Posted on 01/13/2015 3:50:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Without giving too much away, Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday morning that he’s giving his own presidential aspirations a close look in advance of 2016.
“It’s certainly something I’m looking at very seriously, and I think we’re at a time of enormous challenge,” Cruz told FOX & Friends. “We are starting a national debate this year about the direction of the Republican party and about the direction of the country. I think the challenges facing us — they’ve never been greater. The Obama economy, it’s not working. Obamacare is a disaster. Our constitutional rights are under assault from Washington. And as we look abroad, it seems like the entire world is on fire right now.”
Cruz’s comments come a day after he delivered a well-received speech at the Heritage Foundation that explored both domestic and foreign policy issues. The Texas Republican pushed for a conservative agenda and cautioned against the “business as usual” politics of D.C. he has cautioned against frequently.
“For all the Republicans saying ‘let’s get things done,’ if we simply settle into business as usual in this town … we will demoralize the millions of men and women who came out in November,” Cruz said.
A bevy of other Republicans have publicly or reportedly talked about their 2016 prospects in recent days, with Sen. Marco Rubio (undecided) and Rep. Paul Ryan (out) commenting, and speculation rising that former Republican nominee Mitt Romney will launch a third consecutive bid. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was the first potential contender to make an obvious move toward running.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
I would rather have Cruz as Senate Majority Leader for the next thirty years. I don't know if we can afford that luxury right now.
EEE’s a Paul guy, and you know .. how that goes.
He is one of only a few I would seriously consider voting for, in fact he is my number one choice.
Your analogy is both specious and irrelevant. Nobody is filing frivolous lawsuits against Sally.
If Palin IS running I'm not staying home, If Palin is NOT running I'm NOT staying home.
Do you think Palin would support my decision over yours? You betcha!
You are right, Palin is a dynamic retail politician which is the reason I would hope that you would NOT stay home. She does not sell such inaction. She is not for Palin, she is for America and as you said has done a lot for the conservative movement.
Before I knew who Ted Cruz was I supported him because of my trust in Palin's endorsement. Now I support Ted Cruz for who he is and I'm thankful Palin stood behind him when she did.
And these “important policy differences” are?????
Ted is competing with Rand in Iowa for the Liberty grassroots and is likely going to win. Expect incoming for Cruz from the gope-STAB, RATS *and* the Paul group.
Well, since you asked.
The main one is the same primary problem I have with virtually all of the presumed candidates, and that is their support for what I would characterize as “and then you can kill the baby” bills such as NRTL’s “fetal pain” legislation.
These bills grant an explicit license in our laws to kill babies, all of the babies, in fact, as long as the murder is done on time and by the rules.
This is immoral, unconstitutional, and destructive of the most important principles upon which the survival of the republic depends.
These lawless laws destroy the concept of the God-given, unalienable, intrinsic nature of the supreme individual right, the right to live, they fly in the face of every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, and they violate the explicit, imperative equal protection requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
I like Senator Cruz on a personal level, and I have no doubt that we agree on many things, but I won’t support any candidate for any office who supports these bills. They’re telling you ahead of time that they will not keep the most important part of their sacred oath.
Noob. :-)
I’m gonna have to dig in to this a little bit. I must have missed something.
You won’t be alone. Most are still missing this, unfortunately.
The problem with your position is that you are putting theory ahead of practical effect. Legislation such as fetal pain legislation can pass now and likely survive a court challenge and would save countless babies from abortion right now. However, you are opposing it because you think it undercuts the case for stronger pro-life laws (which you and I would both support) which unfortunately cannot be passed at the moment and would immediately be struck down by the courts. Remember that in England slavery had to be whittled down by legislation before it could be totally banned.
Palin wasn't a quitter and neither would Cruz be if he resigns to run. But I bet that Cruz doesn't resign to run.
I would not stand between Sarah Palin and a microphone as she races to endorse Ted Cruz.
I think you are missing something too, with all due respect. Never are we going to get abortion outlawed in one fell swoop. The fetal pain bill is a step in the right direction. Even the pro aborts think it is a sneaky way to eventually ban all abortions.
I don’t think you can say that by supporting such a bill that Ted Cruz or anyone else necessarily favors abortion AFTER 20 weeks. Abortion has been legal for a long time. 1969 if I remember correctly. It is not going to be ended easily.
He is my choice.
You can’t surrender the only moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion and somehow do something positive to stop it. The Utilitarian assertion that somehow this will save some babies is a myth. In fact, these sort of bills do nothing but assure the continuation of abortion on demand.
You’re wrong about the courts. They are easily knocking these lawless laws down one after the other as a matter of course as an impediment to a woman’s supposed right to access to abortion. No surprises there.
I will give time, talent and treasure if Ted announces a presidential run.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the last stand for conservatives.
Giving up the self-evident truth of America's founding, which is "that all men are CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," starting with the right to life, and the Constitution's explicit, imperative requirement for equal protection for the right to life of every person, is not a "step in the right direction." That's an illusion. It's the exact opposite.
Ted is our man and the only one I’ll vote for!
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.