Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2014, 07:56:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83137 Posts in 2259 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Sen.Ted Cruz
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Sen.Ted Cruz  (Read 5088 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« on: April 21, 2013, 07:39:45 AM »

from Wikipedia:

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator for the state of Texas, in office since 2013. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Cruz was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[2] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and had the longest tenure in Texas history. He was formerly a partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice.[3]

He previously served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. In addition, Cruz was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation, from 2004 to 2009.

Cruz was the Republican nominee for the Senate seat which was vacated by fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.[4] On July 31, 2012, he defeated Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the Republican primary runoff, 57%–to-43%.[5] Cruz defeated the Democrat, former state Representative Paul Sadler, in the general election held on November 6, 2012; he prevailed with 56%-to–41% over Sadler.[5] Cruz is endorsed by the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Liberty Caucus.[6]

On November 14, 2012, Cruz was appointed vice-chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.[7]

Contents [hide]
1 Early life and education
2 Legal career
3 U.S. Senate
3.1 2012 election
3.2 Committee assignments
4 Personal life
5 Electoral history
5.1 2012 Republican primary
5.2 2012 Republican primary runoff
5.3 2012 General Election
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
 

[edit] Early life and educationCruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where his parents, Eleanor Darragh and Rafael Cruz, were working in the oil business.[8][9] His father was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution.[10] His mother was born and reared in Delaware, in a family of Irish and Italian descent.[9][11] Cruz's family returned to the U.S. when he was four years old.[10]

Cruz attended high school at Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas,[12] and then graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston.

Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1992.[13] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[14] In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton).[15] Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.[16]

Cruz's senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled "Clipping the Wings of Angels," draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to James Madison: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: "They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers." [17][18]

Cruz then attended the Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995.[19][20] While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[13] As a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.”[21]

[edit] Legal careerCruz served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, and J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[22][2] Cruz was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States.[23]

Cruz served as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission under President George W. Bush.[21]

In 2003, Cruz was appointed Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.[2]

Cruz has authored more than 80 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court.[2][21][24] In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[24][25] Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[24][26] Cruz did legal work during the Florida recount during the Presidential campaign of Bush/Cheney 2000.[27]

In addition to his victory in Heller, Cruz has successfully defended the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds,[21][24] the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools[21] and the majority of the 2003 Texas redistricting plan.[28]

Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt by the International Court of Justice to re-open the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the United States.[2][21][24]

Cruz has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America,[29][30] by The National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America,[31][32] and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.[33][34]

[edit] U.S. Senate[edit] 2012 electionMain article: United States Senate election in Texas, 2012
 
Cruz speaking to the Values Voters Summit in October 2011.Cruz's election has been described by the Washington Post as “the biggest upset of 2012 . . . a true grassroots victory against very long odds.”[35] On January 19, 2011, following an announcement that U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison would not seek reelection, Cruz announced via blogger conference call his candidacy for the position.[4] Cruz faced opposition from sitting Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the Republican senatorial primary. Cruz was endorsed by the Club for Growth, a fiscally conservative political action committee;[36] Erick Erickson, editor of prominent conservative blog RedState;[37] the FreedomWorks for America super PAC;[38] nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin;[39] former Attorney General Edwin Meese;[40] Tea Party Express;[41] Young Conservatives of Texas;[42] and U.S. Senators Tom Coburn,[43] Jim DeMint,[44] Mike Lee,[45] Rand Paul,[46] and Pat Toomey.[47] He was also endorsed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Texas Congressman Ron Paul,[48] George P. Bush[27] and former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.[49]

Cruz won the runoff for the Republican nomination with a 14-point margin over Dewhurst.[50] In the November 6 general election, Cruz faced the Democratic nominee Paul Sadler, an attorney and a former state representative from Henderson in east Texas. In the general election, Cruz prevailed with 4,469,843 ballots (56.4%) to Sadler's 3,194,927 (40.6%). Two minor candidates held the remaining 3% of the ballots cast.[5] Cruz won 35% of the Hispanic vote in the general election.[51]

[edit] Committee assignmentsCommittee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Subcommittee on Seapower
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
Subcommittee on Science and Space (Ranking Member)
Committee on Rules and Administration
Special Committee on Aging
[edit] Personal lifeCruz was born and spent the first four years of his life in Calgary before his parents returned to Houston. His father was jailed and tortured by the Fulgencio Batista regime and fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[52] but "didn't know Castro was a Communist" and later became a staunch critic of Castro when "the rebel leader took control and began seizing private property and suppressing dissent."[53] Rafael Cruz moved to Austin in 1957 to study at the University of Texas. He spoke no English and had $100 sewn into his underwear.[24][54] The elder Cruz worked his way through school as a dishwasher making 50 cents an hour.[21] Cruz's father today is a pastor in North Dallas and became a U.S. citizen in 2005.[17] Cruz’s mother, who was from Delaware, was the first person in her family to attend college. She earned a degree in mathematics from Rice University in Houston in the 1950s, working summers at Foley’s and Shell.[17] Cruz has said, "I'm Cuban, Irish, and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist."[55]

Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz, have two daughters, Caroline Camille and Catherine Christiane. Cruz met his wife while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Cruz's wife is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker.[56]

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2013, 11:09:41 AM »

Responding to the charge that he is ignoring the Heller decision:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNUhWoIdFb4
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 11:12:03 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2013, 06:19:20 PM »

Well, that's  rather decisive retort  cheesy
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2013, 06:25:30 AM »

Responding to the charge that he is ignoring the Heller decision:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNUhWoIdFb4

I think I am beginning to like Cruz. I made the same argument he did in this video in a gun rights debate about 2 months ago. I would say that "great minds think alike" but I think he is smarter than I am, so I might offend him by bringing him down to my level. Suffice it to say I'll be watching his senatorial career (and beyond?) with great interest.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2013, 12:15:47 PM »

One of the articles suggested that Cruz ran for Senate to raise his visibility to then run for the position he really wanted, [Texas] Attorney General.  The thinking then was that he had no chance running in the primary against the sitting Lt. Governor.  In a very short time he has earned that level of visibility at the national level.

I am glad to hear of BD arriving at the same logic on Heller and the gun debate.  

It looks to me like Cruz' clear and concise logic prevailed in Bush v. Gore, 2000:

In his brief, Cruz wrote:

"The Constitution grants state legislatures, not state courts, the power to pick presidential electors."  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001201_cruz.html

After the noise settled, that was the argument the Chief Justice used in the decision.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 12:20:11 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2013, 09:48:41 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/president-cruz-poses-constitutional-conundrum/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2013, 09:19:16 AM »

Freshman Senator Ted Cruz wants to shake up Washington, which is certainly needed. But if we can offer the Texan one piece of friendly advice: Try to avoid getting a reputation for rewriting history, especially recent history that everyone remembers.

That thought comes to mind after we heard about Mr. Cruz's speech last weekend to FreedomWorks, the tea party-affiliated activist group. While making the case for his filibuster strategy on the Senate gun-control bill, Mr. Cruz suddenly took our name in vain.

"All of the reporters said, 'Okay, you guys have lost, and that shows what imbeciles you are.' In fact the WSJ wrote two op-eds bashing Rand [Paul] and Mike [Lee] and me for being imbeciles for fighting on this. Didn't we understand?" Mr. Cruz told the crowd.
Related Video

Potomac Watch columnist Kim Strassel on the split in the Republican party over strategy. Photo: Getty Images

"And yet you go forward to a week ago when the votes came on the floor of the Senate. Every single proposal in President Obama's gun-control agenda that would have undermined the Second Amendment, every single one was voted down on the floor of the Senate. I got to tell you—the look of shock from the senior Democrats. They were convinced they had won."

This account is wrong about his strategy, our commentary, and what happened. We also didn't call him an "imbecile," or any other name. The strategy of Mr. Cruz and his comrades was to use the filibuster to block any gun control measure from even getting votes on the floor. We criticized that as misguided, since it would let Senate Democrats avoid difficult votes and open Republicans to Mr. Obama's criticism that they were obstructionists for blocking a Senate debate and votes.

In the event, Mr. Cruz's GOP colleagues agreed with us. They helped to override his filibuster attempt and let the bill proceed to the floor. Whereupon a bipartisan coalition emerged that defeated the gun-control amendments, as each one failed to get 60 votes or in some cases (the assault-weapons ban) even 50.

Mr. Cruz now wants to take credit for that victory when he opposed the strategy that led to it. Had he and Mr. Paul had their way, no such bipartisan coalition would have emerged. Mr. Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid would be blaming the GOP for their defeat, and moderate Republicans in the Northeast would be under more political pressure. Now gun-rights Democrats are feeling the political heat from the White House and the gun-control PACs.

Normally we'd ignore this insider politics, but Senators Cruz and Paul have been declaring for all to hear that they and a few others are the only conservatives of principle in politics. That's not the way it turned out on gun control because the dispute wasn't about principle. The debate was about how to fight for principle in an intelligent way that had the best chance of winning.

Mr. Cruz will have more success in the Senate, and in his mooted Presidential candidacy, if he stops pretending that he's Nathan Hale and everyone else is Benedict Arnold.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2013, 06:54:47 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS0BM6TKgZA&feature=player_embedded
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2013, 11:27:28 PM »

http://www.tpnn.com/ted-cruzs-blasts-obama-compares-to-fidel-castro/
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2013, 06:38:47 AM »

In 2012, Ted Cruz was elected as the 34th U.S. Senator from Texas. Prior to that, he served for five years as Solicitor General of Texas and was for five years a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms. He has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also served as Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission and as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Cruz graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School, and served as a law clerk to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College’s 161st Commencement, held in the College’s Biermann Athletic Center on May 11, 2013.
Today is a day of celebration. For you graduates, it’s a day to celebrate your hard work, your commitment, time, energy, passion, and prayers that you have put in to graduate from Hillsdale College. It’s also a day to celebrate the sacrifice and dedication your family has put in to get you here. I am honored to join you today—but let me say I fully recognize that the most forgettable part of this important day is going to be the politician delivering your commencement speech.

This morning I had the opportunity to tour your wonderful campus, and one of the highlights for me was the statue of Margaret Thatcher. I understand that when the statue was unveiled, she sent a letter of praise that read: “Hillsdale College symbolizes everything that is good and true in America. You uphold the principles and cherish the values which have made your country a beacon of hope.” I couldn’t agree more.

There are commencements being held on campuses all over the country this spring, but this one is different. Hillsdale, it is known across the country, is in a class by itself. Those graduating from other colleges are being told to go out and make something of themselves. But for the men and women receiving their degrees here today, expectations are higher. Because of the education you received here, you are uniquely prepared to provide desperately needed, principled leadership to your families, your churches, your communities, your country, and your fellow man. While other graduates have been exposed to college courses such as “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame,” you have been grounded in an understanding of our Constitution and of the freedom it was designed to preserve.

* * *

Last month the world lost Baroness Thatcher, and in her honor I’d like to spend a few minutes discussing with you the miracle of freedom.

In the history of mankind, freedom has been the exception. Governed by kings and queens, human beings were told that power starts at the top and flows down; that their rights emanate from a monarch and may be taken away at the monarch’s whim. The British began a revolution against this way of thinking in a meadow called Runnymede in 1215. It was embodied in the Magna Carta, which read: “To all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs . . . .” That revolution reached full flower in Philadelphia in 1787, in a Constitution that began from two radical premises.

The first is that our rights come not from kings or queens—or even from presidents—but from God. As the Declaration of Independence put it, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Second, in the Constitution, America’s Founders inverted the understanding of sovereignty. Power comes not from the top down, but up, from “We the People,” and governing authority for those in political office is limited to set periods subject to elections. As James Madison explained in Federalist 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary . . . .  In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Even from my short time in elected office, I can assure you there are no angels in Washington, D.C. And that is why Thomas Jefferson said the “chains of the Constitution” should bind the mischief of government. Only when government is limited are rights protected, the rule of law honored, and freedom allowed to flourish.

You who are graduating from Hillsdale are familiar with these ideas. As the late conservative writer and educator Russell Kirk observed, “Hillsdale does not subscribe to the notion that all books published before 1900 are obsolete. Against all odds, the College speaks up—as it did during the nineteenth century—for ‘permanent things.’ ” And with those as our foundation, what has freedom wrought?

* * *

Simply put, the American free market system is the greatest engine for prosperity and opportunity that the world has ever seen. Freedom works. No other nation on Earth has allowed so many millions to come with nothing and achieve so much. In the centuries before the American Revolution, the average human lived on between one and three dollars a day, no matter whether one lived in Europe, Asia, Africa, or North or South America. But from that point on—from the beginning of the American experiment—for the first time in human history, per capita income in a few countries began to grow rapidly, and nowhere more so than in the United States.

Over the last two centuries, U.S. growth rates have far outpaced growth rates throughout the world, producing per capita incomes about six times greater than the world average and 50 percent higher than those in Europe. Put another way, the United States holds 4.5 percent of the world’s population, and produces a staggering 22 percent of the world’s output—a fraction that has remained stable for two decades, despite growing competition from around the world.

This predominance isn’t new. The late British economist Angus Maddison observed that American per capita income was already the highest in the world in the 1830s. This is a result of America’s economic freedom, which enables entrepreneurs and small businesses to flourish.

Today the U.S. dollar is the international reserve currency. English is the world’s standard language for commerce. The strength of our economy allows us to maintain the mightiest military in the world. And U.S. culture—film, TV, the Internet—is preeminent in the world (although for many of our TV shows and movies, perhaps we owe the world an apology). A disproportionate number of the world’s great inventions in medicine, pharmaceuticals, electronics, the Internet, and other technology come from America, improving, expanding, and saving lives. America was where the telephone, the automobile, the airplane, and the iPhone were invented. Americans were the first to walk on the moon.

But most importantly, freedom produces opportunity. And I would encourage each of you to embrace what I call opportunity conservatism, which means that we should look at and judge every proposed domestic policy with a laser focus on how it impacts the least among us—how it helps the most vulnerable Americans climb the economic ladder.

The political left in our country seeks to reach down the hand of government and move people up the economic ladder. This attempt is almost always driven by noble intentions. And yet it never, ever works. Conservatives, in contrast, understand from experience that the only way to help people climb the economic ladder is to provide them the opportunity to pull themselves up one rung at a time.

As President Reagan said, “How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

Historically, our nation has enjoyed remarkable economic mobility. About 60 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile ten years later. During the same decade, almost 40 percent of the richest households fell to a lower quintile. This is a nation where you can rise or fall. It is a nation where you can climb the economic ladder based not on who you are born to, or what class you are born into, but based on your talents, your passion, your perseverance, and the content of your character.

Economic freedom and the prosperity it generates reduce poverty like nothing else. Studies consistently confirm that countries with higher levels of economic freedom have poverty levels as much as 75 percent lower than countries that are less free.

Thanks to America’s free market system, the average poor American has more living space than the typical non‑poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom. In 1970, the year I was born, only 36 percent of the U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Today, 80 percent of poor households in America have air conditioning; and 96 percent of poor parents say that their children were never hungry at any time in the preceding year because they could not afford food.

Now, of course, there is still need in America and throughout the world, and all of us should act to help our fellow man. But more and more government is not the way to do this. To insist otherwise is to ignore the fact that all major European nations have higher levels of public spending than the United States, and that all of them are poorer.

Nor are human beings happiest when they’re taken care of by the state. Indeed, areas under the yoke of dependency on government are among the least joyous parts of our society. The story of Julia that we saw depicted in last year’s election—the story of cradle-to-grave dependency on government—is not an attractive utopia. Men and women flourish, instead, when afforded the equal opportunity to work and create and accomplish.

I remember some time ago when former Texas Senator Phil Gramm was participating in a Senate hearing on socialized medicine, and the witness there explained that government would best take care of people. Senator Gramm gently demurred and said, “I care more about my family than anyone else does.” And this wide-eyed witness said, “Oh no, Senator. I care as much about your children.” Senator Gramm smiled and said, “Really? What are their names?”

* * *

It is precisely because economic freedom and opportunity outperform centralized planning and regulation that so many millions have risked everything for a chance at the American dream.

Fifty-five years ago, my father fled Cuba, where he had been imprisoned and tortured—including having his teeth kicked out—as a teenager. Today my father is a pastor in Dallas. When he landed in Austin, Texas, in 1957, he was 18. He couldn’t speak a word of English. He had $100 sewn into his underwear. He went and got a job washing dishes and made 50 cents an hour. He worked seven days a week and paid his way through the University of Texas, and then he got a job, and then he went on to start a small business.

Now imagine if, at that time, the minimum wage had been two dollars an hour. He might never have had the opportunity to get that dishwashing job and work his way through school and work his way up from there. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve thanked God that some well-meaning liberal didn’t greet him when he landed in Austin and put his arm around him and say: “Let me take care of you. Let me make you dependent on government. Let me sap your self-respect—and by the way, don’t bother learning English.”

When I was a kid, my father used to say to me: “When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?” For my entire life, my dad has been my hero. But what I find most incredible about his story is how commonplace it is. Every one of us here today has a story like that. We could line up at this podium and each of us tell the story of our parents or grandparents or our great, great, great grandparents. We are all children of those who risked everything for liberty. That’s the DNA of what it means to be an American—to value freedom and opportunity above all.

In 1976, Margaret Thatcher delivered her “Britain Awake” speech. In it, she said: “There are moments in our history when we have to make a fundamental choice. This is one such moment, a moment when our choice will determine the life or death of our kind of society and the future of our children. Let’s ensure that our children will have cause to rejoice that we did not forsake their freedom.”

If we don’t fight to preserve our liberty, we will lose it. The men and women graduating here today, blessed with a world-class liberal arts education and a Hillsdale love of learning, are perfectly situated to lead the fight, to tell and retell the story of the miracle of freedom to so many Americans—so many young Americans in particular—who’ve never heard that story from the media, or in their schools, and certainly not from Hollywood.

Mrs. Thatcher continued: “Of course, this places a burden on us, but it is one that we must be willing to bear if we want our freedom to survive.”

Throughout history, we have carried the torch for freedom. At Hillsdale, you have been prepared to continue to do so, that together we may ensure that America remains a shining city on a hill, a beacon to the world of hope and freedom and opportunity.

Thank you and God bless you.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2013, 10:59:08 AM »

Wow! to both of those posts!  There are amazingly few people who can articulate the value of freedom.

Video of the speech: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/26/sen_ted_cruz_delivers_the_commencement_address_at_hillsdale_college.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2013, 09:29:26 AM »

Houston Chronicle reports he will headline a fundraiser for the New Hampshire GOP.
(This is not how one hides Presidential ambitions!)
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Sen-Ted-Cruz-of-Texas-heading-to-New-Hampshire-4664315.php?cmpid=hpts
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2013, 10:12:57 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/28/sen-ted-cruz-triumphs-in-2016-presidential-straw-p/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2013, 03:51:14 PM »

http://www.tpnn.com/video-ted-cruz-crushes-obamacare-in-two-sentences-flat/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2013, 08:48:17 AM »

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-born-in-canada-ted-cruz-became-a-citizen-of-that-country-as-well-as-u.s..ece

Egads!  Born in Calgary 1970.  How can we argue this is ok after just arguing that Obama birthplace was an issue?   Both have (had) mother's who were American citizens.

At least he shows us his birth certificate unlike his highness.

I guess this means he is running in 2016.  It remains to be seen if he can win over enough voters to his strict conservative views.  Lets hope so.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2013, 10:18:43 AM »

"How can we argue this is ok after just arguing that Obama birthplace was an issue?   Both have (had) mother's who were American citizens."

Yes, hypocrisy again rears its ugly head.  Maybe a court needs to rule, but natural born citizen in my view would include both people for the reasons you state.  You don't lose citizenship for you or your offspring by traveling while pregnant.

'Natural born' is a term in contrast with legalized immigrant.  Ted Cruz never had to apply for citizenship - he was born with it.  Same goes for Barack Obama; he was just confusing his detractors by presenting phony documents, applying for multiple social security numbers etc.
-----------
The issue in citizenship is the opposite.  A tourist's or trespasser's baby does not gain citizenship by birth location alone, IMO.  The baby is a member of the family first.  If the family is Mexican or Japanese, Canadian, or from anywhere else, so is the baby.  If that is not clear enough in the constitution, then an amendment is needed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2013, 01:49:23 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r-cRiyEoKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDbE8m6vbgs vs. Fleabagger Sen. Schumer:  Rather longwinded, but it gives a sense of his composure when dealing with scum like Schumer.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 02:12:47 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2013, 02:33:22 PM »



http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/03/senator-ted-cruz-weighs-in-on-u-s-military-action-in-syria/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-09-03_253565&utm_content=5054942&utm_term=_253565_253574
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2013, 07:57:15 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/27/Poll-Cruz-2016-Frontrunner-New-GOP-Leader
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2013, 08:14:26 AM »


Yes.  It is early and 20% support of Republicans is nothing to celebrate, but we did try spineless the last two times and it failed.  Cruz is now the lightning rod for both establishment Republican and firebrand liberal attacks.  He seems to be handling it well, just going about his job of opposing everyday with all his might the liberal train wreck.

The question for 2016 will be, who rallies the base AND draws new people in.  Cruz for sure is a top contender.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2013, 08:30:42 AM »

It sure beats the "managing decline" as put by Hannity that we have seen with Bush and company and others like Christie.  

My description of it is an army that is in retreat having their rear guard fight a timid defensive action while running backwards.

Rep. King from NY is off my list.  

Christie never was on it.  The vast majority of the people who I speak to would leave NJ in seconds if they were able to.

He has done nothing to turn it around.   Yes he stood up to teachers unions.  That was helpful and a start.   So he used his big yap to bully Congress into handing over 50 plus billion to NJ NY to divvy up.  Does anyone know where the money is going?

Now they want more money for a fire is Seaside?   The "official" explanation for the fire is some wiring between or under a building was damaged by the hurricane.  Maybe.   But I don't take this official finding at face value.

There is a lot of money at stake.   Why should I believe officials in NJ?   I suppose if was arson there would be no money.  

But I digress.   No question.   Cruz is a hero to me.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 08:56:04 AM by ccp » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2013, 08:34:22 AM »

If cans can get their message straight I believe Cruz could be our ONE.  Are you listening and taking notes Rove?

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-25.html#read_more
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2013, 08:46:46 AM »

He is certainly someone upon whom I have my eye too!

That said, here are some questions I have:

a) an extremely scholarly life in the law-- what life experiences inform him when the going gets tough?  How much has he mixed with the plethora of sub-cultures that make up America?

b) no executive experience whatsoever, indeed no private sector experience of which I am aware.  Nor is there military experience.

c) Getting elected Senator from Texas is no small thing, especially an upset such as he engineered, but I worry about his communication modality skills.  Per Jung and his offshoot of Briggs Meyers, there are four: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition and for each person one of these is dominant.  Cruz is definitely a thinker.  Unfortunately, thinking is the dominant modality for only about 10% of the population.  IIRC feeling is the dominant modality of about 50% of the population.  Does he have the ability to communicate effectively with women enthused over the idea of Hillary breaking the glass ceiling?  Not that I can see , , , yet.  OTOH maybe his superior reasoning skills are EXACTLY what we need to pop the bubbles of nonsequitors (sp?) that litter our political landscape.  Connected with this, my impression is that temperamentally he seems to have excellent ability to stay centered in the presence of infuriating idiots (e.g. as I saw him do in a joint appearance with Chuck Schumer)  This is very important too!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2013, 09:03:40 AM »

Excellent and all very valid and to the point questions Crafty.

I really do think Hillary's appeal to women must be dealt with.   We don't have any Republican women on the national level other than Sarah Palin.

One question,

What is " IIRC ".

I liked the post that quotes Alan Dershowitz (clearly a genius even if a liberal) as Cruz being "off the charts".

But your right.  Just being smart does not mean he can win.  But it certainly makes him a new and inspiring leader greatly needed in the Republican party.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2013, 09:04:58 AM »

IIRC=If I Remember Correctly  smiley
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2013, 09:12:17 AM »

TYVM  (thank you very much)  grin
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2013, 09:43:48 AM »

Yes, all true.  We need leaders like Ted Cruz whether he rises to the level of nominee for President and President or not.  It is on the thinking/feeling side that I saw Marco Rubio's early ability to connect with voters.  On the weaknesses side, Rubio has all the same as Cruz and more.  When 2015-2016 rolls around, there isn't going to be a perfect choice.  I prefer a two term Governor, but not over getting other things right.

In the case of Cruz (and others), he has all the executive experience for the Presidency that Obama had, none.  In Obama's case, I don't think it was his lack of executive experience that sunk him.  It was his failed ideology.  If his foreign policy vision of appeasing enemies and apologizing for American overbearance was the right prescription for peace, he executed it just fine.  But he was wrong.  If his economic vision was right, America would be prospering and his approvals soaring.  But he was wrong. 

Cruz holds up to debates, questioning, and even the Palin-like ridicule and attacks coming at him because he is Reagan-like in his comfort with his own principles and his ability to articulate them.  He is very, very good but not necessarily Reagan-like in his presence on a camera or a podium.

To me, this is about getting the policies right.  But you have to connect with people and win elections to have a say in governing.  As frontrunner for the moment, he will be seen and have his opportunity.  We will see.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 09:46:47 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2013, 10:05:47 AM »

Cruz needs a non shyster Clinton team to enhance his appeal.   An army of believers.   But honest brokers.  Not shysters.

Hillary is a complete manufactured entity.   No inherent substance.  All canned.  All scripted.  All MSM image making.  She is a media celebrity.  She doesn't write the play.  She just memorizes her lines and spits them out.



Just liberal dogma which is today's version of fascism.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2013, 04:16:35 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/01/chris-matthews-says-obama-has-finally-met-his-match-and-you-wont-believe-who-he-cited/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2013, 05:09:19 AM »




http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/09/glenn-beck-reveals-a-story-he-hasnt-been-able-to-share-for-over-a-year/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2013, 04:52:42 PM »



http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/10/11/watch-ted-cruz-battles-van-jones-on-cnn/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-10-11_265754&utm_content=5054942&utm_term=_265754_265761
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2013, 11:29:49 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/12/cruz-crushes-field-presidential-straw-poll-values-/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2013, 05:13:54 PM »


It turns out that having both a brain and a backbone is a pretty rare combination in politics.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2013, 06:51:49 PM »


Leadership is the rarest commodity these days...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2013, 07:06:31 PM »


Cruz: RINOS in Senate deserve the blame:

80 seconds
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-when-half-of-senate-republicans-are-firing-canons-at-house-republicans-it-sabotages-the-house-effort/

18 minutes
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-when-half-of-senate-republicans-are-firing-canons-at-house-republicans-it-sabotages-the-house-effort/


Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2013, 06:07:16 AM »

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/after-cruz-strategy-failed-will-his-clout-fade/

From the article:

Cruz is the Senate heir apparent to former senator and current Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, a man who once famously said of a moderate colleague who later was forced out of the party: “I’d rather have 40 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters, and the reason for that is if you want 60 Republicans, you’ve got to have at least 40 to start with who stand on principle.”

Cruz has starred in ads for DeMint’s former PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund, which is actively campaigning against incumbent Republicans, and so these past two weeks have only expedited the process of his falling out of favor with many colleagues.

The question is whether the Republicans who pushed this deal to reopen a government shuttered for more than two weeks have the strength to resist Cruz if he pushes a similar strategy again
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2013, 07:42:23 AM »



To take on the powerful forces that Cruz has, a man must have mind, heart, and balls to an unusual degree.   I caught a bit of his speech on the Senate floor yesterday.  I admit that internally I have vacillated over the wisdom of his strategy, but the man remains unbowed and on the attack.  This moment is a helluva a gut check for him and as best as I can tell, so far he is passing with flying colors.


I was watching Crossfire last night (with Newt and Van Jones, this promises to become regular viewing for me btw) and Newt weighed in very articulately with how this deal is not a Dem victory but a failure-- a failure to address that which must be addressed.  The political dynamics where we will be when get to the can in the road once again are unknown for now, but it may be that Cruz will be in a much more powerful position than most can imagine in this moment.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2013, 10:18:36 AM »

second post:

Does Ted Cruz support ObamaCare? You might laugh at that question, but on Wednesday the freshman Texas Republican refused to delay the Senate deal to reopen the government and raise the debt limit even though it contained barely a token concession on the Affordable Care Act.

"Delaying this vote would not accomplish anything," Mr. Cruz explained. "The focus is and should be on the substance of providing real relief for the American people. This deal doesn't do that and that's why I intend to vote no, but there is nothing to be benefited by delaying this vote a couple of days, versus having it today."

That's true, but wait. For weeks Mr. Cruz scolded his fellow Republicans as the "surrender caucus" and closet supporters of ObamaCare because they wouldn't support his strategy to tie a vote to fund the government to defunding ObamaCare. His GOP colleagues thought the Cruz strategy was futile, and politically dumb, as it proved to be. Yet now even Mr. Cruz is admitting that there are limits to what Republicans can achieve when they control only one house of Congress. Maybe he's learning, or maybe his earlier accusations were, well, less than sincere.

Speaking of admissions, one of the ringleaders of the shutdown caucus conceded Wednesday that he always knew ObamaCare couldn't be defunded this year. "Well, everybody understands that we're not going to be able to repeal this law until 2017 and that we have to win the Senate and win the White House," Michael Needham of the Heritage Action political operation told Fox News.

That's also true, but wait. If the defund cause was always futile as some of us argued, why spend weeks pursuing a strategy he knew would fail? And why run ads declaring the opposite, as Heritage Action did, in Congressional districts held by Republicans who actually oppose ObamaCare? Mr. Needham and his allies claim to be tribunes of the people, but they're the ones who treated the public like rubes by misleading it about what was politically possible.

Messrs. Cruz and Needham are fortunate after all of their false advertising that the deal Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell negotiated with his back to the wall wasn't worse. Mr. McConnell managed to save the budget caps on discretionary spending, which the defund caucus dismissed as inconsequential. This gives Republicans at least some leverage in the budget negotiations before the next spending and debt-limit deadlines.

Meanwhile, the most damage to ObamaCare this month has been inflicted by the law's supporters, with their rollout of the law's insurance exchanges. (See editorial above.) If not for the shutdown diversion, more of the American people might even have noticed the debacle.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4169


« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2013, 10:31:17 AM »

"Meanwhile, the most damage to ObamaCare this month has been inflicted by the law's supporters, with their rollout of the law's insurance exchanges. (See editorial above.) If not for the shutdown diversion, more of the American people might even have noticed the debacle."

The roll out failures mean nothing.  Temporary.   It will be fixed.   The problem is half the country will be forced to pay more to cover the other half.   That won't go away.

The big corporations are expanding and increasing their market power because they are the ones who have the financial and consulting recourses to figure out how to navigate the gigantic maze of regulations.

That's it.

It is all driven by data and assembly line tinkering from birth to grave.  No stopping it.   Whether it is better for us I am not sure.   But many of us will suffer with higher rates, less options, more regulation, and more being dictated to.   Managed care of the 80's and 90's was a small taste of what we will see. 

This could be on the Health care politics thread I guess.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2013, 12:26:23 PM »

"...now even Mr. Cruz is admitting that there are limits to what Republicans can achieve when they control only one house of Congress. Maybe he's learning, or maybe his earlier accusations were, well, less than sincere.

It failed not because Ted Cruz did not lead but because Dems knew that Republicans would not follow.  Among so many others, the WSJ did not back him up or call out his opponents on their falsehoods.

"...we're not going to be able to repeal this law until 2017 and that we have to win the Senate and win the White House"

How does Obamacare repeal in 2017 without 60 votes in the Senate.  Republicans will not have a trunk full of uncounted conservative ballots to bring in without scrutiny to duplicate the way Democrats won their 60th vote.

The this-will-be-easier-to stop-later argument fails every time it is tried.  How about an Article One argument - government funding begins in the House.  Last November, Obamacare lost in the House.  But send those elected officials to Washington and big government is on again.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2013, 04:35:12 PM »

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/10/18/ted-cruz-stands-up-to-detractors-i-didn%E2%80%99t-come-to-d-c-to-make-friends/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2013, 12:38:31 PM »

Defund now!

http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/post/2352/video-ted-cruz-on-the-kelly-file?c=747585b24fc8b6d3edc2d876bb2dcad3
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2013, 09:57:35 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/15/ted-cruz-targeted-politifact-over-gun-crime-facts-/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2013, 04:38:41 PM »

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/11/cruz-demands-benghazi-investigation/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2013, 12:46:27 AM »

Iran deal "historic mistake"

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=348123
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2013, 06:11:11 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/11/its-clear-to-me-hes-running-for-president-conservatives-will-be-elated-to-hear-who-this-is-about/#
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2013, 08:45:22 PM »

" I think it was absolutely a mistake for President Obama and Harry Reid to force a government shutdown."

Ted Cruz was profiled this week on ABC's 'This Week' for 2nd place man of the Year...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1lGaTgTk94

JON KARL: But the year also ended with Ted Cruz as the most high- profile Tea Party consecutive in congress. Again at Tortilla Coast, Cruz reflected on all of that.

When you think about the tradition of first-year senators, they tend to be seen but not heard, you have had, you said, a whirlwind for a first year as a U.S. senator, does that surprise you? I mean, you're on TIME magazine's list as the runner-up to the pope for person of the year.

SEN. TED CRUZ: That was a very strange thing.

This is a city where it's all politics all the time. And I'm trying to do my best not to pay attention to the politics, to focus on fixing the problems.

KARL: Really?

CRUZ: I know that's hard to believe, but because no one in this town does that. This is a time for people to step up and do the right thing and that's what I'm trying to do.

KARL: You have had a couple of months to think about this whole government shutdown strategy. Now that it's over in hindsight, are you prepared to say that it was a mistake, it wasn't the right tactic?

CRUZ: I think it was absolutely a mistake for President Obama and Harry Reid to force a government shutdown.

KARL: Now you know even John Boehner has said this was a Republican shutdown.

CRUZ: Look, I can't help what other people say.

And Jon, I understand that in the media, every day the media reported the Republicans shut the government down...

KARL: No, I mean, but come on. I mean we're a couple months away from this, the only reason why this happened is because you insisted, Republicans insisted that Obamacare be defunded as a condition of funding the government. If you didn't -- if you took away that insistence, there would be no shutdown. I mean, really.

CRUZ: You've got conservatives who stood strong and said let's stop the train wreck that is Obamacare, and you've got Democrats in the middle of the shutdown, President Obama called every Senate Republican to the White House, sat us in a room and said I called you to tell you, we're not going to negotiate, we're not going to compromise on anything.

Repeatedly Republicans were compromising, trying to find a middle ground. And repeatedly Democrats said, no compromise, shut it down.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 08:58:00 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2013, 02:16:36 AM »

Logically, he is right.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6039


« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2013, 10:32:28 AM »

Logically, he is right.

Right on so many levels, not just that it was Dems that shut down the government.

This legislation is bad for the country. He said so.  People now know he was right.

Congress is a co-equal branch with so-called power of the purse.  There should be nothing wrong with exercising that responsibility.

The  effort to stop Obamacare clarified that this is 100% a Democrat program, right before the trainwreck.  All Democratic Senators, including those facing reelection challenges across the heartland, were forced to double down on the program and put it ahead of every other government priority.

The size, scope and cost of government is the lower of what the House, Senate and President believe it should be - unless the smaller government body succumbs to bullying by the others.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31556


« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2013, 10:40:48 AM »

Right now, "everyone knows" that Cruz's play was a "big error", but down the road it is not impossible that things will turn around to "He was right all along and was willing to stand alone saying so.  This is presidential level character."

I'm not predicting this, just saying that this is possible to imagine.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!