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.

[CatherineofAragon]

If he makes his announcement in my hometown, it’ll be fantastic.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Yep, lot in Iowa too - but Iowa is only problematic in the primary season. Still, not nearly as much as Mass. Mass one of the 3 most liberal states in the nation IMO.

[OneWingedShark]

Why would I do that?
Why should I think that my opinion really matters to those in authority? — Especially when such authority has been quite adamant against all my other opinions? Like the commerce clause and War on Drugs, those in power have very, very little incentive to reduce that power, and indeed all experience shows that they are inclined to transgress limits to attain more power.

We see this in how Congress constantly wrings its hands over constitutional violations but does nothing to reign it in [e.g. NSA] — we see it in the USSC’s dismissal of Prop 8 [where they essentially declared that the state supreme courts could not rule on standing] — we see it in the executive where “RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!” is the justification for things like the DEA and BATFE

The only way that any meaningful limitations are going to happen is via Article V, or by the barrel of a gun.
That’s the reality of the situation.

[VictoryGal]

[C. Edmund Wright]

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

Actually, that's not what happened. The large field is what gave any chance at all to keep Lindsey under 50% in the primary, thus forcing a run-off. In a run-off, it would have been one against one. The thing that got Lindsey re-elected was A: he had a huge advantage inherently as a long time powerful incumbent and B: Graham wisely used that advantage and early on he made deals with would be supporters not to run and not to support anyone who does (Gowdy for example) and C: the only one remaining with the chops was Lee Bright, but he had other obstacles that were very problematic.

As it turned out, Lee trounced the field for second place, even as he had a much smaller budget than all the others, but Graham came in comfortably at 56%.

[Yaelle]

Cruz and Walker is a great team. It doesn’t matter which is on top. They won’t have to choose; the front runner will be choosing from among the lesser candidates and being on the team will be better than not.

[C. Edmund Wright]

To clarify my take on this: You and I are irrelevant to union reform in Wisconsin - because we don't vote there, we don't live there, and we don't have any economic interests (at least I do not) in Wisconsin. Thus, as irrelevant, we are free to espouse whatever views we want, because our views simply do not matter.

You choose to hold the purist line, judging Walker against the perfect. I choose to take a more pragmatic approach, and judge Walker against A: every other governor in Wisconsin history and B: every current governor everywhere vis a vis unions and C: results. He wins A hands down, he wins B probably, though some others are doing good things, and he wins C. Some hypothetical perfection is just not part of my equation.

SO: to compromise for practicality or not? Some on FR want to answer this question with a 100% purist answer. That's not reality. It's case by case. Some compromises are indefensible compromises of principle, and some are strategic ways to get some of your principles upheld. I think Walker is the latter. I still prefer Cruz, but I don't have to demean Walker on unions to reach that conclusion.

[Slyfox]

Just in case you haven’t heard - ping.

[Slyfox]

He is the only one in the whole group who could actually fill Ronald Reagan's shoes.

Plus, he is the only one who could debate the pants off anyone the dems end up with.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

I agree. Walker and Cruz should together for an alliance to knock out Jeb, then agree to let the best man win (provided one doesn’t give Dems ammo against the other), and the winner takes the runner up as VP.

[Slyfox]

Mental Image

[trisham]

He looks good there.

[Resettozero]

Thanks for the clarification and you’re right. But with the press NOT covering the Senate campaign well enough to publicize all of them, too many candidates jumbled voters’ minds. Plus, the open primary.

IMO, the PTB, the Uniparty in Columbia, will make sure there’s never another “mistake” made like S.C. voted in the 2012 GOP Pres Pref Primary.

[Yaelle]

I think we have to get used to the fact that they are going to go full birther on Cruz.

---

That needs to be shut down with a scornful laugh in 1.2 seconds.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (and we need to stop pulling out tattered parchments on this now and all agree) is someone who is BORN A US CITIZEN. Period.

No matter how you feel about John McCain, he was born to two Americans, one who was serving his country, which is why John was born outside the borders. Anyone born to a US Citizen is American born, as long as she was old enough to confer citizenship.

Barack Obama’s mother Stanley was 18 and not old enough to confer citizenship upon her baby IF SHE DIDNT GIVE BIRTH WITHIN THE USA. And since his online faux birth certificate has been determined a forgery or a copy of a forgery by most experts, Barack Obama clearly has a citizenship and ineligibility issue. He has used the mocking media to shame those who dared question His Royal Documents, but he doesn’t even pass background checks for housekeepers. Turn this question right back on Obama because it will shut the questioners right up.

Ted Cruz was born to an American citizen old enough to confer citizenship, so therefore he was born American.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are right about the press ignoring the race - they did - only interested in fund raising figures, period. Didn’t give a damn about anything else. It was so frustrating.

And yes, cross over voting is a problem - but I think there’s going to be another “mistake” in SC in 16. At least, I’m hoping so!

[buckeye49]

Wouldn’t he be more likely to make that announcement inn Texas??

[txhurl]

We desperately need some good news.

[DoodleDawg]

Take your pick.

I don't think either one wants the Veep spot.

[trisham]

I couldn’t agree more!

[so_real]

Your appeal to accept a contemporary redefinition of natural-born-citizen for sake of convenience is exactly the same slippery slope that lead to : Obama becoming Pres__ent despite his records (or lack thereof), Clinton avoiding perjury while claiming he did not have sex with Lewinsky, and present day homosexuals deciding they are indeed "married" (whatever that word may mean to them).

Intentional ignorance of history for short term gain always, always leads to larger problems in the long term. Words have meaning and power; they are played with at our peril.

A Natural Born Citizen is a True Citizen

History ... why don't more people know it? "In short, it’s because they do not want to know it and even more importantly, they do not want you to know it ..."

I'll support Cruz, but not out of ignorance for history. But because I believe history is repeating itself. These are our revolutionary times and we need to "stand with" or "stand against" our countrymen for far more important considerations than that of ancestory.

But even with that said, Obama is exactly the reason Chief Justice John Jay wrote to Washington "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Had we taken the hint, we would not be under Obama's thumb. And having that protection in place is far more important than any single man's ability, even McCain's or Cruz's ability, to rise to the office of President.