Is America ready for another Texan president? I know what you’re thinking: what about Rick Perry? The current soon-to-be-ex-Governor of Texas’s presidential aspirations came a cropper when heĀ couldn’t remember which federal agencies he’d deep-six. Live. In a televised debate. Word is Perry was on some heavy pain meds at the time; which he ain’t now. Anyone who’s seen him work a crowd knows he’s got serious potential. Ahem. Cruz. A real Constitutional lawyer, a genuine friend of the Second Amendment and not afraid of a little belt-fed M249 Action. What’s not to like?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

279 COMMENTS

    • No, unless there’s no other choice. I’d much prefer Rand Paul. What’s not to like about Cruz you ask? I’m pretty sure he’d be another war president. He’d either keep the wars we have going, or he’d start new ones. Waste of money and resources, among other things. Rand Paul would end of all these unnecessary military conflicts and it’s very unlikely that he’d start new ones. We’d have a lot more personal and economic freedom under Rand than Cruz, so my vote goes to Rand, although it’d be interesting to see them run together on one ticket.

      • Agreed. Dr. Paul is a true Constitutionalist, much like his father.
        Cruz is just another red state fascist. He’s a tool of the big banks (his wife is a Goldman exec) and war industry.

        • Why do Ron/Rand Paul supporters always refer to him as “Dr. Paul”, as if the title gave him any more credibility? You never hear people refer to Cruz as “Ted Cruz, Esq”. I don’t see the point of it.

          Anyway I would vote for Cruz, but I doubt he could win because he’s pissed off a lot of people in the government, even a lot of Republicans.

        • If your goal is to burnish someone’s reputation I would think that referring to him as “Esq.” wouldn’t be constructive. Most people think of lawyers as having credibility on par with used-car salesmen and telemarketers.

        • ….or politicians.

          Which might be one of the reasons why the Ron & Rand fans try to call attention to the medical degree, instead of them being politicians.

      • If Senator Cruz were the Republican nominee, yes, I would vote for him. Someone mentioned him being another “War President” as a negative. In my opinion, all presidents in the foreseeable future are going to be War Presidents, whether they like it or not. War is at our door step. What we do not need in this country is another appeaser/enabler. What we do need is a President who respects and adheres to the Constitution in every regard. Including our personal liberties/rights. I think Cruz would be that kind of President.

        • I’m with you. America will be at war with these people for at least the next twenty years. I want someone decisive in the Oval Office. I’m tired of the politically correct who whine about seeing both sides. There is only one side in this war – OURS.

      • Dude. Obama promised to end the wars too. Just ending them doesn’t achieve the objectives there.
        Also, Paul has become a hardcore flip flopper, good luck there.

      • Yep, if you really want someone different from the status quo, Ted Cruz is not the guy, although he’d love for you to believe it.

        Rand Paul is the only electable guy who would come close to being different from the status quo.

    • V.P.

      I’d vote Perry, you can ding him all you would like on the debates, he’s run TX very well (even the difficult gamut the Feds have put him in with the Border War).

      Governors (R) run-stuff, and have more concrete results and therefore at least marginal accountability. The rest are waiting for a tee-time.

    • Can’t vote for anyone getting rid of social security. Sorry. Besides, he is a comedic figure with sad eyes. Hasn’t had enough experience.

      • I had forgotten he is tied in with Goldman Sachs through his wife. He’s in with the big boys at our expense against us.

  2. I have mixed feelings. Hate to see him leave the Senate – he’s doing a great job there.

  3. Thinking only of firearms, yes. Generally, I don’t know enough about his current manifesto to say. Constitutionally, anyone who gives no-knock raids the no-no is good, anyone who supports 2A is good and anyone who isn’t generally a freedom-hating tyrant is also good. But based on general, not just gun related, reasons I don’t know enough about him.

  5. Just consulted the wife. She’s been following potential 2016 candidates much more closely than I have.

    She gives him up four thumbs up!

      • Absolutely false. Electors must vote for at least one candidate from outside their state- so, the electors from Texas could not cast a vote for Perry for one office, and then Cruz for the other. This may make it difficult for them to run together as a practical concern (That is, you might create a plurality, rather than a majority, for the election of one of the two offices, and kick it down to Congress or something.) Or, one of them could establish residency elsewhere.

        Remember, during the 2000 election, both Bush and Cheney were from Texas at the outset of the general election. Cheney quickly reclaimed a Wyoming residency that had lapsed.

        • You’re right, I knew there was a Constituional issue, I forgot exactly what it was. If Chenney hadn’t changed Liberman would have been Bush’s VP (in hindsight, maybe not a bad thing) because the 38 Texas electors would have had to cast their votes for someone other than Chenney.

        • Yes, and look what a dud Cheney was holding secret meetings with oil billionaires! They suck at the public teat (trough).

  9. I’d like to see him battle-tested a bit more before we start talking about a presidential run. Remember the last guy who came out of nowhere, and was only a senator for a couple years before he started running for president? How’d that work out?

    I think Cruz is probably the “real deal”, from a true conservative, small-L libertarian viewpoint (on most, but not all, issues). But with such a short track record, I’m gonna hold my judgment until I see a bit more from him.

  10. Ted Cruz is the only Republican I voted for last election. Otherwise I voted a straight Libertarian ticket. I wrote him and my idiot Congress Critter John Carter about an issue with TSA groping me (while I was in full uniform, returning from Iraq on R&R leave). One of Carter’s flunkies sent me a form letter saying how proud I should be of the TSA and what a great agency they are serving on the front lines, blah, blah, blah. Didn’t hear back from Cruz. Until two months later. I got a personal handwritten letter from him, apologizing for his flunkies screwing up answering constituent mail, mentioning that several staffers were fired for it, and telling me he personally forwarded my complaint to the head of TSA, and thanking me for my service. A very small thing, but to me it says a lot about the man. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.

    • Great story. From what I’ve heard, he’s very hard working, and his IQ is off the scale.

      • Cruz and Gowdy are likely the 2 smartest guys in politics right now. They get trashed by the media, but their lawyer credentials are really impressive.

  11. Times have changed. Any future GOP Presidential candidate will have to lean more libertarian to have a shot. Get tough on the NSA, say he’ll end foreign military adventurism, drop the socon language and Cruz could have a shot. Saying he’ll use executive powers to declare a machine gun registry amnesty would be the epitome of awesome though. I’d vote for him.

    • Wouldn’t using executive orders to do that be illegal? Someone will no doubt correct me if I’m wrong, but since the Hughes amendment that forbids private ownership of newer-than-1986 machine guns is written into the law, the President doesn’t have the power to overturn the rule at this point. It’s not some arbitrary ATF rule that can be changed on a whim, it’s actually in the statutes, right?

      • If the supreme court neuters the NFA and thus ATF, he might be able to do something to speed up the process assuming they drag their feet.

      • What he could at least do with executive authority is order the NFA stamps to be sold at the FFL after the regular background check completes. It’d be a great start.

    • “heā€™ll use executive powers to declare a machine gun registry amnesty ”
      As much as I like the idea, he pulls a stunt like that would make him no better than Obama.

    • So you believe Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton would better protect your gun rights? Is that what I am hearing>?

      • Unfortunately, or not, gun rights won’t be the only issue on the table, Pascal.

          • Well, for starters, Brotherhood of Steel, if one can judge from the Republican opposition to the raising of the minimum wage, the right to earn at least a subsistence living. But basically, I don’t see the relevance of your response to my comment, the thrust of which was merely to point out that gun rights aren’t going to be the only issues in the forthcoming presidential election campaigns.

        • Oh, there are a lot of other issues out there as to why I am voting Republican and Libertarian.

        • Sorry Conway but where, exactly, does the constitution (or anything else) guarantee you “the right to earn at least a subsistence living.” ? Why isn’t that YOUR responsibility? Don’t earn enough? Then develop skills that demand more pay in the marketplace. Everyone else shouldn’t subsidize your personal failure.

          If you are depending on the Republicans OR Democrats for that, I’m afraid you are lost both literally and philosophically.

          The gov’s role in ‘earning a living’ should consist of protecting property rights and enforcing contracts.

          • Big E, I, personally, am doing okay, but there are a lot of folks who haven’t had some of the advantages that the hand I was dealt from birth gave me (stable, two-parent family that encouraged personal achievement and academic responsibility), and who, despite their best efforts, and under the press of forces beyond their ability to modify, find themselves in the position of having to take low-paying jobs. So, while all the Constitution promises is the right to pursue happiness and doesn’t guarantee that one will in fact catch it, I have no problem with providing some help to those whose circumstances haven’t been as fortunate as mine. It just seems to me like the right thing to do. Your expressed attitude appears to be close to that of the one imputed to Marie Antoinette when she purportedly said of the poor in fin de siecle France, “Let them eat cake.”

        • Conway, your understanding of economics isn’t very strong is it? Simply put, you raise the minimum wage, you raise the cost of living and it offsets the minimum wage increase, necessitating another raise in the minimum wage. It becomes a never ending cycle and you end up with a $50 minimum wage and a $90k a year cost of living.

          Also, raising the minimum wage devalues the work of people who actually have skills that the marketplace demands and is willing to pay for because their dollar is now worth less despite them being more valuable than someone who’s worked at Burger King for the last 15 years because they didn’t bother to get any marketable skills.

          But you keep voting for the nanny state.

      • Living Wage needs to rise. All prices are going to go through the roof anyway. You are now allowing Goldman Sachs/investment banks to speculate in commodities since Clinton signed the Commodities Modernization Act in 2000. These banks are buying oil and storing it to keep the prices up. The same with aluminum which keeps your costs of cokes high. These finance regs need a redo. Bring back Glass Steagall. Separate finance banks from saving banks so they can’t speculate with your bank deposits.

    • Oh. I see what you did there. I spent the last twenty five years in the Army, so obviously I’m not a millionaire.

      I managed to graduate from West Point with a 3.74 GPA in Mechanical Engineering (our motto, Mechanical Engineers design weapons, Civil Engineers Design Targets), and pick up two Masters Degrees. And learn Arabic. And get accepted into Mensa (that was kind of a lark, I never took an IQ test, but I got 1550 on the SAT back when 1600 was the max, and that’s good enough to get in).

      Yet I’m not a millionaire, I vote Republican sometimes (I certainly didn’t vote for Obama, Kerry, Gore, or Dukakis), so it logically follows I’m a moron. Thank you pointing that out. Or maybe you’re just a troll. Whatever.

      • LTCF, if you buy into the theory of multiple intelligences, of which there are said to be 7, each one relatively independent of all the others, MENSA considers only 2 of them, the verbal-linguistic and the logical-mathematical. So, while I’m certainly not saying that this is true of you, it might in fact be possible for one to be a MENSAn and, to use a typology of cognitive insufficiency that went out of style decades ago, also be an absolute idiot with respect to the other 5.

        • Sounds like me, I’ve been tested over the years and averaged 160-some IQ. Language, Art, Science are talents. I’ve succeeded at everything I’ve done. Yet I have no ability to recognize unwritten rules or social context of communication. Math above Algebra causes short circuits in me that leave me in quasi-panic attacks after a while of working on it. Crippling, really.

        • Regarding your previous comment; economics. Minimum wage is artificial inflation. If THEY get a 25% pay raise then why don’t you or I? Minimum wage only benefits the government. Fiscally conservative policies are counter- intuitive but the most productive and generous to the average American.

          • “Regarding your previous comment; economics. Minimum wage is artificial inflation. If THEY get a 25% pay raise then why donā€™t you or I?” Because, Phil COV, speaking for myself, I’m fortunate enough not to NEED a 25% pay raise.

        • I have known several MENSA members. They were all social misfits for one reason or another and I was thankful not to be in their shoes. Not to say that there aren’t some decent ones out there somewhere but since conservatives only respond to anecdotal evidence there it is.

          And anyone that believes that trickle down/voodoo economics is working is a moron. Plenty of decent evidence and scholarly economic studies out there that indicate that the minimum wage is so low in the USA, and the 1% is taking so much of the value out of our economy, that a raise in the minimum wage would result in relatively few layoffs but would clearly result in more money going back into the economy.

          Face facts. Those “evil” socialist nations of northern Europe have higher minimum wages than the USA. Their economies are healthier and other than climate their citizens have a better quality of living.

        • John G. – What are you smoking pal? http://www.economist.com/topics/european-economy

          The European economy is pretty much in the same place as everyone else – crappy. They’re all borrowing/printing money to prop up decades of poor fiscal policy. They all take turns going to the EU to get all the other members to bail them out. In fact their economies are only going to get worse as the Russian and Middle East issues continue to affect their natural resource imports.

          Truth be told, unless you’re into investing, and there is absolutely no reason anyone can’t do it, you are just not going to create the kind of wealth as seen in the 1% circles. But it’s not something we teach in school and the government has long ago pushed people into thinking a 401k that you never touch is all you need.

          The fact is there only so much demand for trade-level skills. Once an area is saturated, you either move (which most people refuse to do) to where the jobs are, or distinguish and diversify to make yourself more valuable to the local market. There are plenty of examples to support this – oil workers going overseas to work make a ton of cash. Roofers working up and down the coast as the seasons change. The fact is, if you are settling for low wage jobs, you aren’t trying hard enough, no matter how hard you think you are trying and/or their is something wrong with your skills or how you react with people.

          I’ve seen so many people who get one low wage job and then just sit there and say life sucks. You ask them why don’t you get a second job and they say say “why should I, I have a job”. That attitude is exactly why those types of people have low paying jobs. I have people in my own family that do this, so I am an equal opportunity critic when it comes to this issue. I have no sympathy and on several occasions I get the “well you’ve been fortunate, so you don’t know how it is” line. It’s a bunch of crap and I worked my way up the corporate ladder with nothing but a high school diploma. I’ve been working for 20+ years and I am not rich, but make a good salary, and only got my bachelors degree 6 years ago. Am I “fortunate”? Maybe, but I say I worked my ass off for it and earned every bit of it. No excuses accepted here.

        • Conway you’ve missed the point. Minimum wage increases are across the board. Costs go up in the service and manufacturing, so that everything ends of being inflated in price accordingly. Therefore, you just went from $7.5/hr to $10/hr, but food and gas and everything else went up too. So the net result is you’re in the same place financially. Now, take that guy who was working up from minimum wage (he’s at $10/hr before), he’s mad because now he’s paid the same as the lower workers. So he has to be bumped to $15/hr. The same for everyone from hourly to salary. Many of the “comfortable” people will become uncomfortable because the artificial inflation will increase their bills. The end result will be that the federal government will get more money in taxes (and the progressive tax code will NOT be updated), which will be moot because of the inflation, and the dollar will be devalued.

      • I managed to graduate from West Point with a 3.74 GPA in Mechanical Engineering (our motto, Mechanical Engineers design weapons, Civil Engineers Design Targets), and pick up two Masters Degrees. You did all right LTC F getting a 3.74 GPA in ME. I obtained a 5.77/6.0 GPA in ME at Purdue. I love your motto as well as I have designed tooling to make parts for armored combat vehicles.

      • Abortion fanatics? You mean those psychotic wackadoodles screaming at and threatening women going in to Planned Parenthood?

        Pretty sure they vote R.

        • @Swarf, no…I’m pretty sure he is talking about those sub-humans that sacrifice their children on the altar of “convenience”. Those whackjobs.

          • El Mac, you, sir, appear to be a case in point for why we males of the human species, who never have to undergo the multiple risks of pregnancy or the agony of delivery, would be well advised to STFU when it comes to telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. Until fetuses, to the existence of which a man has contributed maybe 5 minutes of pleasurable effort, are able to exist outside of the womb without extraordinary measures being taken, they are essentially a parasites, not “children,” and until I myself have to endure what pregnant women endure, I will be very slow to tell them that they must endure it, and I am perfectly okay with their deciding that that’s not what they want to do, even if they tell me that their decision is one of “convenience,” which I have rarely found to be the case.

            • @Conway Redding, no sir. I won’t be SingTFU when it comes to killing innocent people. Not now, not ever. But you feel free to bury your head in the sand amigo.

              • El Mac, a fetus, at least before it is able to survive outside the uterus, is an innocent person like an acorn is a mighty oak. If you think otherwise, your powers of intelligent dicrimination are seriously impaired.

              • @ Conway Redding I agree with you about the fetus and acorn analogy. I used to think abortion was okay until I heard a Geneticist on a talk show explaining what happens in the first hours after conception. I followed that up with several hours of reading on the Internet and it changed my mind completely. Anyone who doubts abortion is murder, needs to look into the matter and find-out what the genetics people have proven as fact. Then, they will learn that abortion is murder. I have no problem with Birth Control measures that prevent conception, but once those first 9-12 hours have passed, subsequently destroying the Zygote or Fetus is murder. Period.

              • @DerryM, actually, you agree with me, not Conway Redding. CR believes abortion – the murder of innocent children – is perfectly fine…u might want to go back and carefully read what CR advocates.

              • @El Mac…After review of the thread, I see you are quite correct, El Mac. I think I made it quite clear where I stand, and in my reference to the “Acorn Analogy” my agreement with CR would diverge in that I believe as soon as the DNA recombines to form the Zygote, CR thinks it’s a seed of sorts, I guess, whereas I see it as a newly formed human blueprint with the intention and purpose of carrying out its formation to a complete, unique new individual… in other words, I see it as a viable new Human Being. Thanks for helping me clarify this. Hopefully, anyone who doubts will do the research and enlighten themselves, including CR.

              • DerryM, everything you have said about the zygote is equally affirmable of the acorn, which contains a “blueprint,” if you will, for a mighty oak, the difference being that the zygote, if it proceeds to its full development (and millions don’t, for many reasons, only one of which is medical abortion), results in a human being, and the other a tree. The blueprint, in my estimation, is not the finished product. There is no research that makes your position logically tenable, but I understand that, in most instances, emotion overrides logic.

              • @Conway Redding, emotion does play into it a bit, but only after logic concludes that abortion is in fact, murder by another name.

              • @Conway Redding…You just need to read the science. The Zygote is far more than a blueprint and emotion has nothing to do with it. Yes, many fail to fulfill their purpose apart from those killed in an abortion. That’s natural. Being as most abortions are performed well after the Zygote stage has passed, it is murder. Plain and simple. I am an analytical person who has been criticized by family and friends for being “unemotional”, so you cannot convince me of anything by suggesting I am just “being emotional” about it because I assure you I am not.
                The only place you can parse when Human Life begins is during those few hours after sperm penetrates egg and the DNA strands are recombining, but the recombination is incomplete. Once recombination is completed, you have a viable human. If you willfully kill it, you have committed murder, despite whatever the Supreme Court or NOW or “Planned Parenthood”, or anyone else says.
                There are many highly available, effective ways both men and women can use to prevent unwanted conception in the first place. In my view, having murder by abortion as a back-up for irresponsible sexual activity is unacceptable.

              • El Mac and DerryM, it seems that two or more people can read the same information and draw different inferences from it. The zygote is simply an ovum that has been fertilized by a sperm. If the process begun by this union of egg and sperm progresses without intervention, either natural (as in the case of miscarriage), or man-initiated (as in the case of medical abortion), the result is an individual of the species of the donors of egg and sperm. There is clearly room for disagreement about when this developing mass of cells warrants being called a “person” rather than a “potential person,” and those on opposite sides of the debate are likely to consider their opponents to be in flagrant error. I continue to contend that, until the developing human zygote reaches the point of extra-uterine viability, it is not a person, but more a parasite, leaching its host of nutrients and exposing its host to a variety of health risks, which most pregnant women are gladly willing to run. But some aren’t thus willing, and my opinion remains that those women, up a the point of fetal viability, have the right to control what’s going on in their bodies, and that we men, who are not in any danger of facing the risks of gestation and delivery, are in a very poor position to be telling such women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. To me it’s kind of like the Pope, who adheres to vows of chastity and celibacy, condemning contraception. Given the chance, I would say to the Pope, as I would say to all males who want to exercise this kind of control over women, “You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules.” I understand that my saying that is not going to stop you from trying, but I will do all in my rather limited power that I can do, without breaking the law, to thwart you in your efforts.

              • @Conway Redding, clearly, not all women are pro-abortion/murder. So if you want to think of it in those terms, I support those pro-life women fully to the extent that like them, I side on abortion as being murder and do not take kindly to innocent life being sacrificed on the altar of convenience.

              • Well, for what it’s worth, El Mac, more people, of both sexes, are of your mind on this issue than are of mine, so we’ll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

              • @El Mac Thank-you kindly, sir!
                Well, this did not show-up where I had intended, but you get the idea, I’m sure.

        • I’m going to try and be nice about this.

          You are dangerously wrong. Your science is based on the early research of the 15th century monks and inventors of the microscope who thought they saw tiny people (humunculi) on what we now know as sperm.

          In short, everything you know is wrong, and you are making women miserable for no reason.

        • Swarf, modern science tells us that the human embryo/fetus has different DNA from either parent, and is a separate human life. I hate abortion, but like most Americans I’m in favor of keeping early abortion legal. The fanatics are the ones like Wendy Davis standing up for late term abortion, which by any standard is savage barbarity (unless done for strong medical reasons).

          Personally, I wish both parties would stop talking about sex and just leave us all, including gays, the hell alone on those issues.

        • Conway, actually, it’s a parasite or tissue or product of conception if the mom doesn’t want it. If she wants it, it’s a baby. The designation is completely subjective and artificial.

          If you had told me when I was pregnant that my baby was just a parasite, I would have clocked you. Try telling any happily expectant mom that and see what happens.

          • Juliesa, I guess my point, like yours, is that the definition of what the fetus is is up to the woman who is bearing it, not to me or to anyone else who is not having having to deal personally with the process of gestation, or who, in many instances, is not even remotely at risk for ever having to experience it personally.

      • Just remember, abortion is evolution in action. On more levels than what is apparent.

    • No one should take any of these comments seriously. Both parties have trolls on popular websites to try to encourage or suppress turnout, as appropriate.

    • Oh, ok. So the Democratic party is the party of the middle class, intellectuals, and civil rights? because none of those are true at all. The middle class has been gutted harder under Obama than any Republican president, intellectually speaking democrats cant give a single decent argument on any of their issues that doesn’t involve getting worked up into an emotional pitty party, any time they’re confronted with truth and facts they do the “dodge, deflect, and when in doubt scream racism”, and finally please tell me what rights they champion? The one and only thing that party has that’s right is their stance on protecting the environment, and they don’t even do that right.

      • The middle class is gone due to Trade NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT and the new world order. Obama getting ready to sneek in another one called SHAFTA Southern Hemisphere Aisan Free Trade Agreement. This is killing jobs and sending more immigrants heading for our southern border as they lose their jobs too.

    • If you look at actual data, like exit polls, the very rich now skew Democrat. Almost all of the wealthiest congressional districts are heavily Democrat. Obama got more corporate money than any candidate in history (some of that is protection money though.)
      As far as morons, the Repubs tend to get the middle, the folks who’ve graduated high school and/or college. They also get the white working class, the middle class, and small business people. The Dems get the extremes, the academics and the underclass with no HS degree, as well as the mega rich and the extremely poor.

      I think it’s partly because of this: Very wealthy people and very poor people don’t worry about taxes, because they aren’t really affected by tax rates. Middle class people are heavily affected by tax laws. Changes in taxation have very real effects on the standard of living for the middle class.

    • Thought I was the only one that noticed this! We terribly need a third party. Pro gun, pro womens rights, not already bought off by the wealthy.

  13. Yeah he’d get my vote. dunno bout rand paul as he has had this weird schizophrenic thing goin on lately but Cruz is a definite and resounding YES.

  14. Wikipedia says he was born in Canada. Doesn’t that fact make him unable to run for president?

    Edit: a little more digging found this:

    Since Cruz was born in Canada, commentators for the Austin American-Statesman[135] and the Los Angeles Times,[136] have speculated about Cruz’s legal status as a natural-born citizen. Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth (since his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940), most commentators believe Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States.[17][137][138][139]

    Perhaps someone more intelligent than myself such as Ralph might be able to give us some insight into the validity of that

    • John McCain was born in Panama, but only the silly believed he couldn’t be President. His mom’s a US Citizen, so he’s one, jus sanguinis.

      • both of John MCains parents were US citizens, Cruzs were not. The law states that to be a natural born citizen both parents must be citizens. This was done so there would not be allegance to 2 different countries. No obumer is not a natural born citizen, when he was born only the father could make him a citizen and his father was a British citizen, but no one had the guts to push it. He is a total fraud on the USA…

        • Well…. Obama was born in Hawaii, which was a state at the time, making him a citizen. I don’t like the guy, but that argument is old and irrelevant Mr. Trump.

    • I might be mistaken on this, but wasn’t our current president born outside the country with only a single parent being a US citizen?

      • Hobbez, yes, I believe you are mistaken. Despite much searching by many dedicated seekers, not a cent’s worth of credible evidence has been dredged up to support the contention that our current president was not born in Hawaii, which, at the time of his birth, had become the nation’s 50th state. At this point, as far as I am concerned, those who continue to maintain otherwise are akin to those who still believe that the sun goes around the earth, that the earth is flat, and that the mountains hold up the sky.

      • Had Obama been born outside the country, it would have been a problem because his mother, a US citizen, was not then of the age of majority. Cruz (and his mom) don’t have that issue.

  17. Was he not born in Calgary, Alberta? This would make him ineligible for the presidency under the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause? Like others, I am not totally convinced of the claimed birthplace of the current occupant of the White House.

    The senator’s birthplace notwithstanding, yes I would.

    • He was born in Alberta. His mother was a US citizen, which makes him eligible to run for the presidency.

    • His mother had been a U.S. citizen for more than ten years thus he was naturalized at birth (Nationality Act of 1940). He should be eligible.

      • S_J, Thank you for the correction/elaboration. I understand the Senator McCain was in similar circumstances, being born of American parents, in the Canal Zone.

  18. In a direct contest between Hillary and Cruz? Yes. I disagree with Cruz on a good portion of his economic and social positions but he stands with us on the Constitution, and his criticism of the NSA was a highlight. Still I highly doubt that Cruz or anyone else with the Tea Party stamp of approval is getting anywhere with the GOP leadership, they’d rather have some loser RINO like Christie.

  19. A strong YES. I saw him at the TX GOP Convention and he was great. His Dad too. By the way, he eligible to run and has renounced Canadian citizenship.

      • Your comment is a perfect example of why this country is screwed. We are all trained to think in black & white ( aka false dichotomy).

        For example, I say all politicians are beyond crooked and you reply that I must be espousing anarchy. There is a metaphorical Grand Canyon of middle ground between “Ted Cruz sucks” and “anarchy is preferred.”

        So let me be more specific, I am not interested in voting for a lawyer-politician with a wife who works at Goldman-Sachs. I’ll take Ron Paul over any of the current crop, including Rand.

        • Ron is too old and largely retired from politics anyway, plus the spectre of those old newsletters dogged him to his political grave. I’m on the fence whether he actually had any say in their writing but at least his lack of oversight over what was written in his name is inexcusable. Between that and his principled but hard-minarchist stance he’s pretty much unelectable.

        • Thank you for clarifying — at least now it is clear versus your previous statement.

          That said, who is Ron Paul? I am saying this in the context of what has he done lately? At 78 he will not be electable. While I would like a Libertarian, it is not going to happen. Even as a former physician, what is alternate plan to Obamacare including how to pay for it?

          Your idea is based on pure principles, that is great but that will not win elections. In order to make the rules, you first must rule. The country is not ready for what you want.

    • True, but we have to elect someone, and an Obama-type will cause another lost decade for the US. It sucks, but I will vote for the worst scumsucking Repub over any Democrat, as long as I live.

    • All politicians are fallible and will skew to their interests, special interests, and popular mob interests. This might be why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy which turns into a mobocracy. Just because you throw massive amounts of government largesse at something, does not mean things get better.

  21. I really don’t know enough about the guy. What I do know is that we can’t continue down the road were going down as a nation and expect to continue to thrive.

    • If forced to choose, I’d eat worms over maggots or steel-belted radials. But that doesn’t mean we should eat worms.

      A wise man recently said, “The solutions to our problems are individual, not political.”

  23. If he wins the nomination and its him or Hillary, then, yes. Otherwise not likely for the primary. He’s too divisive to appeal to moderates who make up the deciding percentage in any election.

  24. I would like to see Rand Paul, Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz on the same ticket in some combination.

    Sadly, if you are following the polls, Chris Christie beats Hillary every time and even some election simulations have Christie winning.

    I just hope that Elizabeth Warren announces and is endorsed by Obama so we can see democrats in fits and beating on each other.

    • Warren said that she wouldn’t run. She has said that repeatedly. Didn’t get much publicity on Faux “News” however, since Faux only appeals to those who have to move their lips when they read.

      • Right. Because politicians NEVER say one thing and do another.

        There is honor among thieves except for politicians.

  25. Not in a million years; I’m a multiple issue voter and can’t see voting for a Koch puppet.

    I’m aware that ’round here multiple issue voters aren’t any too popular, but there it is. Cry Havoc and let loose the Blogs of War.

    • I’m in the “independent leaning libertarian” camp, I have to hold my nose every election. Bottom line is that putting Hillary in the White House is flatly unacceptable, both from a Constitutional and general policy perspective. Obama’s been bad, but in the Statism Olympics Clinton makes him look like a rookie.

      • More or less what I really do in elections. I would just about vote for anybody but Hillary.

    • Me too.

      Sorry Pascal, but my life is more complicated than “all guns all the time”

      I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a Republican due to their stated views on… well, pretty much everything but guns.

      I don’t agree with the Dems on guns, but I will keep writing letters to them about that issue. The Republicans, on the other hand, are hopelessly lost in the woods and seem set to turning this country in to an anarcho-capitalist run moral caliphate.

      I’m not okay with that.

      • “anarcho-capitalist run moral caliphate”

        Oh God, if only. Instead we have a GOP who passed NCLB and ushered in the Department of Homeland Security. Plus Medicae Part D. Still, the decline under the GOP will be a bit slower than under the Dems, so that’s the way to go.

        What’s funny, is that if JFK ran today he’d be roundly denounced as a crypto-fascist Koch-puppet by most Dems.

      • So your’e in favor of rent seeking and crony socialism? You like bailouts for Wall Street and car corporations?

      • The Republicans, on the other hand, are hopelessly lost in the woods and seem set to turning this country in to an anarcho-capitalist run moral caliphate. Don’t worry, full bore statism has been the mantra of the main stream leadership of the Republican Party for quite some time now.

      • I’m sorry, but the left has everything wrong as well. That you can tell me the left or right is better is insane to me. They both suck.

        From Chicago to Detroit, to Camden, NJ, to Oakland, CA and in my backyard Bridgeport and New Haven CT. They have allowed cities to crumble with social welfare run amok. NJ has billions in state pensions it cannot pay and starting next year, they will pay out in benefits more than they take in all because the democrats had to cater to the unions. CT has a pension liability that even the current Gov. has admitted they have no idea if it will ever be able to pay off and retirees may need to take less benefits.

        The town I live in, is over 20 million+ in debt for a town of 40K and one of the items the last democrat ,who was thankfully voted out, wanted to do was spend 1 million dollars on fracking dog park!. Change has come to my town because democrats finally did not blindly vote for a democrat. In the last 15 years since democrats took over the town, the schools went from being ranked in the top 10 in the state to 52nd. In just 4 years after firing the ENTIRE board of education and many principles and other school administrators, the schools jumped up 10 spots and the school system once again ranked in the top 20 in test score. It is not a democrat thing or republican thing, if they are doing a crappy job, your under a ton of debt and your schools are failing — it is time to change instead of blindly following a R or D.

        You cannot have a social agenda when you are broke and democrats in my view only have two solutions: Tax or borrow money and then spend it on social program that do not work. The current Malloy administration spent $100 million on jobs programs that yielded — zero jobs! The latest, they want to train former factory workers to be PC techs?

        You can Google it if you want. NYS spends more per pupil than all of the USA and they rank last in schools — even Cuomo concedes to that. Camden, NJ with $100M from Zuckerberg spent more than anywhere in the USA and in fact more than any place in the world per pupil last year and they were rewarded with a 50% drop out rate. This is what you get when you vote in 100% democrats. CA is crumbling under a single party rule and Jerry Brown has been no help with the high speed train to no place.

        I am not anti-gay, nor against abortion and have other social values — but f-me if I have ever met a democrat with single bit of sense about how to finance a government without getting everyone into debt.

        You have obviously decided that other issues are more important than your gun rights — that is your right and I am not going to argue with you. Most politics are local and you know what is best for you and your family. But don’t cry if the people you voted for make more restrictions on your rights or bankrupt your city, town or state. Social responsibility without fiscal responsibility always leads to disaster and I would love to see one valid counter argument where social responsibility without fiscal responsibility has lead to long term prosperity.

        Vote your values, but do not blindly vote D or R “just because” — change can only come when there is actual “change”!

      • What Swarf said. Republicans are not serious about improving the economy or helping the vast majority of Americans. Republicans do an excellent job of putting money into the pockets of the super wealthy, and that’s about it.

        • Right. Because the Democratic left has done such a great job with the economy, and they never, ever line the pockets of the Crony Corporatists.

    • The Kochs are libertarians who favor same sex marriage and legalizing drugs. They are against corporate bailouts, subsidies and rent seeking. They employ 60,000 Americans in good manufacturing jobs. They’ve donated 100s of millions of dollars to curing cancer, an effort that could save my life. They recently gave millions of dollars to the ACLU and UNCF.

      Now why do you prefer a Soros/Buffet/Google/GE puppet to a Koch puppet?

      • Their stated aim to totally remove protections for public lands.

        Coming out in favour of Big Money: 1, all public lands: 0 is a deal breaker.

        “Their” side has no concept of a future beyond their own lives.

    • None if I can help it, but it depends on the lineup.

      Should’ve said I’d not wish him to be the nominee in a million years. Against most of the “false” Democrats out there, I’d hold my nose and vote for Cruz.

      I miss Ike. Hell, I even miss Harry.

  26. No, we’ve seen what a political newbie is capable of in office for the past 6 years. I wouldn’t mind Perry trying to run again, but on a national scale he too is way too far to the right for him to pick up swing states.

    My vote will be going to Paul Ryan, even though I am from Texas and would rather see a Texan in the White House again.

    The simple truth is it takes a great deal of experience and connections to run the country, anyone who suggests otherwise is insane. Ryan has the experience, plus he is a financial wiz.

    He knows how to play politics as well. As an example, Ryan has been pushing an amnesty agenda for quite a while now. Every single last conservative in the nation turned their back on him for doing so. Even I was perplexed regarding his decision. Then the Obama administration began their “turn red states blue” operation by promising amnesty, bussing and flying illegals in every red district in the nation. I think Ryan saw this coming, I think he knew the only way to get ahead of this sort of underhanded play was to support amnesty from the beginning. As of now, he is the only Republican that has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the Hispanic and illegal immigrant votes (cuz, come on, we know they are going to vote since we can’t enforce the showing of IDs at a voting booth).

    So to reiterate, though I’d like a Texan like Rubio in office, I don’t think its possible currently. Ryan has my vote simply because he has the best chance of winning over independents, illegals and older (non-Californian) intellectual liberals. He is a true conservative, but his non-partisan attempts will gain favor where it counts. Rubio could easily carry every red state in the nation, but as we saw with Obama, that won’t be enough to win the necessary electoral votes, we need the swing states so we need a candidate that can beat a democrat in those states.

    • Ryan’s VP debate against Biden in 2012 was pretty disastrous though. When you look like a sockpuppet against ol’ Joe, of all people, you’re not going to get far with a voting public that cares more about PR (which is essentially all a televised VP debate is, its actual relevance to an election should be close to nil) than hard policy positions.

  27. It looks like this election, I’ll have a choice between Hillary or whoever ends up on the Republican ticket. If that person ends up being Cruz, I won’t be dissapointed.

  28. I’m proud to have him as my Senator and would vote for him for president, but the dems have been doing their darnedest to vilify him and as such, stands less of a chance than Christie.

    As of right now,it looks like Rubio or Paul.

  29. He would be the first Canadian President.
    His father fought alongside Fidel Castro and suddenly wound up in the US. Anyone smell KGB plant.

    • You should really meet his father, or at least go hear him speak. He has always had rock solid conservative values. He’s why Ted arrived at Princeton and Harvard with those values, and didn’t lose them in that Ivy League commie nest.

      Lots of good people fought with Castro before they figured out what he was about. Cruz sr. was a teen at the time. This is simply not an issue, or rather not the one you think it is. The ones who turned hardest on Castro are the ones who experienced first hand the tyranny of communism.

    • “His father fought alongside Fidel Castro”
      Hmm, sounds like an opportunity for some liberal democrat crossover votes for the Cruz camp.

  31. The pic is a photo op. Find a picture of him firing a gun before he decided to run for President.

    • Warrant you know it will be him standing next to a unicorn. This is the guy that shutdown the government with no end game. Some are talking about Ryan, the same Ryan who stood in front of the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk VA to accept the nod for VP. Then at 11:35 the night before the vote on the budget bill inserted language authorizing the 1% COLA reduction for retired military. Something tells me you’re retired US Army.

      The far left and right win primaries, but who ever is further from the center looses the general election. And if they try to pander to the extremes in the primary then come back to the center on issues for the general election they are called a flip flopper.

      Rand Paul is acting like he is trying to play the middle against both extremes in his actions of late.

  32. I wouldn’t mind Cruz. I’d also get behind Bobby Jindal, Dr. Ben Carson…maybe even Mike Huckabee if he felt like doing that rat race again.

    • Just this past week “Campaign Bobby” had a mid-30’s approval rating in Louisiana.

  33. Presidential as Fnck!! Seriously, that smile looked genuine, this guy could out-man Putin without trying.

  34. As long as the Republican motto seems to be, “I’ve got mine, fuck all the rest of y’all,” I can’t see myself voting for ANY Repuiblican. But voting options that appeal to me are limited.

    • I personally agree with that motto, because I am getting mine, only to watch it siphoned away to those who’ve never worked 50hrs a week, much 112hrs/week. I made it, so can they. If they don’t, eff ’em. Survival of the fittest is the natural order.

    • I know you have a stereotype in which you like to think republicans are self serving and heartless, but you’re wrong when you start to consider the facts. I won’t tell you what phrase to Google, but however you decide to phrase it I’m sure you’ll find some of the articles confirming the fact that on average those identifying as R’s give more generously than those who self identify as D’s. You can immediately grasp at straws and think your average R has more disposable income… but if you’re intellectually honest you can probably dispel that one on your own.

      I’ve read most of your posts in this thread Conway and your as hyper partisan as those with Cruz tattoos. Until you invest in seeing success for the country over the success of your party you’re going to make bad decisions and look at all the same data and come away with really weak, nigh intellectually indefensible conclusions.

      We’ve given the hyper idealists a go, and hyper deficits didn’t improve the economy, a guy thinking “all the right things” didn’t de-escalate the powder keg that is the ME, and having the “smartest guy in the room” didn’t make the realities of navigating a bureaucracy any less burdensome (and most will argue it has become more burdensome).

      At some point you’re going to have to adopt pragmatism and accept the reality of the world in which we live. Things that work in a sterile academic echo chamber scarcely prove true in the real world.

      You can have the last word because I’m not going to sideline my day engaging in tit for tat talking past each other.

  35. Probably not…but who the hell is there? I like Libertarian ideals most (independence, don’t mix religion and government, individual freedoms prevail, anti-big govt. and big business should not control govt.), but really hard to pick a “winner” anymore. Maybe after a few more years in office, with more track record, i might like the guy, but now just seems another GOP-conservative-type guy.

    • For some reason, most people I talk to sound like you. “Who else is there” and “Gotta pick a winner.”

      I say enough! I will no longer compromise my values and constitutional rights for the lesser of two evils. I ain’t trying to “pick a winner”; this ain’t the lottery. You get nothing if you pick the winning candidate. And if you compromise your values, then you get what you deserve = slowly eroding rights.

      I mean, Romney actually signed an ‘assualt ban’ into law and he was supposed to be our conservative choice. We gotta wake up!

      • ok Wayne, Rand Paul gets my vote if he is running and election tomorrow. Course, “good” politics, in the end, is about compromise, and not one group trying to ram its ideals down others throats, which is where we seem to be now.

      • And when you vote for a candidate who as absolutely no chance in Hell of ever winning an election, you also get what you deserve, a Democrat winning, and the end to ALL of your civil rights.

        Democrats don’t vote on principal, they vote for whoever has the D next to their name. It’s the only reason that they win at all. Blind, Liberal, Faith is the reason there are even Democrats in government. The country is overwhelmingly Conservative and/or Libertarian, but a lot of us tend to vote for third party candidates, or not vote at all, if we don’t like our candidate. Democrats don’t have that failing……

  37. Not only no, but I’d vote against any party that has him as their candidate on principle.

  39. I would be honored to campaign for Ted next to his father, we are about the same age and believe about the same things.

    Ted may be too bright to be president, though. Maybe AG, then next Supreme Court justice and somehow replace John Roberts, the idiot.

  40. I generally prefer people with experience as Governors for President. Going from the Senate to the White House tends to result in what I call the “101st Senator” mindset, not a President- the current occupant being a case in point. Cruz is smart, I like where he is on most issues, but he is a first-term Senator.

    With that said, Cruz would be a hell of a lot better than anyone the Democrats are likely to nominate (current leading candidates: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden), and in the end that’s the important thing.

  42. If we’re talking between him and the democratic nominee, then yes, I’d vote for Cruz.

    I also like Dr. Ben Carson and Lt. Col. Allen West and where they stand on a variety of positions, but who knows if they would run or not.

    Unfortunately, there’s no one perfect candidate.

  44. As pretty much a single issue voter*, it’s a strong yes.

    *That issue -gun rights- correlates strongly with other issues I care about.

  45. Yes, or Scott Walker. In my opinion there will be no gun control legislation at the federal level for the forseeable future. That means that even if the worst happens and a democrat is elected, no legislation will come from the feds. Sandy hook was their best chance in years and they couldn’t get it done. The dems have little chance of gaining an anti-2A majority in the house because of the 2010 redistricting, and the Senate races look tough for them this cycle. The states, specifically the blue states, is where they will have success. Fortunately, that is not my problem.

  46. Topics to avoid: sexual issues, religion and politics. Tough or near impossible tp keep politics out of a gun blog but try.

    • I read TTAG FOR those topics. I can get gun reviews and news on dozens of other non political sites & youtube channels. The 2nd Amendment frames every other right.

  47. Rand Paul would be my first choice, but I’d take a sea urchin over Hillary. He’ll yes I’d vote for Ted Cruz.

  48. Yes. Now, to start a war. Anyone who votes Libertarian is voting for the Democrats. Classic example is the recent election of Governor in Virginia. Republican candidate lost by around 6,000 votes. Useless Libertarian candidate pulled in around 8,000.

    DUH!!, grow a brain, and a set of cojones. If you and Tea Party types have a problem with the establishment Republicans, get in there and make your voices heard.

    The Democrats are laughing themselves silly at the fractured conservatives in this country.

    Okay, start the flame war.

    • That’s the problem with the establishment republicans. They can do as they please (you know who I mean) and then say “it’s us or the Dems!” I believe in consequences and reinforcement. If the Rs bring me a straight conservative, all in. If they bring me another Bush/Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney, I refuse to hold my nose and vote. The Rs are still thinking about getting that middle 10%, meanwhile they isolate much of their base 40%. The Ds hit their base hard and win for it. Those establishment Rs are in many cases pushing the country in the same direction as the Ds, they just want to be in charge. Remember the Patriot Act? That’s the current NSA debacle but with somebody else at the helm. Consequences; they make me choose to support liberal Rs or toss my vote away and watch the Ds run the country over the cliff? Not my fault. I refuse to compromise my political principles again. I TRULY believe that only conservative candidates and policies can avert the coming freedom and economic disasters. Now, whether they have a R or a D is moot. The Ds are for full speed going over the cliff and the Rs are tapping the brakes. But the conservatives/libertarians are trying to turn the wheel and set a better course.

    • Had the Republicans not stacked the deck by changing the way they decided who would run in the general election to favor Cucci, the current governor would be Bolling. Cucci had too much bad baggage, betting most of those 8,000 votes were to say they didn’t like either of them running. The whole gift giving by Williams and then slow to return the money didn’t sit well, same with the Navy Veteran charity, he was slow to donate those funds after it came to light the guy was a fraud.

    • I totally agree, but would like to mention that tea party Repubs have been in general better at supporting establishment Repub candidates than vice versa. Look at what Dick Lugar did to the Mourdock.

    • Sorry JPD, but you’re wrong. In many elections, especially the most important ones, you have a choice of Democrat or Democrat-light, which is a Republican who wants to appeal to as many voters as possible. He or she will have essentially the same views as the Democrat except a handful of differences that although polarizing, are basically inconsequential in the long term. Given these choices, most people will vote for the Democrat. When you bring into the picture a libertarian, or a tea-party type as you say, that’s when people get a better selection of candidates. Look at David Brat in Virginia. He won because his views were MUCH more different than Cantor’s, and he did it on a much smaller budget. Which is amazing, since usually whoever spends the most – wins.

      • If the Republican candidate is essentially a RINO democrat, then you might as well vote Libertarian to send a signal to wake up the Republican Party. If the Republican is actually a conservative then you should vote Republican. I knew Romney was going to carry Indiana, so I voted Libertarian just to send a signal that Romney was a poor candidate. I figured Romney was going to loose to Obama nation wide as Romney campaigned very poorly.

  49. Cruz would be a decisive, constitution based leader. He probably a much better leader than candidate with that Texas Bush nasal twang.
    That said, he would make a hell of a Chief Judge of The Supreme Court!
    Now who can we get to appoint him?
    Flip floppy Rand Paul?
    Not ready for prime time Bobby Jindal,
    Depends on where you live if the Second Amendment Dr. Ben Carson
    Liberal do gooder & Common Core Mike Huckabee?
    Assault weapon banning socialized health care Mitt Romney?
    Let’s make an immigration amnesty deal Paul Ryan
    Marco ‘sucked in on immigration’ Rubio by John McCain good ole boys?
    It remains to be seen if Scott Walker can even get re-elected governor?
    At least i don’t think any one suggested Christy.
    Please God, no more Bush’s. Liberal statists Republicans have done enough damage.
    You anti Koch Brothers Democrat wannabes are reading the wrong web page and need to turn your guns in before you hurt someone.
    Folks, we are in BIG TROUBLE any way you cut it.

  51. Yes. And in a New York minute.

    As an aside, I sometime reluctantly talk politics with erstwhile conservatives who seem to be desperately searching for suitable “moderate” republicans to run for President. Granted, these guys live in Austin and suffer from the Austin disease where even conservatives find themselves thinking and talking like liberals. But the problem with them is a curious one. They seem to collectively think that someone like Ted Cruz—who can actually articulate clear-cut conservative values about small government, free market economics, and individual liberty and freedom—doesn’t have a message that will appeal to voters. Yet, their suggested candidates (fill in the blanks) are all from the McCain and Romney side of the party and are proven losers. One still thinks that Christie has a chance.

    • Many in my family are like that: moderate Republicans, and they think Cruz frightens the villagers. Whatever. In Texas, we don’t get to vote in the primary anyway.

  53. I like Cruz and I think he would make a good POTUS. He wouldn’t win though, so I would rather see someone else. I like his style in Congressional oversight hearings, he isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. He is very intelligent – clerked at the SCOTUS.

    He would be the left’s favorite candidate. He is still new in the political arena, so let him get some more experience and perhaps we will see him run and win in the future. He is still very young.

    I even bought the Ted Cruz coloring book – no joke!

    I would vote for him without a problem.

  55. Afraid not- he is good for gun rights but not many other rights. Ted Cruz is a strong supporter of the NSA and the police/security state that has been developed. I’m afraid that there isn’t much difference between him and Obama on far too many issues when it comes to our civil liberties. Great that he is a friend of gun rights and I would pick him over Hillary but I would rather vote for a third party candidate than either of them.

  56. Heidi Cruz went from JP Morgan to Goldman Sachs. Don’t vote for Ted. Anyone here ever read Matt Taibbi? I’m not saying everyone at Goldman is bad, but she is a goddamn vice president. Two George Bushes, and now Ted Cruz? Why is a fake Texan president good?

    “Heidi Cruz, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in economics and international relations from CMC in 1994, is a vice president in the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman Sachs, Texas. She and her two partners work with clients to implement high net worth portfolios across a range of investments and asset classes, including complex derivatives products, private equity, hedge funds, single stock risk management, U.S. and international equities, and fixed income. Heidi Cruz began her career as an investment banker with JPMorgan in New York, focusing on international structured finance and subsequently on Latin America mergers and acquisitions.”

    • GW Bush has resided in TX for his entire life from the age of two, except for living in the WH, and working on a campaign in Alabama for a few months. How is that a “fake” Texan?

  57. No.

    I vehemently refuse to vote for Democrats and Republicans simply because they are Democrats and Republicans. Their respective track records — across the board — are absolutely disgusting regarding literally anything and everything under the Sun. They don’t even respect our most basic civil liberties and the voting records of EVERY single one of those 535 TRAITORS only continually proves this with each new bill they draft. They have never had any reason to and cannot even be given a reason to. This conclusion is absolutely sans reproach.

    Unless and until a candidate can actually stand on their merits, which they can’t because they don’t have any as they are not required, I’ll be voting third-party — and so should the rest of you.

    • While I somewhat agree with you on our crummy political class, voting third party is a vote for the Democrat, and I will never vote for any Democrat for the rest of my life. I just can’t do it.

      • Uh, no, casting a third-party vote is not casting a vote for a Dempublican (see what I did there?). What it is — and exactly the only thing that it is — is a vote that isn’t totally and completely wasted on a political ruling elite that quite clearly doesn’t give two shits about you or anyone else outside of their closed circle of rich cronies. They never have, and they never will.

        P E R I O D.

        Not you, not your family, not your friends, not your job, not your property, not your civil rights, not our infrastructure, not our economy, not our education, not our military; absolutely not a goddamn-motherfucking-thing outside of their closed circle.

        Got it yet?

        The only way that is ever going to change is to simple STOP. VOTING. REPUBLICRAT. OR DEMPUBLICAN. It cannot be deconstructed or even cogently argued against. That is literally our only hope and has been for quite some time.

        • No, voting third party is a half a vote for the Democrats and half a vote for the Republicans. That’s great if you’re a libertarian who would rather bitch about the world than to help make it better, but the world I live in is filled with choices between the lesser of two evils. If you want to change the country pick a party and set about changing it. Libertarians could become and are becoming a powerful force within the Republican party. The Democratic party has no place for libertarians (even the ones who like to smoke pot), as their whole philosophy is the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

          If you don’t wish to pick a side, stop your bitching. Things will never change.

  58. Whomever gets in should appoint Trey Gowdy AG. I could go with either Cruz or Perry as POTUS unless someone better comes along.

  59. In Texas we do not get to vote on who gets the GOP presidential nomination. It’s always well over and done by the time of the TX primary. (It was highly unusual that Texas counted in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary.) So I have no preference for who gets the nomination.

    If Cruz or Perry gets the nomination I will donate to the max, knock on doors etc. in the general election. I like several other Repubs too, and I would hold my nose and vote for even a crappy Repub over any Democrat, for the rest of my life. And I was raised a Democrat.

  60. Yes. He is about the only credible one on the national stage right now.
    He can speak well, understands math, and stands on principle.

    McCain- nope. Thats Bob Dole redux. Old, old, old.
    Palin- nope. Sadly, she’d be good, but she has become a polarizing figure.
    Romney- retread- not going to bring out new voters, sorry to say. He lacked the fire the first time, to put Crowley in her place and go after Obama on Benghazi, and this is going to be a real fight.
    Paul- nope. Isolationism doesnt work.

      • Julian, thank you for that link to wikipedia on non-interventionism. I appreciate the clarification.

        What people forgot in 2008, and 2012, amid all the Hope and Change foolishness, and the grandiose boasting that Obama would restore the US reputation in Europe, engage Muslims, nuclear disarmament with Russia, etc, is this:

        The one area where the POTUS can legitimately act on his own, is foreign policy, specifically waging war.

        The 2016 election is going to be won on PR and money. I trust Sen Cruz principles and ability to communicate better, as a Conservative with TeaParty principles,

        than I trust Sen Paul’s past history, and the reputation of the Libertarian Party, on foreign policy,
        especially given the Libertarian’s own history of self-marginalization on just the kind of borderline OCD quibbles about terminology* that you dismiss as a trope. Intellectually “correct” or not, there is a reason that no Libertarian candidate has been taken seriously, in ….forever.

        Given Sen Pauls ideas and principles flow from his fathers, who has been borderline loony on too many things, I dont believe the younger Paul can overcome that. I could be wrong- here is a National Journal piece that discusses the issues better than I can say-

        http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-rand-paul-can-shed-his-isolationist-image-20140305

        * I use the term “isolationism” as its the more commonly understood term, as used historically.
        Here is a good rejoinder by VP Dick Cheney, on why isolationism doesnt work:

        http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/23/cheney-pours-cold-water-on-rand-paul-2016-isolationism-doesnt-work-video/

  61. Everybody says they “like Cruz but he wouldn’t win, we need somebody more electable.”

    Like Dole? Like McCain? Romney? Christie? Are you kidding me?

    Give the people a constitutional fighter. Put him on stage with anybody else. The far right will turn out in droves. The middle-right will agree. The middle will be convinced. The middle-left will be converted. The far left will be defeated.

    Cruz is the only guaranteed winner in the pack.

  62. I would indeed either for V.P. Or President also for Ben Carson for V.P. Or President either way I think it would be a good ticket.

  63. I bet it comes down to Perry and Hillary. I bet Hillary wins. I hope she can’t pass any gun laws. I suspect she will try hard her second term.

      • Jerry, I don’t believe you can find one comment of mine in which I say I think Hillary Clinton is “super.” But, whatever she is, if she is the Democratic nominee for the presidency, and the only folks the Republicans can put up against her are the likes of Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, or, heaven forfend, Rick Santorum, then, when you’re looking at Hillary, you’re probably looking at our next president.

  65. I have a bigger problem with his alma mater than his home state. Can we please for once get a president who’s never stepped foot on the Harvard campus. What’s worse, he even graduated with honors (something Barry couldn’t do).

    Other than that he’s one of my top picks. To the liberals it would be almost as bad as a President Palin, that’s all you really need to know.

  67. I would vot for a gun toting trigger happy and anti ccp or ccw president one that federally makes fullauto legal in all 50 or 52 sates that makes 50cal legal in all sates that sets stand your ground laws in all statez that would lower the age to buy a gun at the age of 16 because there are alot of soldiers that are that age fighting to defend us to lower the alcohol purchas price to 18 tobacco 17 that makes minimum wage 17 dollars han hour federally decreted that eliminates income tax and capital gains and profit tax that lifts property tax to a medium for both por and rich people that allows people to play on online casinos that makes the having a online gaming license easier than a drivers license that eliminates tax on bitcoin because it is virtual currency and make it legal to use to do everything and exchange for dollars limiting the price drop to a minimum of 300 USD that makes every bullet 10 cents cost to make tax on cars reduced 40 percent to make prostitution legal for women who do it by there own will and lets people take justice by there own hands

  69. Yeah, I’d probably vote for him. Baring any radical departures from his usual platform. Although there’s a good part of the established Republican dogma that I’m really not into. There’s more on the right that I agree with than on the left.

  71. Best advice: avoid discussing sex, religion and politics. Which leaves us nothing to talk about.

    Can’t separate guns and politics but it’s a confirmed loser to discuss. Politics, guns or both.

  72. I voted for him (actually, we didn’t have much choice, since in Texas…well, you know!), and have watched with horrer as his 3rd grade “it’s my pie, not yours” attitude has proven him to be LESS competent than a certain other former senator.

    He has no experience, less knowledge and education, and even less (if that’s possible) of an ability to work and compromise on political issues to accomplish a goal.

    The nearest trashcan would be a good place for him.

    • Are you talking about Cruz?? His education is Princeton and Harvard law. He won national debate contests while at Princeton.

      His experience includes serving as TX solicitor general, and arguing nine cases before SCOTUS, more than any other current US legislator. He also filed and made the oral argument for the 31 states on the Heller amicus brief.

      You consider that a lack of experience and education? What would it take to please you? If you were talking about someone else, i apologize.

  73. Yeah I’d vote for him. Unfortunately in our image conscious world Cruz gives off an odd vibe ( to me) . And he ain’t pretty . Like Mitt with Gordon Gecko hair, overweight & bad skin Christie or weird hair on Rand Paul it matters too much to the shallow end of the gene pool. Re “Obama girl”. I lean libertarian but will NEVER vote democrat. And don’t be so sure Hildebeast is a lock. There’s a hellofalot of baggage( and bags) going on.

    • That’s a pretty harsh assessment of someone who has repeatedly incurred the wrath if his party’s leadership because he’s passionately and effecticely adhered to his principles and promises to the voters.

      As for the Canadian thing, that’s an embarrassing, not cutesy, comment to make. He was born to an American mother. Where he was born does not diminish his U.S. citizenship, any more than it does for the thousands of babies born abroad every year to other U.S. citizens, particularly those in the military. That Canada elects to grant citizenship to anyone born there, is Canada’s business, not Cruz’s fault.

      Cruz has made his life, family and career in the U.S. and has never held himself out as being Canadian, but always American. In fact, his only concrete action on the matter was to renounce any Canadian citizenship foisted upon him as a small child by a foreign government.

      Anyone standing around at happy hour making snarky remarks about Senator Cruz being Canadian is far more apt to find themselves the butt of jokes, than to be regarded as the witty life of the party. Make your own decisions.

      • Wasn’t Obama’s mom American also, so why the 8 years of “show me the birth certificate”?

        I’ve been watching Cruz for a while and he’s one smart SOB, but then again a lot of presidential hopefuls are (or they have a Lee Atwater clone on staff). Job of the President is to unite, not create fissures based on opportunistic grabs for power. Don’t trust him one bit.

  75. He comes off was really condescending on camera. Regardless of his politics I don’t think he can connect with the average uninformed voter.

    • Sometimes he does come off that way on tv, agreed. I have met him twice at events, and he’s very easy to talk to. He works a room very well, remembers people, goes to events all over the state and country, and is down to earth, so from that aspect he’s a very effective candidate.

  76. Yea I’d vote for him. I’d vote for anyone that actually supports the constitution rather than trashing it.

  77. Cruz, YES
    I’ve heard some like for Ben Carson…on a pro gun website…wow.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/04/dr_benjamin_carson_on_gun_control_it_depends_on_where_you_live.html

    Local government decides????

    If Model 31 were running for President and asked the same question:
    The Second Amendment is a acknowledgement of an individual right obtained at birth that shall not be infringed. That includes all guns for all free individuals and the degree of which an individual chooses to exercise the right cannot be decided by a politician nor may the exercise infringe on another individual’s rights in any way.

  78. Yes, I’d vote for him. And hopefully I don’t get attacked by uber-lib Conway Redding like he has done to so many other commenters here.

  81. Perry is my current front runner. A man who respects gun rights and carries already is needed in office. Also every opinion I’ve heard from his is well reasoned and thought out. His op Ed recently on immigration issues was very well done.

    Cruz. I would likely vote for but need more information and history on.

    This is based on many issues, immigration, border, international dynamics, economic mindset…..

  82. Re Ted Cruz: it ain’t the heat, it’s the stupidity! I’m very pro gun, but him and Rand Paul, I cannot abide.

  84. Absolutely yes. I voted for that unknown, intelligent firebrand upstart in the 2012 Texas GOP primary and runoff elections over our well established RINO Lt. Governor in the race for U.S. Senate. He’s been a great senator, the best rookie senator I’ve ever known.

    I would vote for him for president without hesitation. As soon as he forms a presidential campaign exploratory committee to raise early funds, I’ll start donating to that to help get him going.

    • Agreed. I voted for him in the primary, the run-off and the general. Very proud of our “junior” senator from Texas! You probably listen to Michael Berry too.

  85. Sure – if he gets the nomination, the problem is that by the time the primary comes to Texas, thr republican and democrat nominations are already made. Texas gets hosed, that is why the republicans have such weak candidates. They need to do all primaries on the same day – otherwise the balance of power with smaller NE states shall never be equal.

  86. I tried to pin Tiahrt down concerning the RNC picking an actual conservative instead of another RINO. I mentioned the Tea Party and Libertarians specifically and made certain to voice my disgust with Christie. His response was a roughly 7 minute song and dance that never actually answered the question. My belief is that they have already decided that a true conservative does not fit their ideals, and therefore will NOT be an option by the time the second Tuesday arrives.

  88. No. Rand Paul gets my vote.
    The Constitution needs to be top priority….I don’t think any politican other than Paul take the constitution serious enough on EVERY issue.
    Dems and Republicans pick and choose what they want…

  89. As for Cruz, he’s definitely a hawk. Meaning more military expenses (because, you know, spending more money than all of your potential opponents and half of your potential allies combined is not enough), and probably another overseas war – in Syria and Iraq, if the present events are any indication.

  90. Hmmm…for any POTG thinking of getting on the Ben Carson bandwagon check out his gun grabber view on the 2A. Yikes! Diane Feinstein would love his opinion.

  91. If republicans would keep the fiscal conservatism and the individual rights and drop the social conservatism, statism, and cronyism, they’d flat out DOMINATE at the polls, and we’d be a great country. The democrats would have to gain fiscal conservatism, individual rights, and lose their statism and cronyism to be worth a damn.

    • Perhaps you should read something besides TTAG. The latest polls show that the faux Libertarian target audience supports the Progressive agenda. Sex rights and drug rights are the province of the Progressives and not believers in political liberty. If the Republicans adopted the faux Libertarian agenda they would lose the true conservatives and not win any Progressive leaning votes. Faux Libertarianism is a niche political movement that exist on the extreme left of the political spectrum. Their sole purpose is to be useful idiots to the Progressive attack on the institutions that form the foundation of republican government.

      Faux Libertarians would call James Madison a statist.

      • The only thing libertarians have in common with progressives is the idea the state shouldn’t be involved in who you screw or worship. There isn’t a damned thing about social conservatism that isn’t a hypocrisy wrt individual rights.

        • Sex and drugs are having nothing to do with individual rights. They are social decisions. Political rights are listed the things listed in the Bill of Rights. A free society is organized around those rights. You can have sex and drug rights and be denied all sorts of political rights.

          Faux Libertarianism is just Fascism of the mob but it is still Fascism.

  96. Why don’t I get to choose to have no-one to rule over me? Voting is a suggestion box for slaves.

  98. I will vote for Ted Cruz if he is the Republican nominee. He is not my first choice but if you want to beat the Democrats you vote for the guy who comes through the primary process. You go with the candidate you get not the one you wish you got.

    The idea that Ron Paul is a true constitutionalist is a bunch of nonsense. He is disciple of Murry Rothbard. Rothbard is an anarchist who believe that we should go back to the Articles of Confederation. Rothbard propagated the myth that the government was function just fine under the Articles despite the historical evidence that it wasn’t. Had we not adopted the constitution the country would have collapsed and reverted back to the Crown.

    War is the permanent state of mankind. The so-called golden age of 19th Century peace was an aberration. Even so, the US was the most warlike nation of the era. From the end of the Napoleonic Wars through the beginning of WWI those evil militaristic Prussians spent a less than 6 months at war. The US was at war 7 years not including the Indian Wars. You faux Libertarian followers of Paulism are as ignorant of history as your Progressive brothers. If any one is Fascist it is Ron Paul and a brown shirted one to boot.

  99. Cruz is smart, and savvy, and thinks on his feet. He is also Hispanic, and by the time this immigration mess is finally digested, huge chunks of first and second generation already here legal Hispanics are going to be looking for someone to speak to their interests, and with authority on conservative principles on the economy- which is the other elephant in the room that is blowing up and rotting in front of everyone, despite the StateRunMedia’s enabling of WH distractions, including the inevitable gun-grab.

    Cruz has proven he can argue those, confidently, with clarity and facts- he11, I’d vote for him just for twisting DIFI’s panties in knots here,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjruOE-nImI

    And smacking Sleazy Chuck Schumer down on gun-grabbing and the debt, here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDbE8m6vbgs

  102. And Cruz is young enough to appeal to YOUNG people, all the dreamers and obamagirls who bought the hollyweird hype on Obama, and are sucking eggs now, trying to find jobs with their $100,000 in un-forgiveable school debt, while living in mom’s basement.

    Someone who can make the pitch to them that progressive policies put them in that basement, and getting the government off our back is what will get them out- is the winner of 2016. Another old white guy RINO is not just going to cut it.

    The StateRunMedia HAS to double down to lock in the progressive agenda- and anything but a Democratic candidate win is the final nail the coffin of their lost credibility.

    They have their memoirs and legacy to write, and cushy jobs and speaking engagements, too- all of which goes up in smoke if they all dont keep the smoke and mirrors going another four years for HRC, Warren, ANYONE, but a republican.

    Why do you think the long knives are out already for Cruz?
    What I fear is if the clueless old guard GOP with big Dem money decides to do to him,
    what they did to Cochran’s opponent. Then you know we are well and truly fVcked.

  104. I don’t know enough about him, but based on political musings, he has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination (he has more enemies in Washington than friends too, so I highly doubt he’ll be the guy to ‘bring the parties together.’)

    With that said, while I don’t disagree with everything Obama has done over his terms, I would vote in the R person if just to ‘balance’ things out. My fear with that (with both parties being guilty of this) is that the new person will spend the first 2-3 years of their time in office just tearing down what the last guy put up. Not exactly a proactive plan in that regard.

    • With respect- no body is going to “bring the parties together”.

      Obama got elected on that kumbaya hopey changey baloney and look how Pelosi ran the House until the TeaParty outrage gave Obama his famous “shellacking” in 2010. Schumer and Reid have tied the Senate up including the shutdown- remember people not getting paid, Veterans denied entrance to war monuments in DC? Who ran F&F? Eric Holder and State. Who ran Benghazi? State and WH (and we still dont really know who was pulling strings there, do we?) Who ran the IRS voter suppression operation at WH with Lerner at IRS?

      Are you seeing a pattern? This is not about civility. This is about beyond crass, to despicably immoral abuse of executive power and LYING about it to the American people, including obstructing justice at DOJ. The Attorney General of the US in contempt of Congress, and the toothless House can do nothing without the Dems in the Senate.

      This is about what is probably the last chance to save the economy and states rights, and personal freedoms in America. If we dont take back the Senate, and elect a Republican for President, we are looking at another 3 Supremes appointed and ratified, for a permanent activist -left majority for the next 10-15 years.

      Say goodbye to your gun-rights then.
      Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions, and there is a reason SCOTUS hasn’t taken up Parker or Peruta…

      • I agree with you rlc2. The stakes in 2014 and 2016 are very, very high. Far higher than just our Second Amendment Rights. I think the very continuation of the original American Constitutional Republic is at stake, along with any semblance of a free market economy and our natural and Constitutionally protected rights. We are at a tipping point and what we do in the next two National Elections is more important than any internal challenge we have faced since the Civil War, even the Great Depression.

      • I noticed that you went on an Dem-attack there. And while many of your points may be valid, it’s a fallacy to try to blame one party for their indiscretions and not the other. I seem to remember a little war in Iraq being initiated off of super-faulty intel that had nothing to do with a Dem in the WH. Even if you believe the whole, “We had African intel that they had WMDs,” there was never any evidence on that intel, and GW even admitted that there was an intelligence failure with Iraq (not that it stopped him from going all-in with Cheney and Rummy). Not to mention it’s a war that pseudo-ended an problem while creating a brand new problem in it’s stead (this being more than 10 years after GW said, “Mission accomplished!”)

        My point is that bashing one party over the other is similar to two kids playing baseball near a house, and only blaming the batter when a window is broken.

  106. I would NOT vote for any conceivable Democratic Candidate, so if that means I vote for Ted Cruz, so be it. The Democrats took us all for a bad ride with Barak Obama and we need to make it clear we are not the morons they counted on us being when they offered-up Obama and we went for it.

    No party other than the Republican Party has any realistic chance to elect a President in 2016 against the Democrats. The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement has 165 Electoral votes now committed to the outcome of the popular vote, and no third Party has the National support to give the Democrats a serious run for the money. NPV will continue to lobby for States to pass their Law committing ALL their Electoral College votes to the winner of the National Popular vote, so it is no time to be screwing around voting for any Party’s Candidate that has no chance of winning. The only important thing is that we throw the Democrats out of the White House in 2016, and ONLY the Republican Candidate has a realistic chance of doing so. Get that into your heads and don’t forget it.
    Pay attention to this, because if NPV gets enough more States to join their program. suddenly the Popular Vote WILL MATTER like it never mattered before.

    Learn more here:
    http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

  107. Yes with South Carolina govenor Nikki Haley as his VP candidate , they are both conservatives , and have proven it . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  109. I’d love to see Cruz be the Republican nominee. It would be a gift to the Democratic Party, particularly if Ms. Clinton runs. She’d eat Cruz alive.

  110. Not unless he gets the Libertarian nomination. I’ll never vote for another D or R again.

  111. After reading through a variety of opinions on this article, I have come to a conclusion. The government should go back to the basic constitution, leave people alone to make their own decisions so they can suffer their own consequences or their own rewards.

  112. I forgot what the qotd was. I propose an alternate question. Should we force all politicians who are about to debate to take pain meds first? Maybe they will tell the truth. If they haven’t already built up a tolerance…

  113. How much difference will it really make who is elected President of the United States in 2016?

  115. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul… I could vote for any of them without batting an eye and feel good about it. In any of those cases I would be voting for something rather than against progressivism.

    If it’s another Bush? Or Christie? No. I’ll be looking at the Libertarian or Constitution party candidates.

    Any of the others? I’d have to do more investigation.

Comments are closed.