2016 Election

Is a Vote for Cruz Still a Vote Against DC? Or Has the Equation Changed?

Cruz and Trump
Paul Dowling
Written by Paul Dowling

“Things are seldom what they seem,

Skim milk masquerades as cream;

High-lows pass as patent leathers;

Jackdaws strut in peacock’s feathers.”

—Gilbert & Sullivan, in HMS Pinafore

 

Bush Donors for Cruz

CNN recently reported on Jeb Bush’s endorsement of Ted Cruz .  Not lost on the conservative grassroots is the fact that “[t]he former Florida governor’s endorsement follows that of his brother, Neil, who joined Cruz’s finance team earlier this month.”  Keeping in mind that money is crucial (although it is not everything), when it comes to getting elected, the new association with Bush/Establishment financing would imply that, since early March, Cruz’s list of donors has taken a much more Establishment-oriented turn.  In an election year where grassroots voters are insisting that an independent-minded “outsider” become president, Cruz’s new donor base begs the question: Just how “outside” will Cruz be able to remain, with Establishment donors tying strings to so many of the donations he receives?

Neil Bush has said, “We need a candidate that can unify the party, work with Paul Ryan , move a reform-minded agenda forward.”  Does Bush really speak for the grassroots, when he invokes Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House who recently funded Obama’s admission into the country of countless unvetted, and unvettable, Muslim Syrian refugees, many of whom are likely Islamic State jihadists?  The Islamic State has told us of their infiltration plans, and they seem to have the ability to create false Syrian passports, with each one a “near-perfect forgery” made by captured Syrian-government passport-making equipment.  If the Cruz campaign is flirting with the pro-Islamic Ryan Establishment—which is synonymous with the RINO Establishment (RINO means Republican In Name Only, for those who might be new to the term)—this cannot be healthy for Cruz’s campaign in the long-run.  Such flirtations often result in relationships—even if fleeting ones—that can cause lasting damage to the country.

 

Politically Correct Bushes

The Bush family has expressed contempt for Trump’s vulgarity—his political incorrectness—through the words of matriarch Barbara Bush, who has said that she’s “sick of him” and the “terrible things” he says.  Even Laura Bush has criticized Trump’s language as “isolationist and xenophobic.”  Cruz’s new Bush/Establishment pro-Islamic donors will certainly mirror these politically-correct sentiments and will likely continue to promote the wrongheaded and dangerous notion, put forward by George W. Bush in September of 2001, that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

 

Has the Cruz Campaign Become a Trojan Horse?

TedCruzWhile Cruz is, to all appearances, becoming more mainstream, Trump has issued a warning—perhaps not an unrealistic one—that the DC Establishment is “using” Cruz.  Trump views Cruz—a near-purist when it comes to the US Constitution—as the perfect Trojan Horse for the Establishment to use, if only they can tie enough strings to Cruz to influence his future behavior as president.  “Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet,” said the Trump campaign in a recent statement, “he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination” from Trump.

 

“Make DC Listen”

In the past, Cruz has made much good use of his catchphrase “Make DC Listen,” to the extent that there is a political action committee devoted to supporting Cruz which bears that name.  The danger in courting so many dyed-in-the-wool Establishment donors, on the way to the Republican nomination, is that Cruz may begin to listen too much to DC, rather than making them listen instead.  Might a safer way of making them listen possibly involve electing a self-funded candidate who is beholden to nobody?

 

Switcheroo?

In an interview with Fox News, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee pooh-poohed concerns about a new face coming into the convention and becoming the nominee.  Priebus said on Hannity recently that the RNC’s Rule 40 — that a candidate must have won a majority in the primaries of eight states, in order to be eligible for the nomination—still applies.  “But,” reports Fox News, “he [Priebus] refused to rule out Ohio Gov. John Kasich—who’s won only one state contest so far—as a possible nominee, when Sean Hannity pressed him to say that the nominee would be either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump” during his probative interview of Priebus.

Could it be that, after the initial floor vote, and failing a Trump majority, that the RNC might try to pull a switcheroo, by submitting Kasich’s name as a compromise candidate between Trump and Cruz? Marco Rubio , it would appear, is hard at work to make sure he maintains control of his delegates all the way to the convention.  This probably means that he wishes to pool his delegates with the RNC-chosen standard-bearer, in order to block Trump’s candidacy.  While Cruz is setting himself up to become that unifying candidate, is it yet possible that the RNC is actually using Cruz to keep Trump from unifying the party, all the while planning to put Kasich forward, instead of Cruz, at the convention?  Could Cruz—and grassroots voters, who want an insurgent receive the nomination—all find themselves holding the short end of the stick together, by convention’s end?

What delegates might be getting contacted—other than those who have been in touch with the Rubio forces?  And who might be contacting them?  The RNC?  The Kasich campaign?  Both?  In the highly dishonest world of the RINO Establishment, it should not prove surprising that such a thing could, indeed, be happening, even at the risk of the Republican Party’s committing suicide in the process.  After all, it was RINO leader Bill Kristol, of Weekly Standard fame, who recently proposed that it would be better to help Hillary get elected than to support Trump.

 

Could the Best Pro-Cruz Result Stem from Pro-Trump Support?

cruz-trump1So, could the antidote to such mischief be for Cruz supporters to switch their support to Trump in the remaining primary contests?  It may well be that this election is the last best hope for our country.  And I write this an avid fan of the Texas Senator, as well as one of the grassroots contributors to Cruz’s presidential campaign.  But where I differ from many Cruz supporters is in the fact that, while I have favored Senator Cruz during his presidential run (and have even met the senator and his father both personally, on separate occasions), I have never bought into the Never-Trump campaign or believed the businessman to be, in reality, a progressive.  Although he has had to support Democrats in the past, in order to gain support for his projects in return, this does not mean that Trump does not believe in the Constitution.  Indeed, even President Reagan once supported Democrats.

 

Trump Loves the Constitution, Too

For the Constitution to live on as the basis of America’s culture of freedom, it may be that Trump represents its best chance.  This statement should not be surprising to anyone who has read Trump’s book, Crippled America, which contains Trump’s promise to the American people to “Make America Great Again!”  After all, within the pages of this book, Trump stands unequivocally in support of the free speech and the right to self-defense—under the First and Second amendments—as well as making other comments in support of the US Constitution, including comments about the need to end birthright citizenship, in accordance with the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.  (Find out more about this issue here.)  Indeed, without free markets and a free people, Trump could never have brought to fruition any of his more impressive business projects.

 

Keep an Open Mind

Could it be that Constitutionalist Cruz supporters might now be better served by supporting Trump?  The media are demonizing Trump nonstop, but with an American electorate that is highly skeptical of the media, could media efforts to harm Trump actually bring about a good result, instead of the opposite?

In the biblical story of Joseph (in Genesis 50:20, to be precise), Joseph says to his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”  Joseph is referring to the fact that his jealous brothers sold him into slavery, but that their doing so actually promoted good in the world, since Joseph was ultimately given power by Pharaoh to make life-saving plans to the benefit of many, including, in the end, Joseph’s family.  Trump’s candidacy is a phenomenon by any measure, and it may be foolhardy to pass up the opportunity it affords the American people to re-institutionalize the American Dream.  So, keep an open mind about Trump, be critical of every media report you hear, and stay tuned. . . .

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Paul Dowling

Paul Dowling

Paul Dowling is an American patriot whose mission in life is to educate and enlighten his fellow citizens about the correct principles for facilitating a life of freedom and a culture based upon the Golden Rule, as well as to do whatever is in his power to help protect his countrymen from their government.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to friend