Author Topic: Sen.Ted Cruz  (Read 144437 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Sen.Ted Cruz replies on those nominations blamed on him
« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2014, 02:25:37 AM »
Ted Cruz was on Bret Baier's Special Report, Tuesday I think it was, and I must say I was quite impressed, perhaps the best I have ever seen Cruz.  Perhaps someone can find a clip?

With regard to the question we are discussing at the moment, Cruz said the assertion that he was responsible for scores of nominations going through was false, Reid et al would simply have done it anyway a day or two later.  Thus, it would appear my criticism above may have been misplaced.

===================
What Really Happened This Weekend

Why I tried to block Obama’s amnesty.

By SEN. TED CRUZ

December 16, 2014

For the past week, Sen. Harry Reid has worked hard to prevent a vote on President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. Finally, after considerable turmoil this weekend, we were able to force a vote.

Only one month ago President Obama announced amnesty for roughly five million people here illegally. He did so in defiance of the manifest will of the voters; as he rightly noted, his “policies were on the ballot all across the country.” And the people voted overwhelmingly against amnesty.

Amnesty is wrong, and it is unfair. It’s unfair to millions of legal immigrants, to the 92 million Americans who are currently not in the labor force, and to minority communities across the nation struggling with record unemployment.

Even more troubling was how the amnesty was decreed: by executive fiat, directly contrary to federal immigration law and to the Constitution. The former prohibits issuing work authorizations to those here illegally, and the latter prohibits the president from ignoring federal laws passed by Congress.

If a president can defy federal law, it renders useless the checks and balances in our Constitution. And it sets the stage for presidents to ignore any other laws (tax, labor, environmental) with which they might disagree.

If Congress does nothing in response, we acquiesce to this constitutional crisis.

Late Thursday night, the House passed the so-called “CRomnibus,” funding the federal government to the tune of $1.1 trillion.

That’s what’s publicly known. Now let me tell you some of what happened behind closed doors.

Within hours, I joined a handful of other senators in going to leadership and affirmatively offering to cooperate to facilitate a quick vote on the CRomnibus—that very evening, we suggested—in exchange for a simple up or down vote on defunding executive amnesty.

Republican leadership told us we would likely get our vote. All day Friday, they told us the same thing. Then, late Friday night, Harry Reid apparently changed his mind, and we were told there would be no vote on amnesty.

At that point, I supported an objection to delaying the CRomnibus vote any further. We used the leverage we have under the rules to try to force our vote.

Harry Reid responded in anger. He forced the Senate to come back Saturday and spend the entire day casting procedural votes to move forward a series of Obama nominations.

Some critics have disingenuously suggested that, by fighting on amnesty, we somehow facilitated these Obama nominations. That’s nonsense; Harry Reid had announced a week earlier he was going to force through every one of these bad nominations—from an unqualified and extreme surgeon general to the new head of immigration enforcement who has pledged to uphold Obama’s amnesty—and there is no doubt he would have done the exact same thing on Monday and Tuesday, with the very same result.

An hour into our Saturday session, I offered to Reid yet again to take up the CRomnibus immediately, vote on amnesty, and then finish it. He accepted my offer, but then the other Senate Democrats vetoed his agreement.

Finally, late Saturday night, the Democrats relented, and we forced a vote on the constitutionality of executive amnesty. Had we acquiesced, had we waited until Monday, Reid could have held the floor and blocked the vote.

So what was accomplished? First, every single Senate Democrat is now on the record in support of President Obama’s illegal amnesty. No fewer than a dozen Democrats had previously criticized that amnesty; now their positions are unambiguous for the voters.

That matters, as we discovered this past November.

Second, 22 Republicans voted in support of my constitutional point of order. This comprised a majority of the Republicans voting, and (not coincidentally) most of the Republicans up for reelection in 2016.

This puts a stake in the ground: That we will defend the Constitution.

Some have attacked the vote because not every Republican stood together. That’s true, because leadership did not want to fight this fight right now and urged Members to oppose.

But the substantive disagreement is overstated. A number of Republicans had a good-faith disagreement with the procedural vehicle we used to force the vote. They argued that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional, but the bill funding it is not.

It would have been much better if all 45 Republicans had stood together. For that reason, we had preferred another procedural vehicle—a straight up or down vote on defunding amnesty—but Reid had blocked that. So this was the only tool remaining. This was the only way to get a vote.

And the procedural disagreement on the vehicle masks the breadth of the substantive opposition of Republican Members to executive amnesty.

Republican leaders have promised that the CRomnibus was part of a broader plan to force a fight to stop executive amnesty in January or February. I very much hope we come through on that promise.

And if we do indeed stand united against amnesty sixty days from now—if we follow through on our commitments—none will celebrate, and praise leadership, more than I will.

But we need action, not just words. We need resolve.

And one of the most significant benefits of the fight this weekend was that almost every Republican—those who voted with us and those who voted against us—has once again gone to the press expressly agreeing that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional.

We should build on that, stand together in the new Republican Senate, and honor those commitments. If we are going to defend the Constitution, we must respond decisively to this constitutional crisis.

Ted Cruz is a U.S. senator from Texas.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/amnesty-what-really-happened-113605.html#ixzz3ML1Y1bor



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Ted Cruz Iowa speech
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2015, 09:58:08 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #106 on: March 24, 2015, 05:18:00 PM »
I'm glad he is in and think he is probably the best of those trying to win the right side of the spectrum.  He is a far better candidate than Huckabee, Santorum or Rick Perry, among others.  I trust his agenda better than I trust Jeb and others.  Pundits are over-using the word "purity".  He is emphasizing something like that, but also points out he will compromise, as Reagan did, if that will gets parts of his agenda started.

Cruz is not my first choice right now because I am not convinced he is the best candidate to unite our side and bring more people over to our side.  (I have written elsewhere who is doing that better.)  The challenge is on Cruz (and all of them) to demonstrate they are up to this challenge.

That said, I like him a lot and will enthusiastically support him if he is the nominee, or the last conservative standing.  He seems to have it right on all the key issues, and is very willing to fight for what is most important.  He is very sharp and could do very well in one on one debates against the big government liberal, if he gets that far.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #107 on: March 24, 2015, 08:34:24 PM »
Well said.

In addition to our shared doubts about his electability, I would add that apparently his father is a pretty extreme character-- a lot of shiny objects there with which to disrupt Ted's campaign.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #109 on: March 25, 2015, 10:32:23 AM »
In addition to our shared doubts about his electability, I would add that apparently his father is a pretty extreme character-- a lot of shiny objects there with which to disrupt Ted's campaign.

True.  Rafael (Sr.) has said things that will distract.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/07/the-six-craziest-quotes-from-ted-cruz-s-father-rafael-cruz.html
The Six Craziest Quotes From Ted Cruz’s Father, Rafael Cruz  (Mostly from 2012)

1) No one is going to send Obama "back to" Kenya or Indonesia.  That type of hyperbole is a distraction that no one needs. Those of us on the right wouldn't even like his governing ideas to continue in third world countries.  
2) Murder? Reasonable people actually do believe the intentional act of killing a baby who made it out of the mother alive is... well... murder.  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/23/new-audio-surfaces-of-obama-defending-infanticide-in-illinois/   President Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois legislature to not support a bill to provide medical care for newborns who survived failed late-term abortions.  
3) Just like Fidel Castro? Governing by decree, by executive order?   - Check the record!
4)' Gay marriage is a government plot to destroy the family...Socialism requires that government becomes your god.  They have to destroy all loyalties except loyalty to the government'??  - It is not politically helpful to comment on your opponents bad motives.  But yes, breakdown of family was the result of liberal social policies, as warned by extremists on the right.   Dependence on the government is politically helpful to left; belief in God is not.  You don't need to impugn motives when the facts (prior to gay marriage) already make the case.  That said, it is hard to look at the amazing breakdown of marriage and family in response to liberal policies especially since the 1960s and left's ambivalence to all that and not at least ponder the idea that it is intentional.
5) Media: The U.S. has its very own “ministry of misinformation” that governments in communist countries like Cuba employ to spread their messages. That propaganda machine, he said, is the liberal media. “They just tell us what they want us to hear. They are rewriting history…because they have an agenda. And unfortunately the agenda is an evil agenda. It’s an agenda for destroying what this country is all about”.   - This is only slightly over the top.  Don't we have a thread here with 1520 posts and 256015 reads documenting something pretty close to that?  In some ways, the apparent conspiracy of our mainstream media through so many channels is worse than their ministry with one.
6) 'Our enemies control our energy.  Because of Obama’s excessive regulation, the oil industry is stifled...We are buying 40 percent of our oil from our enemies (pre-fracking)…Our enemies control the energy that we use or do not use. And they have the power to shut down the valves and bring us to our knees.'  - Liberals have continuously fought our efforts to produce our own energy.  Enemies don't control all our foreign supplies, but there is a significant element of truth in that concern.  For example, we can't seem to solve the crisis in Ukraine now or the Baltics next because of Russia's willingness to supply them with gas versus our inability or unwillingness based on restraints put on our energy industries by leftist policies here.  Russia, Iran and Venezuela could easily be considered enemies.  Saudi, Libya, etc. arguably so. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/politics/9-11-attacks-saudi-arabia-involvement/  Saudi is somewhat of an ally at the moment only because of worse threats in the region.  It only takes a partial shutdown of sources to create havoc in supplies and prices.  We are less vulnerable now despite, not because of, their policies.

[Rand Paul also has a father problem; he has written as recently as this week on the Iraq situation.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One feather of many in Cruz' cap is the DC v. Heller case, a great decision for individual liberty that was based on the merits of the arguments made by Ted Cruz, who as Solicitor General of Texas wrote the Amicus brief signed by 31 states and was Counsel of Record for the winning side, the US constitution.  http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_texas.pdf  In the Elk Grove case, he wrote the U.S. Supreme Court brief on behalf of all 50 states that was successful.  Cruz authored 70 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court.

The next President of the United States should appoint Ted Cruz to the US Supreme Court.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2015, 03:00:22 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz Baraq Obama in several ways
« Reply #111 on: March 25, 2015, 10:24:28 PM »
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/25/9-reasons-ted-cruz-is-exactly-like-barack-obama/

(Respectfuilly) I strongly, vehemently, take issue with this.  The first 8 of these are either bogus or are not negatives, they served in state government, taught constitutional law, are populists, have eligibility issues(?!), etc.

Read our thread, Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness.  Of all the things wrong with Barack Obama as President, virtually none of it comes from his lack of executive experience or any of these so-called commonalities.  He would be an even worse President if he had more experience prior to taking office, unless he changed his viewpoint.

He is arrogant, snubs his nose at constitutional issues.  He thinks government has all the answers and individuals with their liberties have none of them.  Barack Obama was a pretend constitutional lecturer.  So am I.  :wink:  Ted Cruz won BIG cases at the US Supreme Court.  Barack Obama wants to transform America away from what made it great.  Ted Cruz wants to focus precisely on what made America great.  That's hardly the same.

Obama's lack of experience didn't stop him from getting things done.  It was the least of his problems.  He got PLENTY of things done.  Just all the wrong things!

On point 9, "both are divisive and intensely disliked by an opposing faction."  That happened to work for Obama.  He IS President.  And so it is no reason to discount Ted Cruz' chances.

Finding similarities like that they both have dark hair and birthdays in December misses the whole point of both these men, IMHO.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #112 on: April 05, 2015, 12:47:51 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #115 on: April 10, 2015, 08:51:56 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #117 on: April 15, 2015, 06:33:46 PM »
Ted Cruz was right on target when asked about his views on the Second Amendment: "When it comes to constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says. It doesn't matter what might be popular at the moment. We've seen regimes across the face of the earth come and take away people's guns, strip away their rights to defend themselves, and sometimes it's been very popular. And yet it is an inevitable prelude to tyranny. Our country was founded on a radical proposition, which is that our rights don't come from government; they come from God. ... The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting; it's not for target shooting. ... The Second Amendment is there so that you and I can protect our homes and our families and our children and our lives. And it's also there as a fundamental check on government tyranny. And that, ultimately, is not subject to public opinion polls, it's subject to the express protections of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution." Cruz really nailed it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #118 on: April 15, 2015, 06:35:16 PM »
Cruz!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz, Campaign update
« Reply #120 on: June 11, 2015, 08:49:06 PM »
My other first choice.  Good interview.  20 minutes, no commercials.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/wp-content/uploads/06-11hhs-cruz.mp3
Senator Ted Cruz on 2016, TPA, TPP And The Islamic State
Thursday, June 11, 2015    |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Fund raising going well.
Ted Cruz got 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas, 2012.  That threatens the Obama model Hillary is following.
CinC should have a strategy, defeat radical Islamic terrorists, destroy Islamic State.
Arm the Kurds.  Kurds are boots on the ground for us.
Would not end the filibuster.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2015, 08:54:07 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Sen.Ted Cruz on Colbert
« Reply #126 on: September 22, 2015, 12:45:21 PM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #127 on: September 26, 2015, 08:20:22 AM »
Time for something about Ted Cruz. 

There has been talk about Cruz and his motivations for staying silent about Trump. The motivations have been thought to be:

- Cruz as VP under Trump
- Cruz for SCOTUS under Trump
- Cruz picks up Trump supporters if Trump drops out

All of these speculations have seemed reasonable. But then things like this come out.

A Cruz Super-Pact donates $500,000 to Carly Fiorina's campaign. (I posted about this before.) Why did this occur before the 2nd Debate? Who does it benefit and harm? Now we see. Both Cruz and Fiorina benefit. The money keeps Carly running so she can bleed off Trump votes. Cruz benefits because Trump is weakened and could leave Cruz as the Trump alternative. Bush benefits from the Splitter Strategy. Who is hurt? Trump.

Now this:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150422-donations-to-ted-cruz-come-in-chunks-big-and-small-but-much-is-murky.ece

His biggest benefactor is Robert Mercer, a reclusive New York hedge fund billionaire who reportedly provided nearly all of the $31 million collected last week by four related super PACs created to help Cruz.

Mercer, one of the GOP’s top money men, pumped $15 million in the last five years into GOP causes. That included $2 million to the Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads and $1 million to a super PAC that helped 2012 nominee Mitt Romney.

Cruz and his benefactor share a disdain for the IRS. Cruz wants to abolish the tax agency, which has been investigating Mercer’s hedge fund, Renaissance Technologies, over complex transactions that shaved more than $6 billion from its tax bill.

“He can win,” said Mica Mosbacher, whose late husband, Houston oilman Robert Mosbacher, was secretary of commerce under President George H.W. Bush and a key Bush money man. “He had the courage to not play the game in Washington and become co-opted. He is more interested in being effective than being liked.”

She was one of Sen. John McCain’s top 10 bundlers in 2008. Four years later, she co-chaired Rick Perry’s campaign, and later she hosted Romney for a fundraiser at her home. She co-hosted a Houston event March 31 that gave Cruz a $1 million boost.


More on Mercer. He donates heavily to Club for Growth and also to Mrs Lindsay Graham. He has been before the Senate Investigations Committee about his Tax Deduction procedures. He is one of the Hedge Fund managers who would be hurt by Trump. He has ties to Glenn Beck. He is GOPe all the way.

Now the FEC is investigating how the Cruz Pac came to donate to Fiorina.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fec-begins-inquiry-into-carly-fiorina-campaign-financing-irregularities/22576/

This begins to really change my thinking on Cruz. I have to wonder how much he knows about the donation to Fiorina. (It has been published over a month ago. Why would he not condemn it when he found out.) Also, with Mercer and his tax motivations, how can Cruz not be bought? 

Very disturbing for me....


PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #128 on: September 26, 2015, 11:17:58 AM »
Very interesting and I await further developments.

I would say though that Cruz's hostility to the IRS and the tax code long predates any donations here.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #132 on: October 07, 2015, 09:09:14 PM »
Ted Cruz receives very favorable coverage today from my new favorite political reporter Eliana Johnson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425183/ted-cruz-iowa

The Texas senator may look like an also-ran, but he’s a legit contender. Where’s Ted Cruz? The outspoken Texas senator has been unusually quiet in recent weeks. But in GOP circles, there’s soft but growing chatter that he is likely to be one of the last men standing in one of the most chaotic and unpredictable presidential races in recent memory. You wouldn’t know it from his poll numbers. Cruz is running at about 6 percent nationally and in key states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s well behind outsiders Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson, and those numbers accord with the attitude that many influential Republicans have taken toward him since his arrival in Washington three years ago: There’s no way he can win the nomination. He’s too conservative and doctrinaire, and his abrasiveness doesn’t help the cause. Given his poll numbers and his

s is the man, after all, who, according to one of his allies, began meeting with Iowa activists to plot his path to victory in the state in August of 2013, just nine months after he was elected to the Senate. Is it possible that he’ll sneak up on the Republican establishment again, just as he did in his 2012 Senate race?  Within Republican circles, attitudes about his viability have begun to change. Even strategists associated with some of Cruz’s rivals acknowledge that, in a historically crowded field, he may be one of the last men standing. “He’s got a long way to go, but unlike some of these guys, he has a coherent strategy, he has a lot of money, he has a pretty consistent message, and he’s not making mistakes,” says a top Republican strategist allied with Florida senator Marco Rubio. “He’s running a good campaign.” RELATED: The Paradox of Ted Cruz With strong support in Iowa and South Carolina, Cruz has a path through the early states; both his campaign and his super PAC are flush with cash; and he’s a skilled politician who doesn’t slip up much on the campaign trail or in debates. But unlike Cruz himself, his strategy is not head-turning but simple, steady, even creeping. “He’s not readily considered a first-tier candidate, but if you look at the critical ways to evaluate whether a candidate is strong or not, he should be a first-tier candidate,” says GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak. By all accounts, Cruz is positioned to succeed in Iowa, which has been friendly to conservative candidates in years past. The Real Clear Politics polling average has him tied for third place with Carly Fiorina, and he has a solid ground game in place. “Our trajectory has been slow and steady upward,” says Bryan English, Cruz’s political director in the state. “I’ve just been kind of curious, okay, when are people going to start paying attention to what we’re doing and that we’re positioned to do very well in Iowa.” RELATED: How Ted Cruz Has Wooed Some of the GOP’s Top Donors The campaign has been getting in position for a long time. Steve Deace, an Iowa-based talk-radio host who has endorsed Cruz, says that as far back as August of 2013, Cruz was asking him to set up meetings with top Iowa activists. Now, Deace says, the Texas senator has “the best [Iowa] organization I’ve ever seen,” composed of the sort of dedicated activists who put Rick Santorum over the finish line four years ago. Cruz also has a plan beyond Iowa. He has referred to the March 1 “SEC primary,” in which eight Southern states go to the polls, as his “firewall”: that is, a backstop against whatever losses he might sustain beforehand. This year, these Southern states will go to the polls before Florida and before the traditional Super Tuesday, a change in the primary calendar instituted by RNC chairman Reince Priebus. Most of those contests, unlike the ones that precede them, are not winner-take-all, and Cruz’s goal is to win the most delegates rather than to take entire states.

Throughout the primary season, Cruz has crisscrossed the South, sweet-talking voters unaccustomed to playing an outsized role in presidential contests. “He has made the largest investment in those Southern states of any candidate,” Mackowiak says. “Most of those political leaders in those states have never been asked to participate in the process.” Texas is one of the “SEC primary” states, and it alone will award 155 of the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination. Cruz, of course, holds a natural advantage. His team spent over a year developing detailed knowledge of the state’s political contours just three years ago. Mackowiak says there’s a “very real possibility” that Cruz will be the overall delegate leader on March 2. Mackowiak says there’s a ‘very real possibility’ that Cruz will be the overall delegate leader on March 2. It’s not uncommon for “insurgent” candidates to take a number of early states, but they then typically have to rapidly raise the cash and build the big infrastructure needed to turn out voters across the country. Rick Santorum’s campaign was starved for money until he won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, after which it had trouble turning a sudden influx of cash into a viable campaign organization overnight. In 2008, in the months before the Iowa caucuses, Mike Huckabee had no national finance chairman or speechwriters, and he didn’t have enough money to commission any internal polls. Cruz is a different sort of insurgent, who has from the first days of the 2016 primary made it clear that he won’t be outpaced financially. Small-dollar donors from an enormous e-mail list culled during the fight over the 2013 government shutdown have made him the leader in hard-dollar donations, and a cadre of eccentric billionaires looking to shake up Republican presidential politics have put over $37 million into his super PACs. He has used that money to build a national organization: As he told a gathering of donors in August assembled at the behest of Charles and David Koch, “If you are going to run a national campaign, you’ve got to be able to compete nationally.”

A year ago, most political onlookers assumed that Cruz and his tea-party colleague Rand Paul would vie for the insurgent crown. A top Republican who’s not aligned with either campaign told me at the time that Cruz and Paul would battle to the death. They were, he said, like “like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort: One cannot exist while the other lives.” As it turns out, it hasn’t been much of a contest. Cruz has proved to be an ambitious and serious campaigner, devoted to doing the hard and unglamorous work required of presidential candidates, while Paul has not, and other candidates have risen to compete with Cruz in the anti-establishment bracket. Cruz has proved to be an ambitious and serious campaigner, devoted to doing the hard and unglamorous work required of presidential candidates. The natural question is why a candidate with strong fundamentals is mired between 5 and 8 percent in the polls. There is, of course, the unexpected candidacy of Donald Trump, who has eclipsed Cruz not only in the polls but also in the national spotlight. Cruz has chosen uncharacteristically to lie low, and flying under the radar has meant that he hasn’t sustained many attacks from his rivals. Meanwhile, though many of his challengers rolled their eyes when he went out of his way to shower praise on Donald Trump, whose withering insults have done damage to stronger candidates, Cruz has managed to stay out of his path of destruction as well. Four months from the Iowa caucuses, he remains virtually untouched by his rivals. And, though he hasn’t had a real breakout moment, his supporters say the polls, particularly in Iowa, simply don’t predict what’s going to happen when caucusgoers and voters start getting more serious. Jeff King, the son of Iowa congressman Steve King, who’s working for one of Cruz’s cluster of four super PACs, says that national polls rarely reflect the reality on the ground in Iowa. “You can almost throw ’em out,” he says.

Polls in Iowa may not be that much better. Of the six polls taken closest to the 2012 caucuses, none showed Rick Santorum running ahead of Mitt Romney; one showed Ron Paul winning. In 2008, Mitt Romney led Mike Huckabee until about a month before the caucuses.  “I would caution everybody to be very, very, very leery of drawing any conclusions from Iowa polling,” says Deace. Some are starting to take note of his strength. In a blog post titled “Ted Cruz vs. Marco Rubio: This Is Where We Are Headed,” the right-wing commentator Erick Erickson, the soon-to-be-former proprietor of the RedState blog, wrote last month that if Republican primary voters were to cast their ballots now, “We’d find the last men standing would be Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio,” and that Cruz would have the advantage. “He’s in an incredibly strong position,” says David Bossie, the president of the conservative activist group Citizens United. “If Ted Cruz does not win the nomination, he is gonna come back to the United States Senate as the most powerful senator, even without the title of majority leader.”


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #134 on: October 08, 2015, 10:54:18 AM »
On the Cruz citizenship issue, the "documented timeline" is from an unidentified person, and is not even in a formal type of presentation. Nor are sources cited. This is problematic at the very least.

Also, Cruz's mother was born in the US so she is a US citizen by birth. Unless she renounced citizenship to become a Canadian citizen before the birth of Cruz, Cruz would be a US citizen and therefore eligible for the Presidency.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #135 on: October 08, 2015, 11:26:53 AM »
Thank you for pinning that down Pat.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
WSJ: Cruz raised $12M in 3rd quarter
« Reply #136 on: October 09, 2015, 06:42:37 AM »
Ted Cruz Raised $12.2 Million in Quarter, Eclipsing GOP Rival Marco Rubio
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, who stands higher in the polls, raised $6 million in the quarter

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #137 on: October 09, 2015, 07:07:14 AM »
This is where candidates stood financially at end of 2nd qtr.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #138 on: October 09, 2015, 07:23:36 AM »
A very useful chart.  I like the way it separates Super PAC money and candidate raised money and the amount each category has spent and how much cash is left.

Interesting that Carson has virtually no SuperPAC money at all. 

Would love to see this chart for the third quarter!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
If I were Ted Cruz
« Reply #141 on: October 26, 2015, 10:08:09 AM »
Ted Cruz has been winning some of the fundraising contests and is in close to last place of the people who actually could win the nomination.  His strengths are his purity on the issues.  His weaknesses include the perception he won't be able to win and govern and that he has made enemies on bth sides of the aisle.

But he has money.  So what should he do with that?  Here's a bold idea, break the primary tradition and run his ads against the Democrats, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's positions and issues.

What would that do?  Raise up his own image, improve the chances of any Republican nominee of winning, improve the chances of holding the Senate, improve the chances of saving the country, raise himself above the fray since everyone is ignoring him anyway, and show himself capable of being a team leader.

Isn't the person who can make the strongest case against continued liberal governance the person best suited to be President?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #142 on: October 26, 2015, 10:58:51 AM »
I would add that it is my understanding that he is the ONLY candidate with organization in all counties of the first four primary states.  Good ground game is a good thing.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz VAT Tax Plan
« Reply #143 on: November 04, 2015, 09:35:51 PM »
I wrote previously about the VAT tax plans on the Presidential thread.  Posting more info on the Cruz plan here.  His strategy with it puzzles me.

Ted Cruz’s “Business Flat Tax” is what most tax policy experts would call a “tax-inclusive subtraction-method value-added tax” (VAT)
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ted-cruz-s-business-flat-tax-primer

Senator Cruz’s (R-TX) tax plan would enact a 10 percent flat tax on individual income and replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent “Business Transfer Tax,” or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

The tab for taxes collected from businesses is ultimately passed through to individuals in the form of lower wages, reduced dividends, or higher prices. So for transparency, the best thing would be to scrap business taxes altogether, and collect the full tax load from individuals at a flat rate. That way, people could accurately perceive the full cost of government.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426469/ted-cruz-rand-paul-vat

(famous people caught reading the forum?)
So what happens 10 years from now or 25 years from now if statists control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and they decide to reinstate the bad features of the income tax while retaining the VAT? They now have a relatively simple way of getting more revenue to finance European-style big government.
And also don’t forget that it would be relatively simple to reinstate the bad features of the corporate income tax by tweaking Cruz’s business flat tax/VAT.
   - Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2015/10/29/ted-cruzs-tax-plan-is-pro-growth-and-reins-in-the-irs-but-there-is-one-worrisome-feature/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/10/30/the-pluses-and-minuses-in-ted-cruzs-tax-plan/
« Last Edit: November 11, 2015, 09:45:08 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #144 on: November 04, 2015, 09:50:01 PM »
More quality contributions Doug!

Would you please post these on the Tax Policy thread as well?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #145 on: November 11, 2015, 07:37:19 AM »
If we can ever figure out what was in TPP, this article proves that Cruz supported it.

http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398270

Cruz co-authored the article.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #146 on: November 11, 2015, 08:20:23 AM »
If we can ever figure out what was in TPP, this article proves that Cruz supported it.

http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398270

Cruz co-authored the article.

If he co-authored it in April, it doesn't mean he supported the bad parts put in it during the May-October time frame, when it was written.

Sovereignty is the issue and trying to pin lack of concern for American sovereignty on Ted Cruz is not likely to go far.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Cruz Tax Plan
« Reply #147 on: November 11, 2015, 08:45:15 AM »
The Cruz tax plan came up in the debate.  He passes it off as a 10% flat tax where a family of 4 pay nothing on the first $36k (the average family size is no where near 4!) and abolishes the IRS.  He glosses over the business tax but brags that in total it takes in more money than most of the other proposals.  In other words, he raises most of the revenues with a hidden tax.

He eliminates the payroll tax, estate tax and others and he replaces the corporate tax with this, but does not fully explain that this applies to every economic act and dollar, not just applied to profits after all expenses are deducted.  Therefore your tax is 26%, not 10%.  Your tax below 36k family of 4 is 16%, not zero.  Your new house has a 16% tax on it, your car, 16% tax, your kids' expenses, 16% tax, and everything else.

This is a fine tax plan, very efficient if it was created in a vacuum but it wasn't.  This is a regressive tax in that the sales tax part of it hits the lowest income hardest.  Does anyone think that we are politically ready as a nation to go to zero progressivity in the income tax code?

If Ted Cruz has polling on this, I guarantee you that it only tells him how to rise above single digits with Republicans, not how to win a general election.

The worst part, already mentioned, is that after starting such a nice, big, new tax that liberals will love and eave in place forever, there is no guarantee they will not still raise the income tax back up to at least where it was before, or higher.  To the contrary, I think we can guarantee that they will.

Like Huckabee and the Fair tax, it tells me Cruz isn't serious.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #148 on: November 11, 2015, 09:07:35 AM »
Hmmm , , , interesting comments Doug. 

Please flesh this out "but does not fully explain that this applies to every economic act and dollar, not just applied to profits after all expenses are deducted."

"This is a regressive tax in that the sales tax part of it hits the lowest income hardest."   There is a sales tax in the mix?


 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« Reply #149 on: November 11, 2015, 09:39:49 AM »
Doug,

On TPP, the vote was for TPA, which both Ryan and Cruz voted for. It removed 66% votes for passage and changed it to 50% plus 1. This legislation provided for Fast Track Authority where by Congress will not have future inputs into regulation changes. The WH wants it, and it is implemented.

So Cruz gave away the farm by changing the number of votes for passage. Now he wants to go another way with it to appeal to conservatives.

PPulatie