Romney in if Rubio fails?

[jimnyc]

Insiders who were at a recent meeting between the Koch Bros. and Marco Rubio leaked intel on how exactly they’re going to try and steal the election from Donald Trump, GOP strategist Roger Stone revealed.

The Koch Bros. met with GOP millionaires and billionaires Thursday night to pool together over $75 million to stop Trump and are going to use Mitt Romney as ‘Plan B’ if Rubio fails to gain traction on Super Tuesday, according to moles who were inside the meeting.

“$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he’s got to win the Florida primary or he’s out and Mitt Romney’s in,” Stone revealed. “That’s the plan.”

“First they’ll ramp up an enormous, negative campaign on TV against Trump and they’re going to hit this phony Trump University issue,” he continued. “They claim to have personal dirt on Trump – I doubt that – and they are also going to try and delve into his business affairs, but if Rubio fails to grab the Florida primary, then Rubio’s out and Mitt Romney’s in.”

“The plan is for Romney to file for the New Jersey, New York and California primaries in an all-out ditch effort to stop Donald Trump and you heard it here on Infowars.com.”

Additionally, Marco Rubio’s wife called Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, to desperately beg Cruz to exit the race and aid Rubio, but Heidi said no, Stone said.

“The power structure’s desperate, the Rubio and Cruz teams are going back and forth but they can’t agree as to who will be the candidate,” he added. “I still believe Mitt Romney is totally dressed up, already made up, waiting in the wings… to step in as the last, best hope of the ‘stop Trump’ movement, and frankly I think Trump will bulldoze him as well.”

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-insider-leaks-koch-bros-rubio-plan-to-stop-trump/

[Kathianne]

No! Please, no!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?54079-Dear-GOP-No-MORE-Candidates!-Please!

[jimnyc]

:( I honestly didn't see any similar threads, my bad.

[Kathianne]

:( I honestly didn't see any similar threads, my bad.

No problem. Just wanted to get the comments in if someone wants to look. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

If Trump's meteoric rise is due to the people being sick of "The Establishment", how on earth would running Romney make sense?

[Kathianne]

If Trump's meteoric rise is due to the people being sick of "The Establishment", why on earth would running Romney make sense?

It doesn't. It shows desperation. Bottom line is the party is fracturing and those in the elite group are grasping. They set up the system and it's working. I don't have to like the results, but they are what they are. The truth is, nearly everyone I know is more than sick of 'The Establishment,' or as I've referred to them for several years, "The Elite."

There are some issues or candidates that just become too much for some to accept, that's ok. The good thing about such our system is there are alternatives. One doesn't have to go with just the two parties for every office. Locally I've often split my vote, though have tended heavily towards R.

Most of the time I find a candidate I like. I really wanted Scott Walker, but it wasn't his time. After that, really couldn't see past Trump.

Since the winnowing down, I'd vote for Rubio though I could live with Cruz over the Democrats with no problem.

I saw a something of a 'decision made' today, that made me smile. Would have been a caucus vote for Rubio, but he can't make it. His discussion on Rubio/Cruz mirrors much of my own. Obviously many aren't going to agree, but Marco does seem to be 'able to play well with others.' Something presidents do need to do, in order to get their ideas across.

There is no anti-Trump either. I liked it for that:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/29/caucus-time-why-i-choose-marco-rubio/


Caucus time: Why I choose Marco RubioPOSTED AT 8:01 AM ON FEBRUARY 29, 2016 BY ED MORRISSEY
Note: This is not an institutional endorsement. Each writer at Hot Air has their own conscience and freedom to decide on their favored candidate. This post reflects only my opinion, not those of my colleagues at either Hot Air, Townhall, or of Salem Media Group.

...

This was actually a very tough decision, and it came down to Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz. In fact, it was so tough that it took the most recent debate to make the choice. Both men have admirable qualities that make them good choices for the GOP nomination. Neither of them are perfect. Under the best circumstances, I would prefer a seasoned Republican governor with a solid track record of conservative policy accomplishments who could represent the future of the party. While Governor John Kasich has done well in Ohio, there are other reasons for reservations about his candidacy, especially his embrace of bad policy in the Medicaid expansion of ObamaCare — and the manner in which he lashed out at conservative critics of that policy. That leaves the two first-term Senators — both of whom arrived as conservative insurgents — as the best of the field.

Both Rubio and Cruz have had high and low points in Washington. Rubio’s low point came with the Gang of Eight bill, which he admits now was a mistake. Cruz led a poorly conceived shutdown over the fantasy demand that Barack Obama sign a budget defunding ObamaCare, which ended up leaving Republicans on the defensive in 2013 and nearly overshadowed a catastrophic failure in the program’s rollout. Neither of these mistakes did any long-term damage, but the two mistakes reflect a key difference between the two candidates. Rubio tried too hard to work with others and made a bad deal but eventually recognized that, while Cruz doesn’t work well even with members of his own party and makes the kind of impossible-to-keep promises that end up disillusioning voters.
One major reservation for supporting candidates in the Senate is that they don’t have a track record of accomplishment on which to rely. However, one accomplishment highlights the differences between the candidates most keenly on the issue of ObamaCare and demonstrates Rubio’s effectiveness in his Senate perch. Cruz led the aforementioned failed shutdown that accomplished nothing except a few news cycles that focused on closed facilities more than the epic HHS failure in October 2013. John Kasich has bought into ObamaCare with the Medicaid expansion. Donald Trump has praised the individual mandate against which conservatives have fought for years, and keeps going back and forth on single-payer health care.

Rubio, on the other hand, saw a way to block crony payoffs to the insurance companies (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/25/did-rubio-deal-a-mortal-blow-to-obamacare/) that pushed for that mandate with the restriction on funds for “risk corridor” payments. Rubio demanded a rider on the 2013 “cromnibus” that blocked general-fund payouts under that program, limiting them to taxes collected specifically for that function. Rubio’s effort remains the only effective Republican legislative limitation of ObamaCare since its March 2010 passage, and the one that has pushed most of the government “co-ops” out of business.

While conservative policy would be served well by both men, the approach to conservatism and inclusion is perhaps the most important quality in my choice. Cruz, as solid a conservative as anyone could want in the Senate, has run his primary campaign on the basis of ideological purity. Cruz has repeatedly argued, especially in regard to Rubio, that he’s not just the most conservative candidate in the race but the only conservative in the race. That portends an insular, base-driven campaign that simply will not work in swing states any longer. The last base election success came in 2004, and that was in support of a wartime incumbent against a largely inept challenger. Rubio, on the other hand, has run a campaign predicated on broadening the party by selling conservative policies in communities largely ignored by the Republican Party over the last several decades. While Cruz could improve turnout performance in deep-red states with an ideological campaign, Rubio’s approach holds the most promise in states like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia — states the GOP must win in November.

For those who look at a track record of taking on the “establishment,” both Cruz and Rubio offer hope. Both ran for the US Senate against the will of GOP leadership, and both won impressive victories. However, Rubio ran against popular incumbent governor Charlie Crist and beat him so badly in the primary that Crist left the party — and Rubio wound up winning 49% of the general-election vote in purple-state Florida in a three-way race, beating Crist by 19 points and Democrat Kendrick Meek by 29 points. Rubio won his Senate seat in a tough environment and in a key swing state for November, even while holding fast to conservative policies.

With all of that said, both Rubio and Cruz represent the future of the Republican Party and an opportunity to broaden the reach of conservatism. I would be happy to see either man win the nomination — but a choice has to be made. Marco Rubio gives Republicans and conservatives not just their best opportunity to win, but their best chance to effectively implement conservative policies by creating the best coattails down the ticket in November. That is why Senator Rubio is my choice for the primaries.

[Abbey Marie]

...
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/29/caucus-time-why-i-choose-marco-rubio/


With all of that said, both Rubio and Cruz represent the future of the Republican Party and an opportunity to broaden the reach of conservatism.

The above is a succinct way of expressing the main reason why I support Rubio.

Maybe in 4 years...

[Kathianne]

The above is a succinct way of expressing the main reason why I support Rubio.

Maybe in 4 years...

I hope there's still a conservative party then, I fear we'll see a split. From the same site-one of my recent favorites, as they have a mix of authors/opinions from the right. Heads up, he's not endorsing the nastiness.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/29/why-conservatives-are-excited-about-rubio-insulting-trump/



Why conservatives are excited about Rubio insulting TrumpPOSTED AT 11:21 AM ON FEBRUARY 29, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
I spent the weekend watching righties on social media not only high-fiving over each new Rubio zinger — the spray tan, the bankruptcies, the insinuations about Trump’s manhood via his supposedly small fingers, a dig that’s been irritating him for decades (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump) — but talking themselves into believing that this is some sort of strategic game-changer in the race. I see the value in it as catharsis, a chance to kick Trump in the face a few times after months of enduring his Don Rickles routine. I sort of see the value in it as a media strategy, with Rubio cutting into Trump’s monopoly of cable news airtime by promising to give the media an even zanier show, although I’m not sure how gags about Trump having a tiny schwanz end up moving millions of votes. (Even though Rubio has done pretty well with late-deciders (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/marco-rubio-undecided-voters-super-tuesday/index.html?eref=rss_politics) so far this year.) I certainly see the value in it as a technique to expose hypocrites, from Trump fans who are suddenly overcome by the vapors at the spectacle of a presidential candidate stooping to petty personal insults to media concern trolls who are shocked, shocked to find Bambi-esque Marco Rubio engaged in a brutal rank war with King Troll. As Andy Levy (https://twitter.com/andylevy/status/704140949308489728) said, the media going after Rubio for lowering the discourse now is like the ref not seeing the initial penalty and throwing a flag for the retaliation. Given how much they’ve has done for Trump over the past year, I’d say it’s more like the ref ignoring the initial penalty, sucker-punching the victim himself, then throwing the flag for retaliation.


I think there’s more to it than that, though. My sense of conservative opinion since the rout in Nevada, but especially since Chris Christie gobbled up Rubio’s post-debate buzz on Friday, is that people are experiencing an almost euphoric panic in which Trump’s nomination increasingly seems assured and therefore any display of forceful resistance feels exhilarating. It’s like an army digging in around its capital after a long retreat and finally decisively winning a few skirmishes. It feels great. We can still win this! Marco’s going to call Trump a needledick enough times that the spell will lift and we’ll break out on our own offensive! That’s … highly unlikely, but as a morale booster it’s good stuff, a version of “Nuts!” (http://www.army.mil/article/92856) translated into Trump’s own crass lingo. Viewed that way, I think it’s no coincidence that the #NeverTrump phenomenon (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/never-trump) broke out on Twitter the same weekend that Rubio went on offense rhetorically against him. Both are declarations of “never surrender!” Team Marco has even embraced the #NeverTrump messaging (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/27/politics/nevertrump-donald-trump-marco-rubio/), which I guess means Rubio no longer intends to honor his pledge to support the GOP nominee. You would never show the sort of disrespect that Rubio’s showed this weekend (“con artist!”) to someone whom you intend to follow as the new head of your party and maybe ultimately the head of state. The insult war is really an expression of total rejectionism, a sort of escape route for that dug-in army in which they get to abandon the capital if need be and then try to take it back sometime in the future, on a better day. This is, in other words, what a party schism sounds like. No surprise that you’re now seeing other conservatives, from U.S. senators (https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/561073597391141)to radio hosts (https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/why-i-will-nevertrump) to journalists (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/28/national_reviews_rich_lowry_we_might_support_clint on_over_trump.html), embrace it.


Who’s aboard a Trump-led GOP and who’s going independent? That’ll be the single biggest subplot of a Trump/Hillary race starting next month, if Trump finishes off Rubio and Kasich in Florida and Ohio, respectively. Which I think he will.

[Black Diamond]

If Trump's meteoric rise is due to the people being sick of "The Establishment", how on earth would running Romney make sense?

It doesn't. But the establishment is so full of itself it may indirectly destroy the country.

[Black Diamond]

Insiders who were at a recent meeting between the Koch Bros. and Marco Rubio leaked intel on how exactly they’re going to try and steal the election from Donald Trump, GOP strategist Roger Stone revealed.

The Koch Bros. met with GOP millionaires and billionaires Thursday night to pool together over $75 million to stop Trump and are going to use Mitt Romney as ‘Plan B’ if Rubio fails to gain traction on Super Tuesday, according to moles who were inside the meeting.

“$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he’s got to win the Florida primary or he’s out and Mitt Romney’s in,” Stone revealed. “That’s the plan.”

“First they’ll ramp up an enormous, negative campaign on TV against Trump and they’re going to hit this phony Trump University issue,” he continued. “They claim to have personal dirt on Trump – I doubt that – and they are also going to try and delve into his business affairs, but if Rubio fails to grab the Florida primary, then Rubio’s out and Mitt Romney’s in.”

“The plan is for Romney to file for the New Jersey, New York and California primaries in an all-out ditch effort to stop Donald Trump and you heard it here on Infowars.com.”

Additionally, Marco Rubio’s wife called Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, to desperately beg Cruz to exit the race and aid Rubio, but Heidi said no, Stone said.

“The power structure’s desperate, the Rubio and Cruz teams are going back and forth but they can’t agree as to who will be the candidate,” he added. “I still believe Mitt Romney is totally dressed up, already made up, waiting in the wings… to step in as the last, best hope of the ‘stop Trump’ movement, and frankly I think Trump will bulldoze him as well.”

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-insider-leaks-koch-bros-rubio-plan-to-stop-trump/

This may explain Romney shooting his mouth off the last week or so....

[Christie Brinkley]

Trump can't be stopped, unless the establishment decide to put a bullet in him like they did JFK.

[Kathianne]

This may explain Romney shooting his mouth off the last week or so....

I agree with the 'Allah Pundit' post I made a bit ago, that it's futile what Rubio has been doing. However, 'shooting his mouth off,' could easily be described as 'Trumping back Trump'.

[Black Diamond]

Trump can't be stopped, unless the establishment decide to put a bullet in him like they did JFK.

:lol:

Welcome back Christie..

[Black Diamond]

I agree with the 'Allah Pundit' post I made a bit ago, that it's futile what Rubio has been doing. However, 'shooting his mouth off,' could easily be described as 'Trumping back Trump'.

Are you talking about rubio or Romney?

[Kathianne]

Are you talking about rubio or Romney?
Rubio.

[Black Diamond]

Rubio.

Ok. How do you feel about rubio and Cruz' late strategy of attacking trump? They had been at one another's throats.

[Kathianne]

Ok. How do you feel about rubio and Cruz' late strategy of attacking trump? They had been at one another's throats.

I just responded to the same on another thread. Perhaps some of these should be merged?

[Abbey Marie]

Genital jokes and splashing water? Good lord. They all should just sail away into the sunset, and let Dr. Carson take the helm. Or maybe Carly.

[NightTrain]

Ok. How do you feel about rubio and Cruz' late strategy of attacking trump? They had been at one another's throats.

I took that as adopting Trump's unorthodox strategy that's been working so well for Trump.

Fighting fire with fire & hoping it works.

[Black Diamond]

Genital jokes and splashing water? Good lord. They all should just sail away into the sunset, and let Dr. Carson take the helm. Or maybe Carly.

Love me some Carly. Forget Mitt. Bring Carly back. :cool:

[Black Diamond]

I took that as adopting Trump's unorthodox strategy that's been working so well for Trump.

Fighting fire with fire & hoping it works.

Agreed that that's what they are doing. But they were very late in doing so IMO.

[Black Diamond]

Ok. So what happens if trump doesn't have the number of delegates required? Can Romney swoop into Cleveland and "steal" the nomination?

[Kathianne]

Ok. So what happens if trump doesn't have the number of delegates required? Can Romney swoop into Cleveland and "steal" the nomination?

I've never seen a brokered convention.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps more distressing-Romney plays out the Trump threat The story referred to regarding NYT tape may well be big in a day or so. Seems Trump had an editorial board meeting-on and off the record. It's been reported that the 'off the record' revealed some information regarding his immigration ideas and they are not inline with what he's been saying from the beginning. All the remarks were taped with his knowledge. The Times refuses to release, would only consider doing so if Trump requested.

Romney it seems may have been planning this for a very long time. If he does so, Hillary or anyone but the GOP candidate will win:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/29/ben-sasse-on-not-voting-for-trump-this-is-in-some-ways-an-1860-moment/


Ben Sasse on not voting for Trump: “This is in some ways an 1860 moment”POSTED AT 10:01 PM ON FEBRUARY 29, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
I’m starting to think this guy might not vote for Trump.


Skip to 8:50 of the clip below for the interview. You already know where he stands on Trump if you read his Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/561073597391141) this morning, but the video’s worth watching for a few reasons. One: Although Sasse acknowledges that Super Tuesday and March 15th will be “significant” in deciding the nominee, the unmistakable sense here is that it’s going to be Trump and conservatives need to begin preparing for that reality. Is that a fair conclusion to draw? Given this AP report (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/29/voters_in_florida_begin_early_voting_in_crucial_pr imary_129818.html) of early voting in Florida, I’m thinking … yeah.



The Florida primary is weeks away, but tens of thousands of voters headed to the polls Monday for early voting in this critical contest that could make-or-break the presidential aspirations of native son, Sen. Marco Rubio…


Absentee and early voting are popular in Florida. Projections show that more than half of those voting in the primary will have cast their ballots before the March 15 primary. So far, more than 303,000 Republican voters and more than 261,000 Democratic voters have submitted their absentee ballots, according to University of Florida political scientist Daniel Smith, who is tracking statewide absentee ballot returns…


Smith said almost 44 percent of the absentee Republican votes so far are from people who did not vote in 2012.

Trump is comfortably ahead in every poll of Florida right now and it’s practically a given that he’ll clean up among formerly disaffected voters who have decided to participate this year. That means he’s already banking votes and building a lead in Florida that Rubio will somehow need to overcome on March 15th. Even if the race shifts over the next two weeks and Rubio overtakes him in the Florida polls, Trump may still end up winning the state by virtue of the early votes he’s piled up. Rubio needs movement immediately. If he doesn’t get it and ends up losing on his home field, his days as a serious contender are over.


Two: At one point Sasse, looking ahead to the general election, says he doesn’t think voters will be forced to choose between two dishonest New York liberals in November. There’ll be other candidates. Anyone in particular he has in mind? Nope, he says. But … it’s impossible not to notice whose Twitter account has suddenly gotten very active.

Mitt Romney
✔‎@MittRomney (https://twitter.com/MittRomney)

A disqualifying & disgusting response by @realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) to the KKK. His coddling of repugnant bigotry is not in the character of America.

11:22 AM - 29 Feb 2016 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/704371093549805569)


Mitt Romney
✔‎@MittRomney (https://twitter.com/MittRomney)

Another #bombshell (https://twitter.com/hashtag/bombshell?src=hash)? Trump should authorize the @nytimes (https://twitter.com/nytimes) to release the transcript of his ed board interview. #WhatIsHeHiding (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhatIsHeHiding?src=hash)

5:23 PM - 29 Feb 2016 (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/704462016547725312)

Michigan, where Romney’s endorsement could have a bit more influence than usual, votes a week from tomorrow. If he hasn’t endorsed Rubio by then, the only obvious explanation would be that he’s thinking seriously of running as an independent himself. Because of ballot deadlines, a third-party Romney candidacy would need to move very quickly after the results tomorrow night to start rounding up the signatures Mitt would need in different states. That’s another potential thorn in Rubio’s side. Romney probably can’t wait until Florida votes on the 15th before making his move. And if he moves before then, the news that he’s getting in would probably deflate Rubio’s candidacy by turning some of his supporters into early Romney supporters.


Incidentally, according to Ali Weinberg of NBC (https://twitter.com/AliABCNews/status/704450883640270848), only one of 12 different conservative GOP senators she asked told her they’d definitely vote for Trump in the general election. Others said they’d support the nominee (https://twitter.com/AliABCNews/status/704451025470681088) but wouldn’t give a definitive answer on Trump. Just for starters, you’d have to think that Sasse, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul will all cut bait and go their own way. More will follow once Democrats get the media to start hammering stuff like this (http://www.ijreview.com/2016/01/513180-trumps-comment-about-chinese-government-at-tianenman-square-shows-hes-strongman-america-needs/):



What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?


I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.


You mean firm hand as in China?


When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world–



“Trump on Soviet oppression: ‘Not a firm enough hand.'” The general election’s gonna be grrrrreat!


Three: Sasse makes one good point here about the politics of this and one not so good one. The good one is that Trump fans have every right to say they’re fed up with the GOP’s contemptible failure to deliver for the working-class but that anti-Trumpers also have every right to say they’re fed up with Trump playing footsie with white nationalists (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/29/rush-maybe-trump-dodged-kkk-questions-on-a-sunday-show-so-as-not-to-alienate-people-who-might-vote-for-him/) and barfing up creepy authoritarian agenda items (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/the-trumpiest-soundbite-yet-im-going-to-make-it-easier-to-sue-the-media-for-purposely-negative-and-horrible-and-false-articles/) for when he begins his “reign.” Megan McArdle, who compiled a list of reasons offered by people who’ve joined the #NeverTrump movement for an article (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump) today, tweeted over the weekend that she’s surprised at how surprised Trump fans seem to be at how distasteful anti-Trumpers find him, to the point where they’re prepared to sit out the election even if it means a Clinton presidency. We may be in an awkward period soon when Trump supporters, having won the grand prize of the GOP nomination, look up and find themselves needing to win the White House with 20 percent of the party suddenly gone. Like Sasse says, a party’s just a tool. If it no longer serves its use, and its use for a conservative voter is steering government in a conservative direction, then you discard that tool. Many will.


The not so good point is when Sasse claims that Trump is filling a void created by the GOP when it grew too vacuous about “first principles.” Is … that what Trumpmania is about? I’ve heard lots of smart explanations for it — it’s a response to globalization and mass immigration from people who want jobs repatriated; it’s a demand for strength after a long period of national and cultural diffidence; it’s a rebellion by “Fishtown” (http://www.aei.org/publication/belmont-fishtown/) after being taken for granted by “Belmont” for so many years; it’s “identity politics for white people” in a country that’s increasingly diverse. One thing it does not seem to be, except maybe to the extent that Cruz’s share of the vote overlaps with Trump’s, is an expression of frustration that the GOP isn’t as conservative or in touch with the Constitution as it should be. On the contrary, a lot of Trump fans seem like they’d be fine with Trump taking a dump on the Constitution and engaging in ambitious executive power grabs, like “opening up libel laws,” so long as it means increasing their share of the pie. (Sasse himself has criticized Trump’s caesarist tendencies (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/18/ben-sasse-to-senate-colleagues-will-you-oppose-president-trump-if-he-acts-unilaterally/) but I wonder if he knows, or would admit, that Trump has some popular support for that.) Maybe Sasse is saying this simply because it’s part of his brand: He’s a conservative, therefore any problem with the party must ultimately boil down to “not conservative enough.” The fact that he’s saying this, though, when we’re possibly 24 hours away from the end of Cruz 2016 feels jarring. If the right was hungering for a return to first principles, Cruz would be on a glide path to the nomination, no? Yet here we are, with Ben Sasse wondering if this is an “1860 moment.” Gulp.

[Perianne]

The establishment needs to get over it. The people don't want Fartco Rubio.