Peter King Says Hillary Clinton Would 'Destroy' Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

ABC News via Yahoo ^ | July 20, 2013 | Alisa Wiersema

[snarkytart]

They won’t have to because we all know it, and it will be in the back of people’s mind.

[Plummz]

Cruz would be an ineligible POTUS, just like Obama! Born in Canada with a foreign father!

I say, no amnesty for illegal foreign "Presidents"!

[SoConPubbie]

Cruz would be an ineligible POTUS, just like Obama! Born in Canada with a foreign father! I say, no amnesty for illegal foreign "Presidents"!

The reasons for declaring Cruz ineligible for POTUS are murky at best.

I'll take a man who is an unabashedadly conservative leader(irrespective of so-called ineligibility) any day over someone like Rand Paul(and his Amnesty Plan) who is as mushy as they come with respect to conservatism.

[Plummz]

Okay, so you disagree with my “no amnesty for illegal foreign Presidents”?! I take the anti-amnesty position on that, but I guess you take another one.

[SoConPubbie]

Okay, so you disagree with my “no amnesty for illegal foreign Presidents”?! I take the anti-amnesty position on that, but I guess you take another one.

Like I said, the case for LEGALLY labeling Ted Cruz as invalid for POTUS has always been weak and murky, and no matter how much you believe in that position, you will have a hard time proving it, much less proving it to enough people so it actually matters.

But go ahead, knock yourself out tilting at windmills Don Quixote.

[Aetius]

Maybe so, but I think most voters, including most conservatives, will be weary of a candidate they think likely to involve us in another war.

The simplest solution to dealing with foreign terrorists is to not let them in our country in the first place. With a sane immigration policy that would be the case. But we have an insane policy. Insanity is the only way to explain why lowlifes like the Boston bombers or the 9-11 hijackers or the DC Sniper were ever granted entry under any sort of visa.

Rand Paul actually made some promising comments when he questioned the policy that allowed the Boston bombers in. But he’s apparently backed away from that. It’s sort of like how he once made promising comments that suggested we couple any amnesty with a reduction in legal immigration. But again, he’s backed away from that and now usually mouths tired platitudes about the wonders of legal immigration.

So my biggest concern about Paul is how he threatens to hold good positions on immigration, then quickly abandons them.

As of now I do prefer Cruz to Paul, though I doubt either will get the nomination.

[dead]