# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Is Ted Cruz undermining Rand Paul?

## libertygold

While at first I was happy to see Ted Cruz come onto the scene with his opposition to Obamacare, I recently had a thought which I wanted to see if anybody else had. For a while it had seemed as though Rand Paul was becoming a big figure in the party and becoming more popular in the country, particularly after his filibuster. Anyway, the thought came to me that Ted Cruz saw the attention and popularity which Rand Paul got from his #standwithrand and decided to try to mimick him to undermine his stature in the party and gain his supporters. If this is true we need to be careful about following Ted Cruz because he is just trying to get our support now but may eventually sell us short in the future anyway. I have followed the liberty movement for about two decades now pretty much as closely as anyone with kids to raise can. What I have noticed is different people will come along occasionally who seem to be on our side but are really trying to advance themselves knowing eventually they can turn their back on liberty. Even Rand Paul said he was against ending the war on drugs and said libertarians just want to smoke pot and roll around in the mud. I was disappointed by that but I still trust Rand as the best chance for a liberty candidate because his father has been the best on these issues. Since Ron Paul has retired from politics and our best chance is his son, I think we should be concerned with people who talk the talk but may just be trying to piggy back on the popularity of Rand. This only divides the movement and lowers our chances in the long run even if we like what the person is saying. Perhaps I could be wrong about Ted Cruz but I think it is worth pondering at least because of the sudden rise of Cruz.  Look at someone like Dick Armey who was ultimately out for his own money with Freedom Works. Even Paul Ryan, if you look online you can see was arguing for stimulus in 2002.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlwAToAj7cE  This shows they don't have the core beliefs but know what to say to people to get their support. Only Ron Paul in my opinion can truly be trusted, and by extension Rand. We don't want another Dick Armey or Paul Ryan, etc., etc. etc. Just because the language sounds nice now from Cruz and we may agree with him 100% about opposing Obamacare doesn't mean we shouldn't look out for the longer term in which we might be harming ourselves if we split the liberty support between Cruz and Rand. Just something to think about.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I haven't heard a peep from Rand about drones since that filibuster.

----------


## rich34

> While at first I was happy to see Ted Cruz come onto the scene with his opposition to Obamacare, I recently had a thought which I wanted to see if anybody else had. For a while it had seemed as though Rand Paul was becoming a big figure in the party and becoming more popular in the country, particularly after his filibuster. Anyway, the thought came to me that Ted Cruz saw the attention and popularity which Rand Paul got from his #standwithrand and decided to try to mimick him to undermine his stature in the party and gain his supporters. If this is true we need to be careful about following Ted Cruz because he is just trying to get our support now but may eventually sell us short in the future anyway. I have followed the liberty movement for about two decades now pretty much as closely as anyone with kids to raise can. What I have noticed is different people will come along occasionally who seem to be on our side but are really trying to advance themselves knowing eventually they can turn their back on liberty. Even Rand Paul said he was against ending the war on drugs and said libertarians just want to smoke pot and roll around in the mud. I was disappointed by that but I still trust Rand as the best chance for a liberty candidate because his father has been the best on these issues. Since Ron Paul has retired from politics and our best chance is his son, I think we should be concerned with people who talk the talk but may just be trying to piggy back on the popularity of Rand. This only divides the movement and lowers our chances in the long run even if we like what the person is saying. Perhaps I could be wrong about Ted Cruz but I think it is worth pondering at least because of the sudden rise of Cruz.  Look at someone like Dick Armey who was ultimately out for his own money with Freedom Works. Even Paul Ryan, if you look online you can see was arguing for stimulus in 2002.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlwAToAj7cE  This shows they don't have the core beliefs but know what to say to people to get their support. Only Ron Paul in my opinion can truly be trusted, and by extension Rand. We don't want another Dick Armey or Paul Ryan, etc., etc. etc. Just because the language sounds nice now from Cruz and we may agree with him 100% about opposing Obamacare doesn't mean we shouldn't look out for the longer term in which we might be harming ourselves if we split the liberty support between Cruz and Rand. Just something to think about.


Well, I've done said my piece about this, but yes, ole Teddy boy is using us until he achieves whatever it is he's trying to achieve.  I mean, seriously, working on Bush's campaign along with his goldman sachs wife where he met.  Having Bush Jr., (Prescott) as his PAC chair sure don't help either..  The man is a snake in the grass I tell ya son, he may look good, but it's just for fun.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Do you think that jelly is taking the limelight away from peanut butter?  Especially since it started using "real sugar", again, instead of HFC.  Which do you think that milk will go better with?

Notice to all congressmen, you should not do anything that may bring attention to yourself, whether it is fighting for liberty or fiscal responsibility or a sane foreign policy or restoration of the constitutional order, UNLESS you consult with peanut butter and give it the limelight in such matters.

----------


## Working Poor

He has Bush/Cheney cartel written all over him.

----------


## randomname

He's helping Rand by making him seem reasonable.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He's helping Rand by making him seem reasonable.


Correct.  It is being widely reported from left to right to center to liberty, that Cruz is helping Rand position himself as a candidate who can draw votes from both moderates and ultra conservatives.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Rand is popular. Cruz is unpopular. Cruz is making Rand seem moderate by example. So I believe, at least according to polling, as of now, the opposite of what you suggest is happening. Though, if Cruz now has access to 1-2 million email addresses and gives those to a presidential candidate other than Rand, I'd agree with you. Maybe it will be a bargaining check to push the eventual nominee to the right?

----------


## SilentBull

> Correct.  It is being widely reported from left to right to center to liberty, that Cruz is helping Rand position himself as a candidate who can draw votes from both moderates and ultra conservatives.


And I lean towards believing that Cruz knows exactly what he's doing. He's working with Rand on getting him the nomination.

----------


## Carlybee

All I know is the conservative radio hosts can't get enough of talking about Ted.

----------


## AuH20

> He has Bush/Cheney cartel written all over him.


He's more like DeMint. The Bush/Cheney cartel were progs lite.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> And I lean towards believing that Cruz knows exactly what he's doing. He's working with Rand on getting him the nomination.


I don't think so.

----------


## libertygold

I appreciate the difference of opinion on the topic. Something tells me that Ted Cruz is not actually trying to help Rand win the nomination. Maybe it is just a hunch I have from watching the movement for a couple of decades but my intuition is that he is not. I think he wants power and influence. when it was convenient to be working for George W. Bush he rode the train. When he saw it was popular to speak for liberty he decided to ride that train. He saw the accolades rand got for #standwithrand and wanted something similar and decided he was going to outdo that. These are just thoughts I had and wanted to see if anyone had similar ones or also had a weird feeling. I just don't see how anyone who cares that much about liberty would have tied themselves so much to Bush. Do others feel that way too?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> He's more like DeMint. The Bush/Cheney cartel were progs lite.


Isn't that how Cruz got his start? He had also has the backing of Goldman, just like Bush. So it seems to me that Working Poor is at least partly correct, based on the facts.

----------


## dinosaur

> I appreciate the difference of opinion on the topic. Something tells me that Ted Cruz is not actually trying to help Rand win the nomination. Maybe it is just a hunch I have from watching the movement for a couple of decades but my intuition is that he is not. I think he wants power and influence. when it was convenient to be working for George W. Bush he rode the train. When he saw it was popular to speak for liberty he decided to ride that train. He saw the accolades rand got for #standwithrand and wanted something similar and decided he was going to outdo that. These are just thoughts I had and wanted to see if anyone had similar ones or also had a weird feeling. I just don't see how anyone who cares that much about liberty would have tied themselves so much to Bush. Do others feel that way too?


I'm leaning very strongly towards the conclusion that Cruz' move was calculated to do one thing:  prevent rand from consolidating the conservative vote this far ahead of the primaries.  Cruz just made himself less electable in a general election.  Cruz is smart and knows this.  He knows Rand is our hope; and we shall see very soon if Cruz loves his career or his adopted country more.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

they praise rand in order to trash cruz.

so cruz is helping rand a lot. but not on purpose.

----------


## AuH20

> Isn't that how Cruz got his start? He had also has the backing of Goldman, just like Bush. So it seems to me that Working Poor is at least partly correct, based on the facts.


Cruz is the same catankerous fellow that was enrolled at Princeton. Much of the allegations are noise. It's not like he suddenly donned a different political garb like other politicians.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-the-same.html




> Throughout those years, Cruz and Panton remained friends, and Panton still speaks highly of him, saying with praise that the one word that describes Cruz best is “consistent.”
> 
> *“He's not someone who shifts in the wind,” Panton says. “The Ted Cruz that I knew at 17 years old is exactly the same as the Ted Cruz I know at 42 years old. He was very conservative then, and an outspoken conservative. He remains strongly conservative today."*
> 
> That consistency reveals itself in Cruz’s senior thesis, which he completed under the mentorship of Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence whom The New York Times called “the reigning brain of the Christian right.”
> 
> Cruz’s thesis, “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” quoted James Madison in the Federalist Papers saying in part that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Cruz focused on the history and theory behind the Ninth and 10th Amendments in a constitutional defense that reads like a speech he could give at any Tea Party event in the country.





> The time-capsule quality of Cruz’s politics is lost on no one who knew him at Princeton, none of whom could point to a political position that he held 25 years ago that he does not seem to still hold today. For some, that amounts to a laudably consistent belief system. For others, it reveals a man of calcified thinking, dangerously impervious to facts, reality, and a changing world. 
> 
> "*More than anyone I knew, Ted seemed to have arrived in college with a fully formed worldview,” Butler College colleague Erik Leitch said.  “And what strikes me now, looking at him as an adult and hearing the things he's saying, it seems like nothing has changed. Four years of an Ivy League education, Harvard Law, and years of life experience have altered nothing."*

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I haven't heard a peep from Rand about drones since that filibuster so to me that was just grandstanding.


Except grandstanding doesn't usually lead to a 30 point swing in public opinion.

----------


## libertygold

I find it difficult to believe That Cruz is trying to help Rand get the nomination. It seems a bit naive to me to think that Cruz isn't doing this to promote his own career. All politicians- even ones we tend to agree with have ego's. It seems like Cruz is trying to muscle Rand out of the spotlight and claim the top tier within the movement and I think maybe we should speak out about that so we don't end up getting used while Rand gets sidelined. Everyone knows Rand has a much better chance than Cruz. If we get behind Cruz in the meanwhile my concern is that will eliminate Rand's chance and then Hillary gets elected and the same statist stuff continues and accelerates. Just some of my thinking from watching how these things work.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Except grandstanding doesn't usually lead to a 30 point swing in public opinion.


Have you seen the approval rating for the GOP lately?

----------


## libertygold

Natural Citizen, I tend to agree. Rand has let me down lately by claiming he is not for ending the war on drugs and thinks libertarians just want to smoke pot and roll around in the mud. I was very disappointed to here him say those things. Can you imagine his father uttering those words? Ron Paul was such a great orator for expressing liberty. He never would compromise his principles for cheap soundbites which betray people who actually believe in the cause. I have tended to support Rand and maybe unfairly give himt he benefit of the doubt because of the respect and admiration I have had for his father for a long time.  I don't know though, Rand lately may drive me to Gary Johnson.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Gary Johnson absolutely sucked as a candidate.  Rand is better than him.  Rand occasionally disappoints me, but he's much more libertarian in general than Gary is.

In 2012 I would have voted for Johnson, I don't know if I could anymore, its like the lesser of five evils instead of the lesser of two.  Does that really make it any better?

On the other hand, even though Gary sucked, he still sucked A LOT LESS than the others.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Natural Citizen, I tend to agree. Rand has let me down lately by claiming he is not for ending the war on drugs and thinks libertarians just want to smoke pot and roll around in the mud.


I don't really care too much about that stuff as much as other issues (not saying it isn't important because it is) although I've been watching the debate on legalization just because of the agribusiness GMO giants who are waiting in the shadows to come in and monopolize on it should it happen.

----------


## idiom

So I take it we have found Cruz's long form birth certificate then? And, more importantly, his mothers?

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> they praise rand in order to trash cruz.
> 
> so cruz is helping rand a lot. but not on purpose.


Agreed.  If I were to describe Cruz in one word for how he's impacting Rand's potential 2016 run, it'd be "insulation".

Take this article for example (pulled randomly from Google News but you see this kind of stuff all the time):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-bad-for-good/

If it weren't for Cruz, Rand's picture would be there as the representative of the "wacko wing".

----------


## libertygold

> Agreed.  If I were to describe Cruz in one word for how he's impacting Rand's potential 2016 run, it'd be "insulation".
> 
> Take this article for example (pulled randomly from Google News but you see this kind of stuff all the time):
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-bad-for-good/
> 
> If it weren't for Cruz, Rand's picture would be there as the representative of the "wacko wing".



But what if Cruz isn't helping Rand look moderate and not from the "wacko wing"? It seems to me like it could actually hurt Rand because he will be thrown in with Cruz through association and will have a difficult time seeming as though he is not from the "wacko wing". In other words, assuming Rand will look moderate next to Cruz may be a very big miscalculation because if the "wacko wing" as you say is a liability politically then the more Cruz alienates people the more it will hurt Rand for being tied with him. Oh how I wish Dr. Ron Paul would just run again.

----------


## libertygold

I just can't get around how it seems to me that Cruz watched the Ron Paul movement and the popularity Rand gave from standwithrand and just saw his opening. I think to myself maybe I'm just overthinking but I don't think so. It seems like that is actually what is happening. Very difficult for me to believe someone who is so tied in with statist George W. Bush for so long truly cares about liberty. I think he is using us to be honest. Is it cynical? Yes, but haven't we come to expect that from these politicians?

----------


## libertygold

The Following looks like more proof Ted Cruz is not trying to help Rand but indeed may be undermining him. We should call attention to what is happening in our midst so we don't become pawns like suckers.

From ABC News: 5 Signs Senator Cruz Will Run For President in 2016   http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ident-in-2016/

Sen. Ted Cruz will be a guest on ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” this Sunday.  The Texas senator is a rising star in the Republican Party and thought  to be a possible presidential candidate in 2016. With an impressive  resume – degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law, first Hispanic  solicitor general of Texas, youngest solicitor general in the history of  the United States – and a particular skill for rhetoric (he’s also a  former national debate champion) Cruz is definitely a politician to  watch this Sunday and in general.
*Here are five signs that this fiery first-term senator is eyeing a 2016 presidential run:*
*1) Trips 1, 2 and 3 to Iowa.* Cruz has been in the Senate for less than a year, but he’s already made two trips to Iowa,  with a third one scheduled in October. Lawmakers rarely wind up in Iowa  by accident, and they certainly don’t wind up there on three separate  occasions in less than 12 months. For the the conservative Cruz, the  state known for fried butter and the first electoral event in the nation  would be a key piece of his presidential primary puzzle. The state  boasts a strong and involved evangelical base to whom Cruz appeals, and  retail politicking is a key to success – a strength of the one-time Ivy  League debate champion.
*2) That other trip to New Hampshire.* In between  those trips to Iowa and, of course, to his home state of Texas, Cruz  found time to make it up to New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation  primary state (Iowa holds a caucus, and both states are very particular  about this language). In August, Cruz spoke at a fundraiser for the New  Hampshire Republican State Committee. Cruz’s libertarian streak appeals  to a “live free or die” mentality popular in the Granite State and,  again, his skills at retail politicking would certainly come in handy in  the small New England state.
*3) Goodbye to that pesky Canadian citizenship.* Cruz  has one potential roadblock to his candidacy: He was actually born in  Canada. The Constitution doesn’t set that many restrictions on who can  run for president. One just needs to be over the age of 35, have lived  in the U.S. at least 14 years, and be a natural born citizen. What  exactly is a natural born citizen? Good question. The constitution  doesn’t define it. But the definitions include an individual born abroad  to American parents. Cruz’s mother was from Delaware and so, under this  definition, he would be qualified to run. Cruz has made a point of  clarifying said qualification, and in August he even went so far as to renounce his Canadian citizenship after reportedly learning that he had dual citizenship.
*4)* *Oh yeah, and that trip to South Carolina.* Seriously, this guy is racking up the frequent flyer miles. In early May, Cruz spoke at the Silver Elephant Dinner in South Carolina,  the state that holds the first in the South. The annual fundraising  dinner is hosted by the state Republican Party and has featured many big  Republican names including Ronald Reagan. Cruz has hit the first three  voting states in the presidential primary. Is there another way to  interpret all that travel?
*5)* *His own language on the subject.* The final indicator of Cruz’s intentions for political tea-leaf readers is his own purposely vague rhetoric on the matter. When asked by ABC News‘ Jonathan Karl if  he was planning to run in 2016, Cruz gave a classically evasive  response. “I’m not focused on the politics,” he said. “I’ve been in the  Senate all of seven months. The last office I was elected to was student  council.” Avoid direct answers is presidential politics 101.

----------


## libertygold

Is anyone else concerned about this like I am? I was thinking this when watching some of Cruz's filibuster, even though of course I agreed with him bashing Obamacare. At first I thought it was just me but then realized I'm sure some other people are thinking this right now. Other people who have followed the movement and see how these things tend to go and how characters like to come around to talk the talk and get money or e-mail lists or whatever but then are just as much statist. Cruz's deep connection to George W. Bush should be a real danger sign we should heed.

----------


## 69360

No he's helping Rand. Cruz is taking all the heat and makes Rand look moderate and electable without Rand changing his position.

----------


## libertygold

> No he's helping Rand. Cruz is taking all the heat and makes Rand look moderate and electable without Rand changing his position.


You could be right. I'm not sure though for a couple reasons. 1) If Ted Cruz runs for president in 2016 he may split the liberty movement which ensures Christie gets the nomination. 2) If the premise is Cruz looks crazy and extreme, Rand will be hurt if he is pinned to Cruz. So rather than looking moderate by comparison he will seem extreme by association

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Ted Cruz is CFR controlled opposition

----------


## libertygold

> Ted Cruz is CFR controlled opposition


I would not be surprised if he were since he is so close to the Bush family. I would not be surprised if he is basically just trying to split the liberty movement to make way for Jeb Bush.

----------


## idiom

> The Following looks like more proof Ted Cruz is not trying to help Rand but indeed may be undermining him. We should call attention to what is happening in our midst so we don't become pawns like suckers.
> 
> From ABC News: 5 Signs Senator Cruz Will Run For President in 2016   http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ident-in-2016/
> 
> Sen. Ted Cruz will be a guest on ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” this Sunday.  The Texas senator is a rising star in the Republican Party and thought  to be a possible presidential candidate in 2016. With an impressive  resume – degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law, first Hispanic  solicitor general of Texas, youngest solicitor general in the history of  the United States – and a particular skill for rhetoric (he’s also a  former national debate champion) Cruz is definitely a politician to  watch this Sunday and in general.
> *Here are five signs that this fiery first-term senator is eyeing a 2016 presidential run:*
> 
> *3) Goodbye to that pesky Canadian citizenship.* Cruz  has one potential roadblock to his candidacy: He was actually born in  Canada. The Constitution doesn’t set that many restrictions on who can  run for president. One just needs to be over the age of 35, have lived  in the U.S. at least 14 years, and be a natural born citizen. What  exactly is a natural born citizen? Good question. The constitution  doesn’t define it. But the definitions include an individual born abroad  to American parents. Cruz’s mother was from Delaware and so, under this  definition, he would be qualified to run. Cruz has made a point of  clarifying said qualification, and in August he even went so far as to renounce his Canadian citizenship after reportedly learning that he had dual citizenship.


He has presented zero proof that his mother born in Delaware at all.

Did "My mother said so" cut it for Obama?

----------


## jmdrake

> He's helping Rand by making him seem reasonable.


You know...I just thought about it and you're right.  A couple of weeks ago I had this argument with my (ex) mother-in-law over Ted Cruz.  Actually I told her that I know little about him but I agreed with him that there were problems with Obamacare.  Now why did I have to go and say that?  (I finally got the upper hand when she had to grudgingly admit that the AFL-CIO is now against Obamacare.)  Anyway, it's probably good that Rand doesn't have to take the lead on everything.

----------


## jmdrake

> He has presented zero proof that his mother born in Delaware at all.
> 
> Did "My mother said so" cut it for Obama?


You know, if Ted Cruz runs for the GOP nomination the birthers will have to either come out against him are start cooking up some crow.

----------


## 69360

> You could be right. I'm not sure though for a couple reasons. 1) If Ted Cruz runs for president in 2016 he may split the liberty movement which ensures Christie gets the nomination. 2) If the premise is Cruz looks crazy and extreme, Rand will be hurt if he is pinned to Cruz. So rather than looking moderate by comparison he will seem extreme by association


Nah, If Rand wins the first 2 states Cruz will drop out and endorse Rand. If Cruz somehow wins, Rand would endorse him. Both won't go deep in the primary. GOP primaries boil down to an establishment candidate and a conservative alternative after the first few states.

----------


## dinosaur

> Nah, If Rand wins the first 2 states Cruz will drop out and endorse Rand.* If Cruz somehow wins, Rand would endorse him.* Both won't go deep in the primary. GOP primaries boil down to an establishment candidate and a conservative alternative after the first few states.


And then the Democrat wins.

----------


## libertygold

> You know, if Ted Cruz runs for the GOP nomination the birthers will have to either come out against him are start cooking up some crow.



How will Ted Cruz get around having been born in Canada?

----------


## 69360

> And then the Democrat wins.


Possible. Hillary would be tough to beat unless Rand and Cruz grow a vagina. They got the first black president, the first woman will be quite tempting for low information voters.

----------


## 69360

> How will Ted Cruz get around having been born in Canada?


The same way Obama did? His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

----------


## dinosaur

> Possible. Hillary would be tough to beat unless Rand and Cruz grow a vagina. They got the first black president, the first woman will be quite tempting for low information voters.


You are not going to admit that Rand has a chance and Cruz doesn't?  Wow

----------


## libertygold

> You are not going to admit that Rand has a chance and Cruz doesn't?  Wow


Rand would have a better chance if the liberty movement didn't get divided up by the close associate of the Bush family. Cruz has zero chance of winning a nation-wide election.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Possible. Hillary would be tough to beat unless Rand and Cruz grow a vagina.


Rand has a spare vagina if he needs one: VP Palin.  

But he won't necessarily need one, since the Democrat ticket will be Biden-Booker.

----------


## Carlybee

> Rand has a spare vagina if he needs one: VP Palin.  
> 
> But he won't necessarily need one, since the Democrat ticket will be Biden-Booker.



You could be right about Biden. It's his turn and the parties tend to operate within a pecking order. (Which is why I worry the GOP establishment will try to undermine Rand's chances.  They aren't known for making the brightest choices either.)

----------


## libertygold

> You could be right about Biden. It's his turn and the parties tend to operate within a pecking order. (Which is why I worry the GOP establishment will try to undermine Rand's chances.  They aren't known for making the brightest choices either.)


And the way the GOP establishment would undermine Rand's chances would be to split the liberty movement. Ted Cruz is very useful to the GOP establishment right now for this reason. Remember, he is very close to the Bush family.

----------


## libertygold

I don't think the Republican Party will go through the catastrophe of having Palin as the VP on a presidential ticket again.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Ted Cruz is CFR controlled opposition


More like the same groups control the CFR that control Ted Cruz and the US Government (The Zionist + War Industry alliance).

It's important to understand what the CFR is, and that its agenda is primarily driven by the people who make it up.  Which is why it's nonsensical to say that Rand shouldn't be a part of it if he can.

----------


## eduardo89

I'm thinking of starting a Ted Cruz fan site.

----------


## idiom

> I'm thinking of starting a Ted Cruz fan site.


.ca?

----------


## eduardo89

> .ca?


I don't live in Canada anymore.

----------


## Rudeman

> I'm thinking of starting a Ted Cruz fan site.


************s.com and dailycruz.com are both available.

----------


## 69360

> Rand has a spare vagina if he needs one: VP Palin.  
> 
> But he won't necessarily need one, since the Democrat ticket will be Biden-Booker.


No, they will need to one up team billary and get a minority woman, maybe Martinez from NM.

Booker is in bad shape now, lots of negative PR. Lonegan is within 6 points, he might not win but he did some real political damage. Biden, do I really even have to explain...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't think the Republican Party will go through the catastrophe of having Palin as the VP on a presidential ticket again.


Let's hope not, for Rand's sake.

----------


## libertygold

> Let's hope not, for Rand's sake.


But Palin, like Cruz is another example of how the GOP establishment tries to co-opt the liberty movement to get their money and votes while denying our candidates. I don't think we should trust or have anything to do with Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. Just sets us up for disaster later on as they use us. I think it is better to even lose but keep principle and get the ideas out then to play the game of making nice with the GOP, muddling our message, and then just losing anyway. Then again Rand Paul is no Ron Paul.

----------


## libertygold

The contrast between Rand and his father is actually kind of sad.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But Palin, like Cruz is another example of how the GOP establishment tries to co-opt the liberty movement to get their money and votes while denying our candidates. I don't think we should trust or have anything to do with Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. Just sets us up for disaster later on as they use us. I think it is better to even lose but keep principle and get the ideas out then to play the game of making nice with the GOP, muddling our message, and then just losing anyway. Then again Rand Paul is no Ron Paul.


I owe ya another rep.

----------


## eduardo89

> The contrast between Rand and his father is actually kind of sad.


I agree, I wish Ron was half as amazing and influential as Rand.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by  *eduardo89*
> 
> I wish Ron was half as amazing and influential as Rand.

----------


## rich34

> The same way Obama did? His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.


You're forgetting one major difference, O was born in "Hawaii" while Cruz on the other hand has admitted and WAS born in Canada..  Don't matter if turncoat Ted's mother was a U.S citizen, fact is Ted has and probably still holds dual citizenship.  I'd imagine there would be tons of legal challenges and quite possibly even from the GOP if someone like Christie was a close second.  That's even before Hillary and the democrats go after him...

----------


## Rudeman

> 


Ron would probably be president if he had the communication skills that Rand does (well at least he would have had a much better shot at it).

----------


## libertygold

> I owe ya another rep.


What is a rep?

----------


## libertygold

> Ron would probably be president if he had the communication skills that Rand does (well at least he would have had a much better shot at it).


I actually think Ron has much better communication skills than Rand because he truly and deeply expressed liberty from his core in ways I don't sense from Rand.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I actually think Ron has much better communication skills than Rand because he truly and deeply expressed liberty from his core in ways I don't sense from Rand.


Well. There was something said around here regarding frequency. It's magic.

----------


## libertygold

> Well. There was something said around here regarding frequency. It's magic.


What do you mean?

----------


## rich34

> Correct.  It is being widely reported from left to right to center to liberty, that Cruz is helping Rand position himself as a candidate who can draw votes from both moderates and ultra conservatives.


Oh come on!  You really think Cruz is doing this to help Rand???  He's doing this to help HIS self serving ass..  The man took a calculated risk by trying a tactic very similar to what Rand did with the drone issue.  Cruz betted his azz that by using this tactic on an issue much more beholden to "conservatives" that it could propel him to the top the same way it did Rand or even that much more to he conservative base due to the issue.  However, due to the bad press that Rand obviously saw coming he let Cruz take his calculated guess and run with it while Teddy boy was all to giddy to jump and run with it thinking this was going to bring him all the press and stardom that Rand received.  Hell, even a poll that was probably put out by the establishment/bush cartel was made supposedly right after Cruz' whatever he was doing showing him all of a sudden leading the republican race.  They tried to lay the narrative, but none of the other pollsters saw this in their data and didn't bite thank God!  Cruz got played here plain and simple. If anything, I'd tend to think that it was Mike Lee who was knowingly helping Rand by assuring Ted he'd have his back on this while pushing Cruz out front on the issue.  Not saying it backfired for Ted, but it didn't seem to help him much, but it did help Rand appear more moderate than he is and made Cruz the "extremist," which is something Cruz didn't see coming, but Rand did.  I'd also guess Lee saw it that way as well.  So I give more credit to Lee than Cruz, as Cruz did this for selfish reasons, but it was Lee who knowingly went along with it as Cruz' sidekick pushing Cruz out front knowing this would help Rand appear as the more moderate, pure genius imo.  

And this serves Cruz right.  The little stunt he pulled trying to position himself as the moderate when asked about his truly hawkish views on foreign policy when he tried to position himself between John McCain and Rand Paul on FP tried to make Rand look like the extremist.  So if by some folk's wishful thinking theory that Cruz is intentionally doing this to help Rand appear as the moderate while himself as the extremist is dead wrong and foolish.  He certainly wasn't doing that when he tried to make Rand look like the extremist on FP, but him the moderate.  So ponder this for a moment and get back to me when reality sinks in.  And that is he did this thinking it was going to propel him to the top, but in reality he got played and paid back by Rand and Mike Lee.  So if anything, I'd be thanking Mike Lee for the help.  Thanks Mike!

----------


## libertygold

> Oh come on!  You really think Cruz is doing this to help Rand???  He's doing this to help HIS self serving ass..  The man took a calculated risk by trying a tactic very similar to what Rand did with the drone issue.  Cruz betted his azz that by using this tactic on an issue much more beholden to "conservatives" that it could propel him to the top the same way it did Rand or even that much more to he conservative base due to the issue.  However, due to the bad press that Rand obviously saw coming he let Cruz take his calculated guess and run with it while Teddy boy was all to giddy to jump and run with it thinking this was going to bring him all the press and stardom that Rand received.  Hell, even a poll that was probably put out by the establishment/bush cartel was made supposedly right after Cruz' whatever he was doing showing him all of a sudden leading the republican race.  They tried to lay the narrative, but none of the other pollsters saw this in their data and didn't bite thank God!  Cruz got played here plain and simple. If anything, I'd tend to think that it was Mike Lee who was knowingly helping Rand by assuring Ted he'd have his back on this while pushing Cruz out front on the issue.  Not saying it backfired for Ted, but it didn't seem to help him much, but it did help Rand appear more moderate than he is and made Cruz the "extremist," which is something Cruz didn't see coming, but Rand did.  I'd also guess Lee saw it that way as well.  So I give more credit to Lee than Cruz, as Cruz did this for selfish reasons, but it was Lee who knowingly went along with it as Cruz' sidekick pushing Cruz out front knowing this would help Rand appear as the more moderate, pure genius imo.  
> 
> And this serves Cruz right.  The little stunt he pulled trying to position himself as the moderate when asked about his truly hawkish views on foreign policy when he tried to position himself between John McCain and Rand Paul on FP tried to make Rand look like the extremist.  So if by some folk's wishful thinking theory that Cruz is intentionally doing this to help Rand appear as the moderate while himself as the extremist is dead wrong and foolish.  He certainly wasn't doing that when he tried to make Rand look like the extremist on FP, but him the moderate.  So ponder this for a moment and get back to me when reality sinks in.  And that is he did this thinking it was going to propel him to the top, but in reality he got played and paid back by Rand and Mike Lee.  So if anything, I'd be thanking Mike Lee for the help.  Thanks Mike!


Thank you for that good comment. I agree Ted Cruz is completely self-serving and not trying to help Rand. My intuition from years of observation of the political scene and movements is that Ted Cruz is trying to steal the thunder away from Rand, particularly because of Rand's increase in popularity following the #standwithrand   This will ultimately split up the liberty movement and give the nomination to Christie.

----------


## libertygold

Ted Cruz at 14%- problem is a lot of that 14% favorability is coming from the liberty movement so as Ted alienates most of the country he splits the liberty movement at the same time. Cruz is bad news in my opinion. I've seen these sorts of opportunists before who just want the attention, money, speaker's fees, accolades, etc. and so will use the liberty movement so long as it fits them. If he were truly committed to liberty he would not have been so closely tied to Bush.

----------


## Kords21

> Oh come on!  You really think Cruz is doing this to help Rand???  He's doing this to help HIS self serving ass..  The man took a calculated risk by trying a tactic very similar to what Rand did with the drone issue.  Cruz betted his azz that by using this tactic on an issue much more beholden to "conservatives" that it could propel him to the top the same way it did Rand or even that much more to he conservative base due to the issue.  However, due to the bad press that Rand obviously saw coming he let Cruz take his calculated guess and run with it while Teddy boy was all to giddy to jump and run with it thinking this was going to bring him all the press and stardom that Rand received.  Hell, even a poll that was probably put out by the establishment/bush cartel was made supposedly right after Cruz' whatever he was doing showing him all of a sudden leading the republican race.  They tried to lay the narrative, but none of the other pollsters saw this in their data and didn't bite thank God!  Cruz got played here plain and simple. If anything, I'd tend to think that it was Mike Lee who was knowingly helping Rand by assuring Ted he'd have his back on this while pushing Cruz out front on the issue.  Not saying it backfired for Ted, but it didn't seem to help him much, but it did help Rand appear more moderate than he is and made Cruz the "extremist," which is something Cruz didn't see coming, but Rand did.  I'd also guess Lee saw it that way as well.  So I give more credit to Lee than Cruz, as Cruz did this for selfish reasons, but it was Lee who knowingly went along with it as Cruz' sidekick pushing Cruz out front knowing this would help Rand appear as the more moderate, pure genius imo.  
> 
> And this serves Cruz right.  The little stunt he pulled trying to position himself as the moderate when asked about his truly hawkish views on foreign policy when he tried to position himself between John McCain and Rand Paul on FP tried to make Rand look like the extremist.  So if by some folk's wishful thinking theory that Cruz is intentionally doing this to help Rand appear as the moderate while himself as the extremist is dead wrong and foolish.  He certainly wasn't doing that when he tried to make Rand look like the extremist on FP, but him the moderate.  So ponder this for a moment and get back to me when reality sinks in.  And that is he did this thinking it was going to propel him to the top, but in reality he got played and paid back by Rand and Mike Lee.  So if anything, I'd be thanking Mike Lee for the help.  Thanks Mike!


Good post and it gives the image of Mike Lee channeling Emperor Palpatine as far as being politically shrewd goes.

----------


## idiom

Ted's Role is as a booster. But not for Rand.

Ted's entire point is to prepare a play for Paul Ryan to sweep in as hero. As the VP, Ryan is it for the party elders, don't forget that.

Anything that is not genuine grassroots is 100% about making Ryan look better.

At the moment Ryan is being set up to achieve a compromise from an impossible situation. This is supposed to make him look smarter than anyone else in the party, but also make him look a lot more reasonable than the democrats. He will be the Hero that was able to talk both sides down from the cliff.

A cliff that was largely created by Ted.

----------


## Warlord

I can't see Cruz getting far in a presidential primary particularly in New Hampshire

----------


## libertygold

You all have had some really good responses. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who had that thought about Cruz actually harming Rand and the liberty movement. Paul Ryan is a complete sell out. He supported stimulus and war under Bush. He will say anything to anyone. Also Palin, another person who comes along and appeals to us expecting us to buy her books, etc. is another fraud who was for war among other things. We keep getting all these people- Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. who just want to use us and it ends up diluting our message and hurting in the long run. This is why I think we should stand up to them and not just let them run all over us. We should let them know we don't appreciate them trying to co-opt the liberty movement for their own self-serving reasons like all other politicians. Cruz is trying to get attention for himself from us while at the same time allowing as someone else said, Paul Ryan to come in and look like the moderate. Can't you see we're being had by these people?

----------


## libertygold

> I can't see Cruz getting far in a presidential primary particularly in New Hampshire


Yeah but the damage would already be done if he diverts resources such as money and volunteers.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

We can't attack Ted Cruz without hurting ourselves worse.  He is somewhat of a dangerous ally now, but we need to stay on the good side of the 10% or so that love him to death.  It would be a terrible strategic blunder to go after someone who probably won't even be running for President come 2016.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> 


Without Ron Paul, there would be no liberty movement to propel Rand and more liberty-leaning patriots into office.

----------


## libertygold

> We can't attack Ted Cruz without hurting ourselves worse.  He is somewhat of a dangerous ally now, but we need to stay on the good side of the 10% or so that love him to death.  It would be a terrible strategic blunder to go after someone who probably won't even be running for President come 2016.


Respectfully I disagree. I think Ted will run for President because he has nothing to lose. He loves the attention.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Without Ron Paul, there would be no liberty movement to propel Rand and more liberty-leaning patriots into office.


Yep. Whippersnappers don't know anything about the good old days. 

Which were _long_ before 2007. 

One thing that I do like to see though is the new generation learning the value of a good old fashioned cigar meeting. Seems like once the digital age liberty movement came into fruition that a lot of the folks who became products of just that aspect of it started to give themselves the impression that just because they are just now learning to do things that we did years ago that they know more about how things work than those who _truly_ paved the modern path do. Unfortunately, this fad must pass but it does worry me that they just don't understand how easy it is to dig ones own political hole in the process. You know? Kind of like the inevitable moment that junior thinks he knows more than he does and flexes in the direction of pop? Is always a "game" until someone gets their feelings hurt. By their own hand most of the time.

----------


## libertygold

> Yep. Whippersnappers don't know anything about the good old days. 
> 
> Which were _long_ before 2007. 
> 
> One thing that I do like to see though is the new generation learning the value of a good old fashioned cigar meeting. Seems like once the digital age liberty movement came into fruition that a lot of the folks who became products of just that aspect of it started to give themselves the impression that just because they are just now learning to do things that we did years ago that they know more about how things work than those who _truly_ paved the modern path do. Unfortunately, this fad must pass but it does worry me that they just don't understand how easy it is to dig ones own political hole in the process. You know? Kind of like the inevitable moment that junior thinks he knows more than he does and flexes in the direction of pop? Is always a "game" until someone gets their feelings hurt. By their own hand most of the time.


Exactly. They watch a couple youtube videos from the Mises Institute and all of a sudden they think they know everything. lol. This is what scares me about people falling for people who talk the language but in the long-run don't care about liberty. What scares me is people new to the liberty movement will just assume if someone is talking the language they must be good but people who have been around the while understand how movements get co-opted and people will use the movement to assemble their own list or raise money, or get volunteers, etc. People who truly care about liberty wouldn't be falling for people like Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. They have nothing on Ron Paul.

----------


## libertygold

> We can't attack Ted Cruz without hurting ourselves worse.  He is somewhat of a dangerous ally now, but we need to stay on the good side of the 10% or so that love him to death.  It would be a terrible strategic blunder to go after someone who probably won't even be running for President come 2016.


Still think Ted Cruz probably won't be running?.... 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...16-straw-poll/

It is all happening underneath our feet. He is undermining the liberty movement. This will harm Rand in the long-run. I hope we see it sooner rather than later. Or perhaps more importantly, I hope people on his staff see it sooner rather than later.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

Still personally use the term ally.  I mean, come on, folks, one person isn't going to be able to reform a Party.  You'll need multiple members to do that.  And I again would point to Cruz reading tweets during Paul's filibuster.  Sure, some call it pandering, but if that were the case, you'd have expected someone like Rubio, Graham or McCain to do it just to make themselves look good.  But they didn't.  I mean, in the House, are Massie and Amash out to undermine each other?  Probably not.  Is Cruz out to undermine Paul?  In my mind, it's too soon to tell. Plus, let's be honest: Paul isn't going to win every single poll, vote or be the leading voice on everything GOP-related, as much as some people here would like him to be.

----------


## libertygold

> Still personally use the term ally.  I mean, come on, folks, one person isn't going to be able to reform a Party.  You'll need multiple members to do that.  And I again would point to Cruz reading tweets during Paul's filibuster.  Sure, some call it pandering, but if that were the case, you'd have expected someone like Rubio, Graham or McCain to do it just to make themselves look good.  But they didn't.  I mean, in the House, are Massie and Amash out to undermine each other?  Probably not.  Is Cruz out to undermine Paul?  In my mind, it's too soon to tell. Plus, let's be honest: Paul isn't going to win every single poll, vote or be the leading voice on everything GOP-related, as much as some people here would like him to be.



I'm telling ya, I got a feeling about Cruz. By the time people realize it, the damage will have been done. The reason those Senators you mentioned didn't read the tweets is they are not trying to get the support of the liberty movement. Cruz was blatantly grandstanding so he could get our support and money and volunteers and speaker's fees, etc.

----------


## libertygold

I suppose time will tell but it may become too late if the liberty movement is co-opted and weakened. Then instead of just losing an election, we lose our principles with the election. Cruz is too close to the Bush family to trust.

----------


## libertygold

> Without Ron Paul, there would be no liberty movement to propel Rand and more liberty-leaning patriots into office.


Ron was the best. Nobody is at his level now. Rand is like a copy of a copy which loses a lot of the quality.

----------


## libertygold

Does anyone else think from the grandstanding of Ted the last few days with the veterans that he isn't looking out for his own ego? I don't think he has Rand or the liberty movement's interest in mind at all.

----------


## libertygold

> Possible. Hillary would be tough to beat unless Rand and Cruz grow a vagina. They got the first black president, the first woman will be quite tempting for low information voters.


Please elaborate on this.

----------


## jtstellar

> Ron was the best. Nobody is at his level now. Rand is like a copy of a copy which loses a lot of the quality.


| ron |---------------> | rand |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> | everybody else | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->| rand haters |

that's the problem

----------


## mosquitobite

> Exactly. They watch a couple youtube videos from the Mises Institute and all of a sudden they think they know everything. lol. This is what scares me about people falling for people who talk the language but in the long-run don't care about liberty. What scares me is people new to the liberty movement will just assume if someone is talking the language they must be good but people who have been around the while understand how movements get co-opted and people will use the movement to assemble their own list or raise money, or get volunteers, etc. People who truly care about liberty wouldn't be falling for people like Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. They have nothing on Ron Paul.


I still fight with my dad on this point.  I'm 37, he is 58.  
I have *NEVER* trusted Sarah Palin.  He loves her.
Thinks Paul Ryan leans libertarian   Sun rises with Ted Cruz.

He does like Rand, but I consider my dad the kind of voters we need to get - and Ted Cruz is doing exactly what the leadership wants him to do - split that block.

Thing is, Cruz at this point is doing action.  Which is what the base is clamoring for.  We've all been burned enough not to trust words and expect action - which Cruz has given them.  The fact that the GOP leadership (Boehner) changed the rules right before the shut down so that only he or Cantor could put up a vote on a CR is enough for me to know they planned to go along with Cruz the whole time.  And if the leadership was behind it...

----------


## libertygold

> I still fight with my dad on this point.  I'm 37, he is 58.  
> I have *NEVER* trusted Sarah Palin.  He loves her.
> Thinks Paul Ryan leans libertarian   Sun rises with Ted Cruz.
> 
> He does like Rand, but I consider my dad the kind of voters we need to get - and Ted Cruz is doing exactly what the leadership wants him to do - split that block.
> 
> Thing is, Cruz at this point is doing action.  Which is what the base is clamoring for.  We've all been burned enough not to trust words and expect action - which Cruz has given them.  The fact that the GOP leadership (Boehner) changed the rules right before the shut down so that only he or Cantor could put up a vote on a CR is enough for me to know they planned to go along with Cruz the whole time.  And if the leadership was behind it...


You get it. The establishment loves that Cruz may be splitting the liberty block.

----------


## idiom

His job is to split it and feed it to Ryan.

Ryan is the play, everything else is fog.

----------


## rich34

> Ted's Role is as a booster. But not for Rand.
> 
> Ted's entire point is to prepare a play for Paul Ryan to sweep in as hero. As the VP, Ryan is it for the party elders, don't forget that.
> 
> Anything that is not genuine grassroots is 100% about making Ryan look better.
> 
> At the moment Ryan is being set up to achieve a compromise from an impossible situation. This is supposed to make him look smarter than anyone else in the party, but also make him look a lot more reasonable than the democrats. He will be the Hero that was able to talk both sides down from the cliff.
> 
> A cliff that was largely created by 
> ...


You very well may be right.  After seeing that WSJ article about who the there winners are and ryans Ass being one of them along with Rand of course I believe you are right..

----------


## jbauer

I'm going to take a different spin on this.  I think the Obamacare/shutdown thing was actually a suicide mission for Cruz.  I think he jumped on the grenade for Rand.

----------


## jbauer

> Natural Citizen, I tend to agree. Rand has let me down lately by claiming he is not for ending the war on drugs and thinks libertarians just want to smoke pot and roll around in the mud. I was very disappointed to here him say those things. Can you imagine his father uttering those words? Ron Paul was such a great orator for expressing liberty. He never would compromise his principles for cheap soundbites which betray people who actually believe in the cause. I have tended to support Rand and maybe unfairly give himt he benefit of the doubt because of the respect and admiration I have had for his father for a long time.  I don't know though, Rand lately may drive me to Gary Johnson.


Would you rather had Rand smoke a joint in a Hawaiian shirt?  Rand needs to appeal to a huge tent to win.  The direction the country is moving is toward the end of the war on drugs.  Politics is all about baby steps.  The reason Ron was a "crazy old uncle" is that he wanted it done now.  Heck I want it done now but in reality is a gradual swing.  Go listen to the political history of anything going on today.  It take decades, even centuries to reverse the political direction on big ticket items.

----------


## jbauer

> You know, if Ted Cruz runs for the GOP nomination the birthers will have to either come out against him are start cooking up some crow.


Not a birther, but it would be generous of us to provide them with a recipe

----------


## libertygold

> I'm going to take a different spin on this.  I think the Obamacare/shutdown thing was actually a suicide mission for Cruz.  I think he jumped on the grenade for Rand.


It was indeed a suicide mission but I don't think he jumped on the grenade for Rand. I think he ends up hurting Rand since he will be lumped in with Cruz.

----------


## rich34

> I'm going to take a different spin on this.  I think the Obamacare/shutdown thing was actually a suicide mission for Cruz.  I think he jumped on the grenade for Rand.


No way did Cruz do this for the benefit of Rand..  He did it hoping to duplicate what the drone thing did for Rand, and that's it!  My hope is, is that it was Lee who helped Rand by pushing Cruz into doing it and Rand capitalized on the situation by appearing as the moderate on this issue.  I have no proof, but I'd like to think Lee went along with it so Rand could get him back for Cruz trying to position HIMSELF as the moderate on foreign policy when asked his views on the subject he said he'd be somewhere in between Paul and McCain on FP..  An answer we know is a lie based on him wanting to send 75000 troops into Syria until it was clear the people weren't behind it then he sang a different tune hoping no one would remember his previous stance.  Serves him right, for the snake that he is...

----------


## dinosaur

> I'm going to take a different spin on this.  I think the Obamacare/shutdown thing was actually a suicide mission for Cruz.  I think he jumped on the grenade for Rand.


It would be nice if this were true.  If Cruz doesn't run, or drops early and enthusiastically endorses Rand, I'll believe it.

----------


## libertygold

> No way did Cruz do this for the benefit of Rand..  He did it hoping to duplicate what the drone thing did for Rand, and that's it!  My hope is, is that it was Lee who helped Rand by pushing Cruz into doing it and Rand capitalized on the situation by appearing as the moderate on this issue.  I have no proof, but I'd like to think Lee went along with it so Rand could get him back for Cruz trying to position HIMSELF as the moderate on foreign policy when asked his views on the subject he said he'd be somewhere in between Paul and McCain on FP..  An answer we know is a lie based on him wanting to send 75000 troops into Syria until it was clear the people weren't behind it then he sang a different tune hoping no one would remember his previous stance.  Serves him right, for the snake that he is...


Rich, you echoed my exact original concern about Cruz. That his 21 hour speech was to try to do for himself what Rand did with his #standwithrand filibuster on drones. what Ted Cruz has done is actually hurt Rand by turning the nation against the tea party and the liberty movement, and splitting the movement. We should be slamming Cruz in public for this. Are any Rand staffers reading this? lol.

----------


## jbauer

> It would be nice if this were true.  If Cruz doesn't run, or drops early and enthusiastically endorses Rand, I'll believe it.


Cruz has gotten butchered in the polls since his "filibuster".  He had to know it was going to hurt him going in if it played out like it has.  Had he succeeded and obamacare was gone.  He'd be the nomination.  Since it hasn't Rand it the only viable tea party/liberty party candidate as of right now.

----------


## jbauer

> Rich, you echoed my exact original concern about Cruz. That his 21 hour speech was to try to do for himself what Rand did with his #standwithrand filibuster on drones. what Ted Cruz has done is actually hurt Rand by turning the nation against the tea party and the liberty movement, and splitting the movement. We should be slamming Cruz in public for this. Are any Rand staffers reading this? lol.


Ted had nothing to do with the turning on the tea party in the media.  That was cool, calm and calculated by the progressives.  (Dems and Reps) If you can't get your way, blame someone who is the biggest threat to you getting your way.  The whole no negotiation stuff by Barry has been set up for months.

----------


## dinosaur

> Cruz has gotten butchered in the polls since his "filibuster".  He had to know it was going to hurt him going in if it played out like it has.  Had he succeeded and obamacare was gone.  He'd be the nomination.  Since it hasn't Rand it the only viable tea party/liberty party candidate as of right now.


Yeah, but one doesn't need to be viable to effectively split the vote and help an establishment moderate.  Rand was uniting the libertarian and religious wings; that is what needs to be done.

----------


## libertygold

> Cruz has gotten butchered in the polls since his "filibuster".  He had to know it was going to hurt him going in if it played out like it has.  Had he succeeded and obamacare was gone.  He'd be the nomination.  Since it hasn't Rand it the only viable tea party/liberty party candidate as of right now.


Yeah but what good is being the only viable tea party/liberty candidate when that brand was just so damaged by Cruz? That is the problem.

----------


## rich34

> Thank you for that good comment. I agree Ted Cruz is completely self-serving and not trying to help Rand. My intuition from years of observation of the political scene and movements is that Ted Cruz is trying to steal the thunder away from Rand, particularly because of Rand's increase in popularity following the #standwithrand   This will ultimately split up the liberty movement and give the nomination to Christie.





> Ted Cruz at 14%- problem is a lot of that 14% favorability is coming from the liberty movement so as Ted alienates most of the country he splits the liberty movement at the same time. Cruz is bad news in my opinion. I've seen these sorts of opportunists before who just want the attention, money, speaker's fees, accolades, etc. and so will use the liberty movement so long as it fits them. If he were truly committed to liberty he would not have been so closely tied to Bush.





> Good post and it gives the image of Mike Lee channeling Emperor Palpatine as far as being politically shrewd goes.





> Ted's Role is as a booster. But not for Rand.
> 
> Ted's entire point is to prepare a play for Paul Ryan to sweep in as hero. As the VP, Ryan is it for the party elders, don't forget that.
> 
> Anything that is not genuine grassroots is 100% about making Ryan look better.
> 
> At the moment Ryan is being set up to achieve a compromise from an impossible situation. This is supposed to make him look smarter than anyone else in the party, but also make him look a lot more reasonable than the democrats. He will be the Hero that was able to talk both sides down from the cliff.
> 
> A cliff that was largely created by Ted.





> I can't see Cruz getting far in a presidential primary particularly in New Hampshire





> You all have had some really good responses. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who had that thought about Cruz actually harming Rand and the liberty movement. Paul Ryan is a complete sell out. He supported stimulus and war under Bush. He will say anything to anyone. Also Palin, another person who comes along and appeals to us expecting us to buy her books, etc. is another fraud who was for war among other things. We keep getting all these people- Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. who just want to use us and it ends up diluting our message and hurting in the long run. This is why I think we should stand up to them and not just let them run all over us. We should let them know we don't appreciate them trying to co-opt the liberty movement for their own self-serving reasons like all other politicians. Cruz is trying to get attention for himself from us while at the same time allowing as someone else said, Paul Ryan to come in and look like the moderate. Can't you see we're being had by these people?





> Respectfully I disagree. I think Ted will run for President because he has nothing to lose. He loves the attention.





> Still think Ted Cruz probably won't be running?.... 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...16-straw-poll/
> 
> It is all happening underneath our feet. He is undermining the liberty movement. This will harm Rand in the long-run. I hope we see it sooner rather than later. Or perhaps more importantly, I hope people on his staff see it sooner rather than later.





> His job is to split it and feed it to Ryan.
> 
> Ryan is the play, everything else is fog.



I agree totally and have been screaming the same thing.  I'm afraid by the time some realize this his hold on 10 percent will already be in place.  By then any and all attacks on him appearing to come from Rand's supporters will harden them to anyone, but Rand.  Sure I blast Cruz on this forum, but not with coworkers or anyone else for fear I could lose a potential Rand supporter down the road.  To those who think Cruz is not running you better think again and hard.  The man is not eligible and should know this, but that won't stop the establishment from using him as a tool in the primary to siphon votes away from Rand.  Hopefully Rand can keep Palin on board, because she seriously does have a strong following and her supporters will do most of what she says.  Getting an endorsement from her could be an automatic 5 point bump.  But back to Cruz before pollsters started adding him to the mix Rand was set to go into the 30 point range in Iowa, but since then Rand's lead has stabilized if not shrunk a little.  Just a tool to keep Rand's numbers from going into the stratosphere..

----------


## Carlybee

Hitching his wagon to McConnell may ultimately do more damage.

----------


## dinosaur

> Hitching his wagon to McConnell may ultimately do more damage.


Hasn't McConnell been hitching his wagon to Rand?

----------


## rich34

> Thank you for that good comment. I agree Ted Cruz is completely self-serving and not trying to help Rand. My intuition from years of observation of the political scene and movements is that Ted Cruz is trying to steal the thunder away from Rand, particularly because of Rand's increase in popularity following the #standwithrand   This will ultimately split up the liberty movement and give the nomination to Christie.





> Ted Cruz at 14%- problem is a lot of that 14% favorability is coming from the liberty movement so as Ted alienates most of the country he splits the liberty movement at the same time. Cruz is bad news in my opinion. I've seen these sorts of opportunists before who just want the attention, money, speaker's fees, accolades, etc. and so will use the liberty movement so long as it fits them. If he were truly committed to liberty he would not have been so closely tied to Bush.





> Good post and it gives the image of Mike Lee channeling Emperor Palpatine as far as being politically shrewd goes.





> Ted's Role is as a booster. But not for Rand.
> 
> Ted's entire point is to prepare a play for Paul Ryan to sweep in as hero. As the VP, Ryan is it for the party elders, don't forget that.
> 
> Anything that is not genuine grassroots is 100% about making Ryan look better.
> 
> At the moment Ryan is being set up to achieve a compromise from an impossible situation. This is supposed to make him look smarter than anyone else in the party, but also make him look a lot more reasonable than the democrats. He will be the Hero that was able to talk both sides down from the cliff.
> 
> A cliff that was largely created by Ted.





> I can't see Cruz getting far in a presidential primary particularly in New Hampshire





> You all have had some really good responses. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who had that thought about Cruz actually harming Rand and the liberty movement. Paul Ryan is a complete sell out. He supported stimulus and war under Bush. He will say anything to anyone. Also Palin, another person who comes along and appeals to us expecting us to buy her books, etc. is another fraud who was for war among other things. We keep getting all these people- Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, etc. who just want to use us and it ends up diluting our message and hurting in the long run. This is why I think we should stand up to them and not just let them run all over us. We should let them know we don't appreciate them trying to co-opt the liberty movement for their own self-serving reasons like all other politicians. Cruz is trying to get attention for himself from us while at the same time allowing as someone else said, Paul Ryan to come in and look like the moderate. Can't you see we're being had by these people?





> Respectfully I disagree. I think Ted will run for President because he has nothing to lose. He loves the attention.





> Still think Ted Cruz probably won't be running?.... 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...16-straw-poll/
> 
> It is all happening underneath our feet. He is undermining the liberty movement. This will harm Rand in the long-run. I hope we see it sooner rather than later. Or perhaps more importantly, I hope people on his staff see it sooner rather than later.





> His job is to split it and feed it to Ryan.
> 
> Ryan is the play, everything else is fog.





> You very well may be right.  After seeing that WSJ article about who the there winners are and ryans Ass being one of them along with Rand of course I believe you are right..





> Hasn't McConnell been hitching his wagon to Rand?


That's kinda how I see it.  Sure none of us likes this, but it goes back to ya gotta play the game.  Who knows, if McConnell gets re-elected just maybe Rand will get an endorsement from the republican senate minority leader, hopefully majority leader by then.  Not sure how much that helps but having the minority/majority leader endorsing your run can't hurt.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Booker is in bad shape now, lots of negative PR. Lonegan is within 6 points,


It doesn't matter.  OFA needs a black guy on the 2016 ticket to keep their people energized and in the game.  Booker is it.  They will go the wall with the vote fraud tomorrow for it if they need to.  And Christie will let them, in exchange for OFA & "Holder's people" backing off his gubernatorial election in three weeks.




> Biden, do I really even have to explain...


Well, I might have to explain to you...

  If Obama/OFA backs Biden as his virtual third term, they will have people in the media willing to destroy Hillary and/or John Kerry if Obama asks them to.  Both are very dirty and destroyable. 

 (Jerry Brown may be clean enough to survive an OFA attack, though.)

----------


## libertygold

> It doesn't matter.  OFA needs a black guy on the 2016 ticket to keep their people energized and in the game.  Booker is it.  They will go the wall with the vote fraud tomorrow for it if they need to.  And Christie will let them, in exchange for OFA & "Holder's people" backing off his gubernatorial election in three weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I might have to explain to you...
> 
>   If Obama/OFA backs Biden as his virtual third term, they will have people in the media willing to destroy Hillary and/or John Kerry if Obama asks them to.  Both are very dirty and destroyable. 
> 
>  (Jerry Brown may be clean enough to survive an OFA attack, though.)


Do you really think it is that racial?

----------


## libertywanter

AGREE AGREE AGREE, to comment about he should not hitch his wagon to McConnel

----------


## libertygold

> AGREE AGREE AGREE, to comment about he should not hitch his wagon to McConnel


McConnel is the face of the GOP establishment.

----------


## Carlybee

> Hasn't McConnell been hitching his wagon to Rand?


Perhaps but technically Rand endorsed McConnell and pow-wows with him. The radio talking heads who now lean Tea Party are pissed at McConnell over what they percieve as capitulating to the Dems over the debt ceiling. Is Rand going to end up being associated with that or with the Cruz loving Tea Partiers? The Tea Party brand has been damaged among moderates but seems to be going strong in media and social media.

----------


## dinosaur

> Perhaps but technically Rand endorsed McConnell and pow-wows with him. The radio talking heads who now lean Tea Party are pissed at McConnell over what they percieve as capitulating to the Dems over the debt ceiling. Is Rand going to end up being associated with that or with the Cruz loving Tea Partiers? The Tea Party brand has been damaged among moderates but seems to be going strong in media and social media.


Has Rand been damaged by associating with democrats when he finds common ground issues to work with them on?  I don't know, anything is possible when it comes to Limbaugh and Beck and Co.

----------


## Carlybee

> Has Rand been damaged by associating with democrats when he finds common ground issues to work with them on?  I don't know, anything is possible when it comes to Limbaugh and Beck and Co.


Limbaugh, Hannity et al...as much as I can't stand them, in the past have been able to influence their followers which will help determine who gets the nomination.  I think there is a civil war brewing within the party (not to mention the really vitriolic one already established between red and blue voters) and I think Rand may be straddling a fine line.   (Limbaugh rarely discusses Rand, but he plays up Cruz and Lee quite often.)

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Perhaps but technically Rand endorsed McConnell and pow-wows with him. The radio talking heads who now lean Tea Party are pissed at McConnell over what they percieve as capitulating to the Dems over the debt ceiling. Is Rand going to end up being associated with that.


Rand'll be fine assuming he votes against this deal.

----------


## libertygold

> Limbaugh, Hannity et al...as much as I can't stand them, in the past have been able to influence their followers which will help determine who gets the nomination.  I think there is a civil war brewing within the party (not to mention the really vitriolic one already established between red and blue voters) and I think Rand may be straddling a fine line.   (Limbaugh rarely discusses Rand, but he plays up Cruz and Lee quite often.)


Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are just shills for the GOP. One of the things which really concerns me about Rand getting close to the establishment is they are just waiting to figure out a way to smash the movement. Limbaugh and Hannity are the face of everything the liberty movement is against. Corporate propagandists doing the work of the establishment.

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm going to take a different spin on this.  I think the Obamacare/shutdown thing was actually a suicide mission for Cruz.  I think he jumped on the grenade for Rand.


This might be true.  I think the consequence was a temporary, bug significant, blow to the Republican brand, though.  It was a very poor tactic, politically.

----------


## libertygold

> This might be true.  I think the consequence was a temporary, bug significant, blow to the Republican brand, though.  It was a very poor tactic, politically.


It sucks how rand was trying to get over with the Republican brand just as the Republican brand fell apart. lol. We can never seem to win. Maybe he should start his own party.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Do you really think it is that racial?


For everyone?  No.
For plenty of people who make their living off of politically exploiting race?  Yes.
For enough people to make the difference at the margins?  yes.

----------


## libertygold

> For everyone?  No.
> For plenty of people who make their living off of politically exploiting race?  Yes.
> For enough people to make the difference at the margins?  yes.


Good points.

----------


## Malcolm_Sharpe

> ...I think there is a civil war brewing within the party...


I thought _we_ were the civil war in the party and that we started it a few years ago.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

ted cruz was like the best thing that could've happened to rand.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> It doesn't matter.  OFA needs a black guy on the 2016 ticket to keep their people energized and in the game.  Booker is it.  They will go the wall with the vote fraud tomorrow for it if they need to.  And Christie will let them, in exchange for OFA & "Holder's people" backing off his gubernatorial election in three weeks.


"Holder's People" has to be one of the least-subtle racial dog whistles ever devised by the conservative blog crowd.  Right there with "Obama's son".

----------


## libertygold

> ted cruz was like the best thing that could've happened to rand.


You could be right. Time will tell. Cruz just strikes me as being all about himself and will be eager to split the liberty movement for his own gain.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

> You could be right. Time will tell. Cruz just strikes me as being all about himself and will be eager to split the liberty movement for his own gain.


he votes with rand most of the time so im not going to impugn his motives. but looks clear he hurt his presidential chances while very improving rand's.

----------


## PaleoPaul

There's a petition circulating for Ted Cruz to be charged with sedition and to be expelled from the Senate.  If anything, he's the most toxic and unliked person in politics right now.

This couldn't have worked out ANY better for Rand.

----------


## libertygold

> "Holder's People" has to be one of the least-subtle racial dog whistles ever devised by the conservative blog crowd.  Right there with "Obama's son".


Is it really racist though? I mean what about when people talked about "Bush's people" or with Nixon, "All The President's Men" ?

----------


## libertygold

> There's a petition circulating for Ted Cruz to be charged with sedition and to be expelled from the Senate.  If anything, he's the most toxic and unliked person in politics right now.
> 
> This couldn't have worked out ANY better for Rand.


I hear you but check this out - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/19...ngton.html?hp=

Cruz is still very popular in Texas and that could be bad for Rand.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I hear you but check this out - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/19...ngton.html?hp=
> 
> Cruz is still very popular in Texas and that could be bad for Rand.


This is a puff piece with no statistical indication of their claim..  It's a couple of anecdotes and opinion based observations.  Our primary might be early enough this cycle to matter, but not early enough for it to matter for Ted Cruz.

----------


## libertygold

> This is a puff piece with no statistical indication of their claim..  It's a couple of anecdotes and opinion based observations.  Our primary might be early enough this cycle to matter, but not early enough for it to matter for Ted Cruz.


We'll see. I think Cruz will be popular in Texas because of his image now as a fighter.

----------


## libertygold

Anyone listen to this and think he won't run for president? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taVnS3N_J3E

----------


## libertygold

> | ron |---------------> | rand |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> | everybody else | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->| rand haters |
> 
> that's the problem


Haha. Fairly accurate. Where do you put Gary Johnson in there though? Might be unfair to just lump him in with "everybody else". Gary is owed his due.

----------


## libertygold

> I thought _we_ were the civil war in the party and that we started it a few years ago.


The media always loves pushing the narrative of the GOP being in a civil war. lol. Although maybe to some extent it is true at least that the liberty movement is at war with the neo-cons within the Republican party.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> You could be right. Time will tell. Cruz just strikes me as being all about himself and will be eager to split the liberty movement for his own gain.


The middle position, that Cruz performed his firebrand stunts to position himself or Paul Ryan later, BUT the real triangulation effect was actually to benefit the positioning of Rand, seems to be the most accurate summary of what has happened. Also remember with triangulation, the point is to create the perception of TWO radicalized sides (the firebrand's, and the response of the opposition), through which the 'statesman' can appear the moderate leader. Cruz's achievement includes making Rand present as the statesman, and making the media and Washington establishment look just as radicalized in shoving Obamacare, plus endless spending and borrowing "to infinity and beyond" onto the rest of us.

----------


## libertygold

> The middle position, that Cruz performed his firebrand stunts to position himself or Paul Ryan later, BUT the real triangulation effect was actually to benefit the positioning of Rand, seems to be the most accurate summary of what has happened. Also remember with triangulation, the point is to create the perception of TWO radicalized sides (the firebrand's, and the response of the opposition), through which the 'statesman' can appear the moderate leader. Cruz's achievement includes making Rand present as the statesman, and making the media and Washington establishment look just as radicalized in shoving Obamacare, plus endless spending and borrowing "to infinity and beyond" onto the rest of us.


Do you think they planned that triangulation?

----------


## jtstellar

If you're putting yourself on the line--not just sitting behind a computer and b*tching about it--no, you're not harming liberty or rand paul, even if you disagree with him.

----------


## libertygold

You went on a forum to complain about people talking from behind a computer? lol.

----------


## dcraelin

I think the opening post got it exactly right.  

 Cruz has the rhetoric of an outsider but the resume of an insider. 

 The Goldman Sachs support of his Senate run very telling.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Do you think they planned that triangulation?


I think Cruz either planned the triangulation with Rand, or more likely, planned for it to benefit Paul Ryan or the "responsible" (hack establishment) Republicans, but Rand reaped the perceived 'stateman' outcome instead. The firebrand, in any case under the tactic, is _supposed_ to take a bullet, while drawing the opposition in to also take a hit. Cruz was performing a role, but the jury is still out as to whether he was truly pushing Rand, or pushing the insiders.

----------


## TaftFan

> I think the opening post got it exactly right.  
> 
>  Cruz has the rhetoric of an outsider but the resume of an insider. 
> 
>  The Goldman Sachs support of his Senate run very telling.


Goldman Sachs doesn't support anybody, their employees do.

----------


## libertygold

> I think Cruz either planned the triangulation with Rand, or more likely, planned for it to benefit Paul Ryan or the "responsible" (hack establishment) Republicans, but Rand reaped the perceived 'stateman' outcome instead. The firebrand, in any case under the tactic, is _supposed_ to take a bullet, while drawing the opposition in to also take a hit. Cruz was performing a role, but the jury is still out as to whether he was truly pushing Rand, or pushing the insiders.


From what I have seen about Ted Cruz, I think he is pushing the insiders. I could be wrong. I make mistakes like everyone, but it seems to me like he is too connected to the inside and is too much of an egomaniac to go through all of this just to help Rand.

----------


## dcraelin

> Goldman Sachs doesn't support anybody, their employees do.


enough employees and I think by proxy you can say the company does

----------


## libertygold

> enough employees and I think by proxy you can say the company does


I'm not willing to say Ted Cruz is bought off by Goldman Sachs just because his wife works there. The media has been trying to make something of him getting his health insurance through Goldman Sachs and saying its not right to oppose health insurance for others while one gets it from an investment bank like Goldman Sachs but that is just their bias. Not everyone connected with Goldman Sachs is in some sort of conspiracy. I think Cruz's ties to the Bush family is more worrying. I can't say for sure but I think he would be more partial to Jeb Bush and could be running a mission now to make sure the liberty movement is weakened in case Jeb runs for president.

----------


## dcraelin

> I'm not willing to say Ted Cruz is bought off by Goldman Sachs just because his wife works there. The media has been trying to make something of him getting his health insurance through Goldman Sachs and saying its not right to oppose health insurance for others while one gets it from an investment bank like Goldman Sachs but that is just their bias. Not everyone connected with Goldman Sachs is in some sort of conspiracy. I think Cruz's ties to the Bush family is more worrying. I can't say for sure but I think he would be more partial to Jeb Bush and could be running a mission now to make sure the liberty movement is weakened in case Jeb runs for president.


well some article I read said that he picked up alot of donations from GoldmanSachs employees. But I think your spot on on your other arguements

----------


## AuH20

> There's a petition circulating for Ted Cruz to be charged with sedition and to be expelled from the Senate.  If anything, he's the most toxic and unliked person in politics right now.
> 
> This couldn't have worked out ANY better for Rand.


Rand will get his in due time. All this false jubiliation about Cruz is rather comical, when the same thing will be done to Rand. We're all in this together. Cruz, Lee and Rand. No one in the establishment cares for them.

----------


## libertygold

> well some article I read said that he picked up alot of donations from GoldmanSachs employees. But I think your spot on on your other arguements


Interesting. Could you post a link to that article if you could? Maybe Cruz ultimately is doing the bidding of the investment banks. To me it seems like the Bush connection is more relevant in terms of electoral politics and the idea that he may be clearing the way for Jeb.

----------


## dcraelin

well cant find article I was thinking of but here is a link from daily paul liberty forum with other links http://www.dailypaul.com/235714/shoc...uzs-senate-bid  and another link  http://www.statesman.com/news/news/s...n-washi/nRkbr/ 

you may be right on Bush connection libertygold, either way shows less than genuine candidate

----------


## dcraelin

I saw that Drudge had an article that GoldmanSachs paid Hillary 400000 for 2 speeches that were almost back-to-back.  They just may be orchestrating who they want to be the candidates.

----------


## libertygold

> I saw that Drudge had an article that GoldmanSachs paid Hillary 400000 for 2 speeches that were almost back-to-back.  They just may be orchestrating who they want to be the candidates.


I am not so sure it is as conspiratorial as you make it sound but I wouldn't be surprised. hahaha.

----------


## libertygold

I heard Chris Matthews say Rand will get the nomination because he will appear moderate compared to Cruz. I think this is wrong though. I think now that Democrats like Matthews think that they will attack that strategy and link Rand to Cruz and try to make Rand look wishy washy if he appears to distance himself. That is why I think Rand should distance himself as soon as possible since Cruz is really just trying to help the establishment of the GOP. I could be wrong but his association with the Bush's really makes me think he may be a pawn in the overall goal of making Jeb the nominee.

----------


## libertygold

Looks like there is no way Ted Cruz doesn't run... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4218004.html     He has too many activists in Texas who could help in Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't see someone who seems like an egomaniac like Cruz simply not running when he has that much support among activists in Texas.

----------


## dcraelin

looks to me like the establishment is setting up either Christy or Bush to win next time around. Their seems to be some hesitation developing around Christy or maybe this latest news on his being rejected by Romney is just to get that news out of the way early. Seems Hillary is being propped up for a loss. Cruz to run interference against Paul.

----------


## libertygold

> looks to me like the establishment is setting up either Christy or Bush to win next time around. Their seems to be some hesitation developing around Christy or maybe this latest news on his being rejected by Romney is just to get that news out of the way early. Seems Hillary is being propped up for a loss. Cruz to run interference against Paul.



Exactly. That is what I was thinking. And now more stories are even coming out about tensions between rand and cruz. I think cruz simply saw the growing popularity of rand's brand and jumped on it for himself.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> looks to me like the establishment is setting up either Christy or Bush to win next time around. Their seems to be some hesitation developing around Christy or maybe this latest news on his being rejected by Romney is just to get that news out of the way early. Seems Hillary is being propped up for a loss. Cruz to run interference against Paul.


More precisely, the establishment would like to position Christie and Bush as the real 'first tier,' and have the campaign reporting be dominated by their dynamic, to keep from putting any emphasis of Rand (the same way they orchestrated a non-stop Mitt vs Perry, Mitt vs Newt, Mitt vs Santorum race coverage in 2011-12). Actually, the fix will likely be in to shepherd Jeb as the chosen one, with Christie serving as the credible challenger, or plan B if Jeb blunders. But the choice will be poised as one of hack 1 or hack 2.

This way it gives off the illusion they are covering the race, when they are merely emphasizing the acceptable frontrunners they have selected. By keeping all the focus on the selected two, they can marginalize Rand by omission, just as with Ron in 2008 and 2012. Where they do cover Rand, it would be as a 'second tier' guy fighting for Tea Party bragging rights with Cruz, who may try to provoke Rand into diversionary debates over extreme wording on an issue, or even over race. They will split the more commited social conservative candidates the same way, to split that vote so the milquetoast moderate anointed guy can again win the key early primaries, then be coronated as the prospective nominee the conservatives are stuck with supporting.

----------


## dinosaur

> More precisely, the establishment would like to position Christie and Bush as the real 'first tier,' and have the campaign reporting be dominated by their dynamic, to keep from putting any emphasis of Rand (the same way they orchestrated a non-stop Mitt vs Perry, Mitt vs Newt, Mitt vs Santorum race coverage in 2011-12). Actually, the fix will likely be in to shepherd Jeb as the chosen one, with Christie serving as the credible challenger, or plan B if Jeb blunders. But the choice will be poised as one of hack 1 or hack 2.
> 
> This way it gives off the illusion they are covering the race, when they are merely emphasizing the acceptable frontrunners they have selected. By keeping all the focus on the selected two, they can marginalize Rand by omission, just as with Ron in 2008 and 2012. Where they do cover Rand, it would be as a 'second tier' guy fighting for Tea Party bragging rights with Cruz, who may try to provoke Rand into diversionary debates over extreme wording on an issue, or even over race. They will split the more commited social conservative candidates the same way, to split that vote so the milquetoast moderate anointed guy can again win the key early primaries, then be coronated as the prospective nominee the conservatives are stuck with supporting.


Good Summary.

----------


## unknown

No clue, but if the GOP doesnt present Rand as the GOP nominee, theyre going to lose, again.

----------


## libertygold

Now even the media is picking up that there may be tension between cruz  and rand. I think the idea that cruz is working for the establishment  and may be trying split the movement and dilute rand's support should be  taken seriously. Nobody is that close to the bush family with nothing  up their sleeve. Just saw these articles someone sent me.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/03...t-believe.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...enemies/71191/

----------


## dinosaur

> Now even the media is picking up that there may be tension between cruz  and rand. I think the idea that cruz is working for the establishment  and may be trying split the movement and dilute rand's support should be  taken seriously. Nobody is that close to the bush family with nothing  up their sleeve. Just saw these articles someone sent me.
> 
> http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/03...t-believe.html
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...enemies/71191/


I'm sure Rand is taking it seriously.  Or, less likely, Cruz is a double agent who is just letting the establishment thinks that he will be a spoiler for them.  Either way, maybe the people trying to keep it hush are right and we should even shut up about it here and stop bumping this thread.  If it is seriously being pushed in the media right now, we don't need to add to the perception..because a public war between the two would be very detrimental to Rand right now.

----------


## libertygold

> I'm sure Rand is taking it seriously.  Or, less likely, Cruz is a double agent who is just letting the establishment thinks that he will be a spoiler for them.  Either way, maybe the people trying to keep it hush are right and we should even shut up about it here and stop bumping this thread.  If it is seriously being pushed in the media right now, we don't need to add to the perception..because a public war between the two would be very detrimental to Rand right now.


It is a tough one. A public war between the two would not be good. At the same time I think people should realize that supporting cruz just ultimately undermines rand. I think it is ok to bring that up here because this is a forum of people friendly to rand. It isn't like we are going on cnn and announcing it.

----------


## dcraelin

> More precisely, the establishment would like to position Christie and Bush as the real 'first tier,' and have the campaign reporting be dominated by their dynamic, to keep from putting any emphasis of Rand (the same way they orchestrated a non-stop Mitt vs Perry, Mitt vs Newt, Mitt vs Santorum race coverage in 2011-12). Actually, the fix will likely be in to shepherd Jeb as the chosen one, with Christie serving as the credible challenger, or plan B if Jeb blunders. But the choice will be poised as one of hack 1 or hack 2.
> 
> This way it gives off the illusion they are covering the race, when they are merely emphasizing the acceptable frontrunners they have selected. By keeping all the focus on the selected two, they can marginalize Rand by omission, just as with Ron in 2008 and 2012. Where they do cover Rand, it would be as a 'second tier' guy fighting for Tea Party bragging rights with Cruz, who may try to provoke Rand into diversionary debates over extreme wording on an issue, or even over race. They will split the more commited social conservative candidates the same way, to split that vote so the milquetoast moderate anointed guy can again win the key early primaries, then be coronated as the prospective nominee the conservatives are stuck with supporting.


excellent analysis. And now we here that the Democratic party rolled over for Christy in New Jersey.

----------


## libertygold

> excellent analysis. And now we here that the Democratic party rolled over for Christy in New Jersey.


I agree that was a very well thought out analysis. Thank you for articulating that. We always end up getting stuck with a Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, Christie, etc. Complete sell outs to the values of liberty.

----------


## libertygold

Has anyone else seen that ted cruz said rand can't win because of his father? What the heck is that all about? Way for cruz to show his gratitude when it ron helped him become Senator.

----------


## serenityrick

> Has anyone else seen that ted cruz said rand can't win because of his father? What the heck is that all about? Way for cruz to show his gratitude when it ron helped him become Senator.


You're going to have to provide a link because that doesn't seem right
EDIT - Just read the article. I'm dubious to be frank. Especially since it came from the New York Times... and no one was actually quoted.

Speaking of Ted Cruz.. Has he even expressed interest in running for President? I don't mean that in a snarky way but it seems the only people throwing that around are Tea Party conservatives hoping that he runs.
I actually like Ted Cruz, certainly more than the majority of people on this forum seem to. With that said, it would be a horrible mistake for him to run for President because he would absolutely split the Tea Party/Libertarian vote in the Primary which would almost assuredly ruin Rand's chances. Him and Rand seem to be good friends and I do believe they are both fighting for the Constitution and the Republic so I have to believe he knows that would completely spoil any chance for a Libertarian or non-establishment republican to win the White House.

As a matter of fact (well, opinion actually), while I have no evidence, I actually think Ted Cruz took a political bullet for Rand when he "filibustered" over Obamacare. It got the WHOLE Country talking about Obamacare and shone a bright, white hot spotlight on this terrible law and drew a stark contrast between the establishment GOP and constitutional conservatives and now it's being proven how right he was.. however, he (Cruz) continues and will continue to be martyred for what he did in the Media and Rand Paul can collect the spoils of being in direct opposition to Obamacare while not suffering the same political damage that Cruz may have gotten. Whether Cruz did it intentionally or not, we'll never know

One thing we do know is.. Rand Paul is known for being vehemently against the Health Care law and yet he's not lumped in with the "crazy Tea Party" who "shut down the government". Win win.

----------


## libertygold

> You're going to have to provide a link because that doesn't seem right
> 
> Speaking of Ted Cruz.. Has he even expressed interest in running for President? I don't mean that in a snarky way but it seems the only people throwing that around are Tea Party conservatives hoping that he runs.
> I actually like Ted Cruz, certainly more than the majority of people on this forum seem to. With that said, it would be a horrible mistake for him to run for President because he would absolutely split the Tea Party/Libertarian vote in the Primary which would almost assuredly ruin Rand's chances. Him and Rand seem to be good friends and I do believe they are both fighting for the Constitution and the Republic so I have to believe he knows that would completely spoil any chance for a Libertarian or non-establishment republican to win the White House.
> 
> As a matter of fact (well, opinion actually), while I have no evidence, I actually think Ted Cruz took a political bullet for Rand when he "filibustered" over Obamacare. It got the WHOLE Country talking about Obamacare and shone a bright, white hot spotlight on this terrible law and drew a stark contrast between the establishment GOP and constitutional conservatives and now it's being proven how right he was.. however, he (Cruz) continues and will continue to be martyred for what he did in the Media and Rand Paul can collect the spoils of being in direct opposition to Obamacare while not suffering the same political damage that Cruz may have gotten. Whether Cruz did it intentionally or not, we'll never know
> 
> One thing we do know is.. Rand Paul is known for being vehemently against the Health Care law and yet he's not lumped in with the "crazy Tea Party" who "shut down the government". Win win.


Here you go. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/us...erge.html?_r=0

----------


## serenityrick

> Here you go. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/us...erge.html?_r=0


Just edited my original post/reply.

----------


## libertygold

> Just edited my original post/reply.



You may be right. We may just see it differently. Maybe the years of watching politics give me a different suspicion.

----------


## WD-NY

Can a mod change the title of this thread? Nothing wrong with the discussion, but the title is needlessly (and imo at present, groundlessly) inflammatory.

----------


## libertygold

I didn't mean undermine as some sort of insidious conspiracy. Undermined is just anytime something happens which works against one's goals. I don't think ted cruz is out to completely undermine rand's political career, I just think his actions have undermined rand's presidential run. I raised it as a question to see if others had a similar thought and it turns out some have and some haven't. When I originally posted it seemed like everyone was on board for Cruz and I thought maybe I am the only one who is thinking this but I wanted to see if others were as well. I suppose to boil it down we are both looking at the word "undermine" differently. I don't see it as being a grand conspiracy or even malicious but just an objective assessment of if something is setting one's goal back. Heavy rain undermines my ability to go outside for a run. Given cruz's long ties to the bush family and as someone else on here pointed out his wife's working for goldman sachs, i do think he may indeed be running interference for the establishment which has always wanted to divide the liberty movement. And that is why yes, I raised the question if ted cruz was undermining rand paul. I saw a lot of people getting excited about cruz and it didn't seem to me like they were looking long-term to see this could actually be setting the movement back.

----------


## libertygold

Seemed pretty clear from watching cruz's appearance on Leno that he will run for president. It was not on purpose because the timing was probably planned way in advance but cruz was going on the tonight show and getting good publicity while rand was mired down in the plagiarism scandal. Oh well, still time to see how this plays out. The liberal media will eventually have to back off the plagiarism story because it will get boring if the worst they have on rand is just that his staff put a few lines from wikipedia in a speech.

----------


## libertygold

This certainly adds a twist...http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...5.html?ml=po_r      I hadn't even thought about the Rick Perry dimension.

----------


## dcraelin

I remember Perry being critical of the Federal Reserve.  Cruz may be the bankers way to kill two birds with one stone. Rand Paul and Perry.  I see that Christy's wife also worked for a Wall Street firm, Cantor-Fitzgerald I believe.

----------


## philipped

I still stick to the notion that worse case scenario is: Ted and Rand both run for President. First couple Primary states, Rand wins some, Ted gets some, Ted drops out because his grassroots is not as strong as Rand's, before he drops out he will ask his voters to support Rand 100% and then hopefully 75% of his voters will link up with him.

----------


## libertygold

> I still stick to the notion that worse case scenario is: Ted and Rand both run for President. First couple Primary states, Rand wins some, Ted gets some, Ted drops out because his grassroots is not as strong as Rand's, before he drops out he will ask his voters to support Rand 100% and then hopefully 75% of his voters will link up with him.


That is a scenario but I don't think it is the worst case scenario. I think the worst case scenario is Ted builds some momentum after maybe winning Iowa or New Hampshire and the resources of the liberty movement become split between the two of them. Even if 10% of resources which would normally go to Rand are diverted (time, money, energy) that would be enough to cost Rand because he needs everything given what he is up against in the Republican establishment with people like Christie and Jeb Bush. Also, if ted and rand are competing in states early on it could develop bad relations between their staffs which may make it difficult to coordinate if your scenario is correct about ted pulling out. I read recently there was a lot of tension between the staffs of Christie and Romney. This suggests that even if two politicians get along perfectly fine, personal divides can emerge among staff. Those wounds may not heal in time to unify the liberty movement before Christie or Jeb Bush steam roll right through with all their establishment money. What has me kind of concerned, not that I am trying to be paranoid, is that Ted Cruz has been very close to the Bush family for over a decade. This suggests to me he is being used by the neo-con establishment which fears Rand. My evaluation is that rand is much more sincere about liberty (he was raised by a great man), while ted is more of an opportunist trying to steal the glory away which was going towards Rand.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> That is a scenario but I don't think it is the worst case scenario. I think the worst case scenario is Ted builds some momentum after maybe winning Iowa or New Hampshire


If Cruz denies Rand Iowa and/or New hampshire, it's already over right there.

----------


## 69360

> If Cruz denies Rand Iowa and/or New hampshire, it's already over right there.


Right if Cruz and Paul both run it will be decided between them in the first two states. One will endorse the other after NH.

----------


## libertygold

> Right if Cruz and Paul both run it will be decided between them in the first two states. One will endorse the other after NH.


The damage will have been done. The momentum given to whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire will be a big advantage. Even if lets say ted cruz drops out after New Hampshire it seems like he is leaving the race early but he isn't if you see the long game and realize how many resources he would have taken away from Rand before anyone even votes or a caucus is held.

----------


## libertygold

I think the drudge story about Cruz being the third most popular world leader has vindicated the concerns I had about the establishment undermining Rand through Cruz. Drudge is very close to members of the GOP establishment like he was with members of the Romney campaign and they feed him things to suit their agenda. It's all been set up to make Ted Cruz the liberty candidate to undermine Rand which then strengthens the establishment of the GOP. If Ted did not rise, Rand would be a lot better right now.

----------


## rich34

LG, thank God I'm not the only one seeing this.  People have to realize this is the only shot they got right now.  Christie, McCain Graham and that big mouth King hasn't fazed Rand one bit, but them pushing Cruz has.  What do you do? Attack then risk backlash, wait and see how it plays out?  I don't know.  Was hoping someone else did.

----------


## idiom

The GOP's play is Ryan. Cruz beautifully teed up Ryan with his shutdown.

Its not that hard to follow along.

Cruz is not the nominee at all. Not this time around. Keep focused on the establishment.

----------


## rich34

> The GOP's play is Ryan. Cruz beautifully teed up Ryan with his shutdown.
> 
> Its not that hard to follow along.
> 
> Cruz is not the nominee at all. Not this time around. Keep focused on the establishment.


I agree Cruz isn't their guy, but he IS their guy when it comes to stopping Rand.  That's not hard to see either.  I also don't see Ryan as being their guy.  I can't see him winning the GOP nomination much less the general election. I simply don't see Ryan as being a "strong" enough candidate for the big money folks to risk their money on.

----------


## idiom

> I agree Cruz isn't their guy, but he IS their guy when it comes to stopping Rand.  That's not hard to see either.  I also don't see Ryan as being their guy.  I can't see him winning the GOP nomination much less the general election. I simply don't see Ryan as being a "strong" enough candidate for the big money folks to risk their money on.


GOP nomination is determined by seniority, not meritocracy. You get nominated for being a proven team player.

----------


## mosquitobite

People seem to forget Boehner and Canter changed the rules in the house one week before Cruz' shut down.  They changed the rules so that ONLY Boehner or Canter could put up a resolution.  Without that, Cruz would not have gotten the spotlight as long as he did.  

People are blind to not see the establishment HELPED Cruz with the shut down.  Now ask "why?"

----------


## idiom

> People seem to forget Boehner and Canter changed the rules in the house one week before Cruz' shut down.  They changed the rules so that ONLY Boehner or Canter could put up a resolution.  Without that, Cruz would not have gotten the spotlight as long as he did.  
> 
> People are blind to not see the establishment HELPED Cruz with the shut down.  Now ask "why?"


To make Ryan look super reasonable and make Ryan the hero with the with this budget deal.

Ryan is suddenly 'the man who can get things done'.

----------


## mosquitobite

I can see that point of view, but they had to know it was going to help Cruz with the Republican base.

Now, their strategy may have been that Ryan would win with moderates/independents, but it haven't seen that play out.

And which group do they need to impress for 2016?  Most independents don't vote in the primaries.

----------


## rich34

> GOP nomination is determined by seniority, not meritocracy. You get nominated for being a proven team player.


Understood, but my point was I don't see the big GOP donors throwing tons of money to Ryan when you have Christie or possibly a bush in the race.  Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see Ryan raising that kind of money.

----------


## libertygold

> Understood, but my point was I don't see the big GOP donors throwing tons of money to Ryan when you have Christie or possibly a bush in the race.  Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see Ryan raising that kind of money.


I think it is all about the GOP establishment deciding on if they want to get behind Christie or Jeb Bush at this point. Cruz is very close to the Bush family so that could be an indication. Even if Jeb Bush decides not to run, he may at least just be keeping the option open. Should he run, he would want the liberty movement weakened. This is just the reality of how politics works.

----------


## idiom

I would expect Bush or Christie to be lining up for plays at the VP spot at this point.

----------


## rich34

> I would expect Bush or Christie to be lining up for plays at the VP spot at this point.


Christie?  VP?  I think his ego is to big to be anyone's VP.  I think he's been eyeing the presidency ever since he was walking arm n arm with Obama.

----------


## libertygold

> Christie?  VP?  I think his ego is to big to be anyone's VP.  I think he's been eyeing the presidency ever since he was walking arm n arm with Obama.


Exactly my thought. Rich, you continue to be spot on.

----------


## mosquitobite

I am guessing the establishment is playing for a "tea party" style VP. 
cruz or ryan maybe

----------


## rich34

> I am guessing the establishment is playing for a "tea party" style VP. 
> cruz or ryan maybe


Id say this is correct, and IMO it would be Cruz not Ryan who they'd be likely to pick due to them knowing Cruz will go along with their hawkish foreign policy.  I think they know they'd need a perceived tea party type to pull in the tea party base to combine the establishment anti establishment vote.  Cruz has been playing this card the whole time while walking in Rand's shadow the whole time.  If you think for a minute from their point of view they'd believe a Christie/Cruz ticket would give them the best shot at winning cause you know they'd never offer Rand that position because they know Rand is the real deal while Cruz is a wolf in sheeps clothing.  This to me makes perfect sense and many others here, but many here still seem to think Cruz is the real deal when in reality this is the role he's playing to not only derail Rand but help them take back the white house.  But their still gonna lose cause indys IMO still aren't sold on him because he hasn't been as outspoken as Rand on foreign policy and civil liberties.  My hope is the Ron/Rand folks figure this out before its to late..

And oh for the one poster to say Cruz got up and walked out while Castro gave his speech well hell. I would to knowing my father was a big supporter of Castro back in the day.  This is called giving the appearance if distancing himself from the commies. his father used to support.  I'm telling ya if they go this route and Cruz turns out to be the snake I believe him to be that Ron and Rand run independent and throw a spoke up their arse ..

----------


## libertygold

> I am guessing the establishment is playing for a "tea party" style VP. 
> cruz or ryan maybe


I don't think Ryan would be the running mate for two consecutive presidential cycles. Is there any precedent for a ticket losing and then the running mate on that ticket being chosen four years later to be the running mate on another ticket?

----------


## rich34

> I don't think Ryan would be the running mate for two consecutive presidential cycles. Is there any precedent for a ticket losing and then the running mate on that ticket being chosen four years later to be the running mate on another ticket?


Exactly, if Ryan runs and don't win he's no ones running mate.

----------


## libertygold

> Exactly, if Ryan runs and don't win he's no ones running mate.


Precisely. Paul Ryan will probably run for president, but he isn't going to be anyone's running mate. Christie can also never be anyone's running mate. His personality and political persona is top spot or nothing. Candidates for president do not want to be overshadowed by a running mate who has a stronger personality and appeal to the press.

----------


## libertygold

> Id say this is correct, and IMO it would be Cruz not Ryan who they'd be likely to pick due to them knowing Cruz will go along with their hawkish foreign policy.  I think they know they'd need a perceived tea party type to pull in the tea party base to combine the establishment anti establishment vote.  Cruz has been playing this card the whole time while walking in Rand's shadow the whole time.  If you think for a minute from their point of view they'd believe a Christie/Cruz ticket would give them the best shot at winning cause you know they'd never offer Rand that position because they know Rand is the real deal while Cruz is a wolf in sheeps clothing.  This to me makes perfect sense and many others here, but many here still seem to think Cruz is the real deal when in reality this is the role he's playing to not only derail Rand but help them take back the white house.  But their still gonna lose cause indys IMO still aren't sold on him because he hasn't been as outspoken as Rand on foreign policy and civil liberties.  My hope is the Ron/Rand folks figure this out before its to late..
> 
> And oh for the one poster to say Cruz got up and walked out while Castro gave his speech well hell. I would to knowing my father was a big supporter of Castro back in the day.  This is called giving the appearance if distancing himself from the commies. his father used to support.  I'm telling ya if they go this route and Cruz turns out to be the snake I believe him to be that Ron and Rand run independent and throw a spoke up their arse ..


Right on the money again. I think people who don't see this have not really studied the history of politics.

----------


## idiom

> Precisely. Paul Ryan will probably run for president, but he isn't going to be anyone's running mate. Christie can also never be anyone's running mate. His personality and political persona is top spot or nothing. Candidates for president do not want to be overshadowed by a running mate who has a stronger personality and appeal to the press.


If you can't play ball as a running mate, you are in the wrong party.

----------


## CPUd

> I don't think Ryan would be the running mate for two consecutive presidential cycles. Is there any precedent for a ticket losing and then the running mate on that ticket being chosen four years later to be the running mate on another ticket?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Hendricks

But it was 8 years later.

A couple other similar cases (regular contenders) are William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson around the same time period.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I can see that point of view, but they had to know it was going to help Cruz with the Republican base.
> 
> Now, their strategy may have been that Ryan would win with moderates/independents, but it haven't seen that play out.
> 
> And which group do they need to impress for 2016?  Most independents don't vote in the primaries.


If you think the establishment GOP has any clue at winning over voters, you haven't been paying attention the past decade.  This was not some conspiracy to help Ted Cruz.  They hate Ted Cruz.  Now, they probably hate Cruz's personality and methods more than has ideology, while with Rand they hate his ideology more than his methods and personality, but for the most part they everything about both guys.  

Ted Cruz is a viable candidate for President already.  He doesn't need the establishment's help for that.  And he is not the establishment's choice.  They want somebody like Ryan or Christie or Rubio.  Now obviously the establishment would want as many conservatives running as possible, as that dilutes the conservative vote, but that doesn't mean they are pulling the strings.  Rand and Cruz are neck in neck #1 and #2 in terms of overall popularity among the Republican base.  If either one has any inclination to run for President, they will, not because the establishment thinks it strategically advantageous, but because they'd have a great chance of winning. 

Best thing (and only) thing Rand can do to neutralize Ted Cruz is be the better candidate.  Bitching and moaning about Cruz or pretending he's some giant conspiracy theory only hurts our cause.  People that we need to win the GOP nomination like Ted Cruz.  Trying to convince them not to like Ted Cruz will only make them not trust us.  Our focus needs to be not on badmouthing Cruz, but making them like Rand better.

----------


## rich34

> If you can't play ball as a running mate, you are in the wrong party.


You're right, but I don't see it as that.  I think someone like a Christie or Bush would look down on a Paul Ryan thinking they're above him.  That's not to say if the ptb TOLD them to giving them a role similar to the power Cheney held while W was in office they wouldn't do it, but in all likelihood I personally don't see that happening unless a Cheney type role was offered.  However I don't see that happening.

----------


## rich34

> Best thing (and only) thing Rand can do to neutralize Ted Cruz is be the better candidate.  Bitching and moaning about Cruz or pretending he's some giant conspiracy theory only hurts our cause.  People that we need to win the GOP nomination like Ted Cruz.  Trying to convince them not to like Ted Cruz will only make them not trust us.  Our focus needs to be not on badmouthing Cruz, but making them like Rand better.


Well, you're right on just about everything imo.  I don't really think or look at it as some kind of conspiracy that the establishment is using Cruz to take away potential Rand supporters because both republicans and democrats in the past have used strategies such as this to help their pick as president.  I remember the democrats doing this to Howard Dean in 2004.  

In Rand's case if you look back over the last 6 months or so at the chain of events that lead to him almost hitting the 30 percent range in Iowa to where he's at now it's hard not to see how the establishment used Cruz to stymie Rand's momentum from surging into the stratosphere.  I don't see it so much as a conspiracy, not at all.  I'd call it political maneuvering if anything.  If you go back and look at the polls before Cruz was added that was when Rand had his largest leads in early states and national polls.  After Cruz was thrown into the mix that's when Rand's momentum was brought to a halt.  If you remember, Graham and McCain had been attacking Rand constantly to no avail.  They then used big dog Christie to attack him, but that didn't work either if anything only make Rand look like the real frontrunner being attacked by all these people.  During the Christie debacle was about the same time they started putting Cruz into the polls and they finally got a bite going this route instead of attacking him with their dogs.  That's when I think they realized to stop attacking him and simply let Cruz peel away his support by using conservative outlets like Drudge to make Cruz a household name, while at the same time posting only the articles that would bring Rand's positives down and negatives up.  This was apparent just recently when Drudge posted Rand's response to the 4th amendment ruling while not mentioning his economic freedom zone idea.  The economic freedom zone idea would greatly cause Rand's positives to go up, and possibly negatives down.  However, to republicans the other story about the 4th amendment would more likely cause Rand's negatives to go up and not help his positives any except for those that are independent or supporters he already has.  Not everything is a conspiracy just political maneuvering to neutralize a threat.  Certainly wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

----------


## rich34

Just went to drudge and the guy finally took down Cruz's comments on the Duck boys.  Reckon he thought 4 days was enough, as if Cruz has anything to do with those folks, but damn I'm sure drudge let Phil know that Cruz supports them as would Rand obviously.  

But to people like this as RonPaulMall said we gotta make sure they know Rand is the better candidate and why.  Cruz to me would be the type to ask for tolerance to Christians, but not anyone else. While Rand on the other hand would be the only guy in Washington actually concerned about everyone's free speech not just Christians.  That seems to be to me anyway the type of people the Robertson's are.  Cruz would be more of theocrat which I don't think a guy like Phil would be.  If educated properly on Rand I could see him being a Rand supporter, but the conservative outlets will make damn sure that Cruz is the Christian crusader..

Better hope Phil don't come out with an endorsement when the time comes, $#@! fire...

----------


## libertygold

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Hendricks
> 
> But it was 8 years later.
> 
> A couple other similar cases (regular contenders) are William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson around the same time period.


 There are plenty of examples of regular contenders running again (Nixon, Romney, Reagan, etc.) But in modern times has anyone ever been the running mate in two consecutive cycles? Answer is no. Each cycle is its own fresh contest and they don't want anything to do with a past losing ticket. Also, each nominee views the choice of running mate as their first chance to put their own stamp on things.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Id say this is correct, and IMO it would be Cruz not Ryan who they'd be likely to pick due to them knowing Cruz will go along with their hawkish foreign policy.  I think they know they'd need a perceived tea party type to pull in the tea party base to combine the establishment anti establishment vote.  Cruz has been playing this card the whole time while walking in Rand's shadow the whole time.  If you think for a minute from their point of view they'd believe a Christie/Cruz ticket would give them the best shot at winning cause you know they'd never offer Rand that position because they know Rand is the real deal while Cruz is a wolf in sheeps clothing.


I tend to agree which is why I say that Rand should offer to appoint Cruz to SCOTUS in exchange for Cruz' endorsement of Paul.  It's the only thing Rand can offer Cruz that the RNC won't.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> If you think the establishment GOP has any clue at winning over voters, you haven't been paying attention the past decade.  This was not some conspiracy to help Ted Cruz.  They hate Ted Cruz.  Now, they probably hate Cruz's personality and methods


It depends on what you mean by "establishment."  Mitch McConnell may hate hate Cruz' shutdown antics; but Goldman Sachs may like them very much.

----------


## fr33

Cruz will be the next Santorum/Gingrich. What they were as the anti-Romney, Cruz will be as the anti-Christie. Rand will get discounted and ignored by the media. The inevitable nominee will get picked and promoted before the first primary votes are cast. It will be worse though because on even this forum a lot of people will be trolling for Cruz. The establishment will have propagandized many here to abandon certain principles like foreign policy just like they've done before to other movements.

----------


## libertygold

> Cruz will be the next Santorum/Gingrich. What they were as the anti-Romney, Cruz will be as the anti-Christie. Rand will get discounted and ignored by the media. The inevitable nominee will get picked and promoted before the first primary votes are cast. It will be worse though because on even this forum a lot of people will be trolling for Cruz. The establishment will have propagandized many here to abandon certain principles like foreign policy just like they've done before to other movements.


I haven't noticed too many trolls for Cruz on this site at this point though, have you?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Cruz will be the next Santorum/Gingrich.


Gingrich wasn't even a factor in Presidential politics back in the 90's when he was actually relevant.  Santorum is a guy that couldn't keep his own Senate seat.  To compare Cruz to either one of those losers is just silly.  More than silly in, fact.  It is _dangerous_.  Cruz looks more Presidential than Rand.  Cruz is not only a better speaker Rand, he's a better speaker than almost anybody in America (he has a trophy attesting to the fact.).  Cruz went to "better" schools than Rand clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  And finally, he's "Hispanic", which is something the media and the GOP in general have been pretty much obsessed with for the past ten years.  Ted Cruz is not some plant or media creation.  He is legitimately, on the merits, one of, if not _the_ GOP frontrunner for 2016.  The fact his foreign policy is less Ron Paulish than Rand puts us off him, but for the average GOP Primary voter, it is probably an advantage.  So enough with this whining about the media talking about Cruz.  The media should be talking about Cruz.  He is our biggest challenger.  We need to accept that he is a real, not manufactured threat.  We also have to accept that he is and will remain extremely popular among the GOP base.  Any direct attacks on Cruz from our camp are likely to backfire.  The only way we beat him is to be the better candidate and run the better campaign.

----------


## libertygold

> Gingrich wasn't even a factor in Presidential politics back in the 90's when he was actually relevant.  Santorum is a guy that couldn't keep his own Senate seat.  To compare Cruz to either one of those losers is just silly.  More than silly in, fact.  It is _dangerous_.  Cruz looks more Presidential than Rand.  Cruz is not only a better speaker Rand, he's a better speaker than almost anybody in America (he has a trophy attesting to the fact.).  Cruz went to "better" schools than Rand clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  And finally, he's "Hispanic", which is something the media and the GOP in general have been pretty much obsessed with for the past ten years.  Ted Cruz is not some plant or media creation.  He is legitimately, on the merits, one of, if not _the_ GOP frontrunner for 2016.  The fact his foreign policy is less Ron Paulish than Rand puts us off him, but for the average GOP Primary voter, it is probably an advantage.  So enough with this whining about the media talking about Cruz.  The media should be talking about Cruz.  He is our biggest challenger.  We need to accept that he is a real, not manufactured threat.  We also have to accept that he is and will remain extremely popular among the GOP base.  Any direct attacks on Cruz from our camp are likely to backfire.  The only way we beat him is to be the better candidate and run the better campaign.


I don't think Cruz is a better speaker than Rand. I think Cruz comes off as less genuine than Rand does.

----------


## rich34

> Gingrich wasn't even a factor in Presidential politics back in the 90's when he was actually relevant.  Santorum is a guy that couldn't keep his own Senate seat.  To compare Cruz to either one of those losers is just silly.  More than silly in, fact.  It is _dangerous_.  Cruz looks more Presidential than Rand.  Cruz is not only a better speaker Rand, he's a better speaker than almost anybody in America (he has a trophy attesting to the fact.).  Cruz went to "better" schools than Rand clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  And finally, he's "Hispanic", which is something the media and the GOP in general have been pretty much obsessed with for the past ten years.  Ted Cruz is not some plant or media creation.  He is legitimately, on the merits, one of, if not _the_ GOP frontrunner for 2016.  The fact his foreign policy is less Ron Paulish than Rand puts us off him, but for the average GOP Primary voter, it is probably an advantage.  So enough with this whining about the media talking about Cruz.  The media should be talking about Cruz.  He is our biggest challenger.  We need to accept that he is a real, not manufactured threat.  We also have to accept that he is and will remain extremely popular among the GOP 
> 
> base.  Any direct attacks on Cruz from our camp are likely to backfire.  The only way we beat him is to be the better candidate and run the better campaign.


You're right about some things but looking and talking more presidential I call bull $#@!!  I watched him and Lee on Hannity and the guy gave me the creeps.  I could careless what he he did in college.  I'd read and heard how good this and that he was, but after watching him live the dude is a used car salesman almost Romney like, but way more obvious.  The guy straight up gave me the creeps looking like Gomez Adams sounding like a straight nerd..    I don't buy all this hype about him after seeing him talk, Rand would chew his artificial ass  up in a debate and look a helluva lot more real and authentic while doing it.  I'm tired of hearing this lie about how presidential and better speaking he is.  He must have had $#@!ty. competition while in college and I'm dead serious.  We'll. see how it turns out when theyre. on stage.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> He is legitimately, on the merits, one of, if not _the_ GOP frontrunner for 2016.


Ain't nothing legitimate about a foreign Canadian President.

----------


## Warlord

> Gingrich wasn't even a factor in Presidential politics back in the 90's when he was actually relevant.  Santorum is a guy that couldn't keep his own Senate seat.  To compare Cruz to either one of those losers is just silly.  More than silly in, fact.  It is _dangerous_.  Cruz looks more Presidential than Rand.  Cruz is not only a better speaker Rand, he's a better speaker than almost anybody in America (he has a trophy attesting to the fact.).  Cruz went to "better" schools than Rand clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  And finally, he's "Hispanic", which is something the media and the GOP in general have been pretty much obsessed with for the past ten years.  Ted Cruz is not some plant or media creation.  He is legitimately, on the merits, one of, if not _the_ GOP frontrunner for 2016.  The fact his foreign policy is less Ron Paulish than Rand puts us off him, but for the average GOP Primary voter, it is probably an advantage.  So enough with this whining about the media talking about Cruz.  The media should be talking about Cruz.  He is our biggest challenger.  We need to accept that he is a real, not manufactured threat.  We also have to accept that he is and will remain extremely popular among the GOP base.  Any direct attacks on Cruz from our camp are likely to backfire.  The only way we beat him is to be the better candidate and run the better campaign.


Cruz has only been around 5 minutes.  It takes a lot more time to run a successful presidential campaign.  Rand is way ahead of him in terms or organizational strength where he'll pick up the support of Ron Paul voters and just needs to build on that

----------


## RonPaulMall

> You're right about some things but looking and talking more presidential I call bull $#@!!  I watched him and Lee on Hannity and the guy gave me the creeps.  I could careless what he he did in college.  I'd read and heard how good this and that he was, but after watching him live the *dude is a used car salesman almost Romney like*, but way more obvious.  The guy straight up gave me the creeps looking like Gomez Adams sounding like a straight nerd..    I don't buy all this hype about him after seeing him talk, Rand would chew his artificial ass  up in a debate and look a helluva lot more real and authentic while doing it.  I'm tired of hearing this lie about how presidential and better speaking he is.  He must have had $#@!ty. competition while in college and I'm dead serious.  We'll. see how it turns out when theyre. on stage.


I found Romney creepy as hell too.  Ditto for Obama.  But guess, what?  They both won.   Creepy insincerity sells among the general public.

----------


## rich34

> I found Romney creepy as hell too.  Ditto for Obama.  But guess, what?  They both won.   Creepy insincerity sells among the general public.


I knew this was coming, but no, Cruz is NO where near their level.  You can see right through him.  He doesn't hide the used car salesman act at all.  If you think Romney or Obama was creepy they don't have nothing on Cruz.  He's all hype, but I will say people have a probem admitting when they're wrong.  All people right now get to do is read about Cruz, I'd bet most have never heard him talk or seen his body language.  Like comparing him to Sam flippin. Houston?  This is the ridiculous impression some folks have of this guy until they finally get to see and hear him talk.  When they do their going to question their support.  Just how many and how many of those can Rand reel in is going to be the issue.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I knew this was coming, but no, Cruz is NO where near their level.  You can see right through him.  He doesn't hide the used car salesman act at all.  If you think Romney or Obama was creepy they don't have nothing on Cruz.  He's all hype, but I will say people have a probem admitting when they're wrong.  All people right now get to do is read about Cruz, I'd bet most have never heard him talk or seen his body language.  Like comparing him to Sam flippin. Houston?  This is the ridiculous impression some folks have of this guy until they finally get to see and hear him talk.  When they do their going to question their support.  Just how many and how many of those can Rand reel in is going to be the issue.


Folks in Texas didn't seem to be able to see through him.  He beat all the other contenders to face off against Dewhurst and then won the run off by 14 points.

BTW- I'm not disagreeing with you on a personal level.  I find Cruz extremely off putting and transparently phoney.  But I found Romney off putting and transparently phoney too, and he won the GOP nomination.  And I found Obama to be even more off putting and phoney than Romney and he won the Presidency.  So I just don't know how well our opinion of a particular candidate translates to the general population.  We seem to be living in a time when phoniness is style.  Is there anything more phoney than "Reality" TV?  And that crap is the most popular stuff on TV.

----------


## libertygold

> I knew this was coming, but no, Cruz is NO where near their level.  You can see right through him.  He doesn't hide the used car salesman act at all.  If you think Romney or Obama was creepy they don't have nothing on Cruz.  He's all hype, but I will say people have a probem admitting when they're wrong.  All people right now get to do is read about Cruz, I'd bet most have never heard him talk or seen his body language.  Like comparing him to Sam flippin. Houston?  This is the ridiculous impression some folks have of this guy until they finally get to see and hear him talk.  When they do their going to question their support.  Just how many and how many of those can Rand reel in is going to be the issue.


I agree with your assessment of Cruz. Cruz's body language really strikes me the wrong way not even though it didn't at first. Over time he really strikes me as a car salesman and that he's just trying to push the buttons he needs to push to advance himself. The thing is even if Rand can reel in most people from Cruz (doubtful) the damage is done if even a small number stay with Cruz. Lets say hypothetically Cruz "only" takes 10% away from Rand. That is more than enough to impact the contest and not because of a vote count but because of organization and money.

----------


## idiom

> Cruz has only been around 5 minutes.  It takes a lot more time to run a successful presidential campaign.  Rand is way ahead of him in terms or organizational strength where he'll pick up the support of Ron Paul voters and just needs to build on that


Apart from being ineligible, Cruz  hasn't put in the years the GOP demands. The system of selection is pretty ossified. Cruz would have to be an extremely strong team player for at least another 8 years.

This is what he is doing. He helped setup Ryan to be a hero. Even if he runs, it will be with the goal of withdrawing gracefully to throw support to the GOP chosen. Cruz is good for 2024 or 2028.

It takes a hell of a lot to overcome the GOP machinery. 10,000 volunteers putting their life and blood behind Ron Paul, couldn't overcome it.

----------


## libertygold

> Apart from being ineligible, Cruz  hasn't put in the years the GOP demands. The system of selection is pretty ossified. Cruz would have to be an extremely strong team player for at least another 8 years.
> 
> This is what he is doing. He helped setup Ryan to be a hero. Even if he runs, it will be with the goal of withdrawing gracefully to throw support to the GOP chosen. Cruz is good for 2024 or 2028.
> 
> It takes a hell of a lot to overcome the GOP machinery. 10,000 volunteers putting their life and blood behind Ron Paul, couldn't overcome it.


Has Christie put in that time? Was he a strong GOP player for at least eight years?

----------


## Warlord

> Apart from being ineligible, Cruz  hasn't put in the years the GOP demands. The system of selection is pretty ossified. Cruz would have to be an extremely strong team player for at least another 8 years.
> 
> This is what he is doing. He helped setup Ryan to be a hero. Even if he runs, it will be with the goal of withdrawing gracefully to throw support to the GOP chosen. Cruz is good for 2024 or 2028.
> 
> It takes a hell of a lot to overcome the GOP machinery. 10,000 volunteers putting their life and blood behind Ron Paul, couldn't overcome it.


Agreed.   Successful Presidential runs dont just happen they take years and Rand is well ahead despite what the polls say now

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Agreed.   Successful Presidential runs dont just happen they take years and Rand is well ahead despite what the polls say now


Tell that to Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Tell that to Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.


+rep

Clinton had YEARS under her belt and Obama was barely a Senator.

----------


## libertygold

> +rep
> 
> Clinton had YEARS under her belt and Obama was barely a Senator.


The GOP rewards the "next in line" more than Democrats do in primaries. Think of Reagan, Dole, McCain, Romney.

----------


## libertygold

> Agreed.   Successful Presidential runs dont just happen they take years and Rand is well ahead despite what the polls say now


It is interesting because the man who would seem to be best positioned within the party is Christie but he upset people with the way he conducted himself during 2012 presidential campaign so it may not be as certain. I would think though if anyone is best positioned and had the ground paved over years it would be Jeb Bush.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> +rep
> 
> Clinton had YEARS under her belt and Obama was barely a Senator.


That's why the PTB running both parties put up two establishment contenders as 'frontunners,' so in case they blow it pushing one of them, they can proceed with the other as a plan B. The thing to remember about Obarry is that the PTB includes the entire establishment, not just the major party leaders. 

Soetoro appears to have been groomed and shepherded into the White House for well over a decade, by players including the CIA (who fudged/massaged his basic documents, which is the real reason they have been protected like Fort Knox from before the time he was President). The elite plan A all along may have been O first, Hil second.

----------


## libertygold

> That's why the PTB running both parties put up two establishment contenders as 'frontunners,' so in case they blow it pushing one of them, they can proceed with the other as a plan B. The thing to remember about Obarry is that the PTB includes the entire establishment, not just the major party leaders. 
> 
> Soetoro appears to have been groomed and shepherded into the White House for well over a decade, by players including the CIA (who fudged/massaged his basic documents, which is the real reason they have been protected like Fort Knox from before the time he was President). The elite plan A all along may have been O first, Hil second.


I don't think that conspiracy theory really pans out. Birtherism won't get anyone anywhere anyway because they released the birth certificate. We should talk about the greatness of our ideas and not get lost in conspiracy theories. Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible to be president- he just happens to be a bad one.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Rafael Ted Cruze has been umdermining himelf more than anyone else.

He seems to have Bush complex.




Here he is showboating and not praying for liberation of occupied Christions in Holy Land:

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I don't think that conspiracy theory really pans out. Birtherism won't get anyone anywhere anyway because they released the birth certificate. We should talk about the greatness of our ideas and not get lost in conspiracy theories. Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible to be president- he just happens to be a bad one.


Obarry 'released' a substantially photoshopped copy of a pdf file to the public (after months of denying he even had one, and after the new Governor of Hawaii could not locate it when he checked, to resolve the matter). It would never have withstood a vetting in court, which is why he spent millions on lawyers to keep the original document from ever getting out of his hands. At least one parent had allegiance to the British government, which is a disqualifier for the child's natural born citizenship as per original intent. And his Indonesian citizenship (confirmed by Indonesian school records, and his reassertion there as a young adult) bar him from claims of US citizenship by the laws of both countries (i.e., if he ever was a natural born citizen, he renounced it when asserting one for Indonesia). 

By constitutional/original intent standards Obama is not a natural born citizen, and we should never be cowed into disregarding this, or any other constitutional issue. In fact, the greatness of our ideas has been frequently defeated by orchestrated maneuvers, and so it should also be talked about. Wake up, off our knees, heads out of the sand time. The broader point I was making regarded the whole package of representations made for Barry, including A LOT of his records throughout his younger life, which were manufactured or massaged, and now buried and stonewalled, by way of US intelligence. It is well documented (not theories, CIA documents) that he and his family appear to have been a cutout for the CIA:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/09/s...-cia-foryears/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/09/w...linthecompany/

What other mere state senator got to have a keynote speech at a Democratic convention? Or have three more strongly situated opponents abruptly collapse during the 2004 IL US Senate race, paving the way for Obarry? My point was not to rehash the docs issue, but to simply point to how much of his career was 'designed' and steered to get him in front of the line for getting into the White House, by the permanent bureaucracy. He's not just a 'bad one,' the apparatus of the MIC and intelligence complex appear to have put him over on all of us, qualifications (or lack of same) be danged. Could the same deeper steering be going on with relation to Ted Cruz, another person with questionable standing? Stay tuned, heads out of the sand time...

----------


## libertygold

So basically you are staying that the intelligence community groomed and put Obama in power and they are currently doing the same with Ted Cruz? It is an interesting theory but I'd have to see more evidence of that. Until I do I will assume they are just typical self-serving politicians.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> So basically you are staying that the intelligence community groomed and put Obama in power and they are currently doing the same with Ted Cruz? It is an interesting theory but I'd have to see more evidence of that. Until I do I will assume they are just typical self-serving politicians.


I don't have the hard evidence for Cruz, but the vibes flow in the same direction. Rand has certainly had to earn his stripes as a Tea Party leader for years, whereas Cruz seems to have been "rocketed" into that position from almost out of nowhere. Basically, when somebody is in deep with the Bushes, you might as well call them at least a CIA asset. The last four presidents (Bush going forward) appear to be, or definitely were deeply CIA connected or shepherded.

----------


## libertygold

> I don't have the hard evidence for Cruz, but the vibes flow in the same direction. Rand has certainly had to earn his stripes as a Tea Party leader for years, whereas Cruz seems to have been "rocketed" into that position from almost out of nowhere. Basically, when somebody is in deep with the Bushes, you might as well call them at least a CIA asset. The last four presidents (Bush going forward) appear to be, or definitely were deeply CIA connected or shepherded.


I think Cruz rocketing has more to do with social media and the political environment we are in.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I don't have the hard evidence for Cruz, but the vibes flow in the same direction. Rand has certainly had to earn his stripes as a Tea Party leader for years, whereas Cruz seems to have been "rocketed" into that position from almost out of nowhere. Basically, when somebody is in deep with the Bushes, you might as well call them at least a CIA asset. The last four presidents (Bush going forward) appear to be, or definitely were deeply CIA connected or shepherded.


I think Rubio definitely fits this mold.  I think anyone the media brands as "tea party" without the person really being rocketed by the grassroots as such is someone we should be skeptical of.  I think Cruz really did ride in on the tails of the tea party in TX though.

Rand has only been in the Senate for 4 years.   I wouldn't call that long enough to earn stripes.  He got his cred from his dad; just like Cruz loses some because of his wife.

----------


## libertygold

> I think Rubio definitely fits this mold.  I think anyone the media brands as "tea party" without the person really being rocketed by the grassroots as such is someone we should be skeptical of.  I think Cruz really did ride in on the tails of the tea party in TX though.
> 
> Rand has only been in the Senate for 4 years.   I wouldn't call that long enough to earn stripes.  He got his cred from his dad; just like Cruz loses some because of his wife.


Being skeptical of them is fine. But that is different than spouting conspiracy theories about the cia putting them where they are.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Being skeptical of them is fine. But that is different than spouting conspiracy theories about the cia putting them where they are.


_"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."_ -- William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave McGowan, Derailing Democracy

_"You don't need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level."_ -- William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Spouting, schmouting, in the case of Obarry the evidence is already in. The point remains, it is widely admitted and documented that the CIA is deeply embedded in the media and political establishment, often steering who gets the most attention, to influence elections and coverage of same. It is clearly not just the two parties at work, so discussions that leave out the likely role of US intelligence altogether, are deeply misleading and incomplete.

----------


## libertygold

> _"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."_ -- William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave McGowan, Derailing Democracy
> 
> _"You don't need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level."_ -- William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
> 
> Spouting, schmouting, in the case of Obarry the evidence is already in. The point remains, it is widely admitted and documented that the CIA is deeply embedded in the media and political establishment, often steering who gets the most attention, to influence elections and coverage of same. It is clearly not just the two parties at work, so discussions that leave out the likely role of US intelligence altogether, are deeply misleading and incomplete.


Then why did Reagan win the primary against Bush Sr. in 1980? Since Bush was a CIA man wouldn't it follow from your premise that he would have defeated Reagan in 1980? Why would the CIA pick Reagan over him?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Then why did Reagan win the primary against Bush Sr. in 1980? Since Bush was a CIA man wouldn't it follow from your premise that he would have defeated Reagan in 1980? Why would the CIA pick Reagan over him?


They didn't. The establishment isn't always successful in steering the elections, as seen in the Reagan case. But they did arm-twist him into picking Bush as his VP, and Reagan did get shot during the first spring of his Presidency (by John Hinckley, *the son of one of Bush's neighbors*). When plan A fails...

Thereafter, to no surprise, Bush's influence increasingly dominated the Reagan presidency, especially on foreign policy. And once Bush became President, there have been no more Reagans, as the PTB have since perfected their steering process over Presidential elections, and CIA lock over the White House.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Hinckley actually missed Reagan.  Hinckley was a blubbering mind-controlled loon (armed w/ a .45 BTW, not a .22).  Reagan was injured by some kind of exotic weapon wielded by the Secret Service agent who "saved" him by tackling him into the car.  Reagan saved himself by ordering the car to GWU Hospital instead of Bethesda and ordering fresh-of-the-boat Navy *enlisted* men to serve as security at GWU.

The Hinckleys & Bushes are more than just neighbors, they are cousins with significant business connections and of course the Hinckleys are regular Bush donors.  Hinckley Sr was on the board of Worldvision, a CIA-brainwashing op.  Mark David Chapman, whose movements in New York Hinckley Jr literally followed in the footsteps of, was a "volunteer" for Worldvision overseas.

----------


## libertygold

I don't think these conspiracy theories have anything to them. If the Clinton's were CIA assets then why didn't Hillary win the primary in 2008?

----------


## RandallFan

Drudge always quotes Netanyahu. Some of these conservatives want to bomb Iran with no ground invasion. The problem is Rand Paul's policies are probably most popular amongst right leaning voters who don't always go to GOP primaries. Like Buchanan in the 1990's. His policies would have been popular amongst future Republican voters. Christie has problems with gays, Muslims and illegals. His only genuine conservative supporter is Steve King who is a Cruz supporter as well. It might be just for fundraising purposes to have the big boy give speeches in Iowa. Steve King was probably Christie's first supporter in DC when he testified about Corzine's shady supporters.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...mmigrants.html
But Christie he would not rule out raising campaign funds the Iowa Republican in the future.

I think it could end up being someone like Scott Walker who says only Governors know how to move pens.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I don't think these conspiracy theories have anything to them. If the Clinton's were CIA assets then why didn't Hillary win the primary in 2008?


The CIA had two shepherded candidates in the race with O and Hil, so either way they were going to win, and let the two fight it out. Hillary blundered away her opportunity in the primaries, but was going cause a stink at the convention. The Bilderbergs weighed in before their Virginia meeting in June 2008, and brokered a deal where Obama would get the nomination without further hassle, in exchange for Hillary becoming Secretary of State and getting a clear path in 2016. 

Indications that both Clintons were CIA handled proxies goes back to their college days. The cover-up of over 50 different Clinton scandals (by the Clinton White House's own count, circa 2000) would not have been possible without establishment and CIA support.

----------


## libertygold

> The CIA had two shepherded candidates in the race with O and Hil, so either way they were going to win, and let the two fight it out. Hillary blundered away her opportunity in the primaries, but was going cause a stink at the convention. The Bilderbergs weighed in before their Virginia meeting in June 2008, and brokered a deal where Obama would get the nomination without further hassle, in exchange for Hillary becoming Secretary of State and getting a clear path in 2016. 
> 
> Indications that both Clintons were CIA handled proxies goes back to their college days. The cover-up of over 40 different Clinton scandals (by the Clinton White House's own count, circa 2000) would not have been possible without establishment and CIA support.


Powerful politicians have covered up scandals long before there was a CIA.

----------


## libertygold

I wonder if the Bush family has also been behind the political fall of Christie. I don't like Christie- I think he is just another liberal jerk but one does have to wonder if the Bush's didn't somehow help push the scandal behind the scenes to get rid of Jeb's main competitor. I also wondered that about Rand and the plagiarizing thing. Who was feeding Maddow the information?

----------


## compromise

> I wonder if the Bush family has also been behind the political fall of Christie. I don't like Christie- I think he is just another liberal jerk but one does have to wonder if the Bush's didn't somehow help push the scandal behind the scenes to get rid of Jeb's main competitor. I also wondered that about Rand and the plagiarizing thing. Who was feeding Maddow the information?


Huntsman

----------


## libertygold

> Huntsman


Do you really think so? I don't think he is going to run again.

----------


## serenityrick

I really don't get the hate for Cruz here. I can understand the hesitation on foreign policy but the guy would be just as good as Rand on domestic policy in my opinion.

I'm still hoping he doesn't run because having more than one constitutional candidate would split the vote and I think someone awful like Bush or Huckabee will take the nomination. Best case scenario is Rand runs and Cruz and Mike Lee and other tea party candidates throw their support behind Rand 100%.

I've heard a lot from him in interviews and Cruz is genuine and loves this Country and the Constitution.. hearing him compared to Bush just makes me shake my head. Honestly we need more people like him, Lee and Rand in Congress in general. I don't see the point in tearing him down.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I really don't get the hate for Cruz here. I can understand the hesitation on foreign policy but the guy would be just as good as Rand on domestic policy in my opinion.


Foreign policy affects what happens here at home.  If a candidate is an interventionist, I have no use for him/her.

----------


## libertygold

> I really don't get the hate for Cruz here. I can understand the hesitation on foreign policy but the guy would be just as good as Rand on domestic policy in my opinion.
> 
> I'm still hoping he doesn't run because having more than one constitutional candidate would split the vote and I think someone awful like Bush or Huckabee will take the nomination. Best case scenario is Rand runs and Cruz and Mike Lee and other tea party candidates throw their support behind Rand 100%.
> 
> I've heard a lot from him in interviews and Cruz is genuine and loves this Country and the Constitution.. hearing him compared to Bush just makes me shake my head. Honestly we need more people like him, Lee and Rand in Congress in general. I don't see the point in tearing him down.


Not tearing him down. You made the point well in the 2nd paragraph about more than one Constitutional candidate splitting the vote and potentially giving the nomination to Bush.

----------


## CPUd

CNN:

----------


## twomp

> I really don't get the hate for Cruz here. I can understand the hesitation on foreign policy but the guy would be just as good as Rand on domestic policy in my opinion.
> 
> I'm still hoping he doesn't run because having more than one constitutional candidate would split the vote and I think someone awful like Bush or Huckabee will take the nomination. Best case scenario is Rand runs and Cruz and Mike Lee and other tea party candidates throw their support behind Rand 100%.
> 
> I've heard a lot from him in interviews and Cruz is genuine and loves this Country and the Constitution.. hearing him compared to Bush just makes me shake my head. Honestly we need more people like him, Lee and Rand in Congress in general. I don't see the point in tearing him down.


How many "constitutionalists" call on the President to disregard the 10th amendment and arrest the smokers in Colorado who defied the federal government. 

If all you care about is domestic issues, almost any Republican will tell you what you want to hear. Just know that for every war that our government engages in, they use that war as an excuse to choke out our civil liberties. It's for our safety after all.

----------


## Jamesiv1

it's a long time to 2016. I don't see anything wrong with Cruz and Rand both smacking Obama and pushing the liberty issues up until crunch time.

Did you see them side by side after the SOTU with Sean Hannity? (video around here somewhere)

Looks to me like they are buddies.

edit: here's the video

----------


## Bergie Bergeron

> CNN:


I think that says it all.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> CNN:


Well. I don't know. I'm pretty sure there will be a few more questons besides those here. 


I mean, this is a big deal. We're electing the leader of the free world? You think some skit with Maddow and "plagiarism" and the rest of those nonsensical shenanigans are the model for this? 

My advice is to pay better attention (at least as an activist who may be looking to build their demograph). We'll have one of the largest voter turnouts in history and I assure you that only a very small demographic in all of that will be thinking of this Mickey Mouse nonsense. Aside from the NSA stuff, nobody cares about the other junk. Just because some PAC or three letter propaganda machine on the boob tube says these are the issues doesn't necessarily make it so. These may be the issues as they would like them to be but there are much bigger fish to fry, to borrow a phrase.

----------


## libertygold

> CNN:


There you have it. My point exactly. Cruz takes over different resources which previously would have gone to Rand except that Cruz is an interventionist and longtime Bush ally.

----------


## serenityrick

the MSM is REALLY trying to push that plagiarizing thing aren't they? I honestly have only heard MSNBC complaining about that (and I guess CNN now)... not only that, it wasn't even him who wrote whatever was plagiarized, right? wasn't it his speech writer or someone underneath him?

If only the media was this demanding of the current administration, Jesus.

Anyways.. you know Rand is a threat if they are already trying to tear him down.

----------


## libertygold

> the MSM is REALLY trying to push that plagiarizing thing aren't they? I honestly have only heard MSNBC complaining about that (and I guess CNN now)... not only that, it wasn't even him who wrote whatever was plagiarized, right? wasn't it his speech writer or someone underneath him?
> 
> If only the media was this demanding of the current administration, Jesus.
> 
> Anyways.. you know Rand is a threat if they are already trying to tear him down.


The MSM was all over the plagiarizing story when it broke. Huffington Post had it as its front page for a while. The Democratic Party and Bush's will bring it back when Rand announces his candidacy.

----------


## Crashland

> The MSM was all over the plagiarizing story when it broke. Huffington Post had it as its front page for a while. The Democratic Party and Bush's will bring it back when Rand announces his candidacy.


If you do a google search for "Rand Paul", the suggested searches that pop up are:
Rand Paul
Rand Paul 2016
Rand Paul plagiarism
Rand Paul racist

Can we, kind of like, do something about that?

----------


## libertygold

> If you do a google search for "Rand Paul", the suggested searches that pop up are:
> Rand Paul
> Rand Paul 2016
> Rand Paul plagiarism
> Rand Paul racist
> 
> Can we, kind of like, do something about that?


Yikes. Looks like Maddow has been spending a lot of time on google.

----------


## mosquitobite

> CNN:


Hmmm... which one does the media NOT want.

There you go.

Not one mention of Rand's drone filibuster that was an actual filibuster.  But Cruz gets props for his fake one?

So the puppeteers have carved out their narrative to fool the masses.  

Baaaaaah!

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

This is becoming The Undead Thread of Rand Paul Forum.  Why does it keep getting bumped up when it's dead and buried?

----------


## libertygold

> This is becoming The Undead Thread of Rand Paul Forum.  Why does it keep getting bumped up when it's dead and buried?


Not intentional. Any comment automatically puts it up. Is there a way to prevent it from getting bumped up?

----------


## Crashland

> Not intentional. Any comment automatically puts it up. Is there a way to prevent it from getting bumped up?


Yes, it wouldn't ever get bumped up anymore if we just pin it to the top.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Is there a way to prevent it from getting bumped up?


Maybe you could convince Canada Ted to quit visiting early primary states?

----------


## libertygold

> Maybe you could convince Canada Ted to quit visiting early primary states?


But surely he is only there to campaign for Rand Paul. Why else would he be there? If he were to campaign for himself he knows that would take away from Rand Paul and he wouldn't do that because Ted Cruz cares about liberty. And the fact that he has been very close to the Bush family is completely irrelevant. (sarcasm)

----------


## Crashland

It's conceivable that Cruz is laying the groundwork for a presidential run in order to position himself in case Rand does not run for whatever reason (family issues, health issues, whatever), or to position himself for being a potential VP pick. I'm not really going to be too critical of Cruz unless/until he actually declares he is running or unless/until he starts portraying Rand negatively.

----------


## twomp

> It's conceivable that Cruz is laying the groundwork for a presidential run in order to position himself in case Rand does not run for whatever reason (family issues, health issues, whatever), or to position himself for being a potential VP pick. I'm not really going to be too critical of Cruz unless/until he actually declares he is running or unless/until he starts portraying Rand negatively.


Well I hope it isn't your son or daughter that a President Cruz sends to Iran in order to defend Israel then.

----------


## serenityrick

> Well I hope it isn't your son or daughter that a President Cruz sends to Iran in order to defend Israel then.


As long as Israel remains an ally of the United States they'll always be supported by the United States.

As for sending troops there to defend against attacks that's very doubtful.. Israel can defend themselves quite easily.

With that said, what does that statement have anything to do with what that poster was talking about?

----------


## libertygold

> As long as Israel remains an ally of the United States they'll always be supported by the United States.
> 
> As for sending troops there to defend against attacks that's very doubtful.. Israel can defend themselves quite easily.
> 
> With that said, what does that statement have anything to do with what that poster was talking about?


Cannot have a liberty agenda at home with such an interventionist foreign policy. It is ok to have allies- Britain, EU, Israel, Japan, etc.- but we cannot be the one who has to defend them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Foreign policy affects what happens here at home.  If a candidate is an interventionist, I have no use for him/her.





> How many "constitutionalists" call on the President to disregard the 10th amendment and arrest the smokers in Colorado who defied the federal government. 
> 
> If all you care about is domestic issues, almost any Republican will tell you what you want to hear. Just know that for every war that our government engages in, they use that war as an excuse to choke out our civil liberties. It's for our safety after all.


Yep... this...

Honestly, Ted probably has his uses as a senator.  I'd still rather him hang from a pole, though.  (After being tried and convicted for  the people he's supported killing while in office, of course.)

----------


## twomp

> As long as Israel remains an ally of the United States they'll always be supported by the United States.
> 
> As for sending troops there to defend against attacks that's very doubtful.. Israel can defend themselves quite easily.
> 
> With that said, what does that statement have anything to do with what that poster was talking about?


I guess you missed the part where Ted Cruz said this:




> A "responsible president," the Texas Republican told a conference on Iran's grab for a nuclear weapon, "would stand up and say unequivocally, in terms that allow no confusion, 'Under no circumstances will the nation of Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapon capability, and they will either halt now or we will use every step necessary including direct military force to stop them.'"


Sounds like Ted Cruz would rather our men and women fight and die rather than let Israel get their own hands dirty. As for this:




> With that said, what does that statement have anything to do with what that poster was talking about?


You see Ted Cruz has people on these forums thinking that he's a "liberty" candidate when he really just a neo-con in liberty clothing. THAT is how he is undermining Rand Paul. He has the sheep fooled into thinking he's a liberty candidate like Rand Paul but what he is doing is stealing our message and using it to promote himself. How many other "constitutional conservatives" advocate for the President to ignore the 10th Amendment?

----------


## libertygold

> I guess you missed the part where Ted Cruz said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Ted Cruz would rather our men and women fight and die rather than let Israel get their own hands dirty. As for this:
> 
> 
> 
> You see Ted Cruz has people on these forums thinking that he's a "liberty" candidate when he really just a neo-con in liberty clothing. THAT is how he is undermining Rand Paul. He has the sheep fooled into thinking he's a liberty candidate like Rand Paul but what he is doing is stealing our message and using it to promote himself. How many other "constitutional conservatives" advocate for the President to ignore the 10th Amendment?


Yep. That is what bothered me into starting the thread in the first place. I was realizing Cruz was trying to steal Rand's thunder and speak the language of the liberty movement and try to copy Rand's successful filibuster (even though what he did was not a filibuster) but really isn't a part of the liberty movement, and that this would only divide the movement and make Rand weaker. I wanted to see if others had that same thought. As I have been shown, I am not alone by any stretch in thinking this.

----------


## libertygold

Good or bad for Rand Paul and the liberty movement? - http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...-new-hampshire

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

> All I know is the conservative radio hosts can't get enough of talking about Ted.


May I add to this?

They'd rather talk about anyone, or anything, than a Senator with the last name Paul.  That includes Ted Cruz, kitty litter, or frozen pizza.  Anything but a Paul.  I think it has something to do with the perpetual erection conservative radio hosts get from being good 'Murricans, authoritarianism, and being stroked by the GOP establishment.

Rand has the potential to appeal in a way similar to Reagan - only insofar as his ability to be supported by Grandma and Grandpa, Mom and Dad, college students, and newly minted 18 year olds...at least in the sense that there are a lot of folks that are beginning to smell the police state cooking.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

> This is becoming The Undead Thread of Rand Paul Forum.  Why does it keep getting bumped up when it's dead and buried?


Whoops, should we ask the mods to close the thread?  Seems like such a lively discussion...

----------


## compromise

3 ways Cruz helps Rand:

1) He makes Rand look less extreme by comparison as a conservative, helping Rand with moderates
2) He makes Rand look more extreme by comparison as a libertarian, helping Rand with purist libertarians (notice how all the former Rand haters on here now support Rand and hate on Cruz instead? Cruz changed the paradigm, it's no longer Rand vs. Ron, it's Rand vs. Cruz)
3) When he doesn't run in 2016, his support goes to Rand

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> 3 ways Cruz helps Rand:
> 
> 1) He makes Rand look less extreme by comparison as a conservative, helping Rand with moderates
> 2) He makes Rand look more extreme by comparison as a libertarian, helping Rand with purist libertarians (notice how all the former Rand haters on here now support Rand and hate on Cruz instead? Cruz changed the paradigm, it's no longer Rand vs. Ron, it's Rand vs. Cruz)
> 3) When he doesn't run in 2016, his support goes to Rand


Except those first two points only help Rand in the general election, not a Republican primary.

----------


## libertygold

> Except those first two points only help Rand in the general election, not a Republican primary.


Exactly. He doesn't help him in a primary because he will be competing for the same resources. Anyone who follows politics realizes this. Did Obama help Hillary in the 2008 primary by making her look less socialist?

----------


## Warlord

Ted Cruz is a neocon Iran war monger.  Rand Paul is not.

----------


## serenityrick

> *Ted Cruz is a neocon Iran war monger.*  Rand Paul is not.


based on what? (legitimately asking)

To be honest, I've never even heard him talk about foreign policy. He must have said something pretty heinous considering how many people here absolutely despise him

----------


## Warlord

> based on what? (legitimately asking)
> 
> To be honest, I've never even heard him talk about foreign policy. He must have said something pretty heinous considering how many people here absolutely despise him


His foreign policy is neocon and Iran fear mongering

----------


## RandallFan

Ted Cruz is quite open to aerial bombing parts of Iran.

The Libertarians Rand gains from not bombing will be dwarfed by the people who loses depending on what happens on immigration.

----------


## luke78

Paul and Cruz have shown that they have differences in style, even if they don't disagree much on policy.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Cruz is backing the Soros mob in Ukraine, no surprise there:

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/19/...-world-stands/

----------


## philipped

I say we just shut this thread down because in some regard this thread could've been made and continued to be brought to 10 pages by the opps (opposition).

----------


## serenityrick

> Cruz is backing the Soros mob in Ukraine, no surprise there:
> 
> http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/19/...-world-stands/


Knowing history, I don't see how anyone could NOT support the opposition in this case. The USSR killed over 8 million people in the Ukraine.. hard to blame them for not wanting their government to be beholden to Russia.

With that said, I can support the opposition without supporting American intervention... Not convinced Ted feels the same way.

----------


## libertygold

> Knowing history, I don't see how anyone could NOT support the opposition in this case. The USSR killed over 8 million people in the Ukraine.. hard to blame them for not wanting their government to be beholden to Russia.
> 
> With that said, I can support the opposition without supporting American intervention... Not convinced Ted feels the same way.


One can feel sympathetic for a movement while realizing it is still best for the US not to get involved.

----------


## libertygold

> I say we just shut this thread down because in some regard this thread could've been made and continued to be brought to 10 pages by the opps (opposition).


Is there a way to make it so it doesn't come up on top?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Is there a way to make it so it doesn't come up on top?


Stop posting on it?

----------


## libertygold

> I say we just shut this thread down because in some regard this thread could've been made and continued to be brought to 10 pages by the opps (opposition).


I started the thread around when Cruz was doing his "filibuster" and I thought Cruz was trying to steal Rand's thunder and undermine him. Was curious if anyone else felt the same way. If that can be used by opposition then lets make it so it doesn't keep coming up on top. Not sure how it could be used by opposition though because if Cruz is indeed undermining Rand (intentionally or not) then it helps Rand more for us to know that early on so the resources of the liberty movement don't end up being split.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...p_attacks.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/06/ho...ver-rand-paul/

How Ted Cruz is trying to outmaneuver Rand Paul

-----------------------


We saw a the first hint of this back in November, when the New York Times‘ Jonathan Martin reported that “when Mr. Cruz went to New York City to meet with donors this summer, he privately offered a different view of Mr. Paul: The Kentucky senator can never be elected president, he told them, because he can never fully detach himself from the strident libertarianism of his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas.”

In other words, Paul’s just a little too far out in right field.

The area where I think this is playing out in the most obvious form is foreign policy (as I noted today, issues like Russia’s invasion of Crimea create unique challenges for Paul to overcome. Conversely, this creates opportunities for other candidates like Cruz.)

Just today at Frank Gaffney’s shadow CPAC gathering, we witnessed this. As Dave Weigel reports, Cruz specifically compared his foreign policy to Rand Paul’s, demonstrating that he agrees with Paul on some things, but — surprise, surprise! — is a notch closer to the more mainstream GOP position:

.........


=============================

----------


## dinosaur

> http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...p_attacks.html
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/06/ho...ver-rand-paul/
> 
> How Ted Cruz is trying to outmaneuver Rand Paul
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> 
> ...


Not good

----------


## limequat

There's  your answer.  Cruz is a snake and this thread is done.

----------


## TheTyke

I'm not saying I trust Cruz - I don't, his connections with Goldman-Sachs, the CFR and his dangerous foreign policy are very worrisome - But keep in mind that statement is from the media, with no actual quote or proof assigned. We've seen that hundreds of times, with the media misquoting, taking out of context, or flat out lying. Unfortunately, it's very hard to tell in this case - it could be true, or the media could've made it up to drive wedges between allies.

Caution is definitely the best bet, since the vast majority of politicians are disappointments. But fall for the media narrative, either.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> because he can never fully detach himself from the strident libertarianism of his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas.”
> 
> In other words, Paul’s just a little too far out in right field.


Well, if anyone would know something about 'crazy fathers', it's Ted Cruz.  How's that Castro Revolution working out?

----------


## libertygold

It should be clear now my concerns were well founded. Cruz is indeed trying to undermine Rand. It has been his point all along.

----------

