TexasCHLforum.com

Dadtodabone wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Ted Cruz appears to have a sparkling future, and I admire him greatly, but the last time we elected as President a fellow who was in his first Senate term, it caused some anxieties.

I'm not sure being a Senator is a good stepping stone to the Presidency. Obama, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Truman were Senators. Jackson, Pierce, Harrison and Harding were also Senators. Being a Senator warps your view of reality in some ways, a vast subsidized ego trip. I prefer Governors, like Coolidge, GW Bush. Of course, FDR, Clinton and Wilson were Governors. Hmmmm.

At least Governors have to exhibit some executive ability to be successful. While I may not care for the political ideology of some of the Governors who have held the Presidency, nor care for the end result of their administrations, at least they were leaders. Not so the oily, false bonhomie, political slickness of the majority of those who serve in the Senate.

I don't think that having been a Senator did much to warp Truman's view of the world. He was a pretty pragmatic guy, and a hardnosed politician, and he didn't seem to care much if anybody liked him. That last part right there makes him more like Cruz than like Johnson. Truman's biggest flaws were A) being instrumental in the formation of the United Nations; and B) corruption tied to members of his cabinet.

[sidebar]
Although I hate the UN with a deep and abiding passion, and would not feel particularly bad about it if the building fell into the East River, drowning all the other member nations' delegates, I can understand how a suddenly and unwillingly globalized world at the close of WW2 would be desperate to create an organization which would dampen the possibility of a WW3. Sadly, it did not. The Cold War was WW3. If one tallies up all American combat/war related deaths from the end of WW2 to 1985 when Gorbachev came into power in the USSR, including both Korea and Vietnam and all the smaller proxy conflicts around the globe, and one attributes those deaths to the Cold War, we lost 95,274 Americans in the Cold War (SOURCE) from 1946 to 1985. Those American deaths often occurred while our UN delegation calmly sat at tables, facing the delegations of other nations who were either directly or indirectly killing our boys. With global communism during most of that time a very real threat and a hostile USSR and China opposing freedom everywhere, one can argue all day long about whether or not our wars of intervention were justifiable. At the time, and in the light of an extremely powerful USSR, they certainly may have seemed so. In hindsight, some were undoubtedly not worth it. I've stopped believing in the export of liberty, when we have increasingly less of it here at home. If our own leaders fundamentally do not believe in our Constitution as it is written, who are we to tell other nations they should have a government like ours? And even if they did believe it, by what moral authority do we force it upon other people? The only time that the U.S. should go to war against anybody is either punitively for having attacked us first, or when our internal interests are so badly threatened that external military intervention is justified to stop the threat.....for example, if a foreign nation was foolish enough to try and blockade our ports, or something equally unlikely. If there is one thing that our noble sacrifices of blood and lives on behalf of other lands has taught me is that there is no other person of any another nationality that is worth the blood of one single American. Therefore, we had better tread cautiously in those matters, and while we're at it, tell the U.N. to move their operations somewhere else for the next 6 or 7 decades. We've already done our part.
[/sidebar]

Maybe Cruz will author a bill requesting the U.N. to move.

SewTexas wrote:supposedly Cruz has said he's not ready yet I swear if people keep pushing Christi I may scream what do people see in him?

Christie is the darling of the mainstream media so he would be a more "popular" Republican that the Democrats would "like" more. Or so the thought process goes, I suppose.

This says more than anything else he himself might say about being an alleged "conservative:" http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-chris ... le/2533799

Hey, look at me, I consort with the enemy, is not exactly a ringing endorsement for an opposition candidate.

Chris Christie is anti-fireams. He made ZERO efforts to relax the stranglehold gun control laws in New Jersey. And THAT, in and of itself, is enough for me not to want to vote for him...the rest of the garbage he does just solidifies that view.