Thread: "Lyin Ted" lives up to his nickname

We have very little of that sort of thing here in Norway. Elections are party oriented and each party or coalition selects their own prime minister internally. If they attack candidates from other parties then it is usually about politics and they don't attack politicians from within their own party. To a Norwegian, the smear campaign dynamics of the US presidential election reminds one of circus clowns throwing cakes at each other just they put stones in the cakes because only one will keep his job and the others will get fired. An injured clown is unlikely to keep his job so may the best cake thrower/spiker win.

Originally Posted by krystian

Posted by Mike Huckabee on FB

-The question of the night was whether Ted Cruz would honor his word and support the nominee or earn the moniker "Lyin Ted" given to him by the man who won. The question was whether Cruz would make his speech about HIS future or the future of the country. And that question was answered when Ted Cruz chose to not keep his word that he (along with me and every other GOP candidate) gave one year ago in that very arena where tonight he put his own ambitions above country.

Donald Trump did something no previous nominee has done—he allowed Ted Cruz to speak without his promising to support the nominee. I've spoken at every convention since 1992, and I can attest to the fact that no one got near that stage without supporting the nominee. Trump trusted Ted and was rewarded with a betrayal, but the delegates in that arena booed Cruz off the stage and out of Cleveland.

I'm certain that many of you will react harshly and angrily to my words. So be it. But when a person gives his word, he should keep it. When a person is treated with generosity to give a speech, he should either respond with respect or graciously decline. And when a person loses, he should accept the will of the voters and then offer support to the victor of the primary to defeat the anti-gun, pro-abortion, incompetent, dishonest, and dishonorable nominee of the Democrat party.

So fire away with your comments, Facebook Friends. But from where I sit, I didn't see a statesman step forth for the country's future. I saw a self-absorbed politician grab the microphone and try to line up his own future. Ted walked in tall and walked out small.

https://www.facebook.com/mikehuckabe...53908745387869

And Mike Huckabee looks a whole lot smaller for beconing Donald Trumps Lackey . Trump runs counter to everything Huckabee ever stood up for.

Personally I think Hucakbee is just jealous that Evangelicals went for Cruz over him

The pledge to support the party nominee is not absolute and unconditional. Circumstances drastically changed.

Sen Cruz had every right to withhold his endorsement after the character assassination engaged in by Donald Trump
against Cruz's wife, his dad, and himself.

I disagree 100% with gov Huckabee in his assessment. Sen Cruz did the right thing and stood tall.

.... Also, ... I heard someone say this morning that the boos at the end of Sen Cruz's speech were orchestrated, i.e.,
they were planned and programmed by Trump people.

Originally Posted by BAP

And Mike Huckabee looks a whole lot smaller for becoming Donald Trump's Lackey. Trump runs counter to everything Huckabee ever stood up for.

I agree.

On the one hand, I think Cruz should have refused to attend and participate (like Bush and Kasich), but on the other hand, I admire the guts it took to stand for his convictions in the face of adversity.

Originally Posted by FaithfulOne

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politi...nt0947AMVODtop

Cleveland (CNN)Ted Cruz on Thursday strongly defended his refusal to endorse Donald Trump during his Republican National Convention speech, saying he's not "in the habit" of backing politicians who attack his family.
"I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father," Cruz said at a morning meeting where he faced sharp questions from the Texas delegation in Cleveland.

The Texas senator sensationally withheld an endorsement of Trump in his speech Wednesday, earning a chorus of boos from the floor while getting upstaged in a power play by the GOP nominee himself.
In a dramatic development, as Cruz wrapped up his speech, Trump suddenly appeared in the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland. He walked to join his family in a VIP area and flashed a thumbs-up -- a gesture that transmitted clear anger at the Texas senator's behavior.

Since when does a "thumps up" transmit anger? Would that be a thumbs down?

Originally Posted by Bookman

The excuse I heard was that Cruz signed the pledge before Trump accused his father of being involved in JFK's assassination and before his crude remarks about Heidi Cruz. Would you honor your pledge if it meant supporting someone who had said those things about your father and your wife?

Originally Posted by Femme*

He didn't have to go, or to speak. If he was that adamant he should have not participated.

Originally Posted by curly sue

Then he should have declined to speak.

Exactly. He should have declined to speak. No excuse for what he did.

Originally Posted by Ari

Sen Cruz had every right to withhold his endorsement after the character assassination engaged in by Donald Trump
against Cruz's wife, his dad, and himself...Sen Cruz did the right thing and stood tall.

Seriously? He should have declined.

Krauthammer: Cruz's Speech 'Was the Longest Suicide Note in US Political History'

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/2...itical-history

Originally Posted by Bookman

The excuse I heard was that Cruz signed the pledge before Trump accused his father of being involved in JFK's assassination and before his crude remarks about Heidi Cruz. Would you honor your pledge if it meant supporting someone who had said those things about your father and your wife?

If I'm remembering the timelines correctly, Cruz's father attacked Trump first, something about how voting for him would lead to the 'destruction of America'. Trump then made mention of a photo that was already floating around showing Oswald with a few people including Rafael Cruz and Trump simply said that he wondered what that was all about.

Similar scenario with Heidi Cruz, the Cruz camp tried to start a literal smut campaign on Melania Trump and after that came out Trump made a statement to back off by saying that he could 'spill the beans' on Heidi.

All that aside, the classy and right thing that Cruz should have done was to honor his commitment to support the Republican nominee no matter who it was for the common good of uniting the party to stop Hillary. But he didn't.

He could have even easily qualified his endorsement by saying some akin to 'while Donald Trump and I don't see eye to eye on some personal matters I do endorse him as the best candidate we have to beat Hillary and turn this country around'. But no, he wanted to pout and instead came off as a petty and self-seeking little man.

Ted Cruz being expected to be loyal to the Republican party is one thing, I think his disloyalty is more an expression of the fact that Trump is really an independent who has placed himself in the Republican camp because it suits him. In a multy party system like here in Norway, the two would never have been found in the same party.