Posted on 11/13/2017 3:00:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Establishment Republicans once dreamed of replacing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with a less bombastic alternative in 2018.
Those dreams now appear out of reach, even as a North Texas Republican with ties to state’s old political guard is on the verge of launching a challenge to the first-term senator.
A Fort Worth-based super PAC aimed at replacing Cruz with a Republican in the “leadership style” of President Ronald Reagan has barely raised any money.
Its favored candidate, Christian television executive Bruce Jacobson, last week stumbled in the early stages of a possible campaign rollout.
And while Cruz, who has more than $5.6 million stockpiled for reelection, made plenty of enemies during his first Senate term, he’s spent the past year quietly mending fences with the same Republicans he disagreed with in the past.
Republicans both inside and outside Texas began public speculation about fielding a primary opponent against Cruz last year, citing personal disagreements with the senator. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joked last year that “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Ted could yet be a great Senator, but he has to forget about being President to get there.
Ha! They don’t want Reagan. They want another Cornyn, McCain, Graham or McConnell. Someone to go with the swampy flow. Cruz needs to be there in hopes things really do change. He could be a better speaker than president.
He has the highest conservative ranking in the entire Senate last time I checked. What’s your definition of a “great” senator?
Could you back that up with something factual? Where exactly has Cruz compromised in order to reach for the presidency?
You can call Sen Cruz a lot of thing .... but “bombastic”???
Mow ‘em down, Ted!
He is not eligible.
Born in Canada to a foreign national father.
That horse left the barn on January 20th 2009.
The Constitution may not matter to many, but I still think it does.
Show us the definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution. I’ll wait.
And a Canadian mother.
Not to worry, the horse may have left the barn but there are many that will still remind you that it didn’t. It’s almost as obsessive as Hillary supporters still frothing at the mouth that she did not win. In fact worse because with his it was simply a primary
They did not define any terms, they thought we would understand that one the same as they did, born here of citizen parents, same as understood by the Supreme Court in 1814 Venus case and 1875 Happersett.
Owing no allegiance to any other country, naturally an American because they could be no other.
Would you like to see Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids run for President?
They are as eligible as Ted Cruz.
So you can’t show me in the constitution? Okay.
Oh and also conservatism is not a term followed within a Nationalist populist movement. From within the movement are conservative members however they are cast aside for the greater while for the benefit of the Nationalist populist ideaology
I’m not bitter Ted didn’t win. I left that horse once the primaries were finished. However I’ll never leave support of Ted in the Senate where his stellar voting record has been the most conservative of all Senators and that isn’t debatable. He and Paul do our country well
I have not been able to verify that she acquired Canadian citizenship.
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.