Ted Cruz for President?

The PJ Tatler ^ | December 11, 2014 | Michael Walsh

[2ndDivisionVet]

Unfortunately, the GOP "leadership" will do everything it can behind the scenes to make sure Cruz gets nowhere near the top of the ticket. Also read: Your Weekly ‘MSM Really Wants Mitt Romney to Run’ Post.

He’s the darling of the Right, the scourge of the Left and hated equally by both wings of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party. So what’s not to like? The freshman Texas senator is ramping up for what looks like a presidential campaign in 2016, and while many dismiss him as too abrasive, only a fool would count him out this early. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin is no fool:

… the way he parachuted into Washington in January 2013 and quickly became the darling of the right indicates that he must be considered a serious threat to edge out others before they even get started. More to the point, Cruz is probably ideally positioned to win early primary and caucus states and then rake in the cash that will follow those victories before he tries to best the other first-tier candidates in the contests that follow. At worst, barring a mishap, I think he should be slotted in as likely to be part of a large field’s first tier.

Is he a lock to be able to carry out that scenario? Not necessarily. There will also not be as many debates in 2016 as there were in 2012, meaning that he won’t have as many opportunities to display his bulldog style or to eviscerate opponents in public. And the later primary schedule that year will make it easier for establishment types to wait before joining the race.

But the point here is that while Cruz may be considered an outlier in the Senate chamber, he’s likely to play better on the hustings in Iowa and other early states than establishment types think. Cruz may shoot himself in the foot in the next year and find others supplanting him among Tea Partiers and the rest of the party. But any assumptions on the part of the establishment that he will crash and burn is a huge mistake. Cruz may not be president but his path to the Republican nomination is no poke dream.

(Not sure what a “poke dream” is; probably a typo for “pipe dream.”)

Were the GOP to pay attention to its base, Cruz would probably win the primaries by landslides. Unfortunately, the GOP “leadership” will do everything it can behind the scenes to make sure Cruz gets nowhere near the top of the ticket. But that’s the problem GOP-leaning conservatives have: not only do they have to beat the Democrats in the general election, they have to deal with the Establishment doing its best to throttle their candidates in the primaries. Still, don’t be surprised when Cruz and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker soar to the head of the class once the campaign gets underway in earnest. And should Cruz decide not to run, well, there’s always a gig as Senate majority leader just waiting to be wrested from Mitch McConnell.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks for that tip and thanks for the kind words. Good to hear from you, too.

[Mozilla]

FU Tokyo Rove, Chris Cristy, Jeb Bush, McCain, McBoehner, McGrahammesty, McFlake, McConnell and ALL GOP-e RINOS!!

[upchuck]

I will vote for Cruz for POTUS in 2016. How ‘bout you?

[bobby.223]

Huh? I thought we had established it here a couple of years ago that he was eligible. GO TED!!!!!!

[tomkat]

You and me both, Heartland.

RR was my first Presidential vote as well .. the nation’s debasement in the interim is too grotesque for words.

[CodeToad]

“Minor v happersett.”

*snicker* Really? You’re that stupid to quote something you know nothing of? “Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote.”

In case you were just too stupid to notice, Cruz is a man and the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote long before he was born.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

Cruz will run, and he will win. The enthusiasm from the grassroots will blow away the msm and neocons.

[Jane Long]

Wrong-o.

[DallasGal]

Best comment so far on Ted’s eligibility! Thanks for the chuckle!

[Defiant]

You sure are sensitive about the issue, for being so self-assured. You go on the attack against someone who wants Ted Cruz to be President, says he doesn't care about the issue any more, and only concedes to the "natural born" crowd that their position is "arguable". Arguable is a term of art among those who practice law, and more importantly in your case, who understand it. The position of those who believe you need two citizens as parents is undeniably "arguable". You can go back to original intent and the understanding of "natural born" to argue their side. You can also argue from the distinction in the Constitution between citizens and natural born citizens.

The only question is which position is stronger. I am not sure which position is stronger, but after 8 years in which a halfrican has set the precedent, and no one had the balls to take the case and no lower court would permit standing to decide the case, I no longer really care. Obama has set the precedent. Legally, it remains an open issue which has never been faced by the Supreme Court, because we have never had a President who was not unquestionably natural born before.

I am for Cruz 100 percent. I have no doubts about his loyalties to this country. However, I do have concerns about the divided loyalty of some persons who have a parent who is a citizen of another country at the time they are born. I know many people who were born citizens, but who have one or two immigrant parents, and who would be affected in their foreign policy because of their family background. I would be happy if the issue was clarified in the event an Article V convention is ever held. If not, well, as I said, Obama has set the precedent, and that is that. I would not be surprised to see Democrats litigate on this issue, and have better success getting the courts to take up the case. They will come up with some distinction, no doubt. Democrats have no shame nor consistency.

I do like how you argue, though. End of argument, period.

Reminds me of Obama talking about global warming.

[SoConPubbie]

I do like how you argue, though. End of argument, period.

Reminds me of Obama talking about global warming.

The issue is one of constitutionality. As of now, Ted Cruz is eligible for the exact reasons I posted.

In order for it to be arguable, you'll have to get it to the Supreme Court. Highly unlikely given the Current President was born of one citizen and one non-citizen, especially given the make-up of the court.

Wanting something to be so, does not make it so.

And only some of the sources support your contention of original intent, others do not.

Steep hill to climb and one entirely built on supposition.

Whereas, with respect to current law, the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings as of today, it is absolutely certain that Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.

[Defiant]

If I really cared, I'd get a picture of Inigo Montoya and have him tell you that you keep using the word "arguable" but I don't think you know what it means. Now you are saying that the 2-citizen position is not arguable because it is not likely to ever make it to the Supreme Court. That is something different entirely.

The Court refuses to take lots of important issues. That does not change the meaning of the Constitution, it just means the court doesn't want to get involved. Even past Constitutional decisions can't change the Constitution, they only serve as guideposts for what it says. Those decisions can be reversed when a later court looks at the Constitution and says that existing decisions are wrong. See, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. The foundation is always the Constitution, and its meaning doesn't change.

[SoConPubbie]

You sure are sensitive about the issue, for being so self-assured.

No, just tired of the half-truths, misdirection, nebulous arguments, and flat-out lies of those who are either trying to get Obama on this definition or are trying to torpedo the election chances of the best possible conservative candidate we have for POTUS.

Especially those making assertions that ignore the truth that he is constitutionally eligible right now.

I understand the motivations of some of those making these arguments, they want to get Obama using this approach, I get it. I get their loyalty to their position, however, the best that can be said is that it is their opinion, nothing else.

The only way it truly becomes arguable is if a case is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.

And as I posted previously, highly improbable given the current President had one US Citizen at birth and one non-citizen at birth and you currently have 4 Liberals, one moderate justices on the Supreme Court. Add to that that you cannot point to the remaining 4 jurists as being a sure bet to vote in your favor.

[DallasGal]

You know Ted won’t roll over for Putin. First time I’ve been this excited about a potential candidate in a long time. We need a conservative voice, not an establishment Republican or RINO

[SoConPubbie]

The Court refuses to take lots of important issues. That does not change the meaning of the Constitution, it just means the court doesn't want to get involved. Even past Constitutional decisions can't change the Constitution, they only serve as guideposts for what it says. Those decisions can be reversed when a later court looks at the Constitution and says that existing decisions are wrong. See, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. The foundation is always the Constitution, and its meaning doesn't change.

You're tilting at windmills Don Quixote.

All that is important, unless the Supreme Court gets a related case, is the Constitution, it's Amendments, US Law, and current Supreme Court rulings on the issues.

That is what defines current constitutionality and legality where eligibility for POTUS is concerned.

Everything else is conjecture and pie-in-the-sky opinions, nothing else, and furthermore, it's truly a waste of valuable time.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

Watching these guys, Tom, both left and right makes me wanna puke. The right dumped the boyscouts into the gutter, assisted in the butcher of 50 million babies, and by offering up a platter of at best Dem lite candidates assisted the left to get their party elected time after time after by giving us people who we couldn't in conscious vote for.

Well I puked in my mouth and pulled the plug for these Dem-wannabe's but no longer. if they can't give us a conservative nominee then what's the use of being a repub?

Not me anymore. I've had a bellyfull.

[marron]

For me, its Cruz or nobody.

[Defiant]

it's truly a waste of valuable time

As is dealing with you. Thanks for the con law lesson. I'll be sure to think of it next time I'm in court while you're doing......whatever it is you do.

[Defiant]

The only way it truly becomes arguable is if a case is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.

You need to listen to Inigo. And stop being an Edelman.

[jonrick46]

I know a President:

I know a President when I see one: