It's very nice how libertarian-leaning conservative South Carolina Congressman Mick Mulvaney endorsed Rand Paul and made a case for him as the "real" conservative champion, the "not real" one being Ted Cruz. But Paul won't be his party's nominee, and there's a good chance that Cruz will. I'll get back to that in a moment, but first let's give Mulvaney, a big-time Boehner detractor, his say as to why he's backing Paul instead of Cruz, courtesy of Dave Weigel:
"The last two weeks have been probably the most frustrating weeks in Washington for me, and that’s a high bar. There’s no way for me to avoid that the establishment wing of our party has lost its way. They don’t have any idea the damage they’re doing to the Republican Party. I called up Rand and said, I’ve had enough. We’re either going to figure out how to save this party or the establishment is going to drive it to irrelevance."...I think people, over the last four years, have seen that an interventionist foreign policy may not be the healthiest plan for our nation. I will never ever forget the Vietnam vets that came into our office to talk about this-- especially this one giant man, this mountain of a guy, who said to me 'Look, we have to get our troops home. It’s killing our families. There are kids on their fourth or fifth deployments. It’s not isolationist, it’s not even close. It’s not even close to pacifist. It’s about a more circumspect, thoughtful use of military power. That’s falling on receptive ears. Our South Carolina sons and daughters are fighting these battles, and they don’t want to be used as decoys.' "I’ve seen both of them work. When I see Ted-- it’s almost as if Ted thinks if you yell loud enough and give a dramatic speech, it’s going to solve things, and I just don’t think that’s the way the world works. Here's the other thing I see out on the trail. Both Rick Perry and Rand Paul came to help me in the last cycle. About 400 people showed up both times. We knew that 40 people who had never come to me came to see Perry. We know that 250 of the people who came to see Rand had never been to one of my events. Ted is not bringing anybody new into the party. Rand is."
Rand isn't even bringing anyone new to his own campaign. The latest national polling shows Paul in Walker territory-- 4% in the new CNN poll, 3% in the new CBS poll and 3% in the new NBC poll. In the latest poll of Iowa Republicans he's at 2%, and he's at 4% among New Hampshire Republicans and a mere 1% among South Carolina Republicans-- though Mulvaney's endorsement could double that. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is at 6% in South Carolina, the conservative closest to the three candidates who supposedly/probably can't go all the way, Trump, Carson and Bush; 5% (or maybe 8%) in New Hampshire; and 10% in Iowa-- the conservative alternative to Trump and Carson and leagues ahead of Bush. Nationally, CNN gives him 6%, CBS 5% and NBC 7%.When Cruz appeared on the Late Show, Colbert successfully ambushed him by throwing Ronald Reagan in his face. Would you compromise with Democrats the way Reagan did, he asked, pointing out that Reagan raised taxes and instituted an amnesty program for undocumented immigrants. When he asked the Reagan-idolizer, "Could you agree with Reagan on those two things," Cruz responded in the negative. Cruz's real father, 79 year old Cuban-born Pastor Rafael Cruz, on the other hand is deranged enough so that Ted will never have to deny him. He arrived in the U.S. in 1957-- illegally and before the U.S. granted all Cuban exiles legal immigration status-- and didn't become a U.S. citizen until 2005. Stumping the country for his son's presidential campaign, he shares the beloved right-wing self-victimization card, making silly claims like Christianity is under attack and tells them that "Our country’s on the edge of a precipice. If Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016 you can kiss this country goodbye. This country cannot survive another four years, let alone eight of these failed economic policies of this failed Obama administration. We have had the most lawless administration in the history of this country. We have an administration that tramples on the Constitution, tramples on the Declaration, tramples on the separation of powers, tramples on the rule of law, and basically is destroying this country at an accelerated pace. And I will tell you what, Hillary is no better than Obama. Hillary is a Saul Alinsky follower just like Obama. Read Alinsky’s rules for radicals and the Communist Manifesto, they look identical. Alinsky was a communist and his teachings are marxist…They are trying to take this country down the same road... The battle isn’t November of 2016. The battle is the primary. If you look at the last 40 years, every time we have had a mushy, middle of the road moderate as our candidate in the Republican party we have lost. We lost with Gerald Ford, we lost with Dole before that (Dole actually lost to Bill Clinton in 1996) we lost with George H. W. Bush in ’92-- before that it was the third term of Reagan-- we lost with McCain, we lost with Romney. If we have again a mushy middle-of-the-road candidate we will lose. So the battle is the primary." To Foxified Republicans sick of the GOP establishment-- personified by Boehner, McConnell, the Bush family, Mitt Romney and John McCain-- Cruz is the logical candidate when time proves that Trumpy wasn't really "in it to win it." It'll be interesting watching the transition for some of these people from Trump fans to Cruz supporters, if that can really be pulled off-- and with Fiorina as the saber-wielding running mate. Anyway, that's my September prediction, although I'll acknowledge that there will be boomlets for losers like Rubio and Kasich between now and then.
