Erickson: The Republicans Who Fought Chris McDaniel In Mississippi Tried To Use Mike Huckabee Against Ted Cruz

By Erick Erickson, The Resurgent, January 26, 2016

This is a fascinating article that shows just how much contempt for Ted Cruz the Republican Establishment has. They absolutely hate the guy.

In fact, Henry Barbour, who helped scuttle conservatives in Mississippi in the race between Chris McDaniel and Thad Cochran, tried to raise money for a Mike Huckabee supporting super PAC for the sole purpose of attacking Ted Cruz.

Mr. Barbour was so exasperated by the intra-establishment combat that this month he sought to raise money for the super PAC supporting Mike Huckabee that would have been spent to attack Mr. Cruz in Iowa. But Mr. Barbour found few donors willing to intervene in such a volatile race.

Think about that for a minute. Republican Establishment fat cats poured their time, talent, and treasure into stopping conservatives from taking Mississippi’s Senate seat because they have a puppet in the seat they’ve been using for quite some time.

These very same people are now intent on stopping Ted Cruz. It is more and more obvious that it has nothing to do with Cruz’s electability or lack thereof and everything to do with their inability to profit from Washington if Cruz gets elected.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. The Barbours aligning themselves against the conservative people of Mississippi to help the continuation of the republican establishments reign of dominance so that they can continue to make themselves rich with their super pacs and political cronyism, shocking news! No, not really, everybody knows what type folks they are and where their allegiance lies and it isn’t with the conservative citizenship of Mississippi.

  2. One of the casualties of the Watergate saga was freedom of speech. In an effort to reform the federal election process, Congress passed the Federal Election Act and created the Federal Election Commission which puts severe limits on how much money individuals may contribute to any particular candidate. Predictably, the limits on contributions, begat the creation of the PAC system. In the Citizens United case the Supreme Court correctly held that money is a form of “speech”. Therefore, if The Donald is allowed to spend one billion dollars of his own money on advertising, why shouldn’t everyone else be allowed to spend as much money directly towards the candidate of his choice so that his candidate can match The Donald in advertising or any other form of campaign speech? Since money is a form of speech, how can the FEA still be upheld as constitutional? The idea behind the FEA was that money, like power, corrupts, and that too much money coming from any one source to a political candidate, corrupts the candidate absolutely; and that a candidate who is able to raise an inordinate sum of money is not only more subject to being corrupted, but further, his fund-raising abilities could skew the actual election results. In this respect, we have learned from Jebby! that an individual may be great at raising money, ($100 million plus) yet lousy as a political candidate. Therefore, I propose that the FEA be repealed in its entirety and that everyone be allowed equal protection under the law to exercise their right to express their political preferences–to “put their money where their mouths are”, so to speak.

  3. “everything to do with their inability to profit from Washington if Cruz gets elected”

    You better believe it! The crooks care nothing about the country and with the media aligning with them they have hid this for many years. If you control the information you can make people believe anything.

  4. Bill, why are you so negative all of the time when it comes to The Messiah from Mississippi, especially since he is the only true Conservative remaining in public office? Ted Cruz is not a national version of Chris McDaniel Rather, it has been revealed to me that Senator Cruz is actually the reincarnation of the Prophet John the Baptist, sent by the Lord to prepare the way for The Chosen One.

  5. You’re such a curmudgeon! 🙂

  6. Ruby Smith says:

    Excellent and correct post, Bill!

  7. Blasphemy is way off topic but it does shed a lot of light.

    • Douglas, for there to be blasphemy, there must must first be a higher power against whom one can blaspheme. As we all know the concept of an anthropomorphic god was created by men for the purpose of controlling the madding crowd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: