Share This Article with a Friend!


Presidential Horse Race 2016: Ted Cruz tackles politically correct leftist teens

To claim the establishment media is biased is nothing new. If you read a story from the New York Times, for example, your bias censors had better be on high alert starting with the first word.

But it’s ironic that there’s less alarm at some sources in the so-called “conservative” media, because if you get down to it, they’re not always populated with conservatives and the hosts themselves certainly aren’t saying conservative things.

Ted CruzIf you caught any of the post-debate commentary on Fox News the other night you probably saw Charles Krauthammer once again bashing Donald Trump. A former liberal, Krauthammer has moved closer to the Republican establishment over the years, so it’s not surprising he doesn’t like The Donald. But a good many of his criticisms are over the top.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin heard the commentary and decided he wasn’t going to take it anymore.

Jeff Poor of Breitbart reports, “Levin first singled out Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer for criticizing Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump for switching his positions. Levin pointed out that Krauthammer was a speechwriter for former Vice President Walter Mondale, who ran against Ronald Reagan as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1980 and as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1984…

“Later in the segment Levin took aim at Fox News Channel senior political analyst Brit Hume, who he argued had an ‘obsessive hate’ for Ted Cruz, also a candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.”

Levin pulls no punches in his observations. I know people who are big fans of Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume. Many conservatives watch Fox News strictly because they feel they can’t find unbiased news anywhere else (which is somewhat true when you’re talking about TV network news).

But to say Fox is a “conservative” media outlet is a bit of a stretch. It’s a Republican-leaning network, but not ideologically conservative.  Many commentators on Fox happily promoted John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 during the primaries. With the possible exception of Sean Hannity, it’s hard to find a Fox regular who doesn’t have some Republican establishment biases. Those biases come through a lot of the time.

I always find it curious when talking to a liberal about politics how quickly they single out Fox News as the arch-enemy. It’s like the first thing they say. These are the same folks who get their information from MSNBC and NPR and don’t have the slightest problem with the ideological bent they’re subliminally receiving from these sources.

This misconception is all part of what Trump and Cruz are up against in their attempt to win the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. The media isn’t with them. The party establishment certainly isn’t with them. And even the so-called “conservative” TV network isn’t on their side.

Americans are eager to accept someone from outside the traditional avenues of power in the role of president. Just don’t expect help from sources you normally think would aid in that effort. It’s a lesson Ted Cruz and Donald Trump no doubt learned long ago.

Chris Christie’s New Hampshire-or-bust strategy has no staying power

One month after being demoted to the Fox Business Network’s “Happy Hour” debate on November 10, Chris Christie rejoined the top polling candidates on the main stage in Las Vegas Tuesday night.

He qualified for the top group through his improved polling numbers in New Hampshire, even though his national average remains at an anemic 2.9 percent according to the Real Clear Politics Average.

Christie needed to stand out in the debate – and he did, mostly because he effectively criticized his fellow candidates (the senators at least) and promised as president, he’d give the order to shoot down any Russian plane that violates his proposed no-fly zone in Syria.

As Rand Paul said, if you want World War III, Christie’s your guy.

Here’s guessing Chris will continue to improve in New Hampshire, perhaps even placing second or third. The question then is, how could he follow it up? By most accounts the New Jersey governor has been putting all his efforts into the Granite State. Even if he won there, how would his campaign be able to grow in other states virtually overnight?

Daniel Strauss of Politico reports, “Most of the campaign’s time and resources have been devoted to New Hampshire, with Iowa a distant second. The third state on the primary calendar, South Carolina, trails far behind, whether measured in terms of staffing or time spent there…

“In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he’s got a handful of staffers in each state. But in South Carolina, Christie has just one operative on the ground — whom the campaign declines to name. He currently has no full-time paid staffers in states beyond South Carolina.”

Strauss notes the Christie campaign insists that infrastructure can be built quickly to compete in all the states after the first two if he does well.

Knowing the kind of energy and resources that are going into building a grassroots network for candidates like Ted Cruz in South Carolina and beyond, there’s just no way to catch up within days or even weeks.

That’s not to mention the problem of raising money quickly enough to pay people to set up the infrastructure for you. Volunteers will knock on doors if they’re motivated enough, but will they set up databases and monitor them?

I don’t mean to pick on Christie alone. The same cynicism towards an early state breakout candidate would apply to most of the remaining candidates save for Cruz, Trump and possibly Rubio and Rand Paul. The latter qualifies because his father’s former backers would likely help him in the states should some New Hampshire miracle come to pass for the Kentucky senator.

Running for president is not only a costly endeavor, it’s a process that takes a lot of time and know-how. On the ground campaign infrastructure can’t be built overnight and even if it could, who’s going to do the work?

Call me skeptical. Even if Christie wins New Hampshire, he wouldn’t get far after it.

Ted Cruz earns the backing of another conservative leader

The perception that Ted Cruz is the most qualified full-spectrum conservative candidate in the Republican field was reinforced by the endorsement of another prominent pro-family leader.

Ryan Lovelace of the Washington Examiner reports, “James Dobson, founder of the influential Christian group Focus on the Family, endorsed Ted Cruz for president on Thursday. Dobson is a prominent evangelical activist and author.

“’Ted Cruz's record on religious liberty, life and marriage is second to none in this Republican field,’ Dobson said.”

Lovelace adds Dobson’s endorsement comes on the heels of other prominent social conservatives such as Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa and the National Organization for Marriage.
Conservative leader Richard Viguerie also endorsed Cruz last week.

These leaders do not take endorsements lightly. They are people who’ve dedicated their lives to conservative causes. The fact they’re consolidating around Ted Cruz is impressive to say the least.

Cruz takes on the forces of political correctness overwhelming our college campuses

Finally this week, Ted Cruz has been on the front lines of the battle against political correctness throughout his entire career and now he’s even willing to shame the students at his alma mater, Princeton, for their recent demands to expunge any mention of Mr. League of Nations himself, Woodrow Wilson, from the campus.

Jonathan Easley of The Hill reports Cruz said in an interview with comedian Adam Corolla, “You see at universities, these essentially pampered teenagers, many of them from very wealthy homes, who complain that they don’t want to hear anything that they disagree with, that it is a micro-aggression. And it is the most bizarre and anti-academic notion you can have.”

Cruz then specifically addressed the privileged teens at Princeton.

“Was Woodrow Wilson an unabashed racist? Yes. Should we talk about that, should we condemn it? Yes. But we shouldn’t be involved in this bizarre process of erasing our history because it offends our ears. This is something the media pushes, but I think the American people are fed up with it.”

If recent polls showing non-PC politicians leading the presidential race are any indication, Americans are indeed fed up with spoiled brats at elitist schools telling people what they should think or who they should admire.

With few exceptions, these kids have been given every possible benefit to get them where they are today and now that they’re at generously endowed academic institutions, they’re no doubt receiving a heavily subsidized education as well.

I did my undergraduate work at Ucla in the 80’s where Hispanic students once went on a hunger strike to protest the University of California Regents’ decision not to extend in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

That was a long time ago and almost everything in the Golden State has taken a significant politically correct turn for the worse since I left twenty years ago.

Our very notions of America are disintegrating right before our eyes and it’s not confined to wiping away the name of Woodrow Wilson on the campus of an Ivy League school. Soon these young Leftists will be pulling the levers of the bureaucracy – we won’t be able to mention George Washington or Thomas Jefferson either. Both of them owned slaves, right?

We should be grateful Ted Cruz is speaking out. He represents all of us in the battle – and the fight will certainly continue.

Share this