This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Rubio and Cruz Now Darlings of the Establishment


A populist is defined as a person who seeks to represent the interests of ordinary people who are upset with an entrenched establishment. A populist is what many of us were looking for this time. So, the Left gave us a populist in Bernie and the Right gave us a populist in The Donald.

I am now shocked, really shocked that there are people on this blog who are pushing for the  two establishment candidates, Rubio and Cruz against our Populist Republican.

11 comments:

Sarkazein said...

CRUZ establishment? Don't tell trump, he thinks e v e r y b o d y hates him.

Honest Debate said...

I agree with you Sark. I made a comment the other day about the establishment types who would sit it out before they voted for Tump and wrote Cruz was in the same boat, that's what I meant. The establishment is no fan of Cruz. that's why I like him.

Anonymous said...

Ergo, President Hillary Clinton.

Blogger said...

cruz the ultimate insider O.K. Then lets also try insider-outsider. “But pretending that Ted Cruz is a Washington outsider or party outsider is nonsense.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a true outsider. People within the Republican Party oppose him because, as a lower-case outsider, he would be entirely unpredictable if he became president.”

Honest Debate said...

Blogger, four words: Green eggs and ham.

Sarkazein said...

I am starting to understand this election cycle's definition of "establishment". Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party, sir? If you answer yes, then you are the "establishment". trump can truly deny ever being a Republican so he is this election's non-establishment.
trump is the true anti-establishment candidate (this election cycle) and anyone who supports him automatically gets an honorary anti-establishment credential (expires 11/09/2016).

Blogger said...

HD you will like them Sam I Am

Sarkazein said...

All of CRUZ's now "establishment" history has been on the very Conservative side of history. trump, not so much. CRUZ has had over 3 years to change the government, I admit, where trump has changed it already with out ever even having to take the oath.

Cyclops said...

Blogger, your "shocked" that conservatives here are supporting GOP conservatives over a populist demagogue with no prior history of supporting conservative positions or candidates? I am shocked that any movement conservatives can fall for a political con artist who thinks dealing with hostile foreign leaders, a recalcitrant Congress and opposition political party is an easy as out maneuvering a business rival over a real estate deal.

THis guy is a political phony who will be unable to accomplish any of his outlandish promises. His red neck supporters will soon realize he conned them and turn against him just like the students who paid big bucks for his fraudulent real estate school.

In the meantime, he will bring every potential liberal Democrat and their low information voters out of the woodwork to defeat conservatives at all levels of government all across the country. He will be a total DISASTER for conservative government and for the conservative movement.

Sarkazein said...

CYCLOPS- Where we disagree is, we don't really know what trump will do as President. We don't know if he will be the greatest president of our time or whether he will take the title away from Obama as Obama took it away from Carter. And as far as us "red necks" go, we don't all support trump. Many of us red necks are for CRUZ.

Cyclops said...

You're right, Sark, we may not know what Trump will do as President. But I've been involved in government and politics long enough to know what Trump will not be able to do. He will not be able to deport over 11 million illegals living here. He will not be able to make Mexico pay for a wall. In fact, he will lucky to get the entire wall completed and paid for by U.S. taxpayers. He will not be able, at least not for long, to bar Muslims from entering the country.

But why would conservatives want to support a candidate "when they don't really know what [he] will do as President?" I have a really good feel for what Rubio would try to accomplish. Same for Cruz and Kasich. Not only would Rubio generally pursue a conservative policy agenda, his candidacy would help the Republicans retain control of the U.S. Senate and House even if he lost to Hillary. Retaining control of the Senate is crucial to keeping the Democrats from packing the Supreme Court with liberals who will serve for the next generation.

Remember the 1964 elections and the resulting two years of total Democrat control of Washington. It was during this short two-year span that all of LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty programs were passed against weakened GOP opposition. In that two-year period of total liberal domination, the entire character of our federal system was altered greatly enhancing the power of the federal government and emasculating states' rights. It has also resulted in a huge national debt that will eventually cause severe economic disruptions here and across the globe.

With an unproven candidate with extremely high unfavorable impressions among the general public, in 2016 we risk a replay of the mid-60s era. Trump is just not worth that risk.