Ted Cruz: CPAC’s REAL Winner

From: pjmedia.com, By: Michael Van Der Galien, On: March 2, 2015, See the article HERE.

????????

Yesterday our very own Bridget Johnson reported that Senator Rand Paul had won the CPAC straw poll. Yep, Ron Paul’s son is as good at organizing for that completely irrelevant poll as his father. Isn’t it shocking?

No, not really. This is how the Pauls operate and we’ve seen it for years now. They bring in busloads of college students who burst out in loud screams when one of the Pauls comes on stage and who vote for them in the straw poll and… that’s that.

Yes, they’re great at rallying students to their cause. Of course that’s wonderful and all, but it also means they’re always over-represented at events like CPAC. They win. Whoopty do. So would I if I bused in my entire extended family and their friends.

Congratulations. Sadly it means nothing.

Governor Scott Walker came in second. A great result, but — as Josh Farris points out at the Facebook group Ted Cruz 45 – he has some problems of his own:

 Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 09.41.32

Many people support Walker at this moment because he has done such a great job in Wisconsin, not because they know enough about him to be able to conclude that he would make a good president as well. Good governor = votes. But what happens when his opponents put some real pressure on him? We’ve already seen that foreign policy is his major weakness and that he even makes gaffes when asked about it. That’s a bit problematic for anyone who wants to become president.

The only reason he gets away with that at this moment is that he’s the flavor of the month, just like Rick Perry was a few years ago. Once he starts being attacked, questioned and criticized by conservative bloggers, journalists and his rivals for the nomination, support for him will almost certainly drop.

So that leaves us with the man I consider to be the real winner of CPAC: Ted Cruz.

Reagan conservatives normally don’t do very well at CPAC. When one of them does, it means something. Cruz is many things, but he isn’t a “flavor of the month.” He’s too outspoken, principled and well-known. People who support him do so because they know him and share his views.

And guess what? The CPAC poll and other polls, both online and offline, show that there are a lot of such voters in America.  On top of that and in contrast to Rand Paul, he doesn’t have to bus anyone in to help him win; his supporters take care of that by themselves.

Yes, Cruz did better than expected and has used CPAC to prove that he’s a real contender. He couldn’t possibly have asked for more.

~~~~~~~~~~

For those of us who are Ted Cruz supporters, this sounds like good news. The “other polls” mentioned above (more good news for Cruz) have been incorporated into a separate post. I imagine that others share my concern that Cruz seems to be treading water right now, neither moving up in major polls nor dropping. I wonder if it could be because he doesn’t seem to be really campaigning yet. Yes, he’s giving campaign-style speeches, but we just aren’t seeing the kind of activity that we’d like to see. Maybe he’s waiting for the debates to highlight his presidential attributes – maybe?

Garnet92

Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Ted Cruz: CPAC’s REAL Winner

  1. Hardnox says:

    CPAC has stopped being Conservative long ago. The proof is when they let in the likes of Christie or Bush to speak.

    Odd how the lefties in our ranks tout conservatism as they burnish their faux credentials when their record proves otherwise.

    Cruz was great. Ditto with Walker.

    Busing in loads of supporters like Paul and Bush did was despicable.

    • Garnet92 says:

      The problem is that anyone can call themselves anything – liberals call themselves “moderates” and moderate Republicans call themselves “conservatives.” Campaigning to the right of where they really stand and then move leftwards after being elected.

      We must always filter what any politician says during a campaign through a fine bullshit filter composed of a screen of actions – as we all know, words don’t mean squat, what have they actually DONE. Even promises followed by the strong verbal exclamation point word “PERIOD” no longer mean anything.

      As you say, look at the record and when the record is slim or sketchy, they probably aren’t ready for “prime time” yet.

  2. captbogus2 says:

    Christie and Bush even going to the CPAC is an insult to the intelligence of us all.
    They stick out like Al Sharpton at a KKK rally…

    • Garnet92 says:

      That’s not all bad capt., for the most part, they’ve been ridiculed for even showing up and I don’t believe either of them helped themselves by being there anyway.

  3. BrianR says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Cruz’s numbers staying steady at this point. That’s actually a GOOD thing. As time goes on and other potential candidates are winnowed out, their numbers get basically redistributed, and his numbers will (I think) start going up.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I am hoping that Cruz is intentionally playing it “cool” for now. If he’s really serious about running, he is much too smart to play his cards until he’s ready – which, as I said, is likely to be the debates. I haven’t heard of any other negatives about Cruz other than the “shutting down the government” accusation and the “natural born citizen” qualification. But I suspect that the media hasn’t brought all of its might down on him yet either.

  4. Kathy says:

    We bash politicians for staying in office so long, but it seems to me that it takes a few years experience in Washington to learn foreign policy. That’s what gives Ted Cruz the advantage, and naturally, guys like Walker, Perry & Carson are going to be weak in that area.

    I think Cruz is still building up a head of steam and taking his time.

    As for busing in supporters – maybe they took a page from O’s 2012 playbook when he bused in voters.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Yep, how long is too long? Many of our “senior” legislators have long passed their expiration dates but simply don’t want to leave their plum jobs. Most have long since stopped learning or progressing and they ought to GO.

      On the other hand, as you say, not only does a rookie need to learn the mechanical ropes of the job, but when you consider the POTUS position, the individual had better be damn intelligent just to keep up with constantly changing world conditions. He/she doesn’t have to deal with the details, they’ve got tons of (hopefully) experienced and qualified advisors to keep up with nuts and bolts, but he/she needs a good analytical mind and the ability to discern the REAL possible outcomes based on his/her decisions.

      Having been both a “grunt” and the person making go/no go decisions for my company, it is CRITICAL that a top executive surround him/herself with HONEST, SMART people because their advice and counsel is critical. An executive can’t be so egotistical that he/she is unwilling to hire someone who might be smarter than they. That’s where Obama drops the ball. That is where a Governor has an advantage over a Senator – executive experience.

      In my opinion, bussing in supporters for whatever reason, is the political equivalent of cheating. It’s done to display an artificial picture of events to those watching from afar.

      • Kathy says:

        I’d say 10-15 years is long enough, and even though we’d lose some good guys with that rule, it would also get rid of the lifers like McCain, Mikulski, Pelosi, etc.

        Agree 100% on relying on good advisors, with different points of view and people who know the technicalities and regs one might not be familiar with. And see if we can do better than a sawed off Iranian witch with her own agenda.

        • Garnet92 says:

          I’d agree with your 10-15 years, maybe even a few less and I’d be willing to sacrifice a few good ones to get rid of the bad ones.

          I also agree with your characterization of that “sawed off Iranian witch” LOL! I wonder if we’ll ever really know how much influence she has over Obummer?

          • vonmesser says:

            How about 25 years maximum in “representative service” with no more than 15 years in each chamber?

  5. Russ R says:

    I’m not really going to add anything that many haven’t already said here: I’ve been a Ted Cruz fan since he showed up. I only have one small disagreement with the pjmedia: walker has survived vicious attacks already. Yeah he was ‘only’ in Wisconsin, but the whole national leftist media and union apparatus was brutally attacking him and his family and they can’t really make anything stick. If we don’t know all his policies, then yes, I’d like to know. Yes, I’d LOVE to see President Cruz, but considering how elections go, I just think it’s a little early to throw Gov. Walker out. I’m actually a little excited to have 2 or 3 good choices.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Good point Russ. Although Cruz is still my favorite, Walker has been improving his position in my ranking recently. I’ve always respected the way he handled himself during his election, recall, and reelection – and his results in Wisconsin. My original assessment was that he wasn’t charismatic enough to handle a national campaign. I’m still not convinced, but he’s been pretty good on the national stage so far. If he can continue to improve his “gravitas,” he can move into my second spot.

      He has had a couple of hiccups in the past few days relating to issues outside of the U.S. so he’s still educating himself on foreign affairs.

  6. vonmesser says:

    I’m still a Walker fan (proven record – not just words). Think Cruz would make a good Veep, and that would give him the executive experience to be Prez.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I’m not necessarily disagreeing vonmesser, but I’d still like to see a Cruz/Walker ticket. I’m (obviously) impressed with Cruz’s credentials in all other aspects except for the real world executive experience. Walker has that over him, but that’s the only attribute that I think that Walker has over Ted. I’d happily vote for the ticket in either format.