As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on U.S. arms sales abroad, including a $120 million export deal for Remington — makers of the gun used in Sandy Hook! Which is no big deal. I mean, it is a big deal, but why wouldn’t she sign off on arms sales? The U.S. is the world’s largest arms exporter; we sent some $10.1 billion dollars worth of military stuff overseas (and south of the border) in 2014. While no gunmaker cracks the top ten, Remington depends on foreign sales to pump up the volume . . .
Anyway, clearly, Bushmaster basher Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. On a lot of issues. Not to mention lying about Benghazi, her emails, influence peddling and . . . stuff. Enough of a hypocrite and a liar to get the fence sitters to vote for solidly pro-2A Ted Cruz? I say yes, should it come to that. What say you?
to quote shillary, “what difference does it make?”
shillary is a murderer who has and will destroy anybody and anything to gain power (selling out the USA to Russia for Nevada minerals as one example)
cruz is a cuban o’bama, raised (since age 4) to believe he’s the messiah, a perennial liar, not constitutionally eligible to run (not even a US citizen), and with his wife (heidi) wants to destroy the sovereignty of the USA by putting the USA in a North American Union (pre-one-world-government)
I think you’ve been reading those offshore websites and drinking the cyanide koolaid. Cruz may well be something other than what he appears if elected, but his track record so far is light years ahead of any other candidate, including all of those that dropped out. (With the possible exception of Walker, like him for VP) There’s a couple websites that rate Trump about twenty percentage points ahead of Cruz.. for lying. We won’t even talk about Billary or Burnout, they’re both out counting unicorns.
If nothing else remember this, Cruz was instrumental in the Heller decision.
“Instrumental” in the Heller decision? Bull cookies. He filed an amicus brief on behalf of Texas that was joined by a number of other states, and he wasn’t even the lead name on the brief filed. There were I would guess maybe thirty or so amicus briefs filed in support of Heller, some by players of far more prominence than Cruz. You can get the deets off the Supreme Court website. Nor did he appear or argue the case, Texas’ request to do so having been denied. The KEY player who was instrumental was Alan Gura, and there are no ifs, ands or buts about that. Any suggestion that Cruz played a more prominent role (as I think may be asserted on his web site) is just another Cruz lie. Just like his lies about serial affairs and his prominent appearance on the D.C. Madam’s little black book. Remember tricky Dick? Well, now we have Creepy Cruz.
There is a lot of fail in that comment. Cruz may not be perfect, but the whole eligibility trope is ridiculous. He has stood on the side of the constitution numerous times. We could do far worse.
being born in canada, he had until age 18 to file papers to be a US citizen and he cannot produce any such papers!
He doesn’t need to “file papers” because he was and always has been a “natural born Citizen.”
A ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.” Mr. Cruz is a US citizen from birth because his mother was one.
A court has already ruled that consistent with common law precedent and statutory history, a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth,”
If a US astronaut gives birth on Mars, is the baby a Martian or US citizen? The baby IS a US citizen because assuming the mother was born in the USA and is a US citizen, so is the infant.
Mr Cruz’s mother never renounced her US citizenship and has always been a US citizen.
you’re WRONG, but I’m not going to bother to debate you. Legal scholars are saying you’re wrong, too!
That’s the dumbest comment.
If you are born a us citizen you are a us citizen
Ted Cruz, Martin Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Keanu Reeves, Tommy Lee (Motley Crue), and Bruce Willis…
What do all of these AMERICANS have in common?
They were all born outside the United States and they all have at least one American parent.
Who in this collective would argue that Bruce Willis, son of a service member and born in Germany while his father served his country honorably, is not an American and not eligible to serve as President should he someday decide to run?
My Daughter was born in Germany, she is also 100% American.
I am tired of this debate. Where you were physically born should have no determination for citizenship, ever! Americans should either inherit citizenship through your parents or apply for citizenship, as a non-us citizen in a foreign country, and become a naturalized citizen. The former should be the only option for personnel holding political office or serve as government employees.
Oxygenthief, I agree, and that includes those born inside the US of illegal immigrant parents who are Mexican citizens, those children should be Mexican citizens (and illegal immigrants) as well!
Martin Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Keanu Reeves, Tommy Lee (Motley Crue), and Bruce Willis…
What do all of these AMERICANS have in common?
Umm… I’d rather elect any of them over our current crop of candidates?
Especially Keanu after seeing him in that 3-gun video. Natalie can be our Secretary of State and Tommy can be our Secretary of Rock (new position). Bruce would obviously be our Secretary of Defense–yippe-kai-yay ISIS.
i am confused….so Obama’s mom’s citizenship has never called into question, yet many have stated he is not a citizen because he was not born here and his dad is not a citizen. How is that different than the Cruz question? Short answer to original question is no, he cannot beat Billary, IMHO.
The Constitution grants congress the authority to make laws on naturalization. One of those laws says that the child of a US citizen born in a foreign country is also a US citizen, from birth. Therefore Ted Cruz was born a US citizen and is eligible for the presidency.
Here in Washington, there’s a place called Point Roberts. It’s a tiny chunk of US territory that juts off from Canada. They don’t have a hospital there, because it’s such a small town, so when women give birth, they tend to drive to the hospitals in Canada, rather than sailing or flying over to the hospitals on the US mainland. Should those children not qualify for citizenship?
There are nearly 100,000 US military personnel stationed at foreign bases. When they have children, are those children not worthy of citizenship in your eyes?
papers had to filed by age 18 and he did not do so
No papers had to be filed. At all. So long as he was born to a U.S. citizen, which he was, he’s a naturalized citizen from birth. Period. Unless and until you can prove to us anything to the contrary, which you can’t and you know it (and all of the rest of us also know that you can’t), you have nothing more to say on it. Nothing accurate or of any value, anyway.
What papers? While serving overseas, both my children were born. One in Belgium and one in the UK. Their narural born citizenship has never been questioned and they never filed any “papers”.
It’s established that Mr Cruz has met the requirements under Chapter 3 – United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) and is a natural born citizen.
After reviewing INA regulations, I find no reason Mr Cruz would need to file “papers” He didn’t file papers because he had no duty or lawful reason to file papers.
But by all means, if you can point to a specific reason why he needed to file immigration papers, point it out!!!
Simply saying he didn’t file papers is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to cloud the issue without identifying your reasoning in justifying such a need.
If you simply say he failed to file papers with no specific reason or justification under INA rules, you’re just a troll and will be labeled as such.
Yeah, I was born in South Carolina, and I, also, neglected to file papers before I was 18. Huh? WTF papers?
We used to patrol point Roberts when I was in the coast guard.
My vote for Cruz is based on his staunch and vocal defense of gun rights after sandy hook. When the shit storm hit, Cruz came out swinging. I couldn’t believe my ears. He didn’t have to do that. The democrats assumed thier schemes were fait acompli. With good reason
I loved watching him make Feinstein lose her s*** and invent black hole bullets that implode, then admit she stabbed her fingers into that guy’s wounds to make sure he died so she could take his position.
God i hope a republican wins this time around Make sure all of your readers vote this November Republican.
I hate to say it, but the two “parties” are just 2 “cheeks” on the same butt. They’re just owned by the elites and pretend to give us a choice.
Except for trump, all are puppets but trump has his allegiance to israel (his daughter married a zionist) so I don’t trust any of them.
I figure that NOBODY can get that high in politics (or probably that high in the business world) unless they SELL THEIR SOUL
Regarding firearms, at least, one party makes it a priority to ban them, the other may or may not support the support the right.
I’ll go with the later, rather than the former.
Have you seen real evidence of that or have you just heard that the GOP Pretends to stand for firearms?
I don’t see congress really doing anything. If they truly cared, they’d have never allowed ILLEGAL ALIEN o’bama occupy the job as top PUPPET (they’re bought off, threatened, or blackmailed to cooperate)
“I don’t see congress really doing anything.”
That’s because most of the action these days is in the State Legislatures, not the Federal Congress. What action is in fed hands is generally in the courts lately.
So, Stevor, you believe all presidential candidates have been illegal aliens since how far back? Abe Lincoln? Coming up with the same imagined defect/behavior about multiple people is a sign of mental illness.
ALL elections come down to the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich.
Congress hasn’t done anything? Seriously? Republicans in Congress have blocked MANY anti gun schemes from ever seeing the light of day. Make no mistake gentlemen Obummer hates Congress for a reason. Without them the 2nd amendment would either be a fond memory or a bloody revolutionary battle cry. Pay your thanks where they are owed. If a Democrat is elected president we will lose the supreme Court, and Congress will be the only hope we have left. It pretty much has been anyway. Always vote for a 2nd amendment friendly Congress.
Hillary has promised Australian Style Gun Control. That means no semi-automatics, no pumps, no pistols, and even pellet gun must be registered. And self-defense will no longer be an excuse to possess a firearm.
As Feinstein said “Turn them all in Mr. & Mrs. America”. Coming next spring.
Mainly I think you may be vastly underestimating the number of gun owners (120 million or so) and their reaction (aka, backlash) to Hillary and to Ted Cruz. Gun owners swung the vote so far over to Republicans in 1994 that the Dems lost both Houses of Congress. It’s supportable to say that ONLY BECAUSE OF HILLARY have the Democrats dared to try again-still under the Hillary As Mega Feminist reality distortion field.
Hillary isn’t really speaking for women any more: millions of women have opted for personal defense and now own and are licensed to carry a gun. Back in ’94 the women owning guns was a tiny fraction of what it is today – amplifying what used to be a mostly male gun owner reaction to Clinton Era Gun Control. Before the Clintons: the NRA donated to more Democrats than Republicans! MOST have missed these big changes so don’t get me wrong.
Additionally: Cruz has already been endorsed by Gun Owners of America – the “other NRA” only more vigorous and prepared than the the actual NRA. Cruz’s 2nd Amendment credentials are indisputable – Trump has only his own and his two sons NRA memberships as his “credentials”- but anyone can buy an NRA membership.
No, when the word gets out – most gun owners will take the time to vote for Cruz, it’s minimal effort for maximum gain for us gun owners. Gun owners – not Cruz himself – will be set to hand Hillary or Sanders a big, big can of Whupass in November.
Not all gun owners are single-issue voters. Most gun owners aren’t even NRA members. Many are Democrats. And many don’t mind universal background checks, mag capacity limits, AWB etc.
You speak about women who’re getting into guns for self-defense, for example. Why would they care about any of these things? The way they buy guns, they already have to pass a background check. They don’t need 10+ rounds in a mag for self-defense. And their handgun is not an AWB. Why would they have a problem with Clinton, again?
The notion that all, or even most, gun owners will vote for Cruz just because he’s pro-gun is ridiculous.
Keep minimizing the valid points and historical facts and cherishing your half-truths. I for one am not a single-issue voter. I am however a constitutionalist and I’m above average as an observer. The Constitution is broad enough spectrum for any American – it’s an American issue and happens to be the key to good government. Enforcing the Constitution in its entirety is more important than even the very important 2nd Amendment. The Bill of Rights is a list which gives all citizens all the rights worth defending. Senator Cruz, as President Cruz, is the man who can and will enforce all of the Constitution.
You can minimize the NRA all you want – you’re partly correct in doing so. But you won’t be going to the NRA annual convention. Others who are influential will be there, however.
Also worth pointing out: Cruz is focusing on more than the 2nd Amendment, he’s presented a coherent tax plan which has the potential of revolutionizing US taxation to the benefit of the economy. In all, it’s mostly a matter of Cruz getting the exposure he’s been denied by Trumps grand-standing and stage hogging. But that’s what’s making him so boring – people are getting sick of having Trump shoved down their throats. What you decide is your business, you seem too easily resigned.
Honestly, all you need to know about gun issues in the general is that 90% of Americans want universal background checks.
>> he’s presented a coherent tax plan
Hahaha. You mean, the one that would cause a $8 trillion budget deficit?
>> What you decide is your business, you seem too easily resigned.
Not at all, I’m actually kinda excited to watch GOP tear itself apart – it was long overdue. But I’m not a Republican.
(I will also be excited when Dems tear themselves apart, which may well happen next cycle – two-party system is not good for anyone except the party elites. But GOP was looooong overdue on this, and a higher priority, too. GOP party platform has went full retard in the past decade.)
Yes, next question?
Gary Johnson is better than all the mainstream candidates. Too bad this country is rooted in its 2 party nonsense.
Agreed. But since he has no chance, I’ll vote Cruz, or Trump if I have too, to keep Clinton or Sanders out of the white house
“But since he has no chance, I’ll vote…”
Do you realize what a catch-22 that is?
I’ve been pointing that out for years. If every idiot who said that they prefer a 3rd party candidate but won’t vote for one “because they can’t win” just voted for who they wanted to see win, the 3rd party candidate would win.
A vote for Libertarian is a Vote for Hillary and Australian Style Gun Control.
Better than #feelthetrickydick.
I’m still voting Libertarian, regardless. I will not willingly debase myself by holding my nose and choosing between Dempublicans and Republicrats. That’s a false choice to begin with being that there really is very little if any real difference between them. Neither party has anybody’s interests at heart but their own. Period. There is absolutely no arguing that, either, so I won’t even bother addressing anybody who says otherwise. They’re willfully ignorant and historically illiterate if they do, and that’s literally all there is to it.
Besides, there’s never been enough of us to swing the vote either way, anyway.
If the Republican party plays rules games to “nominate” someone like Romney, or anyone else who did not even run, my vote will go to Gary Johnson. Then buy some emergency rations and whole lot of ammo. Johnson already has one of my two political contributions this year. A fair convention could (as of now) decide on either Trump or Cruz. Anyone else, and we are seeing the work of a self-appointed ruling class. And someone needs to get a rope.
I’m voting whoever is Republican. And I’m a Ted fan. Can he win? Dunno’…but the Donald is generating mountains of hate and I don’t trust him(on guns). If the hildebeast wins(hook or crook) look for a freakin’ civil war…
Plenty of Cruz supporters have already said they’d vote for Hillary if the other choice is Trump, and that should tell you all you need to know about that lot.
Can Cruz beat Hillary? No, she will beat him like a red headed stepchild.
Cruz is a very intelligent and sincere man who is incredibly unlikeable. At least Donald has demonstrated he knows how to get independents and even Democrats to cross over.
What’s with all this likeable BS? You want likeable write in slow Joe Biden. I will never ever vote dumbocrat(again). I voted for George McGovern in ’72-and that was about Vietnam. I’m not one of those “never trump” lunatics. If you go hildebeast you’re going to hell(where she wants your guns)…
The exit polling in 2012 had Romney beating Obama on almost every single issue. What swung voters was exactly the like ability thing. They bought the line that Romney was evil and mean. It’s sad that that’s what people vote by, but it’s reality. As conservatives, we deal with the world the way it is, not how we wish it to be. On this case that means that our candidates have to either present themselves as nice guys, or be able to sell the narrative that their opponents are just as evil as they are made out to be. The choice then comes down to ‘evil with bad ideas’ and ‘evil with good ideas’. And then we win.
I want to believe- but my faith in the American People is badly shaken. Voting for Obongo once was shameful. Twice? Unforgiveable. Everyone that voted for that verminous filth should kill themselves RIGHT NOW.
Then you read some of the ridiculously foolish comments here amongst those that I would hope know better….it appears the US is getting the leadership ‘we’ deserve. That is a horrifying thought.
I called someone an idiot for being a one issue voter and had my comment deleted, but this filth is not deleted as a flame? This dude is recommending more than half our country to kill themselves!
Nah, both candidates together did not receive votes from half the country.
Yes and I really hope Cruz gets the nomination. He has the best record and will destroy Hillary! debating any topic. Let’s hope Hillary! runs on gun control…please oh please oh please.
Well she’s certainly been making a spectacle of the issue thus far. I think once it comes down to the main stage debates she will shut up about it.
If she has any brains at all she will anyways…
Well, whoever she is debating better be able to quote chapter and verse, verbatim, and have the references to spout off just as soon as the “moderators” start telling him how wrong he is. She has made it VERY clear what her intentions/desires are pertaining to gun control. At the very least she should be challenged to disarm the Secret Service in her protective detail. Wouldn’t you love to see her try to tap-dance around that onstage?
She would just play the “I can’t disarm the secret service until we disarm all of the gun owning assassins out there!” card.
I hope and pray that a republican wins this year. We don’t need Billary further destroying our country.
Question of the Day: Could Ted Cruz Beat Hillary Clinton?
Sorry, can’t resist…
In a fistfight?
In a bakeoff?
In a beauty contest?
I doubt it
No Ted (Goldman Sachs) Cruz can not beat Hillary in a general.
Absolutely. Hillary’s negatives are greater than anyone else’s… Except for Donald Trump. He is toxic, not only to his own campaign but to the down ballot as well. Ted Cruz is also the only remaining candidate who can provide a CONTRAST to Hillary. Frankly, I’d love to see a Cruz/Sanders debate so we could settle the issue of freedom vs socialism for the current cycle.
As a Conservative on every level (social, fiscal, etc), I’m tired of being expected to hold my nose for a Romney/McCain/Dole/etc. And if the party establishment refuses to hold their noses for Cruz, my tenuous attachment to the party will be completely severed.
I will show them every bit as much loyalty as they have shown me. Who you beat them with is more important than just beating them.
It’s either Trump or Cruz and neither of them stands a chance against Hillary. Best hope is that Sanders runs third party and splits the liberal vote or that the Libertarian party somehow magically get enough votes to win.
Its either Trump or Ryan. Cruz is a place holder.
So its either Alt-Right or Establishment or rather American or Globalist.
I’m voting ABC — Anyone But Clinton. Who actually wins depends on which candidate can attract the most votes from the predominant voting group in America, namely Stoopid People.
A wise choice. Of the four leading candidates, my least favorite is Hideous Hillary, and quite frankly I can’t stand any of them. The least dangerous of them all is Sanders, and that is because as a life long independent and back bencher, he has no party backing that will allow him to accomplish any of the goals set out in his campaign, and as between toothless Bernie and the fanged Hildabeast, he is the preferred choice, particularly as is respects the 2A.
On the other side of the ticket, The Don also has little if any real party backing, and no friends to speak of in Congress. What is worse, although he has toned it down somewhat in recent weeks, is his shooting off his mouth before he puts his brain in gear, and that could be a danger on the international scene. If what they say about Cruz is true, he has few if any friends in Congress either. As a first term Senator, he does not have relationships with the other Republican politicos, and what is worse, if true, is that not even his friends like him. He has a reputation as a backstabber and a liar. While being a good liar is a positive trait for a politician, Cruz is not a good liar. Moreover, his tea party politics are far to the right of the mainstream US voter, the vast majority of whom are actually quite moderate. Cruz is the strongest candidate on Constitutional issues, particularly as they relate the the 2A, but that is not enough to sway a majority of the voters
Reagan had no friends either. He received exactly one endorsement from a sitting GOP Pol — Senator Richard Schweiker.
All it tells me is that Cruz is not an insider and the establishment had put all their eggs into the Jeb Bush basket.
Your options are potty mouth Trump, No Compromise Cruz or RINO John Kasich.
People with either vote “anyone but Hillary” or vote for Hillary by proxy by not voting at all and then blame the GOP for Hillary while all they had to do was — actually vote!
This is why the Democrats will win the Presidency and possible the Senate. They understand that in order to make the rules, first they must actually rule. They will and have voted in criminals because they understand that as long as there is a D even if that person is a bad D, their ideas still win the day. Republicans would rather loose on principle and then complain on conservative talk radio.
At this point, Hillary has won and everyone is in denial. I will be happy to be wrong, but I do not believe I will be.
Ted Cruz will beat Hillary, Bernie, or Hillary/Bernie. I’m not sure that Donald beats either.
I think I’ll vote for the Kunt, just to piss myself off.
Could you be a bit more specific?
Only if he can steal electoral college votes. For the record if GOPee-on-voters rig the nomination. Then I as a life long republican, will vote Democrat, for no other purpose than to accelerate the demise of the country. It starts by installing a woman who wants to sit 30 feet away from where another woman gobbled her mans goo.
Holy crap, I never thought of that! I thought it was bad enough that the broad was ugly as a mud fence, and he did her anyway. I thought *I* was easy!
Ultimately, any Republican can beat Hillary if voters grow up and show up if their guy doesn’t get the nod. Could Trump beat her? What difference does it make if one big goverment loving liberal Democrat beats another big government loving liberal Democrat?
Because one big government Democrat has party backing, friends in powerful places and in Congress, the other one has none of the above. One will campaign to end your 2A rights, the other will do no such thing. One can pass proposed legislation, the other? Not so much. Sanders’ tax and spend proposals will go nowhere. No which would you rather have? A toothless placeholder ruled by (hopefully) a Republican dominated legislature, or someone who actually might accomplish her goals?
At this time last year Trump was still supporting Hillary for President. Trump has contributed money to every member the Democratic congressional leadership. He has more friends in the Democratic Party and influence with Pelosi, Reid and Schumer than has with any Republican. I have more trust in Sanders than I do in Trump to protect my gun rights. Trump would easily make a deal with the gun grabbers to get something he wanted.
Honestly, as much as I hate it, my vote is pretty much gonna be “Not Hillary”. I’ll vote for her strongest opponent, even Trump. Of it’s Bernie, I’ll do my normal toss away and vote Libertarian.
Agreed. Although I support Cruz, I am not going to allow Clinton to get in by not voting if he is not the nominee.
This is the wrong question. Cruz will not win against any Dem contender because Trump will run as a 3rd party candidate.
That’s possible, of course, but I think (for no concrete reason) that if neither has 1237 and the convention hands it to Cruz, that Donald will accept that. If the convention hands it to Romney, or Nixon for that matter, I will stand ready to contribute to Donald’s 3rd party run.
I am in the ABC camp, anyone but Clinton. A democrat in the White House means the destruction of the 2nd Amendment. This will be achieved with a two pronged attack: 1. Executive orders and 2. Judicial appointments.
When we lost Scalia we lost the voice of Heller and the most effective and articulate defender of the 2nd Amendment we have had in the modern Supreme Court. If a Democrat is elected he will be replaced by an anti-gun justice and the old Liberals of the court will be replaced by younger liberals. Two of the Heller dissenters have been replaced by younger and more liberal justices by Obama. Now the next president will be replacing three justices and if that is a Democrat, we will have an anti-gun US Supreme Court for at least twenty years.
I agree with you with respect to judicial appointments, but as to executive orders, that is a nonissue, the Obama administration having taken that road as far as it will go, and that after an exhaustive legal review of the options. Executive orders cannot exceed the scope of legislative authority, and the authority to enact gun bans or universal background checks does not exist. It will be no different for any other Democrat.
And the adjudicating body for that would end up the Supreme Court who newly packed would find any executive action legitimate.
“will have an anti-gun US Supreme Court for at least twenty years”
Assuming, of course, that none of them has any accidents.
Could he? He stands a helluva better chance than Trump does; A vote for Trump is a vote for a Clinton presidency.
This question is largely academic. Cruz will not under any circumstance receive the nomination.
Even if he wasn’t a Trojan horse for the establishment, and managed to fend of the Paul Ryan gambit, he could never win the general against Hillary or Sanders.
The base breaks for Trump, independents break for Trump, and Trump has crossover Dem votes. Cruz has the Cuckservative, Neo-Con and Churchian conservative vote (ie: establishment). He is Romney except half the experience and twice the slime.
There is literally no way to a Cruz presidency.
A “trojan” for the establishment, placed years ago before Trump announced a win? Yeah oh.
Keep voting for someone that’s going to cost us the election. Heck, I’d argue you’re a “trojan Hillary supporter”.
To clarify citizenship:
Suppose your father is a German citizen, your mother is an Italian citizen, you are born in Canada and you immigrate to the United States and are naturalized. That makes you a citizen of four different countries simultaneously. You are German, Italian and Canadian by birth and American by naturalization.
Here are some twists that would make an immigration lawyer pull out his hair:
When she married the German, your mother was already pregnant by a Frenchman. Which counts — biology, marriage or both?
Suppose your mother has a medical issue which prevents her from giving birth. To have you, she found a cooperative English woman to be a surrogate. The English woman is married to a Swede. What does that make you?
Oh wait. You mean in the election.
I had a great visual going…
Hillary is literally one of the most beatable candidates when there is nobody else in the way of targetting her. The GOP will probably blow this election by crashing their politiplane right into the ground because, “Muh #NeverTrump!” even though they have the senate and house squarely locked up.
So unless they knock it off and just let Trump be Trump and stop harming their chances in November with stupid, underhanded tactics, then we should look forward to Hillary as President, because the GOP certainly will not survive a convention if they want to push that issue.
Then again some of them already stated they’d rather have Hillary anyways, so, “what difference does it make?”
We’re screwed either way.
It seems the GOP would rather cut their nose off despite their face. They are so fearful of Trump and the end of the Republican Party as it is now, they’d rather scuttle their ship than allow a new paint job, in their view it seems.
*”to spite”, not “despite”
Ted Cruz can’t even win the Republican nomination through votes, he’s relying on states that use “caucuses” (read: party establishment picks the winner) instead of Republicans voting for him in order to win the nomination. Someone should tell him he can’t pull that sleazy crap in the actual Presidential election.
And we call Democrats low information voters.
How is what Cruz has done any different than any other candidate in any other GOP Presidential Race? The answer is, it is not! Go back to Reagan/Bush and guess what, they did the same damn thing. In Wyoming, the rules have been the same since Lincoln. These are the rules and each state makes their own rules because unlike the Democrats, the GOP has a Federalist view of primaries. So, are we now trying to revise History or what the rules say? If Trump is as good as he say he is, then he could have read the rules which have been open available since the 1800s. Bloviating to media only gets Trump so far.
Trump could have played by the rules, he did not. The only difference between the Cruz Team and the Trump Team is that one bothered to read/study the rules one did not. Nothing Cruz did was above or around the rules. Trump thinks all he needs to do is win by personality and potty mouth — he is wrong.
Lastly, the Parties D or R have ALWAYS picked the nominee — read a history book. In the past it was just a beauty contest, then at some point they decided they would allow registered voters to “suggest”. Note, registered voters, not party members/delegates. Just because you are registered, does not make you are a party member/delegate. Each state party decides how delegates vote. The nomination process on the R and D side has ALWAYS been a suggestion of the populace and NEVER a contest of most votes wins. These rules have been around since the 1800s. Each party can consult those who voted but there is nothing in any rules that say they must accept the suggestion. Parties are not in the constitution, they are not different the Elks Club.
Guess what, you too can be a delegate if you bothered to participate in the political process by doing something other than voting and complaining.
The only reason there is so much butt hurt this year is that there are so many people who have never participated before who are just doing so this year and doing so without understanding the process. They want it to work the way they believe it should work but not how it is actually written.
Don’t like the rules? don’t believe they are fair? Guess what, get involved in you local party then at the state and national level. Complaining and belly aching on TTAG will not change the rules as they are written.
There are no damn dirty tricks, just a lot of uninformed low information voters.
Did any of those previous candidates fail massively in the popular vote and only catch up (or get ahead) due to the corrupt “the party tells you who you want, you’re not allowed to think” system? Also, it’s beyond stupid to say “Well it’s been done this way, that makes it right”. If you need an explanation as to why that mentality is beyond foolish, then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote…or drive…or make any important decisions without adult supervision.
Go read “The Last Centurion” by John Ringo. Gives his opinion of a female, Democratic president in the near future.
I’ll vote Republican, no matter who they throw up. Hitlery, if she’s arrogant enough, could possibly start a second US Civil War. Gods help us then.
I think this article proves Cruz does not even stand a chance with his own party let alone with the voting public.
Conservatism: The Pendulum Swings Consistently Right
Senator Ted Cruz at a rally this month in Scotia, N.Y. Throughout his Senate career, Republican opponents have moved to cast Mr. Cruz as a master of the ill-considered, whose seemingly reckless pursuits were thought to place him well outside the mainstream.© Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times Senator Ted Cruz at a rally this month in Scotia, N.Y. Throughout his Senate career, Republican opponents have moved to cast Mr. Cruz as a master of the ill-considered, whose seemingly reckless…
On perhaps the defining issue of the 2016 Republican primary, Senator Ted Cruz falls well to the right of Ronald Reagan, who supported granting legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants.
He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and has called for a federal amendment that would allow states to avoid performing or recognizing same-sex marriages.
He wants to return to the gold standard, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and create a tax structure simple enough for Americans to file on postcards.
He has criticized Donald J. Trump on deportation policy. From the right.
Throughout his Senate career, Republican opponents have moved to cast Mr. Cruz as a master of the ill-considered — a “wacko bird,” as Senator John McCain of Arizona once called him — whose seemingly reckless pursuits were thought to place him well outside the mainstream.
Yet a close reading of Mr. Cruz’s policy prescriptions, influences and writings over two decades, combined with interviews with conservative intellectual leaders and Cruz allies, suggest two powerful truths about the man who might yet assume the mantle of modern conservatism.
He would be the most conservative presidential nominee in at least a half-century, perhaps to the right of Barry Goldwater, testing the electoral limits of a personal ideology he has forged meticulously since adolescence.
Senator Ted Cruz this month in Camp Hill, Pa. At its core, Mr. Cruz’s brand of conservatism is the product of decades of careful study and manifest intellectual firepower.© Mark Makela for The New York Times Senator Ted Cruz this month in Camp Hill, Pa. At its core, Mr. Cruz’s brand of conservatism is the product of decades of careful study and manifest intellectual firepower.
And he has, more effectively than almost any politician of his generation, anticipated the rightward tilt of the Republican Party of today, grasping its conservatism even as colleagues dismissed him as a fringe figure.
Now, even Mr. Cruz’s staunchest Republican enemies tend to criticize him most forcefully on tactics — lamenting his leading role in the 2013 government shutdown, for instance — but not on substance, where they have generally arrived at equivalent positions.
“Nobody has been more assiduous than Cruz at staying on the same page as the conservative base of the Republican Party,” said Ramesh Ponnuru, a conservative author and senior editor of National Review, who first met Mr. Cruz when they were students at Princeton University. “That said, it was also the man meeting the moment. He was always a constitutionalist conservative, and then constitutionalism became cool among conservatives.”
There have at times been perceptible shifts from Mr. Cruz during the campaign, in both tone and substance, wrought by the resonance of Mr. Trump’s populist anger and hard-line positions on trade and immigration.
But at its core, Mr. Cruz’s brand of conservatism is the product of decades of careful study and manifest intellectual firepower, fusing a host of historical strands into what the Texas senator has called “opportunity conservatism.”
As a teenager, growing up in Houston, he earned scholarship money delivering speeches on Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, expounding on free-market principles at Rotary and Kiwanis clubs.
The epigraph for his senior thesis at Princeton, which focused on states’ rights and the Ninth and 10th Amendments, quoted James Madison: “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
When he captured the Republican nomination in his 2012 Senate race, Mr. Cruz said he was “walking in Uncle Milton’s footsteps,” to honor the 100th birthday of the economist Milton Friedman.
He is fond of invoking Mr. Reagan’s Cold War dictum (“We win, they lose”), Margaret Thatcher’s dismissal of socialism (“The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people’s money”), and even, at times, President John F. Kennedy.
“I intend to have in the office of president what J.F.K. used to refer to as ‘vigaaaahhh’ in defending the Constitution,” Mr. Cruz, now 45, told voters in Iowa in January.
Some citations are more familiar to conservative audiences than others.
On economic policy, he has at moments turned to Ayn Rand, the libertarian heroine lionized by the right, and John Rawls, the liberal political philosopher who argued for a compact protecting the “least advantaged.”
References to Mr. Rawls have dwindled since Mr. Cruz began his presidential candidacy last year. “I don’t think Rawls focus-groups in Iowa,” Mr. Ponnuru joked.
It is clear that Mr. Cruz, whose campaign did not make him available for an interview, is most animated by constitutional fights over what he views as overreach by the federal government, particularly on matters of religion. He speaks often of his triumphs as solicitor general of Texas, which included the successful defense of the state’s right to display a Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol.
He is a creature of the Supreme Court, counting Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as a former boss and Justice Antonin Scalia as a friend whose strict constructionist views helped shape his own.
And arguing last year against a federal ban on marijuana — despite his personal opposition to marijuana legalization at the state level — Mr. Cruz recited Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s belief in the states’ role as “laboratories of democracy.”
Indeed, conservative thinkers have sensed in Mr. Cruz an array of less likely forebears: the faith-flecked morality of Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush; President Obama’s disdain for Beltway think-tank consensus; the fictional exploits of Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart.
“There’s a little bit of ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’” said Peter D. Feaver, a national security strategist under Mr. Bush and a political-science professor at Duke University. “The, ‘I’m going to pursue this even if everyone else is mad at me because this is right.’”
The senator seems to take uncommon pride in communicating uncomfortable policy positions to potentially hostile audiences. Mr. Ponnuru likened Mr. Cruz’s opposition to ethanol subsidies in Iowa — once considered heretical in a presidential primary — to Mr. Goldwater’s unpopular suggestion in 1964, while campaigning in Tennessee, that the Tennessee Valley Authority should be sold.
On matters of foreign policy, Mr. Cruz is viewed much more warily by mainstream Republicans. His pre-Senate career dealt little with international affairs, many say, and his first term has contained some notable shifts.
Mr. Cruz entered the Senate in 2013 as part of the Tea Party wave, brandishing a libertarian streak that became more pronounced after revelations of government surveillance tactics, courtesy of Edward J. Snowden.
But in the years since, as the national dialogue has grown more consumed by security threats like the Islamic State, Mr. Cruz has recalibrated considerably, leaving an impression among some conservative thinkers that he is merely groping for the median position of the base.
Most notable during the campaign has been his pledge to “carpet-bomb ISIS into oblivion,” which has earned a rebuke from military leaders who define the term specifically as the blanket bombing of even civilian areas. Mr. Cruz has argued his iteration can be more targeted.
“He means an overwhelming air campaign,” his longtime national security adviser, Victoria Coates, clarified in an interview.
Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who served under Mr. Reagan and Presidents George Bush and George W. Bush, said Mr. Cruz had been “a little hard to find on the spectrum” of conservative foreign policy.
“The latest incarnation for him is a sort of realist school of overwhelming military force, but he’s constantly criticizing nation-building,” Mr. Wehner said. “I have a feeling he’s more of an amateur in that area.”
The introduction of a national security team last month failed to inspire universal confidence: While the list included some well-respected members of the Reagan and Bush administrations, it also had Frank Gaffney Jr., viewed by many as a fringe conspiracy theorist who has suggested that President Obama is Muslim.
“Being critical of Frank is a cottage industry,” said Ms. Coates, whose own résumé — she is better known as an art historian — has been questioned. “The fact of the matter is, he has been one of the few fearless voices speaking out against the problems of radical Islam.”
Other concerns are more semantic. Mr. Cruz has been criticized for appearing to use “neo-con” as a pejorative, and for characterizing his foreign policy views as falling “somewhere in between” two polar extremes: the libertarianism of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and the hawkishness of Mr. McCain or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
He speaks often of Reagan-style “peace through strength,” reminding crowds that the largest country Mr. Reagan invaded was Grenada.
But some conservative foreign policy experts see a crucial difference, implicit in a February speech outlining his military plans in South Carolina.
“Cruz’s defense speech was couched as being Reaganite, with plans to increase military spending substantially,” said Gary J. Schmitt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “But the caveat was getting the economy fixed first. Reagan increased defense spending even while deficits soared.”
Mr. Wehner worried generally that Mr. Cruz had displayed an “intellectual rigidity” that afforded him little latitude to adapt.
Mr. Cruz has long trumpeted his “consistent conservative” credentials as a strength, proudly recalling his teenage days on the “Constitutional Collaborators,” a team of students who toured event spaces in Texas and wrote out the Constitution on easels.
Robert P. George, his mentor and thesis adviser at Princeton, said that he was most struck by “the consistency from the time when he was a student to now.” Many conservatives cite Madison and Tocqueville, he said, but “Ted has actually read them.”
Mr. George’s most memorable lesson was in humility. In his book, Mr. Cruz writes of receiving a graded paper from Mr. George, seeing a “C+” on a folded corner of the first page and panicking. “With white knuckles, I folded the corner over,” he wrote, “and on the front was written, ‘Just kidding! A.’”
Mr. George’s goal was simple. “I thought he should at least have a few moments’ experience,” he said, “of not being the smartest guy in the class.’”
1st time here huh? Thanks for bolstering what I believe about Ted-he’s PERFECT. The 1st time in 44 years I won’t have to hold my nose for the presidential vote…
As to the question; I like Ted, but just do not know. I do think Hitlery is more vulnerable than what people think as without the 500 super delegates, she is not that far ahead of Bolshevik Bernie.
To answer the title of the article: No. Hillary will crush him because he is far too conservative. America will not go for that kind of hard-line social conservatism that he stands for.
Zero chances of that. Cruz is appealing to an extremely conservative and highly ideologized part of the electorate, in a manner that garners their solid support, but turns off everyone else. Between his tax plan (which would produce a multi-trillion budget deficit pretty much immediately), his calls to end most programs even remotely resembling welfare, his “free trade” stance, and his heartfelt support for the whole gamut of socially conservative issues from LGBT rights to abortion, there’s no way he can appeal to the voters in the middle.
And Cruz doesn’t even have that “but I’m an honest guy” shtick that Trump could try to use – if the tries to go after Clinton’s Wall Street connections, she can punch him right back regarding his own ties, and regarding his economic platform (which is Wall St’s wet dream).
At this point, it’s 90% certain that Clinton is the next president. 9% chance for GOP if Trump manages to drive massive voter turnout on the right with his populist policies to the extent that would dwarf protest turnout against him on the left, and all the ultra-conservatives don’t walk away in disdain. 1% if the convention actually nominates someone reasonably electable (but who? it’s not clear that even Kasich is that) and Trump and his supporters don’t take the party apart with an independent run or even just boycott of the elections.
If you have an “assault weapon” on your wishlist that you really want to own, better buy it now.
I do not know. I’m writing in Farago.
Cruz doesn’t punch quite as hard as Trump.
There’s no way lyin Ted can win against Hillary. Once the machine turns on him IF he gets the nomination, he’ll lose by so much it will be ridonkulous. He’s too far right (if he’s even telling the truth about his positions), he makes Goldwater look like Romney, and that just won’t do for a large slice of the country (that doesn’t live on a farm).
Rubio was the best chance the Republicans had to beat the Hildebeast.
Instead, they let a bunch of so-called independents and cross-over voters into their primaries and got Trump as the front-runner. Very few of those folks will then vote for him in the general however, and every single poll shows Donald not only loosing the Presidency by 20 points but dragging the Senate down with him.
Can Cruz win? Maybe. It will probably come down to Pennsylvania. If Cruz is the nominee it comes down to the standard 5 states that actually matter. If Walker or Rubio is the VP he stands a chance. But it will still be an uphill battle.
Rubio as VP? You’re putting a lot of faith in his manufacturer being able to create a software update before the primaries are over. The bug of randomly repeating the same exact sentence over and over until someone kicks the machine is not going to be easy to fix.
I see there’s still a thread of Trump’s anti-Cruz memes running through this discussion so I’ll start by reminding the Trump supporters that Trump is (1) a wartime draft dodger who could have opted into the ROTC program and come out an officer or could have done what many with medical deferment did and entered the defense industry but instead chose to prepare himself for life as a future NYC Liberal Democrat billionaire. And (2) Trump has always been “not Republican” – his attempts to get to the White House include stints with the Reform Party,. the Independent Party and even behind the scenes with the Democratic Party. His family and anti-gun Michael Bloomberg’s family are tight and everyone in Trump’s family are registered Democrats. Clue??!!
Beyond that, regardless of Cruz Campaign’s obvious exaggerations, Cruz is running as a constitutional conservative with the ONLY endorsement from Gun Owners of America. As for Cruz’s citizenship, if two wins in court doesn’t convince you he’s American then tell us what a “Canadian” is doing with a permanent residence IN TEXAS! 🙂
I have a lot (decades) of experience in politics and a long memory: it’s worth noticing that Cruz’s weak ratings are at least partly due to the fact that Trump’s theatrics have hogged most of the air time from Cruz and all the other candidates. Once Cruz gets the nomination the whole Republican Party will invest in getting him better exposure, he’ll have more campaign talent and so on.
And BTW: The NRA is fence-sitting right now waiting to see where overall member sentiment lies. I believe that giving Cruz our support now would lead to an eventual endorsement by the NRA – which he badly need to clear up the matter. Cruz is the best bet we have to end the years of Clinton Democrat Anti-Gun mania.
I get why you think Bible thumpers would be upset about Trump not letting himself be killed without cause, but how you can you expect a rational person to view that as a negative? Do you honestly worship the government so much that you think that they truly have the right to randomly pick people to die just because politicians say so? What if tomorrow the government decided to start randomly picking names for people to give lethal injections to – would you vilify anyone who didn’t blindly line up with the rest of the cattle waiting to be slaughtered?
The draft was wrong – terrible, in fact. But it was the war which caused the draft to be discontinued. The ISSUE is Trump’s character when contrasted with the young men who decided to risk going to Viet Nam in a war no one really wanted. I say it’s a comparison, to call those 58,000 who died fools is disrespectful. The overall risk wasn’t that great anyway – the ratio of combat troops to support troops in Viet Nam was 1 in 13. So Trump was being “extra safe” on his own behalf and further more could have taken ROTC and come out an officer (probably also in a support role). Even some with medical deferments decided to at least take defense industry jobs (like I did). I supported my friends in the services regardless of whether they were in combat roles or not. I sent letters and mailed requested items to them – at my own expense. Lets talk loyalty to our fellow Americans. Where was Donny Trump during all that? He was riding his dad’s money though Fordham University and then through Pennsylvania University. He’s never know a day of peril in his entire life – not even professionally. Rich kids has a very low rate of draft or voluntary enlistment compared to the average American kid. Cruz is too young to have served back then and we now have a voluntary army. I disagree: there’s plenty of reason to maintain support for those who served and not to continue the free ride the rich kids had into their adulthood. Part of being a Republican is to be against the draft dodgers.
Could Cruz beat Clinton? Yes, but Trump is the wildcard in all this. If he doesn’t win the nomination, I think it is likely he will abandon his pledge to support the nominee and run as an independent. I think that will split the Republican vote and torpedo Cruz, leaving Clinton an easy path to the presidency.
Trump is the ‘wild card” indeed: his entire family are registered Democrats and Trump himself has been a Democrat when he wasn’t trying to become president via the Independent and Reform Parties (this will be his THIRD FAILURE). The idea he’ll run as an independent is UNLIKELY when you know he’s tried that twice already. And most of his supporters aren’t really significant: the general election will include the American public which rate Trump among the lowest. The Tea Party types like to appear larger than they really are. It’s the mainstream Republicans and the general public which are determinate.
As I pointed out: it’s a matter of perception and Trump gets 3X the exposure compared to Cruz or any other candidate. People’s perception is skewed by that: Trump is much smaller than he appears because of 24/7 Trump Infomercials. Trump supporters make up less than 20% of the electorate. Most of them would have been add-ons to the Republican vote. 120 million adults own guns – now there’s a demographic which hasn’t even been heard from as yet. Cruz is the major supporter of the 2nd Amendment – Trump has his NRA membership with anyone can get. Now what do you think?
I think Trump is still garnering better than 40% of the vote, on average, in the Republican primaries. Assuming that these are the same people who will reliably vote Republican in the general election, that presents a big problem for Cruz if Trump runs as an independent. Every Trump supporter I have seen interviewed is very passionate for him and not supportive of a Republican rival. I don’t think they will just line up behind Cruz if Trump launches an independent bid.
I also think that Trump has a huge ego and is drunk on the power and popularity he is enjoying currently. I initially dismissed his candidacy as a joke because he has done it before as publicity stunt and dropped out. This time I think he is serious about running. He ended his other bids pretty quickly. This time he has stayed in for the long haul. I think he believes in his chances and thinks that he has a significant portion of the country behind him. In short, he’s drinking his own Koolaid.
I personally know a lot of lifelong Republicans who are supporting Trump, so I don’t believe that his supporters are “add-ons” to the party. Maybe my personal experience is not reflective of the reality of the situation, but it is what I have to go on. I continue to believe that Trump is a very real threat to the Republicans winning the presidency in 2016, whether he is the nominee or not.
Yep, Trump has become a very credible threat to the Republican Party, no question about it. And as you said originally: he’s the “wild card” but the one the entire country doesn’t need and probably won’t want even when the other choice is Hillary. Hillary has the advantage: her supporters are decades deep and a generation wide.
The most worrisome part of all this is that Cruz is “hated” by so many mainstream Republicans. You don’t have to dig deep to find that the reason is “he’s a constitutionalist” – which is like saying too many Republicans hate and fear the Constitution!! That makes TWO kinds of Constitution Haters: the Republicans AND the Clinton Democrats!
So yeah, get set to see the end of Trump and the end of the US Constitution. (and the NRA, etc. )