Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Cats Pajamas

I stand corrected..... I thought he would man up and endorse Trump....
He’s more of a scumball than I imagined....and I have a great imagination....
He’s dead to me totally...forget future election, I Wouldn’t even want him as an appointee in any administration.....


108 posted on 07/20/2016 6:58:49 PM PDT by nevergore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All

It didn’t sound like an endorsement. However, he did say “vote up and down the ticket” for liberty and freedom. In technical terms, that’s an endorsement of every Republican candidate.

I think it will soon be forgotten and for a while, so will Ted Cruz. His future depends on what happens in November and beyond. Either a Clinton win or a bad experience with Trump (something I don’t foresee personally) works in his favor. A good Trump presidency followed by a second term pushes his future ambitions to 2024. So this speech may be a sort of compromise between endorsement and something more overtly negative that he could use as a “told ya so” — in other words, he just repeated his own set of principles and left it at that.

In a way, it’s a subtle message to Trump — measure up to these principles, and you will succeed. I’m not sure if it’s that simple, but he has a point, Trump as a newcomer to politics has yet to set much of a track record on questions of constitutional law. His objectives are good, but can he reach them through constitutional means?

Ted Cruz probably had a speech more suited to a law school than a party convention. He watered it down and made some points that may come back into circulation down the road. Or a Reaganesque presidency could bury them under many layers of irrelevance.


110 posted on 07/20/2016 7:10:00 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell (The rule of law turned into the drool of lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: nevergore

I supported Cruz over Trump in the primaries (because of his opposition to the political establishment over the years), but am disappointed that he didn’t go further in supporting Trump. He made some points about the issues that will help Trump, but his non-specific comment (”Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution) wasn’t good enough. He didn’t have to say “I endorse Donald Trump”, but should have said something similar to what Wisconsin’s governor Walker said — “Let me be clear: a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton”.

Gingrich has just referred to Cruz’s comment, and pointed out that some persons in the convention may have misinterpreted it, and that there’s no doubt that Trump should be trusted over Hillary to be faithful to the Constitution. I don’t know whether this follow-up by Gingrich was set up ahead of time to allow Cruz to avoid explicitly endorsing Trump (and thereby avoid antagonizing those among his supporters who oppose that), and still have Trump derive considerable benefit from it. In any case, I’m going to support Trump — not only because I support at least some of his positions — but because as Walker said, “a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton”.


113 posted on 07/20/2016 7:46:22 PM PDT by GJones2 (Cruz's lack of a specific endorsement at the convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson