Rush Limbaugh is right: Ted Cruz is most-principled candidate

Washington Times ^ | Monday, October 5, 2015 | Steve Deace

[Isara]

It seems to me the only principled reason to be a Republican would be to stop, thwart and defeat Leftist ideas you’re opposed to. Therefore, what better standard by which to judge Republican presidential candidates than by who is the most committed to actually defeating the opposition?

And who might that candidate be in 2016? Well, according to the man from whom much of today’s conservative multimedia empire originates, that candidate is Ted Cruz.

“If you’re looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented towards stopping it, thwarting it, and defeating it – it’s Ted Cruz,” Mr. Limbaugh recently said on his popular radio program.

Let the record show that as usual, Rush is right.

In fact, I challenge anybody reading this to make an objective case there is a more principled candidate in the race than Mr. Cruz — because you can’t. I also work for an organization called Conservative Review, which gives regularly scheduled proctology exams to the records of politicians by charting how they vote on a full spectrum of conservative issues via our “liberty scorecard.” Mr. Cruz currently has our second-highest score at 96 percent, which is second only to Mike Lee.

Except Mr. Cruz does not just settle for voting the right way when it’s all said and done, but he fights back on our behalf against the corruption infesting Washington as well as the “losership” of the Republican Party.

...

Here is the bottom line: If someone doesn’t have a proven history of fighting the corruption in Washington before getting elected, that probably means they’re unlikely to do it after they reach the White House.

...

[Isara]

These ratings are based on deeds, not words.

For Conservative Review ratings, they are compiling many years worth of actions, not one year, to prevent career politicians from voting conservatively on their re-election year to bump their ratings in order to fool their constituents back home.

Presidential Candidates Comparison (Cruz vs. Trump)

Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

[Isara]

Since Ted Cruz's side is not allowed to explain his positions here, I'll post the links only, for people who still want to know the facts.

Corker Bill:

• Sen. Cruz: Congress Must Approve Any Iran Deal
  Cruz, Toomey file amendment to give Congress more power over Obama’s Iran deal
• Ted Cruz: Why I voted YES for Corker Iran bill
  He made lemomade out of a lemon bill.

Ted Cruz's Record of defending U.S. Sovereignty:

• Fought and won a landmark ruling for U.S. sovereignty in Medellin v. Texas at the U.S. Supreme Court against 90 foreign nations and the President to ensure the supremacy of U.S. legal system against encroachment by international treaties and rulings of the “World Court.”
• Cosponsored a resolution urging the president not to sign the UN Arms Treaty, which would have subordinated the Second Amendments rights of American citizens to global interests.

TPA:

• Exclusive — Ted Cruz: Obamatrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings
• BREAKING: CRUZ CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO CONSERVATIVES UPSET OVER TRADE VOTE

Please watch this video. Ted Cruz described the situation around the votes for TPA and Corker's bills.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eE6HLbaAL0A

H1B Visa:

Sen. Cruz Presents Measure to Strengthen, Improve Legal Immigration Offers amendment to increase H-1B visas to help improve, retain high-skilled labor force

Watch the video

[Finny]

"I bet Cruz holds that close and dear."

Well, does he?

I win the bet. I checked and quickly found that Cruz holds quintessentially dear the connection between the 1st and 2nd amendments. I was confident he would. Why? Because Cruz is guided by a political compass that we share.

There is one candidate that has actually posted their position on the 2nd Amendment on their website and has spoke about it on the news shows.

Trump, a true patriot who earnestly yearns to help America, nonetheless has ZERO political compass (his past proves it) so it's anybody's guess as to where he will be or where he will go on fundamental issues.

Here's what Trump says on his website:

Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

Trump confirms again his belief that the 2nd amendment is about personal protection when he says the reason Americans should be able to legally buy and own "assault weapons" (whatever they are), is "because the bad guys are going to have them anyway."

Ted Cruz on the righter hand states that the 2nd Amendment is a "fundamental check on government tyranny".

I maintain that on the chart referenced, Ted Cruz gets a green dot on the 2nd Amendment, and Trump gets a yellow one.

[Finny]

Now, admittedly, Cruz has never told anyone to eat their cookies and milk, or told them it was nappy time, so if that's the kind of thing you're looking for...well, there's always Trump.

yeeeeooowww ... ouch ... good one! {^)

[Finny]

"Elite banker for a wife ..."

Ever been to San Luis Obispo?

[Finny]

Ted’s wife does not roll around in lingerie in front of a camera

Ooooohhhh ... yeaowwww, double owwwch!!!! {^)!!!!!LOL!

[Finny]

"Misguided" is failing to identify a fundamental difference of something as critical as the 2nd Amendment.

One candidate perceives the 2nd amendment as there because people have a right to protect themselves from violent criminals who also have guns.

The other candidate perceives the 2nd amendment as there in order to guarantee all the other amendments, not to mention the Constitution.

Talk about misguided -- you equate the two candidates' position on the 2nd amendment! Their positions are profoundly separate, and if you vote for the first mindset, then you had better understand that once criminals don't have guns (a constant goal), your right to own them will evaporate. That is what you risk voting for. See my tagline.

[Finny]

“Trump’s a yellow dot on the 2nd Amendment “ NO, he is not. You obviously do not know Trump's position.

Trump's position, as stated on his website, is that the 2nd Amendment is about self-protection.

Did you assume he had the same respect for the 2nd Amendment as Cruz? If so, "you obviously do not know Trump's position."

Cruz says the 2nd Amendment is about being a free peoples' check on government tyranny.

[CodeToad]

“Cruz has never told anyone to eat their cookies and milk, or told them it was nappy time, so if that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for...well, there’s always Trump. “

So you can name the time Trump did that? Of course, not, liar.

[CodeToad]

“To learn about leadership, I suggest you read Cruz’s book.”

Want to know who the leader is? Try looking at who follows them. Trump wins hands down.

[CodeToad]

You are trying to split hairs. Self protection is protection from tyranny. Go back to school.

[roamer_1]

There was a day way back when when most Conservatives would not compromise their conservative values.

That time is even now - Conservatives do not compromise. Principle necessarily governs them. Those that do not adhere to Conservative principles are not, by definition, 'conservative'.

[Finny]

“Cruz has never told anyone to eat their cookies and milk, or told them it was nappy time ....

“ So you can name the time Trump did that? Of course, not, liar.

I can name the time Trump did just that, regarding the concept of universal health care and forcing people to purchase health insurance. :^) At least, philosophically and in principle. Try these direct quotes on for size before you call Catherine a "liar."

"Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, 'No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.' But .... I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now...I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people ...['Who pays for it?'] ... –the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. ...."

No elaboration on what comprises "the other side" that is going to "save so much money." But since "everybody's got to be covered," the "other side" is probably the massively expensive government oversight ensuring that "everybody" is "covered." Federally, because apparently state and local governments are incapable of handling folks who run into problems paying for medical care.

[Finny]

Yep. Conservatives are as guided by principle today as they were in the past. Its why one can pretty safely predict Ted Cruz's position on any issue -- he's guided by principles we mutually hold.

Those who abandon conservative principle abandon conservatism, though they may seek to retain the label.

[Finny]

WRONG, Code Toad, and you deceive yourself. When sheer government tyranny removes all guns from criminals’ hands — it will also remove all guns from YOUR hands because you have already agreed that if criminals don’t have guns, then the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because the Founders said it was for self-protection. And since when are police officers and American military “criminals”?

[central_va]

the Founders said it was for self-protection

That is interesting take on the 2A. My take is the founders wanted the 2A so the people would have the ability to rise up against tyranny. The 2A had nothing to do with hunting or protection directly, those benefits were just bi- products of the 2A.

[American Constitutionalist]

Bingo .... Amen

[CodeToad]

Who the hell said personal defense means the government takes the guns? What are you 12 years old? You have the rationality of one.

[Finny]

It is Trump's take on the 2A.

From his campaign website: The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

Many assume then that Trump includes self-defense against government tyranny in this definition. However, his words here and in other places I've seen indicate that he sees it solely for self-protection against criminals equally armed:

"You have to [allow Americans to legally buy and own *assault weapons,* whatever those are] because the bad guys are going to have them anyway. What happens when the bad guys have the assault weapons and you don't in a confrontation?"

The "bad guys" are criminals; he's said elsewhere that guns are needed in the citizenry basically because cops can't get there in time to help them if they're facing a criminal.

I ask them -- what about when government uses preventative enforcement technology with such force that cops WILL be able to get there in time? The person who agrees to Trump's version of why the 2A exists, therefore agrees that if cops (use of government) can improve their response time, then the 2A is obsolete.

Cruz acknowledges openly that the 2A is a "fundamental check on government tyranny." He knows that it is required in a free government so that Americans can halt the enforcers of government tyranny.

Trump, on the other hand, thinks it gives people the right to defend themselves with guns against "bad guys." Does he include overreaching government agents (cops, Feds, EPA enforcers, etc.) in that? A lot of people risk a big mistake when they attribute beliefs to Trump that evidence indicates are outside his range.

[Finny]

Try reading it again, dear. Your comprehensive and critical thinking skills could use improvement.

Let go of the anger. Leave it with the 12-year-olds you seem to have on the brain.