Ted Cruz booed, walks off stage

[Arctish]

Cruz either doesn't understand that Zionism has very negative consequences for Middle Eastern Christian communities, or he doesn't care. Either way, he deserved to be booed off the stage. He had no respect for the people he was addressing, and they knew it.

He did not deserve to be booed because everything he said was absolutely correct. The Islamist radicals that hate Jews also hate Christians.

That's not what he said that got him booed. He tried telling Christians from Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt that "Christians have no better ally than the Jewish state". That's simply not true, and Cruz was inexcusably ignorant of his audience's real-life experience with Israel's policies towards Christians living in the Middle East.

I guess this group includes a lot of Arabs that have been thought from young age to hate Israel and Jews. Shame really.

I think your guess is based on a lack of information about the recent history of Christian communities in the Middle East, this particular Christian group, and the stated goal of IDC to protect the rights of religious minorities.

Here's a letter from a Palestinian Christian living in Israel that sheds some light on what some audience members found so boo-worthy about Cruz' speech. And here's an article from The American Conservative that does the same. Cruz was talking to a Christian group that saw 1 out of every 3 Christians in Palestine made refugees by Israel. He was saying that Israel, which has refused to allow tens of thousands of Christians to return to their homes in and around Jerusalem because they are Christians, is their best friend in the Middle East. He was being an ignorant ass.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Cruz either doesn't understand that Zionism has very negative consequences for Middle Eastern Christian communities, or he doesn't care. Either way, he deserved to be booed off the stage. He had no respect for the people he was addressing, and they knew it.

He did not deserve to be booed because everything he said was absolutely correct. The Islamist radicals that hate Jews also hate Christians.
I guess the audience included a lot of Arabs that have been thought from young age to hate Israel and Jews. Shame really.

Or maybe they just booed him because he's a hateful, divisive mother fucker.

 

[ksen]

He couldn't even bring himself to say the word muslim. The giant idiot.

 

[Sarpedon]

He knew precisely what he was doing. Its a mistake to underestimate him. Hate the fucker all you like, but he's a formidable politician.

 

[doubtingt]

He knew precisely what he was doing. Its a mistake to underestimate him. Hate the fucker all you like, but he's a formidable politician.

If this in reference to your prior claim that this will get him the Jewish vote over Hilary, then Bronzeage already pointed out that many Jews are not blindly pro-Israel and would not support a politician just because they spout Zionist rhetoric. The minority of US Jews that do strongly feel this way are already mostly Republican, because they are narrow minded bigots, so they prefer the party ruled by narrow minded bigots. The overwhelming majority of US Jews oppose the policies of Israel and support a two-state solution.
Besides, not only are Jews only 2% of the population, but about half of them live in California and New York, which Cruz has no chance of winning. Florida is the only state that would be plausibly altered by a shift in the Jewish vote, but even there they are only 3% of the population, so the shift would have to massive and go from its typical 70% pro-Dem to 70% pro-Republican. There just are not enough blindly Zionist Jews in Florida to make that happen.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is all very short-sighted.

Ted Cruz isn't saying this to bring in support from outside the party, but to shore up support from inside the party. Neoconservatives may not be as influential as they once were, but they still have a lot of heft inside the party, and in a hotly contested primary their endorsement may indeed mean the difference. Expressing firm unwavering support for Israel is a signal to them that Cruz wants their endorsement. The likes of Cheney, Rumsefeld, Underseer, Wolfowitz, and Perle see this kind of speech as an appeal to neoconservative ideals.

For the first time in a long time the Republican nomination is wide open. They have followed a "next in line" pattern for decades now, starting with Reagan winning the 1980 nomination after coming in second in 1976. The only exception was when George W. Bush used his family ties to jump to the front of the line, presenting himself initially as a continuation of an interrupted presidency.

The 2012 primary was a mess. The official "second in line" was Santorum, who is too religiously radical for the party bosses. The unofficial "second in line" was Ron Paul who is not running in 2016. His son probably is, but the son is not the father. Romney might have actually been second in line, but it is hard to tell if that was the case with all the vote cheating that went on.

As a result all potential candidates (and at this point they are all potential) are building ties to various factions, various endorsers, various supporters, taking trips to Iowa for no particular reason, etc.

Plus even if everything I wrote is wrong, Jews in California and New York are capable of donating to Cruz even if their state will never go to Cruz.

 

[Sarpedon]

Its more than that doubtingt, it is shoring up support within the republican party, more than getting the jewish vote. Its more about the Sheldon Adelson money (who does give money blindly to whoever kisses his ass), and right wing republican support, and casting himself as a man who stays true to his convictions however loudly he gets booed. There's something for everyone he cares about in this little farce.

You call it shortsighted: the problem with the Republican party these days is that what is good for a candidate is bad for the party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The 2012 primary was a mess. The official "second in line" was Santorum, who is too religiously radical for the party bosses.

There was a second in line?

The unofficial "second in line" was Ron Paul who is not running in 2016.

Seeing that Ron Paul never got a supernova level of support in the primaries, this statement would seem to be untrue. Almost everyone else other than Huntsman got to be second or first in the polling. Ron Paul was never second for anything.

His son probably is, but the son is not the father. Romney might have actually been second in line, but it is hard to tell if that was the case with all the vote cheating that went on.

Who was first then? I suppose maybe Rick Perry, but he opened his mouth and that ended that. Other than Perry, Romney was the only mainstream candidate. Everyone else was either too much of a minority (Huntsman / Santorum) or a crackpot (Bachmann, Cain).

As a result all potential candidates (and at this point they are all potential) are building ties to various factions, various endorsers, various supporters, taking trips to Iowa for no particular reason, etc.

Plus even if everything I wrote is wrong, Jews in California and New York are capable of donating to Cruz even if their state will never go to Cruz.

So Cruz is sprinting to try and get as much influence he can, so he can quit the Senate and live out his years in a cushy job somewhere.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is my post really that confusing?

The Republicans have been following a "second in line" pattern for decades.

In 1976, Ford got the nomination and Reagan got second place.
In 1980, Reagan got the nomination and Bush Sr. got second place.
In 1988, Bush Sr. got the nomination and Dole got second place.
In 1996, Dole got the nomination and Patrick Buchanan got second place.
In 2000, Bush Jr. used his father's connections to jump to the front of the line and McCain got second place.
In 2008, McCain got the nomination and Romney got second place.
In 2012, Romney got the nomination.

The rest was describing the mess for second place, it being a puzzle involving Santorum (unlikely to be allowed by the party bosses) and Paul (who isn't going to run in 2016 but his son might try to pick up the torch) and possibly Romney himself (a bit unlikely but it is known that he cheated the vote in order to ensure the nomination).

Because there is no clear "second in line" like there was in 1980, 1988, 1996, 2008, and 2012, the Republican primary is wide open.

 

[Blahface]

Its more than that doubtingt, it is shoring up support within the republican party, more than getting the jewish vote. Its more about the Sheldon Adelson money (who does give money blindly to whoever kisses his ass), and right wing republican support, and casting himself as a man who stays true to his convictions however loudly he gets booed. There's something for everyone he cares about in this little farce.

You call it shortsighted: the problem with the Republican party these days is that what is good for a candidate is bad for the party.

Bingo, I think you've got it. It also helps him win over the Christian Zionists as well though.

 

[Rhea]

Is my post really that confusing?

The Republicans have been following a "second in line" pattern for decades.

In 1976, Ford got the nomination and Reagan got second place.
In 1980, Reagan got the nomination and Bush Sr. got second place.
In 1988, Bush Sr. got the nomination and Dole got second place.
In 1996, Dole got the nomination and Patrick Buchanan got second place.
In 2000, Bush Jr. used his father's connections to jump to the front of the line and McCain got second place.
In 2008, McCain got the nomination and Romney got second place.
In 2012, Romney got the nomination.

The rest was describing the mess for second place, it being a puzzle involving Santorum (unlikely to be allowed by the party bosses) and Paul (who isn't going to run in 2016 but his son might try to pick up the torch) and possibly Romney himself (a bit unlikely but it is known that he cheated the vote in order to ensure the nomination).

Because there is no clear "second in line" like there was in 1980, 1988, 1996, 2008, and 2012, the Republican primary is wide open.

Interesting. And do you think is is deliberate in planning, or a default from an unimaginative party?

 

[Sabine Grant]

He knew precisely what he was doing. Its a mistake to underestimate him. Hate the fucker all you like, but he's a formidable politician.

If this in reference to your prior claim that this will get him the Jewish vote over Hilary, then Bronzeage already pointed out that many Jews are not blindly pro-Israel and would not support a politician just because they spout Zionist rhetoric. The minority of US Jews that do strongly feel this way are already mostly Republican, because they are narrow minded bigots, so they prefer the party ruled by narrow minded bigots. The overwhelming majority of US Jews oppose the policies of Israel and support a two-state solution.
Besides, not only are Jews only 2% of the population, but about half of them live in California and New York, which Cruz has no chance of winning. Florida is the only state that would be plausibly altered by a shift in the Jewish vote, but even there they are only 3% of the population, so the shift would have to massive and go from its typical 70% pro-Dem to 70% pro-Republican. There just are not enough blindly Zionist Jews in Florida to make that happen.

You are absolutely correct that when it comes to Florida (my state of residency), there just are not enough "blindly Zionist Jews" to make a shift happen. If the sample of upper middle class Jewish population residing in the retiree community of Sun City is representative of how Floridian Jews vote, the indication is that they are social liberals. They may demonstrate traits of fiscal conservatism but I do not see them voting for a GOP candidate like Cruz or any GOP candidate with a Christian Right Wing profile.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, apparently it is not agreeing that the "US has no stronger ally than Israel" that makes them anti-Semites. Not exactly the standard definition.

If that was what upset them then you may have a point, but the US wasn't mentioned in the sentence that upset them. From the link in the OP:

Cruz upset many in the crowd by offering strong support for Israel, saying at one point: “Christians have no greater ally than Israel” — a comment that drew boos.

Don't know if it is true but certainly possible since he was addressing the concerns of "In Defense of Christians, a group that focuses on persecuted Christian and minority communities in the Middle East."

 

[boneyard bill]

Am I missing something here? Isn't the Christian right generally pro-Israel?
Who were those who were booing?

I think this was a Christian Palestinian event so Cruz should have expected to get boos from the things he said. I think his comments were disgusting from start to finish, but he surely should have expected that this wasn't the place to start a speech with the usual obsequious remarks about Israel. He must have planned this as a publicity stunt.

 

[RavenSky]

He did not deserve to be booed because everything he said was absolutely correct. The Islamist radicals that hate Jews also hate Christians.

That's not what he said that got him booed. He tried telling Christians from Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt that "Christians have no better ally than the Jewish state". That's simply not true, and Cruz was inexcusably ignorant of his audience's real-life experience with Israel's policies towards Christians living in the Middle East.

I guess this group includes a lot of Arabs that have been thought from young age to hate Israel and Jews. Shame really.

I think your guess is based on a lack of information about the recent history of Christian communities in the Middle East, this particular Christian group, and the stated goal of IDC to protect the rights of religious minorities.

Here's a letter from a Palestinian Christian living in Israel that sheds some light on what some audience members found so boo-worthy about Cruz' speech. And here's an article from The American Conservative that does the same. Cruz was talking to a Christian group that saw 1 out of every 3 Christians in Palestine made refugees by Israel. He was saying that Israel, which has refused to allow tens of thousands of Christians to return to their homes in and around Jerusalem because they are Christians, is their best friend in the Middle East. He was being an ignorant ass.

This puts the situation into better perspective, thank you!