What About Ted Cruz?

Despite Donald Trump's victory in New Hampshire, what is the chance that Republicans will nominate Ted Cruz and that he will go on to win the presidency?

The website ElectionBettingOdds gives Cruz a 14.5 percent chance of winning the nomination -- his victory in the Iowa caucuses and what looks like a third place showing in New Hampshire notwithstanding. It puts his chances of actually winning the presidency at 4.3 percent.

But let's say Cruz beats the odds and wins the nomination. One of the most conservative members of the Senate, Cruz would test the argument made by leaders of the hard right that Republicans have lost four of the last six presidential elections because their candidates -- George H. W. Bush of 1992, Robert Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- were insufficiently conservative.

For more than 50 years, Phyllis Schlafly, the right-wing icon and founder of the Eagle Forum, has been a relentless proponent of the nomination of far-right candidates like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Establishment candidates have been unable to win the popular vote in five out of the last six elections, and that outcome is not something any Republican should want to repeat.

There is an unusual degree of consensus on the intensity of Cruz's conservatism among experts in campaigns, elections and partisan polarization....

I continue to think that Ted Cruz is the best candidate. However, at this point we should perhaps take a sort of time out and focus more on what the nation requires and then return to assessing the people who have put their names forward.

The nation needs three things urgently. First, a return to limited government under the constitution. This is much more important than the campaign so far has managed to illustrate. It’s not just a matter of Obama being an exception — he’s really just an acceleration of a disturbing trend over three decades now (and probably more) towards a benign presidential dictatorship combined with an ineffectual hit or miss Congress and the scourge of judicial activism. This is more or less the perfect storm that left untackled will eventually sink the ship of state and turn America, even America, into a tin-pot banana republic. I would say in passing that Ted Cruz seems to get this more than any remaining candidate (Rand Paul also got it and I hope he finds a place in the next administration).

The second major priority is the economy. Such shallow gains as have been claimed by the current administration are mainly due to redefinitions of economic indices combined with puffed up inflation of the public sector and a certain number of poorly paid and transient part time positions. The next president will need to do whatever he or she can to stimulate real economic growth. This is why Trump is leading — he gives off the aura of a job creator but more needs to be done by the rest of the field in terms of testing out his plans and theories, and putting forward alternatives. Of course, as a small government libertarian leaning conservative, my philosophy is that the economy will do best if government stays the hell out of the way. This is most relevant to the climate change question. In my view, a great American president in the period 2016 to 2032 (and there can be two or three) will lead the fight to kill off this sacred cow hyped up false concern. The best thing to do about the climate is to enjoy it. I rather enjoyed golfing in sumnmer attire on February 9th (north of the border too).

And the third priority would be foreign policy. It would be a vast understatement to call the foreign policy of all western nations a farce and an unmitigated disaster since 2001. We have no overall guiding vision and every major ad hoc decision has been wrong, expensive, and counter-productive. Terrorism is of course a great moral evil but at the same time there is little if any point in cultivating foreign policies that will inevitably drive thousands of disaffected and/or crazy people to join terrorist groups. Once again, the priority for an American president will be to destroy the power of existing terrorists and take decisions on questions such as the outcome of the Syrian conflict that will avoid further appeal of new terrorist concepts. We can’t fix the problems of that part of the world, we can only contain them, and our best bet is to empower those we can trust to contain them for us. It was entirely irrational to depose Saddam Hussein and Muammar Khadafy, and I suspect that whatever his flaws, the same will be said of Bashir El-Assad although he has decided to dig in and try to survive anyway. And make no mistake, the only reason he is being portrayed as a monster is because it works for cynical ambitions of other regional powers who have their own designs on Syria. Anyone who proposes to govern in that part of the world has to be a bad-ass, the idea that a bunch of emigre shopkeepers in Paris and London can come home to run a Middle Eastern country is total nonsense.

Speaking of which, there is Bernie Sanders. One hopes he will slay the dragon then taste the sword himself in November. Big-time, because the last thing America needs (or might see) is communism. And if that ain’t communism, then it might as well be.

Besides allowing the MSM rediucing those so called debates to the consistancy of a WWF wrestling match.
Your Hero
I quit sundance long ago.
DT has no core conservative principles or values. In those debates runs away from any discussion of them by using his experience as a showman with the WWF . Im surprized he does not pick up a chair and toss it.

There are dozens of examples Limbaugh could have used where Trump demonstrated during this campaign that he does not think or approach problems in conservative terms let alone understand them and is unable to bring them up.. But views challanges in a very personal way that could reveal any core convictions he could have but clearly does not.

From the campaign begining with the first debate. His legiirimate battles with Fox and Kelly, and her misogyny complaint Trump goes on CNN following the debate to complain about his treatment .Alas where he could have cited how the press abused Palin as well as other conservatives. Instead must personnaly attack Kelly and brings up Kellys body functions thus confirms her assertions .

His prima donna style announcement to skip the Iowa debate because heâ€™s the star of the show amd will not perform with second rate actors will not set well with Iowans or Americans generally.

Because the purposes of a debate is to advance discussions on the future of this country.and how rhe candidaes will adress them Not some entertainment comedy venue.

Policy wise Trumps revealing exchange with campaign disrupter and un official spokesman for the Mexican government Jorge Ramos (Univision). who has dual citizenship, which should have but did not, show any conviction on his pronouuncements about Mexico and its relationship with US.

Here Trump could have demanded to know from him If he believes Mexico has legitimate claim to American states ,as well as bring up Mexican treatment of illegals. Then ask why should the US permit land ownership when legal American retirees cannot own land in their own name or vote there.Then boot his buttocks out of there.

Instead what does he do ? Kisses up to him and lets him go .The way the Mexicans are treating Americans reciprocity should be the issue and would dump the quote hispanic unquote ( actually a strawman)krap being passed on as a generic hispanic issue. When actually it is problemes created by the Mexican government which have gone unchallanged.

Then there is the issue where some UK politicians along with Islamists wanted to prevent Donald Trump from even visiting Britan . Here he would have been saluted if he did this. Used the Brits expression to those phoneys; To Piss off, and WISE UP, pointing out the problems they are having there and chiding them for refusing to face reality.

Instead what did he do ? Threatens economic retailiation on a project golf course he has in Scotland.

What really sealed it for me was when Businessman deal maker Trump who also owns Goldman Sachs stock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focua/f-news/3386879/posts
While promoting a misrepresentarion of an opponents loan from a source he has investments in.

Here he sides with the GOPES, to get their endorsements and even advocates expanded mandated Ethanol. Because he thinks dumping this government mandated junk inro your gas tank will help him carry IOWA . Which also begs the question of Just how heavily invested is he in Ethanol ?

Apparently those prefering a candidate who marches away from key conservative principles that supports and wants more government mandates and subsides especially for a product like enthanol which is a boon doggle means nothing to them.
Well it does to me....and it should to them.

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.