Sen. Ted Cruz Tells Volunteers: We Can Win ‘If We Awaken And Energize The Body Of Christ”

Breitbart ^

[odawg]

A very good point.

[so_real]

"If we awaken and energize the body of Christ - if Christians and people of faith come out and vote our values - we will win and we will turn the country around," Cruz told volunteers on a conference call Tuesday.

This had an entirely different interpretation for me as it did for you. And the target audience of evangelicals Cruz was addressing with this statement, I trust completely, heard the message and sentiment as I did. Perhaps this is a simple misunderstanding?

We, God-fearing Bible-believing Jesus-trusting Constitution-following Gun-clinging Country-loving grass roots people, *are* the "body" of believers Cruz is calling to wake up and change the course of the nation. Isn't this exactly the same call to wake up we've been expressing here on FR for a decade plus. It is. In almost the same words.

I know preciselyy what Cruz's response to the issue of gay marriage is :

"Listen, I'm a constitutionalist. For over 200 years, marriage has been a question for the states. Now, personally, I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman, but if you want to change the marriage laws, the way to do it constitutionally is convince your fellow citizens, go to the state legislature, and change it. It shouldn't be the federal government or unelected judges imposing their own definition of marriage; we should instead respect our constitutional system."
--Ted Cruz

And, I agree with him completely.

[Jim Noble]

You know, I must have asked Cruz supporters 100 times since the summer to post a list of states that add up to 270, and all I’ve gotten back is abuse.

No one can do it because it’s not possible.

And all this gospel armor nonsense is shrinking his map, not growing it.

Let me be clear - Ted Cruz could be a fine President - but we still pick ‘em by voting, in all 50 states, which for him is, I believe, an insurmountable problem.

[Jim Noble]

I even saw a thread here yesterday questioning his Christian faith because they haven’t been able to find his personal testimony

American Evangelicalism has some very attractive aspects, but it also illustrates beautifully what the lack of authority does to a body of believers.

[odawg]

“I know preciselyy what Cruz’s response to the issue of gay marriage is :”

Why did you leave off the initial “No” part of the response when he said fighting gay marriage would not be his top priority. Don’t you see that when he says he will fight for the Constitution and saying “but if you want to change the marriage laws, the way to do it constitutionally” but I am not going to fight for the change, is contradictory?

[SmokingJoe]

This is the perfect example of why Cruz will remain a fractional candidate of the religious right. God forbid he ever wins the nomination. He'll have zero crossover appeal to independents and democrats needed to defeat Hillary.

Is that why Cruz is doing consistently better than Trump in general election matchups with Hilary Clinton? And further, Cruz is either beating or is tied with Hilary Clinton in the last 3 polls at RCP?
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[AustinBill]

Agreed. Moreover, this sort of talk will diminish his chances of being named to the ticket as Trump's VP. Trump's path to victory is simple: He intends to flip supposedly "safe" blue states like NY and NJ red while running the table on the purples. If trump takes NY, NJ, and PA (something I believe is very doable--and certainly he's the only Republican that could achieve this), the starting map for the battle looks like this, putting Clinton at an impossible electoral disadvantage.

Given that Trump is already solid in the red states, the VP selection calculus will therefore boil down to who will cause Trump the least problems in NY and NJ.

While it's true that people mainly vote the top of the ticket, the bottom can be a significant influencer for good or ill. Certainly McGovern's initial nomination and then hurried withdrawal of Eagleton was a factor in his disasterous campaign. More recently, the only reason FL was so close in 2000 is that Joe Leiberman was on the ticket. I lived in Palm Beach County and voted the infamous "butterfly ballot" during that election and know this firsthand. The retirement villages were bussed en masse to vote for Leiberman and what's-his-name.

You can be sure that Hillary and DNC will paint Cruz, whether he's the nominee or Trump's running mate, as a theocratic luddite who will trample civil rights and force church attendance at gunpoint. And you can expect that sort of over-the-top slander to sway more than a handful of weak-minded LIVs to keep NY blue and influence blue-ish purple states like VA. So this sort of talk from Cruz just plays to that game plan.

The "talking points" for this election have to be immigration, jobs, and facing the radical Islamic threat. That's Trump's winning combo, so any candidate that either directly or indirectly detracts from that message is unlikely to get his VP slot.

[so_real]

I didn't leave the word "no" out. Cruz has repeated his position on the gay marriage debate numerous times and at numerous venues. But always his message is spot-on and consistent. The quote I provided to you did not have a "no" in it, so an accusation of omission is unfounded.

See for yourself : Senator Ted Cruz on Same-Sex Marriage - Late Night with Seth Meyers starting at minute mark 1:47

Here is another reference for you : Ted Cruz booed during Stephen Colbert interview for gay marriage views starting at minute mark 3:15.

I can find many others. You see, he has said the same thing over and over again and has been entirely consistent. I admire him for that. (Mitt Romney would have fared far better in his presidential bid, had he taken a lesson from Ted Cruz.)

But to your point, why should fighting gay marriage be his "top priority" when returning sovereignty to the states solves that problem *and* a gaggle of other problems on top of it? Don't you agree that state sovereignty through defense of the 10th Amendment is a far, far, far higher priority than a head-on assault of gay marriage. I absolutely do.

Why focus on one tumor when a different approach can rid the entire body of cancer? Such is the intellect of Ted Cruz.

[odawg]

He tries to appropriate the body of Christ for his political expediency; no thanks.

[so_real]

That's your take. And I completely disagree. But thanks for the civil discourse!

[odawg]

“But thanks for the civil discourse!”

So you have noticed. Discoursing with some of these posters is like poking a rattlesnake.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

...poking a rattlesnake.

I once poked a prairie rattler so he'd coil up for the camera. He couldn't get away fast enough.