Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
The following assertion may not seem immediately intuitive, but I believe it to be true: Ted Cruz is the current front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
First, I would implore all readers to watch a full Ted Cruz speech if he or she has not already. The man is simply a performative marvel. He manages to strike some sort of preternatural balance between fiery Southern Baptist sermon and stand-up comedy routine, invariably bringing crowds to their feet. In the era of the tweet-sized soundbite, Ted Cruz’s mastery of the one-liner and the pun are not trivial; they are integral to his success.
The only other potential candidate who holds a candle to Cruz in this regard is Chris Christie, who I wrote earlier this year still stood a fighting chance to acquire the nomination. I no longer believe this to be the case. Christie established a national profile early in his gubernatorial tenure on the strength of his attractively brash personality, and was well-positioned to marshal that into an extremely credible bid for 2016. Now, however, it appears he may not even end up running. (Though I don’t discount his chances completely.)
For all the partisan brouhaha associated with “Bridge-gate,” it looks increasingly like there was in fact serious malfeasance involved, and that malfeasance may directly implicate Christie. A report in the Bergen Record from September 4 revealed that low-level Port Authority Police officers, incensed the morning of the bridge lane closures about potentially catastrophic security problems, were ordered over police radio frequencies to “shut up” by high-level Police commanders. David Wildstein—Christie’s longtime ally, childhood associate, and formerly anonymous progenitor of the influential PolitickerNJ gossip website—was also observed surveying the scene that morning in a car driven by another childhood friend of both Christie and Wildstein, Police Lt. Thomas “Chip” Michaels. The idea that Christie had no knowledge of the plot now strains credulity such that he is virtually disqualified for the purposes of 2016.
The establishment Republican donor class seems to have acknowledged this. A clear subtext of Byron York’s Washington Examiner article last week on the new flurry of chatter about a potential Mitt Romney 2016 candidacy shows that the establishment has all but abandoned Christie. (York also conducted an informal poll of his Twitter followers about their favored 2016 candidate, and found that zero—literally, zero—had a preference for Christie).
It would not be a total shock if Christie gets indicted in the near future. It also seems highly likely that his close ally Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Democrat of New York, possesses some kind of “smoking gun” evidence implicating Christie in Bridgegate, given their shared jurisdiction over the Port Authority bi-state agency. The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2013 that Christie personally phoned Cuomo for still-undisclosed reasons pertaining to the issue. What was the nature of that phone call? We still don’t know. We do know, however, that at a press conference last week on the alleged terror threat facing the New Jersey-New York region, a reporter asked Christie whether any protocols had been put in place to prevent another dangerous security incident, like what occurred on September 11, 2013 as a result of the bridge lane closures. Comically, Cuomo himself intervened as a salve, rattling off a boilerplate non-answer; the two then walked off without saying anything further. Christie looked like a deer in the headlights.
So by my lights, Christie is basically finished.
Jeb Bush appears somewhat reluctant to run for family-related reasons, although he may well end up doing so, and Romney could feasibly run again if only out of sheer narcissism. In any event, there is currently no clear establishment favorite, and it seems unlikely that one will emerge any time soon.
Which brings us back to Ted Cruz.
In the post-Citizens United landscape, traditional donor class support is becoming less and less important. Multi-billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson was able to bankroll Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential bid as nothing more than a personal vanity project. Gingrich went onto win the South Carolina primary. That unpredictable dynamic will only have been heightened by 2016. Ted Cruz may be disliked by elements of the GOP elite, but he doesn’t have to rely on their support to prevail, as likely would have been the case in years past.
Instead, Cruz can lean on what I’ll term the “para-establishment”—a constellation of advocacy groups, media entities, individual mega-donors, and others who have long ago thrown their lot in with Cruz. The speech I linked to earlier in this piece was actually from the Americans for Prosperity annual conference in Dallas, where Cruz was a featured speaker. The crowd absolutely ate him up. He is admired by salt-of-the-earth Tea Party types, but also by powerful factions of the Republican vanguard.
Cruz’s stunt earlier this month at the gathering of persecuted Middle East Christians doubtless solidified his support among the “pro-Israel” neoconservative cohort orbiting around Bill Kristol. Kristol’s new media outfit, the Washington Free Beacon, gave Cruz a mouthpiece in the form of reporter Alana Goodman. (Cruz met privately with Kristol and other donors in Texas just days before the shameful incident.)
The Americans for Prosperity relationship shows that Cruz has been in the good graces of the Charles and David Koch network for years now. This is almost certainly a more significant courtship than earning support from the Republican National Committee.
Cruz also has a potentially compelling “personal story” which could give his candidacy an air of historical significance. He’d be the first president of Hispanic ancestry, and would absolutely be able to tailor a powerful message to that effect. A Harvard Law graduate whom professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz once described as “off-the-chart brilliant,” Cruz’s intelligence should never be underestimated.
For all his pretensions of down-home, aw-shucks conservatism, Ted Cruz is undeniably a member of the cultural elite. He counts his former Princeton classmate, Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, as a personal friend. Meanwhile, Cruz is winning straw polls at major Evangelical events like the Values Voter Conference. Also, his wife is a managing director at Goldman Sachs.
The idea that Cruz could seize the nomination might seem far-fetched now, but the conditions of the American political system are changing radically, and it would be foolish to discount the idea. What’s the alternative? Jeb Bush? Really?
Rick Perry (also under felony indictment)?
Scott Walker (facing potential criminal charges of his own, as well as a fiercely-contested re-election this November)?
Lastly, does anyone seriously think that Rand Paul will be any match for Cruz’s guile?
People assumed Barry Goldwater in 1964 was far-fetched, too. And Ted Cruz is a lot smarter than Barry Goldwater.
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
> John McCain was born in Panama,
And given some of the resolutions that congress put forth, I’m pretty sure that the McCain/Obama election was put in place to set up a precedent against the Natural Born Citizen requirement.
> George Romney was born in Mexico.
I checked Wikipedia, it says that he was born in Detroit, but his father was born in Mexico (and that might have consequences for the strictest definition of NBC that I’ve seen: born in the US to two US citizens)... so that might have been setting up more precedent.
From what we’ve seen with Fast & Furious, the NSA’s domestic espionage, the IRS’s political targeting, the War on Drugs, and much more it is fair to say that the Republican party has as vested an interest in destroying the Constitution as does the Democrat party... and, in fact, things become a LOT clearer when you disregard the parties and look at it in terms of privileged-elite and peons.
A darker way of seeing things, but it highlights an interesting perspective. How about the opposite?
Suppose she gave birth in Canada and took off, leaving him in Canada to be adopted.
Would his Canadian parents be adopting a Canadian baby, an American baby, or a Cuban baby?
>> ... so I don’t think he does qualify with the NBC-clause.
>
> Based on what law?
Given the Constitution IS the highest law, itself.
The strictest definition I’ve seen is “Born to two US Citizens in the US” — I’m not sure that the “in the US” is a good qualifier, as that would exclude, say, children of Ambassadors if their kids are born in that foreign country, and the Constitution’s residency requirement could be taken in support of that being an excessive/extraneous requirement, but [as stated] that’s the strictest definition I’ve seen. (The two US citizen parentage is, IMO, perfectly reasonable and seems in-line with the concerns of the Presidency falling to someone with foreign allegiances.)
Info Link: http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
You mean and then Ted tried to come home to his family in America? He would have to naturalize, but there’s an argument that abandoning an American baby outside America is depriving that baby of his sovereign rights, especially of his American relatives were trying to bring him back.
At any rate, with there being no precedent with zero’s eligibility, doubtful the left would try to challenge Cruz’. Pretty sure Ted’s looked around the issue.
But the Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is. The Constitution also identifies only two forms of citizenship; natural born and naturalized. If you are not one then obviously you are the other. Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen so therefore he is a natural born citizen.
Presidential candidate George Romney, was born in Mexico.
I don’t know what Wikipedia you were looking at, but it says GEORGE Romney was born in Chihuaha, Mexico on July 8, 1907.
Mitt was born in MI.
Not a pretty boy? You have to be kidding!
In my opinion, Cruz is very handsome, with his dark Spanish eyes and dark hair.
He dresses well.He always seems focused and listens closely to questions. I think he is a master debater,and will put his opponents away.
Put him on the stage with PIAP and decide who looks polished and who looks like a hag.
I am praying he gets in and will work very hard for him, if he does.
Yeah, I was looking up Mitt Romney, not George. My mistake.
>> Given the Constitution IS the highest law, itself.
>
> But the Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is.
Which is why I gave you that info-link.
> The Constitution also identifies only two forms of citizenship; natural born and naturalized. If you are not one then obviously you are the other.
Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.
> Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen so therefore he is a natural born citizen.
The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
I hope you are not going to waste our time trolling on all of the Cruz threads.
All of which I've seen before.
Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.
Are you suggesting Cruz is not a citizen? If not, then on what basis is he a naturalized citizen?
The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
True, but irrelevant. If Cruz had been born in the U.S. then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
So then everyone born in the U.S. since the ratification of the 14th Amendment is a naturalized citizen? Who knew?
At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
Nobody is disuputing the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. What is in dispute is this crazy concept that the definition of natural-born citizen is some sort of unwritten law. It is entirely the province of Congress to determine who is a natural born citizen. Since they are empowered by the Constitution with creating uniform laws of naturalization it stands to reason that they need to define who needs to be naturalized and who does not.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.I will ask you the same questions I have asked everyone else I have run into asking this type of question or stating erroneously that Ted Cruz is not a NBC:
bkmk
Preaching to the choir.
The left will run-riot on this fact, and turn the Cruz's into Mitt Romney2. Stupid "lofo" voters will buy it, and he'll be smashed like a bug. Romney, a fundamentally decent man and solid businessman never knew what hit him. Ted's a fighter, but can he really overcome the Goldman-Sachs name, perhaps the most hated bank in the world, and a symbol, over all others, of the dreaded 1%. Elizabeth Warren would really go to town on that. Here is just one example of what the left will rev up.
Of course they will make ridiculous claims about anyone the GOP nominates, so perhaps just press on. But, the truth is Romney never over came his "rich guy" positioning, and neither will Cruz overcome the Goldman title.
RE: McCain, Your opinion, very few share it, none in the judiciary, apparently. He was born of two married US Citizens, his father a navel officer, serving in Panama.
Only a small fringe of fanatics believe that such a person is not Natural Born. Despite your protestations the common use of the term "Citizen at birth" appears to be the operative term at this point, not the weird set of triple conditions that some of the Obama birth controversy crowd adopted.
I certainly don't intend to; I really like Cruz, but the issue is not "settled beyond question" in my mind -- I have no intention of voting in a manner that would undermine the Constitution (if I had really known about McCain's situation in 2008, I likely would not have voted for him).
In short, I want to have a clear conscience rather than beating myself up about contributing to its degradation.
>> Which is why I gave you that info-link.
>
> All of which I’ve seen before.
It’s an interesting argument.
>> Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.
>
> Are you suggesting Cruz is not a citizen? If not, then on what basis is he a naturalized citizen?
No; don’t be an idiot — I was remarking that there’s more than just “naturalized citizen” and “natural born citizen” that has to be considered.
>> The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
>
> True, but irrelevant. If Cruz had been born in the U.S. then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Probably.
>> This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
>
> So then everyone born in the U.S. since the ratification of the 14th Amendment is a naturalized citizen? Who knew?
There’s interesting legal consequences if that is answered ‘yes’.
I’m not entirely certain — especially since the 14th Amendment wasn’t properly/Constitutionally ratified:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
>> At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
>
> Nobody is disuputing the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. What is in dispute is this crazy concept that the definition of natural-born citizen is some sort of unwritten law. It is entirely the province of Congress to determine who is a natural born citizen. Since they are empowered by the Constitution with creating uniform laws of naturalization it stands to reason that they need to define who needs to be naturalized and who does not.
But if Congress gets to decide who is natural-born and who is not, what’s to stop them from declaring that only them and their elite families are natural born citizens? — Such a power would utterly undermine the intent of the founders to keep from having a nobility.
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.