Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina 2016
Together, we fought the good fight and did it the right way. Your devotion to our campaign based on our shared belief in solving our nation’s challenges by uniting people and lifting them up will forever remain in the hearts of my family and me. While our campaign is ending, our work is not over. We need to continue strengthening our families and our communities because that is how we strengthen our country.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina 2016
Here Comes Ted Cruz’s Third-Party Candidacy
Cruz has indicated that even if he loses the nomination, he’s going to be a general election candidate. After all, why wouldn’t he?
To many, Ted Cruz’s recent announcement of Carly Fiorina as his running mate seemed puzzling in the extreme. Why would someone select a Vice Presidential nominee when they haven’t yet won the nomination? Why would they do this when, according to all the numbers, they’re about to lose that nomination badly? Do people who lose get running mates? What could be the purpose of such an act?
Certainly, there were explanations for why Cruz would select Fiorina in particular as a running mate. Cruz would like to capitalize on Donald Trump’s unpopularity with women, and blunt the significance of Hillary Clinton’s gender in the general election. Right-leaning women could vote for Cruz over Clinton, confident that voting for a conservative did not entail having to hurt the national advancement of female politicians.
But while there are plausible political reasons for having Fiorina as a Vice Presidential nominee, these explanations fail to answer the fundamental question, which is what a campaign that has just lost the Republican nomination is doing taking a step that is only relevant for general election candidates.
Make no mistake: Cruz has lost. He’s been mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination outright. His delegate gap against Trump is vast; Trump already has 81% of the delegates he needs to reach the nomination. Thanks to his recent devastating sweep of the Northeastern states, Trump can even afford major losses and still reach the nomination. Cruz needs many more delegates than there are delegates available. When it comes to the Republican nomination, Cruz is toast. (The prediction markets have his chances of being nominated at slightly this side of bupkis.)
So why has Cruz just unveiled a new logo and announced a running mate? Pundits have professed themselves baffled; after all, even if Fiorina could pick off some female Republicans here and there, and help somewhat with California, the dynamics of the race will remain fundamentally unchanged. The consensus seems to be that this is an act of desperation by Cruz, a Hail Mary pass with zero chance of success. Jim Newell of Slate confidently announced that he expects “pulling a Cruz” to become a synonym for delusional political gambles. After all, Newell says, this move is “unfathomable.”
But Ted Cruz, while he may be Lucifer in the flesh, is not a total strategic dunce. His intelligence may frequently be overpraised, but the likelihood is small that Cruz has simply made some wild flailing maneuver of no conceivable purpose. It may be satisfying for those of us who detest Cruz to think he has suddenly lost his mind, and that we can all point and laugh at his desperation. But in writing the Fiorina selection off as the irrational spasm of a campaign in its death throes, we may be wishfully overlooking a far more sensible explanation for the act: Cruz has simply announced his intention to run in the general election, Republican nomination or not.
For some reason, Cruz’s behavior hasn’t been interpreted this way, perhaps because the idea of him continuing to run after losing the nomination is somehow inconceivable. But when the situation is examined carefully, it makes perfect sense for Cruz to run as an independent. It serves Cruz’s aspirations and fits with his character, and more importantly, carries no real downsides.
First, there is no reason for Cruz not to continue to run. The main reason why a losing primary candidate wouldn’t run as an independent in the general election is party unity: an independent splits the party’s votes, thereby damaging its chances. This is why Bernie Sanders is very unlikely to run in the general election if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. Whatever the internal differences in a primary may be, they can be set aside when a party needs to come together to win the office.
In Cruz’s case, however, there’s no reason for him to care at all about damaging the Republican nominee’s chances. First, the Republican nominee is going to be Donald Trump, who isn’t really a Republican at all, and who conservatives have been urgently trying to stop. Second, Cruz has zero loyalty to the Republican Party itself, whose leaders detest him and whom he detests equally in turn.
In fact, Cruz doesn’t even really care about “Republican” as a label to begin with. This fact becomes starkly evident in his autobiography, in which he spends page after page distancing himself from the party, proudly proclaiming his willingness to stand with conservative principles and the American people against “the duplicity of the Republican establishment.” Cruz has never shown the slightest interest cultivating good relations with the party, and it’s unlikely that he would now set aside his personal ambitions so that he could help get a president with an “R” after his name. It’s not as if Cruz’s relationship with Republicans could get much worse, or as if hurting Trump does damage to the conservative cause.
The main reason to be skeptical that Cruz will run in the general election is that he would have little chance of winning. He wouldn’t be on the ballot in a number of states, and Cruz’s narrow base of hardcore conservatives are hardly sufficient to give him any shot at success. If Ted Cruz is a man who hungers for political power and victory, this sure doesn’t seem the way to go about it.
But this kind of thinking both misunderstands the nature of Cruz’s motivations and ignores the long-term benefits of the strategy. First, despite appearances, Cruz is not necessarily concerned with the pursuit of immediate political gain. A man who wants to become a traditional power broker does not begin his Senate carer by pissing off every one of his natural allies. A Senator does not gain political influence by alienating himself from his colleagues so much that they not only refuse to work with him, but joke about murdering him. Ted Cruz has intentionally avoided the pursuit of traditional political dominance in the Senate. He is a kamikaze conservative, perfectly willing to destroy opportunities for favor and influence; the government shutdown saga demonstrated definitively that Ted Cruz is a man who does not have any qualms about undertaking doomed efforts if they suit him.
This may, of course, be because Ted Cruz will sacrifice strategic goals for ideological purity. But there is another sense in which Cruz’s actions make long-term political sense. He won’t win the Presidency as an independent, it’s true. But he wouldn’t have won it as a Republican, either. And an independent candidacy puts Cruz in a very comfortable position: as the Republican party collapses, having nominated Trump, Cruz can position himself as the man who stood up for traditional conservative principles while the Republicans ran around with their heads cut off. This is, in fact, precisely how Cruz has positioned himself since arriving in the Senate: as the independent outsider who remained faithful to the conservative creed even as the Republican Party betrayed it. Cruz will get to stand on a debate stage next to Clinton and Trump and claim to speak for the American right, “ensuring a meaningful conservative alternative” in the race. He may even believe that his running will mitigate some of the damage done to conservatives in congressional races by having Trump as the face of the right.
An independent run presents an excellent opportunity for Cruz to seize the mantle of American conservatism from the Republican establishment that he hates. It would bolster Cruz’s national status, and set him up as exactly what he wants to be: the recognized leader of the American right wing.
From Cruz’s perspective, there is no downside whatsoever to continuing to run even after losing the Republican nomination. Bear in mind what the alternative for Cruz is here: to sacrifice the spotlight, to gracefully cede the race and watch Clinton/Trump from the sidelines. To go away quietly. Does this fit with his character? Why would he do it, anyway? Why wouldn’t he run as an independent? If all goes well, a new conservative movement will rise from the ashes of the Republican Party, with Ted Cruz as its head. As the party itself falls apart, Cruz will establish himself as the de facto national spokesman American conservatism. Given the option to either do that or withdraw, who would withdraw?
With some appealing potential advantages, and zero real disadvantages, the choice seems clear, and announcing Fiorina suddenly makes perfect sense. Ted Cruz may be running in the general election, nomination..
DONNA FIDUCIA does Not Know Vote to Vote For Just Like Sean Hannity But They Support Trumpy Read More About Here
DONNA FIDUCIA gained international recognition when she was hired by The Fox News Channel, New York, NY in September 1999 as an anchor and live host. DONNA FIDUCIA has been guest on the Howard Stern Show In 2003, she was reassigned to overnight duty where she was both a long-form and news update anchorwoman. In late 2006, she retired from The Fox News Channel and relocated to Georgia. Prior to The Fox News Channel, she worked at Fox-owned WNYW in New York City. In her four years at WNYW, she was a general assignment reporter for the 10 o'clock news. She also anchored Good Day New York and Good Day Sunday where she not only anchored the news but did celebrity and lifestyle interviews. Fiducia gained national recognition as the host of Entertainment Watch on VH-1, featuring entertainment news and celebrity interviews from movie stars to musicians.
She became New York's first television helicopter traffic reporter at WNBC-TV in 1995. She was also a general assignment reporter for Live At Five, the 6 and 11 o'clock news and Weekend Today.
Fiducia began her career at Shadow Traffic in New York. She went on to report from WNBC Radio's "N Copter" where she worked daily with Howard Stern and Don Imus.
She was also the news director and morning news anchor of the famed rock radio station WNEW-FM.
Fiducia also has done some acting in the first rap-influenced feature length movie, Tougher Than Leather with Run DMC, and on the 1980 CBS television show The Equalizer in which she performed the role of a newscaster.
In 2006, she was in the movie Being Michael Madsen in which she again played the role of a reporter.
Fiducia graduated from Columbia High School in Maplewood, NJ in 1975, and subsequently graduated Magna Cum Laude from Seton Hall University with degrees in both Communications and Political Science. She was active in the college's radio station, WSOU-FM. She also studied flute and piccolo during this time.
Fiducia is an avid horseback rider and has won numerous state and national championships in equestrian events as a hunter/jumper. In addition, she is competing at barrel racing in rodeos. Currently, Fiducia resides in Georgia where she owns, raises and trains champion warmbloods and quarterhorses on her horse farm, Double D Ranch.
In 2007, she founded her own Georgia-based production company, Donna Fiducia Productions, Inc. which specializes in media production, soundtrack music, voice-over talent, media training, and political campaigns marketing. She currently serves as President and CEO of the company.
In addition, Fiducia is in demand as a featured speaker, college lecturer, and as a moderator. She is also a media coach and political adviser.
DONNA FIDUCIA PRODUCTIONSDONNA FIDUCIA PRODUCTIONS is a Media Consulting, Radio Show Production Company and Media Distribution Company that specializes in Conservative Talk Radio.
We have developed and / or produced numerous highly rated shows such as The Denise Simon Experience, Black Man Thinkin', The Truth About South Africa, Squashing Liberalism, and Blowin' Smoke, as well as Cowboy Logic Radio.
In addition, Donna Fiducia Productions works closely with shows such as REELTalk Radio with Audrey Russo and The Teri O'Brien Show through distribution to other Internet and Terrestrial Radio Networks.
The continuous streaming player above features high quality Conservative Talk Radio shows that we produce, have developed, or distribute globally.
The shows are updated weekly and are in a 24/7 rotation that will provide you as a listener a wide variety of programming.
For Internet or Terrestrial radio networks that would like to add some or all of this fine programming to your stations, please contact us for the credential needed to relay our stream.
Tonight at 9PM (eastern) / 6PM (pacific):
9:00PM - 11:00PM: BLACK MAN THINKIN'
11:00PM - MIDNIGHT: SECURE FREEDOM RADIO
MIDNIGHT - 1:00AM: THE JAYSON VELEY PROGRAM
1:00AM - 2:00AM: A CONSERVATIVE'S PERSPECTIVE
2:00AM - 6:00AM: THE CAPTAIN'S AMERICA Matt Bruce
6:00AM - 9:00AM: THE SCOTT JAMES MORNING SHOW
AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA
TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:
(…or, stated more simply)
TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:
**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”
**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”
**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”
**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”
This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.
I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:
Washington isn’t fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.
As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”
Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.
These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”
With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.
Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know...an adult?
(Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.
**Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)
Imagine if we had a candidate:
...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought
…who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward
…who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,
A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;
B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.
This really shouldn’t be that hard.
The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.
And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again -- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.
I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.
What am I missing?
More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.
The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
liberalism + Socialism = Terrorism
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content and Programming Copyright 2016 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network