Ted Cruz: Rand Paul Can't Win Because of Ron Paul

[anaconda]

Weak gossip at best.

 

[erowe1]

Pretty ripe of Cruz, considering Ron/Rand were big part of his success in 2012.

What exactly did Cruz say?

 

[RickyJ]

And Ted Cruz can win because of his wife? Really?

No he didn't say that, but it makes about as much sense as him saying that Rand can't win because of his father.

 

[RickyJ]

Bullshit. My uncle who thought very little of Ron Paul if perhaps a slight negative connotation mentioned he's behind Rand. Of course this is just one anecdotal case but it proves this concept of his father's legacy interfering wrong.

Does he know that Ron Paul is his father? A lot of people don't follow politics closely and don't seem to know this.

 

[RickyJ]

The New York Times plays divide and conquer, don't fall for it.


Lets see what Rand Paul has to say before you jump to any conclusions.

If he agrees with Cruz I will be shocked. However Rand endorsing Romney also shocked me. Is Rand officially running for president in 2016, or is it still unofficial?

 

[compromise]

Does he know that Ron Paul is his father? A lot of people don't follow politics closely and don't seem to know this.

There are some people on the internet who seem to call Rand "Paul Rand" and keep confusing him with Paul Ryan.

 

[RickyJ]

What exactly did Cruz say?

He said he is a golden boy and has a golden wife that can take him places that Rand can't go. Well, not really, you just have to read between the lines.

 

[helenpaul]

i dont care what teddy says.

 

[dinosaur]

Biden won't run against Hillary. Never going to happen. If she's in, he's out.



Relax, in reality they are good friends and won't do anything to hurt each other's chances if both run. If anything Cruz being more extreme paints Rand as more electable.

If both make serious runs and stay in the race past the first few states, they will hurt each other's chances.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hm. Wonder why he's hanging out with a biotech giant like Johnson & Johnson. Going to have to see what they're up to these days before figuring on what they hope to buy as far as representation. I still have that picture of him in my head belching down super big gulps in some of these staged photo events and serving as a glorified pop-up ad for a few other companies in the same basic industry whose growth model depends solely upon consumption based science instead of the genuine stuff relevant to actual survival owf we the people.

Cruz, I don't really care about beyond the efforts he's making in order help to hide some of these lobbyists shenanigans and spending from the people...the real ones, mind you. Corporate repatriation (as was the model with the healthcare gag) is a very dangerous and disruptive model and contradicts representation of the interests of natural citizens....the individual.

One thing about Ron that I did like a lot was that the lobbyists knew it was a waste of time to come knocking on his door. Ron remembered who he represented. He remembered who he went to work for. Is what made changing the course of history sound like something possible as long as we had men like him speaking for us who weren't content simply upon just getting elected. So..yeah...that's what I think about Cruz's comment that basically solicits the notion that this honorable brand of statesmanship that Ron adhered to isn't on his list of give a s*** and that it shouldn't be for Rand either.

Karl? Meh...that worm is probably the source of the paper.

 

[enoch150]

This article was pretty positive for Rand. He was portrayed as an adult, a party unifier, who isn't held hostage by the religious extremist wing.

It's more of an attack on Cruz.

 

[69360]

If both make serious runs and stay in the race past the first few states, they will hurt each other's chances.

They won't Rand has a lock on IA and NH.

 

[EBounding]

I don't think Ron is as "poisonous" as these establishment politicians hope. In my experience, grassroots Republicans never really had a problem with Ron as a congressman--they just didn't want him for president.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I know it's awful to say, but I'm genuinely excited about the SocialCon fascists dying off.

They are twisting the knife in their own belly with their same-sex marriage positions. Yet they wonder why Evangelicals are twice as disliked as Muslims in this country and church attendance and funding are in such rapid decline.

 

[radiofriendly]

Fascinating....but there aren't really any quotes in this article.

 

[trey4sports]

Bullshit. My uncle who thought very little of Ron Paul if perhaps a slight negative connotation mentioned he's behind Rand. Of course this is just one anecdotal case but it proves this concept of his father's legacy interfering wrong.

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.

 

[Uriah]

The article says this:

“I’d want clarification on those issues because it is a concern,” said Tamara Scott, the Iowa national Republican committeewoman, who has spent time with both men. ​

Tamara Scott, the evangelical, won her election on the second ballot during the state convention. The establishment/moderate vote got behind her after their candidate got dropped from eligibility after the first round of voting as no candidate got a majority. The establishment didn't want the liberty candidate, Kim Pearson to win. Kim nearly won it on the first ballot too with 45-48%( can't remember).

 

[thequietkid10]

This article was pretty positive for Rand. He was portrayed as an adult, a party unifier, who isn't held hostage by the religious extremist wing.

It's more of an attack on Cruz.

That's what I got out of the article too, it's more of the narrative that Chris Matthews had, and some other pundits that Rand is the "adult" and Cruz is the child. This line in particular stood out

“He’s becoming a translator between the grass-roots conservatives and the establishment,” said Trygve Olson, a consultant who bridges the two wings. He then added an implicit dig at other Republicans: “He’s actually demonstrating leadership.”

My concerns are

1. Too much of this he risk loosing the base (then again look at the people who have won the GOP Presidential primaries lately)
2. He walks the line too much he might just fall into the darkside (if he's not there already)

 

[WD-NY]

That's what I got out of the article too, it's more of the narrative that Chris Matthews had, and some other pundits that Rand is the "adult" and Cruz is the child. This line in particular stood out



My concerns are

1. Too much of this he risk loosing the base (then again look at the people who have won the GOP Presidential primaries lately)
2. He walks the line too much he might just fall into the darkside (if he's not there already)

Spot on.

The establishment/msm are going to continue goading **both sides** (by playing one against the other) until one side finally cracks and openly attacks the other... in this article, the nyt is trying to goad team Cruz by fluffing up team Rand. In the next article they'll flip the script. Rinse and repeat.

That said, both Rand and Cruz know this so my hope is that they continue to work as team (with Lee) and playing the establishment like a fiddle

 

[seraphson]

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.

I should note that I believe my uncle represents your more or less "Average" GOP voter. Hell, I would make a bet that over half the GOP voters of past election already forgot who Ron Paul is. This tends to happen when you vote for "Not Obama".