Is Ted Cruz about to announce for president(Monday)?

Examiner ^

[Perdogg]

According to a Friday story in the Texas Tribune, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas has informed the media that he intends to make a “major speech” at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia on Monday. The announcement has spurred speculation that Cruz intends to either announce his intention to run for president of the United States or, at the very least, form an exploratory committee in advance of doing so. It is an open secret that Cruz, who was elected to the Senate in 2012, is interested in moving up to the Oval Office.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You said collective bargaining......that’s different than mandatory membership. Give him time. You can’t change that which you do not govern.....which is everything when you lose.

Thought? How many members in the teachers unions? How many in the Fire unions?

[SoConPubbie]

I have to respectfully disagree about the fact that Wisconsin is pretty much like any state. It is the birthplace of government unions, literally, and one of the most powerful (formerly) gov union states in the nation. Now - to your point above - Walker didn't take any collective bargaining rights away - he just destroyed the mandatory dues withholding and gave teachers and other employees the choice. He couldn't have done that without winning the election, and if he needed to push the fire/police union reform to the back burner, then it was a wise decision.

Sorry C.E.D..

You are assuming that was the reason.

It could just as well have been for some other "political" reason.

And even if you had the ability to divine the motives of others, which I am pretty sure you do not, this is the same excuse that has been given for the lousy rotten behavior of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and the bad behavior of several other politicians.

Politicians who use this excuse for their policy positions are worthless, because by logical extension, that same excuse can, has, and will be used, to support Gay Marriage, Abortion, Raising Taxes, supporting Global Warming etc.

Politicians who use that excuse are not worth spit in my book!

[Georgia Girl 2]

Good I hope he’s announcing first.

[SoConPubbie]

But look at what Walker just did with RTW in Wisconsin.....he never ran on changing RTW - he knew he had to make inroads into the public sector first. He did make those inroads, and then happily signed RTW a few weeks ago.

And he knew he probably couldn’t eat the entire elephant in one gulp on gov unions either. I’m a big Cruz guy for a number of reasons, but I’ve no problem with what Walker’s done vis a vis unions.

My take is different on this.

Initially he ran away from this fight, but was backed into a corner because his Republican led legislature dropped the bill on his desk. He even went so far in one article I read to state the GOP in his state needed to keep their members in line and not push RTW.

[SoConPubbie]

That doesn’t mean I don’t support him for signing the RTW bill.

It was the right thing to do and I am glad he came around on this issue.

[Resettozero]

Politicians who use that excuse are not worth spit in my book!

Unless they follow up by doing the right thing.

Helps me to keep in mind what a politician is:

A politician.

[C. Edmund Wright]

this is the same excuse that has been given for the lousy rotten behavior of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and the bad behavior of several other politicians.

I've many many problems with Mitt - and slammed him in my book badly, slammed his campaign thoroughly - but actually, governing a liberal state is not an "excuse" - it is a legit reality. You are free to ignore it if you want to, but Wisconsin, and Massachusetts especially, are FULL of LIBERAL VOTERS. It is what it is.

Mitt's biggest problem was not how he governed Mass - it was how he campaigned in the other 49 states. This is, by the way, why I say "blue state governors" are fools gold for the GOP. Christie would NEVER carry NJ for Pres. Ditto Mitt and Mass. It may be true for Walker and Wisconsin, but there are still realities a blue state gov faces that us on FR don't have to deal with.

But if we're being intellectually honest, we should recognize it.

[Resettozero]

...Wisconsin, and Massachusetts especially, are FULL of LIBERAL VOTERS.

...and Iowa.

[Politicalkiddo]

“Same tactic got Linseed Graham re-re-elected last year.”

Yup.

[trisham]

Please, God.

[trisham]

[so_real]

That tag team (Cruz/Walker or Walker/Cruz) would be unstoppable. Election night would see a return of the Reagan landslide victory. Guaranteed.

[OneWingedShark]

CDS (Cruz Derangement Syndrome) sufferers arriving to declare he’s not eligible in 3...2...1

I'll take that — but I actually like Mr. Cruz, while I don't believe him to be eligible for President I think he'd be excellent as AG or possibly USSC Justice.*

We Know that Mr. Cruz was born in Canada and that, at the time, his father was a citizen of Cuba. The first is important because it eliminates the anchor-baby problems** and because it then forces most of those asserting his eligibility to resort to statutes to support their claim, this destroys their claim though: Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4 clearly gives congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, nowhere else in the constitution is there anything touching on legislation for any type of citizenship, and Src 1 of Amd 14 does not grant congress additional powers. So, by appealing to a statute to assert Mr. Cruz's eligibility one is in fact asserting that he is a naturalized citizen and therefore not eligible.

I didn't give Obama a free pass on his credentials, and I'm not about to because our guy is in a similar situation*** — we must respect the Constitution even, especially, when doing so would be inconvenient, else it means nothing, restraining only when we wish to be restrained.

* — Though there are arguments that there's more than enough lawyers on the USSC and it could do with some mathematician-/engineer-types who hold the Constitution in highest regard.
** — This arises from the USSC declaring that mere accident of the location of birth is enough to confer citizenship, I believe this from a mutilation of the 14th Amendment. (There's probably legislation in-play here too, given how long that opinion has been held by the political elite.)
*** — If Obama was born in HI, then he has that much above Cruz; if not, then the situations are very, very similar.

[USS Alaska]

Since I've been sending the boy my money, I sure hope he wasn't using it to re-decorate his senate office.

What else would an important speech be about during this time of the pre-election cycle?

Maybe he has copies of hildabitch's 30,000 deleted e-mails.

[securityman]

The republican party needs a two Hispanic ticket. That would kick the MSM right in the balls. Who cares who vice president is? They are worthless. Cruz should pick Rubio and put him at the kids table for 8 years.

[DaveA37]

“And which would agree to be second banana? “..

Take your pick.

[so_real]

I am opposed to selecting a candidate based solely on ethnicity. Selecting Rubio simply because he is hispanic is just another form of racism. Comparing achievements between Walker and Rubio is significantly weighted Walker's way. In fact, as far as success of the ticket is concerned, it might well be that Walker/Cruz has an edge over Cruz/Walker.

[COBOL2Java]

I'll take that — but I actually like Mr. Cruz, while I don't believe him to be eligible for President...

So after he's been elected, will you be joining all the other CDS demonstrators marching back and forth in front of the White House, wearing a billboard over your shoulders declaring all of your "legal" reasonings why he shouldn't be in there?

[so_real]

He's not eligible; neither was Obama; does that matter now? Sure, I'm a birther, and proud of it because "the Constitution matters". I'd prefer all citizens honor the Constitution. But that's not happening. And because it's not happening we need a "revolution", and preferably a bloodless one, to restore Constitutional authority. Cruz is a revolutionary. General George Washington was a British subject and even fought with the British military. During the time of his revolution, he fought for our freedom. Washington would not turn his back on a good man like Cruz fighting for us during our time of revolution. Neither will I. He may not be eligible, but if Cruz is willing to fight for our freedom, I'll honor him with my support.

[gogeo]

It's called picking battles you can win...incrementalism.

It's how the Left has gotten where they are.

Of course, for the purists, that's too "unprincipled."