Posted on 07/21/2013 2:01:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Question - who did you support in 2012?
Palin, but she didn't run. Then Cain, then Gingrich, and then I was going to vote for Virgil Goode, even canvassed for him, but held my nose in the voting booth and pulled for the squish from Massholechussetts.
“then Gingrich”
So not only did you deprive us of a conservative nominee in 2012, you want to strip away a conservative senator.
Sorry, sir. We’ve seen this show before.
I'm pretty sure that even the owner of this site was pulling for Gingrich by the time the CT primary was taking place. vs what? Mittens? Santorium? Ron Paul?
Yeah, GFY.
Fixed the headline... Salon, however, I can not fix.
There’s been some more buzz this week about Ted Cruz’s presidential prospects.
He is NOT eligible. What part of Canada don’t you understand?
Correcto. His "prospects" are nil, zero. He is Article II ineligible.
Note to self: See how liberals and Progs (Stalinists) amend the Constitution, by ignoring it?
No, sorry, he isn't. And if you think he is, just go ahead and nominate him -- and the Moonbat troll that wrote this article will be happy to inform you until you scream that, notwithstanding anything the Moonbat or any Moonbat may have said previously about the subject of Article II eligibility in the past, Ted Cruz is ineligible, sorry, you lose.
And never mind the massive, staggering hypocrisy. They can swallow that, too, no sweat.
‘Santorium’
What’s that, Liberaltarian? Timmy fell down a well?
Got a link for that?
Tell us how you will handle it if he ends up on the ballot and the choice is between him and Hillary or another Freedom destroyer....
Enquiring minds want to know.
Two things, one positive and the other negative. On the plus side, Cruz could constantly throw it in the medias face when ever they challenge his eligibility - "You didn't seem to mind when your guy was in the same situation, WHY? What made you change your mind on this issue?" On the negative, the RATS are good at this part. They would wait until after CRUZ wins the primary with about 6 months from the election, they would move to remove Obama from office based on his citizenship. That way it takes up the entire news cycle and gives the RATS a talking point that the low information voter will put into long term memory, thus making it easy for them to vote RAT again. If the right wants to win any presidential election from here on out, they have to be on the offensive about 80% of the time. They need to quit letting the left dictate the issues, because we all see what happens - we get Baracked, twice. When they go on the defensive, repeat what the left is claiming, the state the reality over and over. Show the lies of the left, it will get air time because it is obvious that the media does not proofread their news.
There is two things about Cruz I hope everyone will focus on, and keep in mind:
Regardless of whether Cruz will be eventually held eligible (I tend to think so, but am unsure) he is for sure conservative, and he is Hispanic.
That in itself is a very strong reason to support him.
He is also though, likely to be contentious.
I believe he would be a better VP choice in 2016, and then let the nomination hoopla be straightened out.
From my view Palin would be a good Presidential candidate this time.
Just my .02.
Bump.
If the SCOTUS agrees that Cruz can run because of his mother, than it will be Cruz's mother who annexed Canada!
Right, and that’s the way we play. Sorry. Some of us believe in following rules.
And what rules did he break?
I would pay to watch that.
The constitution? Are you saying you’d rather be governed by anyone other than an American?
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.