Posted on 08/26/2015 6:26:21 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
I've always liked Ted Cruz, he is the Republican who I agree with most on the issues. He's free market, pro-life and for a measured foreign policy (less aggressive than Marco Rubio but more aggressive than Rand Paul). Most importantly, he would stick to his ideals despite pressure from the establishment. He may have made some tactical errors because of that but I couldn't help but admire him for his idealism. He has been the candidate that I would have voted for if I didn't care at all about electability.
Unfortunately, his interview last night with Megyn Kelly unmasked him as just another smarmy politician. One who thinks the Constitution is maleable, depending on the way the winds are blowing or what is politically advantageous, one who doesn't answer direct questions with direct answers.
When Megyn Kelly asked him about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, he said that "as a policy matter, it doesn't make sense anymore". This struck me as the same answer you would get from a liberal with regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms after a school shooting.
It seems to me that the text of the 14th amendment is pretty clear on birthright citizenship. It says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is no less clear than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The funny thing is that Ted Cruz actually agrees with me or he used to before it became politically expedient to mirror Trump's views with the goal of getting his supporters when Trump blows up. During the interview Megyn Kelly quoted Ted Cruz back to himself. Here is what he said in 2011:
“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution. And I don’t like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different.”
But of course that was before he was running for President and so didn't have to worry about his words offending another candidates supporters. He really didn't have a good answer after Megyn Kelly brought out that quote, talking around it rather than explaining why he changed his mind like a normal, honest person would have.
Megyn Kelly then asked Cruz the same question Trump has been asked, whether he would deport with the parents two children of illegal immigrants that were technically citizens of the US. He totally avoided answering that question as he attempted a typical maneuver of a politician, having his cake and eating it too. Without being on record as saying he would deport them, he could pivot later and say he is against deporting children without technically flip-flopping while at the same time not saying anything that would offend the Trumpitistas and those that support Trump's immigration plan. I don't like Trump for many reasons but at least he answers questions directly as he did this question when it was asked of him.
Last night it became clear that Ted Cruz is willing to do anything to become President, which is exactly the opposite of why I always had been fond of him. If I wanted someone who would lie with a straight face and a smile and evade questions I would vote for a Bill Clinton or a John Edwards. Looks like Ted Cruz came to Washington to change it but instead it changed him.
He also left me wondering what other constitutional provisions is he set to oppose for political expediency with the goal of gaining more power for himself?
“And another difficulty is that any obviously Mexican or Central American individual is automatically assumed to be illegal. My experience with such folks has been about 90% positive, since the gangs and la Raza types are not around our area.”
La Raza types should be sent back south as soon as Trump becomes President if they are illegals. If they come back, label them as terrorists and ship them back.
The legal immigrants for the most part are good people, who add to the economy as our ancestors did when they immigrated legally to America.
“I thought blog “pimping” was when the item was excerpted and you had to go to the blog to read the rest.”
You beat me to it. I agree. He even posted it in the right forum (Bloggers & Personal).
LOL!
Thanks:
“You are correct. One MUST get the dialogue rolling before action can be taken.
Trump has accomplished step one with no thanks to any other candidate. TDS’rs seem to conveniently forget this.”
The dialogue has been started by Trump. This dialogue needs be discussed by every candidate, senator and congressit.
While the discussions gear up, we can do what Ike did to slow down/stop the flow of illegals.
Oh no! He posted a blog entry (all of it) in the “Blogs and Personal” forum! Next thing you know, people will start posting breaking news in the Breaking News forum and religious content in the Religion Forum.
< /sarc>
I think part of the purpose of having the Blogs and Personal is encouraging people to write. When people criticize them for writing (rather than discussing the content or making constructive suggestions) it defeats the purpose. It also has its own forum so people who don’t want to read the work of amateurs can ignore it.
What Cruz said was right, The question is the left tactic of bringing up poor little children so they don’t have to address the issue.
Cruz was right in that there are multiple way to legislate the fix regardless of how you interpret the Constitution.
Both agree that the process of birth right citizenship should end.
Cruz has a history of being a fighter so he has to tone it down some for the election.
Trump is just the opposite, he has no history so he has to turn up the volume to act like he’s a fighter to get elected.
Anyone that thinks a specific candidate is not political during a campaign season is being duped.
go Cruz!
“Looks like we are IBTZ. “
If not today, soon : )
“Yup, Ziravan. Once a baby has the citizenship, by ex post facto alone, I don’t think American citizenship can be removed. But that doesn’t give the illegal alien parents citizenship. Maybe the threat of removing the baby from the parents and deporting them, if they did not return as a family to Mexicoy would make most of them decamp. But when the U.S. citizen child was an adult, that child could voluntarily return to the U.S. and his parents could then enter legally as parents and immediate family of an American child and eventually attain citizenship, as could any brothers and sisters born in Mexico after the family returned.”
Any effective closing of the border must also include changing and ending chain migration. In that we agree that any border solution is only a partial solution if it doesn’t address that issue.
Since all the freed slaves are now deceased, the amendment should be repealed.
Ah, a pretend supporter.
As in “for the sake of my vanity thread I will pretend to be a Cruz supporter.”
You do know that your blog and pro-Carly articles are visible go anyone curious enough to look, right?
You do understand how trollish that makes your “article” appear, right?
That's the title of the thread, not did Ted answer one question poorly.
I go on to Walker threads and deride those who through disinformation trash him, and I do it to those who go on Cruz threads to do the same.
It's destructive and stupid for these threads to spread bad information, I'm just pointing it out. Yes, it's okay to deride the author of a thread like this, he/she deserves it.
Trump is the only one that is not owned by rich donors.
Go Trump!
All politicians are looking to advance their political careers and are owned by rich donors
Perfect! LOL
Thanks for the ping.
So now chain migration is in the 14th too?
That would certainly solve a lot of problems, resulting from the antithetical premises of the "14th" to those of the original Constitution.
I am really upset that he used too many prepositional phrases
LOL, yea, ain't it the truth.
Time to dump this Cruz guy because some anonymous (concern trolling) poster on FR (with his own blog, who is supporting Carly Fiona) has stated emphatically that "Ted Cruz is just another smarmy politician".
Sooo, so long Mr. Cruz, I'm heading over to settle in at Carly's tent.
But, I'll keep my bags packed because I'm sure it won't be long until I see the concern troll's future post about why he is dumping her.
My, my, it's so tiring being a Low Information Voter and trying to keep up and follow along behind all these "really, really smart" blog-owning, concern-trolling posters on FR, isn't it.
The solution is relatively simple, if we have the cojones to enforce it. Term limits will practically eliminate the career politician. The cream will rise to the top; the best will serve two terms in the house, two in the senate, two as VP and/or POTUS. The rest will serve and go home with a nice resume enhancement. The key word is SERVE. They have morphed into masters!
And all political donations should be anonymous. You can not sell influence if you don't know who is buying. An individual or business should be able to donate all they want to any party or candidate; that is FREEDOM. In the competition for funding candidates would be forced to take positions publicly on a wide range of issues. Lobbyists could still lobby, but without the quid pro quo (bribery) that is common now.
Make it a felony to disclose who a donor is, or to attempt to discover who a donor is. A few lobbyists and officeholders marched off to prison should ice the cake.
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.