I asked Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory, just how conservative Cruz is. Abramowitz replied:
Cruz's positions are on the far right of the Republican Party today which would certainly place him far to the right of past conservative leaders like Reagan or Gingrich during his years as Speaker. In fact, his voting record is among the 2 or 3 most consistently conservative in the Senate. He is very conservative on every issue dimension: economic policy, social policy and national security/foreign policy. He is running on that record - emphasizing his purity compared with his rivals.
**************
I have studied the writings of our Founders, so much so that at times I find myself thinking like them.
Right now I am reading Ted Cruz's Princeton thesis and I have to say that Ted is not a modern politician, instead his thinking mirrors the likes of James Madison and James Wilson.
Ted's thinking is so removed from most of the people in Congress that they can not grasp what he is saying and thinking.
This aspect of Ted Cruz relates to the fact that we are so far away from what our Founders created that when someone comes along speaking like our Founders not many in Congress have the ability to understand what he is saying.
When they say he is ''Far Right'' what they are proving is how little they know about our Founding documents.
Great point.
Was Ted a good student? Yes, he probably was, but I have no proof of that.
No, I haven't read his thesis, but I don't have to. Actions speak far louder than old words and while many of the FFs were indeed visionaries who understood mankind, Cruz is incapable of doing either.
When Cruz flip flops on positions, he lies, makes flimsy excuses, gets other to corroborate his lies, and then goes merrily on from there.
And then there is his INELIGIBILITY to hold the office of president.
So are you saying that the only thing Cruz does not know about the U. S. Constitution is that he is not eligible to be President? How smart could he be if he does not understand the simplest thing?
They don’t permit the historical context of the Constitution. One of my major pet peeves because in EVERY literature class and Eng Comp 102 when learning to write papers on classic literature, HISTORICAL CONTEXT is a must.
I do have to admit, also, that when my spidey brain whips into a frenzy and I post here, only i understand what I mean. I have an issue assuming the others can fill in the blanks. The foundation must be layed otherwise the listener will fill in the blanks with their own reality and pipe dreams. Which is why it is easy to be swayed when the details are left out. People will interpret “make America great again” to mean what they want not necessarily what the speaker wants or how that change will be implemented.
The historical context of the Constitution is what I want and I also want to know the original intent of the Bible.
Great post Slyfox. Thank you for your observations and commentary.
sneaks