Thread: Tea Party Activist: Cruz ‘Palinesque’ for Fighting GOP Estab

by TONY LEE
22 Jan 2016

On Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, Jackie Siciliano, a longtime Tea Party activist and “Palinista,” said she endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for president because he is “Palinesque in calling out the GOP” exactly like Palin does.

“He’s a fighter, and I like that in someone,” she said, adding that Cruz is “courageous” for sticking up to the Republican establishment.

Speaking to host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon, Siciliano said she also has “appreciated the conversations that Donald Trump has started” on issues like immigration that the GOP establishment do not want to discuss.

“These conversations are difficult to have but they need to be spoken about,” she said.

But Siciliano said she decided to back Cruz because of his articulateness, “educational background,” and the arguments he has made in front of the Supreme Court.

Though she was not trying to read Palin’s mind, Siciliano said perhaps Palin endorsed Trump because she figured “we see the momentum of Trump and maybe we need to put this thing to bed early on and we need to go on the attack” against the other side.

Palin made clear in her endorsement that one of Trump’s biggest strengths is that he is “beholden to no one,” which allows him to best combat crony capitalism and what Cruz has called the “Washington cartel.”

In recent days, Trump, again living off the political land and not displaying any strategic sense whatsoever, has attacked Cruz for not cutting deals with the Republican establishment and Democrats in Congress. Trump can effectively end the race if he wins Iowa, but attacking Cruz for not compromising with Washington’s permanent class leaves Trump vulnerable to losing the support of some conservative caucus-goers in Iowa, which could damage his chances of potentially dealing the GOP field a knockout blow with a decisive Iowa victory.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...01/22/2834815/

In recent days, Trump, again living off the political land and not displaying any strategic sense whatsoever, has attacked Cruz for not cutting deals with the Republican establishment and Democrats in Congress. Trump can effectively end the race if he wins Iowa, but attacking Cruz for not compromising with Washington’s permanent class leaves Trump vulnerable to losing the support of some conservative caucus-goers in Iowa, which could damage his chances of potentially dealing the GOP field a knockout blow with a decisive Iowa victory.

I've got to admit it doesn't make logical sense to attack someone for not compromising with establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, John Mccain, etc., etc., and Democrats when the voting block you're trying to attract is sick of Washington politics.

“These conversations are difficult to have but they need to be spoken about,” she said.

But Siciliano said she decided to back Cruz because of his articulateness, “educational background,” and the arguments he has made in front of the Supreme Court.

Yes, now about those arguments in front of the US Supreme Court. 8 while Solicitor General under Rick Perry.

1. One case was a Medicaid case where Texas didn't want to comply with Federal Medicaid laws. Cruz lost that case 9-0.

2. One case was a Texas Redistricting case where Texas was deliberately changing district lines to move Hispanic Americans out of the districts, to reduce the number of Hispanic Americans in any one district. Cruz won that case 6-3, but with severe racial admonishment.

3. The other 6 cases were severe criminal sentencing and Death Penalty cases. He won some, lost some.

The 9th case was while Ted Cruz worked for the Bush Campaign in Gore v Bush 2000, when he hired John Roberts to lead the team to argue that case before the US Supreme Court.

So if you like trying to cheat poor people, discriminate against American Hispanics, support extreme criminal sentencing and the Death Penalty, and Ted Cruz pushing the John Roberts nomination to the US Supreme Court that stemmed from Cruz work Roberts for Bush on the 2000 election case, then Ted Cruz is your guy.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, now about those arguments in front of the US Supreme Court. 8 while Solicitor General under Rick Perry.

1. One case was a Medicaid case where Texas didn't want to comply with Federal Medicaid laws. Cruz lost that case 9-0.

2. One case was a Texas Redistricting case where Texas was deliberately changing district lines to move Hispanic Americans out of the districts, to reduce the number of Hispanic Americans in any one district. Cruz won that case 6-3, but with severe racial admonishment.

3. The other 6 cases were severe criminal sentencing and Death Penalty cases. He won some, lost some.

The 9th case was while Ted Cruz worked for the Bush Campaign in Gore v Bush 2000, when he hired John Roberts to lead the team to argue that case before the US Supreme Court.

So if you like trying to cheat poor people, discriminate against American Hispanics, support extreme criminal sentencing and the Death Penalty, and Ted Cruz pushing the John Roberts nomination to the US Supreme Court that stemmed from Cruz work Roberts for Bush on the 2000 election case, then Ted Cruz is your guy.

I don't see your point in all these senseless garble. Cruz had a job to do and he done it. I don't know about you, but most of us have had to do things in our job at one time or another that we didn't always agree with. However, out of a sense of integrity we did our job to the best of our abilities. How can you begrudge a person for doing their duty?

Originally Posted by MW

I don't see your point in all these senseless garble. Cruz had a job to do and he done it. I don't know about you, but most of us have had to do things in our job at one time or another that we didn't always agree with. However, out of a sense of integrity we did our job to the best of our abilities. How can you begrudge a person for doing their duty?

The point is it's not a qualification for President. As Solicitor General he shouldn't have filed the appeals or argued them. He had full authority and responsibility to tell Rick Perry, "you're cheating poor people, discriminating against Hispanic Americans, and abusing sentencing and death penalty statues." He's obviously not the "stand up" "fighter" he portrays himself to be. I quit a job, a big one, once when I was asked to do something I didn't think was right.

Ted Cruz is a puppet of others and his own ambition. He's also dishonest, has no values, and is frankly an embarrassment when you delve into his career, in my opinion. And all of this will come out.

very well said judy

Originally Posted by Judy

The point is it's not a qualification for President. As Solicitor General he shouldn't have filed the appeals or argued them. He had full authority and responsibility to tell Rick Perry, "you're cheating poor people, discriminating against Hispanic Americans, and abusing sentencing and death penalty statues." He's obviously not the "stand up" "fighter" he portrays himself to be. I quit a job, a big one, once when I was asked to do something I didn't think was right.

Ted Cruz is a puppet of others and his own ambition. He's also dishonest, has no values, and is frankly an embarrassment when you delve into his career, in my opinion. And all of this will come out.

Unless you were a fly on the wall, I seriously doubt you have anyway of knowing what Cruz has or hasn't said to Rick Perry. Cruz's job was to represent the State in litigation and that's what he did. Unlike you, many of us don't have the luxury of quitting a job just because something we're forced to do isn't to our liking.