Cruz picks Carly
News here. I heard the press conference on the radio and he took way too long introducing her.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 27th, 2016 at 5:54 pm
“Took way too long” is the theme for his entire campaign.
April 27th, 2016 at 6:02 pm
Meh. I’m still bored some more again.
April 27th, 2016 at 7:37 pm
Hell, I thought he was going to drop out at the 4:00 newser.
That is a surprise. I lke Carly just fine, but does Cruz think that he has a snowball’s chance?
April 27th, 2016 at 8:15 pm
I’m with Paw… sigh
April 27th, 2016 at 8:57 pm
Well, I’m going to vote for Cruz in the primary anyway, because trump is #3 on my list of people I don’t want to see as President.
And if things keep going the way they have been, I’m going to vote Trump in the General, because Trump is #3 on my list of people I don’t want to see as President, and the Democrats are probably going to be running #1 on that list, with #2 as an outside chance.
April 27th, 2016 at 10:17 pm
Just a McCain re-run. Zzzzzzzz.
I am not impressed.
April 27th, 2016 at 11:27 pm
Well she checked all Ted’s qualification boxes:
She hates Trump.
She looks like Ted.
She’s a woman. Ish.
April 28th, 2016 at 12:45 am
So the guy who is running second in the race nationally and didn’t win even a single county in the most recent batch of primaries… just “picked a running mate” months before the convention. That’s like the West Podunk Cowtippers announcing what style they want their Superbowl rings to be… in July.
I was never a Cruz supporter, but I used to have respect for the guy. Between this and the Colorado shenanigans, no more.
April 28th, 2016 at 1:40 am
Nobody to the right of Bloomberg was going to get more than 20% in Acela.
April 28th, 2016 at 7:24 am
I thought one should have a party’s nomination before one should take the step of choosing a running mate?
April 28th, 2016 at 8:16 am
@Linoge, that’s usually the way it’s done, but since political parties are private organizations, there’s certainly no law and apparently no rules that it must be done. Attempting to win the nomination over Gerald Ford in 1976, Reagan selected a running mate as an attempt to sway delegates from the party’s liberal wing, Richard Schwiekert, from Pennsylvania.
April 28th, 2016 at 8:33 am
Correction: actually it was Schweiker, I incorrectly added a “t”.
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/24/risky_strategy_that_doomed_reagan_in_76_could_boost_democrats/
April 28th, 2016 at 8:58 am
For months I believed that Trump and Cruz should make a potus/veep agreement and announce it very early in the game. Of course that opportunity was lost to vanity and stupidity.
There are so many reasons that would have been a winning decision for them and us, and all this stupid vitriole would never have happened. As a team they would have wrapped up the nom long ago and started a defacto general campaign that could have destroyed the liberal/socialist opposition. And we likely would have had a pres. who would undo so much destructive policy to clear the way for a potus one term later who would have learned a lot in that four years and started with a relatively clean slate to create new policy that might have saved the Republic.
Now it’s hard to imagine it ever was a viable possibility. Oh well.
April 28th, 2016 at 9:01 am
nk> …in Acela.
Who the hell thought an obscure reference to the northeast railway corridor and the Amtrak experiment in nationalized rail transportation thought that name was a good idea?
Linoge> I thought one should have a party’s nomination before one should take the step of choosing a running mate?
No hard and fast rules of course, but yea. You’re suppose to typically have the nomination all but wrapped up first, I believe.
April 28th, 2016 at 9:21 am
If Cruz coula, woulda, shoulda been VP with Trump, they coulda, woulda, shoulda enjoyed several months of bashing Hillary before the general election. Lost opportunity.
They can still reconcile, with Trump promising Cruz a Supreme Court seat (for which he is eminently qualified, and by which he might cause millions of leftist heads to explode). But that is wishful thinking, since then Trump likely would pick someone like Kasich or Rubio as VP, and lose to Hillary/Sanders.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:40 am
mikee,
I actually think Rubio would be a better VP candidate than Cruz. I prefer Cruz’s positions, but Rubio would have broad appeal to augment that of Trump and he’s an articulate and skilled debater save that couple of minutes with Christie. I agree that Cruz would be a great SCOTUS pick.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:48 am
Ron: The problem is that Rubio has amnesty on the brain. Not only do I not think it would work- politically or practically- to have a veep pick that’s 100% opposed to the President’s keynote issue, having Chuck Schumer’s Pet Boy next in line to the Presidency is too much to ask.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:58 am
I was always a Cruz supporter, but he’s shown no killer instinct. He may still be a great successor to Trump, but we need Trump to do the SMOD thing to the establishment first. Cruz can’t get the job done.
April 28th, 2016 at 11:39 am
@DaveP, true that. Thanks for bringing me back to “the path of righteousness”.
April 28th, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Ted was just after all of Carly’s delegate.
April 28th, 2016 at 1:36 pm
There were no “Colorado Shenanigans”. The closest thing to that was one dumba$$ that showed up to the state convention thinking he should have been a delegate after skipping the county one so he didn’t get voted into being a delegate. Trump has had no ground game to speak of and hasn’t even bothered to have staff that would review the election rules at each of the jurisdictions.
April 28th, 2016 at 5:36 pm
Since Cruz is no longer viable for vice (but maybe for scotus, I very much like that prospect), DT’s pick has to be somebody that can talk the talk, which Rubio can, but also walk the walk, which Rubio is nowhere near prepared for or even cognizant that the first and foremost threat is unfettered invasion. In eight or twelve years maybe he will understand, after the heavy lifting and constructive destruction is complete.
But I have no doubt that Trump is a one-term pony, albeit I believe a constructive/destructive one. But the vice has to be someone who can not only bring something big to the ticket to get elected, but also someone who can step in and run the show four years in. I thought Cruz was that guy, now I don’t. And I don’t know right now who that would be…is there a solid as a rock military strategist who knows and will uphold the truth and also bring some votes? It might seem crass, but a black or Hispanic who has all the right credentials might make the difference for the independents and non-commie Democrats that I know are out there silently and fervently hoping that for the sake of the Republic that an alternative to the evil Beast will come.
All that said, I’m pretty sure the “electorate” will make sure that the freebie machine keeps cranking for another four or eight years, consequences and the future of our children and grandchildren be damned. All the discussion of a New Republic centered in Texas seems more plausible and even desirable all the time, in spite of the bloody path that will lead there.
April 28th, 2016 at 5:39 pm
rickn8or, forgot to say “Carly’s delegate”…that’s funny right there, even if you’re a Cruz/Carly fan.
April 28th, 2016 at 5:40 pm
Well, Rick Perry beat his charges like Bobby beat Whitney, so he’s a prime pick. He has Texas to balance out New York, he’s an ex-Dem too, so he also knows all the dirty tricks, and he can pull of mini-Trumpish quips. Most importantly, Texas is the state that actually has tackled immigration on its own, and done as good as job as could be done by the state alone at closing the border — and it started under Rick Perry’s plan.
He would be saying “Adios mofo” to whoever Hillary picks with aplomb.
April 28th, 2016 at 8:15 pm
>There were no “Colorado Shenanigans”.
Maybe I’m going a bit off-topic, but I suppose this means we have a government in Colorado that has a compelling interest in forcing someone to bake someone a gay wedding cake…
…but has no interest at all in forcing the major political parties to select delegates in at least a somewhat roughly equivalent to the popular vote of their members?
This makes me wonder what Colorado has been smoking.
April 29th, 2016 at 9:26 am
RCC: It’s called “Legitimacy”. If Cruz wants to have his supporters rules-lawyer away the citizens’ primary so Cruz’s supporters can assign him his delegates without any input from those pesky middle-class voters (the nerve of them, thinking they have a voice! They should just shut up and vote for who the Party donors tell them to!), fine… but Cruz and his supported get judged by that. Those are Chicago tactics.