He will be fighting a two front war against the media as well as the deep pocket establishment wing of the Republican Party.
Godspeed, Ted Cruz.
Posted on 12/11/2014 6:18:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Unfortunately, the GOP "leadership" will do everything it can behind the scenes to make sure Cruz gets nowhere near the top of the ticket. Also read: Your Weekly ‘MSM Really Wants Mitt Romney to Run’ Post.
He’s the darling of the Right, the scourge of the Left and hated equally by both wings of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party. So what’s not to like? The freshman Texas senator is ramping up for what looks like a presidential campaign in 2016, and while many dismiss him as too abrasive, only a fool would count him out this early. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin is no fool:
… the way he parachuted into Washington in January 2013 and quickly became the darling of the right indicates that he must be considered a serious threat to edge out others before they even get started. More to the point, Cruz is probably ideally positioned to win early primary and caucus states and then rake in the cash that will follow those victories before he tries to best the other first-tier candidates in the contests that follow. At worst, barring a mishap, I think he should be slotted in as likely to be part of a large field’s first tier.
Is he a lock to be able to carry out that scenario? Not necessarily. There will also not be as many debates in 2016 as there were in 2012, meaning that he won’t have as many opportunities to display his bulldog style or to eviscerate opponents in public. And the later primary schedule that year will make it easier for establishment types to wait before joining the race.
But the point here is that while Cruz may be considered an outlier in the Senate chamber, he’s likely to play better on the hustings in Iowa and other early states than establishment types think. Cruz may shoot himself in the foot in the next year and find others supplanting him among Tea Partiers and the rest of the party. But any assumptions on the part of the establishment that he will crash and burn is a huge mistake. Cruz may not be president but his path to the Republican nomination is no poke dream.
(Not sure what a “poke dream” is; probably a typo for “pipe dream.”)
Were the GOP to pay attention to its base, Cruz would probably win the primaries by landslides. Unfortunately, the GOP “leadership” will do everything it can behind the scenes to make sure Cruz gets nowhere near the top of the ticket. But that’s the problem GOP-leaning conservatives have: not only do they have to beat the Democrats in the general election, they have to deal with the Establishment doing its best to throttle their candidates in the primaries. Still, don’t be surprised when Cruz and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker soar to the head of the class once the campaign gets underway in earnest. And should Cruz decide not to run, well, there’s always a gig as Senate majority leader just waiting to be wrested from Mitch McConnell.
I like Ted. I like his talk. I would vote for Ted.
Please refer to post #13. The author of same makes the rules. This is his home (in a manner of speaking). It's wrong to brazenly defy the Patriot who has generously provided this Conservative forum for us to advance the means to restore American Exceptionalism.
I stand with Jim:
Might want to recheck that.
Cruz will lose in primaries if only one RINO (Jeb or Chris or Mitt) remains in the race after SC primary. Cruz will split votes with Walker, Perry, Rand Paul, Jindal, Pence.
In Minor v Happersett, they explicitly did NOT explore the question of children of citizens born outside the country to citizen parents, so they made no determination about it either way, since the question before them did not meet that condition. They also made no determination about the status of children born in the country to non-citizen parents.
One thing they did address was the meaning of “natural born”, as defined in the common law, and they confirmed that there were only two classes, natives or “natural” citizens, and aliens, or “naturalized” citizens. There is not a third class, of those who are citizens at birth, but not “natural born”. So, as Ted Cruz never had to be naturalized, it appears he must be natural born, having acquired citizenship from his native U.S. citizen mother at birth.
Ted for Prez?
You betcha!!!
He will be fighting a two front war against the media as well as the deep pocket establishment wing of the Republican Party.
Godspeed, Ted Cruz.
Well, you appear to be a highly intelligent and a highly educated person. No sarcasm intended of course. heh.
Oooooo...like THAT!
The Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137; was repealed by the McCarron-Walter Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414 § 403(a)(42); 66 Stat. 280 (Levin cited the 1940 act)
The correct answer is yes.
As I’ve said before, he’ll have $2 million dollars in his war chest from my efforts if I’m still here to do it.
If you can get elected twice as POTUS, with a father who was never a US citizen and not even a permanent resident, with a computer generated Hawaiian birth certificate, then certainly Cruz is eligible.
It sure is good to trade a few thoughts again, FRiend! It's been a while but I'm still an avid reader of your posts here.
To further your point, even the enemy is awed by Ted Cruz. Specifically, Chris Hayes of MSNBC, the leftist network, had to put his ego to the side and grudgingly admit that Senator Cruz is a man of intellectual heft. Here's what he said:
In October 2007, I sat in the media gallery of the United States Supreme Court and watched the Solicitor General of Texas [Ted Cruz] argue on behalf of the state that he should have the ability to put to death a Mexican national who had been convicted of raping and murdering two teenage girls in Houston. He won that argument and he was executed by Texas on August 5th, 2008, despite the objections of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
At the time, I had no idea who this man arguing on behalf of Texas was. but all I could think was holy crap, this guy is good. It was one of his nine times arguing before the Supreme Court and he was witty, incredibly fast on his feet and clearly had a brilliant legal mind. It is to this day one of the most impressive displays I have ever seen before the Court and I have had the good fortune to spend a lot of time there.
Here's a link to the video. The segment referenced above begins less than a minute in.
/johnny
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.