Ted Cruz is scheduled to announce his bid for President. Do you consider Ted Cruz to be a serious candidate?
I don't take Canadians seriously.
RINOs will though.
How is Cruz a RINO? He showed more action on opposing Obamacare than anyone else.
He was born in Canada. Good thing he's not black otherwise conservatives would scream to see a birth certificate.
At least he would provide one.
And the doctor comes in for the win!
Canadians for a better America???
I think not.
He's not a Canadian. By law, his mother was a citizen above a certain age and as such he is an American citizen, regardless of where he was born.
He had to officially renounce his Canadian citizenship.
Yes because he had dual citizenship. He was a Canadian by fact of being born there, but also an American by virtue of being born to an American citizen mother.
He is a natural born citizen and eligible, but I think he would make a better VP candidate. Maybe as a running mate to Scott Walker.
Oh no! Canada here I come!
We survived Obama.
I think he thinks he's a serious candidate. I don't think he has a chance of winning.
Heard that kind of talk about BO and where is he now?
Barak was never one of the lunatic fringe.
...never on the lunatic fringe? Despite attending Rev Wright's church for 20 years and hanging out with Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers? Give me a break...
He is the lunatic fringe!
He's the most qualified candidate we could hope for. I want him in the WH‼️
The most qualified? Of the entire field?
Who do you prefer? Probably Rand, I'm guessing. I have HUGE problems with Libertarians' stance on abortion, drugs, other "live and let sin" issues. Scott Walker? Maybe, but he won't do an interview with Glenn Beck, and that makes me suspicious.
Rand Poll is Pro Life.
But I was thinking more of the line of Gov John Kasich of Ohio, Gov Gary Sandoval of Nevada, Gov Mike Pence of Indiana, Gov Rick Snyder of Michigan, Gov Susana Martinez of NM, or Gov Greg Abbot of Texas are all much more qualified than Cruz.
I love Greg Abbott! But I'd selfishly like to keep him in Austin for a while. Kasich is the only one of the others who excites me at all. If you want a Gov., you can't do better than Scott Walker.
I disagree obviously haha, they're still running deficits in Wisconsin and they're economy isn't all that great either.
He's from Canada we need someone from the usa.
He is a natural born citizen. His mother was a citizen, and as such he is no matter his actual place of birth.
Wait. Wasn't that the argument for Obama the birthers rejected?!?!
Yes. And by that law, there is a age of the parent part of it. Cruz mother was above that age, Obamas was not. Not that I agree with the whole birther thing, but that is the law.
MUS - that may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Either the mom was American, or she was not. Whether she's 14 or 94, no difference. TBH though, i think the whole argument is insane. You're either born IN the US or you're born OUT of it.
Right. But the law does state an age, I believe 21. I'll try and find a link to it.
Maybe I was wrong in the age of the mother. Maybe it's to do with years living in the US. I don't recall now, but it was a major nit picking for anyone to claim Obama isn't a natural born citizen.
I had been impressed with his command of topics, particularly foreign affairs, until he went all flat earth society regarding climate change on Seth Meyers.
How about Ron Paul, he's way better than any of the GOP candidates even though he gets bashed by all of them
Oh come on, he's retired, he's 79 years old. He may help his son, but that's all we are going to see from him.
Hell, some if his recent comments may hurt his son.
True, I guess his son would do just as fine, even if more conservative
Ted Who? Hahahaha. Oh yes, a very serious candidate. Hahahahaha. I can't wait to see him hahahaha in a hahaha GOP primary debate. Hahahahaha. This is the gift comedians everywhere have been waiting for. Oh man! Serious?!? Hahahahahaha.
Better than any other candidate from any party. A damn sight better than any democrat in consideration.
Zod, you were referring to Biden, right? For some reason, you wrote "Cruz."
Exactly. Biden would be a great joke.
Is He gonna announce this on April 1st?
Tomorrow is when he will announced.
Not a joke.
I consider him to be a serious dumbfuck.
We have the epitome of that in office right now.
wouldn't want another one then now would we.
Cruz wouldn't be one.
he actually would be a huge one but you can believe what you want. not like he's going to be elected anyways
I don't like green eggs and ham or Ted Cruz. Cuz that was brilliant...
We should be so lucky. Bush will probably be elected if nominated but Cruz would almost certainly be elected if he got the nomination.
Have you ever actually listened to him? He is about as far from dumb fuck as you can get.
Yes! I agree.
I mean I agree that he's a dumbf***
Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz would disagree.
Why the Cruz hate? Is he considered too conservative of the possible nominees? If that is so why wasn't Obama considered that? Or Warren? Or Hillary?
They bash him because he is a pragmatic conservative, willing to compromise across party lines while staying true to his conservative roots. They fear him and therefore try to demonize him.
In other words he is a great candidate.
Cruz Rocks! Even his liberal Harvard Law professor, Dershowitz, praises Cruz.
How in the fuck did this get so many yeses.
This should be an interesting run for the GOP nomination. No.
I would prefer Scott Walker, but still consider Ted Cruz a serious candidate.
He is my FIRST choice. I cannot wait to donate to his campaign!
I'm sure he's serious. I don't think he has a chance. I think Rand Paul, or a libertarian leaning candidate will have the best chance.
Ted thinks he's serious. Others think he is a sideshow.
Serious GOP candidate maybe? But he'd get slaughtered in a presidential election.
I'm calling BS.
It's true. Ted Cruz couldn't win anyone over from the middle.
That's the same reason why Republicans went with Romney. All I heard was, "he can appeal to the middle." Heck! I even believed it. He lost to one of the worst if not the worst President ever.
I'm not saying that's how things should go. But Ted Cruz would get slaughtered in a general election.
He has nothing to lose. If he gets to the general and gets slaughtered, everyone would expect that. If he exceeds expectations, the GOP gains momentum.
I agree with that.
With that being said, I do to see him getting slaughtered if he gets the nominee.
Either way, screw the major parties. They've shown that they're capable of nothing but being corrupt and inept. I'm voting Libertarian.
I don't think Cruz would get slaughtered. If the GOP keeps going for the middle ground, they keep loosing. We have the last two Presidential elections as proof.
Because they've put up bad candidates. Ted Cruz would be worse. But please, push him through the primaries. If it looks like he's going to make it through, maybe the dems well put up someone other than Hillary.
Because when your opposition is Cruz, you can take a bit of a gamble.
Your partially right. The GOP put up bad candidates. But Cruz is the opposite of them. He is the right candidate, and if people actually listen to HIM instead of the medias incorrect portrait of him, he has a great chance. Especially against
Leftist loons like Clinton and Warren.
No, there is no chance he'll win.
I don't consider him a serious candidate in the general election. What I'm disconcerted about though is that he may be a serious candidate in the primary.
I am very concerned about him running for president and will actively oppose him.
He's overly divisive and narrow in his appeal. He may be able to win the primary and rally the base, but the base will vote regardless of who wins and Cruz is unable to rally the middle. Most Americans are in the middle of the political spectrum.
That's why after primaries candidates engage in what is known as a race to center, because if they cannot claim the moderates and independents then they are doomed. Cruz is a party shill who does not have any opinions of his own. He cannot race to
center and I don't think he would even try to. Therefore, he would lose in 2016 and we would be stuck with 4-8 years of Hillary Clinton, which would for all intents and purposes be a continuation of the Obama administration. We have to nominate a
candidate who can win and implement conservative values, not a firebrand who can neither win nor help our cause.
He's a party shill? Then why do the establishment Republicans hate him so? And Obama is no moderate, not by any stretch if the imagination. He not only got elected, but re-elected after we had 4 years to realize his extreme left wing ideology.
We have to nominate a moderate candidate that can win? Like we did in 08 with McCain? Or 12 with Romney? Nominating moderates is the downfall of the Republican party.
The last to run as a strong conservative was Reagan and he won not one, but two, landslides.
Oh, and on another point you brought up, the base will vote whoever the candidate is? Ask Romney about that. Many stayed home and didn't vote to show their distaste with the moderates.
Cruz is my senator in Texas and his campaign was moderate. He is using his position to pump up the Republican base now but will go to the middle when needed.
I don't recall his race being moderate. And he had a campaign stop in my companies building once. His opponent that he had a run of with (name escapes me at the moment) was the moderate.
The establishment has never been a part of the hard right. The establishment is devoted to the singular task of winning elections. The establishment hates Cruz because he cannot win. I never called Obama a moderate and I don't think he is one, that's
one of the big reasons why we can't afford to lose this election to Clinton. McCain and Romney were no longer moderates by the time the primaries were over. At that point they had abandoned all of their convictions and assimilated with the far-right.
Even if they had maintained their moderate values they still would have lost because in 2008 we weren't going to win after the economy crashed and in 2012 we weren't going to win against an incumbent. They simply weren't our races to win, this one is
if we play it right. Before Reagan, Nixon, a liberal-Republican, won an even bigger victory with every state but Massachusetts, so it's foolhardy to say that only a member of the far right can win big. Besides Reagan was a pretty middle of the road
Republican. The base did turn out for Romney, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. In fact, the base has been begging him to run in 2016.
You said a lot above that I would normally rebut, but I will just focus on this quote.
"2012 was not our race to win."
WHAAAAAAT???? Romney was running against a terrible President. Do I need to point out all Obama's first term failures?
If any election was supposed to be a win, it was 2012. Frankly, it's embarrassing that the GOP lost to such a weak leader.
No, the base did not turn out. The moderates did, or the people who had to vote just to vote against Obama. If Romney and McCain were no longer moderates after the primary I DAMN sure don't want a moderate. They were nowhere
Close to the base, no where near conservative. And being defeatist and saying we couldn't win 08 and 12 anyway is a lot of the problem. Saying we weren't going to beat Obama after his first 4 years? That should have been a slam
Dunk. And would have been for a true conservative.
I'll give 08 a pass but 12...........
Geez....I still can't get over that statement.
Skinner just wrote off 2012 like Romney did to 47% of Americans.
Political: it doesn't matter that Obama failed in his first term. He's still the incumbent and it's exceedingly rare for incumbents to lose in their reelections. 2012 was a long shot from day one statistically. I can't think of any candidate who
could have won in 2012, can you? Who would it be? Would Newt Gingrich have led us to victory? I think not. In 2008 it was even worse. We could have resurrected Reagan and still lost. Yes, I will write of 2012. There are very few incidents of
presidents losing their reelection campaigns. You make the mistake of underestimating the incumbent.
Musi: Could you explain how they are not conservatives? I can see why you would have some degree of problems with McCain, but even he was pretty
We are talking about Obama though. This isn't just any incumbent. This is the liar in chief.
conservative in 2012. Romney for his part had no deviations from the platform as far as I recall. Furthermore, can you provide statistics showing me that the base stayed at home? I mean every election cycle, whether it's Reagan or Hoover, a large
percentage of voters stay at home, but that doesn't change regardless of who runs. Can you show me a poll that declares that those who identify as conservatives voted significantly less in 2012 or 2008 then they did in 2004?
Reagan would have lost to Obama....haha! Okay.
If Bill Clinton made George HW Bush a one term President, a random person out of a phone book should have been able to beat Obama. I don't even put a lot of the blame on Romney though for losing. I blame his poor campaign strategists.
Bush only lost because Perot divided the Republican vote and Clinton used his third way approach to court the moderates.
Bill Clinton is the prime example of what we need in the GOP right now. We are hurting and we need someone to bring us back to
center so that we can win elections again. I believe that person is Jeb Bush.
That's just what we need. A Bill Clinton to have an affair in office and get impeached. SKINNER FOR CHIEF REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST!
Very funny Political
Heres a start. I'll post more and the link in a moment.
"That would bring the total number of votes cast in 2012 to about 125 million: 5 million votes shy of the number cast four years ago"
Romney won the independent vote by 8 points too. He still lost the election.
Bush was a moderate and he won two elections.
I wouldn't really call Bush a moderate. Not a true conservative, but by no means a moderate.
So a guy who supports national education standards, expanding Medicare, doubling spending, expanding subsidies, spying on Americans, and increasing foreign aid is a conservative?
Mus: George W. Bush and Jeb Bush have many of the same positions. Both support education reform and both support immigration reform. You can't logically call one of them a moderate and one of them not.
Republicans didn't turn out to vote as much as
2008, under the maverick John McCain, but we don't know that these are people that identity as conservative Reoublicans and we don't know that they didn't show up in protest of Romney. Independents aren't the best indicator of electoral success
because independents could be moderates, but they could also be people like Okie who are conservative/liberal. A better sign is moderates, a demographic that Obama won.
Immigration reform and amnesty are two different things. I'm all for immigration reform, but blanket amnesty I'm not. And why would several million Rep not vote after seeing 4 years of Obama?
-National Education Standards
--No Child Left Behind
-Expansion of Medicare
--Medicare Plan D
--Ethanol Subsidy Program
I could continue, Bush was the farthest thing from conservative and the closest to moderate.
God I hope not.
He's not what we need as a country. He's a neocon.
He's a true conservative which is EXACTLY what this country needs. Not left leaners like McCain and Romney.
Rand Paul is what this nation needs
Amen ProFreedom. We need a President who won't always intervene in foreign affairs, who will fight the federal reserve, and who will fight for individual rights such as privacy from the NSA, something Cruz won't do.
And Rand will appeal to both sides not just the far right like Cruz
Doesn't even slightly appeal to me.
Does he more than a liberal??
Yes, and I would vote for him in the general election just like I did for Romney and McCain, because I will not vote liberal or third party and I want to vote against the lib. Not because I think they were the best candidate.
Rand Paul is more of a conservative than Cruz. Supports spending cuts in all gov abuse including defense. Opposes surveillances, supports individual liberties, senseless foreign policy, and opposes the federal reserve.
Maybe, but he's still Ron Paul's son. The apple doesn't fall to far from the tree.
So Rand Paul supports senseless foreign policy?
Yeah I just noticed that type as well. Meant to say doesn't support senseless foreign policy. But oh well, guess that's what happens with you type too fast.
Oh my gosh! Typo, darn autocorrect.
Ron Paul is even more of what we need. He's the only one listening to economists about the Federal Reserve. He's also the only one interested in individual liberty, capitalism, and non policing the world.
The only thing I agree with Ron Paul on is the Fed. His "foreign policy", or lack thereof is just downright scary. Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Ignoring the rest of the world leads to things like that.
No provoking Japan through Trade Restrictions, Naval Restrictions, and outright negative attacks lead to Pearl Harbor.
I think it's too early to call any of them serious considering how many republicans are in/will be in the running
Not even for fun?
Well predictions are fine but the way I read the question, it wasn't about predictions.
You have to predict if he will be a serious candidate.
The question asked in the present tense though, not the future tense, but either way I don't really think he'll be in the final/top 3.
Nick picker alert!!!!!! Someone call the SOH police. You have been reported, and you are on thin ice. You are off to a crappy start to your morning, sir!
Serious and better than most except maybe Scott Walker.
At this point, Walker is and has been my favorite for sometime. That can change on the campaign trail though.
Walker is in my top five but not my top dog or even in my top 3. His record isn't suburb enough.
Well his and Cruz's are better than any other, so who's your to 3?
1. Governor John Kasich-Ohio
2. Governor Brian Sandoval-Nevada
3. Governor Rick Snyder-Michigan
4. Governor Mike Pence-Indiana
5. Governor Scott Walker-Wisconsin
Though my ideal pick is Rand Paul
He's much too whacko, I doubt he'll even make it past the primaries
How is he "whacko"?
He only seems whacko compared to the current political atmosphere in D.C. which is so far left it is insane.
He supports cutting spending and taxes. We need more wackos!
I meant his views, in my opinion. I don't know him personally lol
So let me get this straight. We need more people like Ted Cruz who talk about cutting taxes, but we need less people like Jeb Bush who actually have cut taxes.
I'm feeling a contradiction here.
Jebby boy has a closet full of dirty socks. It's a good think he uses foot deodorant to cover up the smell a little.
Could you provide some examples? The only things I can think of would be enemies he made because of his stance against euthanasia, his daughter who was arrested for drug possession and he didn't commute her sentence, or perhaps the fact that his wife
Skinner, the only contradiction is in your head... try reality.
may or may not speak English very well. Regardless, none of these are big scandals and I think all of them actually are reasons to support Jeb Bush. He's a man of principle who actually enacts conservative values instead of just giving them lip
E: could you explain why the contradiction I feel is incorrect using an actual argument instead of platitudes?
One of my main problems with Bush is simply that his father and brother have already been President 12 of the last 27 years. His support of amnesty is another.
Common core is another.
As for the contradiction, I have never criticized Jeb for cutting taxes. There is no contradiction. I don't dislike Jeb because of his tax policy. We have been over the reasons why I dislike Jeb.
Whether you like it or not the facts are that the Republican Party hasn't won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket since 1972.
We need the Bush family. They are powerful, principled, and they can win.
Bush does support a path to
residency. However, what's important to realize is that Bush is being honest with us from the start. Yes, he's pro-immigrant, yes he's pro-education. He's letting us know this now because he's not going to say one thing in the primary and flip flop
like every other Republican has done. Look at Scott Walker. He was in favor of immigration reform and then he flip flopped when the stakes got high, same with other candidates like Rubio. Who's to say they don't flip flop again? Bush is the most
principled leader in the GOP for sticking to his values no matter who he is speaking to. True leaders aren't governed by public opinion, they don't assimilate they assert themselves and convince people. That's something Bush is trying to do that
every other politician (besides Rand Paul) is to craven to do.
Forgetting about Cruz? He's not flip flopped.
Or do we know Jeb's stance on immigration?
I can't say that the Bush family is "principled."
"Read my lips no new taxes."
While HW is the most underrated President in my book, we can't forget his downfall.
George strayed from conservative
...principles when he approved bailouts and when our national debt soared. W's legacy will be Jeb's Achilles hill.
Bush 41 only approved some marginal tax increases because congressional Democrats wouldn't create a deficit deal without those concessions. That was a deal that took political courage. It hurt Bush, but it strengthened the country and allowed for the
strong economy and waning deficits that Clinton inherited in the 90's.
Bush 43 saved the economy through the bailouts. We would still be in recession if Bush hadn't had the political courage to do that. We may not appreciate it now, but history
will look fondly on 43 and it's already looking kindly at 41. I see no reason why it should differ with Bush 45.
Oh wow! Breaking your campaign promise take courage....oh gosh!
Yeah...I'm going to just stop right there.
I agree, you probably should stop.
I'm unaware of any promise George W. Bush has ever made to never bail out a collapsing economy.
I wasn't referring to Baby Bush in the above comment. I was going to continue with how I oppose bailouts for baby Bush.
Bush 41 was put into an impossible situation. He shouldn't have made such a sweeping promise, but he did and as a result he was faced with an impossible situation between campaign promises and what was best for the country. George Bush chose country
over simple campaign pledges and we are all better off for it. Bush should be remembered for far more than his compromise to balance the budget.
So campaign promises don't matter. Wow!
Campaign promises do matter. Stop taking the argument to the absurd. The point is that when faced with a choice between keeping a campaign promise and securing your election chances or taking a political risk but improving the country, it is better
to pick the latter. That's what George Bush did and that's one of the reasons that he is a man of conviction, because he was willing to make the tough calls even when they were unpopular.
How is raising taxes good for the country?
He's like the Newt of this year I feel
In that case, I consider that an upgrade.
The GOP has slim pickins. It's a shame if Cruz is the best they can do because he won't win.
To be fair, democrats have Hillary as their favorite. :)
May I ask why EB? He is one if few GOP candidates who is actually conservative.
You may ask, but EB can flap her wings at you.
He's too extreme to win the election.
I'm not a tea party supporter.
I thought the same about Obama and so did the GOP. We nominate a moderate that was too moderate for EB. Fortunately, EB's left wing is not as dominate as it was in the past.
Nailed it poli. If Cruz runs against Hillary, I won't vote.
You will probably vote third party.
I might go third party or I might pout like a 10 year old and not vote at all.
Haha! I can't wait for the SOH election drama!
I've never really been a tea party supporter either. But Ted Cruz gets it. He understands and is actively doing in Washington what his constituents want. Fighting against the things that are detrimental to our economy.
And Political, I grew up raising chickens, I'm not scared of flapping wings! LOL
EB you should listen to what he has said and what he has done for his constituents. He could be a VERY viable candidate and is not an extremist.
The one thing that could sway me is if he takes a hard stand on locking up the borders and figuring out what to do with the illegals.
He is the one most likely to do exactly that EB.
There it was EB. In his announcement today he said "Imagine a President who finally, finally, finally, secures our borders."
I'm listening to him too!
Meanwhile, I'm at school learning useless information.
I also like that he will get rid of common core.
That's what my mom texted me too, EB.
I guess that's one thing good about being home sick. Got to watch the announcement.
I'm not good with predictions, but he will probably be one of the last men standing in the Primary.
He's got funny eyes. spooks me!
The better he can see you with!
Do you think he can see his reflection in a mirror?
Absolutely! Now if you asked me the same question about Christie, I would say no because Christie is too fat for the mirror.
Agreed! But they are two smart guys. I'd vote for Alfred E Newman If I thought he could beat Hillary.
Alfred is already president.