~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
I have both heard and recently read a few comments on Cruz needing more time in the Senate and seasoning. Exactly what is staying in the Senate longer going to train Cruz better to do for the office of the President? Let me first state that I am not in awe of Ted Cruz. However, I would rather have someone with little experience in politics acting for this nation based off principles in line with our founding, than have some establishment progressive parasite lecturing compromise while acting against it.
The bottom line is there is no major in college to get a degree in presidency, nor is there a trade school for the job. You are hit with all kinds of temptations and problems not found in any other position. However, life provides people with problems and temptations all of the time. Some of them may effect a person's job or their marriage. How they respond is based on the principles they value, and the type of character and courage they hold when responding.
All people face adversity. Very few jobs or decisions by any one man can and will effect an entire nation and the world beyond. The presidency is trial by fire. It is those times when the President comes under fire, that we as a nation will witness in the one we choose to lead us that there indeed is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path. We need to have someone with a solid core of principles and values far more in line with our founding fathers at the helm. The alternative is more of the same. More government programs, open borders, amnesty, debt, common core and compromise like so many seasoned politicians, both right and left, have provided us in spades. Just my two cents.
I totally agree Rath, but is there such a person in the current political scene?
That's something each person will have to decide based on their own conscience. You can judge a person by their actions i.e. their willingness to betray our nation in the name of compromise. The easy counter to what I said above is to say no candidate will be perfect therefore no matter whom you vote for will be a compromise on the lesser of the two evils available. That is indeed true. There is also a difference on whom you support versus whom you default to in the last circumstance. I assume many will take the easy road for themselves by stating something akin to "You need the most conservative candidate that can win" as if somehow granting themselves the wisdom of clairvoyance in their immediate rush to compromise. I know one thing is true: The establishment Republicans will let us know all too well who is most in line with our founding principles by attacking them so fiercely so as to insure the Democrats will never get the chance.
I know one thing is true: The establishment Republicans will let us know all too well who is most in line with our founding principles by attacking them so fiercely so as to insure the Democrats will never get the chance.
That is pretty insightful and probably true. But, given the culture(s) in our multicultural nation, and the fact that they have not homogenized but have remained distinct and even pursued their own expansion, is it realistic to assume that a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz will garner enough general election votes from the middle to defeat the democrat candidate?
Personally, I like what each of them have to say and I am comfortable that either of them will do his best to support and defend the Constitution as it is. A "centrist" like Jeb Bush gives me no comfort for his political commitment to support and defend the Constitution but a centrist has a better probability of being elected in a general election.
I find that (for me) I have to guard against the desire to return to the Constitution instantly. It has taken us about 100 years for the liberal progressives to get us where we are politically, socially and culturally. We are not going to return to 1910 in the span of a single election. Prudence tells me that right of center is good enough for now. It will take many cycles before the ship of state changes course. In the interim, each of us must be diligent in adhering to the Constitution; ensure our elected representatives hear about each infraction that we detect; and beat the the liberal progressives into submission.
I'd say those are accurate statements. I like Ted Cruz though I know realistically his odds are slim. As it stands right now the Republican party is polarized, the establishment is well intrenched, and the media is not on our side. Chances are we will end up with another a progressive democrat or a progressive republican, who will lead us further down the progressive rabbit hole. Regardless I will do my best to vote for a Conservative candidate.
I hope I'm wrong but even if I am I agree it's going to take more than one man to change the system. The political system as it is is so broken and corrupt that at this point I think it's beyond repair. I think Conservatives are realizing more and more that the key to change will not be politically but through the culture, because the culture can in turn shapes the politics. This is what the progressive have done to great affect, but it is also a very slow process. I just hope we have the time.
Hello JB and Watchman,
I make no argument, nor would I, that one man could/would fix all of our nation's problems, or that we could/would as a nation, return to our founding principles in the span of one election. From all that I have witnessed, I believe the chances are that we are set to receive another progressive leader regardless of party. I would also not argue against the fact that there is a different political dynamic existing today than existed when Reagan was elected.
We always have to pick, to whatever degree, between the lesser of two evils. I wonder, of the two you mentioned JB, if the majority of the country would consider either of those two men "more of an evil" than Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton or Elizabeth "Native-American" Warren. Considering the very political dynamic in play that you made mention of, I do not think that the country did not elect either progressive Republican, McCain or Romney, because they were too far to the political right.
No matter which Republican is ultimately nominated, whether he/she is a conservative or a RINO, the majority of the media has, and will again, say most all of the same things with regard to that candidate. Therefore, the media not being on our side should not be a deciding factor to compromise whom we support to represent and lead our nation.
As to the last, I do not believe this nation will survive another 20 years with progressive leadership to even consider discussing a 100 year political war in effort to return to sanity. I do know that all of the reasons to compromise were listed by the establishment G.O.P. for the prior two elections. I do know that the reasoning you detailed, or the candidates nominated to run in the general election as a result, were rejected by both the base of the Republican party, and the country as a whole. In that, we do have proof of past performance. I do know which word is defined by doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
Is it beyond your comprehension that a woman could be a fearless leader? You keep saying "man" like there is no alternative. Believe as you will, but Gov. Palin has a much better track record and long list of accomplishments of anyone else even considering to run. Nothing personal, but men have been leading this country for over 2 centuries and we're not doing too hot. I wonder if some are so against a woman running that they will stay home and pout because their candidate did not win. We have to put aside our backward thinking and move forward. Because as they say, if we keep doing what we're doing, we'll keep getting what we're getting.
"Is it beyond your comprehension that a woman could be a fearless leader? You keep saying "man" like there is no alternative."
Since you asked me so nicely, I will respond with the following quote from what I stated above with some emphasis added so that maybe you will see it this time: "No matter which Republican is ultimately nominated, whether he/she is a conservative or a RINO, the majority of the media has, and will again, say most all of the same things with regard to that candidate."
It would appear it is not beyond my comprehension.
That's why I'm voting for Rand Paul or the Libertarian candidate.
I would love for Cruz followers to list his accomplishments and I am not talking about a law degree. Volunteer work, offices held besides Senate (none that I know of), What are his goals for the US and what is his plan to get it done?
Go listen to Gov. Sarah Palin who spoke at the Iowa Summit today. She's bold, she's vetted, she served on a city council, was a city mayor, served as an oil and gas commissioner, served as a Governor and then ran for Vice President. She has been more vetted than any politician in history (they haven't even started on Cruz). Her list of accomplishments is wealthy. She is pro American energy, against illegal immigration, pro military to guard our own country, she wants to work on money saving projects that are unbelievably common sense like the Dept. of Energy be in the area of the country where most of our energy is produced. Get rid of many of these useless offices in govt. She volunteers constantly and her family is involved as well. She's my pick.
I like Ted Cruz very much, Rahth, and think he'd make a good president. But, darn it, for those of us who go by the founding fathers' intent in writing the Constitution re: natural born citizen, I couldn't vote for him.
Hello Kristy and Dotdot,
The fact that I refuse to litigate the definition of natural born citizen does not suggest I agree. I have been led down that road before. Thomas Jefferson himself argued in court in such a manner to demonstrate a lack of defining the term in the same manner as did De Vattel. Be that as it may, I can tell you two things:
1 - The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
2 - I would vote for Bibi Netanyahu before I would vote for Jeb Bush or Elizabeth Warren.
Say what you will. As I stated prior, we all have to vote our conscience.
Bibi would have my vote over all the Progressive stooges the "Republicans" are running!