No I haven't but you're going to say I have because you cannot discuss this w/o admitting that this issue is a hot-button that all the candidates in the primary are dealing with.
There are no "pure" candidates.
As for me being "anti-Cruz," I am not. After Romney lost the election in 2012, I was one of the first out of the gate trumpeting Cruz.
Later I came to the conclusion that Walker was a good conservative and a better candidate - that he had the fight in him to go the distance and get the votes.
I have not gone on other threads to bash Cruz or start threads to bash Cruz. I did however have a lot of pro-Cruz anti-Walker FReepers come on to my threads but that's just life.
Now things are getting closer and positions are solidifying, so I am going to start making comparisons, as the "we must keep vetting Walker" needs to be put to bed if "we can't keep vetting Cruz" stands.
If Walker falls back and Cruz is selected, I will enthusiastically back him as the GOP candidate.
I'd like to think you would do the same for Walker.
That's just another way to say "Cruz is as bad as my candidate (on immigration)".
Walker was never mentioned in the article or your first comment about it. Why then, finally come upon "Cruz is the same (or bad as) Walker on immigration?". I see it as a subtle attack on Cruz because he is a real threat to liberals and a lot of candidates who are considered conservative.
I don't want to bash Walker because if he does rise and win over Cruz I'll accept it and vote for him. That doesn't mean I'll sit here and let subtle threads designed to highlight Cruz in a bad way happen either.
I DON'T post original threads for either candidate. I endorse Cruz wherever I can and try to keep from commenting about Walker in a bad way except when it gets out of the realm of normal discourse and information, particularly when such discussion is designed to 'illustrate' the foibles of Cruz when ignoring one's own candidate.