|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posted on 09/27/2014 10:23:04 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
With a clarion call to preserve religious liberty, Sen. Ted Cruz solidified his support from evangelical Republicans at the annual Value Voters Summit Friday in Washington, a connection that could pay off if he decides to join the hunt for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
[READ: Why Ted Cruz Matters in the House of Representatives]
“There are people in Washington who say that in order to win we have to abandon our values,” Cruz, of Texas, said during his 30-minute address. “Our values are who we are. Our values are why we are here.”
While shifting demographics, including a projected boom in Latino voters, have led some Republican strategists to urge the party to take moderate positions on social issues like birth control and gay marriage, the Value Voters Summit is a notable exception. Sponsored by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization, exhibit-hall booths feature graphic anti-abortion posters, T-shirts with traditional-marriage slogans and photos of Ronald Reagan.
In short, it's remains a place where red-hot conservative rhetoric still sells. And featured GOP speakers like Cruz gave them plenty of it.
During his speech, the freshman senator and Tea Party favorite touched on everything from repealing “every word of Obamacare” to protecting religious organizations from having to provide birth control to workers. He accused Democrats of being the “extreme radical party” and vowed to do everything in his power to ensure that Republicans win the Senate in the midterm election so Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, loses his job.
[QUIZ: U.S. News Quiz: How Well Do You Know Ted Cruz?]
"We will turn this country around,” Cruz said. “We don’t paint in pale pastels, we paint in bold colors.”
Cruz’s energetic, at times deeply personal speech wowed the crowd. But the summit included other Republicans eyeing a 2016 White House run, and they, too sought to make inroads with the religious right.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a favorite in Libertarian circles, took a gamble and talked about foreign policy, not religious or cultural values.
He defended his vote last week not to arm moderate Syrian rebels and reiterated his call for the U.S. to stop sending foreign aid money to Arab groups who do not support Israel’s right to exist.
“It’s time to put a stop to this madness, reexamine our foreign policy,” Paul said. “You and I must and should stand with our fellow Christians around the world, but that does not necessarily mean war and it certainly does not mean arming both sides in every conflict.”
[ALSO: The Emerging Rand Paul Doctrine: 'Selective' Force]
Paul also told the audience that if he were president, he would have called for a joint session of Congress and required members to decide whether to give him authorization to strike Syria instead of the Obama administration, which relied on a 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. The audience erupted in cheers.
Yet, Paul’s speech left some worried about what kind of commander-in-chief he might be.
“There are some things Rand Paul and I don’t see eye to eye on. I don’t even quite understand where he stands,” says Judd Saul, 35, a summit attendee. “I don’t like political dancing. You either poop or get off the pot.”
Anna Maria Hoffman, 22, says she wants a 2016 candidate who is going to be outspoken on conservative social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but also promotes a more assertive national defense strategy. So far, she said, Cruz is her man.
“I’m a full-spectrum conservative,” Hoffman says. “Ted Cruz is probably the most qualified and ample for the job. He has been leading in the Senate...he will mobilize people to change things.”
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Finally a candidate that can appeal to evangelicals and republicans.
Bush II didn't try very hard either time but didn't fight it like Romney and Dole and McCain did. Bush I couldn't help but win the first time because people thought they were voting for someone who had soaked up Reagan's sense and talent. The second time he actively lay down and successfully lost.
I don't see anyone else out there for whom there is any chance of doing anything constructive should he win the election.
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.