Image 01 Image 03

The Conservative Case for Ted Cruz

The Conservative Case for Ted Cruz

“Most Consistently Conservative Candidate Running”

Ted Cruz is intelligent, articulate, and well-prepared to defend and protect the Constitution as the next president of the United States.  He entered the national spotlight during his contentious 2012 run for the Senate, but it’s worth taking a look at his resume because it highlights long-standing and staunch support of conservative principles.

Conservative Credentials: Pre-Senate Life and Career

Prior to winning that senate seat with conservative grassroots and TEA Party support and becoming the first Hispanic to serve as a senator from Texas, Cruz was also the first Hispanic—and the longest-serving person in Texas history—to hold the office of Solicitor General of Texas.

Cruz joined the George W. Bush campaign in 1999 as a domestic policy adviser and advised then-candidate and Governor Bush on a wide range of policy and legal matters, including civil justice, criminal justice, constitutional law, immigration, and government reform.

During the Bush administration, Cruz served as associate deputy attorney general at the DOJ and as a policy adviser on the Federal Trade Commission.  While at the FTC, Cruz was an avid free-market crusader—an extension of his high school participation in the Houston-based Free Market Education Foundation, a program Cruz entered at the age of 13.

At Princeton, where Cruz obtained his bachelor’s degree in Public Policy and shone as a star debater, he wrote his senior thesis on the separation of powers in which he argued that the Founders provided a means, in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, of protecting the people from a totalitarian central government.

After graduating with honors from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, where he not only served as an editor on both the Harvard Law Review and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy but was also a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.

In his role as Solicitor General of Texas, Cruz successfully defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments on the Texas capitol grounds, defended the Second Amendment by arguing that the DC handgun ban infringed on the rights of the people to bear arms, and he defended Texas against an attempt to re-open the cases of 51 Mexican nationals, all of whom were convicted of murder in the United States and were on death row.

In short, Cruz has a long (dating back to his early teens) record of being a conservative in both principle and action.  He didn’t bound out of bed one day, put his finger to the wind, and decide to become a conservative (as was charged against Mitt Romney, among others); he’s always been a conservative.

Conservative Credentials: The Senate

Since his election to the Senate in 2012, Cruz has been an outspoken and unwavering force standing for conservative principles in the Senate and upholding his campaign promises to the best of his quite considerable ability.

Cruz campaigned for Senate on a number of core issues that matter to conservative voters.  From ObamaCare to over-regulation to executive overreach to Common Core, Cruz took positions that he did not abandon, as so many do, upon winning the election.

Instead, he ably fought the Rubio-Schumer immigration bill, has repeatedly worked to repeal ObamaCare (including a memorable filibuster in the Senate), and has been vocal in calling out even other Republicans as “campaign conservatives.”

Cruz was elected, as were so many other TEA Party candidates, to go to Washington and to stand for conservative principles in the face of opposition from both sides of the aisle, and unlike so many others, he did what he said he would do.  He didn’t sell out, he didn’t jump on the DC gravy train, and he didn’t turn his back on his grassroots supporters or on his stated ideals and principles.

For his efforts he was labeled everything from a “wacko bird” to “the most hated man in the Senate.”  Labels, it should be noted, that Cruz wears with pride (as he should).  As Cruz notes, the people in Washington who are well-liked and “popular” are the sell-outs, the “deal makers,” the campaign conservatives who can be manipulated, led by the teeth, and/or bullied into going along to get along.

Ted Cruz is not a fair-weather conservative, and he has shown this time and again in actual deed (not just in pretty speeches on the campaign trail).

Conservative Family Man

Ted Cruz has been married once, and by all accounts is a faithful husband and father.  Cruz met his wife, Heidi—an American by birth, while both were working for then-Governor Bush’s presidential campaign in 1999.  They quickly fell in love and got married in 2001.  Since that time, they have had two daughters who are clearly the apple of Cruz’s eye and whom he defends with fatherly devotion and passion.

He is equally devoted to and passionate about conservative values and defends the sanctity of life and traditional marriage articulately and consistently, and he adamantly refuses to abandon our core American and Judeo-Christian values.

The Eligibility Question

This is something on which I defer to Professor Jacobson and other authorities on matters of law.  But one thing that seems to come up consistently in discussions with those who prefer not to believe Cruz is a natural born citizen is the Founders’ intention.  However, these same people seem to brush aside the fact that until 1947 those born in Canada, like those born in the U. S. prior to our independence, were British subjects and to this day are still considered “Commonwealth citizens” (the term that replaced British “subjects”) as well as Canadian citizens.

Additionally, the intent of the Founders seems to be based in the allegiance one feels to the United States (thus the requirement that one must not only be a natural born citizen but must reside at least fourteen years in the U. S.).  This is an important element, though as we’ve seen all-too-clearly in recent decades—starkly in the last seven years, being born in and living in the U. S. is no guarantee that one will have allegiance to America.

That said, Cruz and his family moved back to the U. S. when he was four years old, so not only was he born an American citizen but he was also raised here.  At four, one has certainly not formed an allegiance to the place of one’s birth, and there is no indication that Cruz or his parents considered him other than as the American citizen he was born.  Importantly, he was raised in a conservative state by conservative parents.  We’re not talking about someone born in the Soviet Union or Iran and only came to the States fourteen years ago as an adult inculcated with anti-American sentiment.  Indeed, his father, Rafael, was imprisoned and tortured by the communist Castro regime in Cuba, and he always reminded his son how precious American liberty is to someone who has known real oppression.

All of this would be moot, of course, if he did not meet the “natural born citizenship” requirement; however, as he was considered by U. S. and Canada law an American citizen at birth (and was therefore not naturalized), it seems clear to me that he does meet the requirement and is eligible to be president.

However, as the question is being so hotly debated, it matters in terms of allegiance and loyalty to country.  Cruz’s entire life and career indicate that he is an American through and through, that he loves this country, and that he respects and has spent his entire career upholding our nation’s laws and defending our Constitution.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)

This issue gets a lot attention, and I’m not really sure why.  However, because it is something that is consistently mentioned in terms of attacking Cruz’s conservatism, it’s certainly worth addressing (yet again).

Despite his early support of and May 2015 vote for the bill, Cruz ultimately voted against the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority), also known as “fast track”; this was passed in June of last year and requires only an up or down vote in the Congress on trade deals that are “fast-tracked” by the president.

The problem, of course, is that it grants power to the executive that many believe it shouldn’t have.

Cruz said at the time:

“Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.”

Second, he said, were supposed “secret deals between Republican leadership and Democrats.”

In voting against the TPA, Cruz also stated, “TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom dealings, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements do not typically include.”

Did he “flip flop”?  Or did he change his stance upon reading the amended bill and considering the implications the amendments held?

“Most Consistently Conservative Candidate Running”

Is he perfect in every way?  Well, no, of course not.  No one is.  But as Mark Levin states, “Ted Cruz is the most consistently conservative candidate running.”  Indeed, he rates among the top, if not the top, conservative in a range of conservative groups’ ratings:  the ACU and Conservative Review each give him a 97% rating, the Club for Growth and Heritage Action each give him a 100% rating.

Do these numbers matter?  On their own, not a whole lot, but they certainly add clarity as part of the much larger picture of Cruz’s deeply-held and long-standing conservative values and principles.

[Featured image via Cruz for President]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Levin poses some challenging questions and makes some insightful observations.

Here come the Trumpettes and their birther theories.

This is another important consideration. Who would best reform BIG CORRUPT AGENCIES, especially the Do(racial)J…???

Progressive T-rump has expressly said he plans to plug in better “Brights” to run your life. Which is what Collectivists always do.

    Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | January 27, 2016 at 11:53 am

    It’s bizarre how Trump fans simply imagine that he’ll do everything on their wish list, even if he never talks of doing any such thing, or says he’ll do the opposite.

      Just like obama.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Radegunda. | January 28, 2016 at 1:03 am

      A lot of the Trump supporters go on and on about what he will do. They remind me of those fans of “24” going on and on about how Jack Bauer would do this or that. It’s all wishful thinking. Trump will no more fix the nation’s problems than any other candidate.

Wow. This comes across as a puff propaganda piece that quite honestly detracts from this blog. I say that as someone who actually does not care for any of the candidates and will need to hold their nose to cast a vote.

As an expert on education I do find Cruz’s education positions to be either poorly researched or disingenuous. Having governments at any level targeting a student’s personality for change via school is unacceptable and hyping opposition to the Common Core does not change that fact.

Cruz voted for the planned economy legislation known as the 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). How is that conservative?

There is a way of picking out adjectives to create a piece that is more about adulation than an objective discussion of a candiadte and the facts. That’s what this post does. Why?

All this does is enhance my personal experience that there is a tremendous amount of duplicity surrounding this particular candidate. He actually strikes me as a Statist, but wise enough to pursue this vision of government at the local level where it can be passed off as subsidiarity.

Is it true Cruz supports a VAT? How is that ‘conservative’?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Robin. | January 27, 2016 at 9:47 am

    A simple “I’m a Trump fan, vote Trump” would have sufficed.

      Except it would not be true. I am not a Trump fan. I want a factual discussion and the gut instinct is apparently to name call anyone who raises valid points.

      It is a puff piece. American Thinker ran one two days ago from someone who worked with Cruz at the FTC. Also over the top language.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Robin. | January 27, 2016 at 2:02 pm

        This is not a puff piece. Trust me, LI has learned how to do puff pieces in recent months, and this ain’t one of them.

      JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 27, 2016 at 10:35 am

      There is definitely a pundit/GOPe buzz happenin’ around Sen Rubio. Maybe it is sinking in that the hoi polloi aren’t buying any of that, at least not this cycle.
      So now we start to see some pieces on Ted floating up.

      It makes perfect sense. If you find Trump to be an abomination you start to try out different approaches to see if there is an alternative.

      This is a completely unfair attack. Why is that anyone who comments less than enthusiastically about any candidate other than Trump becomes a target for anti-Trump ranting? (And I say this as a Cruz supporter.)

    Common core is a Trojan horse bearing all facets of the Collectivist ideology, ideology that synthesizes good with evil. Common Core and its many prototypes are benign only at face value.

      Jennifer-that is a nice link and accurate that the Common Core is directly related to what was known as Outcomes Based Education in the 90s. I have met Charlotte and my book Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon is far more timely in laying out those links and the purposes.

      Not discussed in that article and pertinent to Texas and its role in the 90s attempt that is still going on now is the fact that the Marc Tucker Carnegie sponsored National Center for Education and the Economy actually had an office in Ft Worth because Texas was ground zero for the New Standards project push that is the true exemplar of the actual common core implementation.

      Cruz’s dissing of the Common Core and hyping the local is of no help to students if the Texas schools are in fact still implementing what began as the NSP Project. That’s precisely what my research shows and it has nothing to do with Cruz running for President or not.

    Ragspierre in reply to Robin. | January 27, 2016 at 10:05 am

    That’s a detailed analysis by a respected conservative tax policy outfit.

    Read it. It’s about a reform of our tax system.

    Compare that to the “T-rump” plan he can’t even articulate and which simply leaves the IRS in place and nibbles around the margins of the corrupt tax code.

    The same tax analysis was done by the same people on the “T-rump plan”. It finds it balloons the deficit.

    So, yeah, Cruz’s plan is CONSERVATIVE.

      Interesting Board of Directors for a think tank that is being described as conservative.

      Very consistent in interests represented though with other members of the Atlas Network.

      Again my questions began a factual discussion on Cruz and how VAT fits in. Much superior than simply proclaiming him a conservative while everyone hides behind the protection of the label.

        Ragspierre in reply to Robin. | January 27, 2016 at 10:29 am

        Show me a better one. I’m always happy to review information.

        smfoushee in reply to Robin. | January 27, 2016 at 10:39 am

        Yeah it’s pretty tough to talk to Americans these days about tax policy (I spent years working on fair tax grassroots campaigns), many want nice 10 second sound bites, while most couldn’t care less about wading through specifics on how actual tax reform will work. Of course Trump does a great job never explaining any specifics of any of his upcoming “deals” choosing to stick to his 10 second sound bites that titillate his supporters. But I’m sure Trump’s plan to make the IRS great again will be based in sound conservative ideology /sarc

          The Friendly Grizzly in reply to smfoushee. | January 28, 2016 at 1:18 am

          Trump reminds me of something I have heard said about musicians: “If you can’t play well, play loud.”

    VAT tax? I would prefer a flat tax tied to some economic metric which can never be politicized or FED-ized. Big government politicians tend to raise taxes after elected when their pandered programs become screwed.

    I disagree. It is a very well considered post that informs readers about Cruz. I will simply point out that the first votes are about to be casts, so final decisions have to be made and voters have to get off the fence.

    You will note that their is a series of articles along these lines from the Legal Insurrection authors.

    So, if you like Trump, vote Trump. If you like Rubio, vote Rubio. Hell, if you like Bush, vote Bush. Now is the time for choosing.

    No need to impugn the characters of good people who may not see the candidates the same way you do, but ultimately want the same thing you do: The best possible POTUS candidate to send to the general election.

    Being an expert on education certainly didn’t prepare you for dealing with people; books, maybe but not people.

    Calling the above post a “puff propaganda piece” is dismissive of the writer and the content, as if you are placing yourself above all else. Get a life without hubris and then your ‘expertise’ will matter to the rest of us.

    This post offers some background and insight into at least one person’s POV. And, more importantly, it offers a starting point for discussion about Cruz’ virtues and weaknesses as a candidate. Such a discussion/debate is necessary within any political climate. Smug hubris seeks to stop discussion.

I like him even if he is Canadian.

Regardless of what your definition of an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen is if a person is a natural born Commonwealth citizen, that person cannot possibly be an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born U.S. citizen as well.

    smfoushee in reply to davidfarrar. | January 27, 2016 at 10:43 am

    It’s interesting that a phrase in the Constitution that has no associating definition in the Constitution, and has been interpreted by courts to mean different things at different points in American history, is being made into some ultimate single issue for so many people who are more than willing to turn their back on other, more meaningful principles.

    Simply wrong. Whatever citizenship standards are in other countries have NO bearing on this one. Unless you have evidence that he’s carried arms against the US?

    DunningKruger in reply to davidfarrar. | January 30, 2016 at 12:32 am

    Cruz’s mom, married or not (it is not clear), moved to Canada and lived there uninterrupted for FOUR YEARS. Then gave birth to Rafael. Then they lived in Canada for FOUR MORE YEARS. THEN moved to the U.S. And THIS is “natural born”?

    So if, instead of living in Canada for four years, Rafael stayed in Canada for FORTY YEARS and returned to run for President, he is as the Founding Fathers intended, “natural born”? No? So exactly how many years is it?

    Penetrating constitutional analysis by the O.P. I looked high and low and never found the phrase “he really really really likes it here” as a condition for being President.

I am still bitterly disappointed that my two top picks – Walker & Perry — are both out of the race. That said, Cruz’s conservative credentials are impeccable. He has served in elected office and knows the system. Rubio is a good man with a deal breaker position on immigration. Choosing Cruz is a no brainer.

Who do you hire when it’s an emergency — and this country is in this state — and you’re under the gun to do a lot quickly and on a broad scale.

The craftsman whose work is near-perfect, but because of that actually gets very little accomplished?

Or the person who sometimes needs some guidance, and might make a few mistakes, but churns out massive quantities of product?

I suppose it depends, but right now I don’t think we have time for perfectionism.

    smfoushee in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 11:41 am

    We’ve been settling for far less than perfect candidates for some time. Instead of giving the nomination to a person whose actual principles are unknown or always changing, and who says they’d like to make deals with Democrats (which got us into this mess in the first place), how about we nominate someone who is a staunch Conservative with a known record for fighting against the establishment and putting his money where his mouth is… you know, instead of sending it to the Clintons?

    Just a thought.

      tom swift in reply to smfoushee. | January 27, 2016 at 12:45 pm

      and who says they’d like to make deals with Democrats (which got us into this mess in the first place)

      A particularly silly meme. There’s nothing wrong with deals, so long as they’re good deals. A ruler who doesn’t have to make deals is called a tyrant. There were some times of emergency in classical history when such an arrangement was considered good, at least for a while. However fashions change, and these days, tyrannies are out, at least officially. And there is no Constitutional provision for such a thing. Some carefully-constructed constitutions, such as the 1919 Weimar Constitution, made orderly (being German, of course they were orderly) provision for temporary tyrannies. But we all know how that worked out.

      So. Good deals—not no deals—are what we want. Bad deals—of the sort the GOP has been giving us for the past decade or so—are, well, bad. What we want is someone who can make deals with Dems which leave the Dems with the short end of the stick, for a change.

      So, does Trump have experience at making good deals?

      janitor in reply to smfoushee. | January 27, 2016 at 12:51 pm

      If you want to know about the man’s character, then look at his family, and what he produced there. See any “Paris Hilton” types running around? Drug addicts? Rebels? Losers? No. Exemplary all.

    Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 11:46 am

    “…churns out massive quantities of product…”

    If by “product” you mean tons of feed-lot carpet, then…yeah. He’s a real “producer”.

    gmac124 in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    “The craftsman whose work is near-perfect, but because of that actually gets very little accomplished?

    Or the person who sometimes needs some guidance, and might make a few mistakes, but churns out massive quantities of product?”

    On who I would hire depends on whether we are talking about my plumbing or yours. If I am hiring a craftsman for my plumbing I would hire a perfectionist that might take an extra day or two to get done but when he is done everything works perfectly.

    I would never hire Trump for a job. If he was a plumber he would be done three times as fast as the other guy but he would be called back to fix problem areas for years because he took shortcuts and used crappy parts.

    So to answer your question I would hire the guy that will do the job right the first time, has a moral compass that makes him accountable to his employer and himself, and strength to stand firm on his ideals. Rubio folds like a cheap tent and Trump has no moral compass why should we even consider them canidates?

      janitor in reply to gmac124. | January 27, 2016 at 1:33 pm

      My only point was that perfection is sometimes the enemy of “good enough”. I didn’t say “crappy”.

      We do not have time in this country to dork around. Trump may let soe lesser issues go (like a fight over ethanol “right now”), but he will attend to the big ones. And it’s also short-sighted to remove Cruz from a potential Supreme Court position — for which he is far better suited.

      It’s a question of picking your battles. Triage. Whatever analogy works.

      Looks to me as if the perfectionists — who would have been pretty thrilled if the front runners were Trump and Bush — are being short-sighted.

      I do not think Cruz can do well in a general election. I utterly admire the man, but he does not have charisma. He is not Reagan. (Not that if Reagan came around these days he wouldn’t be torn to shreds by the perfectionists either. Really. The former Democrat guy who made deals as head of the Hollywood values screen actors’ guild…)

        gmac124 in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 3:19 pm

        The only candidate more unelectable than Trump is Bush. How does tossing Cruz away and going with Mr Establishment (Democrat lite) Trump improve our lot?

        Besides what is Trump’s endgame? He can’t win the general election according to all of the polls he likes to tout. However if his endgame is to get a democrat (Hillary) elected he is perfectly positioned. If he wins the nomination he loses the general to Hillary because more people in America HATE him. If he loses the nomination he goes third party, takes his cult with him and splits the republican vote and Hillary wins. Gee it looks like we are screwed either way.

        Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 4:19 pm

        Proving you did not listen to…and cannot refute…Levin.

    damocles in reply to janitor. | February 2, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    I’ll make it easy for you, choose Cruz, the man who has the right principles and cannot be bought off by the establishment or by cronies. he sticks with the Constitution and that’s good enough for me.Tthere, easy.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 27, 2016 at 11:41 am

I wish Gov Walker had caught fire, oh well.
My guy currently is Sen Ted Cruz. His campaign is full of wit and humor. Today’s email: “Tonight, I challenged Donald Trump to a debate — one-on-one, any time, any place. Will Donald Duck this debate too?”

    Trump thinks it’s funny to call people “stupid” if they don’t favor him, and to say he could shoot someone and his slavishly devoted fans wouldn’t waver a millimeter. Ha ha.

Cruz is the m I re conservative. Too bad for him that is his ONLY qualification and that is NOT what the majority of people will be voting on.

This election is about competence and leadership on various key issues.

Build wall
Deport illegals
Enforce our laws
Reform and replace bad trade deals
Jobs and economy
Security and foreign policy

Trump leads with over 60% support on all these issues. He is yuuge.

As Cruz loses he and Beck can go crying to each other as they walk off but I Cruz am the mist consistently conservative natural born canadian in the race. What happened? TRUMPED that is what happened.

buckeyeminuteman | January 27, 2016 at 1:37 pm

I can’t think of anyone else currently or formerly in politics that is as polar opposite from Obama as Cruz is. Why settle for anything less?

    Give a mouse a cookie…

    Because Cruz is unlikely to be able to win a general election. Because Trump actually has more talent in non-ideological executive decision-making. Because Cruz is more suited to Justice Dept., or Supreme Court.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 2:25 pm

      “Because Trump actually has more talent in non-ideological executive decision-making.”

      Total bullshit, BUT also a great reason NOT to vote for him!

      He’s “non-ideological” in the sense he has no CONSERVATIVE CORE. He’s whatever he feels his audience wants! The quintessential shape-shifting fraud.

      His “executive decision-making” is a demonstrated failure. He HAS made a LOT of money. By selling himself like a Times Square whore. He’s ALSO made MULTIPLE “suck it” terrible decisions that lost tens of millions of dollars…maybe HUNDREDS of millions of dollar of his OWN money and multiples of that in other peoples’ money.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 27, 2016 at 2:47 pm

        If we don’t win the election this time, kiss the country goodbye. It won’t matter a whit how conservative and right Cruz is.

        The reason Cruz has risen and not been viciously attacked yet by hysterical MSM is that Trump has been standing in front and taking this barrage.

          gmac124 in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 3:33 pm

          Who cares about the MSM? If Trump hadn’t jumped into the Republican party we would still have several solid conservatives to choose from, instead of being forced a Democrat on both tickets. I mean really there isn’t a difference between Trump and Hillary on most policy positions.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 5:52 pm

          If Trump hadn’t jumped in, your nominee would have been Jeb Bush.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2016 at 6:02 pm


Wait, how was he considered a natural born American by Canada law?

He was born in Canada with 2 Canadian parents. (One with a dual citizenship). If anything Canada should consider him a natural born Canadian.

    gmac124 in reply to rotten. | January 27, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    His parents were not Canadian when he was born. His mom was and still is only a U.S. citizen. She never became a Canadian citizen. His dad became a Canadian citizen later but I believe was a Cuban refugee at the time of his birth. Children born to U.S. citizens in foreign countries are still U.S. citizens at birth. Ergo natural born citizens.

I don’t trust Cruz AT ALL on immigration.

    Ragspierre in reply to bw222. | January 27, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    But you DO trust the man who was pushing for Dreamers and amnesty when Cruz and Sessions killed the bill in 2013?

    Maybe we are too stupid to survive as a nation….

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ragspierre. | January 28, 2016 at 1:33 am

      “But you DO trust the man who was pushing for Dreamers and amnesty when Cruz and Sessions killed the bill in 2013?”

      Try as I might, I don’t see where that is in the one sentence he wrote, Rags.

Cruz’s flip flop 9n TPA and Obamacare was a full reverse 2 and 1/2 in the layout position and purely for cyn8cal political reasons. Just another me too Trump. After election he will vote for Obamatrade along with Ryan and McConnell.

The reason not a single senator will endorse Cr u z because they know better than anyone he is slimy slick willy lawyer whose only real comitment is to Cruz becoming president.

The more I hear Cruz drone on about the debate and Trump the smaller and more craven he makes himself look.

Yep. New York City values. Just the kind of place in which all Americans aspire to live!

Monday night can’t come soon enough. I see the weather forecast for Iowa is now pretty good. Cold but no snow or sleet. Republican registrations are way up and the Governor expects a large turnout. Probably north of 180,000

    That is good news. Reports are turn out of 130,000 or less favors Cruz. Over 140,000 to 150,000 and it is a Trump blow out. That at least is what the supposed “experts” say, but who knows.