Posted on 05/11/2016 3:21:46 AM PDT by Biggirl
Ted Cruz supporters, and I am one, have a decision to make. My story on this decision starts on May 20, 2014, the night I had the great good fortune to attend a small dinner with Sen. Ted Cruz, to talk strategy and policy. Personally, I was skeptical of him and his chances in a potential presidential bid, which fluttered over the entire conversation like a smart, subtle butterfly.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“...if you look back all the way to his time as Texas Solicitor General from 2003 to 2008, you’ll find that he has consistently pursued direct and indirect involvement in legal issues from a constitutional perspective.”
That may indeed be the case. I freely admit that I never studied Ted’s record as Texas Solicitor General, and am only aware of the things Freepers have posted about his time in that position.
That said, he failed to bolster his reputation as a ‘consistent conservative’ during his short tenure in the U.S. Senate. That is where he should have made his mark, and lived up to the hype.
While I may doubt his explanations for two of his votes since he joined the Senate, I beg to differ with you on that point as well. Among ALL Republican senators, only Senator Mike Lee has a better and more conservative voting record than Ted Cruz. Sen. Mike Lee gets 100% (An “A” rating), while Sen. Cruz gets a 97% (also “A” rating). Even Jeff Sessions only scores an 80% from Conservative Review.
Pardon me if I choose to make my own evaluations of politicians, instead of relying on Conservative Review, which is run by Mark Levin, a devout Cruz worshiper.
If Ted Cruz were half the 'consistent conservative' that many of his supporters claim he is, he would have fared a lot better in the Free Republic Caucus, which ran for 100 days here. Ted averaged a measly 13% to Trump's 87% in that daily poll.
So you're disregarding his request. And helping Hillary as well.
Congratulations.
Vote Trump
Do you really know anything about Conservative Review other than what you’ve read here? Whether you like Mark Levin or not, CR isn’t a polling service and neither is FR. CR uses objective criteria to evaluate the voting records of every member of Congress and I doubt you’d disagree with their rating of anyone but Cruz.
You are doing an injustice, however, in saying that Cruz lied about Dr. Carson dropping out in Iowa. A lie requires two things: 1) that the substance of a statement be false, and 2) that the speaker KNOWS it to be false. Also, to be accused of a lie, one must be the actual speaker.
The claim that Cruz lied fails on two of the three counts.
First, Dr. Carson certainly did not drop out after the Iowa Caucus (or before it). So from where did such a claim that Dr. Carson had or was about to drop out arise? CNN reported on Iowa Caucus day that Dr. Carson was dropping out.
The basis of the report was that CNN had learned that, instead of going to New Hampshire after the Iowa Caucus, Dr. Carson's campaign had confirmed that he was heading to his home in Florida.
CNN jumped the gun presuming upon that fact to infer that Dr. Carson was ending his campaign when he was not.
Senator Cruz did not (to the best of my knowledge) claim that Dr. Carson was dropping out. Some of his campaign workers DID make that claim to Iowa Caucus goers, telling Carson supporters, in effect, since your guy is dropping out, why not support Senator Cruz? Assuming that CNN had itstory straight has proven imprudent but that does not make that assumption a lie which requires moral turpitude. Rather it exhibits the incompetence of some campaign staffers.
Senator Cruz did not blame the staffers (his subordinates) but took responsibility for their mistakes on his behalf and apologized promptly to Dr. Carson. That should have been the end of the tempest in a teapot.
Second, while the innocent exuberance and opportunism of the Cruz staffers at some Iowa caucuses was based on a CNN report which was, itself, a failure of competence in trusting CNN not to be incompetence, it was not a lie for the staffers unless they KNEW that Dr. Carson was staying in the race despite CNN's report. There is no credible evidence of the staffers lying as opposed to simply being wrong.
Third, Senator Cruz never claimed personally that Dr. Carson had dropped out or was about to drop out. Informed that his campaign staffers had conveyed that mistaken laim, he promptly took responsibility for what had happened but neither he nor the staffers have ever conceded that the statements were intentionally false.
Therefore, no one, not CNN, not the staffers nor Senator Cruz lied. Dr. Carson is right to be upset but his anger should be directed at the source of this fiasco: CNN and its reporters who failed to adequately source their story and made assumptions very damaging to Dr. Carson's campaign.
Biggirl, I know you are better than this but accuracy is often a casualty (intentionally or not) in this awful campaign.
Finally, Senator Cruz did not, therefore, shoot his own two feet. I suspect but do not know that the staffers were no longer staffers in short order. Senator Cruz did not say blame the staffers, not me. He essentially said blame me but for not competently choosing and controlling staff. That was as it should be.
God bless you and yours!
TPA passed and will be of great benefit to future presidents and the country. TPP has not passed and likely never will with O in office.
“Do you really know anything about Conservative Review other than what you’ve read here?”
I’ve read next to nothing about Conservative Review on Free Republic, but I have been to their website, and have read about their rating criteria. That still doesn’t mean that they’re better judges of politicians and their performance than I am.
As to FR not being “a polling service”, that’s a poor dodge.
The FR Caucus was a fair and open daily tracking poll of Freepers’ vote preferences. It was tabulated and documented for the full 100 days it ran. The results of that poll clearly showed that the majority in this community were not convinced that Ted Cruz was the right man for the job, hype notwithstanding.
You may personally feel that he’s the person you always thought he was, but this community and the broad voting public do not. It’s why he left the race, friend.
However, I suspect Hillary will carry Wisconsin by a fair margin - due in large part to Trump's and Trump surrogates' false and unwarranted attacks on Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, conservative Wisconsin voters & local conservative talk radio. Because my vote will likely not matter in determining Wisconsin's electoral votes, I will probably vote 3rd party or not at all on the presidential line.
I will be actively supporting efforts to re-elect Sen. Ron Johnson (R) and other local conservatives.
“TPA passed and will be of great benefit to future presidents and the country.”
TPA, or Trade Promotion Authority, isn’t a one time bill. It’s something that is voted on by Congress during every presidential administration.
With the 2,000 page TPP bill lying in wait, TPA should not have been passed this time around - especially with the commie muslim in the White House.
Cruz supporter here who always said I’m voting for the nominee. It’s vindictive rub-it-in type posts such as yours here that have driven quite a few good folks away from FR.
See #126
I thought that Cruz believes it all starts at the top. Isn't that what he said about Trump and Chicago?
So far I have only been able to find real dead judges.
Why are you so offended? I stated that we should let Ted Cruz supporters alone to come around on your own. Until and unless you see the attributes we do, there’s no point in trying to change your mind.
See #126
From Wikipedia: "In common language usage, 'fruit' normally means the fleshy seed-associated structures of a plant that are sweet or sour, and edible in the raw state, such as apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, oranges, and strawberries. On the other hand, in botanical usage, 'fruit' includes many structures that are not commonly called 'fruits', such as bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains."
Watch carefully now. If a court with jurisdiction had been called upon to decide whether a tomato is a "fruit" and so decides, that is not a decision as to whether an apple or a raspberry or a blueberry is also a "fruit." To be a "fruit," an apple or a raspberry or a blueberry need only meet the common definition and meaning of "fruit" and none need be a tomato in order to be a "fruit."
The binding precedent of Minor vs. Happersett is that Virginia Minor had no 14th Amendment "right to vote" although she was a citizen because no man and no woman of any description or citizenship had such a "right." That the SCOTUS found that Virginia Minor (apparently an aggressive feminist legal troublemaker with a lawyer husband, demanding allegedly under the 14th Amendment, her alleged "right to vote") in a decision handed down in the period shortly after the War Between the States, noted that she had been born on American soil and that both of her parents had been American citizens, that she herself was a citizen and therefore had standing to seek judicial relief (standing ONLY), then proceeded to make mincemeat of her claim.
As to her citizenship, the court found that the term Natural Born Citizen is nowhere defined in the Constitution but had some prior presence in common law (judge made law prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment). It also noted that since she had been born of American citizens on American soil, she was a citizen by the strictest standards. That does not mean anything other than what it says. It makes no observation as to whether she would be NBC if only one parent had been an American citizen or if she had been born of one or two American citizens abroad. In fact, SCOTUS specifically declined to determine such the answers to such questions.
That Virginia Minor was a citizen was a preliminary finding as to her credentials to have standing, a preliminary matter without which the case would be dismissed for lack of plaintiff's standing, depriving the SCOTUS of any jurisdiction whatsoever. That she had natural born citizenship does not mean that those with different credential did not and the SCOTUS pointedly refused to rule on such totally extraneous questions.
“TPA passed and will be of great benefit to future presidents and the country.”
Do you simply ignore replies to you?
I told you before that Trade Promotion Authority is something that is revisited by Congress during every presidential administration.
Congress will do so again during the Trump administration.
If pointing out, that at this juncture, to not support him is stupid, is a deterrent, then those being deterred are....well, stupid.
If I misinterpreted your comment, please let me know and I'll offer any apology the situation calls for, if you're really stupid, don't bother - NO APOLOGY FOR YOU!
I am trying to point out, you should be promoting your candidate to bring people to him, not deriding and driving people away for being too stupid to realize that they have no choice.
People always have a choice, they can simply choose to tune this entire process out.
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.