Ted Cruz responses at the 1st GOP Debate
Posted on 08/08/2015 6:13:14 AM PDT by Jeff Head
I believe, more and more, that Ted Cruz should be our next President.
Although I like a lot of what Trump is saying, and I like the way he is taking on the Media and the establishment (but Cruz does the same). My concern with Trump is his disposition. In essence, it's this:
Even if Trump does some things I may believe in, I believe he would not hesitate to violate the constitution to do so.
It does not matter what side of the political divide you are on...if you violate the constitution you are not a friend of the Republic because the power will consume you and sooner or later you will do things that hurt us all. I believe he would step on the Constitution. I believe he would not hesitate to do so.
Now, if it comes to it, I would certainly vote for Trump over Hillary.
But I know this. Ted Cruz is a principled constitutionalist, conservative, and Christian man with a proven record to back all of that up. He is my first choice.
Right now I am supporting him for President.
Yikes -— what a sad and utterly superficial reason to like/dislike someone’s ability to lead/govern. The mind and the character is what truly counts. That’s as bad a reason as people telling me they didn’t vote for me because I wasn’t pretty enough and have long hair instead of an above the shoulders haircut -— yes, really happened, more than once.
He often shows up on threads about Ted Cruz to attack his character on behalf of his candidate. There is nothing substantial for him to use to attack Ted Cruz, so he comes up with superficial reasons not to support Ted Cruz.
Whichever, I regard his presence in the nominating process to be an enormous blessing for the Republican Party.
Fox News is patting itself on the back for staging the single-most-watched event in the entire history of television — 24 million viewers.
I've got news for Fox News: It was't owing to their own genius that so many people watched. The drawing card was that master impresario, DONALD TRUMP. In the process, he put ALL the GOP candidates up on the stage, where the voting public could see them and hear their positions on crucial national issues, and in many cases get to know them for the first time. The GOP should be thanking The Donald, not excoriating The Donald, for putting their candidates on the map of public consciousness.... In "one swell foop," as it were.
And I daresay that Fox News should thank him, too. But I don't expect THAT anytime soon.
What is fascinating to me is the debate "post-mortems" of the talking heads on Fox subsequent to the event. No one has had a good thing to say about The Donald. They seem to think he is a total fool who will self-destruct in due course. So much for gratitude. Whether they are right or not is still an open question.
Aside from that, what was most interesting to me is that nobody seemed to be pumping for Jeb Bush. I rarely heard his name mentioned in the Fox post-debate pontifications.... Indeed, as far as these talking heads were concerned, it seems that in their majority opinion, Marco Rubio is the new golden boy....
I like Rubio enormously. I just think he's too young for the job of POTUS. But he is enormously gifted intellectually, appears to be a man of sound character, and one who brings rational analysis to bear on public policy questions — rationality premised in logic and historical experience. He certainly does his "homework!" Plus I sense him to be a natural defender of the Constitution. He has seen in his own family history what a "rule by men" looks like. I like him very, very much.
Heaven only knows how this presidential election will turn out. At this moment in time, my "dream ticket" would be Ted Cruz/Carly Fiorina.
IF Hillary is the successful nominee of the Democrat Party — which increasingly is in doubt to my mind — Carly would be the most effective voice possible to ridicule and undermine Democrat claims of the "war on women." She can "attack" with impunity another woman in a way that would destroy a man politically for saying the very same things.
RE: my increasing doubts about the continued viability of Hillary's candidacy. It's not just a matter of her regularly-occurring polling unfavorables on questions of trustworthiness and honesty.
I imagine that with her deep pockets, connections public and private, and presumably first-class campaign organizational structure, Hillary expects that such perceived negatives will finally be overcome, and she will be coronated as the 45th President of the United States, which is somehow her "due."
But increasingly I think such expectations are so much "whistling past the graveyard." My suspicion is her candidacy will die a death by a thousand cuts — because Obama is quietly, inexorably, working against her behind the scenes.
To my mind, there is no imaginable way for the F.B.I. to launch a criminal investigation regarding the security of her electronic communications during her tenure as Secretary of State without the blessing of President Obama. The Hillary camp says that the criminal investigation does not conceivably reach to Hillary. But that is totally NUTZ. You can't criminalize a piece of machinery, any more than you can criminalize a gun for killing someone. If there is a criminal involved, it isn't the machine in question, but the motive and intent of the owner of said machine, who used the machine in criminal ways.
There is no way that this F.B.I. investigation cannot reach to Hillary in due course. And I feel pretty sure that Obama is well aware of that fact.
In short, my expectation is: Hillary's presidential bid is toast, in due course. For Obama will deal out death cuts, drip by drip, for the remainder of her campaign....
So I have very strong doubts at this time that Hillary will be the successful Democrat nominee.
But it really doesn't matter. Whoever the Democrats manage to stand up will very likely be a Left Progressive. So just because Hillary is off-stage doesn't mean that "the war on women" or "income inequality" are memes that are going to go away anytime soon.
Carly can take on such issues with tremendous personal integrity and fortitude without batting an eye.
So, my present best-case scenario would be a Cruz/Fiorina ticket. My worst-case scenario would be a contest between Jeb Bush (or someone very like him) and whatever Left Progressive the Dems finally nominate.
That would be a real head-scratcher for me. At that point, I might find a third-party challenge mounted by, say, a Trump/Cruz ticket attractive enough to give it my serious consideration.
I am a constitutional, economic, and social conservative. The GOP has abandoned me. I left the party in 2010 out of sheer disgust. I no longer owe them my allegiance.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking/feeling that way.
Which is what makes the 2016 presidential race so compellingly fascinating to me. As mentioned before, at this point I have no clue as to how any of this turns out.
May God be with us; and may He continue to bless the United States of America.
X=has been.
spurt=drip under pressure.
He was clearly the most impressive speaker that night.
So very creative and so repetitive you are. I am impressed........ impressed that you can not work in an intelligent discussion.
Cruz/Boop is mine.
But if you have prior commitments, then I'll agree with you. Cruz/Fiorina, maybe. Cruz and just about anyone would be a good ticket. Cruz/Rubio would be tough to beat and it would rehabilitate Rubio from his unfortunate walk on the wild side with Schumer.
But for me its Cruz or Cruz. I accept no substitutes. :)
X=has been.
spurt=drip under pressure.
The “Talking Heads” (not just of Fox but of all of the “News” business, save possibly but a few) are not expressing their best judgment, but merely their fondest hope. Once they dispose of Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, possibly some others will be next. They are rocking the boat.
Thanks for the BEEP!
Video - https://www.dropbox.com/s/xl8rryik2smv4uc/Cruz1.mp4?dl=0
Betty, as you know, I have been deeply involved with being aware of and involved with what has been happening to America for many years...up to and including putting myself out front and center on the line on several occasions.
I like that Trump is in the process too. I believe it is a good thing. I believe, despite my own misgivings which I will explain, that he is bringing many people to the table, and to watch the proceedings, and that is a good thing. They will get to see some very principled and fundamental things.
I like that he is a man of action. I like that he gets in the face of the media and the establishment types. There are several things he is saying about immigration, economics, and dealing with the international community that agree with.
But Trump himself he has NO sustained record of conservatism. He has NO demonstrated sustained commitment to the Constitution or fundamental principle.
Over the years, it is clear that his demeanor, nature, and personal life tells us that he takes things completely by the reins and does as he sees fit.
Even for the things I agree with, I cannot countenance someone who would ignore constitutional safeguards to get things done...and everything I have seen about Trump tells me, if he thought it necessary in his mind...he would do so in an instant.
Now, will that come about? I do not know and I pray not.
But, I do know thaty Ted Cruz is a committed and principled conservative, who himself is not afraid to speak the truth to the media, the establishment, and to the liberal left. I know he reveres and will uphold the constitution, and that he is a principled Christian man.
His record tells us this about him. His personal life tells us this about him. IMHO, he is the type of individual our founders had in mind when they fashioned our Constitution. When John Adams said our constitution was designed for a moral and religious people, and is wholly unsuited for the governance of any other, individual like Ted Cruz is who they were talking about.
So, at this point, I will support Cruz through the primaries, and if we are blessed enough for him to win the nomination, I will then support him through to the Presidency.
If it turns out to be Trump, I would vote for him over Hillary or anyone the left/DNC runs...but I would do so with the concerns I have given based on what I have seen of the man over a 20-30 year period. He is not what I would call a principled or moral centered individual.
As it stands, given what he is talking about doing, he certainly would be far better than Hillary or a Warren or anyone like that. But anyone who would possibly ignore, subvert, or side steps the constitution is a potential tyrant in waiting...irrespective of what they may support.
God bless you, Betty...and yours. If you correspond with Joanie...please pass on the same to her for me.
...and scottiemom...thank you for you kind words.
They are too kind.
I will admit to being richly blessed by God...for the love of a dear woman who has been my life-long friend and example. For five wonderful kids who have taught me more about life than I them. For ten grandkids who are the absolute sweet spot in life, with number eleven in the oven.
For the blessings of a miraculous experience with cancer and the chance to live on a few more years, despite the disabilities. For a decent mind and the blessing and ability to have been able to enjoy so much good in this Republic and provide for my family.
But most importantly for a faith in, love for, and testimony of Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, whose love, and which faith has sustained me through it all.
Again...thank you for the kind words and may His blessing rest upon you and yours.
Indeed Jeff. I like him very, very much. I'm impressed that he clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He appears totally to support and uphold the Constitution, and I don't think the same can be said for most of the other candidates on stage last Thursday.
The Donald has certainly stirred things up! But I suppose it's inevitable that he will crash and burn at some point. As to whether he would mount a third-party challenge if he doesn't get the GOP nomination — well, that would be a very long shot. The historical fact is that third-party challenges have always been unsuccessful. So I rather doubt he would mount one. But it's his money — if he wants to make an "investment," then he needs to ask himself what are the odds that it would ever pay off.
BTW, I agree with your assessment of him. I have questions as to his character.... Plus his vulgarity is not attractive at all.
When he does crash and burn, what will happen to the ~20–30% (or whatever the number is) of voters who seem to be passionately committed to him? Somebody's got to scoop them up — OR they may just stay home next election day. Candidates who bad-mouth The Donald would likely be rejected by such folks.
So I'm very glad to see that Ted Cruz is not one of them. It seems to me he is in the best position to appeal to the would-be Trump voters.
I hope and pray that Senator Cruz will be the successful candidate.
.
Without question, Cruz is the definitive candidate.
Character plus intellect is a powerful foundation for the presidency (inverse obama factor)
.
.
>> “Now, if it comes to it, I would certainly vote for Trump over Hillary.” <<
.
We can soundly predict that nobody will get that opportunity, in as much as he is in this to fortify Hitlery.
.
.
I think you know as well as I do what Trump is here for.
.
See tag line.
Schumer is never to be trusted. Even now, perhaps especially now, that he has "come out against" the president's plan for selling out the U.S.A....
But I shouldn't open with a digression. So let's get back to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Cruz first.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I admire this guy. Among other things in his bio, I admire the fact that he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Which tells me that Senator Cruz has had an in-depth insider's view of "how the sausage is made" at the Supreme Court. (Potentially valuable information in the right hands.)
What I most admire is Cruz's steadfast, principled, faithful commitment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that he is the last, best hope for a restoration of the original distribution of powers, clearly envisioned by the Framers, as between the federal government and the sovereign states. Washington nowadays is nothing but an insatiable maw, feeding its lust for tyrannical, illegitimate power by systematically engulfing the sovereign powers — the retained powers — of the several states that ratified the Constitution. And this at an alarming rate. I imagine Senator Cruz finds this situation alarming, too. And I believe he's got the chutzpah to call the depredations of corrupt government to justice.
What worries me, dear marron, about Cruz's candidacy is that I don't see his appeal among/to woman voters as very high at this time.
This is not to say that the "woman's vote" is a "bloc" phenomenon. There are women out there who are sane, rational, historically literate who uphold and defend the Constitution as the indispensable foundation of a rule of law, not of men, which alone can guarantee a system of individual liberty under equal justice. How large a segment of the female voting population out there who actually cares about such considerations at this time, heaven only knows.
I do notice that political messages directed to the "woman's vote" are basically emotional appeals. I also notice that emotional appeals test better with females than males.
Be that as it may, it might be helpful if Cruz could reveal something "warm and fuzzy" about himself. Otherwise, I fear potential female voters might regard him as "too aggressive, too hard-hearted, too uncaring about the downtrodden," etc., etc., and be totally "turned-off."
Assuredly, the Hillary campaign with try to manipulate this situation to their advantage. (Assuming Hillary is the candidate, and right now I doubt we can say that is assured.)
WRT Marco Rubio: Your referred to his "unfortunate walk on the wild side with Schumer." I just chalk this up to his "youth and inexperience." :^)
Looking ahead, further down range, Rubio could benefit from 8-year's seasoning as Veep — assuming the presidential candidate can win the general election against whomever the Dems stand up.
I had a nightmare recently: That Julian Castro (current mayor of Los Angeles) would somehow, miraculously find himself the nominee of the Democrat party. Noise has already been raised that he is a serious candidate for Hillary's Veep spot.
Were Castro to succeed, that would assure President Obama has a hard-core left progressive defender and protecter of the so-called "Obama Legacy."
This is serious business folks. I hope that most of America isn't sleep-walking through it all.
Thank you so much, dear marron, for your kind — tongue in cheek! — words. You bring a smile from me, ear to ear!
Schumer is never to be trusted. Even now, perhaps especially now, that he has "come out against" the president's plan for selling out the U.S.A....
But I shouldn't open with a digression. So let's get back to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Cruz first.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I admire this guy. Among other things in his bio, I admire the fact that he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Which tells me that Senator Cruz has had an in-depth insider's view of "how the sausage is made" at the Supreme Court. (Potentially valuable information in the right hands.)
What I most admire is Cruz's steadfast, principled, faithful commitment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that he is the last, best hope for a restoration of the original distribution of powers, clearly envisioned by the Framers, as between the federal government and the sovereign states. Washington nowadays is nothing but an insatiable maw, feeding its lust for tyrannical, illegitimate power by systematically engulfing the sovereign powers — the retained powers — of the several states that ratified the Constitution. And this at an alarming rate. I imagine Senator Cruz finds this situation alarming, too. And I believe he's got the chutzpah to call the depredations of corrupt government to justice.
What worries me, dear marron, about Cruz's candidacy is that I don't see his appeal among/to woman voters as very high at this time.
This is not to say that the "woman's vote" is a "bloc" phenomenon. There are women out there who are sane, rational, historically literate who uphold and defend the Constitution as the indispensable foundation of a rule of law, not of men, which alone can guarantee a system of individual liberty under equal justice. How large a segment of the female voting population out there who actually cares about such considerations at this time, heaven only knows.
I do notice that political messages directed to the "woman's vote" are basically emotional appeals. I also notice that emotional appeals test better with females than males.
Be that as it may, it might be helpful if Cruz could reveal something "warm and fuzzy" about himself. Otherwise, I fear potential female voters might regard him as "too aggressive, too hard-hearted, too uncaring about the downtrodden," etc., etc., and be totally "turned-off."
Assuredly, the Hillary campaign with try to manipulate this situation to their advantage. (Assuming Hillary is the candidate, and right now I doubt we can say that is assured.)
WRT Marco Rubio: Your referred to his "unfortunate walk on the wild side with Schumer." I just chalk this up to his "youth and inexperience." :^)
Looking ahead, further down range, Rubio could benefit from 8-year's seasoning as Veep — assuming the presidential candidate can win the general election against whomever the Dems stand up.
I had a nightmare recently: That Julian Castro (current mayor of Los Angeles) would somehow, miraculously find himself the nominee of the Democrat party. Noise has already been raised that he is a serious candidate for Hillary's Veep spot.
Were Castro to succeed, that would assure President Obama has a hard-core left progressive defender and protecter of the so-called "Obama Legacy."
This is serious business folks. I hope that most of America isn't sleep-walking through it all.
Thank you so much, dear marron, for your kind — tongue in cheek! — words. You bring a smile from me, ear to ear!
Well, the latest poll after the debates makes some things pretty clear.
1) Despite their efforts, they did not lay a hand on Trump.
2) The people who absolutely benefited most from the main debate were Cruz and Carson. And well they should have. Theirs were the most principled and constitutionally oriented (IMHO) comments and disposition on that stage.
Now, it is also clear that Fiorina also benefited from her performance in the earlier debate. I think she has wasted that in the mean time amongst conservatives with several of her comments (ie. on immigration and about Megyn Kelly).
Anyhow, I believe that Trump’s presence continues to be a benefit to the overall process, and that those candidates who are astute, know how to position themselves an continue to articulate the clear conservative, constitutional message...without joining in the attack Trump mentality that the media, the DNC/Libs and the establishment Republicans have gotten into.
Donald Trump, 23 percent (up 1 point)
Ted Cruz, 13 percent (up 7 points)
Ben Carson, 11 percent (up 3 points)
Carly Fiorina, 8 percent (up 6 points)
Marco Rubio, 8 percent (no change)
Jeb Bush, 7 percent (down 3 points)
Scott Walker, 7 percent (down 3 points)
Mike Huckabee, 5 percent (up 1 point)
Rand Paul, 5 percent (down 1 point)
Rick Perry, 2 percent (no change)
John Kasich, 2 percent (down 1 point)
Lindsey Graham, 1 percent (no change)
Bobby Jindal, 1 percent (no change)
Chris Christie, 1 percent (down 2 points)
George Pataki, 0 percent (no change)
Rick Santorum, 0 percent (down 1 point)
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.