Are the endorsements proffered as a win – win?*- For some the big question is how much difference will it make … but do they mean the endorsement or the performance of the candidates?
- If there is not a fundamental return to the Constitution, a la Cruz, do some Republican candidates just represent a slower boat to oblivion?
You can read the Clinton and Rubio endorsements here and here. We will comment on the Hillary endorsement first and limit it to the issue of . . . huh?
The DMR states that Hillary is not a “perfect candidate, ” really? Consider the most recent revelation about her malfeasance if not maleficence. Hillary’s team copied intel off top-secret server to email (Excerpt from the New York Post)
“Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home e-mails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access
Programs, a subset of SCI.
“SAP includes “dark projects,” such as drone operations, while SCI protects intelligence sources and methods.”
As regards the value of the DMR endorsement to Rubio we think this Politico article covers it well enough, in spite of the understated lede:
Strategists have raised questions about whether the paper’s approval can do much to influence voters, and could even be counterproductive.
Ya think? The article provides Republican analysts suggesting just that. For most Republicans we presume it is troublesome. However we do not think it is a devilish plot by them to give Rubio the kiss of death, rather, the DMR recognizes him as someone who can be rolled, which they really do like in a Republican. The verbiage of the endorsement strikes us as praise by his adult betters that Rubio is nice, a “whip smart ” lad but one who will play well with others as president.
The business-as-usual Republican establishment has desperately been doing their work to to promote anyone but Cruz. They have telegraphed the sentiment that Trump is maybe their kind of guy after all. Trump has responded in kind, cuddling up to the warmth and declaring he is not so serious on matters after all and of course will be accommodating because he is a nice guy, after all, and Cruz isn’t.
Breitbart printed an article a few days ago where Cruz responds to the current GOPe riff: Cruz: If You Want to ‘Cozy Up’ To Dems, Support ‘Part Of’ DC Corruption Trump
“his critique of me today on TV is that he says we need a leader who will get along in Washington and make deals with the politicians in Washington. Well, if you think the problem with Republicans is they haven’t made enough deals, they haven’t been willing to get along with Democrats enough, and give in to [Sen.] Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and [Rep.] Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) enough then maybe his critique has some force, but if you think the problem is we haven’t had enough leaders in Washington who actually honor the promises they made to the voters, who actually stand and fight for conservative principles, who stand and fight for the Bill of Rights and Constitution, then that explains why conservatives are uniting behind our campaign, because frankly, they don’t want someone who is well-liked in Washington because he’s going along to get along, and contributing to the loss of freedom and the bankrupting our country.”
That is the part from Cruz that responds to the gettalong theme the DMR and Trump camp and GOPe are using. There is much more to the Breitbart article which encompasses Cruz’s vigorous response to the Trumped up bank loan issue, astonishing calumny from someone whose whole empire depends on bank loans.
