” … it doesn’t jive with his willingness to take on the entire Republican Senate, and calling McConnell a liar. Why the trepidation with Trump? I can come up with only one answer.”

The answer I would come up with is that McConnell held an elected position of responsibility at the time; one in which he was expected to exercise his responsibilities to the party and its members and agenda. All of which was enabled, most would agree, by the surge of grassroots Republican activism that handed these guys virtual control.

This makes McConnell liable for a category of ethical and moral criticism [“faithlessness” to put it mildly] which a free agent, not yet under obligation, isn’t.

This does not mean that Trump hasn’t faults which can be addressed. It means that Cruz is not obligated by his own internalized moral principles to call “Quisling” when a quisling Trump is not. At least not yet. McConnell was, under this interpretation, guilty of a kind of dereliction of duty, or an exhibition of cowardice under fire (trying to avoid the “T” word here).

The problem with most Republican politicians has not been that they were blowhards, but that they yammered on about principle while exhibiting that in practice they had round heels.

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-releases-mothers-delaware-birth-certificate/

Note that Trump did not say Cruz was ineligible. He said, in response to a WPO question, that Cruz should settle the issue before Democrats raised it.

KLSmith, Reagan’s 11th Commandment is all fine and good in normal times. Unfortunately, Trump is in another category.

geokstr, thank you for the insight into Cruz, the man. I genuinely hope you are right. However, it doesn’t jive with his willingness to take on the entire Republican Senate, and calling McConnell a liar. Why the trepidation with Trump? I can come up with only one answer.

You are misunderstanding what I was referring to when I said you were mischaracterizing me. I was not talking about my appearance on Savage at all; I was in fact interviewed by him in about a 10-minute spot about a guy who had written about jettisoning the parts of the Constitution he didn’t care for (a liberal law professor).

The mischaracterization that I was talking about was when you wrote “The problem is that sheep are afraid of sheep dogs as they appear to them as wolves and are too similar!!!” Then I linked to some posts of mine that showed my opinions about sheep and sheepdogs and also on Grossman’s work, with which I am familiar.

I have certainly noticed that you think you are very empirical when you argue. But no, I haven’t noticed that you are; you very often, for example, misunderstand what other people are saying, and you very often ignore the arguments against what you are saying.

Such as this, for example, from the brilliant lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy, and this from another smart lawyer (and in this case, Trump supporter) Mark Levin.

By the way, I have not said what I think Iowans will do or not do. I am analyzing why I believe that Trump brought this up now, and what effect I think that he thinks it could have on Iowa caucus voters, not what effect I think it will have on Iowa caucus voters.

Also, you write “so basically i have to agree with an assumptive feeling you have about how much iowans know to accept your point.. ”

As I said, it’s not my feeing about how much Iowans know, or what effect this knowledge or lack thereof will have on them. It’s my reading of Trump’s motives. At this point, you or I may be correct about his motives. I think I’m correct, you think you’re correct. That’s how opinions work. We each have our evidence and our reasons, but since we’re guessing about motivations, in the end it’s a gut feeling based on observations of previous behavior by Trump, as well as observations about human nature. But you certainly don’t HAVE to agree with any feeling or hunch that I have, nor I with you.

so basiocally i have to agree with an assumptive feeling you have about how much iowans know to accept your point..

i credit them with more knowing, and the idea that they dont care even if they do know…

you credit them with less knowing and that they will care and change their minds willy nilly once they discover it

meanwhie, several newspapers in iowa had a big yelling match over this stuff from months ago.. before the latest.. with a big neg to the de moines register. you have read those articles yes? i have…

The Des Moines Register is the main paper and this has been there over and over, and farm folk talk alot..

so i think they know a lot by reading what they know and discuss… here is the register article from July 20, 2015

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/20/presidential-candidates-what–know-facts/30422297/

32. Cruz was born in Calgary to an American-born mother, Eleanor, and a Cuban-born father, Rafael. He automatically became a citizen of the U.S. and Canada when he was born. He officially renounced his Canadian citizenship last year. Two former top Justice Department lawyers wrote in the Harvard Law Review that “there is no question” Cruz meets the Constitution’s requirement of being eligible to run for president.

why not read their paper than make assumptions..

and
Six things to know about Ted Cruz as he launches 2016 bid March 23, 2015 third paragraph

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/03/22/six-things-ted-cruz-launch-presidential-bid/25181635/

BORN IN CANADA
Cruz was born Dec. 22, 1970, in Calgary to an American-born mother, Eleanor, and a Cuban-born father, Rafael. His parents were working in the oil industry at the time. Cruz automatically became a citizen of the United States and Canada when he was born. He officially renounced his Canadian citizenship last year. Two former top Justice Department lawyers wrote in the Harvard Law Review that “there is no question” Cruz meets the Constitution’s requirement of being a “natural born citizen” and is thus eligible to run for president.

i do research before i make a guess..
im very empirical in my debating
havent you noticed 🙂

how does remembering you were on savage make that point? im curious… as i never made that point in that, all i did was say i was combining posts to keep from being deleted or cut down, and afraid i was passing the line

like being under a camera, it changes behavior and clarity and so on.

but i never made a characterization..
all i wrote in that part was:

if i remember you were on Savage, yes?

churchill was a hated sheepdog too…

but if i dont combine them wich some read as putting them together, you delete me for too many posts… no? so i guess my fear is making adaptations that dont help clarity, but thats the problem with censorship for ANY reason.. even if good…

it forces maladaptions where there wouldnt be any in its absence… second guessing is not a good place to be all the time, is it?

now i am way over my limit…

please dont write to me any more i will feel compelled to answer then get cut… save it for another day, if the thread lasts that long…

[by the way, even a limit changes things. the content of twitter is very different than other things precisely because of the out of hand censorship for space… same with articles that have to fit, or even when billy joel complained it was a beautiful song but it ran to long so we cut it down to 3:05!! its an ingredient that changes the whole that only its absecne can avoid]

I’ve followed Cruz closely since he was a guest on Mark Levin’s show at the beginning of his primary race for US Senator. He was a huge underdog against Lt Gov David Dewhurst, a RINO backed with major Establishment dollars. Dewhurst spent millions in attack ads against Cruz, but Cruz remained relentlessly positive and didn’t return the slime. He ended up pummeling Dewhurst.

I’ve read or listened to lots of interviews of Cruz and he has yet to change his approach: relentlessly positive. I can’t recall him personally attacking anybody, including Obama. He will forcefully (and brilliantly) disagree with the political views, policies and actions of any opponent but will not get into the gutter with them. He appears to me to be the most honorable and civil candidate in my lifetime, right up there with Reagan and Romney, but unlike Romney, will clobber anyone in a debate.

I get it that you don’t like Cruz, but he is a brilliant lawyer and an expert on the Constitution. Perhaps his opinion, echoed by nearly every other Constitutional lawyer including some on the left, was that his citizenship status would not be an issue. Maybe he had no idea in 2013 that he would run for POTUS, at least not at the very next opportunity. Did any of us understand in 2012 that the Republican Party would turn on the Tea Party and its own base with the such a fury, even after we delivered control of Congress to them?

If Trump were to get the nomination and pick Cruz for his VP, or not, but win the general election, and instead choose him for Attorney General or a Supreme Court appointment, is there any doubt from the viewpoint of conservatives that he would be totally qualified and should be the logical first choice for any of those positions? Trump wouldn’t need to buy off Cruz with promises, he’d be a fool not to put him at the top of his list.

No, my point is NOT that it was common knowledge before this.

Here’s what I wrote:

This is not a new topic–Cruz’s birth–that Trump has just suddenly come up with out of nowhere. Do you think Cruz is unaware of it? Many have brought it up before, and many will again.

Absolutely the case.

But I doubt that lots and lots of people already know about it; maybe half? (That’s just a guess.) LIVs most certainly haven’t heard much about it till now. We on blogs have known plenty about it for a long time, and it HAS been brought up time and again, and I had no doubt whatsoever that it would be brought up by the Democrats if Cruz wins. And there is no doubt whatsoever that Cruz knows about it, and has dealt with the topic and knows he will deal with it again.

That was my point.

So, why did Trump bring it up now? Everything he says gets more publicity, and his timing is to affect the Iowa caucus results (where Cruz is that person who threatens him, and the Iowa caucus is relatively soon) by reaching those Iowans—I would imagine it’s a significant number, although I have no idea how many—who were unfamiliar with the subject before.