Rubio Needs to Step Aside and Clear the Field For Ted Cruz, Not Vice Versa

[Draggingtree]

Ace of Spades: Rubio Needs to Step Aside and Clear the Field For Ted Cruz, Not Vice Versa —Ace

I consider this whole "Step aside for the other guy" thing kind of silly, but the Rubes have been doing this for months and months. It's incredible to listen to them when they think they're surrounded by like-minded people, because they feel free to spin their imaginations like children playing cops and robbers.

 

There are all these incredible, convoluted demands of what must happen: Cruz must use his warchest to run ads against Trump, but not Rubio, in order to take out Rubio's rival Trump while doing no damage to Rubio. Kasich needs to drop out immediately and endorse Rubio. Trump, for his part, must use all of his free media to attack Cruz, but never Rubio. Ben Carson must announce that he will deliberately botch operations and kill children unless people vote for Rubio.

[kevindavis]

Uh no..

[Valin]

The other could just as easily be said.

[Valin]

Can We Stop the Rubio-Cruz Mutually Assured Destruction?

Andrew C. McCarthy

February 23, 2016

 

Rick Tyler, the now-former Cruz campaign spokesman, is a good guy who, by his own admission, exercised very poor judgment in publicizing what turned out to be a false story about Marco Rubio.

 

The story, which contorted an incident caught on video, sounded kooky from the start: Rubio, while encountering Ted Cruzs father and a Cruz staffer reading the Bible in a hotel lobby, purportedly said, Got a good book there, not many answers in it. Rubio is, by all accounts, a devout Christian and he has spoken eloquently about his faith during the campaign; if there were a report of his having made a statement so contradictory of his nature, it should have been quadruple-checked before anyone decided to go public with it. And even if verified, it would have been more sensible to think the remark a poor attempt at humor than a reflection of Rubios beliefs, so far better to ignore it as one of those dumb things exhausted people say in a tense situation.

 

But of course, Rubio did not say what Tyler reported; he said the opposite: All the answers are in the Bible.

 

(Snip)

 

 

Perfect. Were scheduled to have yet another GOP candidates debate on Thursday night in Houston. We can now look forward to another edifying night of Rubio calling Cruz a liar, while Cruz catalogues Rubios growing string of misrepresentations whenever the immigration legislation arises. Cruz needs to be making a positive case for conservative approaches to the nations daunting challenges, but he will be pushed to defend his integrity. Meanwhile, when not fending off charges of hypocrisy, Rubio will have to continue talking about his awful immigration bill (every second spent on which damages him) and for relief he can fall back on the pile of GOP establishment endorsements he is collecting even as voters strongly signal their revulsion at the GOP establishment.

 

Could it tee up any better for Donald Trump -- meaning, for the Democrats?

 

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are sharp, appealing candidates. Are they wise enough to know that neither can win without the backing of the others core supporters, and that destroying those supporters preferred candidate is not the way to get it? There are not enough committed conservatives in the country for Cruz to win without broadening his appeal. And Rubio cannot win without conservatives, who like Cruz and who are very suspicious of Rubio. No one expects the two senators to stop competing with each other, but the pair needs to home in on Trumps progressive, incoherent record. They also need to project the uplifting aspects of their candidacies. If, instead, the fratricide continues, some of their disaffected supporters will opt out of the process entirely while others gravitate to Trump, who will waltz to the nomination. And then the Democrats will waltz to victory in November.

 

Can we please have an end to the mutually assured destruction before it destroys a lot more than two candidacies?