, shares a coastline with Charleston County and Beaufort County, where large numbers of veterans and military families drive the vote. These three counties, along with the less populated Georgetown County, make up the Eastern Coastal region of the Palmetto State, though Horry and Georgetown in the past have voted more closely in line with the Up-Country voters.

In 2012, Mitt Romney received most of his margin from Charleston County and Beaufort County on the Eastern Coastal region.

Central Palmetto

Richland County, which is located smack dab in the middle of the state, is the only other county that went for Romney when former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s won in a landslide. Worth noting, it shares little in common with the rest of the central part of the state, including the voter-rich counties of Lexington and Aiken.

Looking at the results, we can easily pinpoint the problem plaguing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, which will determine whether he can truly remain competitive going forward.

Sen. Cruz to compete or even defeat Trump in the South Carolina Republican primary, he will have to carry the lion’s share of the Northern Up-Country evangelical vote. Cruz will have to run up the margins among “courageous conservatives” in Greenville County, Spartanburg County and Anderson County in order to offset Trump’s strength in the rest of the state, where Cruz (outside of Horry County) will likely not show very well, at all.

While we hear frequently about Trump’s limited appeal, the polls show Cruz has failed to broaden his appeal beyond “very conservative” voters. He’s even in danger of finishing behind Marco Rubio, according to the most recent South Carolina Republican primary polls and the PPD aggregate average.

There’s no doubt that it will be hard for Cruz to make the case that he is the best anti-Trump candidate if he doesn’t not take second place and broaden his appeal. The friendly demographic characteristics of the Palmetto State make South Carolina a theoretical boon the Texas senator. A poor showing would definitely call into question whether he could build a broad enough coalition in the other SEC states to win the nomination.

Further, South Carolina looks a lot like the other Southern states on Super Tuesday, including Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia. There’s essentially little reason to believe Mr. Cruz is going to do well in Alabama or Georgia if he’s not doing well in the Palmetto State, and even if he wins Texas, he’s expected to do so. That said, we saw an internal poll showing him trailing Trump slightly in the Lone Star State last week.

It’s all or bust for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich has moved on to more moderate North-Eastern and Midwest states, where Trump is also leading. That said, Trump has led in South Carolina since August and mostly by double-digits. A big, New Hampshire-like win will solidify his role as the clear frontrunner and draw further support, despite the conventional wisdom. On the flip-side, a loss or small win will be easily spun by his rivals and the media and call into question his debate performance.

Consequently, that doesn’t mean he made a mistake attacking former President George W. Bush. Trump actually increased his lead among veterans post-debate, though the statewide margin appeared to have tightened over the last week. However, some voters we had spoken to said the ads by Cruz and his temperament during the debate didn’t go over well with them. We’ll find out if that causes them to change their vote or not.

Worth noting, and certainly paying attention to depending on which polls are accurate, Trump could actually end up taking all the state’s 50 delegates due to rules that birth what is referred to as “backdoor” winner-take-all states and contests. The state awards delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district and statewide vote. In other words, if Mr. Trump wins every congressional district and the statewide vote, he will take all of the state’s delegates.

When the South Carolina Republican primary results

Hillary-Clinton-Bernie-Sanders-Iowa-Caucus

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, at the at the Holiday Inn on Feb. 1, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa, while Hillary Clinton, right, speaks on the evening of the Iowa Democratic caucus, Feb. 1, 2016. (Photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images/AP)

The early Nevada Democratic caucus entrance polls are showing an extremely tight race that–at this moment–looks like it will be too close to call.

According to the entrance polls, 26% said they want someone who cares about people like them, which has typically worked in favor of Sen. Bernie Sanders, while 25% said they want someone who is honest and trustworthy, a bad data set for Hillary Clinton. An equal percentage (25%) said they want someone who has the right experience and 20% said electability is the most important quality.

Nevada Democratic caucus-goers said that the two most important issue facing the country are the economy (34%) and income inequality (29%), a clear split favorable for both candidates, followed by health care at 21%.

Meanwhile, only 9% of Nevada Democratic caucus-goers said terrorism is the most important issue facing the nation today. A whole 30% said they went into the caucus persuadable, with only 70% saying they were firm on their candidate.

However, while the race overall is too-close-to-call, there is a troublesome sign for Sanders and his supporters. Half of Democratic caucus-goers would like to see the next president continue with the same policies as President Obama, while a smaller 4 in 10 want more liberal policies. Only 9% say that they want a president with less liberal policies.

“Entrance polls are not solid or completely predictive, but if they were dead on, it is more likely than not that Mrs. Clinton ekes out a small victory,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Rich Baris. “But, again, they aren’t the end-all be-all and something very different could turn out to be the case.”

Union households backed Mrs. Clinton 56% to 43%, according to entrance polls, while women backed the former secretary of state 56% to 41%. First-time caucus-goers went for Sanders 54% to 43%, and he is winning under 45 years-old by a huge 76% to 20% margin.

The early Nevada Democratic caucus entrance polls

“The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.” — Samuel Adams
Bernie-Sanders-Boston-Rally

Socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally in Boston in October. (Photo: Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

Once again I am straying away from my traditional role of numbers-cruncher at People’s Pundit Daily to do what the media won’t. As journalists, we have a duty to force Bernie Sanders to explain to the American people why he supports a murderous, failed statist system of government.

I will continue to regurgitate the truth over-and-over whether it ultimately proves effective or not.

The truth is that socialism not only never works–an intellectual argument we often hear from the Right–but a lot of people have died in the pursuit of fulfilling it’s impossible “utopian schemes,” as Samuel Adams characterized them.

It’s time we tell their story, put the human argument before the intellectual one. Socialism and other leftwing governments killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century, alone. They continue to do so in North Korea, Latin America and other regions to this very day.

It’s called democide.

Democide, as defined by the seminal work of R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, is “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder; and although the figures are dynamic, six times as many people died as a result of democide during the 20th century than in all that century’s wars combined.”

Let’s put this in context and slap a face on it.

In 1988, when Bernie Sanders decided to honeymoon with his wife Jan in the Soviet city of Yaroslavl, located 160 miles northeast of Moscow, an estimated 20 million (on the low end) to 70 million (on the high end) had died in forced labor camps–Gulags. In fact, Gulags continued to operate outside of agency sanction at the very same time that then-Mayor Sanders was enjoying his honeymoon and forming a city alliance between his town of Burlington and Yaroslavl.

“Of all religions, secular and otherwise,” Rummel wrote, leftwing statism (particularly Marxism) is “by far the bloodiest–bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide.”

Need more?

In pursuit of their utopian schemes, Rummel wrote in an op-ed for World Net Daily, leftwing statists frame their cause as “a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality–and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, ‘wreckers’, intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.”

Whatever. They weren’t paying their “fair share,” right?

In total, during the era of “progress” in political thought, which spawned a dangerous and un-American collective trust in government, 262 million human beings became a distant memory to a loved one, a statistic for those of us who study the horrific realities of democide; 262 million precious, human lives lost along with all of their god-given potential.

“No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power,” Alan Charles Kors wrote in The Atlas Society in 2003. “It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them.”

Why are so many Americans ignorant to the basic fundamental principles and truths regarding the nature of human beings, politics and government?

My six year-old son this week relayed to me his history lesson on Tuesday, during which the teachers called “Barack Obama the greatest president in history” and declared how “Bernie Sanders is awesome!” They also proceeded to tell him that Mr. Obama holds the same views on government and society as “Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King Jr.,” which of course, is totally false.

But my son, who is not your average six-year-old boy (he’d rather watch the history channel with Dad than Spongebob), knew it was nonsense and quickly pointed out that “President Lincoln, Mr. Douglas and Mr. King were Republicans.”

He then reported the “history” lesson to me. It didn’t go over well.

But his misguided teachers are right about one thing. In reality, Sanders is like Obama. You can call him a statist, a corporatist, or even–as economists and PPD columnists Dan Mitchell and Tom Sowell both correctly argued–a fascist.

“A genuine socialist believes in government ownership of the means of production,” Mitchell said. “In other words, nationalized factories, government-run businesses, and collective farms. If Sanders believes in these policies, he’s remarkably reluctant to share his perspective.”

Well, if I believed in a mass-murdering immoral system of government, I probably would be, too. But my job–and the job of the rest of the media–is to force him to share and, if we are moral and in favor of truth, to challenge it. It is a system of government that rises to power on popular support driven by hate, envy, weakness and other forms of victimization.

It’s time to force Bernie Sanders to address the real victimhood felt by millions around the world who fell for utopian schemes and false promises of “political revolution.”

[mybooktable book=”our-virtuous-republic-forgotten-clause-american-social-contract” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

When will the media force socialist Bernie

Catherine-Mann-OECD

The new chief economist for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Catherine Mann, talks while presenting the advance G-20 OECD Economic Outlook on Nov. 6, at the OECD headquarters in Paris. (Photo: AFP)

I don’t know whether Keynesian economics is best described as a perpetual motion machine or a Freddy Krueger movie (or perhaps even the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz), but it’s safe to say I’ll be fighting this pernicious theory until my last breath.

That’s because evidence doesn’t seem to have any impact on the debate.

It doesn’t matter that Keynesian spending binges didn’t work for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s. Or for Japan in the 1990s. Or for Bush or Obama in recent years.

What does matter, by contrast, is that politicians instinctively like Keynesianism because it tells them their vice is a virtue. Instead of being a bunch of hacks that can’t resist overspending in their quest to buy votes, Keynesian theory tells them that they are “compassionate” souls simply trying to “stimulate” the economy.

And to make matters worse, there are plenty of economists (many of whom are on the government teat) who act as enablers, telling politicians that bigger government somehow can jump-start growth.

For instance, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has just issued recommendations for ways to boost a sluggish global economy. Given that the organization’s lavish budget comes from its member governments, you won’t be surprised that it is licking the hand that feeds it and recommending that politicians should get to spend more money.

A stronger collective fiscal policy response is needed to support growth… Governments in many countries are currently able to borrow for long periods at very low interest rates, which in effect increases fiscal space. Many countries have room for fiscal expansion to strengthen demand. …Investment spending has a high-multiplier, while quality infrastructure projects would help to support future growth.

If the OECD is right, there are supposedly a lot of “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs that would be wise investments, so why not borrow lots of money in today’s low-interest rate environment, finance a bunch of new spending, and magically boost growth at the same time?

Needless to say, I’m very skeptical about the federal government having an infrastructure party. We would get a bunch of bridges to nowhere, lots of fat contracts to line the pockets of unions, some mass transit boondoggles, and more horror stories about cost overruns.

Oh, and don’t forget that the politicians would decide that all sorts of additional categories of spending count as “investment,” so money also would get squandered in other areas as well.

But let’s set that aside and deal with the underlying economic issue of so-called stimulus.

Politicians in America and elsewhere engaged in several years of Keynesian spending when the downturn began in 2008. That didn’t work. In more recent years, they’ve been engaging in lots of Keynesian monetary policy, and that hasn’t been working either.

Now they want to return to the option of more deficit spending.

Why should we believe that a policy that has repeatedly failed in the past somehow will work this time?

If you ask the OECD bureaucrats, they say it will work because they have a model that’s programmed to say more government spending is good for growth.

I’m not joking. Just like the Congressional Budget Office, the OECD uses a model that automatically assumes that more spending will lead to more growth. So you plug in a number for some “stimulus” outlays and the model mechanically cranks out data showing better performance.

Here’s what the OECD is claiming.

Gee, if this is accurate, why don’t we have governments confiscate all the money in the economy, spend it on so-called public investment, and then we can all be rich!

Actually, I shouldn’t joke. Some Keynesian reader might take the idea and run with it.

But now you can understand why I rank the OECD as the worst international bureaucracy.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Harper Lee

Harper Lee, author of “To Kill a Mockingbird” dead at age 89.

Harper Lee, the author of the classic American novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” has died at age 89, PPD confirms.

Lee, who won the 1961 Pulitzer Prize for fiction for “Mockingbird,” published just two novels in her lifetime. She released “Go Set a Watchman” in July 2015, more than 50 years after “To Kill a Mockingbird” hit bookshelves.

“Mockingbird,” which went on to become an American literature classic and sell more than 30 million copies in 18 languages, was voted Best Novel of the Century in a Library Journal poll in 1999. In 2006, British librarians ranked it ahead of the Bible as one book “every adult should read before they die.”

Harper Lee was actually born Nelle Harper Lee in Monroeville, Alabama on April 28, 1926. With the exception of receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House in 2007, she did her best to stay out of the public eye in her later years.

Harper Lee, the author of the classic

Trump-Rubio-Cruz-SC-GOP-Debate-Getty

Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz (L) and Marco Rubio (R) applaud as fellow candidate Donald Trump is introduced during the CBS News Republican Presidential Debate in Greenville, South Carolina, Feb. 13, 2016. (Photo: Jim Watson/Getty Images)

Donald J. Trump maintains a commanding lead while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio appears to pass Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the final South Carolina primary polls. With all but one poll taken within the past four days showing Trump with a double-digit lead (PPD Average: Trump +14.8), the fight in the Palmetto State appears to be for second place.

UPDATE: A new Augusta Chronicle Opinion Savvy Poll shows Rubio way ahead of Cruz and right on Trump’s heels: Trump: 27%; Rubio: 24%; Cruz: 19%. Caveat: It does appear to look like a bit of an outlier, but it also could be indicative of last minute momentum. If Cruz finishes behind Rubio, it’s over.

Cruz still holds a slight 18.1% to 17.1% lead over Rubio on the PPD aggregate average of South Carolina primary polls on the Republican side, but the Florida senator has now led the Texas senator in 3 of the 4 most recent surveys. The most recent was conducted by American Research Group (PPD Pollster Scorecard Rating: C-) from 2/17 to 2/18, which shows Rubio surging ahead of Cruz at just 13% with 22% of the vote.

Earlier this week, Rubio won the coveted endorsement of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a popular two-term governor. Haley, who many believed to have taken a cheap shot at the Republican frontrunner during the GOP rebuttal to President Obama’s final State of the Union address, backed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012.

Romney ultimately went on to lose to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, but Gov. Haley is far more popular in her second term than she was in her first term. Rubio also has the backing of popular Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

However, ARG has consistently found stronger support in South Carolina for Rubio juxtaposed with other polls, one of which was conducted by Emerson College (PPD Pollster Scorecard Rating: C+). Rubio barely edged out Cruz by 1-point, 19% to 18%, respectively. But that clearly represents a shift in the race, though it’s unclear whether it is enough to carry Rubio over the finish line in second place.

Donald Trump, as of Tuesday, had a 76% chance of winning the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday. Now, with little more than 24 hours before voting ends, Trump’s chances have increased to 84%. Rubio has an 8% chance of winning, while Cruz has a 6% chance, according to the PPD Election Projection Model.

The primary problem for the Texas senator is that the very “courageous conservatives” he continues to try to consolidate are voting for Donald J. Trump.

Donald Trump maintains a commanding lead while

consumer-price-index-tv

(Photo: REUTERS)

The Labor Department said on Friday the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was unchanged in January on a seasonally adjusted basis, missing views. U.S. consumer prices were expected to decline by 0.1%, though the CPI rose over the past year at the fastest pace since October 2014.

Excluding the volatile food and energy components, so-called core prices rose 0.3% were 0.3% higher, compared to expectations for a 0.2% gain and the biggest monthly gain since August 2011.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which gauges what Americans pay for goods and services, was flat after declining 0.1% the prior month, according to the Labor Department.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected overall prices to fall 0.1% and core prices to rise 0.2%. Yet, almost all of the increases in the CPI resulted from increased medical cost and housing cost.

The Labor Department said on Friday the

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks during a news conference following party policy lunch meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks during a news conference following party policy lunch meeting at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday May 13, 2015. (Photo: Reuters/Carlos Barria)

The sad, very sad, sudden death of the Supreme Court’s leading defender of the Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia, has left a gaping hole that President Obama’s quickly vowed to fill – and that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has just as quickly vowed to protect.

But note to conservatives: Hold the cheer. McConnell’s political promises mean little more than one thing – we’re doomed.

Obama said, within hours of learning of Scalia’s death: “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

McConnell responded: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

And the smart, savvy political conservative ought to conclude: Obama’s going to nominate a far-lefty, McConnell’s going to put on a heck of a show of a fight – key word, show – and in the end, the White House will prevail. How do we know these truths to be self-evident?

Look at McConnell’s past.

In August 2013, then-Senate Minority Leader McConnell backed off a challenge to implement Obamacare, despite the fact a defunding effort from the likes of Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee was gathering steam on Capitol Hill. The Senate Conservative Fund released a statement that read, in part: “Mitch McConnell is telling people he opposes Obamacare while he refuses to oppose its funding.”

In September 2013, Breitbart News, citing a source, reported McConnell and fellow senator, John Cornyn, were “whipping senators to shut down debate” on a House measure to defund Obamacare, “unbelievably … leading the fight to fully fund” the health reform.

In February 2015, McConnell announced support for a so-called “clean” Department of Homeland Security bill that capitulated to Democratic demands while stripping Republicans of their means of fighting Obama’s amnesty plans, leading one unhappy Republican senator to wryly comment: What “a total victory for the Obama position.”

In July 2015, McConnell sparked Senate and American outrage by allowing a vote on a highway bill that fully funded the highly contested Export-Import Bank, while blocking amendments to defund Planned Parenthood, at a time when the health clinic was under fire for videos that appeared to tie it to a gruesome baby body parts-selling scheme.

Another amendment he blocked at the same time? One called “Kate’s Law,” in memory of Kate Steinle, the woman who was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant with a prior felony record while she walked in broad daylight in San Francisco. The law would have imposed a five-year prison sentence on any illegal who was convicted of a violent crime after already being deported and was widely seen as a common sense measure.

Not to McConnell, apparently, who used a technique called “filling the tree” perfected by former Majority Leader Harry Reid to block the amendments from reaching the floor for vote.

“This strategy involves filling time allotted to amendments with insignificant procedural measures,” RestoreAmericanGlory.com reported. “It may not be particularly democratic, but it works.”

And who can forget McConnell’s absolute and ongoing contempt for the tea party?

In March 2014, was quoted as bragging how Republicans were “going to crush them everywhere” in upcoming elections. In December 2015, he cautioned voters against voting for primary candidates who couldn’t win in the general election, naming several tea party politicos who failed in their own recent bids.

Room doesn’t permit to run down all the budget deals and pacts McConnell’s made through the years that bend to Democratic will but toss Republicans beneath the bus.

Establishment at all costs – concession by any means. That’s McConnell’s driving political mantra. And he’s the one in charge of the Senate, which will soon be tasked to provide, in line with Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, “advice and consent” to Obama on Scalia’s replacement?

God help us. Without, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, or someone else talked about as Scalia’s replacement of similar leftist slant, will be confirmed to the court within the next couple months.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

If Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is conservatives'

Ted-Cruz-SC

MYRTLE BEACH, SC – JANUARY 16: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz. (Photo: Getty)

As a supporter of Ted Cruz I have had many supporters of other candidates tell me that he would not be electable in the general election. I disagree.

Yes, Cruz is caricatured in social media and elsewhere as unlikable and as one who doesn’t play well with others. He’s too extreme and we need someone who can draw independents to win, and, once elected, unite us in bipartisan action. He just isn’t as handsome as Rubio, they say.

Yet I have seen polls showing that Cruz is the most well-liked candidate among Republican voters, so you can’t always rely on anecdotal evidence — or expert commentary. The reason is that we all have a tendency to project our own feelings on to the general population.

How could Cruz get legislation through Congress if so many of his Senate colleagues don’t like him now, ask the critics. We can’t afford any more gridlock.

Well, one reason Cruz is unpopular among many of his colleagues is that he honored his campaign promises to stand up to President Obama and resist his wasteful, unreasonable budgets. Establishment members of Congress and pundits have preemptively declared defeat before each budget discussion. Their cookie-cutter analysis concluded that no matter how outrageous Obama’s demands, Republicans would lose the PR battle because they are perceived as the party of less government.

Plus, critics maintained, the Republicans never had enough votes to filibuster or override a veto, so any strong resistance was foolish and would just make them look worse to the people and cause them to lose the next election. “Just wait until we regain power; then we’ll be tough.”

When Cruz, among very few others, listened to his constituents instead of the defeatists in his own party and proceeded to fight, he was castigated as a grandstander and manipulator who was placing himself above the party and the nation. I remember arguing with many of these people at the time that it is very important that Republicans take strong stands against Obama.

You see, I didn’t believe Cruz was quixotic. I didn’t view these budget battles solely in the short term. Rather, I had the long view in mind. I think there is some chance we even could have prevailed if Republicans had unanimously united in opposition to Obama’s reckless budget submissions, but I was certain that if we didn’t fiercely resist him and publicly make our case in the process, we would face serious consequences with the electorate that had twice resoundingly rejected Obama’s agenda in the off-year congressional elections.

I have said before that the establishment gave birth to Donald Trump by surrendering to Obama too quickly and not vigorously opposing him. Indeed, I believe the Republicans’ failure to join Cruz in these budget battles was a contributing factor. Their calculus about that always-looming next election should now be seen as folly. The grass roots simply didn’t believe the GOP was fighting for them, and now we are all paying for it.

The grass roots believed that even conservative Republicans were too feckless or ineffective to oppose Obama’s agenda, and many are overreacting and choosing Trump. They don’t seem too concerned about whether he is a reliably consistent conservative, or about his record of supporting many liberal causes.

How ironic that Ted Cruz is being punished by people because few of his colleagues would stand with him against the establishment. He has, with his actions, demonstrated himself to be a far sharper thorn in the establishment’s side than Trump and his rhetoric. Cruz is the guy that stood up to the establishment from the inside and proved he could not be pressured by his peers to go along to get along. Isn’t that what the grass roots have been craving all these years?

It’s also ironic that Trump is reputed to be the person who stands up to the establishment and get things done. But he is the one who has boasted in this campaign about his willingness to work with the establishment.

Ted Cruz is remarkably brilliant and has proved more than any politician in modern times that he will do in office precisely what he promises to do in the campaign. This isn’t expedient rhetoric; it’s his proven track record.

Concerning electability, Cruz, in a general election campaign, would articulate conservatism with a flair we haven’t seen in a presidential campaign since Ronald Reagan. I have always believed that if conservative ideas are clearly and unapologetically communicated they will energize the base and attract millions of others. These are positive, optimistic, and contagious ideas that for decades haven’t been presented clearly, without dilution, and with utterly authentic conviction.

Ted Cruz believes he can reignite the old Reagan coalition and lead us to victory. I firmly believe it too. And if he wins with such an unambiguous message, he will have the clearest of mandates to pursue his agenda with a Congress elected along with him.

Republicans and conservatives must not overreact and throw the hay out with the pitchforks, when we can have the real deal with Ted Cruz, who will steer America back on the right course, first reversing Obama’s destructive agenda and then implementing conservative principles to restore America’s glory.

This really isn’t that complicated. Cruz is the conservative candidate conservatives have longed for, and it would be tragic if we squander what could be our last opportunity.
[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

As a supporter of Ted Cruz I

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial