Posted on 09/23/2014 4:06:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Peter Beinart is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and National Journal, an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Not a lot more needs to be said about this stunted growth...
Like most folks are concluding...The left is skeer’d poopless by Ted Cruz...And rightfully so...
Your Jeb Bush and Rand Paul campaigns are going to be pummeled, and beat the hell (out of) before the 2016 election...Ted Cruz will cause the left to have conniption fits, frothing at the mouth, with sufferers deserving to be put out of their political misery...
I cain’t wait for the festivities...;-)
Cruz’s potential campaign will certainly be beat upon, but I would say watch how he beats the crap out of those attacking him...
Just my opinion...
Cruz’s position makes perfect sense. Shut down the border to ensure additional ISIS cannot come across and then take them out. ISIS is one topic that everyone agrees has to be stopped. Perhaps some quibbling over tactics but is there anyone besides Obama that wants ISIS to exist?
Y’all want a safe America as it was 60 years ago?
Deport all muslims.
Can’t be done?
Then stop griping and learn to live with cancer.
Reagan is the benchmark...Not a lot of people come close to his ability to rise above the political fracus that used to be...
I do not believe Reagan would have put up with this nonsense these days...
You may not trust Ted Cruz...I can dig it...But do you believe for one second ANY other potential has any chance against what we know is coming to your GOP “presidential” slate this next cycle???
No one I know of can please everyone all the time, anymore...
Just my opinion...
No, Cruz is no Reagan. Cruz is Cruz.
And no one is perfect.
But this guy is definitely trying to make Cruz a war monger.
Cruz is one of the few who sees things realistically and also TELLS THE TRUTH.
“He asked Dempsey to sketch the “worst-case scenario” that ISIS could possibly present. “
Clinton: What is the worst-case scenario for Al-Queda?
Response: Taking down the twin towers.
Clinton: ....
So what does Peter want to do...TALK to them?
From what I’ve heard from most that know, the Kurds are a good friend in the ME only second to Israel.
I think Cruz could reach the Reagan category. Time will tell—God willing. But Reagan made lots of compromises while in office. Cruz's tactical vote on a budget bill, where as I recall no support of the military would get 0bola's signature in any case, does not constitute an abandonment of principle, according to me. You may honorably disagree, of course. Like you, I think some "losing" stands on principle matter.
But here's what I think Cruz shares with Reagan—despite the fact that they are very different in many ways:
Reagan's dramatic timing;
Reagan's ability to cut through the blah and reach the American people right through the very bodies of the Red media trying to block his path;
Reagan's insistence on moral and strategic principles—carrying the day when all the "sensible" weaklings had been demanding that he compromise.
Cruz is a leader. Let's pray that he fulfills all that God will ask of him.
I like Cruz. It is not that I am blind to his missteps, but we need someone with his guts to go up against the socialist element that is dismantling this country.
Conservatives have a tendency to eat our own when they prove to be less than perfect. That is a losing strategy.
Close your eyes and imagine President Cruz and VP Palin. How would he handle ISIS? Seek a declation of War? Ask for 1 Million Volunteers to serve in the Middle east for two years? Threaten to use poison Gas if they use it on the US or our allies?
I am pretty sure your timing is a bit skewed. Cruz was not yet elected to the Senate when Sequester was passed.
In fact his stated opposition to Sequester was one of reasons to join his bandwagon.
The possibilities are endless!
I share that dream!
Amen.
If not Cruz, who?
If not now, when?
The Budget Control Act was passed in 2010, but did not take effect until January 2013, the same time Cruz began with the new Congress. However, the cuts proved (and are proving) so devastating and unfair to the US military (roughly half of ALL cuts must be “paid” by Defense) that members of both parties agreed that Sequestration had to be renegotiated or altered. Cruz flatly opposed that, and the US military suffered greatly as a result of his and other GOP votes.
True, he was God given in my opinion. I served in the military under several Presidents, including Ronald Reagan. I will say this, with 100% confidence: Reagan would have opposed what the Republicans did to weaken the US military on the altar of budget negotiations with the Democrats.
From the beginning, the Democrats demanded that ALL Entitlements be "off limits." And they were, except for a very small portion of provider reimbursement via Medicare. But all the rest, earned and unearned entitlements, got a free pass. No politician wanted to touch them.
What a hit piece. I’m Cruzin’. War is hell and people die. You don’t go in lightly, but when you do you wipe out the enemy with everything you’ve got. One can’t win a PC war. And he is right. ISIS is here already and more crossing that wide open border as we speak. This author is pathetic, twisting everything Cruz says.
What was the reason Cruz objected to the Sequestration “negotiated” changes? We can not fall into the trap of getting too focused on one point, while a real worse deal is being negotiated to replace another really bad deal.
The whole GOP point in the Sequestration was to force reduced spending. How the GOP got so hornswaggled into going along on the suicide ride of whacking the Mil hardest, remains a mystery to me.
Cruz knew darn well that with the GOP still with zero leverage, what was likely to result would be back to free-rein spending the dems wanted. The only way to force all parties to hold the line was to hold the line, which is what Cruz did.
Many here profess disgust with GOP politicians not standing up for principals, abandoning their campaign commitments and “going along to get along”. Here Cruz keeps his word on all points and suddenly he is a bad guy???? Give me a break!
..................
Where do you think the sh*t comes from?
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.