The CNN GOP Debate took place last night. Or as I like to call it, “Best In Show: Political Edition.”
Once again, we were gifted with a few more examples of Ted Cruz’s burgeoning lack of integrity. Cruz spent the evening catapulting baseless attacks at Camp Rubio, but when asked about Donald Trump he did the verbal equivalent of fleeing the country and going under Witness Protection to escape the threat of losing the overrated vote of Trump’s cultist ilk. It was moderately infuriating, and I think Leon Wolf with Red State put it better than I can:
It’s not just that Cruz disagreed with Rubio. It’s that his disagreement was laced with biting sarcasm and personal attacks. For many (if not most) of us who are not already in Camp Trump, Rubio is considered to be an acceptable choice for the nomination (if not our first), and only a fool would not concede that he presents the best chance in the general to defeat Hillary. Watching a guy who’s turned turtle repeatedly to a fake conservative insult comic, only to turn around and show some fighting spirit against a guy who is actually conservative was a little hard to stomach.
While Ted Cruz blatantly lied to his faithful following, Marco Rubio was honest about certain positions he’s held throughout his political career, even if they don’t sell well to the rage driven faction of quasi-conservatives.
CRUZ: Look, I understand Marco wants to raise confusion, it is not accurate what he just said that I supported legalization. Indeed, I led the fight against his legalization and amnesty. And you know, there was one commentator that put it this way that, for Marco to suggest our record’s the same is like suggesting “the fireman and the arsonist because they are both at the scene of the fire.”
The truth? Take a moment to watch this video of Ted Cruz supporting legalization:
So, does he not have that “audio-graphic memory” frequently praised, or is he, quite simply, lying through his teeth? Confident that he is fully aware that his following won’t practice due diligence and research his history, I lean towards the latter. Rubio – in contrast – was honest about his stance.
RUBIO: But I’ve answered that question repeatedly. I am personally open — after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card.
That may not be a majority position in my party, but that’s down the road.
He knows that while Trump low-info votes would be easy to obtain if he changed his stance and swayed away from his values to please the grouchy masses, as Ted Cruz has done, but he refuses to toss his principles aside for a vote.
Then to add insult to injury, Cruz continued to pacify a candidate who verbally stumbled around the term “nuclear triad” like a drunk toddler, and then continued to attack the one candidate who offered the American people a detailed explanation:
Marco Rubio immediately followed up with an explanation of the triad, informing the American people that the term refers to the ability to deliver nuclear weapons by strategic bomber, intercontinental ballistic missile, or submarine.
Which brings me to my next issue:
After criticizing Ted Cruz last night – rightfully so, I might add – I was once again labeled a “cannibal.” Which was reminiscent of last week when I wrote a piece on Ted Cruz, to the dismay of many. A good portion of the negative comments had absolutely nothing to do with my assessment of Cruz’s nefarious tactics, but instead the fact that I was attacking him at all.
“I don’t understand why we have to practice political cannibalism!”
“Talk about eating your own!”
“You’ve betrayed conservatives through your cannibalism!”
“It’s simple: You never cannibalize your own!”
In short: “Maybe you were right, but how dare you say it!”
“Political Cannibalism” is a term used against those who attack others within their own party. But, like “establishment,” “amnesty,” and “conservative,” the term has been put in a blender and emerged as just another mangled arrow for angry conservatives to add to their quiver, which they’ll then hand over to their crossed-eyed trigger happy cousin, the conservative media. The practice is similar to how liberals use manipulative words such as “health,” “rights,” and “empowerment,” to manipulate women into allowing someone to butcher their children. I wonder, does it make conservatives feel good about themselves when they hijack these leftist tactics?
It’s okay to attack certain members of the party, but it’s a crime punishable by the “GOPe” label to attack others.
Let me explain:
Rebuke John Boehner? Attacking is not only permitted, but encouraged.
Rebuke Marco Rubio? Depends on the day.
Rebuke Paul Ryan? “FOR FREEDOM!” <—- That means “yes.”
Rebuke Mike Lee? Never!
Rebuke Rand Paul? Depends on the day.
Rebuke Mitch McConnell? “RINO!” <—- That means “yes.”
Rebuke Ted Cruz?
In short: If their candidate of choice is behaving like an unmitigated jackwagon, and your values dictate that you call them out, you’re committing “political cannibalism.”
One person wrote me a long and heartfelt DM:
“Ted Cruz made me believe in America again when I had given up. He’s the first person I’ve been proud to vote for since Reagan, and the first person to make me feel confident in the world we’ll leave our children. Your post was offensive, and the perfect example of cannibalism.”
Now, these people, bless their hearts, were trying to be offensive. However, I took their criticism as quite the complement. Despite the fact that Ted Cruz is not even in the same neighborhood as Ronald Reagan (I recommend this article), the fact that most people are not even refuting my comments, but instead fighting against the fact that I made them, is disturbing.
They pick and choose between who we’re allowed to cannibalize, and who we aren’t. They’re fine with Ted Cruz saying that Romney “stood for nothing,” or that Mitch McConnell is an “effective Democrat leader,” or that Marco Rubio is “unprincipled,” etc., etc.; thus showing that over and over again Ted has no scruples going after fellow Republicans. Ironically, the same people who cheer such comments now call me an “establishment shill cannibal.” One could say that it’s that type of vitriolic narrative driven rubbish that kept Romney, a man of solid principles, out of the White House. Now, I’m not saying that I am fully dedicated to every member of what many consider the “establishment” faction of the GOP, you can find plenty of rebukes in previous posts and, funny enough, I’ve never called anyone else a “cannibal” for voicing their opinion.
Are we supposed to ask for permission before speaking our minds about politicians?
Is there a color coded chart I’m supposed to follow?
If I mess up, do I have to say three Hail Reagans?
I mean, no one likes to hear less than kind words directed at their candidate. However, I did warn them… “Gird your loins, Cruz Crew.”
These people have taken it a step further, and in an attempt to overthrow an establishment have created their own political establishment based on how they feel; regardless of how I feel, or how moderate conservatives feel, or how the moderate Democrats feel, etc., because their world revolves around them. Big government is alright as long as it’s THEIR big government. They don’t mind calling out those with whom they disagree with, but the moment I do it I’m a cannibal? They claim to stand for truth, but just as long as it aligns with their ideology, and if it doesn’t, we can just stuff a sock in it or be cannibalized ourselves.
“We need more honesty and truth! Here’s what I think!”
“Cool. Do I get to tell you what I think?”
*Taps on glass structure* Hey, do you mind dropping those stones so that we can talk?
If I’m the political Hannibal Lecter, you’re being the political Buffalo Bill. You want me to soften my beliefs so that later on you can peel them off the corpse of my integrity and wear them around while you tout a candidate loved by “all real conservatives.” No, thank you. I choose the hose.
Yes, that was a gross analogy. No, I don’t regret it.
When you tell me that “anyone who attacks Ted Cruz is working for the establishment GOP,” all I can think about is how “establishment” that sounds. We wanted to get away from that mentality, and that’s why the “rebellion” arose in the first place. We have a two sided political system that refuses to call out their own, and it’s tiresome – to put it mildly. We complain about the loyalty of The Left, yet we can’t criticize one of our own without someone making a Walking Dead reference.
Rush Limbaugh: “A genuine conservative wouldn’t go after Cruz this way”
No, Rush, a “genuine conservative” is dedicated to the principles they claim to espouse, not a particular person. A “genuine conservative” would have recognized the “red flags” in Donald Trump’s various socialist/liberal policies, not merely in his condemnation of Ted Cruz.
The new establishment GOP upholds their dedication to men, not the conservative values they claim to adore. Religious groups have backroom meetings on who they’ll endorse as a collective, and then turn around and spoon feed us our opinions. The moment you veer from the plan, you’re “eating your own.” It’s part of the dirty, grimy, dysentery scented narrative.
The initiative, spearheaded by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, had originally brought together a loose coalition of some 50 like-minded conservative leaders from around the country. Together, beginning in early 2014, the group — referred to internally simply as “The GROUP” — met every few months to discuss the state of the race, to pray for guidance, and to conduct a straw poll to see which candidates enjoyed the most support at each stage of the campaign.
“The GROUP” ended with this result:
But it wasn’t to be. Rubio’s coalition folded on the fifth ballot, and his supporters, Stemberger included, left the Sheraton hotel with two choices: Join the “united” conservative movement behind Ted Cruz, or keep their support for Marco Rubio silent.
Aren’t they precious…
“Your political cannibalism is going to make us lose!”
If we win by being silent, by going along with the underhanded slimetastic tactics of Trump and Cruz, while also throwing viable candidates under the bus, is it winning at all? If we allow candidates we adamantly disagree with to flourish out of fear of being a “cannibal,” or being labeled a “disingenuous conservative,” then we are betraying the very principles that make us a conservative.
There are very few conservatives that I wouldn’t vote for come the general (Trump being one of them). I’ll show up and begrudgingly pull the lever for the vast majority. I might have wine coming out of every pore in my body, but I’ll be there. So while I may dine on the souls of fellow Republicans, as one eloquent individual stated, in the end I’m a team player. In the meantime, don’t expect me to hop on bandwagons with you.
So, to those of you who asked if I’ll continue to “cannibalize” those in my own party who don’t behave in a way that induces my respect? Well…
Glad we have that all cleared up.