Posted on 12/28/2015 7:16:48 AM PST by Isara
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks at his rally for religious liberty on 8/21/15 in Des Moines. Photo credit: Dave Davidson (Prezography.com) |
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal exited the race a little more than a month ago, I was not sure I would offer another public endorsement. As you can imagine, I have had different campaigns reach out, and I’ve struggled with making a decision. I did have a short list; I admire and respect those who were on it, but I knew that eventually I was going to have make a decision whether I made it public or not. The fact is, there are a number of candidates that I will be happy to vote for if they would win the nomination.
This decision hasn’t been made lightly as feelings about candidates become intensely personal, especially living in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa. I certainly don’t want to alienate any readers or friends; however, I know some may disagree with my choice and vice versa.
I follow the Jeffersonian line of thinking when it comes to politics and relationships.
Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
I wholeheartedly agree.
That said, I have decided to endorse, and come February 1st will be caucusing for, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). This is my personal endorsement alone, and I’m sure you’ve seen some recent disagreement over candidates here at Caffeinated Thoughts. That will continue I’m sure as I have zero interest in censoring contributors who believe differently than I do. I just encourage all of us to maintain civility and to speak truth in love regardless of the candidate we support.
I’m endorsing Cruz, in part, because I believe he is a man of character who loves his wife, his kids and his God.
I believe Ted Cruz will stand firm on restoring the Constitution. How do I know this? I’ve seen him do it time and time and time again in the U.S. Senate. He certainly has not won any popularity contests in DC, but, in my opinion, he has all of the right people mad at him.
I am supporting Ted Cruz because he has followed through on his campaign promises, a rare quality we see in DC these days. He has fought for those seeking reform in Washington. He has fought for limited government. He has gone against party leadership, and we will need a fighter in the White House.
Cruz has successfully thread the needle between liberty and security. He has fought for personal liberty in light of government overreach in the name of security. At the same time, he also demonstrates a commitment to national security and to strengthen America’s position in the world.
He has been a champion for religious liberty, for life, and for marriage, both in his previous role as the Solicitor General of Texas and while in the U.S. Senate. He has been firmly against the Common Core State Standards and has opposed the awful reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I also have to acknowledge that over the past month there has been a consensus forming behind Cruz. I don’t see the momentum that Cruz has in any other candidate, and to be completely frank, I believe he may be the only candidate who can, at this point, prevent Donald Trump from winning the nomination. He is well positioned to move forward with that support to win the Republican nomination, but I believe he can win in the general election as well.
However, that is secondary to where he stands on issues. Since Cruz has jumped into the race I believed he lined up well with my values, beliefs and standards. He now has my wholehearted support here in Iowa and beyond. He may not have been my first choice in this race, but I will happily work to see him win Iowa.
I humbly ask for you to join me in this support.
We get tired of answering.
And the cool $100K that Trump gave the Clinton crime family was just mere words?
The comment. Cruz supporters are not really anti-globalist and anti-illegal immigration. They're Marco Rubio supporters with a fetish for idiot savants who can memorize The Federalist Papers.
in drag?
Bookmark.
Someone checked Trump’s contributions to both parties. His contributions to the Republicans were slightly north of his contributions to democrats.
âSo, what am I going to do, contribute to Republicans? Am I going to contribute to, I mean, one thing Iâm not stupid. Am I going to contribute to a Republican for my whole life when they get, they run against some Democrat. And the most they can get is one percent of the vote.â
“We get tired of answering.”
You mean, you get tired of evading.
One of the most sublime of the rationalizations to explain his Corker vote, and I thing they may have gotten it from Cruz himself, was that he voted for the Corker bill so he could continue to debate it. Now, if anyone believes that; no, no one could actually believe that.
If he stated that during a national debate, he would be laughed out of the Western Hemisphere. But don’t worry, he won’t.
Very nice graphic!
Meaningless, doesn’t make sense because it is clipped of all context. He has given more to Republicans than democrats.
And, of course, he is for Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate), so governement can pick winners and losers.
Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)
Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.
Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)
Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN)
Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN)
Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller)
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC)
Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post)
Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review)
In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)
Wait...what?
Explain your post.
Doing nothing is awfully tiring alright.
Sir would that be because he took $705,000 from the pro-amnesty Club For Growth or the money and support “Surging Ted” got from the anti-amnesty Wallbuilders? Inquiring minds want to know.
I see you don't get it. He's in conservative drag, in other words...
Yes, there are several amnesty PACpaid, career politicians who fall under that description:-)
1. He's a very wise man. He knows that nominating another northeastern RINO will be disastrous not only in the general election but also downticket.
2. Ted Cruz was fighting the GOP-E while Hillary Clinton was still cashing Donald Trump's campaign checks. Get real, please.
Not only an endorsement, a wholehearted one. Cruz's momentum just keeps on building.
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.