Posted on 12/10/2015 7:49:24 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Senator Ted Cruz raised questions on Wednesday at a private fund-raiser about whether Donald J. Trump, his bombastic rival for the Republican presidential nomination, has the "judgment" to be president and mused about "strength," according to two people who attended the event in Manhattan
The remarks from Mr. Cruz came as he has studiously avoided public criticism of Mr. Trump, who is handily beating the rest of the Republican field in opinion polls.
Mr. Cruz has positioned himself to be the beneficiary of any erosion of support for Mr. Trump. While he has said he doesn't agree with Mr. Trump's proposal for a ban on Muslim immigrants entering the United States, he has taken pains to praise Mr. Trump for making immigration a focal point of his candidacy.
But inside a conference room in a Madison Avenue office, with about 70 people pressed around a table, Mr. Cruz gave a candid assessment of the race, lumping Mr. Trump with another candidate whose supporters the Texas senator hopes to poach, Ben Carson, according to two people present for the remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But who can ever be counted on?
I have 5,000% more confidence that President Cruz would nominate constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court than would Trump--Trump, who said his pro-abort sister the judge would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice.I am fully satisfied that Ted Cruz is the social and constitutional conservative that I am looking for. So why would I be interested in supporting a sketchy, "unpredictable" wild card like Trump?
Regardless of your confidence interval, as I have demonstrated you just never know how any of these appointments end up. Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, it is hit or miss who they select, and who they can get through the Senate.
One thing I am sure we agree on is that Ted Cruz is the most Constitutionality astute politician on the scene aside from Scalia and Thomas, and with possible exception of Thomas Sowell, and definitely the great Alan Keyes and Janice Rogers Brown ( imagine them all getting on the Court! ).
So if we stipulate that this is our Constitutional genius, why on Earth would you want him in the one office that would prevent him from getting to the Court? If he was Vice President or AG or anywhere else he can be nominated, but a President cannot nominate himself, well, that I am aware of.
Secondly, someone as Constitutionally astute would be positively wasted in the Oval Office. The last time we had Constitutionally astute Presidents were the three Democratic-Republicans ( including the principal author of the Constitution itself ) who continually vetoed bills on the basis they were not enumerated in the Constitution and not Constitutional, using those exact words in the vetoes, yet it was all for naught as the Congress began its path to centralized government DESPITE the author himself telling them so.
Ted Cruz, unlike Madison, is not an author of that document and would make even less of an impact on unConstitutional laws than Madison and Jefferson did, and he would face an even more established central government.
Why did you skip over my brilliant suggestion to get Ted Cruz in the job he was born for? Cruz as Justice or better yet, Chief Justice, would impact America for decades. Had Jefferson or Madison been appointed to the Court we would be far better off today ( especially Madison who survived all the way out to 1836 ). Ted Cruz ( and Brown and Keyes ... ) are desperately needed on that bench.
There really is far too much investment into the office of the President, and expectations of what they can accomplish. It's the silver bullet syndrome. People say they will be disappointed by a President Trump, but fail to imagine the disappointment by a President Cruz. That office no longer lends itself to Constitutionality, nor did it even in Madison's day, and it's far worse now with continuing resolutions. That thorough Constitutional knowledge will not get put to proper use. It's not like he gets line items to approve or veto like in the old days. And if he started his lecturing as he is prone to do he would be even more ineffective.
Finally, you know he has no chance to get past the general electorate. They are not clamoring for a Constitutional Conservative, never have been, despite what Rush still says. The electorate is fickle, lots of sheeple, and is deeply divided just as it was at the Founding with one third patriots, one third traitors, one third who can't decide.
Even if he were somehow nominated, what are you gonna do when the enemy points out he was born in Canada? They will cite Shillary as a natural born citizen while hypocritically pointing their boney little fingers that were in their pockets when the natural born muslim ran eight years ago. I'd say it's best to face the reality that he will not be President, but focus on the positive that there is a position he was literally born to occupy.
As a supporter of both Trump and Cruz, I have a dog in the fight. But I'm also a pastor and regularly speak in public and have a real feel for those who can do it well and those who can't.
Cruz can nail a speech, with charisma, without notes, and with evangelical authenticity. He is also highly intelligent, highly capable, and able to plan a course of action.
His plans are coming to fruition, and they will give Trump some concerns.
It's exactly the kind of person he would have hired.
There is also no way that Trump benefits from being anyone's VP. If nothing else his age gravitates against it. However, the 40 year old Cruz is at a stage that a successful VP term or two would catapult him into favorite status for either the 2020 or 2024 election.
I have been perfectly civil, attempting to debate the topic at hand. You are obviously very passionate about the candidate you support which is commendable. Unfortunately, you are passionate to the point that it clouds your objectivity, reason and abilty to hold any productive discussion as each passing post of yours strays further and further from the topic and focuses increasingly on me and what you think of me.
Perhaps you should become a politician? You would be good at it. Really.
If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of candidates, issues or events, I am only too happy to. Just try to stay on topic.
I have a much higher opinion of him than you apparently do.
Leni
I have been a Cruz donor since before he announced. I’ll continue to send money to him, because I want him on the ticket.
I do not believe, though, that he has the money to fight the GOP-E in the primary and national campaign. In the same way that John McCain’s team undercut Palin and elevated Obama, they will destroy his candidacy if they were to take out Trump, or they will undercut him to elect Hillary. That way their grave train continues.
So, for Cruz to have a shot, Trump needs to win. He has the resources and the contacts to make it happen.
I also think you view the Vice Presidency far differently than I do. A lazy VP is an afterthought, but an involved VP (Cheney) can be a real force. Even independently they have a constitutional role that can make them a daily fixture in the Senate.
Cruz isn’t lazy.
Art I, Sect 3: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
I agree.
The media, the GOP-E, and Romney’s money teamed up to destroy a couple of candidates in 2012. Gingrich was savaged by them. They are trying it with Trump. They effectively injured Sarah Palin one of America’s best voices since Ronald Reagan. They still have not backed off on her.
If Trump goes down, Cruz will be next.
I agree AGAIN!
The GOP-e wants Bush, maybe even Rubio if Bush fails.
The deal is that Clinton wins in any case.
And the gravy train goes on.
This time, we have wised up and we're not going to take it anymore.
Now, where have I heard that phrase.......
For those caught up in hysteria, wailing about this so called "betrayal" and "back-stabbing" of Trump-Remember this is primary election. Each candidate has to make his case as to why he/she is the best person for the job.
Again for the traumatized:
Whatever Cruz said, was said at a PRIVATE fundraiser. He has said nothing publicly.
People paid good money to hear Ted Cruz make his case.
If I pay, (Unfortunately I don't have the money), to go to Cruz's fundraiser - I want to hear him talk about who he is, and why he is better than the others in the race. I don't want him to endorse Trump. (Wouldn't expect Trump to endorse Cruz at a Trump event for that matter.)
No big deal here people. This whole thing is stupid.
It is also an attempt to get Cruz and Trump to destroy each other so GOPe Jeb can move up- Don't play into it.
Good post. I disagree with the narrative but you have made several good points. I am happy to see someone from the other camp make a rational argument for a change! There are some, but they are rather far and few between.
Hopefully, at his age, Cruz can do as Taft did and serve on the Court after he has finished his time in the White House.
While in the White House, being the Constitutional scholar that you have stipulated, his vetos would be as welcome as the ones you praised Madison for.
As for electability in the general, he faces the same media and baseless attacks that any Republican must face. The difference this time is that Cruz, as the Republican nominee, wouldn’t be the Democrat-light candidate a la Romney, McCain and Dole. He would be a conservative Republican with exceptional debate skills and could eviscerate Hillary with the precision of a former State Attorney General.
There will be little-to-no oxygen left over for Cruz or any other veep to inhale while being underling to a strong personality like a President Trump....and these major league political players are keenly aware of this.
Even Hillary was astute enough in her deal with Obama to take the high-profile, STAND-ALONE job of SOS to keep her name in the spotlight till she made her move for the presidency.
Being veep didn't do a thing for Cheney and it wouldn't do a thing for Cruz, either, except bury him alive.
I personally don't think Trump would offer, nor would Cruz accept....so to me the subject is moot.
All the fervent wishing and hopeful personal projection on this board for Cruz and Trump to hook up (in any order) will not make it so.
Leni
Time will tell. There was a time when I wanted Ted to be the V.P. I’ve soured on that a bit.
I’m content to watch this play out. IMO < these guys have no idea how strong Trump is right now.
well said
The media is dying on the vine with these weathered tactics.
Two guys, both completely in earnest, run for the same job.
One of the guys thinks his judgement is superior to the other guy. Color me shocked.
Now, if Cruz is saying that Trump isn’t qualified for the spot, not just that Cruz thinks Cruz is more qualified, maybe that, as Bugs Bunny used to say, means wah!
Good post. I disagree with the narrative but you have made several good points. I am happy to see someone from the other camp make a rational argument for a change! There are some, but they are rather far and few between.Hopefully, at his age, Cruz can do as Taft did and serve on the Court after he has finished his time in the White House.
While in the White House, being the Constitutional scholar that you have stipulated, his vetos would be as welcome as the ones you praised Madison for.
As for electability in the general, he faces the same media and baseless attacks that any Republican must face. The difference this time is that Cruz, as the Republican nominee, wouldn't be the Democrat-light candidate a la Romney, McCain and Dole. He would be a conservative Republican with exceptional debate skills and could eviscerate Hillary with the precision of a former State Attorney General.
Thanks for the reply. And pardon in advance my rambling. It is a fine day to vent and pontificate. Anyway, I'm not in any camp at the moment, unless you mean New York and have had Trump all around me since forever.
As far as the primary election goes, I am also in no camp in the same way that you might be in a Farmers' Market and sifting through fresh apples and finding lots that you won't toss in the bag with few remaining good choices.
Viewed scientifically, Trump is however beginning to make purely logical sense to me as a choice as the field narrows, his enemies identify themselves, but especially if you look at the electorate and concentrate on the dozen swing states where the election will be determined.
A key item that many are failing to consider is that had Trump not shown up, immigration would not even be mentioned at all, naturalization would be a fait accompli and the country officially lost as another Euroweenie state within a couple of decades, at most. I have no clue as to whether a President Trump can follow through on that promise, and even less hope that a Constitutional Convention or Article V Convention would occur, but there's that smidgen of optimism that he just might. This is the only issue, full-stop, the Supreme Court a close 2nd, but almost all these others are crazy because immigration and naturalization and switching Texas from "red" to "blue" is the only one that can change the (D)ummycrat advantage from 250 electoral votes to 270+ and effectively end all elections going forward.
Were Trump not here, no-one would be riding herd on this issue, period. In fact Cruz would be annihilated as being a descended from new immigrants if he even considered bringing it up in the first place. And that of course is before they mention he was born in Canada and Hillary was not. They really have the means to neutralize Cruz whenever they want to pull the trigger. Point Trump since Cruz cannot even discuss the most important issue of our time for obvious reasons, except in response to questions ... about Trump on immigration.
But he needs to pick up most of the ten swing states that Romney lost, twelve for McCain. OH, PA, NC, FL, IN, VA, NV, NM, CO, MI, WI, IA. In which states and how, does a Constitutionalist expert debater manage to turn purple into 'red'. In most of those you find the Coal/Rust belt and jobs lost to illegal aliens. Having demonstrated their willingness to pull the lever for (D)ummycrats instead of Romney or McCain and Palin, why would anyone expect election night to be anything other than a repeat is beyond me. The winner of most of those states will require substantial (D) crossover. They are clamoring for jobs, immigration restraint, therefore this is point Trump.
But most importantly, the Cruz we see today is NOT the Cruz we would be seeing absent the Trump phenomenon and its unexpected and very successful head-on attack on political correctness. Cruz would now be a train wreck beyond the destruction of the great George Allen. Trump has been a bona fide SDI missile defense system from the incoming liberal and GOPe nukes. And the reason? They despise Cruz more than anyone else because he is a Constitutionalist in the first place. The current electorate is not Constitutional or Conservative friendly, and nor was any other in fact. Rush has always got this wrong, it is not a Conservative country. We are possibly a little more numerous than liberals, but not by much, if it hasn't already been lost. The illegal alien invasion and their pardoning and their naturalization is a mechanism for the enemy to change the old 1/3 patriot 1/3 traitor 1/3 undecided into something forever worse. And something that can never be undone. Once again, there is no other issue.
Additionally, as if he doesn't have enough enemies, Ted Cruz must be very VERY careful now. If he makes the mistake of attacking Trump, his supporters will never give him the time of day to say the least, since Trump has been taking bullets that are also meant for him, and that goes over like, well, treason. It would be a huge mistake, this thread demonstrates it. Nothing burns someone like betrayal or the perception of same. Trump's fervent supporters are not a forgiving lot ( and that's a good thing ) and it is best that their ire remains aimed at the GOPe.
Having said that, I have often noted that Cruz and Trump are *not* taking shots at each other so it makes no sense for their 'supporters' to do this instead. We're seeing something historical thus far, two 'rivals' *not* shooting at each other. They appear to be smarter than many of their own followers.
Oh, about 'the Vetoes'. As I mentioned, there cannot be many vetoes by a President Cruz as they are operating presently. It is a rigged game with Continuing Resolutions and the threat of shutdowns. It is set up to allow automatic funding of everything and has effectively invented an American Express black card for FedGov, an infinite credit limit charged to our children, grand-children and great^5-grand-children. And they have rigged a firing squad for anyone that steps in to demand accountability.
It will take a hurricane force of nature to change that. I have no idea if he is so inclined but point goes to Trump here, if and only if he demands them to stop the CR, maybe bring in Gingrich to head a working group, and do what Reagan was alleged to have done and threaten individual members of Congress with flying into their districts with Air Force One and campaign for their replacement. I have pointed out that Trump's show of flying everywhere for massive rallies is exactly the weapon that Reagan's enemies feared. Once again, your guess is as good as mine as to whether he would follow through on such a threat. I think he might, especially since the GOPe and Chamber of Commerce are propping up so many of these Congress critters.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Take a breath and try to be a decent person.
I know Trump has been very complimentary of Hillary in the past and has given her and other Democrats money.
You are a genius. None of us have heard that one before.
It was vetted and put to rest about six months ago.
Let me know if you need any help. I always try to be considerate of people with disabilities.
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.