Posted on 03/28/2015 9:56:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz is the candidate most likely to take our country from where it's arrived under the leadership of President Obama to where it should be - in the hands of "We the People." His authenticity and consistency are just two of the advantages he has over the rest of the field-in-waiting. He says what he means, he means what he says, and Washington knows it.
Expectedly, the knives are out against Sen. Cruz, and they're coming from both sides of the aisle. There's no doubt in my mind however, many of those knives will be dulled once the presidential debates begin. Critics have begun questioning Cruz's experience, intentions, judgment, likeability and overall appeal. However, if Sen. Cruz can persuade "establishment voters" of his electability, illustrate his in depth understanding of the separation of powers, communicate how silly it is to compare his tenure in the senate to that of President Obama's, and continue to stand against the progressive left who are determined to expand the powers of the federal government (particularly the executive branch) he could be America's last best hope.
The only thing worse than establishment politicians are establishment voters that habitually fill in the ballot for their party candidate no matter how many promises he or she breaks. Why? Because they don't want to see "their guy" from their party lose. Unequivocally they buy into the same old establishment arguments from the media and the parties themselves. For example: "he's unelectable," "he's too extreme" or "he doesn't have enough experience." The latter would be a valid argument if the country's moral decadence and federal deficits hadn't skyrocketed during the reign of experienced politicians.
I appreciate the executive experience that governors bring to a presidential race, but state politics are unlike Washington politics. Governors practice activism on behalf of their state; presidents should practice restraint for the betterment of their country. There's something to be said about a legislator that has operated in the belly of the beast and remained true to himself and his constituents. What makes Sen. Cruz unique is that he's well acquainted with arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court as Solicitor General. He did so nine times. He's shown courage, conviction and efficiency working within both the judicial and legislative arms of our federal government amounting to two-thirds of our government! Why shouldn't we believe he's capable to lead the executive branch?
It is a fact that Obama lacked executive experience. However, it's unfair to say his lack of experience is exclusively why America is in such disarray, and as a result, it's why we should only elect governors to the White House. The country is in bad shape because we have a president who doesn't believe in its founding, or our Constitution. His leanings are not partisan or political, rather they are ideological. Therefore, the decisions he's made -and I'd argue seeming lack of decisions- are consistent with his proclivity to root against the best interest of America.
On the other side of the spectrum stands Senator Cruz who believes in American Exceptionalism and constitutional originalism. I'm confident that a man with such convictions will make for a great president.
As far as electability is concerned, it never ceases to amaze me when voters on the right agree with elitists of the GOP who listen to left-wing pundits. All it takes to make the unelectable electable is your vote companied with a little retail politics. Those of us on the right get what we deserve when we allow the leftists in both parties to pick our candidates. Being informed about the candidates is more crucial than ever. As iron sharpens iron so will the debates sharpen our candidates' ability to frame their messages effectively. I suspect being a champion debater from Harvard, Sen. Cruz will have an edge on the others in the field.
I'm eager to see Sen. Rand Paul, Gov. Scott Walker, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Marco Rubio and even former Sen. Rick Santorum jump into the race. But, if you were to ask me today, "who is the candidate most likely to reclaim our Judeo-Christian heritage and right the wrongs that Republicans and Democrats alike have levied on our nation at the expense of our Constitution?" Hands down my answer would be presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
You comments are the telltale sign of a landslide in the making.
With Cruz, like Reagan, we as ordinary Americans can just sense a natural connection that is reinforced every time we hear or read about him.
Won’t happen until Cruz wins the Primary. Reagan never wanted Bush as VP and did not decide to accept him as running mate until the 11th hour, actually just hours before his acceptance speech.
From his days as head of the CIA Bush knew where the bodies were buried. Reagan needed someone like that but he could not have Bush in his administration as head of the CIA or as National Security Advisor because Bush was wanting more. And he needed the GOP establishment that Bush represented even though his people were actively looking at alternatives.
Reagan was wanting someone more like Jack Kemp as VP.
Also the possibility that Bush would ascend to the Presidency after Reagan was remote as it had not happened since Martin Van Buren that a VP was elected President after a president’s term was finished. But those beliefs are no longer applicable today where money rules nearly all politics.
That's deep, man. Too bad it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Even liberal Romney
Romney wasn't a liberal. He just wasn't as pure of a conservative as many of us would have liked. What is undeniably true at this point -- and it doesn't take any hand-wavy twists of logic to understand it -- is that he would have been far better for the country than the current abomination.
Spot on Johnny. Bears repeating ... and boldly at that.
The potential candidate that can get my vote will be for/have:
Pro-second amendment
For privatized medicine
Pro-life only
For smaller government
For legal immigration only
Romney doesn't meet any of those simple, conservative tests, so he is a liberal, regardless of how liberal republicans want to compromise.
He couldn't get the vote of conservatives because he wasn't conservative.
Lots of delusion going on that he was somehow conservative, and he wasn't.
I and many others won't vote for a liberal republican. No matter how much people tell us 'the other guy is worse'
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. You can tell by what they do, not what they say.
That's the reason he's only won election one time since he started his political career.
He's a liberal.
Liberal republicans are un-electable.
/johnny
Bingo, nikos.
Yeah, I get it. Romney isn’t as conservative as we would have liked. The bottom line is that Romney would have been far better for the country than Obama. There was nothing forcing conservatives to sit back and let Obama happen.
That is your opinion and the GOP-E position. It is NOT fact, and can't be checked because Romney was a liberal loser.
That's why the GOP-E hates Cruz. He's a real conservative.
Romney was a loser. And liberal republicans lose.
Just those simple tests determine who I vote for. I won't change who I vote for because 'the other guy is worse'. If republicans want to win, they need to run a conservative, and not their opinion posing as fact.
/johnny
“The only thing worse than establishment politicians are establishment voters that habitually fill in the ballot for their party candidate no matter how many promises he or she breaks.”.....
Pretty much tells it like it is.
As governor, Mitt Romney:
Instituted socialized medicine.
Instituted $50 co-pay taxpayer-funded abortions.
Instituted so-called "gay marriage" by executive fiat.
Completely homosexualized state government and the public schools.
Permanently banned scary-looking "assault" weapons.
That's a partial list of his "accomplishments."
As a businessman Mitt Romney owned the controlling shares in an enterprise, Stericycle, that makes its money disposing of the broken, mangled, dismembered bodies of innocent babies murdered by abortionists.
If that ain't a liberal, there is no such thing.
Let the GOP primary debates begin and we’ll see how they
match up against each other.
Fox News — August 2015, Ohio
CNN — September 2015, California
CNBC — October 2015, Colorado
Fox Business — November 2015, Wisconsin
CNN — December 2016, Nevada
Fox News — January 2016, Iowa
ABC News — February 2016, New Hampshire
CBS News — February 2016, South Carolina
NBC/Telemundo — February 2016, Florida
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-slash-presidential-debate-schedule-2016/story?id=28278432
The problem with your purity tests, when applied in general elections, is that they help put destructive leftists like Obama in office.
It’s like you guys think we’re living in some Plato’s cave where you don’t have to consider the practical effects of your ideas.
Th fact is, you helped inflict Obama on the country. Why doesn’t THAT bother your sense of purity?
Instead of wasting your time trying to get conservatives to vote for a liberal, maybe you should spend time 'splaining to the liberal GOP-E that they will always lose in the real world. Always.
I make it my mission to completely politically destroy liberal republicans and see that they NEVER win another election.
And it ain't about purity, another liberal GOP-E theme. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. Romney was a liberal.
/johnny
Sounds good to me. Even Cruz/Gingrich or Fiorina might be good.
If I were in Wisconsin, I don't think I would want to let go of Walker - the guy who has successfully repelled the leftists.
I love his honestly. All the other candidates are playing pussy foot, “I am forming an exploratory campaign to see how much money everyone will give me,” Bush. I love the way he just came out and said, I am running!
He wouldn’t have governed as president like he did as governor of Massachusetts.
And keep in mind that when you elect a president, you’re doing more than just putting one guy in office. He brings a staff and a gazillion appointees, many of whom will be conservatives. Basically it’s a wholesale handover from the Democrat establishment to the Republican establishment. The president is the most visible figure but it’s a vast change that goes deeper than him. Lots of these appointments would get filled by the same people regardless of who the particular Republican president is. When you sit home out of spite because your preferred candidate got beat in the primary, you’re also helping keep these people from taking positions in government. You’re choosing instead to leave a whole unseen locust swarm of liberals in place.
And it ain’t about purity, another liberal GOP-E theme. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. Romney was a liberal.
/johnny
To anger a conservative, lie. To anger a liberal, tell the truth.
The closer a candidate gets to first principles, the things that really matter like life and our liberty, then the more we want to support him.
Some may say Obama had that thing going for him, however Obama is just a master-huckster who was able to fool enough people into thinking that he had that "natural connection."
Obama should be the poster boy of how a lying, manipulative poser does it.
And then we need to vote for the guy who is the absolute opposite from him.
I think I’ll rail about his being in the do nothing Senate for awhile.
Then we’ll see.
Yeah, well, when I weigh the kind of thing you’ve just written against the historical fact of six years of Obama, it is simply no contest.
We all should have followed Sarah Palin’s lead and voted for Romney. Not because we love Romney or because it would have been a victory for conservatism, but to spare the country from unbridled leftist disaster, and to buy time for conservatives to continue remaking the Republican party from within.
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.