Posted on 10/05/2015 4:42:56 PM PDT by Isara
It seems to me the only principled reason to be a Republican would be to stop, thwart and defeat Leftist ideas you’re opposed to. Therefore, what better standard by which to judge Republican presidential candidates than by who is the most committed to actually defeating the opposition?
And who might that candidate be in 2016? Well, according to the man from whom much of today’s conservative multimedia empire originates, that candidate is Ted Cruz.
“If you’re looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented towards stopping it, thwarting it, and defeating it – it’s Ted Cruz,” Mr. Limbaugh recently said on his popular radio program.
Let the record show that as usual, Rush is right.
In fact, I challenge anybody reading this to make an objective case there is a more principled candidate in the race than Mr. Cruz — because you can’t. I also work for an organization called Conservative Review, which gives regularly scheduled proctology exams to the records of politicians by charting how they vote on a full spectrum of conservative issues via our “liberty scorecard.” Mr. Cruz currently has our second-highest score at 96 percent, which is second only to Mike Lee.
Except Mr. Cruz does not just settle for voting the right way when it’s all said and done, but he fights back on our behalf against the corruption infesting Washington as well as the “losership” of the Republican Party.
...
Here is the bottom line: If someone doesn’t have a proven history of fighting the corruption in Washington before getting elected, that probably means they’re unlikely to do it after they reach the White House.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
OTH the Establishment types , even Cruz, will not deliver on much. It will be the status quo all over again.
Trump is like a muscle car of the 60's. Yeah the back seat is tiny, it drinks gas and impracticable for many reasons. But did you look under the hood? That High Output V8 with the 4 bbl carb was too much to resist. So you bought it anyway.
LOL, yeah, I just can’t figure it out.
I'd accept your apology, but don't bother; an apology from your kind means less than nothing to me.
Trump supported Obama in 2008 and only two brief years ago, helped put Clinton toadie Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor's mansion to a tune of $25,000 donated to his campaign. Only two years ago. And today you count on him to deliver on "many things" you like? Hmmm ...
So you're sure right he's an imperfect candidate. As for him being a gamble "well worth taking" -- you lost me on that one.
Trump is a liberal gasbag devoid of principles. If you want to be "led" by something like that, have at it. I refuse it.
Looks like Catherine "gotcha," Toad.
They don’t care that he’s a liberal, Finny. They do backflips trying to excuse the stuff that comes out of his mouth (and his liberal history, as well).
All they want is a celebrity-like personality to gush over and follow along behind, sheeplike.
They are both right, IMO. The 2nd Amendment was originally passed to stop a tyranny in this country. However, it also gives citizens the right to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm. I don’t see a problem with both positions.
She doesn't pose naked in bed with other women, either.
Precisely right - Which is why I find it so very odd that folks pick out the very few criticisms of Cruz to attack him with, when his very, very long list of Conservative successes should earn him trust, and the benefit of the doubt. Even Reagan messed up a time or two... But by and large, Cruz is just as predictably conservative as one could possibly ask for.
Yet those same folks, who would crucify Cruz, blithely overlook Trump's horrendously liberal record in order to talk up his election year promises. And of what value are those promises, if in fact his actions - his record - defy those promises?
Seems to me, like with Cruz, what he DOES is worth more than what he says... And using that as the bellwether, there isn't anyone out there to vote for except Cruz.
W-A-L-L
Trump talks big talk, is refreshing in how he is politically incorrect, and means well, but his actions and history prove him to be a power-wielder bereft of a political compass, which makes him a total crap shoot in terms of gambling what I vote FOR empowering in this nation. And I only vote for what I want to win.
In 1999, Trump openly promoted and praised the concept of universal health care; in 2008, he was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama, and in 2013, a generous donor to the campaign of leftist and Clinton toadie Terry McAuliffe.
Those who think they know what Trump will stand for in, say, 2028 or 2020, are kidding themselves. They don't know what they're voting for any more than the man in the moon. They only know what they hope they're voting for.
And that's a bad gamble looking at Trump's habits as opposed to his words.
Cruz, on the other hand, is a consistent conservative guided by a political compass like my own, and who has the same stands today as he had in 1999, 2008, and two years ago.
Conservatives willing to "gamble" on Trump are taking a pretty stupid bet, in my opinion.
Correction: Those who think they know what Trump will stand for in, say, 2018 or 2020, are kidding themselves. They don’t know what they’re voting for any more than the man in the moon. They only know what they hope they’re voting for.
If we are, Trump is definitely out of the running.
No, we are not picking them based on looks. If we were, I would definitely have to go with Trump over Cruz--because Cruz looks so much like Bill Murray, and I cannot envision Bill Murray as a serious candidate for anything.
If voting strictly on policy, I have to go with Cruz. On the other hand, Trump is very charismatic and shows a strong backbone. So, in the choice between a candidate who nearly exactly shares my views (Cruz), or a candidate who only shares about 70% of my views but has the strength and charisma to enact policies against the tidewaters of the Washington establishment--it's a tough call.
Ted Cruz on the righter hand states that the 2nd Amendment is a “fundamental check on government tyranny”.
I don't even see the resemblance to Murray, myself. Personally, I've always found Trump physically repulsive.
"If voting strictly on policy, I have to go with Cruz. On the other hand, Trump is very charismatic and shows a strong backbone. So, in the choice between a candidate who nearly exactly shares my views (Cruz), or a candidate who only shares about 70% of my views but has the strength and charisma to enact policies against the tidewaters of the Washington establishment--it's a tough call."
Not at all. Voting for charismatic people has led to problems more than once.
Cruz is strong, but he is also secure; he doesn't need to flail around and yell and brag about how wonderful he is. That kind of thing is a turnoff to me in general; I sure don't want it in the White House.
Cruz's life has been all about standing up to the Washington cartel, but it seems some conservatives are more interested in flash than substance right now.
The bottom line for me is that Trump is too liberal. Just tonight he defended eminent domain seizure. I won't vote for the man under any circumstances.
Called Pam Geller an Obnoxious loudmouth who deliberately goaded muslims into attacking her to make money in Garland TX.
Attacked Michelle Malkin for telling the truth about his crony capitalist eminent domain empire.
Supports Obamacare on steroids.
Brags about buying politicians.
Supports bringing in foreign workers as permenant citizens but doesn’t use the term “H1b visa”.
Supports ethanol subsidies and anti free market renewable fuel standards.
Has supported gun bans in the past and is still unclear on them. (Still evolving)
Has held at least 2 different positions on Syrian “refugees”.
Declares gay marriage to be “The law of the land”.
Has switched parties at least 3 times.
Has donated to democrats recently.
Declared Mitt Romney to be “too tough” on illegal aliens in 2012.
Said he would bomb ISIS and take their stuff, now wants Russia to bomb ISIS and we’ll magically take their stuff.
Meets to make deals with union leadership behind closed doors.
Claims he would get money and influence out of politics but Throws names Like Oprah and Warren Buffett out there as potential advisers.
Supports normalized relations with Cuba that will further prop up the Castro regime.
Won’t tear up Obama’s disasterous and illegal Iran nuke deal.
Will tell people what they want to hear but may or may not believe it himself.
Holy cow, will you look at that exhaustive list. I don’t see how anyone could trust the man after reading it.
And to think I was told last night that Trump shouldn’t be abandoned because of a “single issue” like his love for emiment domain, LOL.
I love Ted, and have donated to his campaign, but he doesn’t have the muscle to overcome the RNC’s corrupt nominating process. He will not be the nominee, no matter how hard we wish it so.
The only way he can win the nomination, is if Trump, Carson, Rubio, Bush, and Fiorina drop out before February. Of course, that’s not going to happen.
Ted’s only realistic path into the Executive branch at this time, is as the nominee’s VP, or perhaps the Republican president will choose him as his AG.
Another four to eight years of seasoning as a top ranked Republican leader will set him up nicely to win the White House on his own.
They are voting for testicular bravado and bluff, hype...
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.