Ted Cruz must change if he wants to be president

all voices ^ | May 31, 2014 | "Punditty"

[2ndDivisionVet]

Analysis

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, hero to the tea party and villain to liberals, predicted Saturday that Republicans will win control of the Senate in November, then went on to edge out Dr. Ben Carson in a straw poll taken on the last day of the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.

Cruz had uplifting words for the party faithful in attendance. “I am convinced we are going to retake the United States Senate in 2014,” the junior senator from Texas said, no equivocation whatsoever in his distinct voice.

Cruz is the latest in a long line of polarizing Republican politicians who are skilled at speaking to people who share their political and cultural views but who come across as nothing more than provocateurs to Democrats and many independents who find their positions on a wide variety of social issues only slightly to the left of Genghis Khan.

The 2014 RLC featured the usual cast of characters, including Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, soon-to-be former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was not in attendance, which may explain why Cruz won the straw poll. Paul finished third, behind Cruz and Carson but ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who did not attend the event, and Perry. The conservative website therightscoop.com posted the full results.

Should Cruz and Paul both run for president in 2016, they will be battling for the same voters – conservative Republicans disenchanted with the presidential nominating process. The last two election cycles saw relatively moderate candidates Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney take the GOP nominations, and both years, hard-right Republicans weren’t exactly brimming with enthusiasm for their party’s nominees.

Many of the politicians attending the RLC have either failed in past presidential bids or are gearing up for a go at it next time around. Santorum and Perry, who came up short in 2012, are likely to give it another try; Jindal and Cruz are giving every indication that they will seek the nation’s top office in 2016.

But how can Cruz, with a 23 percent favorability rating nationally, hope to compete with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who enjoys a 50 percent favorability rating?

Unless Cruz undergoes some sort of a dramatic transformation, he can’t. Without growing up at least a little bit, he will be just another Republican sacrificial lamb if he somehow emerges as the nominee out of a very crowded GOP field.

This leaves the Republican Party between the proverbial rock and hard place. The more conservative Republicans most certainly don’t want repeats of 2008 and 2012, when the eventual GOP nominee was at least somewhat moderate when compared to other presidential hopefuls in the field. But if Cruz emerges as the Republican nominee in 2016, any winning strategy will have to rely on converting swing voters to see things his way, and his way is not the way of most Americans.

Consider one of his biggest applause lines at the RLC speech:

“[In] Texas, like Louisiana, we define gun control real simple,” Cruz said. “That’s hittin’ what you aim at. And so three of us, Rand Paul, [Utah Sen.] Mike Lee and myself sent a very short and sweet note to Harry Reid … we said we will filibuster any legislation that undermines the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

While such rhetoric may go over well with RLC attendees, the fact is that a December 2013 CBS News poll found that 85 percent of all Americans and 84 percent of gun owners supported federal background checks on firearms purchases.

Cruz talks a good game when he’s preaching to the choir, but his positions on a wide variety of hot-button issues do not jibe with those of American voters. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, and ontheissues.org even says he opposes gay pride parades. A May 21 Gallup poll found support for same-sex marriage at 55 percent nationally, with 8 in 10 voters under 30 supporting marriages between people of the same sex.

In January, Cruz criticized Obama for not enforcing federal marijuana laws in Colorado, where voters legalized use of the drug in 2012. Nationally, 55 percent of respondents in a January CNN/ORC poll said recreational use of marijuana should be legal. Cruz may think that he can persuade voters to come around to seeing things his way on these kinds of issues, and there’s always an outside chance that he can. But a better approach for Cruz to take if he wants to win the presidency is to try and understand why most Americans feel the way they do on social issues as he opens his mind to the possibility of seeing things differently.

If Cruz could begin seeing social issues in a less reactionary, judgmental way, he might have a chance at persuading voters to at least give serious consideration to his economic policies, which in turn might increase his chances of winning the White House. But if he stays mired in rigid thinking about guns and retains discriminatory attitudes toward gays, lesbians and marijuana users, he’ll never be more than just a conservative darling who gives a good pep talk but does little more than stand in the way of progress when it comes to doing the right thing for the American people.

Additional sources and resources:

“The GOP’s grifter problem,” Slate, May 31, 2014

“Ted Cruz mocks gun control advocates,” The Daily Beast, May 31, 2014

****

Punditty is based in Santa Cruz, California, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.

[sten]

you’ve been here forever. you know the links, as they were being pushed around here nonstop for months while 0bama was running.

TCruz and MRubio have the same problem as BH0bama

i won’t rehash something as simple as a common definition.

[SoConPubbie]

doesn’t matter who claims he is. no amount of insistence will change the facts.

Please post the relevant passage from the US Constitution that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizen Parents at birth.

Lacking that, please post the relevant US Law passed by congress and signed by a sitting US President that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizen Parents at birth.

Lacking that, please post the relevant US Supreme Court ruling that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizen Parents at birth.

You can't and you won't because it does not exist.

Your facts are nothing but your opinion, and your opinion ain't worth much.

[conservative98]

Amen.

[sten]

i went over this for months, posting time and again to people that would never read a single thing posted.

here, let me do your homework for you:

would FOUR(4) supreme court rulings be enough?
—
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

you should also consider WHY they put that specific language in the Constitution. they weren’t secretive about it. it was to insure the person assuming the office would be, at least by birth, American and would not possibly be a foreign leader/king.

pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

[sten]

sorry if i missed the others. please see #24

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/3162584/posts?page=24#24

sorry socon... i’m not posting my opinion, just reciting the facts from the founding document.

your lack of understanding and comprehension isn’t my problem.

[grania]

The reasoning is so bizarre. These conservatives who win tickets to DC do so because they promise to be strong constitutional conservatives when they get there, and not compromise on our principles. Then, when they get there, they say they have to compromise to win. HUH?????

[DoodleDawg]

We called those “Reagan Democrats,” “persuadable,” “lunch-buckets,” or “Archie Bunkers” in the old days.

Probably all gone by now. I'd say that as the Democrats have moved further left then the Reagan Democrats likely switched over to Republicans long ago.

[deport]

At best there are two ends of the specturm that most can agree upon. Once outside of those it
becomes murky as to what the term actually means.

1. A person born in the USA to parents whom are both citizens is a “NBC”....
2. A person born outside the USA to parents who both aren’t citizens isn’t a “NBC”...

[sten]

murky... because FOUR(4) supreme court rulings aren’t enough

ffs

one more time for the slow of reading:
—
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES

if your parents were citizens of another country when you were born, you can obtain a passport from that country. therefore, you have alternatives... and CANNOT BE a natural born citizen

[SoConPubbie]

pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

The Minor v. Happersett does nothing to prove your point if you bring in all the language of the ruling that deals with being Natural Born, instead of just a narrow sliver that you try to use to prove your point:

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Nothing in this ruling unambiguously puts to bed the idea that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be 'Natural Born' only that it can be said without a doubt that those who are born in those circumstances are 'Natural Born'.

Maybe you should do your own homework and read through the rulings in question that you use to try and prove your point.

[SoConPubbie]

Ping to rebuttal to use of incomplete facts to buttress his argument.

[SoConPubbie]

sorry socon... i’m not posting my opinion, just reciting the facts from the founding document.

your lack of understanding and comprehension isn’t my problem.

Baloney.

They are not facts from the founding document but an opinion stated as fact by you and others lacking any constitutional foundation.

BTW,

#2, 'United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)' from your list of 4 US SCOTUS rulings that purport to support unambiguously your OPINION that it takes 2 US Citizen parents at birth to make a child 'Natural Born' also fails the test as it is based on 'Minor v. Happersett' which does nothing to establish your opinion as fact.

[Jane Long]

BTTT!

[deport]

If it’s so clear then why all the confusion and debate? Point to a definitive
definition and you’ve solved the debate problem once and for all.

[SoConPubbie]

Shanks v. Dupont - 28 U.S. 242 (1830)

With regards to this ruling, I have scanned through the ruling paying particular attention to all instances of the word 'Natural' and reading in context the points being made.

I can find NOTHING that would establish unambiguously from a point of law, that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to make a child 'Natural Born'.

Since you provided this as proof, it lays to you to prove it from this document.

Please support your contention, and disprove mine, by providing the relevant passages from this ruling that establishes unambiguously that it requires 2 US citizen parents at birth to establish the 'Natural Born' status of a child.

If you cannot, it just further establishes your whole argument as 'Smoke and Mirrors'.

[SoConPubbie]

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Your final SCOTUS ruling also fails the test.

Once again, there is an oblique reference to Vattel In this ruling that in no way establishes as a point of constitutional legality the need of a child to have 2 US Citizen parents at point of birth to be considered 'Natural Born'.

Once again, you have substituted your opinion as fact.

There is no constitutional, legal definition of 'Natural Born' that requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to convey the right or property of 'Natural Born' to the child.

If you STILL feel that, in your opinion, I am wrong, please provide the necessary passages for the ruling in question so we can further discuss this issue.

[fwdude]

“Cruz had uplifting words for the party faithful in attendance. ‘I am convinced we are going to retake the United States Senate in 2014,’...”

What worries me is who comprises the “we.”

[2ndDivisionVet]

Oh, and another thing, not to be insulting to anyone here ... but Ted Cruz has forgotten more about constitutional law than all of us combined and if we lived three long lives in the Harvard Law Library, he’d still know more than us. If he thinks he’s eligible, I think he’s eligible.

[sten]

0bama was (supposedly) a professor of Constitutional law... and he also believes himself eligible

both are wrong

four different cases where the definition of NBC was explained by supreme court justices isn’t enough. nothing would be... as you’re all bent on ‘getting your guy’ into the office, regardless what the Constitution says

just stop claiming to be conservative or patriotic as neither would ever trash our country’s founding document for political expediency

[2ndDivisionVet]

Again, show us the case law. You haven't done so so far.

Mr. Obama was a guest lecturer, the lowest rung on the totem pole of academia, he was never anywhere near being a professor of any kind, although, as I understand it, the University of Chicago is now claiming he was one, under pressure from the White House. Senator Cruz, on the other hand, was a law professor, is the reason that President Bush won over Vice President Al Gore in 2000, was the lead attorney on District of Columbia v. Heller and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, and referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant."