Image 01 Image 03

Ted Cruz: I Will Vote For Donald Trump

Ted Cruz: I Will Vote For Donald Trump

He didn’t endorse at the convention.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) announced on Facebook that he will indeed vote for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump in November.

Trump has accepted Cruz’s news:

The former presidential candidate came under fire in July when he refused to endorse Trump:

Cruz didn’t encourage convention goers and watchers to vote Trump, rather to vote their conscience. When delegates realized he wasn’t going to explicitly endorse Donald Trump, they began booing and jeering. Then, Donald Trump made an entrance before Cruz had finished his speech.

The next day he explained why he couldn’t endorse Trump at a breakfast with the Texas delegation:

“I have to confess, what you said would be easy to do. How many people here are frustrated with politicians who just say anything? There are a lot of options that I could’ve taken that politically, would’ve been a heckuva lot easier.

There’s option number one which a whole bunch of people took, which is turn tale and run and don’t come to the convention. There are a bunch of people who did that. I ain’t one of them.

There’s another option. Let me tell you the politically easy option is to stand up and pledge your allegiance to whoever the party nominee might be no matter what. If you’re an elected official, that’s the right political outcome. Let me tell you something sir, I’m not going to lie to you. Whether you want me to or not, I’m not going to lie to you and what I said last night is what I believe. So, yes.”

Cruz also told the delegation he could not support someone who attacked his family. In May, Trump said on Fox News that Cruz’s father helped Lee Harvey Oswald assassinate President John F. Kennedy:

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” he told Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

People took to Twitter to express their feelings over the announcement:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


In the end, elections do come down to voting for the best electable candidate.

    Nope. Elections are about charting the country’s future. With long-term view in mind, I choose to fold this GOP hand.
    Look how smart the liberals played. They refused to vote for Gore in 2000 and in 2008 they got their dream candidate.

      No. He didn’t.
      In 2008 the dream candidate would have been Al Gore. Barring that Hillary.

      Obama is far from ideal. Gore wants the country to go left, but he doesn’t want it to go so far left that it is obvious which is what Obama has done.

buckeyeminuteman | September 23, 2016 at 4:29 pm

My conscience, like Senator Cruz’s, won’t let me vote for Hillary Clinton. Trump is the only other option. That doesn’t mean I’m endorsing Trump, pledging allegiance to Trump, or even getting a Trump yard sign. All it means is I’m voting for Trump.

I will also dog him every step of the way when he strays from the Constitution and from Conservative policies. And I hope Senator Cruz and the rest of the liberty-loving Americans will do the same. Following a President in everything they do is not patriotism, it is however was has led us to the America that we live in today in 2016.

    Good post. Some of the Trump supporters get so slobbery about him that they’re indistinguishable from Obamabots. It’s pathetic and not healthy for our republic.

      Barry in reply to Paul. | September 23, 2016 at 5:22 pm

      “Some of the Trump supporters get so slobbery about him that they’re indistinguishable from Obamabots.”

      There are very few candidates that don’t have some “slobbery” supporters.

      Hold his feet to the fire. That is what I intend to do.

    I’m voting for him, not asking for his hand in marriage. And when he fails to keep his commitments to build a wall, vet refugees, etc., I intend to laugh in their faces when his acolytes twist into pretzels trying to explain to me how he didn’t say that in ’16.

    My main concern has always been the potential loss of SCOTUS to a majority of “wise” homosexuals and other “oppressed minorities”. If Trump keeps that promise, I will rest a bit more easily.

    It’d be a hoot if Roberts departs the high court and Cruz is installed as Chief Justice with a solid majority of similar justices–oh, the schadenfreude on so many levels!

Trump will need good people to “make America great again”. While Cruz did not prove his mettle as leader of people, he did demonstrate the courage of his convictions. Perhaps the two will reconcile their differences. Cruz would be a good choice for the Supreme Court.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | September 23, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    As Americans are a “law and order” type, we will need the right people to legislate, interpret, and execute the laws to restore the integrity of the Constitution from the Preamble to the last Amendment. Perhaps we can also take notice of the guidance offered in our national charter recorded in The Declaration of Independence, too.

Why so important these days to tweet and analyze everything?

Perhaps if the info offered was not so predicatble.

Principles in politics are strange, and outrage is never in short supply.

Does anyone think all the white noise makes a difference?

Just don’t come around while your BS about “conservative principles” and “fighting the establishment” anymore, Lyin’ Ted.

    Sanddog in reply to Estragon. | September 23, 2016 at 11:51 pm

    The only other option Cruz had was leaving the republican party. Since there is no “conservative” viable option, he could either do the ethical thing and vote Trump or he could refuse to vote Trump while still taking RNC money and utilizing their infrastructure. Ted did the right thing.

      inspectorudy in reply to Sanddog. | September 24, 2016 at 12:38 am

      I think your use of the word “Ethical” is way out of bounds. The word you are looking for is “Duty”. Cruz knew it was his duty to vote for Trump for the good of the nation. Ethics would have kept him away forever.

4th armored div | September 23, 2016 at 5:48 pm

Trump is the only one in the current election who knows the ‘system’ enough to fight it and old enough to understand we are on our last legs if we don’t turn things around.

I supported Cruz in the primaries.

Have the doctors been able to get Rags’ heart started yet ?

Sir Ted “the pure of heart” endorses the stinking collectivist. LOL

What’s a mother to do? Fuzzy? Fuzzy? Buehler?

In a related announcement Ted has admitted that Melania is much better looking than Heidi, his father was friends with Lee Harvey Oswald, and he has broken off the affair with Amanda Carpenter.

    jsteinly in reply to jsteinly. | September 23, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    What this really shows is the perils of taking strong public offense for attacks in a primary. Politicians need to remember that if they make a big public stink over and over about some attack in the primary it will make them look really bad when they turn around and suck it up and endorse the winner.

    It was Cruz himself that set the bar by which this turn around will be judged. If he had laughed off the primary attacks then he wouldn’t look bad at all by putting them aside and endorsing the winner, Trump.

    Still this endorsement of Trump will be a net plus for Cruz. He may have just saved his senate seat.

      inspectorudy in reply to jsteinly. | September 24, 2016 at 12:43 am

      My God! What a mindless idiot you are! Political attacks? Your wife is uglY and MENTALLY sick and your father helped Oswald kill JFK. Oh, I get it that’s normal stuff huh? What planet have you been living on? This wasn’t about Cruz’s votes or his business dealings. This was about his FAMILY! To me, it says a lot about how strong his morals are and that seeing the danger of hillary he put all of the insults aside and did not endorse Trump but said he would vote for him.

    inspectorudy in reply to jsteinly. | September 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Please just go away! Cruz did NOT endorse Trump. He said he would vote for him. and the other nasty things you said just don’t belong here and are not appreciated by any of us.

      “Cruz did NOT endorse Trump”

      Of course he did. That’s what the announcement was for. Try not to be silly.

      He’s a politician. It’s what they do.

        inspectorudy in reply to Barry. | September 24, 2016 at 12:45 am

        No he didn’t. He said he would vote for him. That is not the same as an endorsement. When you get through with your oatmeal cookie pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning for endorsement.

          I know it breaks your heart, but when a public figure announces he is voting for someone, it is an endorsement. Otherwise he just steps in the voting booth and makes his singular vote. Making an announcement is an attempt to persuade others to do the same, regardless of Cruz’s personal reasons to do so.

          Anyone with a functioning brain understands this. Appeals to the dictionary are just a distraction from the truth.

      Nope you’re wrong Cruz endorsed Trump. He said he was voting Trump and asked all others to also vote Trump. That IS AN ENDORSEMENT.

      As for my other comments I thought they were pretty damn funny. The Cruz sycophants not so much. Too Bad.

      Come on aboard the Trump Train Leslie has a drink for you.

    Ragspierre in reply to jsteinly. | September 23, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    I just back from court, so I’m only learning of this right now.

    My head and heart are just fine. Thanks for your solicitude.

    See you’re still the evil, lying T-sucker you’ve proven yourself to be always. Constant as the Northern Star.

    And my analysis remains unchanged.

      “Constant as the Northern Star.”

      There’s your problem. No star is constant. 🙂

      jsteinly in reply to Ragspierre. | September 23, 2016 at 9:13 pm

      “And my analysis remains unchanged.”

      What about your analysis of Sir Cruz “the pure of heart”?

        Ragspierre in reply to jsteinly. | September 23, 2016 at 9:16 pm

        There is no such person. Never was. Nothing to analyze.

        inspectorudy in reply to jsteinly. | September 24, 2016 at 12:49 am

        You are repulsive and have the depth of a sheet of paper. Anyone with any intelligence can see that Cruz said he would vote for Trump for one simple reason and that is to stop hillary. Anything else is only in your delusional head.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | September 23, 2016 at 11:13 pm

      I love it. The Jacobin Rags head must explode here. If he follows his leader Canadian Ted, then he has to go with Trump. But then he must abandon his principles.

      Ted lost any standing in July with his game playing. This is Teddy CYA because Trump is turning people and Hillary is just a mess. It funny to read many of the comments here, because all those “principles” are now lost. Ted’s endorsement is too little too late. I think Trump proved that he did not need him, but for Teddy to survive in Congress, he better get on the train. Session is going to be the top dog there and Ted needs to work with him. Trump is working on getting that black vote which is excellent and I love Trump’s state about at one time we made cars in Flint Michigan and we could not drink the water in Mexico. Now we can’t drink the water in Flint Michigan and Ford just announced they are moving more car making to Mexico. I paraphrase, but Trump hit the nail on the head here and talk like that will get him the much needed Michigan.

    Are you asking me a question, jstienly or just trolling? If the former, please clarify your specific question, and I will answer it.

Ted just made it to the bar car in the Trump Train. I poured him a Lagavulin…straight up.

    I just saw the video of Cruz riding his Mormon white horse and jumping from a bridge onto the Trump Train. Pretty impressive.

      Ragspierre in reply to jsteinly. | September 23, 2016 at 8:19 pm

      Ah, and THERE’s the trade-mark religious bigotry, always on form in slavering defense of the Great God Cheeto.

      Careful, jasteinly. The prof has a red line here at LI, and you are very close to crossing it in this comment.

        Some animals are more equal than others?

        Cruz campaigned all over Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona with Glenn Beck. Beck is a well known Mormon and Cruz’s purpose in campaigning with Glenn Beck was to get more Mormon votes in those states. It is well known that Glenn Beck during these campaign appearances would allude to Cruz being the fulfillment of the “Mormon White Horse Prophecy”. So my illiteration references something Cruz actually campaigned on and has nothing to do with any bigotry or intolerance of any kind. It is absolutely no different than the numerous times you and your boy Rags made derisive reference to Trump saying “two Corinthians”.

        I know you are fully aware of how Cruz campaigned with Beck and how Beck called him the Mormon White Horse prophet and how Cruz NEVER said he wasn’t the Mormon white horse prophet but you pretend to be ignorant of the context of my post.

        If it weren’t for double standards Fuzzy. You wouldn’t have any at all.

        So please explain to me so I can avoid crossing it how a reference to a Mormon White Horse comes close to crossing the red lines you only draw around people with unapproved thoughts?

        Is it Mormon or White that offends? If I made it a hispanic horse or native American horse would that be better. What about if I made it a Christian African American Horse would that be better?

        The problem is Cruz campaigned on it being a Mormon White Horse so forgive me if I referred to it using the Cruz/Beck actual campaign rhetoric.

          jack burns in reply to jsteinly. | September 24, 2016 at 12:01 pm

          Yeah, that’s great, can we move on?

          Talk about beating a dead horse. It may come as a surprise to you, but the primaries are over. Your hysteria and grudge-holding are overwrought and quite puzzling. Do you find some pleasure in holding grudges and reliving things you found unfavorable or unpleasant? I’m always puzzled by the oceans of emotion that seem to flow from the Trump crowd (almost always negative, too, have you noticed that? Such spite, animosity, and general nastiness . . . if this is how the Trump crowd acts when they win, I shudder to think how they’d be if he hadn’t).

          Where have I ever used the phrase “two Corinthians” in reference, no matter how far removed, to Trump? You seem very confused about what I write and what you imagine or perhaps feel that I write, and that confusion on your part, I think, is causing you to be irrational and more than a little strident. Perhaps you can find some way to control your emotions and attempt to be a tad more reasonable? You may have noticed that LI’s comment section has become much more pleasant and readable lately; wouldn’t you like to contribute to that?

          jsteinly in reply to jsteinly. | September 24, 2016 at 2:11 pm

          “I just saw the video of Cruz riding his Mormon white horse and jumping from a bridge onto the Trump Train. Pretty impressive.”

          One sentence. No emotion. Funny and playing on Leslie’s humorous post to which it replied.

          This drew the usual histerical false allegations and name calling from Rags that everyone knows to expect around here. Which I ignored as is best with such immature vulgar children.

          You Fuzzy responded to that one harmless sentence with a warning that i was close to getting banned for crossing some undefined red line.

          I’m still waiting for you to define for me how that one sentence comes close to your “red line” and to provide a description of the parameters of the red line so I can conform my writings accordingly.

          Instead of providing that information you completely avoid and attempt to divert attention away from what appears from your diversion tactics to have been a wholly improper threat against me by you.

          Finally it is quite usual for you to attack Trump supporters and talk of civility while having completely ignored and in some cases supported the posters above that have used various types of epithets and childish vulgarity in posts to me.

          As I said if it weren’t for double standards you wouldn’t have any standards at all.

          jsteinly, your comment struck me as an attack on those of Mormon faith. As such an attack, it is not permitted at LI. I had no way of knowing that your “one sentence” was supposed to cover a long list of Cruz’s perceived sins, some random words spoken by Glenn Beck the lunatic, and whatever of your own biases and grudges you threw into the mix. You’ve explained that you didn’t intend it as such, and that, as far as I am concerned, is that. But do, please, continue to beat that particular dead horse. We love to have a good giggle here at LI, after all.

          As to your complaints that people here are uncivil in response to Trump fans. Read this thread. Really read it. Who here is provocative and challenging and “daring” people to state their own ideas or opinions? Who here is “calling out” various people in mocking and derisive terms? Surely you don’t expect people to sit back and let you and other Trump fans hector, attempt to ridicule and silence them? You can’t think you get to run roughshod over free-thinking adults and not get a bit more than you might have bargained for?

          Do be sure to review your own mention of little ole me in one of your sing-song hectoring taunts. Here it is in case you forgot all about it.

          I didn’t jump in until you, personally, “called me out.” Well, here I am.

          By the way, have you managed to locate a place anywhere on the internet that I have mentioned “two Corinthians” in relation to Trump? No? I thought not.

          jsteinly in reply to jsteinly. | September 24, 2016 at 4:33 pm

          I post one perfectly harmless sentence.

          You threaten to ban me.

          I provide the context of that sentence for your elucidation.

          You complain the context is from the primaries, but fail to acknowledge you needed the context to understand the original one sentence post.

          You Fuzzy are a walking stereotype. “Just like a woman”.

          I believe that I did acknowledge that your free associative “logic”–once explained–was sufficient in this case. Your “context” consisted of a paragraphs-long incoherent rambling that tied Mormons, horses, Glenn Beck the lunatic, Ted Cruz, and bizarre queries into a pretzel-shaped mess, so excuse me if I didn’t catch on right away. Did you miss my statement that “that was that” in your apparent desire to see me as your “enemy”?

          “just like a woman” . . . Hee! You can’t imagine, in a million years, that I’m taking that bait.

          From what turnip truck did you just tumble?

          And I’m still waiting for your link to the statement you claim I made about Trump and “two Corinthians,” or, oh, gee, are you just glossing that to avoid taking the responsibility for your error that I woman-ed up and took for mine in not understanding your super-loaded “one sentence”?

          jsteinly in reply to jsteinly. | September 24, 2016 at 8:17 pm

          I replied to this post with the proof you asked for including links to an example post of yours in April doing exactly that which you claimed not to have done. You or someone deleted it twice.

          You challenge for proof and then delete the post that provides it.

    Thanks for the extra touch of class, Leslie.

    I think I’ll pour myself a finger or three of Ardbeg and join you.

In May, Trump said on Fox News that Cruz’s father helped Lee Harvey Oswald assassinate President John F. Kennedy

No, Trump said no such thing. As the quote you post immediately after shows. He said nothing at all about either one “helping” the other in any way.

Attacking Trump for things he didn’t say is what put Cruz where he is now. Recall that his numbers started to really tank after he started playing along with the Dem BS about Trump’s rhetoric being a contributing factor in the violent attacks on his fans at Jan Jose. A major blunder, and one which which apparently didn’t escape the Republican electorate.

    inspectorudy in reply to tom swift. | September 23, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    That defense of Trump’s offensive statements about so many people is very clintonian. He may not have spoken the exact words that you site but EVERYONE knew exactly what he was saying. Let it go but don’t try and make him into a saint or even a gentleman, he isn’t. All he has going for him is that isn’t hillary.

      “He may not have spoken the exact words that you site but EVERYONE knew exactly what he was saying.”

      Garbage! They made things up, and people that should have known better, fell for it.

Stated, acknowledged, done. Time to win this thing.

About time. We need Cruz on the Supreme Court.

I forgive Senator Cruz. First, he was, no doubt, under a lot of pressure from the establishment. Second, NeverTrump needs to avoid taking the blame in case of narrow Trump loss. Forgot where I read this theory, but ideally, he needs to lose by 4-6 points. Anything more than that will be a mandate and may wipe out the party down ballot (albeit down ballot looks pretty strong now). A close loss will result in a lot of finger pointing. In an event of a narrow loss Cruz needs to avoid blame.
Having said that, his history of wavering on the subject of Trump is not flattering.

Hillary must be broken hearted. The NeverTrump/HillaryHelpers are down to a few Red Staters frothing pointlessly at the mouth, and a handful of mental cripples stroking their Hillary Dolls at Legal Insurrection. And of course Glenn Beck, straining against his mandatory restraints with a wild look in his eyes.

Sic semper tyrannis.

I think Ted may have learned something during the primary, and I hope he puts his new knowledge to good use.

While it is traditional for the former candidates to give their endorsement at the convention, there might be good reason to hold off a while. I think Ted had good reason, as shown by his explanation.

Trump has shown, starting with his first press conference after the convention, that he has the kind of executive ability missing for the last seven years, and which will be missing in the future, if Hillary is elected. What had been on exhibit prior to that was his showmanship, so he had not yet demonstrated the entire package.

Hummmm, the list of #NeverTrumpers left standing is declining, sharply, while the list of people now “dead” to that group of Ragged troglodytes is growing.

So, who’s the troglodyte candidate of choice now for the 2020 election? Gary Johnson? Senator Collins?

Forgiveness is a tenet of Christian faith and, though it took a while, Cruz has that Latin pride to swallow first, and consider the good of the country. He can ease his heart by expelling the hate. Step by step, he can do the right thing, and if needed be part of a loyal opposition in the senate, not joining the democrats, but just keeping him in line with the constitution. We need both men in the fight to turn things around and right the ship of state.

The loser is Cruz and now the crow is being served. I was for Cruz but with Iowa things changes and so did his fortunes. What is more important…going for broke and losing the Republican nomination or being more savvy and winding up on the Supreme Court? The BIG prize for us non-lawyer types is the Supreme Court… unfortunately the country now hinges on the “men in black”. We now have a corrupt executive branch, a bankrupt effeminate legislative branch, and a too powerful partisan judicial branch. So much for checks and balances. Every concern, every caution pronounced 200 years ago is coming true. Cruz blew it big… all we have left is any that is #notHilliary and #notDemocrat. As Mark Steyn put it, “standing on the sidelines is not the high ground.”

Nobody wants to take Cruz’s words at face value but instead has to try to ascribe some political long game to him? Right at the beginning of his statement he says that he promised to support the party nominee, and that a Clinton presidency would be unacceptable. In other words, he is voting his conscience, and readily admits that it took him a long time to get there.

Cruz’s decision is policy-driven, not character driven. Trump supporters that see this as a victory really and a chance to kick him when he’s “down” really have no character. Trump himself made a gracious statement thanking Cruz, which I appreciated. As to whether this changes things for a Never Trumper who doesn’t have an outstanding pledge to support the nominee, they have to weigh their own conscience.

Does anybody still want to win the election, or is it about nurturing and cultivating a private bitch that is somehow more sustaining than victory?

I have two things to say about this.

1. So much for “principle”.
2. Welcome.

Anyone notice that this comes after Priebus said that those who don’t support the party’s nominee might have a hard time getting party support if they want to run next time?

Oh and no republican has ever won the early voting in Florida before. Definitely good news if this report is accurate and holds.

You’re kidding, right? Where in there do I mention “two Corinthinians”? I was simply pointing out to a Trumpster that his attacks on Cruz “holding up a Bible everywhere” were unfair. Trump did the same exact thing . . . and yes, Trump got Scripture wrong. It was all over the internet. My point, however, was that bashing Cruz for “holding up a Bible everywhere” while giving Trump a pass for attempting–and failing miserably–at doing the same thing was hypocritical. At best. Is that hard for you to grasp for some reason? Did you read the thread? Did you note the post to which I was responding? Or did you just . . . react. Emotionally. Again. (Until you made that comment about my being “just like a woman,” I honestly thought you were a woman. Not to bash my sex, but your hyper-sensitive emotionalism led me to believe, erroneously I guess, that you must be a woman.)

You didn’t have to drag anything out of me; your writing is abysmal, your thinking cluttered and scattered. I don’t understand the burblings of such people. I’m glad you took the multiple paragraphs of rehashing old “sins” and hurts to explain it all to me, though. It was a revelation.

What a bizarre statement you end with, so Alex Jones nuttery. I have no idea what you mean unless you are a part of that other no-longer-posting-at-LI person who has a super duper double-top secret club in which you don tinfoil hats and presumably chat about how people are super duper double-top-secret “people other than they pretend to be.” Totally possible, I guess. A bit out there, but possible. I suggest a hobby of some sort to keep you from spiraling into paranoid incoherence. Have you thought about gardening? Maybe painting by numbers?

    You or someone deleted my post to which this post replies. Typical.

    I would note that your reply does not complain about the tenor or tone in the post that was deleted.

    You said you never mentioned two Corinthians in connection with Trump. My deleted post provided a quote and link where you did just that.

    You really do jump off the deep end without any reservation at all. Alex Jones. LOL. Nothing so colorful or imaginative in my deleted post. You aren’t the person you pretend to be. Meaning while you try to present as reasonable, fair minded and tolerant, and I’m sure that is how you see yourself, I was saying IMHO you are not in fact such a person, and I believe your interactions with me in this thread show that I’m correct.

Now I know why I only read LI about once a month. Articles usually good but comments are a cesspool of “adults” slinging insults at each other. Conversation? Haven’t seen any here. I wonder if the good Professor had this in mind when he started this blog.

    Hear, hear! You’re right on target, so fire for effect!

    Professor Jacobson has given up managing blog comments (From the lack of such effort itself!), also he tends to agree with some of more vitriolic commenters (GOP nominee candidate wise at least.) plus he seems to have allowed Fuzzy to establish herself as “defender of the Faith” blogwise, even when that defense is more that she doesn’t like your point of view; quite conceited and a pity too!

    Perhaps other blogs have allowed comments to get nasty yet those blogs didn’t have the statute that LI had once and could attain again. Pity!

    This comment from a certain personage, just posted on the Reader Forum, a well noted commenter on this here blog, is quite interesting: “We have more than tripled our traffic from last year and more than doubled our traffic from 2012.”

    Now, of course, some people use the term “we” in the sense of being of Royal, or ignoble, birth, others in a family sense, still others in an ownership sense.

    Still, any blog owned by Rags is not a blog I shall read anymore. Is Fuzzy is part of the Rags Cabal too!

    Ciao, y’all.