Posted on 08/26/2015 6:26:21 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
I've always liked Ted Cruz, he is the Republican who I agree with most on the issues. He's free market, pro-life and for a measured foreign policy (less aggressive than Marco Rubio but more aggressive than Rand Paul). Most importantly, he would stick to his ideals despite pressure from the establishment. He may have made some tactical errors because of that but I couldn't help but admire him for his idealism. He has been the candidate that I would have voted for if I didn't care at all about electability.
Unfortunately, his interview last night with Megyn Kelly unmasked him as just another smarmy politician. One who thinks the Constitution is maleable, depending on the way the winds are blowing or what is politically advantageous, one who doesn't answer direct questions with direct answers.
When Megyn Kelly asked him about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, he said that "as a policy matter, it doesn't make sense anymore". This struck me as the same answer you would get from a liberal with regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms after a school shooting.
It seems to me that the text of the 14th amendment is pretty clear on birthright citizenship. It says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is no less clear than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The funny thing is that Ted Cruz actually agrees with me or he used to before it became politically expedient to mirror Trump's views with the goal of getting his supporters when Trump blows up. During the interview Megyn Kelly quoted Ted Cruz back to himself. Here is what he said in 2011:
“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution. And I don’t like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different.”
But of course that was before he was running for President and so didn't have to worry about his words offending another candidates supporters. He really didn't have a good answer after Megyn Kelly brought out that quote, talking around it rather than explaining why he changed his mind like a normal, honest person would have.
Megyn Kelly then asked Cruz the same question Trump has been asked, whether he would deport with the parents two children of illegal immigrants that were technically citizens of the US. He totally avoided answering that question as he attempted a typical maneuver of a politician, having his cake and eating it too. Without being on record as saying he would deport them, he could pivot later and say he is against deporting children without technically flip-flopping while at the same time not saying anything that would offend the Trumpitistas and those that support Trump's immigration plan. I don't like Trump for many reasons but at least he answers questions directly as he did this question when it was asked of him.
Last night it became clear that Ted Cruz is willing to do anything to become President, which is exactly the opposite of why I always had been fond of him. If I wanted someone who would lie with a straight face and a smile and evade questions I would vote for a Bill Clinton or a John Edwards. Looks like Ted Cruz came to Washington to change it but instead it changed him.
He also left me wondering what other constitutional provisions is he set to oppose for political expediency with the goal of gaining more power for himself?
Everybody has a bad day.
His intentions were good, to avoid a loaded question. He should have avoided it more head on instead of looking like he was avoiding a question.
To extrapolate that to your thread title is silly and almost certainly agenda driven.
How would he have “avoided it more head on”?
Talk about a fair-weather friend...
And this means what to you? Anybody who drops a bundle here within the physical confines of the US is a citizen?
If that were the case, then why all the extra hubbub in the amendment? Things like "subject to the jurisdiction of" and the additions of "and of the states wherein they reside?
“Everybody has a bad day.
His intentions were good, to avoid a loaded question. He should have avoided it more head on instead of looking like he was avoiding a question.”
I dont think Cruz just had a bad day, it was a calculation. He knew he would be asked that question and that was the way he wanted to not-answer it. He should have just told the truth about what he believes (which I believe is what he said in 2011) and taken the heat. He is probably desperate at this point given that he isnt doing too well in the polls generally.
“And this means what to you? Anybody who drops a bundle here within the physical confines of the US is a citizen?”
Unfortunately yes. I have to agree with the 2011 version of Cruz on this.
But your conclusion that he's 'just another smarmy politician' is ridiculous and isn't in any way born out by the facts.
“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
He should have mentioned that the above shows could be interpreted that illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Also, why would that phrase be there if it’s not to limit the overgeneralization preceding it? And how come the American Indians were not given citizenship until years after the amendment was ratified?
Can you think of any other politicians that comes even close to Cruz in terms of courage, integrity, and faith in the free market system? So who are you throwing your support behind if it’s not Cruz?
And you are just another smarmy blogger who couldn’t get his crap read anywhere if not for Free Republic.
Have you contributed to the Freepathon?
And who is your candidate? Jeb? Nice.
You always have Trump.
I am still for Cruz.
I have never found perfection in any human, especially a politician.
So who is your perfect politician?
of the State wherein they reside. —
Yeah, the hospital bed, for a few hours before getting back on the jet to Chins.
Oh. State just means State of Mind. Living in their own head.
And United States means those who think alike.
See. It is obvious. Settled law.
And libertarian neocon is just another smarmy nobody whose views hold equal weight as George Will.
When Ted Cruz isn’t conservative enough for you, there is no one left. Time for you to go find an island in the Pacific and hide..
Birthright citizenship is NOT in the US Constitution. It was specifically rejected in the case of kids born to an invading foreign army, which is close to what we have now. But in truth, the current US Supreme Court will NOT allow any act of Congress or Executive Order interfere with massive illegal immigration.
Ah, I gather from your blog (pimp) that you’re pushing for Carly.
Makes sense that you’d do whatever you can to try to trash the strongest candidate, Ted Cruz.
Talk about smarmy? By using such tactics against a fine candidate like Ted Cruz, you’re making a muddy pig out of yourself.
If the Russian Ambassador has a child in the United States, is that child an American citizen?
His blog has several ads and articles in favor of Carly. He’s a fan of Carly, and is bent on trying to demean any other candidate in order to promote her. Lousy tactic. Non-Reaganesque.
Cruz should have avoided Megyn Kelly.
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.