Replies

I’ll do the same as to why I support the opposite.

I have found that taking a logical argument to an emotional fight is just as likely to produce a satisfactory result as deploying a plastic spoon in a gunfight so it is refreshing to see someone else who values reason above feelings.

Senator Cruz impressed me when he first bucked the system and opposed the chosen candidate for senate. I initially thought he would be crushed and was very surprised that he withstood everything thrown against him and prevailed against all odds. As opposed to most new senators, he did not adopt the go along to get along approach, but rather quickly learned the rules of the game and used them to pursue the agenda he had set out. Although he was often the lone voice, he never wavered and, often with only the force of his convictions, was able to rally the House to do what he did not have the power to do in the Senate. Using the often convoluted rules of the Senate where you often support something in order to oppose it, he was actually able to influence action on some critical issues. Both in the Senate and in this campaign, he has shown an ability to remain calm and focused while undergoing intense and often personal attacks. His has actually exhibited a temperament suitable to operate effectively in a public position of power and responsibility.

Mr. Trump initially impressed me by articulating what the critical problems of the country were. Being from Texas, his views on immigration was of particular interest as was his views on the deliberate destruction of our manufacturing base. He had an impressive resume of accomplishment in the business world and made a good argument about being able to finance his own campaign. Since I don't pay much attention to the popular media, and his business interest are not a big deal in my area, my assessment of him as a viable candidate did not begin until he announced for office so it took longer into the process for my impression to solidify. I begin to notice a tendency to personalize disagreements and engage in ridicule and name calling, especially in public forums where their adherence to more civil rules of conduct prevented his targets from responding in kind. I also noticed a tendency to waffle on and qualify initial hard line positions by suggesting they were only negotiating points. The emphasis on negotiating and deal making, might sound good at first hearing, but the president is charged by the constitution with making sure the laws enacted by congress are carried out whether the president likes them or not. There appears to be a lack of preparation and more of a tendency to deny mistakes than to learn from them. Needless to say, ability to Twitter is not a recommendation for president.

I know that my discussion of Mr. Trump has focused more on temperament than on accomplishment but that is because his accomplishments have very little relationship to the position he is seeking. The traits that serve an entrepreneur or entertainer are not necessarily those needed for success in a public office which depends greatly on the ability to work with and through other strong willed and opinionated individuals and to accept limitations on authority. While the record of Senator Cruz provides a fairly good indication of how he would perform in a more responsible governmental role, the projection of Mr. Trump into the role of president is more based on faith than performance. As an aside, I can't help but think of Governor Palin remarking to supporters of President Obama, "How is that hopeechangee working out?"

Despite all above, my decision that Senator Cruz was the best option was solidified when Justice Scalia died. President Carter proved that our country could survive a president who was well intentioned but incompetent. President Obama has proven that the country can survive a president with bad intent and the competence to carry that out. During these two administrations as with all the ups and downs observed in my 70 plus years on this earth, I have never doubted the survival of the constitution as the absolute check on government infringement on the rights of the people. We currently have a large segment of the population with no allegiance to the constitution and fully one half the membership of the supreme court holding the view that the constitution has no modern day relevance. The next president will be elected for a four year term but will likely determine the fate of our constitutional government for the next 20 to 30 years through his appointments to the Supreme Court. On this most critical issue, I consider Senator Cruz to be far and away a better bet. Since any democrat is a certainty in the wrong direction, I would willingly take either of our two over either of their two.

I know I am posting this long after everyone has moved on from this thread but I got to your question late and had to give it some thought before replying. I put my thought on the public forum rather than private mail as you suggested because, although I don't like the negative tone evident recently, I don't think it should deter rational discussion. Since your tag line mentioned a first primary vote, I assume you are just beginning your political life and if that is so, I have to say you are taking a more thoughtful approach than I did when I was your age.