Top Republican Slams Ted Cruz: 'Show A Little Self-Restraint'

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Beaudreaux said:

Wow... just... wow.

I'll let your statements just lie there and speak for themselves.

Scary... just damn scary... what a nightmarish strategy.

I just pray that more thoughtful and intelligent members of my party prevail. We have many, no most, of the same goals. Some of us however know that the way to deactivate a nuclear weapon is not to set if off. You can get the same result by blowing it up (we don't have to worry anymore about the bomb going off) but the results of our actions are extremely different. I prefer to defuse the problem and dispose of it safely, rather than destroying everything that I'm trying to save in the process.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Can ya see? See just where your feeble type ideas has gotten us? Its damn foolishness to keep getting slapped and then wonder.

Huh, why?

SLAPPPP!!!

Huh?

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Hatuey said:

By proving your claim to be false and meeting every attempt to widen your goal posts? Hahaha. I'm not trying to. Tell us, what was polling like 2 months before the election was supposed to take place? Would Dewhurst have won the primary with his 35%?

Dewhurst, in the original primary...that, of course, didn't happen thanks to Obama...would have either outright won or would have won the run off. Cruz would have ultimately lost.

Which it was. Can you show he didn't win a safe Republican seat? Start by showing us the last time the seat has been Democrat.

Again, I dismiss that line of talk because it is irrelevant. You taking it up again doesn't make it any more significant.

It's a repetition of the same claim which has already been proven to be false.

Click to expand...

You have proved nothing to be false. You've only made wild claims based on some polls...and, of course, taken up again with your irrelevant "safe seat" stuff.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Michael66 said:

Baggers! Defending the indefensible. If they hadn't aligned themselves with the racist pigs in their midst then the charge of racism wouldn't stick. It does! Your only problem is that you can't get over the fact that your president is black and blacks with power are uppity to baggers.

Don't worry, you'll all get over it when you disintegrate into various extremist factions when Obama's term is over. You won't have a cause anymore.

Click to expand...

You do know, the actual baggers are more on your side there, old chum. No offense intended if you happen to be one. And yanno, views of racism similar to the ones here are kinda, well, kinda almost racist styled views, aren't they? Good luck with all that good spirit and positivity you got going there, Mike.

Not often said, but... You really can make too many friends, yanno... :lamo

Ciao.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Mycroft said:

You have proved nothing to be false.

Click to expand...

Here is the part of your post I proved to the be false:

Obama's lawsuit made it possible for Cruz to get a run-off.

Dewhurst, in the original primary

Click to expand...

As Dewhurts held no 50% majority even 4 months BEFORE the election was to take place, that is proven to be false.

Again, I dismiss that line of talk because it is irrelevant. You taking it up again doesn't make it any more significant. You've only made wild claims based on some polls...and, of course, taken up again with your irrelevant "safe seat" stuff.

Click to expand...

This is the 4th time you post the claim that easily debunked by your own op-ed. Polling shows that at no point did Dewhurst have the majority required in order to avoid a run-off. You asked for polls BEFORE March 6th, and they all show the same thing, Cruz and Dewhurst would have had a runoff regardless. Which directly contradicts your claim that it was Obama's lawsuit and extension of the race that gave Cruz the possibility for a run-off. If the primary had been held on March 6th, there would have still been a runoff election between Dewhurst and Cruz. :shrug:

I asked you a simple post and you seem to avoid it like the plague: Was Dewhurst's 38% and 36% (February '12 & January '12) enough to win the Republican primary without a runoff?

If it is, then there is no argument here and you win. If it isn't, then you must conceded there still would have been a runoff and Obama's lawsuit had zero effect of the outcome of the race. However, here is your article's claim:

If the vote had occurred two and a half months earlier, as originally scheduled, Dewhurst would have bested the 50 percent threshold and became the Republican nominee.

Click to expand...

Again, if the vote had occurred two months earlier, where Dewhurst was actually polling lower, there would have still be a runoff making this:

Dewhurst would have bested the 50 percent threshold and became the Republican nominee.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes....gave-american-people-sen-ted-c/#ixzz2iP25t1L8
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Click to expand...

Entirely false.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Hatuey said:

Here is the part of your post I proved to the be false:

Obama's lawsuit made it possible for Cruz to get a run-off.



As Dewhurts held no 50% majority even 4 months BEFORE the election was to take place, that is proven to be false.



This is the 4th time you post the claim that easily debunked by your own op-ed. Polling shows that at no point did Dewhurst have the majority required in order to avoid a run-off. You asked for polls BEFORE March 6th, and they all show the same thing, Cruz and Dewhurst would have had a runoff regardless. Which directly contradicts your claim that it was Obama's lawsuit and extension of the race that gain Cruz the necessary votes to win. If the primary had been held on March 6th, there would have still been a runoff election between Dewhurst and Cruz. :shrug:

I asked you a simple post and you seem to avoid it like the plague: Was Dewhurst's 38% (February '12) enough to win the Republican primary without a runoff?

If it is, then there is no argument here and you win. If it isn't, then you must conceded there still would have been a runoff and Obama's lawsuit had zero effect of the outcome of the race.

Click to expand...

You seem hung up on run offs...as if you think Cruz had a chance to win a run off in March. He didn't. But he DID have a chance to win a run off 3 months later...which he did. The only reason his run off was 3 months later was because of Obama. Simple logic tells one that Obama made it possible for Cruz to win.

That's what happens when you use simple logic instead of making assertions based on polls. Spin doesn't work when faced with logic.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Michael66 said:

I'm not suggesting they will fight Jeb if he runs, I'm suggesting that they are not likely to fight him 'before' he runs. The fight is going to be on long before it's time for an election.

He's clearly made his choice to take on the challenge by trashing Cruz!

Click to expand...

I'd love to see the two debate. I'd bet Cruz would crush Bush within the first 15 minutes. I think what scares liberals the most is that Cruz isn't scared of anyone, and is willing to take on the biggest wheels from either party. He isn't there for the party, he's there for his constituents.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Mycroft said:

shrug...

but that's not as funny as Obama helping Cruz win.

Click to expand...

LOL The Republican machine helping Cruz win is even funnier. Not to mention all the T's that lost seats for the GOP.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Mycroft said:

You seem hung up on run offs.

Click to expand...

Ah, moving the goalposts again because the run-offs which you insisted were the result of Obama's lawsuit would have happened REGARDLESS of whether the primary had been held in May or January. Lol, you've gotten so ridiculously obliterated in this thread it's funny.

Here are your claims:

Dewhurst would have won the primary if it hadn't been for Obama's lawsuit.

False: Dewhurst did not have the necessary 50% to win the primary at any point before March 6th. Why do I say before? Because you asked for polls which showed the %s before the 6th. They support my claims. Not yours. However, you ignored that and moved to something else. Par for the course.

Ted Cruz wouldn't have been Senator if it hadn't been for Obama's lawsuit.

False: Ted Cruz running unopposed would have give the greatest possibility of there being a Cruz victory as the state is safely held by Republicans. However, judging by Texas' love affair with Tea Partiers (14/36 districts being held by self declared Tea Party allies), Ted Cruz was perfectly positioned for a win or at the very least have a strong show. Again, facts MyCroft, are not on your side. Ted Cruz won a Republican senator's seat, in a state that heavily supports the Tea Party. Trying to state that Obama's lawsuit somehow made it possible for him to get elected is not only dishonest but willfully ignorant of facts. Actually, it's delusions of grandeur in the name of partisanship. :shrug:

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

American said:

I'd love to see the two debate. I'd bet Cruz would crush Bush within the first 15 minutes. I think what scares liberals the most is that Cruz isn't scared of anyone, and is willing to take on the biggest wheels from either party. He isn't there for the party, he's there for his constituents.

Click to expand...

Why is it considered sensible by populists to do this? Indeed, many of us party-minded folk are scared of it, but that's not because it somehow is the right way to do things and we thus stand opposed to it. It's because we party and authority-minded folk think that this is an awfully stupid means of behaving in politics. Rabble rousing in American politics is fantastic for theater, but rarely useful otherwise. Cruz is getting hammered by his own party for his antics, and rightly so. I'll take the crusty Washington insider any day.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

iguanaman said:

LOL The Republican machine helping Cruz win is even funnier. Not to mention all the T's that lost seats for the GOP.

Click to expand...

The Republican machine didn't want and didn't help Cruz win. They wanted Dewhurst.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Hatuey said:

Ah, moving the goalposts again because the run-offs which you insisted were the result of Obama's lawsuit would have happened REGARDLESS of whether the primary had been held in May or January. Lol, you've gotten so ridiculously obliterated in this thread it's funny.

Here are your claims:

Dewhurst would have won the primary if it hadn't been for Obama's lawsuit.

False: Dewhurst did not have the necessary 50% to win the primary at any point before March 6th. Why do I say before? Because you asked for polls which showed the %s before the 6th. They support my claims. Not yours. However, you ignored that and moved to something else. Par for the course.

Ted Cruz wouldn't have been Senator if it hadn't been for Obama's lawsuit.

False: Ted Cruz running unopposed would have give the greatest possibility of there being a Cruz victory as the state is safely held by Republicans. However, judging by Texas' love affair with Tea Partiers (14/36 districts being held by self declared Tea Party allies), Ted Cruz was perfectly positioned for a win or at the very least have a strong show. Again, facts MyCroft, are not on your side. Ted Cruz won a Republican senator's seat, in a state that heavily supports the Tea Party. Trying to state that Obama's lawsuit somehow made it possible for him to get elected is not only dishonest but willfully ignorant of facts. Actually, it's delusions of grandeur in the name of partisanship. :shrug:

Click to expand...

You are the one hung up on run offs.

My claims have been simple:

1. If the primary had happened as originally scheduled, Dewhurst would be the Senator.

2. Since the primary happened months later, Cruz won.

3. Obama's actions caused the primary date to shift, causing Cruz to win.

Now...you should:

1. Show how Dewhurst would have lost if the primary had happened on schedule.

2. Show how Dewhurst could have won the primary after the date shifted.

3. Show how Obama's actions had nothing to do with the date shifting.

If you can't do all of those...or any of those, for that matter...then you have proved nothing.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Mycroft said:

You are the one hung up on run offs.

My claims have been simple:

1. If the primary had happened as originally scheduled, Dewhurst would be the Senator.

Click to expand...

This is impossible as Dewhurst did not have the 50% required. :shrug:

2. Since the primary happened months later, Cruz won.

Click to expand...

Lol, Cruz won the run-off. You're getting your false claims mixed up again.

3. Obama's actions caused the primary date to shift, causing Cruz to win.

Click to expand...

Ahahahaha, as Cruz didn't win a primary but a run-off, which would have happened anyways, you're simply wrong.

Now...you should:

1. Show how Dewhurst would have lost if the primary had happened on schedule.

Click to expand...

I don't need to. I just have to show Dewhurst wasn't going to win the primary. Which is not the same as losing the primary. Dewhurst won the primary and still lost the run-off. The run-off part would have happened anyways, regardless of how often you state it wouldn't. How do I know? Polls. I'm the only one here who has consistently used polling to back up his assertion.

2. Show how Dewhurst could have won the primary after the date shifted.

3. Show how Obama's actions had nothing to do with the date shifting.

If you can't do all of those...or any of those, for that matter...then you have proved nothing.

Click to expand...

Lol, I don't have to prove negatives my lying friend. That's a fallacy. You claimed Dewhurst would have won the primary in the pre-March 6th period. Polling of the pre-March 6th period shows that at the very least there would have a run-off regardless. Which directly contradicts your statement.

Again: How is it possible Dewhurst could win primary with 36%-38% if it takes 50% to actually declare a winner?

Still can't answer such a simple question can you? Even if the primary had been held as far back as December, Dewhurst still did not have the numbers. Making the claim he would have won a primary damn near impossible in reality world.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

I agree with Bush as far as his strategy regarding Obamacare. The Republicans should have insisted the law apply to everyone equally, no exceptions, instead of trying to delay implementation. Then watch liberals backpedal as their health care premiums double or even triple, and deductibles do the same over then next year.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

I find it interesting not only that few posters seem to be discussing the merits of what former Governor Jeb Bush said but Conservative Republicans in particular seem to be embracing Ted Cruz at their own peril. That I find astonishing! And you do so for one simple reason: Because of the anti-Obama narrative he supports never mind that his actions of late have caused the Republican Party poll numbers to plunge AND the that respected members of the party now view Cruz as "extreme". :shock:

It's as if everything you guys once disliked about then Senator Obama you'll completely ignore in a Conservative Republican even if a lot about Cruz mirrors the up-start-Senator Obama.

Dual-citizen at best, non-natural born citizen at worse.

Hold "extreme" views and will take "extreme" positions even if it mean taking the entire country down with him.

Young Senator who somehow amassed a large voice in DC. (Has anyone bothered to ask how is it that a JUNIOR Senator somehow became so influential?)

The only thing Ted Cruz stands for is anything anti-Obama, and that seems to be okay with most Conservative-Republicans who flock to this guy like a moth to a flame. I'd like to know what does he really stand for other than anti-Obama rants and rhetorical talking points? But speaking directly to Jeb Bush's comments, he is doing the party a lot of damage because he seems to act of his own accord without giving much though as to the consequences of his actions. It's no wonder he and Sarah Palin are paired together; they're both rouge Republicans.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Hatuey said:

This is impossible as Dewhurst did not have the 50% required. :shrug:



Lol, Cruz won the run-off. You're getting your false claims mixed up again.



Ahahahaha, as Cruz didn't win a primary but a run-off, which would have happened anyways, you're simply wrong.



I don't need to. I just have to show Dewhurst wasn't going to win the primary. Which is not the same as losing the primary. Dewhurst won the primary and still lost the run-off. The run-off part would have happened anyways, regardless of how often you state it wouldn't. How do I know? Polls. I'm the only one here who has consistently used polling to back up his assertion.



Lol, I don't have to prove negatives my lying friend. That's a fallacy. You claimed Dewhurst would have won the primary in the pre-March 6th period. Polling of the pre-March 6th period shows that at the very least there would have a run-off regardless. Which directly contradicts your statement.

Again: How is it possible Dewhurst could win primary with 36%-38% if it takes 50% to actually declare a winner?

Still can't answer such a simple question can you? Even if the primary had been held as far back as December, Dewhurst still did not have the numbers. Making the claim he would have won a primary damn near impossible in reality world.

Click to expand...

sigh...

As long as you are hung up on run offs, there is no hope for you...as well as your contention that Dewhurst could never have won the original primary. (btw, the primary and the resulting run off...if necessary...are part of the same election process)

Since you aren't going to use logic and reason, I'm done with you.

You are dismissed.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Beaudreaux said:

Really? Being a conservative that wants the deficit and debt reduced, and the budget balanced, and the Tenth Amendment enforced, and a fair, truly fair tax code, makes them act like Democrats?

Click to expand...

You could never guess that with the way they go about it.

What makes us different than Cruz and the Democrats you speak of, is that we understand that we aren't the end all know all of everything.

Click to expand...

Really, that's it? You forgot the go along-to-get-along philosophy and not having the courage to challenge the establishment.

Read my reply above. You just accused Republicans that don't agree with your tactics as acting like Democrats therefore they're RINO's, yet here above, you defend the Tea Party (Cruz and the like) for acting like and using the same tactics as Democrats by trying to force your agenda down the throats of the whole country. So which is it? We're the RINO's? Or are you???

Click to expand...

That's just incoherent. Cruz, acting like a democrat, stood up for 21 hours to rally against funding the worst piece of legislation in memory to be foisted upon the American people???

No, the coordinated strategy is to use the system that exists. Which would have worked, had ObamaCare not been the first target of the Tea Party. If the first target would have been the debt, deficit and budget, the Democrats would have been on the defensive, and would have had to negotiate. As it was, the Tea Party gave the Democrats every weapon they needed to go on the offensive and make Cruz look like an outlying extremist. He's his own worst enemy, and doing more harm to the country than the Democrats unsustainable debt and deficits, by killing the relevance of the Republican Party in the national debate.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's let Obamacare slide for a while, no reason to go after it now. Should be much easier to get rid of once it's nice and entrenched.

Cruz and Palin are working for Cruz and Palin. Not for the country.

Click to expand...

Got to be one of the most uniformed statements I've seen here.

Please explain to me, how Ted Cruz can win a National Election? Please... I would love to hear your plan as to how this could ever happen.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we need him to be more like Romney and McCain, they did so well, and less of a conservative, you know, like Reagan. Hmmm... how did Reagan, the conservative, like Cruz is, do? No, let's follow that moderate republican strategy, like Carl Rove pushes, push out more losers. "Hey, vote for me, I have an 'R' by my name, but I'm a lot like a democrat!" That's been working so well!

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Summerwind said:

Sounds like you're encouraging him (and all pols) to be slimier. Say what you need to in order to populate government, then do whatever you want when you get there.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't agree with his tactics. I also don't agree with some of his goals. I do agree that the tax code needs to be changed, but I disagree with his view of what it should be. I agree that the debt is out of control and must be stopped and reversed in its direction. I also agree that the deficit should not exist, at all, and that we should live within our means by freezing spending in some areas, cutting spending in other areas and implementing tax reform to increase revenues through removal of many tax loopholes.

A politician can be for all (well at least most) of the things he states he's for, and not act like he's the savior of the country, and willing to destroy the country to save it (Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind). He's a little too Old Testament for me.

Summerwind said:

I don't like Cruz, don't like his politics at all, or his maneuverings, but I do give him credit for voicing opinion clearly, he should have done what he could without encouraging the shut down, but other than going too far, he voted the way he said he would, so if nothing else at this point, I'll give him credit for not being two faced. Of course if he gets elected President, he'll do whatever MIC, and big business tell him to do, just like every other president before (with rare exceptions, none recently).

Click to expand...

I too respect a person that tells the truth. But I'm not sure he's telling the truth about his motives. He may in fact believe everything he's saying, but he reminds me of the TV preacher that denounces sin and has a mistress on the side. I don't trust him... at least I don't trust him to be the standard bearer for financial reform in this country. I get the feeling that his financial interest is solely his own campaign funds, and not what's best for the country, or the Republican Party of which he claims to be a member.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Fiddytree said:

Why is it considered sensible by populists to do this? Indeed, many of us party-minded folk are scared of it, but that's not because it somehow is the right way to do things and we thus stand opposed to it. It's because we party and authority-minded folk think that this is an awfully stupid means of behaving in politics. Rabble rousing in American politics is fantastic for theater, but rarely useful otherwise. Cruz is getting hammered by his own party for his antics, and rightly so. I'll take the crusty Washington insider any day.

Click to expand...

Reid has turned the Senate into a useless chamber. He wasn't worth a **** under Bush, and isn't worth a **** now.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

To be honest it doesn't surprise me at all that some Republicans are turning on guys like Cruz, Paul, Lee and etc. After all it is under their watch(and I'm talking about all of the "senior" Senators/Reps) that our economy got to where it is. As a minority they have been ineffective (worthless really). They have been trampled and given up. To see some fresh faces in their ready to fight for conservative values, I'm sure there is a bit of envy involved.

To see them labeled as far right, extremist, fanatics, blah blah blah is just Liberals trying to discredit them because they fear they will become a roadblock in their path to Liberal Utopia.
What they are fighting for seem to be pretty standard conservative principals, its just the old guard have decided to roll over and play dead, to stop fighting. I'm sure the Democrats love this but (real)Republicans, not so much.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

It is a partisan problem. These people are doing whatever it takes to fulfill the promises they made to the people who elected them. They weren't elected to do what the speaker or the party tell them to do. They were elected to do what they thought was right. The fact that the left doesn't like what they think is right is really pretty irrelevant. They deserve consideration for doing what they promised and what they believe. I'd like to see reps on the left do the same thing.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Paratrooper said:

To be honest it doesn't surprise me at all that some Republicans are turning on guys like Cruz, Paul, Lee and etc. After all it is under their watch(and I'm talking about all of the "senior" Senators/Reps) that our economy got to where it is. As a minority they have been ineffective (worthless really). They have been trampled and given up. To see some fresh faces in their ready to fight for conservative values, I'm sure there is a bit of envy involved.

To see them labeled as far right, extremist, fanatics, blah blah blah is just Liberals trying to discredit them because they fear they will become a roadblock in their path to Liberal Utopia.
What they are fighting for seem to be pretty standard conservative principals, its just the old guard have decided to roll over and play dead, to stop fighting. I'm sure the Democrats love this but (real)Republicans, not so much.

Click to expand...

Agreed,,and furthermore,,those of Us who vote Conservative all know McCain cost us an election along with his real personality as a Democratic sympathizer. He kind of reminds me of what Hanoi Jane did to him in VN,,,,,yes,,,actually this RINO has consorted with the Enemy and damages his so called Party affiliation on many fronts. He should retire.

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

fmw said:

It is a partisan problem. These people are doing whatever it takes to fulfill the promises they made to the people who elected them. They weren't elected to do what the speaker or the party tell them to do. They were elected to do what they thought was right. The fact that the left doesn't like what they think is right is really pretty irrelevant. They deserve consideration for doing what they promised and what they believe. I'd like to see reps on the left do the same thing.

Click to expand...

While O does the opposite of your second sentence. At least somebody keeps their promises!

If the old adage that a Man is judged by what He would do if he was never found out rings true? It certainly doe's seem to work for O!

Re: Now the Guns are Getting too Big to Primary

Hiram said:

Agreed,,and furthermore,,those of Us who vote Conservative all know McCain cost us an election along with his real personality as a Democratic sympathizer. He kind of reminds me of what Hanoi Jane did to him in VN,,,,,yes,,,actually this RINO has consorted with the Enemy and damages his so called Party affiliation on many fronts. He should retire.

Click to expand...

Surely, I've misread the above post.
It appears to be comparing the Democrats to the Viet Cong and stepping up the absurd hyperpartisanship to the level of warfare.

Surely, that can't be right.

Michael66 said:

Top Republican Slams Ted Cruz: 'Show A Little Self-Restraint'

And so the fight is on in earnest. Is this going to be too hard of a choice for Republicans to make. And what happens when some of the other really big guns start trashing Cruz. Choose your sides now. See if you can bring down Jeb Bush in favour of supporting Cruz. LOL

Click to expand...

Yea... I wouldn't call Jeb a top republican.