Allahpundit:
I predicted in July that a Cruz cave was inevitable and that he’d do it in a press release in October. In reality he did it in a Facebook post on September 23rd. My bad.
Literally nothing in this statement with the small exception of Trump’s new position on ICANN couldn’t have been said onstage at the convention in Cleveland. But Cruz made two calculations at the time: One was that the backlash to him if he withheld his endorsement wouldn’t be severe, the other was that Trump would be clobbered by Clinton this fall. If both of those bets came through, he’d be rewarded as the man who saw a debacle coming and stood on principle. But he was wrong on both counts, just like he was grossly wrong in betting earlier this year that there enough true conservatives in the Republican base to hand him a victory over Trump in the primaries. Everyone, from his donors to the party establishment to the tea party he champions, chose Trump over him when they were made to choose. He could either risk his career by continuing to hold out or he could go along with them now, knowing that if he went on resisting and Trump lost a close election in November, his refusal to endorse would be cited by angry Republicans as a key factor in the defeat. (Which would be stupid and untrue, but oh well.) He’d be one of the biggest scapegoats for Trumpers in the aftermath. So Ted Cruz, “man of principle,” caved.
If he wanted to be the lesser-of-two-evils guy, he could have been that in May. If he wanted to be the man of principle, he could have been that too. And he was, for a few months. Trying to be both now makes him an opportunistic joke.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision.
Read the statement for his reasoning. He has one very good argument (the Supreme Court) and one good one (energy) — both of which, again, were available to him as justifications in July. For some reason, they weren’t compelling enough at the time. Cruz doesn’t explain what changed. The best he can do to justify his evolution is to mention (as expected) Mike Lee’s inclusion on the list of SCOTUS candidates Trump released this morning, even though no one believes Trump will reward a fierce critic of his like Lee with an appointment. In fact, Trump’s original list of SCOTUS candidates was released in May, months before the convention, and was widely praised even by Trump’s conservative critics for the caliber of judges it featured. If Cruz was really worried about Trump appointing Scalia types, that list, not this morning, could have been cited in Cleveland.
His policy reasoning elsewhere is weak. Trump will be better than Clinton on health care, he says. Maybe, maybe not: Trump has talked up single-payer before and was slobbering over Medicaid just days ago, and unlike Hillary, Trump might get a Republican Congress to go along with all of that. Trump will be better on national security, Cruz insists. In some ways, absolutely; in other ways, like having a Putinist in command of the U.S. armed forces, not so much. Trump will be better on immigration, though, at least, Cruz continues. That’s true enough — it’d be hard to be worse than Hillary — but Trump has been pushing some variation of touchback amnesty for months and even now won’t rule out legalization for illegals. A few weeks ago, during his “softening” period, he was making sympathetic noises about illegals with families who’ve been here for years. Who knows what he’ll do once he’s in office? It’ll be better than Clinton, sure, but Ted Cruz has been selling himself for years now as the guy who will not accept “what we’re doing is slightly better than what the Democrats are doing” excuses from the Republican establishment. Bold colors, not pale pastels — that’s the Cruz motto. Or was, until now, when he ends up exactly where Rush Limbaugh was in defending Trump’s maternity-leave proposal: So long as Trump’s proposals can be defended as somewhat more right-wing than what Clinton would give us, that’s conservative enough. If that’s the guy Cruz is now, he’d better never open his mouth to criticize Mitch McConnell again.
Cruz has done what he needed to do. Hopefully, this qualifies him for future races.
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
I am a Cruz guy and did not think the lack of a convention endorsement would hurt him in the long run. But, like everyone, I supoose it was inevitable and for what it is worth, I think it will go a long way in garnering additional support for Trump from those who may have needed a nudge.
This Country can I’ll afford another Alinsky leftist for four or more years. Trump will at best be less harmful and hopefully in time will and can make a difference
Personally I feel the restoration of our Constitutional Republic will take more that a President(s) or an election(s). The solution is not in the cesspool of Washington DC.
The solution will come from “We The People”….
No matter what Cruz did you cant please everyone, he seems to have come up with the same conclusion I did anything except letting Hillary take over! Saying you are going to vote for someone is hardly an endorsement.
If Trump gets in there are a good many things he will be better at than near dead Hillary.
@kitt: I think Cruz did what he did for his future.
@Redteam (One of The Proud Deplorables): Dont start with me Red, Cruz would have made so much better a President than Don. Hillary would be so far behind by now the FBI may have actually pressed charges, just to replace her.
Speaking of her the FBI has released the transcripts of the interview, and the administration is handing out immunity for people around her like candy at halloween.
@kitt: Better? Hadn’t you rather have someone that is eligible? Cruz is not eligible, he’s not a natural born citizen, in fact, it hasn’t even been proven that he is a US citizen of any kind. We’ve tried that with the present illegal inhabitant, we don’t need to do it again.
@Redteam: Pfft
@Redteam (One of The Proud Deplorables): :
With all due respect, the criteria to be a Natural born American citizen does not exclude Cruz from being “Natural Born”.
At the time of his birth, his mother was an American citizen. Granted, Ted did have dual citizenship and renouncing the Canadian citizenship did make him eligible for the office of President. But, to say he is not a Natural born American citizen is incorrect.
Birthplace citizenship is not the determining factor under the Constitution. It defaults to the citizenship of the mother at the time of birth, not the particular location/country.
The Framers of the Constitution relied exclusively upon “Vattel’s”
when drafting the Constitution to define “Natural Born”.
@kitt:
This is huge,
Using a pseudonym would mean that the president knew the hildabeast was using a private server. It is proof positive of intent to deceive….
http://images16.fotki.com/v382/photos/9/127099/8282312/www_usnews1768x474-vi.png
@July 4th American: But… but… but Obama said he only learned of Hillary’s secret, private, unsecured email server from news reports. Are you implying that he was…
*gasp*
LYING?
Could this be the “very VIP” email address that Hillary’s IT guy was wanting to completely purge? Hillary should demand a refund.
The Dallas Morning News has a front page story titled “Cruz Flips, Endorses Trump” (which, to my knowledge, he didn’t “flip”… he never stated he wouldn’t support Trump) while back on page 6 is the story of the FBI granting Hillary aides immunity (from what?).
I have canceled this paper; I wish they would stop delivering it already.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: If it didn’t cost much you could wipe your arse with it and mail it back to them. Have the same issue here the Post is a liberal rag, I stopped even picking up the Sunday now that I can download coupons. Their idea of in depth interview is to go to the Mc Donalds not far from an incident and find someone that will give them an riveting quote such as ” I saw the police cars speeding there with sirens blaring and lights flashing.”
Obama lying??!!!
How could you not believe a guy who over 50 times said if you like you doctor you could keep your doctor?
Iknow this isn’t current and his reign isnt over but…http://freedomoutpost.com/1063-documented-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-cro
@July 4th American:
Not true. First, his two parents are from two countries, so that makes him a citizen of both countries.. Split allegiance = not natural born. Then he was born in Canada of a woman that ‘might’ have surrendered her American citizenship because she had registered to vote in Canada. If she had, then he’s not even an American citizen. The real problem is, we don’t know. He will not show his birth certificate. But in any case, split allegiance equals ‘not natural born’.
I haven’t heard of him renouncing his Cuban citizenship.
Aren’t you listening to yourself here? He had to take a legal action to make himself a ‘naturalized American citizen’, but the very fact he had to take a legal action means it was ‘not natural’.
Under the constitution? Not mentioned there, try again. Vattel? That defaults to the country of citizenship of the father. In any case, ‘being a split citizenship’ at birth makes you not a ‘natural born citizen of either. Why do you think the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ was put in the Constitution? To make it so that there could be no question of allegiance and someone with split citizenship would certainly have split allegiance. As I said, he has yet to provide any proof that he is an American citizen of any type.
With all ‘due respect’.
@Redteam (One of The Proud Deplorables): Cuba does not have dual citizenship, so renouncing what? He as shown his birth certificate there isnt anything to hide he is very open about being born in Canada.
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ac4220.html So no Cuban citizenship to renounce. As his mother would not have to renounce her US Citizenship to vote in Canada, they recognize multiple citizenships. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/dual-citizenship-united-states-canada.html That issue is also debunked. But this is just an old rehash where this has all been pointed out to you but you insist on your point of view regardless the facts or laws or US courts that have found in his favor. hence the previous PFFT
It would have been precious to see Hillary attempt to debate Cruz, but thats moot too.
Your argument states a female soldier in an other country that the father is not a citizen is not a natural born citizen? Really all men are created equal but not women? Red run your head under the faucet for a minute you are running into lib land the same place where we who never owned slaves should pay reparations to those who were never held in slavery. You are way too intelligent for this.
@kitt:
Cruz was born as the son of a Cuban citizen, which meant that he became a Cuban citizen at birth.
No he hasn’t.
So, you’re saying she is a Canadian citizen?
So now you have it as Cruz was born Canadian, Cuban and American, but some way that works out to ‘natural born citizen’ USA. Not hardly. Allegiance split three ways, the very reason the words ‘natural born’ was put into Constitution to insure no split allegiance people became president.
not sure what that word means, but I think you have to have a legitimate way to ‘debunk’ which they don’t have.
So. No one has proven me wrong. There has been no court ruling on this issue. My position is certainly in agreement with US laws.
I haven’t mentioned female or soldier. a person born anywhere in world is going to be born of a woman. The child is born as the citizen of the country that their father and mother are citizens of. If they are both Americans, then the child is ‘natural born’ if one is not, then the child has ‘split allegiance’ and is not ‘natural born’. I’m not sure how anyone could be confused by that. If however, citizenship of the country (other than in the US) where the child is born is claimed, even if both parents are American, then the child again is in a split allegiance situation and is not natural born. If there is no claim other than the citizenship of the US because both parents are US, then child is natural born.
I have no problem with any living person, that was a slave in the US, should be paid ‘reparations’ by the persons that were the owners of that slave. If there are no living slave or slave owners, then it’s a dead issue.
You don’t have to be concerned about me running into lib land about anything. I just don’t have an allegiance to a candidate that would make me claim him to be eligible when he clearly is not.
I commented, No 15, it is in moderation for some reason
@Redteam (One of The Proud Deplorables): That was a long post, allegiance, thats the sticker isn’t it, how can he have allegiance to Cuba? His Father who raised him has no love for the commie dung heap that is Cuba, why would he? Just so we are of understanding, The definition of allegiance means giving a promise to be loyal, or the action of actually being loyal and on someone’s side. Cuba would not recognize him as a citizen.
I dont believe he has loyalty to Canada, or Cuba, he has stepped up and fought and won before the Supreme Court for the US Sovereignty, Cruz twice argued in front of the Supreme Court in cases concerning Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen convicted of the rape and murder of two girls, ages 14 and 16, in 1993. Years after his conviction, the International Court of Justice raised the issue that Medellin and others were entitled to the counsel of Mexican diplomats at the time of their arrests, per the Vienna Convention treaty. Even President George W. Bush issued a memo directing states to comply with the International Court of Justice and state courts to review the cases of Mexicans facing the death penalty.
In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the court sided with Cruz and concluded that the treaty was not binding upon state courts until the treaty is enacted into law by Congress. Bush still holds this victory against him, rumor has it Sr Bush is voting Hillary one world order stooge, natural born, no allegiance but to herself Clinton.
@Redteam (One of The Proud Deplorables):
Look Redteam, we are n the same team. But, again with all due respect, your argument regarding the eligibility of Ted Cruz to become President now or in the future is specious at best. There is voluminous scholarship should one take the necessary effort to research. I could provide pages of that scholarship to the detriment of the readers here in terms of attentiveness. Suffice it to say; Natural born citizenship has never been a conflict among those of us who laboriously study the US Constitution.
I will provide however, a couple of links to get you started in your research of the intent of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Constitution with respect to Natural Born Citizenship.
href=”http://http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/” rel=”nofollow”>
In addition, there have been a handful of recent Court decisions regarding the eligibility of Cruz for the 2016 election.
..
And finally, perhaps one of the most exhaustive studies of the term “Natural Born Citizen” is contain herein:
href=”http://http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/” rel=”nofollow”>
I get that you may not be a Cruz supporter, opposition to a particular candidate should be on the policies and/or the career of said candidate. Emotional opposition in all fairness in the end will be shown to have lacked substance, as in this case.
Time to put this aside and move to defeat the hildabeast…..
My family moved to Mexico City when I was 15. There were a number of dual nationality guys in my class. The guys had to make a choice at 18 as they either had to register for the American draft or the Mexican one. As Vietnam was going on (I graduated inn 1968) a number chose Mexican citizenship. I have only seen one since then (in Mexico City on business) and he bitterly regretted his decision. Women did not have to make a choice. My sister married a Mexican but did not ever register to vote in Mexico and kept her US citizenship and is now back in the states. I did notice someone mentioned Cruz’s mother registering to vote in Canada. I am not sure but think that means she took Canadian citizenship. Any legal experts know if that’s true?
@Bookdoc: Canada recognizes dual citizenship. You are not required by Canada to give up your previous citizenship once you become a Canadian citizen. http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-citizenship-immigration-and-settlement-in-canada.html 4 years of perm residency required then a test.
United States, but the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship in 1967.