Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ted Cruz will run for president

Ted Cruz will run for president

Announcement Monday

The day is upon us.

This week, Ted Cruz will become the first presidential candidate to officially throw his hat in the ring. Senior advisors with direct knowledge of Cruz’s plans said that the junior senator from Texas will make his big announcement at a convocation ceremony at Liberty University this Monday.

Theodore Schleifer at the Houston Chronicle broke the story last night:

Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog Senate campaign in 2012. But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party’s libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment.

The firebrand Texan may have few Senate colleagues who will back his White House bid, but his appeal to his party’s base who vote disproportionately in Republican primaries could make him competitive in Iowa and beyond.

Yet critics of Cruz argue that he will have trouble raising high-dollar donations from traditional contributors, will land few endorsements from the nation’s political establishment and be unable to escape comparisons to President Barack Obama, who also ran for president in his first Senate term. And if he advances to a general election, Cruz trails likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton solidly in early public opinion polls.

If the Chron’s sources are right, Cruz will skip the exploratory committee phase and declare his candidacy outright.

Of course, anyone who has been watching Cruz’s career saw this coming—or at least, saw the possibility of this coming:

For Cruz, 44, Monday’s planned announcement will culminate two years of open musing about running for president that began nearly the moment voters elected him to the Senate in 2012. A week after Election Day, as senator-elect, Cruz established a political action committee to back conservative candidates nationwide. During his first summer in Congress, he was already visiting Iowa.

And over the past seven months, the Jobs, Growth and Freedom PAC has added a coterie of nationally experienced political operatives to the 2012 team of Texas strategists who engineered the surprise dethroning of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the Republican primary. Joining the team Monday will be Cruz’s wife, Heidi, a managing director at Goldman Sachs in Houston, who will take leave from the firm and accompany her husband on the campaign trail.

This announcement comes on the heels of weeks of some conservative outlets’ efforts to paint probable presidential contender and current frontrunner Scott Walker as a weak “flip-flopper.”

How did Walker respond to the news of Cruz’s announcement? Graciously. (Start at the 6 minute mark.)

The internet is…excited? Snarky? Mad? Possibly a little scared? There are a lot of feelings out there:

Is America ready for another junior senator to steal the spotlight? Only time will tell.

Welcome to Slugfest 2016, everyone.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Set loose the dogs of MSM!

Liberty University? Jerry Falwell’s Liberty? That’ll make some lefties foam at the mouth.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to windbag. | March 23, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Once Cruz officially announced, I went immediately to MSNBC to see how they treated it. Everything was done over a large chyron reading: “Cruz announces candidacy at world’s largest Christian university!”

    LOL.

You should watch some of Cruz’s speeches on YouTube. You will be impressed. McCain and Romney failed because they aren’t fighters and lacked the intellectual ability to defeat the progressives verbal combat. Cruz has what it takes.

Midwest Rhino | March 22, 2015 at 2:06 pm

Walker seems to prefer the Bush pronunciation of nuclear … he says nucular, as I heard it three times. But as he notes, he has won against national unions and John Doe prosecutions, and has hands on executive experience.

Cruz would be fine as president, but it is legit to ask whether he has the experience to win, and whether he would attract the big money. They paint him as more appealing to “the base, it’s all about that base”, but controlling spending and the border are broadly popular.

It will be good to have his positions aired. Let the games begin.

He’ll get my vote if he becomes the nominee, but I’d much rather be able to vote for Walker.

    MattMusson in reply to mariner. | March 22, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    I like Cruz. But would prefer someone other than a junior Senator. Might be a good VP candidate to team with Walker.

I love Cruz’s brand of conservatism, however, conservatives follow the law. There is convincing evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen, however, I gave up hope anyone would ever pursue the issue seriously for fear of being branded a racist and also in the face of political expedience. Cruz was born in Canada, and not a natural born citizen “at birth”, therefore not eligible. Sorry if this makes people think I’m a lunatic, an idiot, or whatever. I’ve studied this topic more than just about anyone, and linking the British definition of natural born subject to natural born citizen is totally incorrect. Therefore, as much as I love Cruz, Jindal and Rubio, I cannot stray from intellectual consistency and vote for any of them. It also now explains why none of the three men mentioned ever stepped forward when the challenge to Obama started to build. We have Article II “natural born”, we have Vattel’s definition and we have the provenance to connect that definition to the Founding Fathers. Additionally, we have one Supreme Court case that defines natural born citizen, Minor v Happersett and a supporting case of allegiance in Elk v Wilkins. Contrary to other opinion, Wong v Ark never changed the meaning of natural born citizen. I know some folks are going to call me crazy, and that’s fine, but they don’t know what I know and have studied. Rant over.

    Barry in reply to rich. | March 22, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    ” I’ve studied this topic more than just about anyone…”

    “…but they don’t know what I know and have studied.”

    LOL, I’m convinced. You do think highly of yourself, anyway.

      rich in reply to Barry. | March 22, 2015 at 3:38 pm

      I’ll wait for the intellectual challenge. And probably grow old.

        Barry in reply to rich. | March 22, 2015 at 7:18 pm

        There is no intellect to challenge. That you think so highly of yourself doesn’t mean anyone will waste time on you.

        Stupid. Challenge that.

          rich in reply to Barry. | March 22, 2015 at 8:42 pm

          You’re right, there’s no intellect available to challenge me. And, no, I won’t challenge your stupidity.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to rich. | March 22, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    And no, we don’t care what your opinion is. Cruz is a “natural born” citizen, as his parents were U.S. citizens. Just like Obama.

    riverlife_callie in reply to rich. | March 22, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Cruz is a natural born citizen. He was a citizen at birth by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. If he isn’t a naturalized citizen (which he isn’t) then he is a natural born citizen. Those are the only two choices. Citizenship is not dependent on where one is born.

      Natural born citizenship is not only dependent on where you were born, it is also depedent on the citizenship of your parents. Natural born citizenship is about allegiance, direct and complete, to the United States “at birth.” Vattel’s definition is “born in the country to parents who are it’s citizens.” Minor v Happersett affirms that definition and no other case has expanded the definition of natural born citizenship. There is a reason the founding fathers exempted themselves from the natural born citizenship standard because there is no way they could have met the standard given the fact the country had just been established. In Elk v Wilkins, the court ruled that John Elk, born on an Indian reservation on US soil, could not vote because his allegiance was to his Indian tribe and was not “direct and immediate” to the United States. At birth, Cruz was born in Canada to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent. His allegiance was not direct and immediate to the United States, but instead, divided by his own admittance. Anyone who believes that the English common law standard of “natural born subject” is the same as natural born citizen is mistaken, due to the fact the term natural born subject was born out of Calvin’s case and required allegiance to the monarchy, both politically and religiously.

        Barry in reply to rich. | March 22, 2015 at 10:34 pm

        We all know we “don’t know what I know and have studied” but you need to understand two pertinent facts:

        1. The writers of the constitution did not define “Natural born citizen”.

        2. The SC has never ruled directly upon what defines a “Natural born citizen”.

        What you cite means nothing absent a definitive ruling by the SC

        If you are the child of an American citizen, you are “natural born” as far as I’m concerned, and that includes the American hating commie that currently inhabits the office. Spit.

          rich in reply to Barry. | March 23, 2015 at 8:55 am

          You have one fact, the other “fact” is your imagination. You are correct that the founding fathers did not define “natural born citizen.” However, the Supreme Court has mentioned natua born citizen four times in dicta, which Professor Jacobsen will tell you has no weight in law. It is merely what the justices believe the term to mean. However, there is one case in which natual born citizen WAS defined: Minor V Happersett. It was a women’s suffrage case and Virginia Minor needed standing and that issue needed to be resolved. The justices said the founding fathers did not define natural born citizen, however, the justices defined the term as they knew the founding fathers intended. And it is not dicta, it is within the Minor decision. From the decision:
          “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
          The point here is the justices, just six years after the 14th amendment, have doubts as to the natural born citizenship status of people born in this country of non-citizen parents. Cruz was not even born on US soil.
          My point here is no decision nor congressional action has ever expanded this definition of natural born citizen. And any court challenge would include the introduction of legislative intent. As to intent, there is plenty of provenance to show the founding fathers used Vattel as their guide when they introduced the term natural born citizen in Article 2, Section 1 clause 5. From Vattel: ” The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
          I want a complete course change in the country more than anyone. However, being conservative is hard because it means you need to be intellectually consistent. If you’re a Cruz fan and believe in the Constitution, then honor the Constitution, and that also means overturning everything the radical leftist has done to this country the last six years. Otherwise, anyone who wants Cruz out of political expediency is no better than liberals and their pure utilitarianism.

          rich in reply to Barry. | March 23, 2015 at 9:06 am

          Get used to these challenges. Cruz is a threat to the liberal establishment. The original “birthers” were those who filed against McCain in 2008, since McCain was born outside the Panama canal zone in Colon, Panama. They will do it again in 2016. I’m in agreement with another comment here that said Cruz would make a great supreme court justice. That would drive the liberals nuts.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 23, 2015 at 3:34 pm

          “the other “fact” is your imagination”

          No, as your own writing points out. You are stating your opinion on what the SC “thinks”. As I correctly stated, the SC has NOT ruled directly upon what constitutes a natural born citizen.

          I have a grandson, born in Italy on a Naval base. Both parents are US citizens. My grandson spent the first 3 years of his life in Italy. He is a natural born citizen as far as I’m concerned. Your opinion is worth no more than mine.

Cruz has no record of accomplishment or leadership to justify a presidential bid, although his resume would make the case for him as Solicitor General. He’s never run anything bigger than his Senate staff.

Frankly, he impresses most people who don’t know him as a televangelist. That’s not a good thing.

– –

Why anyone pays any attention to Mataconis is a mystery. He’s a libertarian freak. Why would any conservative or Republican give a rat’s patootie for his opinion?

I’ll give Ted Cruz the maximum donation allowed by law at every stage. Ms. Miller and Big Media ammo v Cruz is to say Cruz is no better than Obama since both were early term US Senators when running for pres. As if both had become Senators the same way, in the same kind of state with the same kind of supporters, as if both had the same accomplishments in years leading up to their election. What little is able to be confirmed about Obama is that he was a left wing community organizer and chose to spend time with radical left haters. He became a state senator to whom the entire Soros family contributed via a loophole, advancing beyond that by unsealing court records of an opponent’s divorce. As to Ivy League credentials, they can’t be compared because Obama’s are sealed. After college, Obama was never a clerk to a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, nor was he solicitor general of a large state for 5 years, nor has he successfully argued before the Supreme Court and other fed. courts numerous times. Ted Cruz won on his own, beating the GOP Establishment candidate who spent $25 million of his own money. In Nov. 2010 we gave the GOP House a massive landslide so it would be easy for them to defund ObamaCare. In the 4 yrs. he’s been able to do so, John Boehner has never allowed a standalone up or down vote to defund ObamaCare to come to the floor. He’s only allowed votes on OCare matters in which the House doesn’t have unilateral power–such as repeal–so they’re merely show votes. Our country has been overthrown. Ted Cruz has stood up for 300 million Americans who are wide awake to the fact that their country has been stolen from them.

PersonFromPorlock | March 22, 2015 at 4:25 pm

I’d personally prefer to see him make a career in the Senate – which is also an important part of the government.

But I’m having a lot of fun today lambasting the predictable chorus of anti-Cruz comments in the local (Liberal) newspaper as “anti-Hispanic bigotry.” Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Henry Hawkins | March 22, 2015 at 6:44 pm

Little bit of pepper for the GOP stew. Awesome.

You know how the media keeps pre-written obituaries on the shelf (file) waiting on luminaries to die? You just KNOW the liberal media has all sorts of anti-Cruz articles ready to go – and the GOP leadership has too.

Monday ought to bring all sorts of head-exploding hyperbole about The Many Dangers Of Rafael Edward Cruz.

—–

Normally, I’d be hinky about electing a first term senator to the White House. But a huge part of any president’s success hinges on choosing the right White House and personal staff, and Cabinet, of course. Cruz is someone I’d trust on this. I believe he is fully smart enough and honest enough to recognize any areas of weakness and compensate for them with professional staffing. By contrast, Obama choose his boyhood nanny as his Senior Advisor.

rabid wombat | March 22, 2015 at 7:35 pm

I believe he would be better as a SC Justice (watch the heads explode….). I believe he would be better running the Senate (after years…..). But if he is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him.

Best

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend