Posted on 11/26/2015 11:59:03 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A month ago I predicted a Cruz-Rubio ticket. Now that Cruz has overtaken Carson to run neck-and-neck with Trump in the Iowa Quinnipiac University poll, Cruz is looking a lot like a winner. Here are my top 10 reasons to back him.
10. He really knows economics--not the ideologically driven pablum dished out at universities, but the real battlefield of entrenched monopolies against entrepreneurial upstarts. As Asheesh Agarwal and John Delacourt reported in this space, he did a brilliant job at the Federal Trade Commission: "Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers." Anyone can propose tax cuts. It takes real know-how to cut through the regulatory kudzu that is strangling America enterprise.
9. He really knows foreign policy. He is a hardline defender of American interests, but wants to keep American politics out of the export business. That's why neo-conservatives like Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post and Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal keep sliming him. The Bushies started attacking Cruz a year ago, when he stated the obvious about the Bush administration's great adventure in "democratic globalism": "I think we stayed too long, and we got far too involved in nation-building….We should not be trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland." He's not beholden to the bunglers of the Bush administration, unlike the hapless Marco Rubio.
8. He really knows the political system. As Texas solicitor general, he argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and won five of them. How many other lawyers in the United States have gone to the Supreme Court nine times on points of Constitutional law? The best write-up I've seen on his brilliance as a Constitutional lawyer came from the liberal New Yorker--grudging praise, but praise nevertheless. Some of his legal work was brilliant, displaying a refined understanding of separation of powers and federalism. If you want a president who knows the mechanism of American governance from the inside, there's no-one else who comes close to Cruz.
7. He's an outsider, and America needs an outsider. The public thinks that Washington is corrupt, and it IS corrupt. The banks are corrupt, the defense industries (with their $1.5 trillion budget for a new fighter plane that won't fly) are corrupt, the tech companies (run by patent trolls rather than engineers) are corrupt, the public utilities are corrupt. The American people want a new broom. But it helps to put it in the hands of someone who knows his way around the broom closet.
6. Trump and Carson aren't serious candidates. Carson is an endearing fellow who has no business running for president: apart from his medical specialty, his knowledge of the world is an autodidact's jumble of fact and fantasy. Donald Trump inherited money and ran a family business: never in his life did he have to persuade shareholders, investors, directors, or anyone else to work with him. At best, he knew how to cajole and threaten. It's been his way or the highway since he was a kid, and that's the worst possible training for a U.S. president.
5. Cruz is in but not of the system. The distinguished conservative scholar Robert P. George mentored him at Princeton and the flamboyant (but effective) liberal Alan Dershowitz taught him at Harvard Law School. Both agree he was the smartest student they ever had. An Ivy League education isn't important unless, of course, you don't have one: to run the United States, it helps to have dwelt in the belly of the beast. Cruz came through the elite university mill with his principles intact, and a keen understanding of the liberal mentality.
4. He's got real grit--call it fire in the belly, but Cruz wants to be president and wants us to want him to be president. Determination is a lot more important than charm, where Cruz won't win first prize. When it comes down to it, Americans don't want a charming president, but a smart, tough and decent one. Marco Rubio, the Establishment's last hope after Jeb Bush's belly-flop, is instantly recognizable as the tough-guy hero's cute younger brother. Either Cruz or Fiorina would fill out the ticket.
3. He knows how to run a real campaign as opposed to a flash-in-the-pan media event. Cruz has boots on the ground, an organization of people who believe in him and raise money at twice the rate of Rubio--with an average $66 donation.
2. He's a true believer in the United States of America. His love for his country and belief in its prospects are impassioned and unfeigned. He's ambitious, but his ambition stems from a desire to serve, where he believes that he is uniquely qualified to serve.
And the top reason to vote for Ted Cruz is:
He can beat Hillary Clinton. Not just beat her, but beat her by a landslide. Mrs. Clinton isn't that smart. She looks sort of smart when the media toss her softballs, but in a series of one-to-one, nowhere-to-hide presidential debates, Cruz would shred her. Cruz was the top college debater in the country. He knows how to assemble facts, stay on message, anticipate his opponent's moves and neutralize them. He's a quarter-century younger than Mrs. Clinton, smarter, sharper, and better prepared. He's also clean as a whistle in personal life and finances, while the Clintons could reasonably be understood to constitute a criminal enterprise.
I would encourage you both to review the US Constitution regarding the powers of the Vice Presidency visa via the US Senate:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
- - show me where one party won four consecutive presidential elections - -
-
All I could find was this:
-
Ulysses S. Grant.....1869-1873
Ulysses S. Grant.....1873-1877
Rutherford B. Hayes..1877-1881
James Garfield.......1881-1883
Chester A. Arthur....1883-1885
-
William McKinley.....1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt...1901-1905
Theodore Roosevelt...1905-1909
William H. Taft......1909-1913
-
Don’t know how accurate it is...
Post civil war the republicans did maintain control of the presidency.
Post reconstruction is a different story.
After the Civil War the Republicans would have had to been as incompetent as todays pubbies to lose an election.
In the political world of today it is virtually impossible for one political party to maintain power.
Information is more available quicker and to more people.
The electorate is just about as fractured as it was pre civil war only with more factions. Too many people offended about every little thing.
Short of a complete and total meltdown by either major party, I don’t think we will see either keep control for 16 consecutive years.
“Cruz is a once-in-a-generation candidate. Why settle for second best?”
DITTO!
bkmk
What you posted is not FR slang. Here is further proof of your ailment: many hours later and your HDS is still active because you lack the maturity of me simply posting Huckabee/Cruz.
Can’t ever recall going off the deep-end (”Bwhaaa” to cut it way short) and responding many times even after long hours because someone simply posted Name/Name. You are a case study, actually.
According to the 2015 Billionaires List here, Trump is worth $3.9 billion. Still plenty.
My fellow Cruz supporter (Cruz the ONLY guy in the race worth voting for), please allow me to correct you: Trump voted for McCain and Romney, if he is to be judged by his words on-the-record. He was a Democrat when McCain ran, yet officially endorsed McCain in 2008, and by the time Romney ran, had switched parties (for the third time in 26 years) to Republican. Just FYI.
All I had to see to understand that Trump is out of the running for my own vote was his explanation as to why McCain was only a war hero "because he was captured," and wasn't therefore really a war hero. I was stunned, shocked ... and enlightened. Cruz is absolutely the only guy in the race worth voting for.
Trump claims to be worth 9 billion
That’s my source
My point is that people say he inherited his money and 200 million divided among heirs at the age of 53 is not 9 billion nor is it 2.3 billion or one billion nor is it all of the money spent building buildings and employing people, which none of tge other candidates who get no scrutiny even on this forum get
I can tell you very definitely with my BA in English and my B in Science, having taught how to write research papers, that Wikipedia on this forum FR is quite substantial as people do not do the simplest Google search
And more specifically, my point about Trump is well mad from wiki as the difference between what you say, which refutes even Trump , 3 or whatever billion
So as mark levin would shout, ‘get off my phone!!!!!”
...All I had to see to understand that Trump is out of the running for my own vote was his explanation as to why McCain was only a war hero “because he was captured,” and wasn’t therefore really a war hero. I was stunned, shocked ... and enlightened. Cruz is absolutely the only guy in the race worth voting for...
What makes you think McCain was a war hero?
DITTO!
Double DITTO!!
Exactly.
All the things that made America great.
The Founding Fathers were great schmoozers! Who knew!
FOUR billion would be the dif between Trump's claim and/or Wikipedia source and the 2015 billionaires list linked. MORE THAN DOUBLE a diff in the claim.
The kind of folks who trust Wikipedia, trust Trump, apparently.
Wikipedia may be okay with you on this forum -- but it's OUT for me on any forum except if it's a paid gig and I'm really desperate and it's only cotton-candy info that doesn't matter anyway. But to really on Wikipedia for really important info -- bad idea. Beware.
Do you think that the guys who were in the Bataan Death March weren't war heroes?
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.