Meet Ted Cruz: The dark horse Republican who could pip Donald Trump to the nomination

Senator Ted Cruz is the most interesting candidate in the US presidential race right now. As a darling of the Tea Party, in 2012, he swept into the Senate, representing Texas, having campaigned on deeply conservative principles and policies. At the time, many dismissed him as a rabble-rouser who would wind up as a less successful version of George W Bush. Now, not only is he leading in the polls in Iowa, but he has also beat out senator Marco Rubio as the dark horse of the race thus far.

Cruz has been criticised for having some of the most conservative views in the contest. Though his conservatism is rooted in a strict interpretation of the US constitution - not the modern populism that has propelled candidates like former senator Rick Santorum and former governor Mike Huckabee to call for heavy defence spending and further government interference - his extreme views on abortion and the death penalty have many questioning if he can appeal to moderate Republicans, let alone independents.

Despite these views, however, Cruz has found support in some of the most unlikely places. Alan Dershowitz, the famous liberal law professor at Harvard, said of Cruz: "One of the sharpest students I had... I've had 10,000 students over my 50 years at Harvard... he has to qualify among the brightest."

During his career, Cruz has worked as both a law clerk to Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist, as well as the solicitor general of Texas; a job which led him to argue several cases in front of the Supreme Court himself. His experience easily pegs him as the most knowledgeable candidate on state and individual rights, a helpful title to hold when vying for conservative votes.

With a few obvious exceptions - including his anti-immigration stance and support for building a wall at the Mexican border - many of Cruz's policy proposals adopt progressive conservatism, meaning they rest more on evidence than ideology. He strays from the pack when the facts are clear, evidenced just this week when, according to the Wall Street Journal, he became "the first leading presidential candidate to oppose the federal Renewable Fuel Standard" - a farming handout that is protected heavily by the agricultural lobby.

When the TV debates kicked off, many thought Rubio was the one to watch: moderate, charismatic, with both "grassroots" and "establishment" likability. But Cruz has come out far ahead in Iowa and, if the polls are to be believed, he will be determined the winner in that state's caucus in just a matter of weeks.

My bet is that Rubio still has a small edge on Cruz to secure the Republican nomination. While the Iowa caucuses play a pivotal role for under-performing candidates, for whom it is the last chance to stay in the race, its voters are very socially conservative and have failed to choose the candidate that resonates most with the rest of the party in recent years.

But this is still anyone's race, and Cruz's prospects are looking up. If he wins Iowa, the feat will deliver a crushing blow to Donald Trump and potentially trigger the billionaire's downfall. Trump's main pull is that he's a "winner" - when he's not winning anymore, his campaign will inevitably decline.

When it does, someone will reap the lost votes. Six months ago, Cruz seemed like an after-thought; today, he may be peaking at just the right moment.

Not at all. Ping to Steve

Every election since Barry took office, the GOP/conservative base spends all the primaries bouncing back and forth between candidates. There arent that many of us that actually leave the echo chamber bubble and do our own actual research of candidates and their histories.

We spend over a year bashing the bejesus out of eachother based on rumor, innuendo and leftist horsesXit, and the candidates. Historically, we have eliminated the most conservative candidates because of the oft repeated words “He can’t win”.

Now there is no proof whatsoever in any election that a candidate that manages to make it to the leaderboard “cannot win”. It is 100% speculation and most often, a debate tactic to drive down support for that candidate and to pump up the person’s choice for office.

This has historically resulted in exactly one outcome. EVERY conservative in the running is eliminated, leaving the most liberal candidate/candidates for the final showdown.

At this point, the cries sound that “The Dem is worse”, Principle doesn’t matter”, X is a lesser evil”, we have to win no matter what” because “This is the most important election ever”.

Every single word above is not REMOTELY arguable because we all live through it every 2 years. Anyone wishing for concrete proof can simply look through every relevant thread on FR since Bush left office.

OK, Now to standing on principle.

When people are playing hopscotch with their new hotness of the moment, their positions are shifting wildly. We have all seen and well remember a mere year ago when Ted Cruz was the next Reagan. He was the golden child of FR.

Today he is literally called evil and I have personally had that told to me by a few posters.

Sarah Palin, likewise was the darling of FR. The vast majority of Freepers were in full support of her.

We then went through the PDS wars with screaming fits that her family was a bunch of drunks, attacks on her kids etc.

In the undercard, Freepers spend YEARS trashing people like Bhoner and Mitch and Ryan and Romney. And they trash them with legitimate criticisms based on their actions in office.

And then what happens in all cases? What happens each and every time the election comes around?

The right throws everything out the window. Lesser evil rules the day because winning is everything and what people win WITH does not make a tinker’s damn.

Then the ‘only guys that can win” usually win. And then they govern 100% leftist as we literally see with this congress, giving Barry everything he wants and then show voting to cover their pathetic asses.

But sometimes, like Mitt Romney, they are so utterly bad, they cannot beat a muslim jihadist that did 4 years of destruction.

I left him till last because he is unique. A candidate so utterly and openly leftist that his record in office mirrored Obamas. Mirrored it. Nor came randomly close. It mirrored it. Jim had that comparison posted for YEARS and there is no honest way it can be denied.

Here was a man that fathered gay marriage in America. Here was a man that fathered Obamacare. Here was a gun grabber. Here was a man that not only profited from abortion via Stericycle by BBQing the dismembered remains of aborted children, he did so taking advantage of the very laws he passed as governor.

And the right, who spent YEARS calling him satan, who fought diligently amongst themselves shredding their conservative alternatives until they dropped or were forced out, TURNED ON A DIME and screamed bloody murder to elect, trashing viciously anyone that stood up and said “No F’ing way I will elect”...the man accurately shown above.

WE were then called everything but white men and some trash us to this day.

Now. Take a look back through this entire book here. There is not one word of it false, exaggerated, misleading or a lie. Every word is supported by the very posts of Freepers themselves.

Every election ‘we’ abandon principle to elect whatever whim we have. Every election we don’t work to elect a conservative, which supposedly is why we are Freepers in the first place. Every year we drive the party further and further left by electing the only liberals our own actions guaranteed would be the only people standing. Every election we elect or try to elect those liberals.

And then after the election ends and the liberals we elected do exactly what their liberalism ensures, we cry the blues. No promises of feet being held to the fire materialize.

And do we learn our lesson? Of course not because NEVER AGAIN! and harumph and blah blah blah. Because as history has repeatedly shown, we do do it again every 2 years. Never is obviously a very short measurement for the modern ‘conservative.’

Now to wrap this up, and hopefully I clarified my original posting here; Considering all the above, all of it factual, all of it verifiable by our own words and actions here...

Are we a base that any principled and conservative candidate is going to look at and say “There are people I can count on to have my back?”

Probably not. So as I have said for years, the problem is self inflicted. The problem, is “US”. Because Democrats are not the people filling the GOP with garbage. We are. And if we actually wanted conservatism...if we actually wanted conservative candidates in power governing us...then why exactly have we done everything we possibly can to insure none will be elected and very very few will run to begin with?

Is the Dem worse? The facts show they are no more damaging to America than a liberal Republican. The entire adventure into lesser evil is a disaster and we really need to accept it. And stop making the same mistake like it was Groundhog day.

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.