Image 01 Image 03

GOP Debate Winner: Ted Cruz

GOP Debate Winner: Ted Cruz

Sure looks like a Trump versus Cruz race.

Big Picture

Tonight’s GOP debate was Ted Cruz’s night. He went right after Donald Trump multiple times, but in a way that came across as forceful and informed, but not nasty. He also fended off a pretty vigorous attack from Marco Rubio. His strongest points came early and against Trump, when the audience would be the largest.

Trump was runner-up. He had a good moment on Cruz’s slam on “NY Values,” but I’m not sure how defending NY values plays outside NY. His performance will confirm pre-existing views of him.

Rubio had an okay night, not great, not horrible. Maneuvered the immigration issue into one of national security — in other words Gang of 8 was then, this is now. Landed some punches on Cruz at the end.

Christie may have raised his profile as the acceptable establishment candidate, as Jeb again failed to impress, and Kasich was Kasich. At least Christie showed some fight.

Biggest loser — Ben Carson. Didn’t seem to be in the game at many levels.


Cruz came into the debate with two clouds hanging over the campaign.

The first issue was whether he is eligible to be president as a natural born Citizen. (You know my position.) The issue has been hurting him not because he’s wrong on substance, but because it created doubts. It had the potential — and still may — to do damage to Cruz in Iowa.

Eligibility is an issue pushed by Donald Trump in a passive-aggressive manner, and by Trump supporters like Ann Coulter in an aggressive manner. Cruz not only handled it well, he got right in Trump’s face on the issue.

It not only was Cruz’s strongest moment in any debate, it was Trump’s weakest moment yet.

Here was my live tweeting on the issue:

The Goldman Sachs loan issue was whether a campaign loan in his 2012 Senate run was properly disclosed. It was a media generated issue with a lot of smoke, but not much substance. Kemberlee has explained the issue in a prior post — there’s not much to it. But, because the media loved the issue because they hate Cruz, it’s been all over the place. Again, Cruz handled it well.

Trump did have a strong performance on the issue of Cruz criticizing “NY Values” — though Cruz said he was using the term because that’s how Trump described himself. But Trump invoked the aftermath of 9/11, and it was his strongest — in my mind only strong — point of the night:

Trump stood by his hard line on a temporary immigration ban on Muslims and refugees. I think his support is baked in on that issue, so I don’t see it moving any voters.

Trump also had a very strong closing statement about the American sailors who were forced to kneel by the Iranians.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Tonight’s GOP debate was Ted Cruz’s night.”

That’s debatable.

    janitor in reply to pesanteur. | January 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    It would appear so, given that Cruz’s biggest get last night was on the citizenship issue — being touted as the only time Trump was silenced by anyone — but a lawsuit against him wasn’t a frivolous suggestion. It’s the lawsuit, not the issue itself, that Trump felt was the problem.

    Apparently someone filed a birther lawsuit against Cruz this morning.

    Let’s remember that it was WaPo who came up with this idea and asked Trump the question. It didn’t originate with him. I wonder why he didn’t point that out in the debate as he’s done in every news interview I’ve seen.

DINORightMarie | January 14, 2016 at 11:31 pm

Get ready……..all the Trump trolls are out en masse tonight!

They are hijacking every online blog poll (especially the Drudge poll), and are spreading their drek all over the blog comment threads…….

Ted Cruz was MASTERFUL, quite Reaganesque. But the Trump-sters will be crowing over The Donald’s average performance.

Just wait. And watch.

    jlronning in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 14, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    Trump strikes me as “Putin Lite.”

    pesanteur in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 14, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    I thought Cruz did well. But I wouldn’t say masterful. He overplayed his hand a couple of times. And Rubio landed some shots. Cruz is a clear and forceful speaker but he tends to sound and look affected at times. It is distinctly not Reagan-esque.

    As for the audience booing Trump, this is meaningless. It happened before as well, in the debate Trump clearly won.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to pesanteur. | January 15, 2016 at 2:18 am

      Cruz should have verbally agreed with Trump about the people of NYC on 9/11 and specifically pointed to the NYPD and FDNY as especially great (who Trump hadn’t named, just referred to the “people of NYC”), then pointed out that they’d all benefitted by Republican governance in the WH, governor’s office and mayor’s office AND that Trump was a registered Democrat at the time.

Completely agree with your assessment, nothing to add not already said.

Biggest cringe moment: Carson talking about electromagnetic pulse explosion knocking out power grid, followed by cyber attack. As bizarrely apocalyptic as that was on its own, um, once you’ve knocked out the power grid, a cyber attack is not only superfluous – it’s impossible. Carson seemed to be parroting a coached answer on things he does not understand. I felt sorry for him, because I believe he’s a good man.

Luckiest moment: Nikki Haley being in her home state when pointed out by moderators, which led to applause for the hometown governor. If she’d been present for this debate held in any other state, the crowd would have reacted with catcalls and Bronx cheers.

Trump was strongest to me, followed by Rubio. Best performance by Trump so far. Rubio was more forceful than before.

Thought Cruz was weakest, even more than Bush, based on performance. Christie was okay, too.

Defending NYC because of 9/11? That was in 2001. Yet in 2013, they elected de Blasio. NY values, indeed.

    Before becoming a “conservative” candidate, Trump thought de Blasio would make a wonderful mayor. Flip.Flop.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Sanddog. | January 15, 2016 at 2:04 am

    Everyone is talking about Trump and the NY thing as though he really slammed it out of the park. But if he had a quick mind at all, which he has NEVER displayed at these debates, he would have seized the opportunity to flesh out his alleged Republican bona fides by pointing out that NYC benefitted by and was fortunate to have a ‘pub prez, governor and mayor at the time. But no, he’s not quick-witted or conservative enough for that point to occur to him.

    So, while some see this as some big conquest, I just see a venal, stupid, egocentric blowhard so self-absorbed that he was unable to look beyond himself again.

    And if Trump ever heard of or knew what the Buckley Rule is, he’d know that he, himself, isn’t fit to mention Buckley’s name. Oh, and Buckley was not a true, lifetime New Yorker in any sense. He was born there, but only began living there in his 30’s as a married man, and lived in CT as well, which is where he’d lived many years when he died.

    Cruz ended up having to join the standing ovation the crowd gave Trump for his answer on New York Values by applauding Trump’s answer himself. So Trump crushed Cruz on this point and your snipping about De Blasio is meaningless.

This was the weakest debate for Trump. He failed to dominate the stage like he has in previous debates. That left a big opening for Cruz and Rubio.

Why I would argue that Trump won or at least maintained status quo:

He hit on all his positions with reaffirmative and often defiant strength and these positions are why he is leading by so much: Islam, immigration, 2nd Amendment. No other candidate did that in such a simple, resounding way.

The “natural born citizen” dispute might be a problem not because Trump might think so, but because the Democrats will certainly use it in court if Cruz becomes the candidate.

When they do, what the TV audience thinks about the matter will be of no consequence whatever. And that could be a problem … as Trump pointed out.

    Sanddog in reply to tom swift. | January 15, 2016 at 12:09 am

    Are the democrats going to invent an entirely new class of citizens through the legal process? Because as the law currently stands, you’re either a citizen from birth or you’re naturalized. And being naturalized is a legal process. I know several people born abroad and not one of them has a naturalization certificate.

      They like Cruz were natural8zed at birth via statute. There citizenship derives from a statute. Natural born citizens derive their citizenship from where they were born. The name of statute that granted Cruz his citizenship is titled the Naturalization Act.

        Bullshit. Cruz is a natural born citizen by any definition based upon the law of this country. Any notion to the contrary is based upon other than the law of this country.

          Not Bullshit Several constitutional scholars and likely at least two supreme court justices say it isn’t bullshit. But if you could point me to the law or supreme court case that defines natural born citizen I would be happy to pass it on to them.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 15, 2016 at 1:36 am

          “and likely at least two supreme court justices say it isn’t bullshit.”

          That would make it 7 that say it’s BS.

          It’s BS because we have law that defines this in the absence of a clear constitutional definition. That there is some debate doesn’t change the fact: Until you take it to court and get a ruling that Cruz is not a NBC, he is. Now, you prove otherwise or it is just your fevered opinion. He can and is running for president of the United States. And there is nothing that you have that will change that.

          That makes it bullshit.

          Come on Barry you know there is no law that defines natural born citizen. Please provide cite or link if you think there is such a law. The only statute there has ever used the phrase natural born citizen was the 1790 Naturalization act that was changed in 1795 to remove that phrase.

          The funny part on this is that Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada. Born in Canada to a Canadian citizen father makes him natural born citizen of Canada. For USA he is naturalized citizen at birth pursuant to the Naturalization Act.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 15, 2016 at 10:46 am

          Put your money where your mouth is, Bierhall. File a suit NEXT WEEK in Federal District Court there in Austin.

          Go for it, T-rump sucker…!!! We’ll all follow your “success”.

        Law passed in 1790:

        “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”

          Barry in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 1:23 am

          1790 is not the last law regarding this fmc. Do a bit of research.

          And in 1795 Congress changed it to provide that foreign born were only awarded naturalized citizenship and not natural born citizenship.

          Barry in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 1:49 am

          A citizen at birth:

          “Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)”

          You can torture it all you want to try and conclude a citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen. You’ll lose in court.

          betty in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 8:28 am

          “And the children of citizens of the United States …” And the most pertinent word in that sentence is citizen-s, not citizen. Go back and listen to your hero Cruz during his argument about NBC. He very carefully uses the singular in every example: missionary rather then missionaries. That was a very calculated speech – It was meant to mis-lead.

          I was so disappointed to see the founder of this blog fell for it.

          Barry the statute you cite part of the Naturalization Act makes Cruz a naturalized citizen at birth. Cruz is a citizen. Just not a natural birn one.

          Cruz is however a natural born citizen of Canada. At least he was until he renounced his Canada citizenship in 2014.

          Barry in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 2:42 pm

          Gary, your opinion only, no factual basis. I’m not going to write a damn paper on this here, but there is precedent for the NBC when a citizen at birth. No court is going to rule otherwise. Your opinion is simply invalid.

          The only way a citizen at birth is not a “natural” born citizen is if you have a constitution that defines it clearly as having to be born on American soil. It doesn’t and can not be tortured into it.

          fmc in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 6:26 pm

          The 1795 law merely says that children of citizens born outside the country are themselves citizens; it doesn’t redefine “natural born citizen”.

          As for “children of citizens” not referring to a single parent, note that it doesn’t refer to a single child. It would need to say “child of citizens” to mean both parents. Plus what follows is “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:” implying that the father can be a non-citizen resident.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 2:23 am

        Bull. “Native born” and “natural born” are not the same thing. If the framers had intended only native born citizens could serve as president, it would say so.

          But it does say so by saying Natural Born. That is what it meant although some believe congress has power to expand it by statute except for the 1790 Act that was only in force for 5 years Congress never has expanded it.

          Write that up in your Federal court petition, Baghdad Bob!

          (That’ll be a laugh RIOT…!!!)

          You can post all your successes in court here for allllll to marvel at!

      mariner in reply to Sanddog. | January 15, 2016 at 1:21 am

      They’ve already invented a new class of citizen, WITHOUT any legal process: “undocumented immigrant”.

      Undocumented immigrants in several states have driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and voter registration.

    Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | January 15, 2016 at 3:25 am

    The Democrats wil not use it in court, because no court will hear them on it. Didn’t we just get through establishing that presidential eligibility is not justiciable?

      Actually professor Tribe indicates there would be standing in some situations. Cruz’s democrat opponent would have standing. Also if any of the 50 state secretaries of state refused to put Cruz’s name on ballot claiming he was ineligible to be president then Cruz would have standing to try and force his name onto the ballot.

    Yesterday a Texas lawyer filed a suit to determine Cruz’s eligilbity: The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.

    “It’s such a simple procedure — I’m amazed no one did it,” Schwartz said. “Senator Cruz should have filed it himself to avoid the question.”

    “If he gets cleared, he gets cleared,” Schwartz said. “Let’s just get this thing settled before the primaries and the convention and the election.”

I didn’t watch it, but saw on Megyn that Stirewalt and Krauthammer that usually hate Trump, thought he did pretty well, very strong on the New York thing. But both gave it narrowly to Cruz on points.

Rubio they said third, while others should prepare for the end.

Cruz was booed when he tried to deny all the immigration flip flops Rubio hit Cruz with and Lawrence Tribe tool Cruz apart on CNN for his refusal to take his natural born citizenship problems.

This debate wil go down the same way they all have. The media proclaims Cruz wins on natural born citizen issue and then over next few days Lawrence Tribe and others will explain why Cruz has a real problem on this issue and it will continuevto hurt Cruz. It will be pointed out how Cruz’s response was unserious and failed to dispose of the issue.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 2:34 am

    Sure, and that’s because Tribe and the rest of the Left want Hillary running against stupid blowhard oaf, Trump, rather than Cruz, who would kick Hillary’s ass to hell and back in a debate.

    Besides, Trump can’t throw Hillary the race if he’s not the candidate.

    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    It’s funny how Trump fans who claim to be offended by “flip-flops” aren’t the least bit bothered by any of Trump’s flip-flips, or even by his wild ideological swings: from Clinton-loving, De Blasio-praising, Obama-voting, amnesty-favoring, Mohammad-cartoon-censoring Manhattan liberal Democrat, to posturer as a wall-building, tough-on-Islam, rock-ribbed, superconservative superhero.

    As I’ve noted many times before, Trump fans refuse to hold their hero to the same standards they apply to every other candidate — and they find it outrageous that anyone else would do so.

      “Trump fans refuse to hold their hero to the same standards they apply to every other candidate — and they find it outrageous that anyone else would do so.”


Cruz was strong and the definite winner, but Trump didn’t really take any serious blows that are going to hurt him.

Sure Trump looked silly on the birther issue, but that is just a fringe sideshow. Nobody is going to change their vote either way over it.

I think that Trump maintained his position, and Cruz has cemented his status as the only serious conservative alternative to Trump.

Everybody else is an also-ran at this point. Bush has been dead for weeks and is only being propped up by obscene money from the establishment. Rubio is still frantically trying to do damage control on his immigration BS, and he’s not gaining ground. Christie scored points but isn’t anywhere near Trump or Cruz. Kasich is an idiot who should have given up months ago and sure as hell shouldn’t have been on the stage. Carson is basically campaigning for VP.

So right now we effectively have a two person race – Cruz or Trump? Trump was firmly in the lead, but I think the gap will close after tonight. The only question is who has better ground game going into the first states, and Trump has definitely been drawing much bigger crowds than Cruz.

My vote is for Cruz personally, but I think barring a massive mis-step from The Donald, who has been pretty bulletproof up to this point, that Trump has the advantage.

    pesanteur in reply to Olinser. | January 15, 2016 at 12:24 am

    That’s a fine analysis. But I would dispute that the birther issue is “fringe.” It isn’t anymore. And Cruz’s responses will not end it. I have no legal qualification to comment on the merits. But perceptions matter, and if people wonder whether Cruz will be hurt by it as the nominee, then he has a problem.

    Barry in reply to Olinser. | January 15, 2016 at 12:25 am

    Well said.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Olinser. | January 15, 2016 at 2:54 am

    John Kasich is not an idiot. He did a pretty damn good job in the House. He’s a fine, good man with many abilities and he has a very good record for the most part. I’ve followed his career for years and he’s a very honest, selfless man. He’s too much of a big government guy to suit me, and he isn’t going to get the nomination. But if he did, I would support him. Yeah, he’s a plodder, no flash, kind of boring and frumpy like your favorite worn shoes, very middle America and rightfully proud of it, but we could do a whole hell of a lot worse, starting where we’ve been with obastard and ending with Trump. Trump I will never vote for. For the first time in my life, I will throw away my vote for a write-in if he gets the nomination.

The winner is not the one that gets the most “debate points” as determined by the TV talking heads, it is the one who improves in the polling.

Cruz has always been the best as measured on pure debate principles. He is always clearly the pure(st) conservative compared to anyone else on that stage. There are only two left in this race. Trump and Cruz. I see no way for Cruz to pull this off. As full disclosure, I said about a month ago trump had it sewn up. Nothing changed tonight.

Oh and DINO, you were here first…

    The winner is not the one who improves in the polling. The winner is the one who wins in the primaries. One of the most common statements heard during every election cycle is “But…but…he was doing SO WELL in the polls!” Polling is conducted by pollsters, and the poll winner is determined by who counts the votes. In many cases over the years, the poll winner has not been the primary election winner.

      If you would like to show me someone that lead the polls for 6 months and continued to lead into January that did not win the nomination, I’ll take a look.

      But I’ll save you the time, never happened. Your trying to compare apples and oranges cuz you don’t like the apples.

      Trump is the nominee and will win the general. Get used to it.

DINORightMarie | January 15, 2016 at 12:26 am

Well, apparently the South Carolina people in the Luntz Focus Group tonight don’t see Trump as the winner…..and apparently many of them came in as Trump supporters.

Although not a scientific poll, and I’m not swayed by these Focus Group sessions, but it’s pretty clear that when a group unanimously says Cruz won….then The Donald didn’t.

    Luntz is not a neutral observer, his “focus” groups are rigged IMO.

    He, along with all most of the other TV talking heads have been wrong for months.

    “and apparently many of them came in as Trump supporters.”

    You get this where exactly? I call BS.

      Barry in reply to Barry. | January 15, 2016 at 2:25 pm

      OK DINO, apparently we can ignore your BS since you have no answer. You just make shit up like most of those that suffer from TDS.

    Remember Luntz’s group consensus after the first debate?
    “I was really expecting him to do a lot better. But he just crashed and burned. He was mean, he was angry, he had no specifics, he was bombastic.”

    Before the debate, 14 voters on the panel said they had a favorable view of Trump. After the debate, only three said they still saw the reality-television personality positively.

    I figured it was a rigged panel because Trump has been leading in the polls ever since he entered the race. So much for Luntz’s focus groups.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Kitty. | January 15, 2016 at 9:15 am

      yeah, I can’t listen to those segments … he acts like some guru, and I guess FOX thinks it’s catchy. I fast forward through all those segments, and it seems a lot like Luntz inserting his preferences, but pretending “oh look what the people decided”.

If Ted will only accept the VP slot… oh, my… what a team. They will kick as* and take names. Hooah!

Trump’s lead in polls will continue to expand just l8ke they do after every debate. Although the fact that about 1/3 of media analysts are saying Trump won debate strange because media analysts never say Trump won any other debate.

I’m not sure Ted Cruz talking about whether or not he is eligible to run for President would be considered a “win”. As we all could see, Rubio took a lot of chunks out of the Cruz armor. He has a history that could prove to be very problematic in the future.

In addition, I wouldn’t take too much of what the “crowd” responded to. If you were to look into who got in there, you would find the bias easily.

Also, is it really smart of Cruz to bash away at New Yorkers? A lot of New Yorkers retire to Florida (and other places). It is possible that his comments could hurt him in other States.

We’ve seen the “focus groups” be completely wrong before. Remember after the first debate when Trump supposedly got destroyed and the group said he did the worst? I do. As this site has outlined many times, the media lies to you constantly. If we’re going to sit here and believe what FOX, CNN, etc. push in front of us, then who are the real fools?

    Sanddog in reply to Mr. Izz. | January 15, 2016 at 3:52 am

    A lot of New Yorkers bail out at retirement precisely because of “NY Values”.

    Krauthammer who hates Trump said Cruz had minor win on birther issue and Trump had yuuuge win on New York values issue. Also, said Trump won the debate so it is likely snowing in hell right now.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 11:53 am

      Another use of the fallacy of an appeal to authority, plus the obvious use of an authority you consider of no merit.

      Heh…!!! Any old straw in the wind!

      On the New York values front, where does Rush Limbaugh live? Where did he move FROM?

      Where does Sean Hannity live, and what does he say about leaving as soon as he can?

      See how that will continue to work?

Midwest Rhino | January 15, 2016 at 1:02 am

Monica Crowley and Peter Johnson are both on saying Trump is most electable, partly because of crossover appeal and distaste for Hillary. That’s a big consideration for many in the primaries, even if they think Cruz is the conservative. Trump is a little behind Cruz like 71 to 65 now on R’s that could vote for him, but Trump has been moving steadily up.

Hearing the Cruz bravado on “I’ve argued the constitution my whole life”, and he’s not going to take advice from Trump … so many want to give him big points for that. It was obviously practiced, which Cruz always seems to me … to be forcing rehearsed lines. Trump is much better with the crowds on casual spontaneity.

Trump also got high praise responding to the Haley attack, listing why he should be angry. But Trump mostly has fun, as Steyn noted. And he’s used to the executive pressure more than the Marco or Ted.

    Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 15, 2016 at 9:49 am

    No principled Conservative CAN support T-rump for the nomination.

      So which democrat will the principled conservatives be voting for in the general election?

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm

        Principled Conservatives, if T-rump is the nominee, won’t vote for either BIG GOVERNMENT COLLECTIVIST. We won’t have a candidate who doesn’t further threaten the republic, and who threatens the status quo in terms of reform. It’ll just be a non-choice between one kind of anti-constitutional EO spewing thug or another.

          Good luck with that. Maybe you can get the other two guys who join you to also join your impeachment of Trump efforts.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2016 at 12:53 pm

          That fallacy is called the de minimus argument.

          We all see you have no argument.

          Because you know what I said is true, and you don’t care that it is, so long as your “strong man” is elected.

    Radegunda in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 15, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Trump’s “casual spontaneity” works fine for people who don’t look for coherence or consistency or even much specific content in his pronouncements.

    Trump fans are bedazzled by slogans like “I’ll make America great again! I’ll make it awesome! I’ll build a wall!” Beyond that, they often just ascribe all their particular desiderata to Trump. They’re sure The Donald will always do the right thing! Bizarrely, they imagine that saying “Trump loves America!” is an argument that vaults him above all other candidates.

    Trump fans have even admitted that THEY DON’T CARE what he says or does, ever since he first pronounced those magical slogans, or since he won their fandom with his swaggering TV personality. Much like the Schwarzenegger candidacy, the Trump cult rests much more on pop-culture celebrity than the acolytes will ever admit.

When Trump jokingly talked about Cruz running as VP, he might as well have admitted that Cruz was qualified, since veeps have to pass the same “natural born” standard as presidents.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 3:07 am

    I had the same thought. Trump gave himself away in so doing. It proves him raising this birth issue is all about the polls, which he basically admitted anyway.

    Milhouse in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 3:36 am

    Do pay attention. That was Trump’s whole point. He wasn’t offering Cruz the slot, he was claiming that if he were to give it to him the Democrats would sue.

    Except that they wouldn’t and couldn’t, for the same reason that nobody could get 0bama into court; eligibility isn’t justiciable

    Barry in reply to fmc. | January 15, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Apparently some of you listen about as well as you read when it comes to Trump.

    Milhouse has already educated you.

Ted Cruz did that thing again where he repeats the slurs and charges against him in order to rebut those charges.

If facts and reason and logic matter, It’s good technique to precisely respond to precise statements. But facts and reason and logic don’t really matter.

All Ted Cruz is doing is planting negative images about himself in the minds of those unfamiliar with the statements.

Seriously folks, do you really want a Canadian as President.

Do we really want to take that chance?

Let us not forget

Loved Cruz’s responses. Masterful. Presidential.

Captain Ahab Trump used the obviously partisan Tribe to spear a non-issue. Mr. Collectivized Anger came up with nothing.

As the monomaniacal do, Captain Ahab Trump went to a dark place to find himself and support – a self-gratifying poll. The great white whale poll will drag him down under soon enough.

BTW: The bottom feeder Bill Maher is calling Ted Cruz “evil”.

Doubling down on stupid? Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter how many times you say it. The Founders in no way had Ted Cruz in mind when they put the requirement in Article II.
A foreign father taking up RESIDENCE in another country with a U.S. Citzen mother? Give me a break.

It’s wishful thinking at best. All the talk about statutes determining who is an NBC is ludicrous. Congress has no authority to confer Natural Born Citizenship on anyone. Their ONLY authority concerning citizenship is NATURALIZATION.

A Natural Born Citizen requires no naturalization because they are citizens by Natural Law

Vattel Bk 1 Ch 19 212-217

    gwsjr425 in reply to nerkbuckeye. | January 15, 2016 at 7:32 am

    “The Founders in no way had Ted Cruz in mind when they put the requirement in Article II.”

    This is the same line of reasoning the gun grabbers use when they come after guns: The Founders in no way had M16’s or M&P in mind when they put ‘shall not be infringed in the 2A.

    Valerie in reply to nerkbuckeye. | January 15, 2016 at 10:25 am

    For those who care about consistency,

    Lawrence Tribe & Theodore Olson on natural born citizenship, when John McCain and Barak Obama were running for President: original memo in full at the link.

    There are two types of US citizens, natural born and naturalized. There are three ways a child can be a natural born citizen, i.e., a citizen at birth:

    1. Born in the US – child’s citizenship from location
    2. Mother is a US citizen – child’s citizenship from Mother
    3. Father is a US citizen – child’s citizenship from Father

    Ted Cruz’s Mother was a US citizen, therefore Ted was a US citizen at birth, no matter where in the world he was born. Hope that helps.

An interesting analysis of the state of affairs written hours before the debate.

Donald Trump is Right, With a Caveat
By Erick Erickson | January 14, 2016, 01:49am

In response to Nikki Haley, Donald Trump says people should be angry.

Yes, people should be angry about a lot of things. Our leaders in Washington, on a bipartisan basis, have squandered our children’s future. The Democratic leaders have cut a terrible deal with Iran and the Iranians continue to embarrass us, including this latest incident with our sailors.

Barack Obama says nicer things about ISIS than he does his political opponents then laments rancor and discord in American politics.

There is a lot to be pissed off about and Donald Trump has tapped into that and a desire to make America great again, which is more unifying frankly than “take back our country,” which always raises the question of “from whom?”

The caveat, however, is that there is a lot of additional anger out there that perhaps Donald Trump is not even aware of. His campaign success has caused a lot of people to come out of the woodwork who are angry about a lot of things that they have no business being angry about.

There are the white supremacy guys lighting up twitter, united in the name of Trump, against blacks, Jews, and any Christian who adopts a child of a different race.

Donald Trump is not to blame for any of that, I don’t think, but these people have fed off his energy and deluged social media thinking they are now a majority in the same way leftist transgender advocates think they are the majority and light up twitter against dissent.

There are the conservatives who want to attack any other conservative for the slightest disagreement. To be sure, there are conservatives who still cannot distinguish between conservatism and the GOP. They need to be dealt with. But on the opposite end of the spectrum are those who can abide no disagreement whatsoever.

There are those on the right who will attack your pop culture preferences because they perceive you as giving money to the left.

That’s just a small list.

There is a lot to be angry about. Donald Trump is absolutely right. But there are some on the right, and I think less than there were two years ago even though they are more vocal now, who are not happy unless they are angry about everything. They are in for a rude awakening when they realize Donald Trump is not as angry about everything as they are. They will be angry at him.

It is just unfortunate that, on the cusp of a great and meaningful victory, a number of people would rather burn it all down and hand it to Hillary than have any infidels in the mix. I’m considered a conservative purist by much of the press and even I am not willing to throw out everyone who even slightly disagrees.

    Anger should not be a reason you vote for a President. Those on the Left are angry that they don’t have your money to live off of. Those who voted for Obama were angry with Bush. We have gone from bad to worse with the anger vote.

    Anger will not be assuaged by the bully posturing of a Trump or Sanders.

    Choose a Conservative and not anger monger.
    As always, the Left let’s us know who they fear the most. And now, so do Trump and his followers.

      In their anger at “politicians who break their promises,” Trumpsters refused to do any serious assessment of which “politicians” had actually kept promises and governed on principle.

      Instead, they said “We need a non-politician!” — on the weird assumption that a first-time political candidate is ipso-facto more honest and honorable than anyone who has ever held office.

      What’s weirder: They attached themselves passionately to the candidate who has changed his (claimed) viewpoints most dramatically, most recently — and they declare him to be the candidate who is the most trustworthy, the most deeply principled, the most unwaveringly conservative.

      It’s all very bizarre.

Cruz is my favorite and I felt he did very well, up until he spoke about NY values. He should have just said something about kidding around or joking as opposed to putting them down. It’s easy to see Cruz is intelligent and well spoken but the NY thing just didn’t work. Other than that he did a very good job.

“He had a good moment on Cruz’s slam on “NY Values,”

“NY values” put a communist in the mayor’s office. It would be a stretch to believe they’d vote for a Constitutional conservative.

There’s an axiom in national politics: a NE liberal “Republican” cannot win. Sound familiar?

NY Values play well in the North East where Democrats dominate most elections, but try playing that card here in the midwest and especially Texas and see what reactions you get. NY Values were not on display on 9/11, those were American Values. NY Values tend to skew left to hard left, which are certainly not Conservative, and not something we need in the next President.

    Barry in reply to smfoushee. | January 15, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    “NY Values were not on display on 9/11, those were American Values.”

    Yep, those were Americans first and NY’s second. The way it should be. By inference then, NY values are the same as American values.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 15, 2016 at 2:53 pm

      “NY values are the same as American values.”

      Really? So you’re pushing for the Sullivan Act in your area?

      Utter bullshit!

I’d enjoy hearing from a strong Cruz supporter how he works his way past this birther business. Whether or not the issue has standing is not my question. As a political matter, it was not settled last night and will remain festering simply because the media insists that it will. So what should be Cruz’s strategy?

    Sanddog in reply to pesanteur. | January 15, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    His strategy should be to point out we only have two legal categories of citizens. Those who are citizens from the moment they first draw breath and those who become citizens through a formal legal process. We have no third legal category of citizens who are more special than all the others.

      Barry in reply to Sanddog. | January 15, 2016 at 2:34 pm

      That is correct. I guarantee that should it ever get to court that will be the ruling.

      Two categories. Naturalized (there citizenship derives from a statute) and Natural Born (there citizenship derives from where they were born).

      That’s only two categories, but which of those two categories is the one that applies to the foreign born child of a citizen?? That is the question.

      Some argue that if the statutory awarded citizenship attaches at birth that makes the child natural born, but others argue that the type of statutoriy awarded citizenship is determined by the statutory language and NOT whether it attaches at birth or not. In 1790 for 5 years the language of the statute said it was natural born status that was awarded, but in 1795 and thereafter the language of the statute was changed and unless you accept the change in the language was moot/meaningless/a nullity then that change in language in 1795 changed the type of citizenship conferred at birth. Changed it from natural born citizenship to naturalized citizenship.

        Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 2:51 pm

        Naturalization is a legal process. It requires petitioning the government. It requires approval from the government. It requires applications, fees and a final determination at which point you receive a naturalization certificate. Cruz was not an alien at birth who was granted citizenship, he was a citizen from the moment he was born.

          Absent a statute on Naturalization, foreign born child of citizen does NOT EVER become a citizen. There have been periods in our history where there was no active Naturalization statute for foreign born child of citizen and they did NOT become citizens at birth. Foreign born child of citizen ONLY becomes a citizen by grant of the Naturalization statute. The type of citizenship conferred is specified in that statute, and after 1795 it ain’t natural born status.

          Natural Born citizens don’t get their citizenship from any statute. They get their citizenship from WHERE THEY WERE BORN.

          Cruz was a natural born citizen of CANADA.

          Barry in reply to Sanddog. | January 15, 2016 at 8:34 pm

          “Natural Born citizens don’t get their citizenship from any statute. They get their citizenship from WHERE THEY WERE BORN.”

          Give it up Gary. You’re just making a fool of yourself now.

New York values. Just another way of saying Trump isn’t a pure conservative. Since ideological purity isn’t what this election is about. All it was and will ever be was a chance for Trump to make himself look good and Cruz look bad in the debate. Which is exactly what happened. Cruz was forced to applaud Trump’s response and that my friends is getting one’s but kicked when you have to applaud your opponents response or make yourself look even worse if you don’t.

Trump isn’t the most conservative. Nobody denies that. Nobody cares but a handful of people. The polls clearly show that dog doesn’t hunt as they say in Texas values language.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Heh…!!! Bierhall Britt forgets what New York values really mean.

    Americans know. They aren’t merely not “purely conservative”. They are pretty purely ANTI-conservative, and anti-AMERICAN.

    “Trump isn’t the most conservative. Nobody denies that. Nobody cares but a handful of people.”

    Doesn’t that sound a whole like like Jeb! Hmmm….

      janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2016 at 1:21 pm

      I’m originally from New York. Let’s not confuse the Manhatten faux-elites and artsy-fartsy crowds, who control the some of the world’s biggest media and entertainment voices, or (again greater New York) descendants of FDR union loyalists, and those who have by now been brainwashed by the “superiority culture” and educational institutions with everyone else. There is an unfortunate conflating of “New York City” (mostly meaning Manhatten) with “New York”.

      (There is a not dissimilar problem with Chicago and Illinois, but at least Chicago isn’t named Illinois City, which helps, as does the fact that it’s not a coastal “cultural” trendsetter.)

      Keep tooting that horn Rags, it will do wonders for your boy’s votes. LOL

    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    Many Trump fans have shown a pattern of claiming that anyone who expresses any doubts about Trump HAS TO BE a RINO sellout.

    Much of the anger fueling the Trump cult is anger that Republicans have not been consistently conservative in office. Trump fans have very often characterized Trump as the solution to problem of the GOP tilting left. They sometimes liken him to Reagan (“Hey, Reagan used to be a Democrat too!”)

    Trump fans have, in fact, often painted him as a more trustworthy conservative than the candidates who weren’t Democrats until fairly recently.

    That’s only of the irrational aspects of the Trump cult.

Peter King: Cruz Says Things In New York He Won’t Say in Bible Belt — ‘This Guy’s a Hypocrite’

“He talks about New York being too focused on money. His wife works for one of the major investment banks, great bank, but his wife works there and he got a $1 million loan and he comes into New York to raise money from New Yorkers, including from Goldman Sachs. These are stories he was behind, when he was at behind the scenes fundraisers and there were gay Republicans there and they brought up the issue of gay marriage, he gives them a wink and a nod saying don’t worry, he’s not going to do anything about it. He doesn’t say this in the Bible Belt. He brought up last night about gay marriage. He’s a hypocrite. This guy’s a hypocrite.”

He added, “There’s also a jealousy there. He’s trying to appeal to people’s worst instincts. The instinct of begrudgery. I always say screw the begrudgery.”

I’m just say’in.

    Cruz also talks out of both sides of his slick willy lawyer mouth on immigration, amnesty, legal immigration, H1B visas, TPA and Obamatrade as was amply pointed out by Rubio last night.

    Cruz, this guy’s a hypocrite.

      Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 2:57 pm

      Cruz isn’t going to appeal to people who live their lives in soundbites. For instance, a lot of people jumped behind Rubio’s claim that Cruz voted to reduce military spending. It’s patently false but it’s not an issue that can be explained in 10 seconds to voters who possess the attention span of a flea.

      Our problem this election cycle isn’t the candidates on stage, it’s the ignorance of the electorate.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 15, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    Yah, you would approve of Peter King, one of the WORST of the lying ‘moderate Republicans’ as your “authority” in ANOTHER fallacy.

    What a lying SOS. But you ARE a great T-rump butt boi!

While better than previous debates, I still think Fox did a lousy job.
There are so many important issues that need to be discussed, I felt they wasted a great opportunity to address them.
Well, I guess this stage of the game is over, but I think my children would have done a better job.