Cruz Declares Candidacy for POTUS 2016

[mojo84]

I think people need to take a real hard look at where we are right now after, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Do we really want or can we survive another one like these?

I liked a lot about both president Bushes. However I think we need someone much more fiscally conservative and focused on smaller less intrusive government. The other two, I'll let you know if I find anything I like about them. Don't hold your breath though.

Do we really want another Bush or Clinton? Can we survive another Obamaesque president that has no regard for the constitution, personal liberty, foreign affairs or fiscal responsibility?

Don't be afraid of the medicine which is just the opposite of what we have had. Here's a question, if someone so far too the left as Obama and Clinton can get elected, why not someone from just as far from the right? Don't buy into the "can't get elected" rhetoric, it's a cop out and justification for someone not want to stand for conservative values that this country was founded on.

Take a gander at this and let it sink in.
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtc ... itedstates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cedar Park Dad]

I would argue that what lost it last time was the rich and elitist aspect of Romney, not that he was a "ho-hum progressive republican". The majority of people found him to be out of touch. Too many people had too easy of a time picturing him sitting on a yacht noshing on caviar while wearing an ascot. He is also a very stiff, boring man. "A milquetoast enigma wrapped in a white bread conundrum".

I think that analysis might be out of touch. When it came down to voting for a Democrat or a Republican who inspired and enacted the same policies that the Democrats were pushing for on a federal level, most conservatives didn't see much use in wasting a vote. If Bush, Romney, or Christie run, I see a lot of conservatives not wasting votes again this year....

On the other side, I think that even of those that might be able to better relate to Cruz find him to be a lunatic.

....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

Picking a candidate that gains conservatives doesn't mean you keep the moderates or independents though. like him or not, Cruz is an insta lose for the independent vote and you risk moderates not voting.

Romney didn't lose because he was a moderate. Romney lost because he flip flopped, had the personality of a Buick, and there was no way a hyper rich founder of Bain Capital was going to win.

No Republican outside of Zombie Reagan would have beaten Obama. It was a nexus point in history with a wave of people voting for the first moderately acceptable African American candidate in history. On the positive I don't see the same translating for Clinton as she's been around the spotlight since before a lot of voters were even born.

Paul couldn't win either but he could angle for Sec of Commerce or such. But, like Cruz I welcome his hat in the ring. It puts more arguments on the table and frankly makes the race more fun.

Highlighted a couple of your statements to make a point. These same moderated and independents that you say a GOP candidate needs to win are the same voters who voted for Obama twice....or didn't vote at all. The big mistake that the GOP made in the last two elections was alienating their conservative base (which has usually been a reliable source of votes) to chase after the elusive "independent voter" that rarely votes at all....much less for a Republican.

Right now, the Republican establishment has made the party a distinction without a difference. If the GOP is going to support the same things that the Democrats support (illegal alien amnesty, single-payer health care, increased taxes and gov't intrusion), why vote Republican? If anything, the Democrats can get this stuff passed quicker.

Reagan brought different ideas to the table....not the same things that the Democrats were pushing. And Reagan won twice....with "independent" and Democrat voters. Cruz brings different ideas to the table. Paul brings different ideas to the table. What do Christie, Bush, and Romney bring?....

.....four more years of a Democrat POTUS, judging by recent history.

Need I define the word "insanity" again?

Reagan supported amnesty. Reagan never balanced a federal budget in his life.
Change his name and many of the Tea Party types would accuse him of all the same things they are saying about Jeb Bush now.
And yes those moderates voted for Obama, not Romney. Parties have to pick decent candidates they will vote for.
Ted Cruz can't win outside of hardcore hothouses. And why exactly announce at Liberty university? Seriously?

[Cedar Park Dad]

I think people need to take a real hard look at where we are right now after, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Do we really want or can we survive another one like these?

I liked a lot about both president Bushes. However I think we need someone much more fiscally conservative and focused on smaller less intrusive government. The other two, I'll let you know if I find anything I like about them. Don't hold your breath though.

Do we really want another Bush or Clinton? Can we survive another Obamaesque president that has no regard for the constitution, personal liberty, foreign affairs or fiscal responsibility?

Don't be afraid of the medicine which is just the opposite of what we have had. Here's a question, if someone so far too the left as Obama and Clinton can get elected, why not someone from just as far from the right? Don't buy into the "can't get elected" rhetoric, it's a cop out and justification for someone not want to stand for conservative values that this country was founded on.

Take a gander at this and let it sink in.
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtc ... itedstates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which of these conservatives you speak of won the Presidency since 1960?

[mojo84]

I think people need to take a real hard look at where we are right now after, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Do we really want or can we survive another one like these?

I liked a lot about both president Bushes. However I think we need someone much more fiscally conservative and focused on smaller less intrusive government. The other two, I'll let you know if I find anything I like about them. Don't hold your breath though.

Do we really want another Bush or Clinton? Can we survive another Obamaesque president that has no regard for the constitution, personal liberty, foreign affairs or fiscal responsibility?

Don't be afraid of the medicine which is just the opposite of what we have had. Here's a question, if someone so far too the left as Obama and Clinton can get elected, why not someone from just as far from the right? Don't buy into the "can't get elected" rhetoric, it's a cop out and justification for someone not want to stand for conservative values that this country was founded on.

Take a gander at this and let it sink in.
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtc ... itedstates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which of these conservatives you speak of won the Presidency since 1960?

What's your point? Look at where we are and who we've elected. Do we continue doing the same thing? There's much more to it than just who can get elected. Keep in mind, Obama and Clinton were both elected twice.


http://www.usdebtclock.org/sources/transparent2.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cedar Park Dad]

What's your point? Look at where we are and who we've elected. Do we continue doing the same thing?

My point is if your definition of conservative hasn't won since Harding, it aint happening.
Now others would say Nixon, Bush I, and Reagan were conservatives. But they did things that would throw them out of the conservative group you seem to be defining.

While I am not a great fan, what part was Bush II not a conservative because of again?

[mojo84]

What's your point? Look at where we are and who we've elected. Do we continue doing the same thing?

My point is if your definition of conservative hasn't won since Harding, it aint happening.
Now others would say Nixon, Bush I, and Reagan were conservatives. But they did things that would throw them out of the conservative group you seem to be defining.

While I am not a great fan, what part was Bush II not a conservative because of again?

If everyone's criteria is "who can get elected", we are doomed. We need to pick the right guy and do what it takes to get him elected. That's what the progressives do and they got the far left wingnut elected and re-elected.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If everyone's criteria is "who can get elected", we are doomed. We need to pick the right guy and do what it takes to get him elected. That's what the progressives do and they got the far left wingnut elected and re-elected.

What makes you think backing someone who is unelectable is the right guy? In a republic they have to get elected.

[TomsTXCHL]

I don't know much about Cruz except that he apparently is a good lawyer and has zero experience getting anything (at all) done in Washington. This is troubling of course, particularly if you live in LBJ country as I do (great at working deals). But Cruz seems to have the "big picture" right as did ex-lousy-actor Reagan so maybe with a friendly Congress there could finally be some serious reform. This country needs it rather desperately.

Is he electable? Dunno; maybe that he is Hispanic works for him, though being born in Canada is not so good eh?

Anyone but Hillary!

[RoyGBiv]

Inauspicious.

Liberty U. Students Forced to Attend Ted Cruz Speech, Make Stand for Rand

I strongly object to Senator Cruz's choice of venue for the announcement of his 2016 presidential bid: as is well-known by Liberty University students but considerably less well-known by the general public, all students are required to attend convocation every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Sen. Cruz is a friend of the Liberty University administration and has spoken at convocation in the past. As such, he knows that all students are required to be in attendance. I bear no ill will toward Sen. Cruz, but his choice to announce his 2016 presidential bid at convocation at Liberty University is a starkly deceptive one. Should the general public be unaware that all students are required to attend convocation, it would seem to the average viewer (as this will be televised and is already being widely publicized) that 10,000 supporters came to Liberty University to hear Sen. Cruz's announcement. However, every student in attendance has no say in the matter. Students will either attend convocation and lend to the illusion of widespread support for Sen. Cruz, or they will be subject to administrative punishment--specifically, four reprimands and a $10 fine--if they are absent. While Sen. Cruz has every right to run for president and to announce his candidacy, it is a highly deceptive, albeit politically savvy, move on Sen. Cruz's part to make his big announcement here. I do not support this action, and I am not alone in my belief that such deception is wrong.

[mojo84]

If everyone's criteria is "who can get elected", we are doomed. We need to pick the right guy and do what it takes to get him elected. That's what the progressives do and they got the far left wingnut elected and re-elected.

What makes you think backing someone who is unelectable is the right guy? In a republic they have to get elected.

Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that he isn't electable.

If we used your method, we wouldn't have concealed carry and many other things that have been passed that hasn't been successful in the past. It looks like open carry may even pass. I suspect you didn't think that was possible not too long ago.

I think declaring someone as not being electable at this point is shortsighted and misguided. Just because you fall in the moderate conservative group doesn't mean someone is not electable.

It's obvious you have your opinion and I have mine and neither will change the other. So continuing this debate is childish and unproductive. Pick who you think you want and who you think is electable and do something to help him or her get elected. If not, don't whine when we end up in a financial crisis with Clinton or Bush at the helm.

[mojo84]

Inauspicious.

Liberty U. Students Forced to Attend Ted Cruz Speech, Make Stand for Rand

I strongly object to Senator Cruz's choice of venue for the announcement of his 2016 presidential bid: as is well-known by Liberty University students but considerably less well-known by the general public, all students are required to attend convocation every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Sen. Cruz is a friend of the Liberty University administration and has spoken at convocation in the past. As such, he knows that all students are required to be in attendance. I bear no ill will toward Sen. Cruz, but his choice to announce his 2016 presidential bid at convocation at Liberty University is a starkly deceptive one. Should the general public be unaware that all students are required to attend convocation, it would seem to the average viewer (as this will be televised and is already being widely publicized) that 10,000 supporters came to Liberty University to hear Sen. Cruz's announcement. However, every student in attendance has no say in the matter. Students will either attend convocation and lend to the illusion of widespread support for Sen. Cruz, or they will be subject to administrative punishment--specifically, four reprimands and a $10 fine--if they are absent. While Sen. Cruz has every right to run for president and to announce his candidacy, it is a highly deceptive, albeit politically savvy, move on Sen. Cruz's part to make his big announcement here. I do not support this action, and I am not alone in my belief that such deception is wrong.

There's always some that will complain and object to anything. If he hadn't done it there, some would say he is ignoring the conservative young folks.

[TVGuy]

Barely won by 56.5%. If that's your definition of barely, I'll take it. Cornyn won in 2008 with 54.8% and in 2014 with 61.55%.

Using a general election statistic for a statewide election in Texas in the last 15+ years makes no sense.

If you think the sure way to victory is coming in second in a primary by a huge margin and then overcoming that in a runoff I question your judgment. Yes he was able to do it, it wasn't for the light hearted.

[baldeagle]

Reagan supported amnesty.

That's not accurate because it's incomplete. Reagan supported amnesty because Congress promised to seal the border. Congress got their amnesty then reneged on the rest. Reagan didn't support amnesty, but he was fooled into thinking Congress would be faithful to their word.

Reagan never balanced a federal budget in his life.

Neither has any other President in over 200 hundred years. And please don't throw out Clinton. The debt increased every year he was in office, so the canard that he balanced the budget is just that, a canard. Besides, in case you hadn't noticed, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that gave him those budgets.

Change his name and many of the Tea Party types would accuse him of all the same things they are saying about Jeb Bush now.
And yes those moderates voted for Obama, not Romney. Parties have to pick decent candidates they will vote for.
Ted Cruz can't win outside of hardcore hothouses.

Time will tell.

Jeb Bush supports Commie Core. He supports open borders. He wants to raise taxes. A Reagan he is not.

And why exactly announce at Liberty university? Seriously?

If you listen to his speech, you'd understand. He said that millions of Christian conservatives do not vote. His appeal was directly to them. Get off your duffs and get to the polls and we can win this thing.

[mojo84]

I'm not going to argue opinions, especially when people are so set in the ideology in which they are so committed.


How can our country sustain itself in light of this?

Keep in mind, this does not consider future unfunded liabilities and future deficits.

[mojo84]

Here's another view of the debt graph taking inflation into account.