politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Insiders pump the brakes on Cruz
Source:
Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/ ... the-breaks-on-cruz-116444.html
Published: Apr 4, 2015
Author: James Hohmann
Post Date: 2015-04-04 13:40:19 by Hondo68
Keywords: Senate backbencher, name and rep toxic, NH open primary
Views: 19868
Comments: 73
Illustration by POLITICO / Getty Image Ted Cruz is the first Republican presidential candidate out of the starting gate, but GOP insiders in Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly skeptical of the first-term Texas senator’s chances of being the eventual nominee or succeeding in the general election. This week’s survey of The POLITICO Caucus — a bipartisan group of key activists, operatives and thought leaders in New Hampshire and Iowa — reveals grave concerns about Cruz’s electability. And after eight years in the wilderness, most Republicans want a nominee who can win. Not one of the 100 respondents believes that Cruz would win the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary if they took place this week, though there is widespread agreement that he is much better positioned in the Hawkeye State than the Granite State. And nine out of 10 Republican insiders in the early states believe Ted Cruz couldn’t carry their state — both Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states, though relatively small electoral-vote prizes — against Hillary Clinton in the general. Launching his candidacy on Monday at Liberty University in Virginia, the senator tailored his roll-out toward the evangelicals who powered Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee’s victories in the past two Iowa caucuses. But most insiders believe Cruz will ultimately pose the biggest problem for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who will kick off his own campaign on April 7. “Announcing first is an advantage in that he was able to fill a news vacuum for a few days,” said an uncommitted New Hampshire Republican, who — like everyone else — completed the questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly. “He’s a tremendous orator with great stage presence … However, he’s still Ted Cruz — a polarizing person who is more interested in making headlines than making policy.” Here are six takeaways from this week’s edition of The POLITICO Caucus: Cruz is a deeply polarizing figure — among Republicans. Most GOP insiders believe that Cruz’s push to defund Obamacare — which made him a household name and led to a federal government shutdown in October 2013 — is more a negative than a positive. “The shutdown made him infamous to most and loved by a vocal few,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “His supporters see his fight as a badge of honor,” said an Iowa Republican. “Undecided caucusgoers will likely see his shutdown strategy as a major blunder.” The senator’s outspokenness makes him the “fighter” in the 2016 field, several said, but they fear it will sour independents from ever backing him down the road. “His fighter mentality will play well with conservative activists and those who listen to talk radio,” said an Iowa Republican, “but it’s not like he has scored any real accomplishment on rolling back the Affordable Care Act.” “Ted Cruz has a legislative record that has no positive accomplishments,” said another. “He will be in a field with many people that can point to positive accomplishments, either as governors or senators.” “He is the reason Democrats can call Republicans ‘the Party of No,’” said a third Republican. “He has become a poster child for congressional dysfunction,” said a fourth. Pressed by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly this week on what he’s accomplished as a senator, Cruz argued that he has not been a backbencher in the Senate. “What I’ve tried to do is lead on the great challenges of the day,” he said, “whether it’s stopping Obamacare or stopping the out-of-control debt, or stopping executive amnesty or defending our constitutional rights or standing with Israel, or stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.” Those who see Cruz’s crusade against Obamacare positively say that he showed the courage of his convictions and can’t be portrayed as a typical D.C. politician. “Doing the right thing, even if you don’t succeed, will win you points,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “The intelligentsia is annoyed, but real people are hungry for it,” said another. An Iowa Republican noted that Cruz “repelled many” but “propelled his base to actively proselytize.” Another explained that Obamacare remains toxic among caucusgoers: “Someone who bravely and with clarity speaks out against it will gain much.” But one New Hampshire Republican noted that Cruz was the only likely 2016 candidate with whom local GOP candidates did not want to appear in the run-up to last fall’s midterm elections. The 44-year-old did just one campaign swing through New Hampshire, for congressional candidate Marilinda Garcia. Cruz’s visit in the days before the GOP primary in the state’s Second Congressional District — the more Democratic of New Hampshire’s two seats — helped propel Garcia to the nomination. But the Republican says it hurt Garcia in the general election against Democratic Rep. Ann McLane Kuster. “The Democrats promptly used the trip in ads and used Cruz as a vehicle to successfully drive home the ‘extreme’ narrative against Garcia,” this Republican said. “It was a net loss to be seen alongside Cruz in 2014. His name and reputation are both toxic.” Cruz has a much better shot of winning Iowa’s caucuses than New Hampshire’s primary. Nearly two-thirds of Iowa Republican insiders believe Cruz can win the caucuses, compared to just 14 percent of New Hampshire Republicans who said Cruz could win the New Hampshire primary. Iowans of both parties mostly agree on what the Cruz path to victory there looks like. As one Republican put it, “First, consolidate the evangelical right along with portions of the Liberty movement who think Rand’s too wishy-washy and, second, excel in the debates.” “He will need to be the last conservative standing,” said another. “In 2012, Santorum won the Iowa caucuses because he was the last conservative to catch fire. If Scott Walker, Santorum, Huckabee, etc. don’t have staying power, and Cruz can manage to light a fire, then he can win.” A third Republican thinks its unlikely but possible that Cruz wins the caucuses: “He’d have to grab a clear majority of evangelicals, sweep the hawkish, non-libertarian tea partiers, and hope the congestion in the race occurs in the establishment lane of [Marco] Rubio, Walker, [Jeb] Bush and [Chris] Christie.” The most common suggestion for Cruz is that he should focus on Iowa as much as possible. “He really needs to live in the state of Iowa,” said a fourth Republican, “so much that he knows that the chicken is way better than the pizza at Pizza Ranch.” Only eight insiders in New Hampshire said Cruz could win the Republican primary, and all but two of them mentioned Pat Buchanan as a reason why. If the controversial former aide to Richard Nixon could upset Bob Dole in 1996, they argue, Cruz certainly could beat a favorite of the establishment. “It’s very unlikely, but yes, it’s possible if the mainstream vote splinters, he consolidates the tea party/hard right vote (say, 25 percent of the total), and he times it perfectly,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “That is what Buchanan pulled off in 1996. But if he’s a threat to win two weeks out, a ‘Stop Cruz’ movement will kick in.” A handful of people who said Cruz could not win in New Hampshire volunteered, with no prompting, that the state has changed a lot in the 20 years since Buchanan won there. Some noted there are not enough religious conservatives in the Granite State to sustain Cruz, and others pointed to the state’s open primary as a reason the Texan won’t win there. “Long gone are the days of the mid 90s of Pat Buchanan dominating the GOP presidential primary,” said a Republican. “In New Hampshire, independent voters outnumber Republicans or Democrats, and they can vote in either primary.” “Assuming no credible challenger emerges to Hillary Clinton, independents will decide this thing, and they’re going to want to make their vote count and pull a GOP ballot,” said another. “Not going to happen,” said a third New Hampshire Republican. “No way, no how.” Paul is hurt the most by Cruz’s presence in the field. Asked from which candidate Cruz draws most, twice as many insiders chose Paul over anyone else. Huckabee and Santorum were tied for second, since the Texan will work to win over social conservatives. Rick Perry, because he’s from Texas, and Scott Walker, because some think it’s a race between Jeb Bush and one leading alternative, tied for fourth. “Ted Cruz’s path to victory is for Rand Paul not to run,” said an Iowa Republican. “That being said, three supporters of Ron Paul have endorsed Cruz.” “If Rand stumbles as the champion of the liberty voters, and Cruz excels with the social conservatives and becomes the winner of that micro-contest, he has a pathway to cobble together a finish in the high 20s, which could theoretically win the Iowa caucuses,” said a second. A New Hampshire Republican thinks Cruz won’t ever win the primary but might become a spoiler. If he prevailed in Iowa, perhaps he’d get a 7-to-10-point bounce in the polls. Much of that would come from Paul, and that could keep the Kentuckian from winning New Hampshire. “He loses to Cruz on charisma and passion,” another Granite Stater said of Paul. Enrolling in Obamacare has not conveyed the message Cruz hoped. Cruz told the Des Moines Register this week that he would “presumably” sign up for insurance through the federal health care exchange after his wife took a leave from her job at Goldman Sachs, which set off a firestorm. Democrats charge hypocrisy; Republicans wonder why he wouldn’t buy private insurance or use a COBRA plan. Cruz said he would not take federal subsidies, but now his aides say he is still exploring all of his options. Several Republicans wondered aloud about the backstory behind this tactic. “The Cruz campaign should have seen that coming and been prepared,” said one GOPer in New Hampshire. “The stagecraft and timing of the announcement was top notch; the handling of the Obamacare enrollment was worse than amateurish.” An Iowa Republican said Cruz’s fight to repeal the law is positive: “But it is quickly outweighed by his decision to go on the exchange to enroll in Obamacare. It is the height of irony. But I’m sure he’ll wear it like a badge of honor.” Democrats cite Cruz’s announcement as proof that health insurance is more affordable on the Obamacare exchanges than outside of them. Many argue that it damages his credibility. “New Hampshire has experienced a high ACA enrollment rate, and while a majority of New Hampshire citizens were frustrated by the rollout, those who now have health care coverage do not want to see it taken away,” said a Democrat. “The real question is: What would Ted Cruz do to address the issue? Saying no or taking funding away is not a solution.” Most early-state Democrats want Hillary to back up Obama on Israel. The Obama administration has been harshly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in the week since he won reelection. Unsurprisingly, 90 percent of Republicans think Hillary Clinton should distance herself from the White House on the issue. But two-thirds of Iowa Democrats and four-fifths of New Hampshire Democrats think the former secretary of state should stand firm with the president. There is deep frustration on the left with Netanyahu, most recently over the way he used fear-mongering about Arab turnout to gin up conservative voters with an Election Day video. “Netanyahu was the one who decided to politicize U.S.-Israel geopolitics for his own domestic political gain (or accepted John Boehner’s offer to do so),” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “I can see no upside for Hillary or any Democrat in fostering a relationship with Bibi. He clearly can’t be trusted.” “She has to stand with Obama on this because he is right, and also because Netanyahu has shown himself to be a classically shifty politician who just says what he needs to be elected,” said a second. “Very tricky issue here,” said a third, “but from a purely domestic political standpoint: As long as there is clamor for Warren or someone else in liberal base world, she needs to hem as close to President Obama as possible.” While supporting Israel under any circumstances is a priority for some key Democratic donors, early state insiders say that the issue does not pack as much of a punch at the grassroots level. “Most Iowans have never heard of AIPAC,” said a Democrat there. “Israel is not an issue that motivates many Iowa Democrats or Republicans.” “She should not wade into the fray at all,” said another. “This is Obama’s story. It will fade, and then she can write her own story.” “I feel we’ve finally hit a watershed moment in American politics where, at least on the Democratic side, it will be acceptable, even advantageous, to say no to Israel,” said a third. A few Democrats think she should publicly disagree with Obama. “She needs to find ways to separate herself from Obama; this is a natural one given her background,” said an Iowan. “She needs to be proactive, not reactive,” said another. And some Democratic activists urged Clinton to just say whatever she really thinks, rather than thinking through how various stakeholders might respond. “You might be surprised how much voters will like such refreshing behavior,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. Seven in 10 Democrats don’t think Joe Biden would have a shot if he challenged Hillary. Clinton is poised to enter the race soon, and she still appears unstoppable in her quest for the Democratic nod. But chatter continues about who might be credible enough to create a real race. The vast majority of Democratic insiders, including most of those uneasy with Clinton, do not think Vice President Joe Biden is the man to do it. “The belief that Vice President Biden can’t beat Secretary Clinton is already baked in here among activists,” said an Iowan. “He has a small and loyal corps of support, but the unaligned Democratic activists in Iowa will break for Clinton or, possibly, a fresh face.” “Vice President Biden is extremely well liked by Iowa Democrats,” said another. “There is no excitement around him though, it is a struggle to build crowds for him, and he is viewed as a great leader, but not the standard bearer to lead the party forward.” “I would like to see Joe Biden exit the stage with dignity, not getting crushed by Hillary Clinton in the caucuses,” said a third. A New Hampshire Democrat said the fondness for Biden is authentic, but that his Senate voting record — especially with respect to Wall Street, credit card companies and bankruptcy “reform” — won’t galvanize progressives. “He would have real issues appealing to the 30 percent constituting the left wing of the party, the wing that is more likely to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton,” said the Democrat. “So I don’t see where he gets his votes from.” Clinton’s ability to break the ultimate glass ceiling also insulates her from another stiff challenge. “Activists and core Dems are ready for a woman, or at least the right woman,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “Much as I love Biden, he is now past his prime in electoral terms.” Biden finished fifth in the 2008 Iowa caucuses with just 1 percent. He withdrew before New Hampshire, but his name remained on the ballot: He got a total of 638 votes, or 0.22 percent. But that was eight years ago. “He’s the sitting vice president and is well liked in Iowa,” said a Democrat there. “And you can’t win if you don’t play!” “People forget that liberals will only vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary — independents are likely to vote GOP — so if Biden embraced the left lane and became Populist Uncle Joe, then yes, he would have a legitimate shot … albeit as an underdog,” said a Democrat there. “It’s certainly a hell of a bank shot,” said another Granite State Democrat, “but he’s got to be taken seriously.” These are the members of The POLITICO Caucus (not all of whom participated this week): Iowa: Tim Albrecht, Brad Anderson, Rob Barron, Jeff Boeyink, Bonnie Campbell, Dave Caris, Sam Clovis, Sara Craig, Jerry Crawford, John Davis, Steve Deace, John Deeth, Derek Eadon, Ed Failor Jr., Karen Fesler, David Fischer, Doug Gross, Steve Grubbs, Tim Hagle, Bob Haus, Joe Henry, Drew Ivers, Jill June, Lori Jungling, Jeff Kaufmann, Brian Kennedy, Jake Ketzner, David Kochel, Chris Larimer, Chuck Larson, Jill Latham, Jeff Link, Dave Loebsack, Mark Lucas, Liz Mathis, Jan Michelson, Chad Olsen, David Oman, Matt Paul, Marlys Popma, Troy Price, Christopher Rants, Kim Reem, Craig Robinson, Sam Roecker, David Roederer, Nick Ryan, Tamara Scott, Joni Scotter, Karen Slifka, John Smith, AJ Spiker, Norm Sterzenbach, John Stineman, Matt Strawn, Phil Valenziano, Jessica Vanden Berg, Nate Willems, Eric Woolson, Grant Young New Hampshire: Charlie Arlinghaus, Arnie Arnesen, Patrick Arnold, Rich Ashooh, Dean Barker, Juliana Bergeron, D.J. Bettencourt, Michael Biundo, Ray Buckley, Peter Burling, Jamie Burnett, Debby Butler, Dave Carney, Jackie Cilley, Catherine Corkery, Garth Corriveau, Fergus Cullen, Lou D’Allesandro, James Demers, Mike Dennehy, Sean Downey, Steve Duprey, JoAnn Fenton, Jennifer Frizzell, Martha Fuller Clark, Amanda Grady Sexton, Jack Heath, Gary Hirshberg, Jennifer Horn, Peter Kavanaugh, Joe Keefe, Rich Killion, Harrell Kirstein, Sylvia Larsen, Joel Maiola, Kate Malloy Corriveau, Maureen Manning, Steve Marchand, Tory Mazzola, Jim Merrill, Jayne Millerick, Claira Monier, Greg Moore, Matt Mowers, Terie Norelli, Chris Pappas, Liz Purdy, Tom Rath, Colin Reed, Jim Rubens, Andy Sanborn, Dante Scala, William Shaheen, Stefany Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter, Terry Shumaker, Andy Smith, Craig Stevens, Kathy Sullivan, Chris Sununu, James Sununu, Jay Surdukowski, Donna Sytek, Kari Thurman, Colin Van Ostern, Deb Vanderbeek, Mike Vlacich, Ryan Williams Kristen Hayford contributed to this report.
Poster Comment: Maybe his ObamaCare death panel will take him out, before he's able to get Jeb Bush nominated, and Hillary elected president?
Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire don’t think the polarizing Texan can win.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-33) not displayed.
.
.
.
#34. To: TooConservative (#16)
So by omission, the devoutly Christian Cruz is...indicted on this issue?? Seriously, come on. Is THAT the actual Talking Point objection??
Reagan was never needlessly provocative. You can't say the same for Cruz. Yet Cruz is an expert lawyer and an expert in using language. So you have to conclude that Cruz is using this as a deliberate tactic. Some say they think he's trying to push the entire GOP much further Right.
It is my objection. Believe me, this is not the last time I'll remind people of what he did to the persecuted Christians of the Mideast. I'm holding a grudge as I have always supported Voice Of The Martyrs. I was active on all those threads at TOS over 15 years ago.
In my opinion your objection is exaggerated outrage, with little basis. Cruz: at the 'Defense of Christians Summit;: If this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps, that the men and women here will not stand in solidarity with Jews and Christians alike who are persecuted by radicals who seek to. If you hate the Jewish people you are not reflecting the teachings of Christ. And the very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians and behead Children are the very same people who target and murder Jews for their faith for the very same reason. I will say this. I am saddened.... I will say this, I am saddened, to see that some here, not all but some here, are so consumed with hate [no, boos], that they cannot enjoy [unintelligible, boos]. I will say this, if you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Thank you, and God bless." Blown completely out of proportion and context. Was Cruz really so heinous and akin to committing treason to Christians? Or was he merely reminding this ME Christian confab that it is hypocritical NOT to support a sovereign Israel, who are also being persecuted by Muslim jihadists? I believe there were by design a few ringers in that crowd...some who hate Israel. Some Dems. Cruz called them out. Cruz has made enemies within the Elite Machine. Believe me, this is not the last time I'll remind people of what he did to the persecuted Christians of the Mideast. I'm holding a grudge as I have always supported Voice Of The Martyrs. I was active on all those threads at TOS over 15 years ago. All well and good and commendable. However, to conflate this with Cruz's position and "what he did" is...just off the rails. I get it. You don't like Cruz, and would much rather another easily-compromised RNC-approved GOPe candidate/ represent the Republican party.
A most honest assessment. But it doesn't matter - we're past the point where elections matter, anyway. You could just have coined our epitaph.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
It is insulting for you to remotely compare the suffering and persecution of Christians across the Mideast on a huge scale to the comparative safety enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Whatever happened to the Populist Voice site?
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
Isn't "never provocative" completely subjective?? Many believe Reagan was indeed needlessly provocative. And a nutjob. Someone who was going to blow up the GOP, the nation, AND the world with his words. Cruz IS provocative. AND bold. A leader America desperately needs. No one BUT someone who is provocative and bold will put a dent in this subversive universe of Uni-Party of politics and PC national suicide where the constitution, conservationism and common sense are getting our head bashed. To quote Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Yet Cruz is an expert lawyer and an expert in using language. So you have to conclude that Cruz is using this as a deliberate tactic. Some say they think he's trying to push the entire GOP much further Right. Yeah, and so? Is he fighting "unfairly" or something? The GOP NEEDS to move MUCH further right. It's platform and comittment to conservative principle has been shaken and torn apart like a ragdoll. The feckless, rudderless GOP is philosophically to the left of Dem Party, circa 1976. Of coure I expect you to disagree on this, Cruz's "tactics," and punching the RNC right in the face.
It's insulting that you expect me to embrace your your meme and the subverted context of Cruz's message.
It'll be ready to rock and roll. In 13.8 billion years.
Yep, Cruz told the most persecuted group of Christians in the world -- those with histories, friends and families in the Middle East -- to fuck off. Screw the bastard. It was a delicate crowd Cruz addressed. I don't condone the storming off, nor the debate type response. Cruz could have handled it more "presidentially." Meaning you ignore grumblings from the audience and stay on message. The message that day was for persecuted ME Christians. The message should have been that the US should have no part in governments or 'resistance' groups with ties to Jihadists AND who persecute Christians. He should have kept his Israel comments for another venue and not engage the audience in argument. NO matter the subject, that is bad for politicians who seek the GOP nomination. Another factor Cruz should have been briefed on or realize from knowing history...These are Christians who have been under the boot of Islam for centuries. For them, Israel and the West are 'come lately's' to their plight. They have had to slug it out on their own as the pariah class and outcasts of Muslim governments. It is important to know your audience before speaking to them.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
The truth (and the GOPe and their moderate know it) is that once he's up in the air, he'll be tough to beat. So they'll try and sabotage the carrier deck NOW. Or later. It doesn't matter to them. Good metaphor.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
Cruz showed up and declared "If you don't stand with Israel, I won't stand with you!" and stomped off the stage. What a sleazebag. Apparently, he was trying to appeal to Sheldon Adelson and the RJC. It was despicable. And, yes, I'm holding a grudge against Cruz for pulling such a scummy stunt. I stand for Middle Eastern Christians, not with the Jewish state or Islam. This doesn't mean that I want to see Jews or Muslims destroyed. It means that I think their religions are false and I do not, therefore, have any patience or tolerance for evil behavior motivated by their religions. I oppose sending huge subsidies to Israel, and becoming embroiled in endless war for a Jewish colony. I see know justification for having carved a European colony out of the Levant. I think if Jews want to support it that's fine, with their own money, and without tax subsidies. I oppose Muslim barbarism against Christians and am ready and eager to send in military force to protect the Christians and get them all out as refugees. Middle Eastern Christians should be offered blanket asylum in the United States and France, just like Russian Jews were, once upon a time. Get them out, get them here, set them up here. We need to protect our brothers and sisters, and Christians everywhere are our brothers and sisters. Israel has nuclear weapons and the support of the wealthiest group on the planet. They can spend THEIR unsubsidized wealth on their colony, if they choose. It can defend itself. Islam has revealed itself as dark and savage. I feel sorry for the people trapped under it. And I think that the escape, wherever you are in the world, should be to convert to Christianity. BECAUSE Christians are everywhere persecuted, Christians, including converts, should everywhere in the Muslim world, or China, should be extended plenary asylum. Convert and immigrate. Spend our money on incorporating millions of persecuted Christians from around the world into our electorate, make THAT the diversity we crave: Africans, Arabs and Chinese and others, all bringing their colors and cultures here, because their home countries torment Christians. Spend the money on social supports to get THEM launched in America. And enjoy the benefit of the voting perspective of Christian refugees from around the world. Don't spend our money on endless wars for bad causes: a Jewish colony and Islamic oil security.
You mean by "comparative" as in ME Christians do not have somewhat secure borders, their own government nor a standing military? On another note, going a bit back in history. In 82-83 Israel fought side-by- side and supported Lebanese Christian militias protect their populations. I actually met a Lebanese officer at the Fort Sill Officer's advace course in the late 90s. He would tell us stories of how they welcomed Israel during that timeframe based on the multiple terror groups running around. He was the only man I met who could do morning physical training with us missing one leg. He could do everything with his wooden leg except 'jumping jacks.'
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
Good point.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
It'll be ready to rock and roll. In 13.8 billion years. It takes an internet forum that long to 'evolve' from nothing?
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)
It's a bit more complicated than that, but basically, yes. Now the complications. God gave a few marching orders to man at creation: (1) "Reproduce and increase!" He repeated this to Noah and his sons after the Flood. He repeated it again to Jacob. (2) "Fill the land and subdue it." Man was commanded to fill the land up. The sin of Babel was in refusing to follow instructions but instead refusing to remain clumped together and building skyward. (3) "Rule the animals." Initially, this was without eating them (though milk was ok - Abel herded sheep but didn't eat them). Originally, animals did not have fear of man, their ruler. After the Flood, God instilled fear of man in animals. (4) Eat fruit and plants, nuts and seeds. (And through dominion, by implication, eggs and dairy are ok). After the Flood, God put meat on the menu, as long as it was killed first. (5) After the Fall, clothes to cover nakedness. (6) God set the 7th day apart as blessed because he rested upon it after his work in creating. Later, he would make a model of this for the Hebrews, and by extension, for mankind. Once Adam and Eve fell and were expelled from the Garden there were some specific burdens God placed upon them, at least some of which have apparently been carried forward by the race. To Eve, he said that she would have greatly increased pain in bearing children. Women in general bear children in great pain. He also placed Adam over her, and said that her urge would be for him. Some have asserted that this applies to humanity for all time. The text does not say that, however, so one cannot assert it as a positive doctrine. It's an opinion. Also, God promised that her seed would strike at the seed of the head of the serpent. Later, in Revelation, there are two discussions of Satan as "the ancient serpent" - whether that refers to Genesis or not is an open question. To Adam, he said that the ground would thenceforth be cursed, such that Adam would wring his bread from it "by the sweat of his brow". After the Flood, God specifically said that he would not longer curse the ground because of men, so the cursed soil that Adam and the antediluvians faced is NOT any longer in place. And with that, the "from the sweat of your brow" penalty is not a "forever" penalty - the curse was removed from the soil. We also, know, from the reference to "bread" (specifically BREAD in the Hebrew) that Adam and Eve had fire in Eden: they would NOW have to get their bread through harder work. 'Twas easier before. Adam and Eve had jobs in Eden: they were gardeners, to tend and keep the garden. This gives rise to nice philosophical musings about "tending our garden" - for our first parents it was NOT a necessity of life: food in the Garden was free for the taking. Rather, it was the task to which they were put by God. The original "job" of man was to be master of animals and gardener. Given the need for Vitamin B-12, which is unavailable in any plant source, God made us literally dependent on the animals for our existence. We can live without killing them, but without modern scientific and synthetics, we CAN'T live without at least MILKING them. In this way, God made dominion over the animals non-optional. To this day, if we don't exercise dominion over the animals and keep dairy herds or egg farms, even if we eat no meat, we then have to rely on chemical factories to produce Vitamin B-12 through bacteria. PETA notwithstanding, exercising dominion over the animals is necessary for human life for vegetarians AND carnivores. Finally, there was one additional law given in Genesis: not to shed blood or kill people. The man who sheds blood, by man his blood shall be shed, said God. And God said that he would hold men accountable for the lives they take. Note well, God said this to Adam and his Sons - and everybody on earth descends from them. THIS law is no law of Moses. Nor is it a law for the Jews. THIS law is the law that God gave directly to the ENTIRETY OF MANKIND, after the Flood. The one universal, non-optional, non-culturally referenced law, is NO KILLING PEOPLE. Blood must be repaid by blood. And God will hold the killer accountable. THIS law was not "nailed to the Cross". First off, it's not a "Law of Moses" - it's a Law of Noah, given to the entirety of mankind then living, and down to us. Secondly, it is repeated twice by Jesus in the final page of Scripture: The Greek work in Rev. 21 is "phoneusin"; in Rev 22 it is "phoneis". It is traditionally translated as "murderers". The word means "slayer". The rroot, "phen", means "to slay". The Greek LXX places this word both at the "Thou shall not kill" statements, but also in the portions that refer to manslaughter. So, the ACCIDENTAL killer of men is also a "slayer" using this same word. In other words, the Biblical word is NOT "You shall not commit murder". It is "You shall not slay people". Even by accident. Be CAREFUL. IF you slay somebody by accident, you're still a slayer, and if the avenger of the blood tracks you down and slays you, he is not going to be tried as a killer either. There is an eagerness among men to REDUCE God's prohibition of killing people in order to allow the killing of people for reasons of state, such as wars. For indeed, how would kingdoms be established without killing people? They would not be. And where did God EVER authorize men to kill other men in order to set up governments? He never did. People who kill people to establish their rule are, in fact, just "slayers" under the law that has been the law since Moses. Consider then, Nimrod, "a mighty hunter before the Lord". He set up the first empire, and he did it by conquest. That is how most nations (and all empires) were created: by willfully killing any men who will not comply with "the law" of whomever presumes to be a lawgiver. But actually, God only ever authorized men to kill other men for the crime of killing other men. That's it. That's all. So, if your state cannot hold together unless it has the power to kill men for breaking any old law (which all states claim), then your state is held up by slaying - by "murder" as the word is used in Scripture. This is a REAL PROBLEM for statecraft, because it essentially reduces every government and state on earth to a cesspit of murder. And God warns sternly twice on the last page of the Bible that slayers are thrown into the fire. This one little law, against killing, which was NOT revealed at Sinai, is NOT therefore "only for the Jews", and which was NOT "nailed to the cross" as evidenced by the fact that twice on the last page of Scripture God says that slayers will fail judgment and be thrown into the fire - THIS is the oldest, most permanent moral law of the Scriptures. And this one little law turns out to invalidate most human government, law enforcement and fighting. Jesus makes it clear that carrying a sword for self-defense is licit even for Christian apostles, but nowhere in the Bible does God EVER give men permission to use violence on other men in order to take land to build a country, or to enforce laws other than the laws of Israel in Israel, or to punish killers. The law against slaying men is the Prime Directive of God's laws in the Bible, stated clearly with Noah (and before that, with Cain), and holding all the way through until the end of the Scripture. It is the one law I insist most on talking about precisely BECAUSE it renders the history of ALL proud nations wicked and sinful. Consider well: if God's law were followed, there could be no Kingdom of England, other than by consent, or United States, or any other country, and police could not use deadly force to enforce the law generally, only to prevent killing and pursue killers. It's not exactly pacifism, for one may defend with a sword, and slayers are to be slain. (We should also note that the very word used for execution is the SAME word - a slayer, once judged, is to be taken and slain. If one insists on the word "murderer", which is too narrow (for we do not call, say, Julius Caesar a MURDERER for having conquered Gaul, but he was), the the law God gave to the Jews says that upon conviction, the murderer is to be taken out and murdered. WE would insist that the murderer is EXECUTED, but God says that the murderer is MURDERED by the law - rather establishing that MY POINT here is what the text SAYS. God prohibited KILLING. Just this one simple and clear law against killing men renders human law voluntary (except for the law against killing men), just as obedience to God's law is voluntary, for awhile. Think how DIFFERENTLY God envisions human relationships. Consider what it would mean to put it into practice. And remember, when you leap to the defense of the use of deadly force to enforce laws, because you realize that laws won't be enforceable and empires won't be able to hold together as structures for concentration of wealth and power unless they have the power to kill to compel obedience. And read your Scripture carefully, and realize that God never, ever, gave any men but the Jewish judges the power to ever kill another man for anything, other than in defense against attack, and as punishment for killing. Consider, under God's law, how very important WORDS ARE, and how relatively unimportant physical power is. And remember: if you're fighting these notions, you are not fighting ME, you are fighting God, because that's what he said, from Noah through Revelation. It's right there.
Ping to 51
It's like an ostrich, never got off the ground.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Now, before force-lovers start to jump all over me, let's plow on. We've gotten through Genesis up to Abraham, and so far we've seen the following - A mission for man, twice repeated: Reproduce, increase, fill the land and subdue her, rule the animals. Man's been given a diet: All animals and all plants, but not animals that are still alive. And we've got a criminal law: don't slay people, those who slay people are to be slain by men. And God holds slayers of men, human and animals, accountable. (Without any sovereign immunity, or police power protection, or war exclusion clause: war is a sin of mass murder). We've got two thoughts hanging out there without laws: (1) Wear clothes to cover your parts, and (2) God blessed and set apart the seventh day, for rest. And we have one covenant, with man and animals: I'll never destroy all life on land with a flood again. Now we pass into the life of Abraham. Not one new law is given in the age of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, all the way to Moses in fact. One law is implied: God makes Pharaoh sick for adultery with Sarah, and God almost kills Abimelek for the same thing. Abimelek protests that he didn't know Sarah was married, and God replies: that's why I didn't kill you. So, it is quite clear from this that, although God never said it, that having sex with another man's wife is against God's law. We could get an inkling of this from the creation of Eve, in which it is explained, without putting it in the mouth of God, that two become one flesh. Jesus will hearken back to this and say that this was the intent from the beginning, and he will call divorce and remarriage adultery. What of polygamy? Adam is never shown practicing it. The first polygamy is found in Lamech, who menaces his two wives with the fact he's a killer. Polygamy is next on display with Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, and that is quite a disastrous situation. It is out of this polygamous relationship that the perpetual problem between Jews and Arabs arises, insofar as BOTH Isaac and Ishmael are heirs of Abraham, and circumcised, and heirs to the land - and given the history of maltreatment, Ishmael has a grievance. And when God makes the covenant with Hagar, and repeats it again later, he promises that Ishmael will be living among the tents of his brother, Isaac - the perennial problems are foreshadowed, and are the fruits of polygamy. Indeed, if one ignores Christianity and looks at the theology of Islam, one discovers that Islam is Judaism for Gentiles: one monad God - the God of Abraham, with circumcision, simpler purity rules, and a "do to the whole planet what the Israelites did to Canaan" mentality. All of this is the fruit of polygamy. Isaac is portrayed as monogamous, but Jacob has two wives - endless tension in his family, and sons by one wife seek to kill and then sell into slavery the son by the other. Joseph, most successful of all of the patriarchs, is monogamous. He marries the daughter of an Egyptian priest of the god On, and his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, end up giving him the double portion among the tribes of Jacob. Moses is monagamous, but David isn't, and his polygamy turns him into a murderer and an adulterer to boot. Solomon's polygamy ends up permanently destroying the unity and religious orthodoxy of the nation. God permits polygamy, and some of the greatest Biblical heroes are polygamous. But THE greatest ones, who lived peaceful lives (mostly) and rose to the highest success - and the original prototype: Adam, Noah, Isaac, Joseph and Moses, were monogamous. And ALL of the polygamous marriages of Scripture, starting from the first, of Lamech, and continuing on through, without exception always are recorded to have had strife, sorrow, suffering, brought on specifically by the polygamy, or by the character of the polygamous man. The original structure was one flesh from two. Men can have multiple wives - God didn't forbid it. BUT it is disorderly, it is not the way intended, and the Scripture invariably presents polygamous families as full of strife. So, God never forbids polygamy, but he shows how over the course of 4000 years it always leads to a bad end. And God DOES sicken and threaten to kill two men for (unwitting) adultery, so that is a strong indication that its wrongness was revealed before Sinai, even though that revelation is not recorded. Pharaoh and Abimelek are surprised when they discover what Abraham and Sarah have done to them, and outraged by it. THEY already know that adultery is wrong, even though Scripture doesn't tell us when God revealed that. So, now we move into two Covenants by God, one with Abraham, and one with Hagar and Ishamel. God's covenant with Abraham is this: you'll be fertile, your descendants will inherit this land, and the world will be blessed through your seed. That all has come to pass. There isn't MORE to it, though. God didn't give any law to Abraham. God's covenant with Hagar and Ishmael is this: Ishmael will be fertile, he'll father many kings, and he'll live right up with, and against, Isaac, and there will be trouble among their people. That's the Middle East. Taking sides with the Jews, who are Isaacites, or with the Arabs, who are Ishmaelites, is a fool's errand. BOTH are living there under covenants of being there. And what's more, the Arabs are promised to be sort of in the Jews' faces. The Jews don't get to WIN and drive out Ishmael - that would break the covenant God made with Hagar and Ishmael. The fruits of polygamy end up being bitter. It's only through unity of their common Father in Heaven, through Christ and not through their simple monad God, can they come to peace. It doesn't look on the cards any time soon, but Biblically speaking, whoever sides with Isaac over Ishmael is a fool. He is fighting against a permanent fault line God laid out on the land to teach. It should teach the Isaacites and Ishmaelites that there is only peace through Christ, and it should teach Gentiles who are prone to take sides with one side or the other the frustration that comes from trying to settle things that God purposely left unsettled. The only way out of the bash-trap that Abraham and Sarah laid for their descendants in the Levant is for their descendants of a common human father to find unity in their Heavenly father, and the only way to do THAT is to both accept the brotherhood of Christ. Gentiles foolish enough to think that Israel is going to WIN don't read their Scripture. We can pump in $100 trillion, and Israel and Ishmael are still going to have their hands against each other. The only way out is to find brotherhood with Christ in their common heavenly Father. It should be noted that Isaac and Ishmael themselves are never shown fighting, and but for the passing by of some Ishmaelites who bought Joseph from his brothers, he might have been killed. Ok, so, that's the covenant of Abraham. Not much too it, really. Joseph goes into Egypt, the Israelites follow and are saved from Famine, then enslaved, and then God chooses Moses to bring out the people of Israel AND the other slaves too - they call come out together as the Hebrew people. They are, God says, a "no people", and that's true. They didn't exist before as a united nation. Their language didn't exist as a literary language - the Torah will be the first of that. God picked a gaggle of slaves, leavened by the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, plus those who came with them, and made them into a nation himself, the only nation God ever made directly, and the only one he ever ruled. With Exodus and Leviticus especially, less so Numbers, we have the instrument of government, the divine constitution of God for the people he ruled directly. With Deuteronomy, we have Moses reminding them of all of it in summary form, and teaching the new generation, for every single one of the old generation who came out of Egypt except two, Joshua and one other, died in the desert. Only their children came into the Promised Land. Their children had been united by the desert and the rulership of God through Moses and the Tent of Meeting, over the course of 40 years. So, with the Sinai Covenant and the other laws of Moses, we have a constitution and history of God's Own State. We can see God's personal opinion about many things, the rules he imposed on the state he ruled. And if we're going to take the view that we're not Jews and not subject to that law, that's true - as far as it goes - the fact that God gave clothes to Adam and Eve does not oblige us to wear clothes; the fact that God made the rest day holy doesn't mean that we HAVE to have a rest day. It means that GOD THINKS IT'S BETTER. So, when one hears Christians crowing about how we're "Not under the Law!" of Moses, that's true. But that was always true. Before Christ Gentiles were not under the law of Moses either. The law of Moses was given at Sinai exclusively to the Hebrews. It was part of a covenant with that particular people, and nobody else. And the terms of that covenant were these: IF you follow all of these laws faithfully, you will have a secure farm in Canaan, which I will give to you. But if you DON'T follow these laws faithfully, you will lose your farm, I will drive you out, and I will hound you all over the world. Gentiles were (and still are) under the Law of Noah, which is, in the main, DO NOT SLAY PEOPLE. Also, don't commit adultery. But that's about it. Hebrews - and only Hebrews - were under the Law of Moses and the Covenant with YHWH. Sp when Christians crow that "Christ has released us from the law", they're ignoramuses. No, Christ didn't. Christ redeemed PAUL, and PETER and JUDE and JAMES and JOHN, also Matthew, Mark, Mary and other JEWS from their violations of The Law, because as Jews they were all UNDER the Law. But Gentiles never were under the law. And the laws of Noah? Against Slaying people and against adultery? Jesus didn't release THOSE laws at all. In fact, he said twice on the last page of Scripture that killers and adulterers go into the fire. Jesus said that not a jot of the Law of God would pass away until the end of the world. And that's certainly true, but once again, one has to be DISCERNING. The Law of Adam was monogamous marriage, once, for life. THAT is the law of Jesus too, and it's far STRICTER than the allowances of the Law of Moses. The Law of Noah forbids slaying. And so does Jesus. So, what else is there in the Law of Moses that didn't apply to Gentiles before Sinai, and still didn't after, because Gentiles were not part of the covenant at Sinai. Well, first of all, monotheism. YHWH didn't reveal himself to the world. He revealed himself to the HEBREWS. The other nations were left with their various deities. It is followership of CHRIST that cleans that up, the NEW convenant that leads to the Father through Christ, alone, and none other. THAT is where monotheism is imposed on the world: the New Covenant of Jesus. "Thou shall have no other deities before me" is a command of YHWH to the Hebrews of Sinai. It doesn't become a law for mankind until "None comes to the Father except through me." Certainly God never LIKED it that men worshipped other deities, but he left them to their folly. He hammered JEWS, though, when they strayed into it, worse than he hammered Gentiles. This is all clearly in the Scripture, but for some reason Christians lose the thread of the story and think that they're latter day Jews, which is rubbish. "Don't make idols" was also a command for HEBREWS. Gentiles did that nonsense. Idols does not mean statues and art. It means objects of worship. It's Jesus, with his "None comes to the Father except through me", and his insistence on prayers to the Father, who makes it clear to Gentiles that idolatry is worse than useless. But it wasn't a LAW to Gentiles because of Sinai - they weren't AT Sinai. The Sabbath Day - the day of rest - God set it aside at Creation. He reminded the Hebrews of it: REMEMBER the Rest day, and keep it set apart. But he never imposed it on Gentiles in the way that God imposed it on the Hebrews. For Hebrews, it was death to defy God the King and work on the Sabbath. Jesus never made such a law of death and punishment for Gentiles. In fact, he never preached to Gentiles at all on such matters, or hardly any others either. He preached to Jews, and used the Sabbath they kept to make points about how to worship God. "Sabbath breakers" are not included on the lists of the damned on the last two pages of Scripture (slayers, adulterers and idolaters are). So we see through to a different meaning of "Not a penstroke nor an iota of the Law shall pass away..." The LAW, for the most part, was only for JEWS. It NEVER was for Gentiles. But Jesus said "follow me", and "do as I say" over and over again, and HE gave a set of laws that parallel, but don't precisely match, the Laws of Moses. In many cases Jesus makes the law STRICTER, especially for personal sexual morality. Jesus imposes the requirement to FORGIVE OTHERS if one wants to be forgiven by the Father. This is especially important for Jews, given that God arranged to destroy the priesthood and the Temple. The Torah specifies what bloodline MUST be the priests, and the prophets sent to the Northern Kingdom, where Jeroboam set up his own priesthood and altars that mimicked Jerusalem - and got the Kingdom smitten by God for it - kept on excoriating the North over and over again for their false altars. No matter how much you WANT to worship God in a certain way, and to be free of some God imposed structure, the fact of the matter is that God told men the only way he would ACCEPT being worshipped. Worship offered in other ways is either ignorant (if the man doesn't know better), or DEFIANT (if he DOES know the Scriptures but does as he damn pleases anyway, for reasons of stubbornness and of state). For Israel, there was ONE Altar, with certain SPECIFIC implements (more than HALF of all of God's words in the Torah refer explicitly to the tabernacle and accounterments, in excruciating detail). If one is a Jew, then one's priests - who must be descended from Aaron - must preserve certain specific rites and sacrifices daily and at other times, and also for individual offerings. Nobody but the priests descended of Aaron can do it, and it can only be done at the Jerusalem altar. And these things MUST be done daily - they are part of the covenant, the Law. DON'T do them, and God promises that you lose the vineyard. With Jesus' judgment and the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood with it, God made it LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the Jews to carry out their covenant even if they WANTED to. It cannot be done. The priests are gone. A temple could be put up, but the priests wouldn't be real. They would be like Jeroboam's false priests. God placed restrictions into the covenant so that, when its time came, he could remove the ability to follow all of it from the earth, in favor of the only OPERANT covenant, the NEW Covenant with Jesus. And Jesus himself gives plenty of laws. In fact, he gives ALL the law that applies to ALL mankind. Some of that law is less restrictive than the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses never applied to anybody but Hebrews, and the Law of Jesus applies to all mankind (believe in him or not). Other parts of the law are MORE restrictive than Moses' law. There's no refuge to Moses' law for Gentiles. All that it ever promised anyway was a secure farm in Israel for the circumcised descendants of the Hebrews, and that only if they did EVERYTHING, which God has made it now impossible to DO. Jesus covenant is for all mankind, and the promise is this: do this and follow me, and I'll give you life after death in the City oF God. This is a promise that never was mentioned in the Old Testament. So consider the law of sodomy. It's a law of Moses: death, YHWH said, in Israel. There is no temporal punishment for men for that under Jesus' law, other that whatever shame or worse they bear in their own flesh for it. After death, the sexually immoral are thrown into the Lake of Fire. And theft? "You shall not steal" YHWH told the Israelites. But theft is not one of the list of things that gets a man thrown into the fire. Jesus, for his part, says to let goods go and don't pursue men at law. The property aspect and Jesus lack of concern for money - indeed, his admonishment to NOT seek to amass wealth - is unpopular. It's certainly not the Law of Sinai. But it IS the Law of God, revealed by Jesus. So, looking at food. God told Noah: each anything. God told Moses and the Hebrews "only eat these things". Gentiles WERE NOT RELEASED by Jesus from the prohibition against eating bacon. Rather, that law NEVER APPLIED TO GENTILES. And Jews? Well, Jews can break that law and follow Jesus, and get their room in the City, or they can pointlessly keep it and, if all of Jewry follows the Laws of Sinai, and the Temple is rebuilt and the priesthood resumed (an impossibility), then they might get a secure farm in Israel. By eating bacon, they lose any hope of having that farm. But really they lost all hope of that farm when God took away the Temple and the priesthood. The Law of Moses is in force, but God made it such that it CANNOT be respected, and THAT IS WHY THE JEWS HAVE NO RELIGIOUS CLAIM TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL. Because the CONDITION of the LAW, which, remember, will not pass away until the end of the world, is that the Hebrews have to do ALL OF THE THINGS IN THE COVENANT to have the right to Israel. If they DON'T - and God made it so that they CAN'T even if they WANT to! - then all of the curses of Deuteronomy 28 come into play, and they will have no security in Israel. THAT is the Law. And that's WHY the idea that one must "support Israel" is so wrongheaded. Israel as it is is a state, nothing more. It isn't holy. The Old Covenant still is in force, and that's WHY the Jews will not have a peaceful settlement in Israel: they're not respecting ALL of the Laws, so the curses of Deuteronomy 28 all apply - just like Jesus said. HE pronounced the doom. There's one way now, and it's him, not trying to resurrect a corpse that God himself killed. That's why reading the book carefully is so very important! Paul is right about the edification of the law. And although there is no "Sabbath" by law under the law of Jesus, it is nevertheless true that men need rest - Jesus said as much. Why, then should Christians RESIST so hard making their day of rest, which God knows they need, the very day that God blessed? Saturday, not Sunday. And the answer is arrogance and idolatry. A dance of "We're not under any law!" (Not true, in general, but true as far as Saturday goes), followed by "We've decided that Sunday is extra special because of Jesus' resurrection". That's fine. But God blessed the seventh day. So why not that day as the day of rest. Jesus rested in the tomb that day, after all? The only good answer is: the modern world isn't set up for that. I WANT to take a real rest, and I WOULD if I could, but I am driven along by all of these things, and unlike ancient Israel, things are not set up to LET ME take the rest on Saturday. So be it. Jesus didn't impose the Sabbath. But employers who don't let their employees have a day of rest cannot expect great treatment at the hands of God. As you measure out, so shall you be measured. If you're driving employees without rest to make money, you're ignoring God on two precepts, and probably a bunch more. So repent.
Cruz' campaign?
Nice points all, highlighting why God did not want Israel to have a king. Mmmm...but I don't think I did that in my posts on the Decalogue and the commandments of Jesus.
I thought of the microphone remark before posting and I think that is quite mild compared to the excesses of anger and arrogance from other presidents in the modern era.
Not only that. They had to wonder how much their priests and congregations would suffer if they came to America and turned neocon on camera. The Muslims back home would be taking it out on the Christians. Among the topics being discussed at the conference were what the churches should do when half the girls have been gang-raped by Muslims, what to do when a priest has had his eyes gouged out, how to respond when the archbishop of your church is kidnapped and his body is found days later with clear marks of torture. Cruz was totally in the wrong.
Not YOU, of course, just "you", you know, "y'all", "any of you". I could have written "and if one fights…" but I don't like to write like that. I like to grab the reader by the balls and say you. Who, me? Yeah, YOU!
Yeah, 'cause that worked so well in '64, eh? That you and Cruz think this will actually work in 2016 says a lot about why Cruz has such limited potential to grow a supporter base. If it didn't work in '64 in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of an American president by a Soviet sympathizer, it won't work now.
Yeah really man. Because the public was so ready to replace that VP of an assassinated President. Cruz is more like Reagan then Goldwater. Wasn't goldwater in favor of special rights for faggots? Goldwater wasn't that great. In fact wasn't the piece of shit Goldwater in favor of mass baby exterminations. I don't think Goldwater would make the cut to get on Gods team. Cruz is smarter then Goldwater. Higher morals too. Would you ever vote for a Jeb Bush? I wouldn't.
You're completely deluded if you think the GOP can win in 2016 or any other future election by cultivating the votes of "God's team". I won't say 'never' just yet. But that is how I feel about the Bush family. And the dynasty thing is pretty repugnant, un-American even. Unprecedented that any family would hold the presidency three times in three decades. We've only had a couple of scattered presidents from the same family before, never more than twice.
That is what I would expect someone to my far left to say.
Playing your holier-than-thou card? LOL
I just noted you sounded like leftist Jennifer Rubin. But I am holier then all non Christians. That is just a fact.
And you honestly think you can elect a prez with just Christian votes? You're insane or living in some very rural backwater. Christians have been a minority for some time and they are under attack as well. They are more of a liability to the GOP nominee than an asset. Assuming you understand that they won't all respond well to your Come-to-Jesus appeals, exactly how do you think you'll get the indy voters to vote for a GOP nominee?
Goldwater was born in a US Territory (Arizona), Cruz was born in Canada. Raffie Ted the traitor, recently renounced his Canadian citizenship. If he's not loyal to his native Canuck homeland, why would he care about the US either? No morals whatsoever. For sale to the highest bidder... Goldman Sachs, CFR, Soros, Raul Casto, Nelson Mandela, Acorn, whomever. El Cubano de Canada? LOL It's hilarious even if I don't take the Cruz Birthers seriously.
I especially like the Mountie outfit. Maybe the Horde could work up a Dudley Do-Right parody. Like some Tedly Do-Right cartoons.
Cruz was born to an American citizen parent. He is a natural born citizen. Doesn't matter where he was born. The sole question is whether or not he was born a citizen. He was, and he's over 35, so he's eligible. I'd have to think hard before I decided whether or not I could vote for him, but his citizenship is not on the list of things about which I am concerned. The whole: "Put Israel before your own personal experiences, you Arab Christians" thing is probably a show-stopper.
I still say he's better suited to be A.G. or a Supreme. He is far more a legal eagle than a retail pol. And it shows.
The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.[3] According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 2008, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.[4][5] The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply.[4] “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Cruz' campaign? That remains to be seen.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The conclusion of his offensive speech, most of which did not address Mideast Christians in any way, shape or form...
#35. To: Liberator (#33)
This may be true regarding "rash statements", but then the same was said and written of Ronald Reagan.
#36. To: Liberator (#34)
Seriously, come on. Is THAT the actual Talking Point objection??
#37. To: TooConservative (#36)
Believe me, this is not the last time I'll remind people of what he did to the persecuted Christians of the Mideast.
“Our purpose here tonight is to highlight a terrible injustice. A humanitarian crisis. Christians, are being systematically exterminated...
#38. To: Rufus T Firefly (#2)
#39. To: Liberator (#37)
Blown completely out of proportion and context. Was Cruz really so heinous and akin to committing treason to Christians? Or was he merely reminding this ME Christian confab that it is hypocritical NOT to support a sovereign Israel, who are also being persecuted by Muslim jihadists?
#40. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#41. To: TooConservative (#35)
Reagan was never needlessly provocative. You can't say the same for Cruz.
#42. To: TooConservative (#39)
It is insulting for you to remotely compare the suffering and persecution of Christians across the Mideast on a huge scale to the comparative safety enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
#43. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone, jwpegler (#40)
Whatever happened to the Populist Voice site?
#44. To: cranko, A K A Stone, TooConservative, liberator (#5)
Cruz showed up and declared "If you don't stand with Israel, I won't stand with you!" and stomped off the stage. What a sleazebag. Apparently, he was trying to appeal to Sheldon Adelson and the RJC.
#45. To: Liberator (#33)
All this proves is that the RNC is trying like mad to stop the F-14's from launching from the carrier deck of the USS Cruz.
#46. To: TooConservative, liberator (#35)
Reagan was never needlessly provocative. You can't say the same for Cruz.
#47. To: TooConservative (#4)
It was an unprecedented gathering of all the ancient churches of the Mideast, many of whom hadn't had any real contact in many centuries. The conference was to draw attention to the deadly persecution of Christians across the Mideast.
#48. To: TooConservative, liberator, A K A Stone (#39)
It is insulting for you to remotely compare the suffering and persecution of Christians across the Mideast on a huge scale to the comparative safety enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
#49. To: Liberator (#41)
Cruz IS provocative. AND bold. A leader America desperately needs. No one BUT someone who is provocative and bold will put a dent in this subversive universe of Uni-Party of politics and PC national suicide where the constitution, conservationism and common sense are getting our head bashed.
#50. To: Liberator (#43)
Whatever happened to the Populist Voice site?
#51. To: TooConservative (#26)
(Edited)
It seems to me that Jesus personally upheld and taught the Decalogue on multiple occasions and His position was quite clear. More importantly, He gave many commandments in addition to these ancient ones. The commands of Jesus embrace and supercede the Ten Commandments.
#52. To: redleghunter (#51)
#53. To: redleghunter (#40)
#54. To: redleghunter, Too Conservative (#52)
#55. To: CZ82 (#53)
It's like an ostrich, never got off the ground.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
There is an eagerness among men to REDUCE God's prohibition of killing people in order to allow the killing of people for reasons of state, such as wars. For indeed, how would kingdoms be established without killing people? They would not be. And where did God EVER authorize men to kill other men in order to set up governments? He never did. People who kill people to establish their rule are, in fact, just "slayers" under the law that has been the law since Moses.
And remember: if you're fighting these notions, you are not fighting ME, you are fighting God, because that's what he said, from Noah through Revelation.
#57. To: redleghunter (#46)
#58. To: redleghunter (#44)
Another factor Cruz should have been briefed on or realize from knowing history...These are Christians who have been under the boot of Islam for centuries. For them, Israel and the West are 'come lately's' to their plight. They have had to slug it out on their own as the pariah class and outcasts of Muslim governments.
#59. To: TooConservative (#56)
Mmmm...but I don't think I did that in my posts on the Decalogue and the commandments of Jesus.
#60. To: Liberator (#41)
To quote Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
#61. To: TooConservative (#60)
If it didn't work in '64 in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of an American president by a Soviet sympathizer, it won't work now.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#61)
(Edited)
I don't think Goldwater would make the cut to get on Gods team.
Would you ever vote for a Jeb Bush? I wouldn't.
#63. To: TooConservative (#62)
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#65. To: TooConservative (#64)
Playing your holier-than-thou card? LOL
#66. To: A K A Stone (#65)
#67. To: A K A Stone, for sale or rent (#61)
Cruz is smarter then Goldwater. Higher morals too.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#68. To: hondo68 (#67)
#69. To: hondo68 (#67)
#70. To: TooConservative (#69)
#71. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
#72. To: TooConservative (#66)
And you honestly think you can elect a prez with just Christian votes?
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
It's like an ostrich, never got off the ground.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]