Posted on 12/20/2015 8:39:10 AM PST by Kaslin
I've never formally endorsed a candidate in any presidential primary. This time the stakes are too high not to. Look around. The world is on fire and the party of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, not to mention the GOP's Obama-enabling RINO establishment, are playing with gasoline.
And so, while he's been among my top picks all along, I am now proud to publicly endorse for president of the United States Sen. Ted Cruz, the man who best personifies the anti-establishment, principle over perceived pragmatism, survival over political correctness mood of the American electorate. I believe, God willing, that Sen. Cruz, a constitutional stalwart and steadfast statesman, is here "for a time such as this." He alone, in the spirit of Reagan v. Carter, can, in my estimation, mop the floor in the general election with Hillary Clinton (aka, Obama in a pantsuit).
Jesus warned: "If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand" (Mark 3:25). Nothing has borne out this reality in recent decades like that exasperating spectacle called the Republican presidential primary. These last few GOP horse races have been jam-packed with would-be conservative and faithfully Christian presidents who, after infighting with largely simpatico opponents, have canceled each other out, limped off to lick their wounds and left the perpetually underwhelmed GOP base to stay home and not vote for "imminently electable" establishment paragons like Presidents Dole, McCain and Romney. Divide and conquer. That's how the "moderate" GOP establishment plays the primary.
And then they lose the general.
Albert Einstein famously quipped that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In that sense, we conservatives are insane.
How about trying something new?
This 2016 GOP presidential primary is shaping up to be a three-way race between Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. With Jeb Bush languishing in the low single digits, the Republican establishment is clearly poised to throw its weight behind Rubio, leaving Cruz as the lone principled conservative with a shot.
And Donald Trump? Well, Steve Deace, my friend and fellow Cruz supporter, recently summed up Trump's conservative bona fides on CNN: "I know the establishment hates Trump, but Cruz was right to welcome him to the GOP. We're trying to grow the party. And in Trump, here's a lifelong Democrat and progressive who has given more money to the likes of Al Sharpton and Rahm Emanuel than anyone watching this will see in a lifetime. Yet now, with the country at its tipping point moment, he's chosen to come over to our side and adopt conservatism. So we welcome him into the fold."
As Ted Cruz quipped in Tuesday's debate on CNN, "If I'm elected president, we will secure the border, we will triple the border patrol, we will get a wall that works, and I'll get Donald Trump to pay for it."
Trump laughed and replied, "I'll build it!" I suspect there's a place in a Cruz administration for Donald Trump.
Indeed, while there remains a handful of other honorable, eminently qualified and actually conservative men in the GOP primary, any of whom I'd be honored to support under different circumstances, it has now become clear, in my humble opinion; an opinion supported by the polls that the window of opportunity has closed for them. Now is the time for them to bow out and throw their support behind Cruz. Moreover, conservative and Christian leaders around the country, as well as voters of every stripe, should put aside personal friendships and loyalties to other candidates and, likewise, rally behind the Texas senator.
Let's beat the establishment at its own game.
Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, a Washington insider who's made no secret of his disdain for Ted Cruz,recently gave him a backhanded compliment: "Cruz has so alienated his Senate colleagues, Republicans perhaps more than Democrats, that he's well positioned as an outsider. But his rise in the polls will put him in the spotlight. Iowa voters will have the holidays and all of January to ponder why Cruz is so disliked by his Senate colleagues. The question then will be this: Will they still feel the same way about him when they find out."
Mr. Hume, you're playing dumb. You know full well that Iowa voters, indeed most voters, understand completely why Ted Cruz is hated by many of his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Unlike his establishment contemporaries, he often stands alone, resolute and unwavering, in keeping the promises he's made to those who elected him as their Senate representative. The political establishment, whether it's got a "D" or an "R" behind its name, hates Ted Cruz with a white-hot hatred because he threatens the status quo. They're politicians hell-bent, first and foremost, on maintaining political power. Sen. Cruz, on the other hand, is a servant leader, a true statesman, determined to do what's best for America no matter the cost to his personal and political standing. No, Mr. Hume, the fact that Ted Cruz is hated by Washington insiders such as yourself is not a mark against him. It's a big part of the reason he's gaining steam.
Indeed, candidate Cruz is the right man for right now. Of course, while our ultimate hope can rest in Christ Jesus alone, He does appoint men and women on earth to act as his hands and feet. Ted Cruz is immovable, fearless and dogged in his determination to do the right thing. His integrity, character, remarkable communication skills and extraordinary persuasive powers, as evidenced by his five landmark victories before the U.S. Supreme Court as Texas solicitor general, have, among other things, uniquely qualified this fine man to become the leader of the free world.
Proverbs 4:18 says, "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day."
These are dark times. Ted Cruz is a righteous man. As president, he'll shine bright. He'll light the path. He'll help make America that "shining city on a hill" once more.
....” You do not see the equivalent coming from Trump supporters”.....
HAHAHAHA!....that’s so far from the truth.
Senator Cruz is the most solid conservative, “CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE” running in this race.... Cruz is the only candidate interested in honoring the United States Constitution.... He is the only candidate who has ‘consistently’ fought for the Constitution.
When Trump wins then nomination you will get it.
Nonsense. Cruz went down to the border to see the Dreamers and then went back to Washington stop Obama's Dreamer Amnesty.
Your guy proudly met the Dreamers at Trump Tower.
I’m talking about the kids flooding over the border and you know it.
Oops! Look who slipped through Trump’s security....
The political establishment, whether it’s got a “D” or an “R” behind its name, hates Ted Cruz with a white-hot hatred because he threatens the status quo.
Well put.
You may be right, after some research it was the 2006 Secure the Fence Act which I have looked at and it seems it was finally killed in a massive “Omnibus Spending Bill”(where have I heard that before?) when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison led the charge to withhold financing. I distinctly remember her doing this because the old biddy was one of my RINO senators.
I could find nothing about repeal, so I was wrong. Just how the current state of the Act is I do not know and if another bill would be needed.
I believe all it needs is the funding, which congress won’t give.
Molly, see my reply to Dutchess47 for what info I could find.
Nobody wants the border closed more than me as I live this illegal alien hell daily here in south west Texas.
Just a for what it’s worth. This article was written in Feb. before Trump announced.
When Reagan was a presidential nominee he was considered the most conservative in the field. But measured against other politicians today, he’s not the farthest right.
One caveat to this data: When Reagan ran for president in 1980 and 1984, political giving was much different from it is today. There weren’t super PACs or just the sheer volume of money in campaigns. So there’s simply more data to analyze for politicians today.
Still, the above graph is a fun way to illustrate where Reagan would fall along the political spectrum among today’s presidential candidates.
If CPAC goers are looking for a Reagan replica their best bet might be to listen closely to Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.), former governor Rick Perry (Tex.), Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), and, at least by this analysis, Dr. Ben Carson.
Underscoring how divided the GOP is, several potential top-tier candidates are on the far edges of the conservative continuum. Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (Fla.) are far less conservative than Reagan would be today and Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) are more.
Another from 2010 - it may be you aren’t nearly as old as I am.
Which conservative in the mid-1980s could have imagined the Age of Obama? Who could have predicted that statist liberalism would come roaring back to life with such persuasive power? Kirk, a friend of Reagan’s and an honored guest at the White House, wrote glowingly in his memoirs of Reagan’s achievement: “To the American people, Ronald Reagan had become the Western hero of romance-audacious, faithful, cheerful, honest, and skilled at shooting from the hip.” He had reformed education, had reduced taxes, inflation, and unemployment, and had stood up to Libya and the Soviet Union, Kirk recalled.
Such an endorsement from one of the greatest inspirations of the post-World War II conservative renaissance carries considerable authority with the movement. And rightly so. It should give pause to anyone reckless enough to challenge Reagan’s legacy. But that legacy itself raises nagging questions. The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981. Reagan’s tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt. His tax increases were among the largest proportionate ones in U.S. history. And more than one historian has called Reagan’s foreign policy “Wilsonian.” In short, it is hard in 2009 to point to any concrete evidence that the Reagan Revolution fundamentally altered the nation’s trajectory toward bloated, centralized, interventionist government. Conservatism in the 1980s made its peace with much of liberalism-if not with all of its legislative agenda, then at least with its means to power. Republicans and Democrats now argue over how big the bailouts should be or how long the troops should remain deployed, rarely about first principles.
Says the personal brand of Donald Trump, which he values (according to Forbes) at about $4 to $5 billion over and above the approximately $4 billion he's worth in real assets.
"Of course Trump can do it -- he's a billionaire, you only become a billionaire if you know what you're doing, so let's put him in charge."
Bad, bad risk.
So you’d rather put ANOTHER lawyer-politician in charge of the country. Double bad bad risk. When will you people learn?
The hills are alive with the sound of music.
Dang, wrong thread.
Flat bed 1965 Chevy pickup with a 350 V-8.
That’s Ted, go old keep on trucking.
Sorry about the hell in Texas, but we have it a lot of other places too. The wall MUST be built and I just don’t trust a Cuban-Canadian-American politician-lawyer to do it. Trump has brought the problem to the forefront and highlighted it...and has been called every name in the book for doing so. Now others want to climb on board because the American people are demanding it.
Thanks for the info. Will see what I can find.
Book of Esther
The political establishment, whether it’s got a “D†or an “R†behind its name, hates Donald Trump with a white-hot hatred because he threatens the status quo.
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.