Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

7 Things to Know About Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) [September 28th 2013]
NBC News ^ | September 28th 2013

Posted on 05/16/2014 8:34:57 AM PDT by SoConPubbie

1. Sen. Ted Cruz was born on Dec. 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. When questions arose about his eligibility to run for president, Cruz released his birth certificate. From the article in The Dallas Morning News:

Dated a month after his birth on Dec. 22, 1970, it shows that Rafael Edward Cruz was born to Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, a “geophysical consultant” born in Matanzas, Cuba, and the former Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, born in Wilmington, Del.

Her status made the baby a U.S. citizen at birth. For that, U.S. law required at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen who had lived for at least a decade in the United States.

She registered his birth with the U.S. consulate, Frazier said, and the future senator received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

2. His father was imprisoned as part of Fidel Castro’s movement to overthrow Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in the 1950s. From a 2006 profile of then-Texas solicitor general Cruz by the Austin American-Statesman:

Cruz's father rarely spoke of his sacrifice. Cruz learned of it in bits and pieces from his grandparents, aunts and uncles. Rafael Cruz loathed oppression and was willing to die to end it. "He was a guerrilla, throwing Molotov cocktails and blowing up buildings."

Battista's soldiers beat the elder Cruz in prison, and only his own father's bribe freed him in 1957. While earning a degree in mathematics at UT, Cruz spoke to Austin business groups, lauding Castro's revolution. After the victory in 1959, hearing from relatives what Castro was doing, Cruz returned to those same business groups to apologize, Ted Cruz said.

"My father has been my hero my whole life," he said.

3. His education in conservatism came early on. His teacher from an after-school education program picked him to be part of a traveling show about the Constitution. From The Weekly Standard:

Story chose four or five of his best students, led by Cruz, to join a traveling troupe called the Constitutional Corroborators. He hired a mnemonic specialist to teach them how to memorize the text of the Constitution up through the Bill of Rights. (Who wants to memorize the Eleventh Amendment?) Armed with an easel and felt pens, with Mrs. Moore or another parent at the wheel, the corroborators drove throughout Texas and occasionally beyond to breakfasts, lunches, or dinners held by the Rotary Club or Kiwanis or the VFW or any other civic group with an open slot for speakers. While the audience sawed away at the Chicken a la King, the corroborators wrote out various articles of the Constitution word for word. When the meal was over they’d take questions.

“The people just loved them,” Mrs. Moore says. “They knew so much, people couldn’t believe it! And you had to be a very polished speaker. Ted really worked at it. He’d practice at home in front of the mirror to get everything just right.” 

4. He was a champion debater during his undergraduate years at Princeton. But after one particular round, Cruz and his partner faced off against the other team in a different competition. From Slate:

Cruz competed against and lost to former White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee in the American Parliamentary Debate Association's 1991 Team of the Year* contest. (Cruz went on to win in 1992.) Goolsbee's debate partner, David Gray, recalled that after beating Cruz and his partner, David Panton, one team challenged the other to a pickup basketball game. As Gray remembers it, Goolsbee was matched up to guard Cruz, and proceeded to trash-talk Cruz up and down the court.

"Austan can be very, very funny. He kept challenging Ted to shoot the ball from outlandishly long places—'I bet you $20 you can't make a shot from right here,' " Gray said. "Austan would bait Ted to shoot, shoot, shoot, and it was not a good result for him. ... Ted couldn’t help himself from taking the shots." Princeton lost the game.

5. Cruz keeps a reminder in his Senate office of the first time he argued in front of the Supreme Court. From a GQ profile by Jason Zengerle:

But all along, what kept drawing my eye was a giant oil painting above the couch depicting Cruz as he delivered the first of his nine oral arguments before the Supreme Court. "I was 32 years old," he recalled. "It was abundantly clear we didn't have a prayer.... And I've always enjoyed the fact that as I'm sitting at my desk, I'm looking at a giant painting of me getting my rear end whipped 9-0." He gazed at the wall. It is an unusual painting: From the artist's vantage point, we see three other courtroom artists, each also drawing Cruz—so the painting actually features not one but four images of young Cruz before the bench. "It is helpful," he explained to me, "for keeping one grounded."

6. Cruz met a future Senate counterpart during a 2010 meeting of the Federalist Society in Washington. From the GQ article

He'd been out of government for two years and was looking for a way back in, this time via election. The only real opening in Texas, though, was a U.S. Senate seat—an impossible reach for Cruz, who'd never even held elected office. 

But at the meeting, he met someone who had pulled off that exact feat: Utah senator-elect Mike Lee. Like Cruz, Lee had been a creature of the conservative legal movement, having clerked for Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. Like Cruz, he had left Washington to become a government lawyer back home. And like Cruz, he had never before run for office. But he rode the Tea Party wave of 2010 into the Senate, ousting an incumbent Republican by running to his right. After the Federalist Society meeting, Lee and Cruz took a long walk around the Capitol. "We talked about every conceivable political and constitutional issue," Lee recalls. "I concluded we were kindred spirits." 

7. Cruz typically likes to wear a pair of cowboy boots he calls his “argument boots.” But he ditched them for his 21-hour speech on the Senate floor this week. From the Star-Telegram:

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reminded him during the first hours of Cruz' crusade on the Senate floor against Obamacare to wear comfortable shoes.

Cruz said he remembered that Paul had touted comfortable shoes after the Kentucky senator's filibuster against drone use in the U.S. earlier this year.

"I will embarrassingly admit that I took the coward's way," said Cruz. The Texan wore black tennis shoes instead. 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: RWGinger

If you can ignore the elimination of opposition to abortion, then you are clueless, or in support of it.

You seem determined to promote Mitt Romney on this Ted Cruz thread.


41 posted on 05/16/2014 4:41:25 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You are completely in error

Bur I have one question
Do you think Romney would have done so many disastrous things to our country as that POS?
and I know You can’t ignore the destruction in all areaas that Obama has wrought

for the record I started working on Senator Cruz’a campaign in Feb 2011
I am not the one who started blasting the GOP candidate. who while not perfect would have been better than what people who didn’t get out and vote( were you one?) or people who voted for a candidate they knew would lsoe ( or would you here)
These people who thought they were so high and mighty on 2 of their convictions( YES important but not the only ones as we see from what BO is doing ) are the reason our country is spiraling down noe


42 posted on 05/16/2014 4:53:54 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

I’m not in complete error.

Your devotion to Romney is obsessive, and the passion mysterious.

I can’t help but notice how you keep ignoring the facts and corrections that have been presented to you on this Ted Cruz thread, as you keep hammering for the pro-abortion Mitt Romney here in mid 2014, whose goal was to make the GOP a pro-abortion party.

Only Mitt Romney could change the GOP internally, and contrary to what you said, once he won the nomination he claimed that he had openly “campaigned” as opposing the pro-life platform, and being for the “health” of the mother.


43 posted on 05/16/2014 4:59:36 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Do you think our country is better off with BO being re elected?
Do you think our country would have slid so much further down if Romney had been elected?
can you answer those?


44 posted on 05/16/2014 5:04:16 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

I think you have already answered the question of where you are on abortion.

Indifferent, at best, so you are another one who supports the GOP moving left.


45 posted on 05/16/2014 5:11:56 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Why are you afraid to answer what happened after the 2012 elections
Do you think our country is better off with BO being re elected?
Do you think our country would have slid so much further down if Romney had been elected?
can you answer those?


46 posted on 05/16/2014 5:30:59 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger; SoConPubbie

Interesting that you got on this thread to hijack it and go into a rabid defense of Mitt Romney, and in a round about way, abortion, since you won’t even acknowledge it as important.

I think that can be explained by you aggressive defense of Romney when you first signed up in 2009, and this revealing of your lack of interest in social conservatism, in 2011.

To: BarnacleCenturion
so what can he do as POTUS?
legalize abortion?

we hve really serious financial issues that have to be addressed NOW
Of course I would rather my POTUS be firmly prolife
but that won’t be a deal breaker compared to what 0dumbo is doing to our country.
if newt is the nominee i will work as hard as i can for him

11 posted on 11/18/2011 1:59:45 PM by RWGinger



47 posted on 05/16/2014 5:41:23 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Can YOU say our country is better off with Obama being re elected?


48 posted on 05/16/2014 5:55:30 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

LOL, you hijacked a Cruz thread for that?

Are you going to promote Mitt Romney and abortion, for 2016, on every Cruz thread?


49 posted on 05/16/2014 6:00:43 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger; ansel12
Do you think our country would have slid so much further down if Romney had been elected?

Well, given that Romney didn't want a Free-Market approach to healthcare and vowed to implement his own socialistic healthcare in all 50 states, given that Romney is all in on the Gay Agenda, given that Romney supports most, if not all, Abortions, given that Romney has a track-record of whole-heartedly supporting the Climate Change scam, given that Romney has a record of taxing everything that moved and breathed in Massachusetts, given that Romney unconstitutionally implemented Gay Marriage in MA, I'd say we would not have been much better with Romney than with Obama.

Now Romney's Corporate Cronies would have been taken care of I'm sure.

We would have had any decrease in Abortions nor would Romney have fought to educate and lead on the issue, Same as Obama.

We would have Gay Marriage, just like he did in MA, he would have been probably worse than Obama on that issue.

The economy might have been slightly better.

With his famous history of flip-flops I'm sure he would have found a way to grant Amnesty already, because the GOP would have fallen in line with him on that and would not have fought him just like they didn't fight GWB when he chose to do bad things. This would be worse than Obama.

With his famous history of flip-flops and going with where ever the political pressue takes him I'm sure he would have caved on Global Warming by now and implemented some sort of Carbon Trading Scheme by now.

He would have done absolutely nothing to decrease the size of government.

And the worst thing that would have come out of a Romney Presidency, is that he, with his progressive policies, would have moved the GOP terminally to the left and hasten the destruction of our country much quicker than Obama has because the GOP would be destroyed by his left-wing politics.

Don't believe me?

Look what Romney did to the GOP in MA with his left-wing politics. He destroyed it.

So, all in all, a Romney Presidency would have been a strong 2nd place in terms of the immediate destruction of our Democratic Republic, but the long-term effects would have been much worse, sealing the destruction of our country.

And I am also sure that it would have been the last GOP President as a result.
50 posted on 05/17/2014 9:24:46 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Are you pleased with what 0dumbo has and is doing?


51 posted on 05/17/2014 9:51:06 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
Are you pleased with what 0dumbo has and is doing?

Marginally better (As in Romney) just doesn't cut it with conservatives.

And waving that "Our guy is less evil than their guy" flag doesn't cut it either when our guy supports whole-heartedly both the Gay Agenda and Abortion.

"Our guy sucks less" is not a reason to vote for someone.

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton
52 posted on 05/17/2014 10:25:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

So you made your point and 0dumbo got reelected.
We are in such dire straits that are only going to get more dire I guess making your point was more important to you than another 6 triilion in debt.

and you think that by making your point we will get a candidate that is more acceptable to you?


53 posted on 05/17/2014 10:54:47 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
So you made your point and 0dumbo got reelected.

You still don't get it.

It's not our obligation to vote for someone with an 'R' next to his name because the guy with a 'D' next to his name is marginally more evil or worse.

Especially when the guy with the 'R' next to his name will destroy the GOP and will do almost as bad as the guy with the 'D' next to his name.

A Romney presidency would have been "a distinction without difference".

Quit being a Tribal Republican and start being a principled conservative.

If all conservatives did that, the GOP-E would lose it's grip on control of the party and we might have a candidate that represents us and our principles instead of the corporations.

Lastly, quit blaming principled conservatives. Blame those who are in reality to blame, Romney and those supporting him.

Instead of being the candidate most likely to win, as his supporters stated all during the election cycle, he was always the candidate least likely to win exactly because he was a pretend republican, a Progressive Republican.
54 posted on 05/17/2014 3:26:51 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

That is as clueless as anything I have read from any Dem’ lib

I am through reading your oh so righteous excuses while Rome has burned down
done with this


55 posted on 05/17/2014 5:31:37 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
That is as clueless as anything I have read from any Dem’ lib

Stick your head in the sand and ignore Romney's record as Governor all you want.

His actions as Governor prove him to be a Democrat.

His stated policies (Support for Abortion and the Gay Agenda) as a GOP Candidate for POTUS prove him to be a Liberal.

Your feigned ignorance doesn't fool anyone.

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton
56 posted on 05/18/2014 9:00:24 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson