Ted Cruz fires back at Mitt Romney: You got 'clobbered' by Obama for a reason

Search

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ama-for-a-reason/ar-AAdICIX?ocid=ansMSNNews11

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) isn't backing off the tough rhetoric he's used to describe the Iran nuclear deal, despite criticism leveled by 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Thursday.

Cruz has steadfastly maintained that President Barack Obama's administration would become a leading state-sponsor of terror if the agreement it struck with Iran makes it past Congress. He and others have argued that Iran would use a windfall from sanctions relief to finance terror abroad.

Both Obama and Romney have called Cruz's remarks inappropriate.


Romney wrote on Twitter early Thursday that he also opposes the Iran deal, but said Cruz's comments were "way over the line on the Obama terrorism charge. Hurts the cause."
:neenee:

Cruz, 2016 presidential candidate, fired back at Romney in a Thursday radio interview with KFYO's Chad Hasty.


"So Mitt Romney's tweet today said, 'Gosh, this rhetoric is not helpful,'" Cruz said. "John Adams famously said, 'Facts are stubborn things.' Describing the actual facts is not using rhetoric; it is called speaking the truth."

The senator recalled what he described as a critical moment during the 2012 presidential race: A back-and-forth over that year's attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.

"Part of the reason that Mitt Romney got clobbered by Barack Obama is because we all remember that third debate where Barack Obama turned to Mitt and said, 'I said the Benghazi attack was terrorism and no one is more upset by Benghazi than I am.' And Mitt, I guess listening to his own advice, said, 'Well gosh, I don't want to use any rhetoric. So OK, never mind. I'll just kind of rearrange the pencil on the podium here,'" Cruz said.

He added that the 2016 presidential candidates need to speak up or they will fail like Romney.

"We need to stand up and speak the truth with a smile," he said. "The truth has power and every time we have Republicans who shy away — who don't want to engage, who don't want to speak the truth — we lose."The nuclear deal — struck earlier this month among the US, Iran, and other world powers — grants billions of dollars of sanctions relief in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear ambitions. Republican critics like Cruz, who hope to defeat the agreement in Congress, argue that Iran will use the cash windfall to sponsor terror in places like Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

During his Thursday radio interview, Cruz also connected his controversial terrorism argument to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who served in the Obama administration and is the Democratic presidential front-runner in 2016.

"Those billions of dollars in American control will be used by jihadists to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans. Those are the facts," he said. "The unavoidable consequence of those facts is that if this deal goes through, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, will be leading global financiers of radical Islamic terrorism on the face of the earth."

Cruz added: "When you send billions of dollars to jihadists trying to kill Americans, you bear responsibility for the murder that they carry out with the money you have given them."

 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Inappropriate? That’s priceless.

What should have Cruz said?

I think it stinks but I don’t want to offend Obama so I won’t comment?

Romney should take a cue from GW and mind his own business.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
And you can prove this how?

Honest question, Joe. If Cruz can't even muster 10% of a vote of only Republicans, how the hell is possibly going to get elected when you throw in Dems and Independents? I've never understood this argument that if the R's would nominate a "true conservative" all of these conservatives would come running out to vote for him (or her). Do these people that are dying for a "true conservative" not vote in primaries? They only come out for general elections, and even then it's only if John Birch is running?
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
It's very simple to figure it out. Cruz is considered fringe. Which means he gets less votes. But you're considered fringe so I understand why you don't understand.

Considered fringe by who? Your corrupt political class?

Thanks for making my point yet again...libtard.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Considered fringe by who? Your corrupt political class?

Thanks for making my point yet again...libtard.

Youre anti govt, far right ideology makes you fringe.

I know many on the left are corrupt.....you have this idea that if a far right conservative gets in office that he won't be corrupt. He will be pushing legislation to deny gay rights while getting hand jobs from Henry that White House assistant decorator.

They are all corrupt and always will be.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
Honest question, Joe. If Cruz can't even muster 10% of a vote of only Republicans, how the hell is possibly going to get elected when you throw in Dems and Independents? I've never understood this argument that if the R's would nominate a "true conservative" all of these conservatives would come running out to vote for him (or her). Do these people that are dying for a "true conservative" not vote in primaries? They only come out for general elections, and even then it's only if John Birch is running?

How many fairly conservative Republicans in recent primaries were defeated on substance? Not phony personal scandals (Gingrich, Cain etc.) or lack of money or personalty, but substance. Name them.

And just to expand on that point, which issues are 'fringe' in your opinion? Gun Control? Big Government? Obamacare?... because every time I see a poll on any given issue, the numbers are in my favor, not vtards. It's a matter of finding a candidate who is trustworthy and believable enough to follow through...rather than the RINO who wins by default because he has the most money and best ground game. That's the Democrat playbook - great at (community) organizing and winning elections, sucking at everything else.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
How many fairly conservative Republicans in recent primaries were defeated on substance? Not phony personal scandals (Gingrich, Cain etc.) or lack of money or personalty, but substance. Name them.

And just to expand on that point, which issues are 'fringe' in your opinion? Gun Control? Big Government? Obamacare?... because every time I see a poll on any given issue, the numbers are in my favor, not vtards. It's a matter of finding a candidate who is trustworthy and believable enough to follow through...rather than the RINO who wins by default because he has the most money and best ground game. That's the Democrat playbook - great at (community) organizing and winning elections, sucking at everything else.

First of all, that "phony scandal" crap is garbage. Even so, let's say it's true. If so many people think like you, why would a phony scandal deter you guys from voting for them in the primaries?
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
First of all, that "phony scandal" crap is garbage. Even so, let's say it's true. If so many people think like you, why would a phony scandal deter you guys from voting for them in the primaries?

It's not crap. You don't follow primaries or remember Herman Cain being dragged to the podium to defend/explain away a number of unnamed/unverified mistresses. That's politics, bud...not for the naive or faint of heart.

Answer this: if Sarah Palin accurately represented every issue you believe in, would you vote for her?

Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were virtual ideological twins. One got clobbered, the other won record landslide elections. One connected with the American people, the other had the personality of a turnip.

So, to your point about 'electability' ...since the television age, it has very little to do where the candidates stand "on the issues." After all, Mitt Romney won the primary even though nobody could keep track of his positions from one day to the next. I'm sorry Mantis, but I find the criteria by which politicians are elected (especially after "Kenyan-born" Obama in 2008) very unsettling.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
First of all, that "phony scandal" crap is garbage. Even so, let's say it's true. If so many people think like you, why would a phony scandal deter you guys from voting for them in the primaries?

The problem is that guys like joe, will always believe in some "media takedown" as the reason their more conservative candidate lost. Herman Cain didn't lose because of an alleged affair....anyone that saw him talk about the issues and listened to his 999 thing.....could see that he wasn't a viable candidate.

Candidates that are far right, simply cannot win a national election because they don't reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the majority of Americans.

When it comes down to it.....the greatest factor in winning, especially these primary battles.....is CASH.....with very few exceptions.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
The problem is that guys like joe, will always believe in some "media takedown" as the reason their more conservative candidate lost. Herman Cain didn't lose because of an alleged affair....anyone that saw him talk about the issues and listened to his 999 thing.....could see that he wasn't a viable candidate.

Candidates that are far right, simply cannot win a national election because they don't reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the majority of Americans.

When it comes down to it.....the greatest factor in winning, especially these primary battles.....is CASH.....with very few exceptions.

sw50sw8sw578.gif
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
It's not crap. You don't follow primaries or remember Herman Cain being dragged to the podium to defend/explain away a number of unnamed/unverified mistresses. That's politics, bud...not for the naive or faint of heart.

Answer this: if Sarah Palin accurately represented every issue you believe in, would you vote for her?

Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were virtual ideological twins. One got clobbered, the other won record landslide elections. One connected with the American people, the other had the personality of a turnip.

So, to your point about 'electability' ...since the television age, it has very little to do where the candidates stand "on the issues." After all, Mitt Romney won the primary even though nobody could keep track of his positions from one day to the next. I'm sorry Mantis, but I find the criteria by which politicians are elected (especially after "Kenyan-born" Obama in 2008) very unsettling.

Now, you're taking this conversation in an entirely new direction. Obviously, personality and a candidates attractiveness have contributed to the outcome of elections for decades. That isn't new with Obama. That said, it's just one of many factors. McCain won the 2008 primary. He's neither charismatic nor good looking. You can cherry pick a few issues that the public agrees with "true conservatives", but there are plenty of issues they lose and lose big on.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
Now, you're taking this conversation in an entirely new direction. Obviously, personality and a candidates attractiveness have contributed to the outcome of elections for decades. That isn't new with Obama. That said, it's just one of many factors. McCain won the 2008 primary. He's neither charismatic nor good looking. You can cherry pick a few issues that the public agrees with "true conservatives", but there are plenty of issues they lose and lose big on.

I asked you to name the issues conservatives "lose and lose big on"

Which candidate do you support in 2016? Or have you not decided?

Rick Perry was in first place polling strong...until this:


I get it, he had a meltdown (no gaystream media conspiracy)...but what does it have to do with his positions on the issues?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
I asked you to name the issues conservatives "lose and lose big on"

Which candidate do you support in 2016? Or have you not decided?

Rick Perry was in first place polling strong...until this:


I get it, he had a meltdown (no gaystream media conspiracy)...but what does it have to do with his positions on the issues?

Yeah, I mean Rick Perry's biggest issue is/was his lack of intelligence. It was inevitable that he'd get smacked around the minute he hit the debates.

Republicans lose on social issues. It hurts with young people and women.

As far as my candidate of choice, I will likely be choosing between Rubio and Kasich in the primary.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,401
Tokens
Yeah, I mean Rick Perry's biggest issue is/was his lack of intelligence. It was inevitable that he'd get smacked around the minute he hit the debates.

Republicans lose on social issues. It hurts with young people and women.

As far as my candidate of choice, I will likely be choosing between Rubio and Kasich in the primary.

Intelligence or telegenic?

Which social issues?

As far as your candidate of choice, do you believe they fall into this category:

This has more to do with the fact that the difference between Obama, Romney, W, Jeb, Hillary, Bill, etc. is much smaller than most Republicans and Democrats would care to admit.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,856
Messages
13,574,057
Members
100,876
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com