40 thoughts on “So. Ted Cruz for President. What do you think?”

  1. He’d be a great choice. Not my first. Definitely a constitutional conservative. It’d be funny seeing liberals lose their minds over his Canadian citizenship issue. Ultimately it does hurt him even though he’s been honest and upfront about it unlike our current dehr leader. He will be attacked for “shutting down” the guberment from democrats and republican lights.
    He needs to build a coalition from scratch so announcing early was tactically necessary. Candidates like Huckabee, Santorum, and Paul already have national infrastructure and can afford to wait. I don’t foresee him getting any real traction since most that are of his political persuasion are already committed to Rand Paul.
    My only hope is for a fair primary this time around. If the establishment types change rules and pull some of the awful shenanigans like they did with Ron in 2012 it will be another sure win for Democrats. Conservatives proved last presidential election they’ll stay home or vote 3rd party if screwed over. I’d like for nothing more than a unified party at the end of the primary no matter who wins. A republican super majority is the ultimate goal.

    1. Doesn’t Sen. Rand Paul have a choice to make of Senate or Presidency like we had, he can’t run for both.

      1. No, it appears he’ll be able to run concurrent campaigns.

        “The state GOP’s central committee must still sign off on the proposal in August, but Saturday’s vote along with the support of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is a clear indication the caucus will happen.

        Paul has not said he is running for president. But the Kentucky Republican told reporters after the vote that he would likely be ex-communicated from the state party if he did not run.”

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/kentucky-gop-rand-pauls-campaign-115861.html#ixzz3VG89xiC3

  2. ultimately, i don’t detect a lot of wide interest in cruz outside of arch-conservative circles. he’ll end up on the same bench where duncan hunter, tom tancredo, fred d thompson, rick santorum, and pat buchanan sit in spite of their efforts.

  3. The three candidates I’ve been watching closely are:

    1) Walker: The guy gets it- its about running government and making changes that actually impact lives and makes things better. Doesn’t go over the top with regard to rhetoric or hyperbole. Just gets it done.

    2) Paul: The guys is a thinker and grasps how things inter-relate with regard to long-term consequences of the issue of the day.

    3) Bush: In 8 days we will “celebrate” the 10th anniversary of Terri Schiavo’s murder authorized by the courts. It reminds me of a “promise” I made to myself when he fought for her life to the end- I love Jeb Bush. Besides Roe v. Wade, at some deep spiritual way, I think the Schiavo ruling is the most repugnant “thing” that has happened in America in my lifetime.

    Here is the irony of the Cruz candidacy: He will single-handedly insure that Jeb gets the nomination.

    1. agreed. i have posted much here about the fact that voters end up expressing what they want, cobbled from the mishmash of election messages they get, and that those on a brave ideological quest, invariably end up losing cycle after cycle. clinton pulled his party out of the major ideological (socialist) morass that his party was in by retaking ownership of the voters, which republicans had rightfully won from jimmy carter. pelosi pulled her party out of their own discredited status by retaking ownership of the voters, painting the republicans falsely as overspending pork addicts, then hiding her true overspending pork addicts by constantly pretending the republican minority was still running things. i don’t think cruz has any chance of taking ownership of the mass of voters needed for a large-scale win. and i agree that jeb bush benefits most. cruz’s style of naked pandering to the ultra conservative base will thrash the efforts of other conservatives to move beyond pandering and truly work hard for a unified front against democrats in the presidential race. cruz should do more to help the senate re-empower congress overall and strengthen the slim gop majority. he’d be a hero to me then.

      1. to sum up: reagan’s winning message wasn’t “it’s time for conservatism again,” it was “i hear you, the democrats don’t.” clinton’s winning message “i hear you, the republicans don’t.” pelosi’s winning message “i want to drain the swamp, the republicans don’t” anyone detect a pattern? ideological arguments put people to sleep, taking an interest in people wakes them up again. it’s basic dale carnegie.

    2. Troy you are calling Jeb Bush the winner of the GOP Presidential primary because Cruz entered the race?

      I’m going to disagree and bring this up later. After the 2016 Primary. If Bush wins I’ll buy; for as long as it takes. If Cruz wins; well you’ll think of something. Walker will gain momentum when he needs it and could pull in disenfranchised Dem votes. Bush has the money train rolling in his favor but loses all Dem votes in the general.

    3. “Here is the irony of the Cruz candidacy: He will single-handedly insure that Jeb gets the nomination.”

      I totally agree with Troy’s comment here. However, with or without Cruz I believe Jeb has an eventual lock on the nomination.

      The real question for all is whether the GOP will be successful in keeping Hillary off the national ticket in ’16?

  4. Zero. Chance. He might win a state or two, get a couple of media outlets riled, and then will lose. I think Troy picked the three in the running, with Paul only having an outside shot, imo. I see it coming down to Walker and Bush.

  5. Dicta,

    Two reasons to take Paul serious- Chip Englander who helped win the Illinois governor race and ______ Harris (forget his name) who helped Cruz win and is thought of as an e-media/internet fundraising prodigy. In today’s world, it takes both these two distinct organization (nuts and bolts) skills which these two are as good as there are. These skills don’t transcend policy positions but without them policy positions won’t matter as you won’t have the horse-power to be heard (biggest reason I wonder about Walker as his team so far aren’t as seasoned and we know Bush will assemble a top-notch team) or attract organization in early primary states.

    1. I think the biggest reason Paul can’t win is because Cruz will be siphoning off the votes that would have otherwise gone to him.

      1. Fair point presuming that Cruz gets any traction with a sufficient block of voters. In my opinion, his popularity peaked for President last summer. During this last election, except for in Kansas for Roberts, he helped nobody. The other guys were traveling the country helping others which pays off later.

        Where Cruz will hurt Paul & Walker (thus my statement Cruz insures Jeb’s nomination) will be with regards to money, vs. votes. By the time we get to Iowa, New Hampshire, early primaries, Cruz will have made a lot of noise but won’t get many votes.

        Rubio to me is who is at the top of the second tier (after the top three). I get a sense he is least likely to get pulled into something that is irreparably damaging and could pull a Malloy. Stay relevant and be everyone’s second choice if there are some stumbles.

        1. I absolutely agree that Rubio has a strong chance at getting a VP nod, largely because I think he is seen as the best chance at shoring up hemorrhaging latino voters that the recent immigration debate may have alienated.

          1. Same problem Paul has Rubio is up for reelection. We need to keep the Senate and so all these guys can’t run and lose their Senate seats or cost us a ton of $$ as the GOP has a lot of people up this cycle in the Senate.

            A Walker nomination also helps Sen. Johnson keep his seat in WI and may be enough to pull WI in the GOP column, which would be HUGE.

  6. Cruz’s only aim is Rush Limbaugh’s chair, not the one in the Oval office. He is a media animal, all his political plays are designed to garner attention, with little thought towards accomplishing something.

    He will not finish his term, I guarantee it. Bigger paychecks await.

  7. Now that’s gutsy…bets on a wide open primary. Whoever it is going to be is going to have to be tough as nails. Replay the 2008 primary debate videos to refresh your memory of what sort of a crazed, sick lady we are up against. And, the Democrats’ only likely alternatives are all liberal lunatics that make Hillary seem downright reasonable.

  8. The election (and the primaries) are a long way off. A LOT can happen between now and then. Politics can be a bit fickle. I’m not counting any one person in or out at this time. I even entertain Todd Epp or Troy Jones as possible contenders.

    1. MC,

      I once roomed with a Presidential candidate so that is enough for me. A beer for anyone who can name my former roommate who ran for President in 1980.

      1. The closest in age of the Big 10 who ran would have been Larry Pressler???

        But the fringe candidates included: “Rock star Joe Walsh ran a mock campaign as a write-in candidate, promising to make his song “Life’s Been Good” the new national anthem if he won, and running on a platform of “Free Gas For Everyone.” Though the 33-year-old Walsh was not old enough to actually assume the office, he wanted to raise public awareness of the election.”
        Which explains much if actually Joe Walsh was the roommate.

  9. When a Democratic presidential candidate has a father who was born outside of the U.S., then there is a problem…. When the Republicans have a candidate who was born in Canada, then there is no problem….

    When a Democratic president lies about a stained dress, its impeachable…. When a Republican president lies about WMD to Congress, which results in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, then there is no problem and it certainly does not warrant an impeachable investigation.

    When the Democrats passed Obamacare (formerly known as Romneycare and it was also the ’94 Republican alternative to Hillarycare) the Republicans claim it has no proper funding mechanism….When the Republicans pass part D of Medicare without funding, however, it is not a problem….

    When Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton protests at Oxford about America’s policy in southeast Asia he was claimed to be a traitor by Republicans… When 47 Republican senators land a letter of protest in Tehran to the Iranian government in protest of the Obama administration’s negotiations with the Iranian government over Iran’s nuclear program, then it is not a problem….

    Hum?….. I see a pattern here……

    1. You see a pattern of circles and squares? Other than Donald Trump and some other people, few people were what we call “birthers”. President Obama’s mother was a US citizen so he was legally qualified regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. Read the Constitution. When a US President lied under oath, he committed perjury. When President Bush told about the WMD’s, it was based upon all of the information available at the time. That Rhodes Scholar is the guy who “loathed the military”. One has to wonder about his feelings for his country. The letter by 47 Senators was not a letter of protest. It was a letter clarifying to a group that was negotiating with a President who disregards the law that there are laws in the US based upon the Constitution. And can you point out anything that is incorrect in that letter?

    2. also duggersd, this quick review of ‘obamacare’ is flawed. ahca, clocking in at 1300-plus pages by vote time in the House, was so large that it contained about every kind of healthcare clause known to man, simply to garner the needed votes. it was all rigged to prevent the use of whatever republican clauses were in it of course. it’s the presence of these inactive clauses that makes so many republicans in congress want to disassemble the bill instead of full repeal. so-called “romneycare” was a comprehensive state-run health plan with carefully crafted limits, which were blown to pieces once romney was gone and democrats ran the show again.

  10. I am very leary of Cruz because of his CFR-NWO wife. The Republicans are tired of centrist wishy-washy dem-lite republicans like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. They’re ready for a real conservative with priciples, maybe Paul or Walker.

  11. Charlie,

    You are partially right in that it was not a major candidate, anyone who ever ran for anything before or since. I don’t know for sure but I seem to remember he got something like 347 total votes. Or 147. Or 47. Nobody gets it right, I will buy you the beer.

  12. Troy Wikipedia didn’t give any clue other than Joe Walsh, a communist, a Libertarian, a gay guy running with his sister, and a mish mash of politicos who all ran again for other offices. Stumped!!!

  13. Conservatives need to understand that the oligarchy wants Bush vs Clinton. That way they win no matter what happens. And since they have most of the money…

    1. Who is this oligarchy? That’s like saying the powers that be want both Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court.

      Oh, that’s right. They are Bush and Clinton appointees. Imagine.

  14. Presiden Cruz? I am not so sure about that.

    I believe that a candidate needs to appear presidential and not simply be conservative. Without it, they are very unlikely to win. I think that Bush and Rubio have that appeal. To some extent, Walker and Kasich have it too. The rest are missing something.

    And then there’s money. Bush may raise more funds than the rest combined. As the primary pace picks up, that will be a big problem for the other guys.

  15. Jimmy,

    The oligarchy is the millions of people who aren’t the few who “understand” everything. 🙂

    1. the oligarchy would just as soon keep the current potus and not have an election. the republican establishment doesn’t want hillary and think jeb bush is the best way to go after her support base and independents, plus keep republicans together. the democrat establishment doesn’t want any other candidate than hillary, and would love to see every republican who can legibly write their name on a ballot to write in their own names, or favor a split of two or three gop candidates right up to the 2016 general so that hillary can pull a bill and go in on a plurality if need be.

      1. where have you gone, goofy ross perot, our candidate turns her longing eyes to you, ho ho ho … what’s that you say mrs candidate, the voodoo stick has left and gone away, hey hey hey, hey hey hey

  16. William and Charlie,

    I made a mistake. He ran in 1984. I listened to his stump speech on a cassette recorder. His message was Yankee Republicans are going to become extinct unless the GOP at large understood that NE Republicans, Southern Republicans, Midwest Republicans and West Republicans were going to have different views on specific issues because the problems and priorities are different in different regions. In particular he mentioned water conservation and environmental discharge rules and how rather than having national fixes, we needed to empower states to deal with issues like these regionally. When I look at how NE Republicans in Congress are extinct, I think he was prescient.

    1. Despite the age disparity, if you were roommates, I’ll guess Benjamin Fernandez.

Comments are closed.