• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Question Of The Month...(January 2016)

too early to tell right now. Iowa hasn't been consistent picking the winner of the party. But I find it quite comical the GOPe and media are putting their entire weight behind Rubio right now. Even now as he came in third in Iowa it's all they talk about. Cruz is an afterthought mention.
 
Rubio isn't so much a loose cannon right now. The public eats it up, but the party wants someone they can control.

They don't want Don or Ted to win and then act like a libertarian to please the people. They all don't want their part of big government to get scrapped in a populist regime.
 
too early to tell right now. Iowa hasn't been consistent picking the winner of the party. But I find it quite comical the GOPe and media are putting their entire weight behind Rubio right now. Even now as he came in third in Iowa it's all they talk about. Cruz is an afterthought mention.
Rubio is the only party favorite that seems to have any chance since Jeb fell on his face. The republicans definitely want a middle of the road party loyalist that they can control. Cruz and Trump don't fit the mold. I think since Cruz called the party leadership liars they hate him and would prefer Trump if they had to pick one. Go Ted.
 
Of course they're all liars. You can't let the ugly truth get out or people would start riots.

Trump needs to get out there and say: "Look, I'm from Brooklyn and we gotta big mouth sometimes. Itjust goes with the territory; and we don't get all mushie over things, because insults there are appreciated like a fine art form. They're like a joke you have to participate in to be accepted in that society."

Trump's rough edges are not gonna come off. He needs to make people understand the society he comes from, and that it doesn't make a president bad because he's a social rough rider. Instead it insulates him from the necessity to lie when the public wouldn't gracefully accept the unvarnished truth. they'll just think, "Well that's Trump."
 
This is directed to all you Cruz supporters, and I suspect I'll get a bunch of negative feedback, but that's OK. I trust you'all, if you are going to skewer me, to do it with a smile on your face...I'm only telling you what I believe.

I've never liked the sound or look of Ted Cruz. He usually has an odd smirk on his face, and his voice hasn't struck me as that of a leader...it sounds more like he's wheedling for something...approval, support, funds, agreement...whatever. And yet up to now I've supported him, even though his facial expressions and voice have been off-putting.

I suppose that I thought, why shouldn't I support him...just because I don't like the way he looks or sounds? He has the support of people I respect, like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. I shouldn't be so judgmental, I need to go with a proven conservative, regardless. But there was always that subconscious voice telling me not to trust him. ...For one thing, he's a lawyer. [How do you know when a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving.] I hate lawyers so much that I almost feel like being a lawyer should disqualify you for ANY elected office, let alone the Presidency.

Now, as I read and hear more about Cruz from various sources, I am giving more weight to my feelings. Funny, because I criticize my wife for voting on her "intuition"...she's been a rabid Trump supporter from the beginning...me, I'm slowly coming to agree with her...grudgingly...I still don't really like Trump, but now he looks like a horse that maybe can win. My wife says I should learn to trust her instincts...maybe she's right.

But back to Cruz -- he talks a good conservative line, but has accomplished little or nothing since his election...unless you count pure disruption as an accomplishment. He fights a lot, and blames all lack of progress on RINOs who go along with Obama, but I'm not so sure. Seems like a lot of his fights have been to no purpose, with no chance of winning, getting nothing done, and alienating everyone on both sides of the aisle. OK, I admit, I haven't done enough homework and research to state my opinions as fact. Not nearly enough. But I listen to what people are criticizing about Cruz - and some of them are people I trust. They are saying that Cruz' belligerent stances have been less directed at real conservative goals, and more aimed at: a) getting attention and news coverage (b) solidifying a (bogus?) reputation as the only "true Constitutional conservative"; (c) his own aggrandizement; and (d) enhancing his presidential aspirations.

There is a good article about Cruz by Joe Cunningham, Jan 26, on "Red State", a purely conservative blog, and a long-time Cruz supporter. Here's a long excerpt:

"It is one thing for Kelly Ayotte, Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, and other quite useless Senators to hate Cruz with every liberal fiber (read: every fiber) of their being, but it is another for your closest friend and ally in the Senate [Mike Lee] to not endorse you.​

...Let’s not call into question the conservatism of...Cruz... [he's a] RedState-backed Senator, ...with a great history of fighting for the right things. [But] That nature of alienating even your closest allies, however, is something that Cruz will have to deal with, whether conservatives think it is a challenge or not. It will be hard to pass conservative reforms when your own party is lined up against you and your allies waver even slightly at how you go about championing your causes."

Michael Medved is a conservative talk-show host...yeah, I admit he's not as conservative as others, but he is definitely aligned squarely against progressive liberals, and he has been loud and long with his criticism of Cruz. I've often disagreed with Mr. Medved, but in retrospect he has usually been right, so I tend to trust his views...he may not always be right, but I believe he always gives you his honest opinion. From what I can tell, his view is that Cruz is poison, would fail as a President, and would do irreparable damage to the Republican Party.

Some of you guys may think the Republican Party isn't worth salvaging, but I believe it is. It holds a widely diffuse group of people and beliefs and tenets...but it gives us a brand, a tent under which we can gather the forces of anti-progressive voters. It ain't perfect, but it's the only game in town. And, like Mr. Medved, I think Cruz may be a poison pill for the party.
 
Cruz was elected to stop the ACA. He's kept his word while the entire GOPe has let Obama get what he wants. Including Paul Ryan allowing funding for Syrian refugees and illegal immigrant relocation in te new budget.

Cruz has argued before the Supreme Court on several occasions and one of them being pro gun and winning. He was apart of the heller team.

Hate him all you want but he's the most qualified of the bunch and has fought against the far left while others just talked.
 
OffGrid9 I'm glad that you posted. You won't get skewered but will get some disagreement. It's all good on M.O. as long as it's respectful and within posting boundaries (which you certainly were).

Water Monkey hit the main points on why I like Cruz. I think it's pathetically sad how the republicans rolled over in so many ways after Obama was elected. The only thing that slowed Obama at all was the mid term election during his first term. That change was brought by the Tea Party ie. conservatives. While the republicans groused a bit here and there they regularly let Obama ram through his crippling budgets. I have come to learn theses past 7 years that the republicans do not care about what I care about. They only want a middle of the road party loyalist to be the nominee. Please note I wrote "party loyalist" not "American loyalist". It doesn't matter which party hack it is as long as it's a party hack. They would even make nice with Trump before supporting a conservative like Cruz. They are more like the democrats than they are different. The biggest difference is that they want to be in charge of and controlling the big government and runaway deficit instead of the democrats.

I have been a republican since first registering to vote. The first lever I ever pulled was for Ronald Reagan. I supported Bush 1 and 2, McCain and Romney but it wasn't until they rolled over for Obama that I realized they were far more about the party, big government and control more than they were for me. It doesn't matter which party controls the POTUS, house or senate nothing really changes. Many examples exist: manufacturing jobs going over seas, healthcare costs going up, standard of living going down, federal debt going up, number people not working, almost half of the nation not paying federal taxes, size of government up and number of people on welfare/food stamps up.

I don't know how Cruz would do as POTUS. We would likely have 4 more years of gridlock but at least I don't think he would sign a budget like Bush2 or Obama did. He would also believe in the Constitution and follow it as it was created by our Founders. I find many democrats and republicans seem to have no clue what the Constitution even is.

Edit: as if on queue I saw this article where the District Of Columbia has a bill proposed to pay 200 criminals a yearly salary not to commit crimes. That is how badly we have changed for the worse. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-02-13-17-17
 
Last edited:
Water Monkey and CarbineMike --

Thanks for the thoughtful (and kind) responses. I can't help but agree with many of your arguments. Cruz HAS been on the conservative side for the vast majority of his actions and votes. I do not doubt or impugn his bona fides. I applaud many of the causes he has championed while TX solicitor general, and Senator.

My aversion to Ted Cruz rises in two distinct areas:

First...well, I just don't like him. I spelled out a few of my (purely subjective) reasons in my long post, above. I can't really explain or defend this dislike...so I won't try to. He just makes me queasy. Nothing but a gut hunch, and I will readily admit than none of you should give any weight to this...intuition.

Second (and I think this is more objective than subjective), he is confrontational and adversarial to everybody in sight. Yeah, there is a huge gaggle of worthless, useless, feckless, and d@^kless Senators and House-members who need to be kicked to the curb...unseated by either recall or next-election. They are on both sides of the aisle, and I have no gripe about Cruz going after them. More power to him. But it seems to me that he needlessly offends even his allies in the Tea Party, like Mike Lee, who is a really top-notch guy. WHY? He has kicked the shins and stomped on the arches of fellow conservatives, and for that, I dislike him.

But...could I vote for him if he were our nominee? You bet I could, and would. He may not be my first choice, but he is a conservative.

One minor correction, WM, and I admit it's a sniveling (Wiki google) technicality -- Cruz didn't argue before the Supreme Court in the DC vs Heller case, although he did write the amicus brief in support of Heller, which was signed by the AGs of 31 states. He DID, however, make oral arguments in the companion case before the DC Circuit court of appeals.

[ ...If I keep up this kind of legalistic nit-picking, I suspect the moderators will write a new rule banning pettifoggery...I really love that word -- it describes me to a T. :) ]
 
Never said he argued for heller. But was part of the team that got heller to the Supreme Court.

I want a man who doesn't compromise the constitution and is harsh to those that do. He has the ability to fundamentally change the GOPe.

But as all politicians I will challenge him and keep his ass under a microscope.

Mike lee is playing safe like a lapdog. If Cruz is close to the nomination by South Carolina mike will endorse.
 
What the hell happened to "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute."
...yeah...well...apparently those sentiments have never gained entry to the alleged brains of some of our more pinko-radical-"progressive"-commie 370#$$V federal, state, and local politicos (...sorry, have to read that last one upside down). We DO have Americans today who will stand behind that statement, but they aren't running the country, the cities, or the courts.

But I applaud the memory of Robert Harper who uttered those words in 1798, in response to French extortion demands, and Pres Adams who supported the idea, and Pres Jefferson who reprised the stance when he went to war against the Barbary Pirates upon his inauguration in 1801.

Our "leaders" need to understand CaddmannQ's point -- the paying of tribute, or giving in to extortion demands, doesn't just pertain to foreign affairs. It can be domestic, too. Some feeble, feckless, wussy cretin came up with the idea of (for God's sake) OFFERING up-front pay-offs to known criminals, trying to cajole them to "...Oh please, please, don't hurt us". And it ain't just happening in DC, either. This poisonous process has been ongoing for almost ten years in Richmond, CA, the murder capital of the San Fran-cheech-co area. They've been paying criminals between $300 and $1,000 EVERY MONTH to stay out of trouble. When I heard that, I felt like one of the Jet TV ad-people whose heads explode in a cloud of purple dust. I still can't get my head around the idea.

Sorry, it's un-Amenican. ...It's...it's European.
 
Cruz for Supreme Court! ;)

I would much prefer a governor in the WH. I was liking Cap'n Perry very much--it was sad to see him bail so early. :( As a Floridian, I though Jeb had potential and did a lot for the state of FL including signing numerous gun bills. That said, I would have liked to see him actually shooting a gun. He also speaks fluent spanish--a little pandering could go a long way--just ask Rubio... :rolleyes:

The only current candidate I know that regularly shoot/hunts in Cruz.

But I'm not liking another lawyer in the WH--the past 2 have been pieces of shix.

I WILL vote for the Republican that is the nominee--I just wish it didn't have to be Trump... :oops:
 
Back
Top