Cruz 1st Official Entry

[Angel Eyes]

Yep. The republican establishment will NEVER allow it

And so it begins: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/index.html

(not certain if Peter King qualifies as "establishment", but close enough)

[230RN]

roo_ster remarked:

But I do love the thought of him tearing into the MSM-bots and affiliated lefty scum with wild abandon.

I loved the way you put that.  :D

Terry, 230RN

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Hes one of the best off the cuff speakers i've seen in decades. They will all be dodging him in debates.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Ben]

And so it begins: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/index.html

(not certain if Peter King qualifies as "establishment", but close enough)

Whenever Peter King says, "Don't support 'X'!" I have found it to be a good rule of thumb to go out of my way to support "X".

[Waitone]

Cruz as president is a flagrant waste of talent.  His destiny is supreme court.

[roo_ster]

Just watched the Cruz speech.  Damned effective.  Would not want to be on the other side of the stage.  Even gave a dig at the NSA/Surveillance State.

Dude will be a contender.  At the worst, I hope he turns Jeb Bush into dog meat in the debates.

And no teleprompter.

Cruz as president is a flagrant waste of talent.  His destiny is supreme court.

Three words:
William Howard Taft.

[Cliffh]

I'm planning to send him a check. 

I haven't been able to study him as well as I'd like, but everything I have heard from/about him gives me hope.

[wmenorr67]

Winning a formal academic debate isn't the same skillset as conning low information voters into pulling the lever for you.

This

[brimic]

Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth"

Wow.
 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Cruz is a darling of the far right, and with good reason.  But he's also made enemies of just about everyone on the non-far right, people he'll need to vote for him if he's ever going to win elections nationally. 

I'm afraid his base is too insular, too limited in scope.  The view of Ted Cruz outside our fringe is wholly different.  Too many Republicans either actively dislike him, or think he's a reckless fool, or consider him an annoying nuisance.  And those people are not without justification.

[brimic]

Cruz is a darling of the far right, and with good reason.  But he's also made enemies of just about everyone on the non-far right, people he'll need to vote for him if he's ever going to win elections nationally. 

I'm afraid his base is too insular, too limited in scope.  The view of Ted Cruz outside our fringe is wholly different.  Too many Republicans either actively dislike him, or think he's a reckless fool, or consider him an annoying nuisance.  And those people are not without justification.

So, the republicans should run another mushy middle candidate and lose again, just like clockwork?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I expect Cruz will have difficulty attracting enough votes within the Repub party, and even more trouble attracting enough votes in a general election.

My early preference at this point would be for someone like Walker or Rand Paul.  Those two at least have a history of working with their allies rather than against them.

But it's all way too early to tell anything for sure.  I'm content to wait and see.

[Angel Eyes]

So, the republicans should will run another mushy middle candidate and lose again, just like clockwork?

Fixed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's a myth that Repubs always nominate mushy candidates for prez and lose.  The R's and D's have been splitting the white house 50/50 since the end WWII, and the R's have both won and lost with candidates from the right and from the center.  There is no meaningful correlation.  

I hear the same thing in reverse from moderate Republicans, by the way.  The party will nominate someone too far right (again) and will lose (again).  Blah blah blah.

It's an emotional sentiment either way, not rational, and I get that.  People just want to vent.  Carry on.

[makattak]

Wasn't he the Texas AG prior to being senator?

IIRC, that's running an state wide bureaucracy, which is far more executive experience then the current Present-Voting occupant had.

Plus, Ted knows and believes and votes for the the Constitution (and history).   He makes Reagan look like a lefty.  I'm willing to bet that the he will win.  When conservatives run as conservatives, they win.  Of course the MS will be out for his head.  (Expect the story of him being busted for underage possession of beer to come screaming back along with lots of "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.

Anyway, Yahoo.com put this out, not getting it.*

http://news.yahoo.com/can-ted-cruz-go-from-obstructionist-in-chief-to-commander-in-chief-212751655.html




*It being how much bad stuff did you stop, because there is rarely any good stuff that passes....


Finally, I will probably cut him a check.  It won't be for much, but I want my voice to be heard, he's the closest thing to me saying what I want said, and doing what I want done.

I thought the same, so I looked it up. He was the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General. Still an important position, but nowhere near the authority of the AG.

All those defending Mr. Cruz lately made me examine why I think executive experience is important. Yes, it does give the person a chance to grown and gain skills by leading, but that's not why I think it's important.

Prior executive leadership reveals faults and weaknesses. (Note: most importantly to the person themselves.) There are probably some people who have never run a hot dog stand that have the skills and intelligence to lead a large corporation or country. However, without prior exposure where they are the one responsible for the outcome, many weaknesses and faults will lie undiscovered and they will learn those failings at a price commensurate to the size of the institution they are leading.

I'd prefer those lessons be learned somewhere other than the presidency.

Having said that, Ted Cruz is not off my list of contenders I would vote for. He is, though, behind all the governors who fit the "acceptable" ranking, even though his positions may be better. (Not on the "acceptable" list? Jeb Bush.)

[roo_ster]

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I expect Cruz will have difficulty attracting enough votes within the Repub party, and even more trouble attracting enough votes in a general election.

My early preference at this point would be for someone like Walker or Rand Paul.  Those two at least have a history of working with their allies rather than against them.

But it's all way too early to tell anything for sure.  I'm content to wait and see.

I would be willing to bet a six pack of Guinness that Cruz or whoever the right-wing candidate in the GOP primaries is will win closed-to-only-registered-GOP-voters primaries.  The mushy candidate will win the open primaries.  Which is why the RINO/establishment faction of the GOP has been pushing open primaries these last few cycles.

The unapologetic conservative GOP candidate generally does better in the general election because:
1.  MSM will paint him as a far-right ogre anyways.  McCain and Romney ring any bells?  Both records' were firmly mush, yet MSM painted them right wing fringers.
2. The GOP base is better informed than the typical low-info voter and will be less likely to turn out for a mush-middle GOP candidate.

There is zero upside to running a mushy middle candidate when it comes to getting votes.

[brimic]

It's a myth that Repubs always nominate mushy candidates for prez and lose.  The R's and D's have been splitting the white house 50/50 since the end WWII, and the R's have both won and lost with candidates from the right and from the center.  There is no meaningful correlation.  

I hear the same thing in reverse from moderate Republicans, by the way.  The party will nominate someone too far right (again) and will lose (again).  Blah blah blah.

It's an emotional sentiment either way, not rational, and I get that.  People just want to vent.  Carry on.

Right? So candidates who run as moderates have had a winning streak that I'm not aware of?

[Balog]

It's a myth that Repubs always nominate mushy candidates for prez and lose.  The R's and D's have been splitting the white house 50/50 since the end WWII, and the R's have both won and lost with candidates from the right and from the center.  There is no meaningful correlation.  

I hear the same thing in reverse from moderate Republicans, by the way.  The party will nominate someone too far right (again) and will lose (again).  Blah blah blah.

It's an emotional sentiment either way, not rational, and I get that.  People just want to vent.  Carry on.

Let's see.

George HW Bush: voodoo economics liberal.
Bob Dole: semi-incoherent senile looking third person speaking moderate liberal.
George W Bush: war mongering moderate liberal.
John McCain: ditto
Mitt Romney: liberal with an unconvincing conversion story to "severely conservative."

I think you your moderate friends should let Goldwater go already. He lost because he was a nutter. not because he was too far right.

[Fitz]

So, the republicans should run another mushy middle candidate and lose again, just like clockwork?

This is the short and curly of it... it's precisely what they'll do.

[KD5NRH]

He is, though, behind all the governors who fit the "acceptable" ranking,

Interesting that you pluralized here.  You do realize that Governor Reagan is out due to term limits, right?  I'm sure he could still out-debate Obama, but it's been a while since a dead guy did all that well in the popular vote.

[Cliffh]

We've tried mushy, middle-of-the-road types, and lost.

Why not try something different?

Definition of insanity:  yada, yada, yada.

[Boomhauer]

Huffpo hates him!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6920102?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[De Selby]

I heard he was born in Canada and therefore just as ineligible as Obama to be president.  I'm holding my position until i see his birth certificate with proof of religion clearly displayed.

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm still betting on  Bush or Christie getting the nomination with the other loser being the VP.

[wmenorr67]

I heard he was born in Canada and therefore just as ineligible as Obama to be president.  I'm holding my position until i see his birth certificate with proof of religion clearly displayed.

He was born in Canada but his parents were US citizens which makes him a US citizen. 

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that


The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen. (FROM THE WIKI)