Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Texans: Rick Perry Or Ted Cruz For 2016?
Townhall ^ | 07/01/2014 | Matt Mackowiak |

Posted on 07/01/2014 9:48:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Two Texans may be vying for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016: Sen. Ted Cruz and Governor Rick Perry.

Cruz overwhelmingly won the Texas GOP 2016 convention straw poll, confirming his position as the conservative grassroots candidate. He fires up crowds unlike any other politician today, and the power of motivating voters and volunteers should not be underestimated.

But will he run in 2016? The signs point to yes.

One of his staffers left his office to start a committee to draft him into running. He has visited the early states and spent many weekends during his first 18 months in office raising money for important GOP state and county party organizations. He regularly wins straw polls and is a top fundraising draw across the country.

There is very little downside to Cruz running in 2016. He doesn't face reelection in Texas until 2018. It is clear he is unlikely to work his way up in the U.S. Senate. The longer he stays there, the more he becomes a creature of Washington.

While Cruz's star is rising nationally, the outgoing Perry has been working to rehabilitate his image, by reintroducing himself, demonstrating that he is better prepared to run for President than he was in 2012, and aggressively promoting red state policies in comparison to those in blue states.

Last time he hastily jumped in, unprepared, immediately after serious back surgery. Now, he is building up, and the most powerful advantage he will have is low expectations. The media loves a comeback.

Perry was vetted last time, so old news will be stale. Yes, he will have to acquit himself very well during the presidential debates, but there will be fewer than last time, they will be more controlled, and he will be better prepared.

So can Cruz or Perry win the Republican nomination in 2016?

For Cruz, he will have to vanquish conservative challenger Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Sen. Paul has overlapping support with Cruz, and if they both run, they will weaken each other. Sen. Paul is up for reelection in 2016, and so far, has been unable to pass legislation at the state level that would allow him to simultaneously seek both offices, as Vice President Joe Biden did in 2008.

Cruz would need to win several early states to unite the conservative movement behind him. The Republican establishment is scared to death of Cruz as the nominee, because he does not cater to them, he puts conservative principles first, and they believe he is unelectable in a general election.

There is no question that Cruz can win Iowa. He can also win South Carolina. If he wins those two states, he will be one of the two final candidates.

He will need to demonstrate not just that he opposes the Obama agenda, but that he has a positive platform of his own for the future of the country. He will need to somehow assuage concerns about his electability. His ability to withstand attacks may be the most important factor, should he run.

Perry also has a path, although it is narrower.

Generally, conservative elites prefer Governors to Senators, and Perry's executive record of accomplishment is significant.

The space that Perry occupies in the 2016 field is as the electable conservative. To be able to make that argument, he will need to first survive Iowa.

How many tickets are there out of Iowa? Three, maybe four.

Should he survive Iowa, he can win South Carolina too - which would be a must win for him.

Perry could be a finalist for the nomination, and the Republican establishment may eventually rally around him as the kind of candidate that could stop Cruz or Paul from being the nominee.

Keep your eyes on Ted Cruz and Rick Perry. They have as good a chance as anyone of being the Republican nominee for President in 2016.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016; rickperry; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 last
To: SoConPubbie
You can disagree until the cows come home, but you are still wrong.

Yep, yet here you are still trying to prove it. I have no dog in this fight, but clearly the Founders made a special effort to differentiate the Citizenship requirement. Now comes the legalistic morons to try and muddy up clear meanings, because it suits their purpose to do so.

I have nothing more to say on the subject since I will be voting for Sarah Palin, no matter who is running.

81 posted on 07/02/2014 12:37:12 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Yep, yet here you are still trying to prove it. I have no dog in this fight, but clearly the Founders made a special effort to differentiate the Citizenship requirement. Now comes the legalistic morons to try and muddy up clear meanings, because it suits their purpose to do so.

The only people "muddy"ing up this discussion are those purporting that they can prove that there is some constitutional requirement for "Natural Born" status that requires 2 citizen parents at birth.

I have continually asked in these discussions for some type of definitive, unambiguous proof from the Constitution, US Law, and/or SCOTUS ruling. None has been presented, because it does not exist.

Furthermore, there was not even unanimous agreement among the Founders on this issue.

Call it "legalistic" all you want, but our system is a legal system and none of you that are supporting this 2-parent theory have provided any constitutional or legal foundation for your position and have incorrectly substituted your understanding/opinion of what the Founders believed or thought for constitutionality.

Which is incorrect and wrong.
82 posted on 07/02/2014 3:05:28 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
Perry is a good choice for RINO dream ticket. Perry and Christie.

And notice, he still has his RINO, liberal supporters.

83 posted on 07/02/2014 5:11:15 PM PDT by South40 (Hillary Clinton was a "great secretary of state". - Texas Governor Rick Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
none of you that are supporting this 2-parent theory have provided any constitutional or legal foundation for your position and have incorrectly substituted your understanding

The Constitution says what is says, It is you that insist it says something else, now move along, you are getting tiresome.

I will vote for Sarah Palin no matter who is on the ballot.

84 posted on 07/03/2014 8:06:05 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
The Constitution says what is says, It is you that insist it says something else, now move along, you are getting tiresome.

Yes it does, and you have still not provided any proof that it requires 2 US Citizen parents.

You are still substituting your opinion for constitutionality and legality.

Your opinion does not equate to constitutionality or legality.
85 posted on 07/03/2014 8:46:24 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Well we will have to agree to disagree. When the framers wrote the NBC requirement I think NBC had meaning. I highly doubt they used the term with the idea it would have to be decided later as to what it meant. Clearly the intent was to limit the presidentcy to loyal Americans by birth. If Cruz was born on the soil of Canada and has one Canadian parent he’s at least a Natural Born Canadian even more so than American. Using him as an example one must be able to be natural born citizens of multiple countries. Since this definition would do nothing to limit the presidentcy to loyal Americans then that tells us this could not have been the framers meaning of NBC. It must be something MORE than having just one citizen parent.


86 posted on 07/04/2014 8:40:12 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Your opinion does not equate to constitutionality or legality.

Ever wonder why people hate lawyers?

87 posted on 07/05/2014 9:37:04 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Being a Texas, I think Perry should stay with Governorship, he is not conservative enough for me and he has done fine with the state. In case you don’t know, the Lt Governor has more power in Texas than the Governor.
Cruz on the other hand has all the qualities I desire in a commander and chief but I would hate to lose him as a Senator.


88 posted on 07/11/2014 5:51:13 AM PDT by Texask9 (Libertarians for a free Texas, free America!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson