TexasCHLforum.com

NTexCopRetired wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: Very disappointed in Cruz, but glad that he has fully exposed himself as part of the Republican elite interested solely interested in maintaining their own power.

It will come as quite a shock to the so-called "Republican elite" that Cruz is really one of them. Who knew?

I don't understand the vitriol over Cruz. He didn't use the "e" word. So what? If he refuses to participate with Trump in the campaign, that might be a different story.

I wonder if there is a "Republican elite." I've followed Republican Party politics for more than 50 years, and don't recall ever hearing the term, certainly not as a pejorative. There were "RINOS", "striped pants Republicans", "Rockefeller Republicans", etc. Everybody needs a bogeyman to rally themselves against.

If Trump wins, it will be with a great many votes unenthusiastically cast by those who wish there was a better choice. Maybe he will get there the old fashioned way, by "earning it."

I agree with you. Mr. Cruz is not part of the Republican elite or establishment. I am not vitriolic toward Sen. Cruz. I am disappointed. I wanted to see him rise above all this and show leadership and give the party direction to overcome the Clinton plague. He did not do that.

The Republican party has had it's factions for as long as I can remember. What I have seen in my 68 years is the rise of the political ruling class and it is not bound by party lines, values, platforms or such. They are not bogeymen or bogeywomen. They are bound by the desire for power and the will to retain it at all costs.

Sure there has been. Read accounts of past conventions, before TV. Talk about ruling class! Talk about bare knuckles and long knives!!

Everybody sets up bogeymen in these fights and paints opponents with that brush.

Like Harry Truman often said, "The only thing new in the world is history you don't know."

I recall a tv program taped at the Bush Library in College Station. Bush 41 had invited Ted Kennedy to discuss things. President Bush started the program with a list of quotes from Senator Kennedy about Bush. After half a dozen or so, Kennedy was really wincing. They had a good laugh about it, agreed that if you don't have a thick skin, politics may not be for you, nobody takes it personally, etc. Of course, Bush is an uncommonly gracious and classy fellow and none of the bad things Kennedy had said about him were true.

Another Trumanism: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

bblhd672 wrote: Very disappointed in Cruz, but glad that he has fully exposed himself as part of the Republican elite interested solely interested in maintaining their own power.

It will come as quite a shock to the so-called "Republican elite" that Cruz is really one of them. Who knew?

I don't understand the vitriol over Cruz. He didn't use the "e" word. So what? If he refuses to participate with Trump in the campaign, that might be a different story.

I wonder if there is a "Republican elite." I've followed Republican Party politics for more than 50 years, and don't recall ever hearing the term, certainly not as a pejorative. There were "RINOS", "striped pants Republicans", "Rockefeller Republicans", etc. Everybody needs a bogeyman to rally themselves against.

If Trump wins, it will be with a great many votes unenthusiastically cast by those who wish there was a better choice. Maybe he will get there the old fashioned way, by "earning it."

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Many of us in a certain age group will probably be faced with accepting the idea that our cherished values are likely now shared by a shrinking, permanent minority.

You will not find candidates on ballots you can accept, who reflect your priorities, share your values, believe in many of your beliefs.

I can actually accept some things just fine. For instance, while I'm an unapologetic evangelical Christian, I could support an agnostic or even an atheist president, so long as they were not toxically intolerant with regard to religion. My single highest political value is individual liberty, and I think that the best means of preserving it is a strict adherence to the Constitution. So as long as the candidate takes a more or less original intent interpretation of the Constitution - and not just by lip service, but by record also - then I can support that candidate.......even if he does not share my faith.

But I do think you're right in that, increasingly, it is difficult to find candidates for office that are that committed to the Constitution. So yes, my options get reduced.

Not only are options reduced but the chances of stitching together a majority of voters are exceeding low. Those candidates will be spared the burden of holding office.

Many of us in a certain age group will probably be faced with accepting the idea that our cherished values are likely now shared by a shrinking, permanent minority.

You will not find candidates on ballots you can accept, who reflect your priorities, share your values, believe in many of your beliefs.

Given Trump's undoubted prowess as a master of pr, drama, attracting attention, how do we know that this isn't a "made for TV" drama to attract eyeballs.

You wouldn't want a week long yawner, would you?

Jim Beaux wrote:
It has become a matter of principle with me. It's time to draw the line. Instead of voting against a candidate as I have in the past, I will now vote my conscience.

Where did you acquire this taste for luxuries?

Principles? Conscience?

A noted professor and practitioner of politics (LBJ) put it this way, and it doesn't get any more complicated than this:

"When they have the votes, we do things their way. When we have the votes, they do things our way."

We have a big discussion, argue over various issues, then vote. When that happens, we all must go along with the decision of that majority, and if we are lucky and disciplined, they will be doing things our way. Otherwise......