Cruz supporters dominate Washtington state convention

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The real Republican election: Though Donald Trump is likely to win the upcoming Washington primary and thus its delegates, at the state’s convention this weekend the party chose a slate of Ted Cruz backers to be those delegates, even if they have to vote for Trump.

This is how we change things, regardless of who wins the election in November. Get conservatives into government at the ground level. Have them dominate policy issues. Have them move up the ranks and dominate the state legislatures. Have those winners move up and dominate Congress.

We do that, and it won’t matter much who is president, because it will be these legislators who will control the agenda. In a sense, this is why Trump’s liberal tendencies are probably less of a threat than Clinton’s committed socialism. Give them both a conservative Congress and Trump, being more malleable, will bend to its will while Clinton, a hardline leftist, will fight it every step of the way. This is another reason I like Cruz. He understands this, which is why he worked so hard to build a grass-roots foundation for his campaign. He might not be the president, but when the next president starts trying to make policy it will be Cruz’s people who will guide him.

It is thus very important that conservatives do not boycott the upcoming elections, even if they choose not to vote for a presidential candidate. It is essential the Congress and the state legislatures remain firmly conservative, and for that to happen conservatives have to vote.


  • Cotour

    Ah, sane, balanced, strategic political thought.

    Let the structure of the Constitution control and influence who and what it was designed to control.

  • Yeah, but the difference between you and me is that I pushed to get Cruz as the candidate, from the beginning, while you pushed for second best (Trump) because you thought he could win. Blah. A doorknob will be able to beat Clinton in this coming election, which makes it a tragedy that the voters chose a candidate who really isn’t that much better than her, and whom, even if he wins, will require a strong conservative Congress to prevent him from doing harm.

  • Cotour

    I seem to specifically remember not too long ago you saying that polls indicated that Trump could never beat Clinton, now a door knob can beat Clinton? Blah.

    Why will a door knob be able to beat Clinton? Because Trump is grinding her up and Bernie is grinding her up, and she is unlikable and not to mention that people are coming to understand that she is what she is. And Cruz did not make the cut. Why did Cruz not make the cut? Because he could never beat Clinton in a national election because he is even more personally unlikable than Clinton. (emotion over logic) Be thankful that Trump was in the race to take him out because Cruz would have been her perfect set up man / patsy.

    You chose Cruz from the beginning and you were incorrect, why were you incorrect? Because he lost, we move on. But he did put up one hell of a great fight and I admire him for that. Cruz will have a long and illustrious Conservative career in the Senate and maybe in the future as the president. But not right now because he is not well enough formed yet, he is too young, as was Rubio IMO.

    Trump is admittedly a bit of an unknown and he will be in need of “instruction”, but I am more certain that he can actually beat Clinton than anyone else that was in the mix. They all would have failed.

  • Cotour wrote: “I seem to specifically remember not too long ago you saying that polls indicated that Trump could never beat Clinton, now a door knob can beat Clinton?”

    You remember wrong. I only noted the polls that showed Cruz as a stronger candidate against Clinton than Trump. I never said “Trump could never beat Clinton.”, only that I thought Cruz would do better against her, and would also provide us a real choice for once in this election.

    You however did not want a choice. You wanted a weak liberal echo, which is what you will get with the Donald.

  • Cotour

    Recognizing the difference between what you want and what is possible are two different things that you are choosing to not make a distinction between. Just because you (and apparently the polls) thought Cruz the better or purer candidate did not mean that he could in the end, when everything was done, could win. We could argue that many of those “polls” wanted Cruz to face Hillary for the obvious reason.

    We will never know the answer to that question, could Cruz beat Hillary, but we will know the answer to whether Trump can beat Hillary. And that is what needs to be encouraged and focused on.

    We move on.

  • Wayne

    “Trump Supporters Who Taunt Conservatives Only Reign Over Ruins”
    David French– National Review

  • Very nice essay. Describes our friend Cotour quite well.

    As I said, the aim now must be to get as many conservatives in office as possible, regardless of who wins the presidency.

  • Willi Kusche

    I started donating to the Cruz campaign as soon as he announced that he was seeking the nomination. The donald said some things I liked when he started campaigning but it soon became obvious to me that the donald isn’t someone I would want to vote for. But, I may have to, holding my nose the whole time. Now, the paltry sums I have available for donations will be going to the Convention of States project. That project is the only real hope of getting the size of the federal gummint under control. Mark Levin’s book gives the rational for several possible amendments. My favorite is the repeal of the 17th amendment but that’s just too much to hope for. A balanced budget amendment is probably the one most possible. But, I can dream, can’t I? Heck, I’m still praying for some kind of miracle upset at the convention…

  • Cotour

    “Very nice essay. Describes our friend Cotour quite well.”

    Please, now your being a bit of a drama queen.

    “are reveling not only in their man’s victory but also in their own new found fame and notoriety, even to the extent of posting charts and graphs showing how much more influence they have than their “establishment” rivals do.”

    The only thing pertinent here is that I happened to read this thing more accurately than most everyone else here on this web site. I am not reveling but I am also not burying my head in the sand and pouting. I have clearly from the beginning pointed out my concerns in regards to Trump and his potential. Get over it.

    We move on.

  • Wayne

    Mr. Z.; Good to have you back!
    Willi Kusche:
    Good deal supporting an Article 5 Convention of the States!
    >Repeal of the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward re-empowering the States & diffusing power away from the Federal government. (And a major blow to the Progressive movement which engineered the 17th Amendment.) It would get brought up at a Convention, so we might as well do everything at once.
    It’s no secret I supported Cruz (& will support him in his Texas Senate run) and was initially intrigued by Trump, but I just can not support him. Neither Trump nor his supporters apparently want to earn my vote in November; Trump is moving to the left of Hillary & his supporters insist on trashing me & a healthy segment of the Conservative voters. (And we’re the people who make phone phone-calls & knock on doors. Did it 3 election-cycles, and not going to hold my nose a 4th time.)

  • Wayne

    “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his Country…”

    The American Crisis
    Thomas Paine 1776

  • Cotour

    If for no other reason than this one issue to make Trump president over Hillary (why? because those are going to be the choices, good bad or otherwise):

    If you are taking Trump at his word, and many of you who classify him as a “tyrant” (drama word) apparently are then this one issue would be worth at least four years of a Trump administration. Agree? From the beginning he has been a rock solid supporter of the second amendment.

    Now we understand that he released a list of very well received conservative names that would be potential Supreme Court Justices and that list is about soothing the Conservative base to reassure them. Is this believed here or not?

    Put the two together: The stated and known threat to the second amendment from a Hillary presidency AND the ability of the next president to appoint the next two or three Supreme Court Justices.

    Now choose between the “tyrant” (drama word) OR the she devil.

    Just for this one issue, choose one.

  • Cotour

    PS: Just so we have it clear, the Constitution was written assuming that every single person that might become the president would have the potential, not even the potential, WOULD become a “tyrant”. From George Washington right down to the lowly Marxist, Barack Hussein Obama.

    It was written assuming this from the beginning because that is the nature of man, counter balancing that tendency is the entire purpose of the Constitution. It excludes no one.

    It has been my consistent position here that anyone who inhabits the position of the presidency is required to raise themselves up and become more than they are and not less. And that is the test that must be passed by all. Some do it better than others, but it must be realized as the gravity of the post comes to be understood and it must be manifested to the best potential of the inhabitant.

  • Wayne

    Can not support your Guy Trump. Not on board with the agrarian, nationalist, populist, protectionist, isolationist, blah-blah-blah, crap-o-la.
    -As I’ve said elsewhere, and noted by Mr. Z., personally, I’m now more concerned with the down-ballot & supporting individual Candidate’s throughout the land, Local, State, & Federal. (Such as, Cruz for re-election to the Senate , and Kelli Ward to replace McCain in Arizona. - )
    Not seeing Trump stand up to support a Kelli Ward, I see him looking forward to cutting deals with McCain.
    Not seeing Trump court Conservative voters, he’s morphing to the left of Hillary on some issues & his supporters continue to trash people like me.

  • You should be aware that Kelli Ward is not the only Republican running against McCain in the primary. You should also know that the other two might be more reliable conservatives. I have been researching this, and I am worried that McCain is going to win because his opponents will divide their vote. If we had only one person running against him he would lose in the primary, easily. Now, I am unsure.

  • I’ve rechecked the election and discovered that the two other local Republicans who previously had indicated they would run have now backed out, leaving a pretty clear field to Ward. This is good news. Ward might not be as reliably conservative as I would like, but I know that McCain definitely is not. She will get my vote, and I think she will beat McCain.

  • Wayne

    Just hope Ward does not morph into a Kelly Ayotte!

  • Cotour


    Well then Wayne I support your voting for and supporting all and every other Conservative minded aspirant to any office that they apply. The appointing of the next 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices are someone else’s problem and responsibility, we will get by somehow without you.

    But I will certainly take a half of a pie instead of none.

  • Wayne

    President gets to nominate SCOTUS, Senate gets to confirm or deny. All the more reason to re-elect Cruz, get rid of McCain, etc.
    Or has Trump already assumed dictatorial powers?

  • Cotour

    First you have to have the “right” people nominated, then they are approved or not.

    Lets control all modes of approval.

    “The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.”

    No different system would apply to Trump or Hillary, no mention of any dictatorial powers.

    (McCain has certainly earned the honor of being rejected by the voters IMO. Cruz will be at his best and most effective remaining in the Senate.)

  • Cotour


    How does government create quasi socialist / fascist atmosphere in America?

    Regulation, on top of regulation, on top of regulation, that is how Obama is attempting to ensure his quasi socialist / fascist state where the Constitution and the individuals rights are subverted. Keeping an arms length from technical socialism or fascism but constantly bearing down on business until in the end no one will be able to start a business or prosper or control the means of production because the sum total of the ever growing regulations becomes the ultimate disincentive.

  • Edward

    Your position and your statements are accurately depicted in the National Review essay in Wayne’s link.

    You wrote: “I happened to read this thing more accurately than most everyone else here on this web site.”

    Very good, Cotour. You believe that you are smarter than the rest of us.

    You wrote: “the she devil.”

    Who is using drama words, now? At least my use of the word “tyrant” is accurate.

    You wrote: “Just for this one issue, choose one.”

    I choose neither. You should choose neither, too. If those who were fooled by Trump chose instead to choose neither and found a conservative to vote for, then neither the “tyrant” nor the “she devil” would win. Unfortunately, you believe yourself so smart that you would know if you had made a mistake. Unfortunately, you now are too embarrassed that your guy is actually unelectable to admit your mistake, even to yourself.

    Just so we have it clear, the Constitution was written assuming that every single person that might be elected to Congress or confirmed to the Supreme Court would not cave in to the tyrannical president. This system of checks and balances has failed.

    And what makes you think that Trump would not sneak in another Justice Roberts?

    You wrote: “It has been my consistent position here that anyone who inhabits the position of the presidency is required to raise themselves up and become more than they are and not less. And that is the test that must be passed by all.”

    Obama failed this test.

    Trump failed this test at the candidate-for-nomination level.

    Your argument is one that also favors a vote for Clinton, as she would be required to raise herself up just as Trump would. You present no evidence that either would rise to the position but you assume Trump would be the better president because you assume he would rise above his lifelong devotion to liberal Democrat philosophies.

    Half a pie? Half a liberty is still a tyranny.

    You wrote: “First you have to have the “right” people nominated, …”

    For president, you chose the wrong person. Get over it, Cotour, move on, and vote for a *real* conservative.

  • Wayne

    Well said. (I’d jump in, but you are managing yourself just fine & anything I say would be repetitive. )

  • Cotour

    “She devil” is a much, much more accurate word than “tyrant”.

    A person would have to actually have the power (in spite of their rhetoric) in order to abuse it and be technically defined as a tyrant. Your not correct. I am surprised that I have to point that out to you. However, who would disagree that Hillary is a she devil? Anyone?

    I really do not think myself smarter than anyone here, but IMO your high IQ nature, again IMO, makes you a bit stiff and inflexible in how you tend to read what has been going on. I said from the beginning when everyone was ready to laugh off Trump that you were foolish to discount him, he is a different kind of cat. He thinks different. And that happened to turn out to be very accurate.

    Your strategy is a very proud and righteous one, I commend you, but in the long run it big picture looses. Wayne feel free to jump in at any time because Edward is just spinning his wheels here. He is technically correct but he looses, and loosing is not an option in this particular year. Not any year actually.

  • Cotour

    “Technically correct” referring to Trump not being a stone cold Conservative.

  • Wayne

    Edward: You’re doing just fine all by yourself
    Cotour: We just fundamentally disagree. No need to work in that faint praise.
    Who are you supporting against Schumer in NY?

  • Cotour

    Anyone not named Schumer, I despise the man.

    Peter King is I think rumored to be running (I do not particularly like him, he spoke violently about Cruz when he should have been supporting him during Cruz’s heroic actions in the Senate) but I doubt if he can beat him. Schumer is golden in NYS and he is next in line if the Democrats take the Senate, God forbid. Schumer is the ultimate inside liberal player, the head Borg assimilator.

    Edward and you by extension are both off target on the Trump issue. I doubt if either of you could make any real traction here in this conversation. I chalk it up to the nerd thing, your going to have to lighten up in 2016, maybe you both should have a glass of wine?

  • Edward

    You wrote: “I said from the beginning when everyone was ready to laugh off Trump that you were foolish to discount him”

    I’m not sure anyone here discounted him, but several of us did not want him as the Republican nominee, seeing him as redundant to the Democratic nominee.

    You wrote: “Your strategy is a very proud and righteous one, I commend you, but in the long run it big picture looses.”

    Strangely, your strategy of caving in to tyranny loses in both the short and the long run. At least my strategy keeps liberty alive another day. That was a major lesson in the book “The Martian.” The Watney character was happy every time he got to live yet another day, despite the struggle he went through in order to do so. You, however, gave up the struggle and are now encouraging the rest of us to do so, too.

    I believe that you are the one who is spinning wheels, here. I do not see anyone else jumping aboard the Surrender Train with you. I acknowledge that it is unlikely that I can convince you to hunker down and do the hard work that is required to regain our liberty, but I figure that each person who stops being a burden to the task is at least a small victory. A bigger victory would be to get you to help.

    But then, you seem to prefer wine to work, and as you approach the age of Trump, you will find it harder and harder to change your habits, just as Trump will not be able to change his deep-seated liberal Democratic ways, no matter how much you wish he would.

    Just because you are willing to drown your acceptance of an American tyranny in alcohol does not mean that the rest of us should. Somebody has to carry you out of the danger zone, since you are unwilling to do so yourself — and that distracts your rescuer from the rest of the fight for liberty.

    Soviet citizens drowned their misery in vodka, you go more upscale with wine. Either way, tyranny makes the citizenry miserable.

    You wrote: “He is technically correct but he looses, and loosing is not an option in this particular year. Not any year actually.”

    If it is not an option, then why have you caved in to tyranny — the losing position?

    “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” — Thomas Jefferson

    Lightening up is also a losing strategy.

    Please join us in being vigilant and working for liberty, rather than being lazy and drunken and accepting tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *