CRULazyGutlessSonofabitchUUZ!

[slowpoke]

Because I have little tolerance for theocracies.

When did Cruz become pope, or any other religious leader?
I don't think that word means what you think it means....

[Aesop]

As if a Christian theocracy is in play or is any likelihood with Cruz -- or any other viable candidate.

Have any of you that are running around panicked while waving your copies of The Scarlet Letter actually listened to Cruz's speech today?


Oy vey... This is why we can't have nice things. Or put together a winning coalition.


We are indeed screwed, in an outhouse, with a chainsaw.

Indeed.

I went to church with Reagan's son, back in the day, and traded weekly greetings with the Secret Service outside the Sunday school classroom they were guarding with the president's grandchildren inside. I attended high school with the daughter of Reagan's pastor, who also arranged my high school's prom dance on that church's property when the school I attended was still firmly in the Footloose anti-dancing category. I served my entire enlistment under the command of someone who lived and breathed exactly the faith professed today by Ted Cruz.
So I'm far more comfortable with someone who recognizes an authority greater than himself and greater than the government when making national decisions; for examples of people who think the other way, we only have the example of every Democrat president going back to at least 1932. How's that been working out for anyone?

So either provide the actual examples of the theocracy dictated from the White House from 1981-1989, inclusive, or STFU about theocracies.
It has as much to do with Cruz's candidacy as it does with the price of cod in Portsmouth.
I'm sorry having a conservative candidate who doesn't have an anti-American pseudo-pastor causes some people to soil their undergarments.
I would earnestly advise them to grow up and get over it.

When you find a conservative agnostic or atheist candidate with a hope in hell of getting elected who preaches free market capitalism and constitutional republican government as originally enacted in 1787, give a holler.
I'll go with the guy who gets that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the operator's manual, rather than a hindrance to good dictatorship.

And please nota bene that those referred to by modern anti-religious revisionism as mere "deists and agnostics" would today rightly be regarded, both politically and theologically, as somewhere off to the distant right of Pat Robertson on his best liberal progressive day, and as the far right wing bitter clingers so aptly characterized as such by the current asstard in chief during his original campaign for the office.

It bears noting that the hoary old phrase "separation of church and state" appears precisely nowhere in the founding documents, and the Founders both preached and enacted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
That includes your inalienable right to practice none at all, as and if you so choose.
It does not mean that functional atheism is the default litmus test for presidential candidates, something that isn't such an alien concept to those of us older than video games.

But the reaction is a good marker for how low the culture has settled in less than a generation.

[free_me]

Heck of a campaign manager he has there.

TedCruz.com
TedCruzforAmerica.com

[PawPaw]

My question, although I like Cruz, is why after the example of the last six years, we'd even consider a first-term Senator? Walker has been a governor, Perry has been a governor. Successful governors, with a record of accomplishment.

Cruz is good for the Party, and I'm glad to see him announce, but I don't think he's ready for the Big Time yet.

[g-man]

My question, although I like Cruz, is why after the example of the last six years, we'd even consider a first-term Senator? Walker has been a governor, Perry has been a governor. Successful governors, with a record of accomplishment.

Cruz is good for the Party, and I'm glad to see him announce, but I don't think he's ready for the Big Time yet.

This. I do like a LOT of his positions. But when compared to Walker (in terms of experience), he feels a lot more like the current POTUS than he does Reagan. I realize it's a part of the theatrics of Washington, but he also appears more 'grandstanding politician' than either of the Govs mentioned. Just my $.02.

[Precision]

Limiting my take on Cruz for time and content.

It is a VERY good thing he has announced and I am in the camp that hopes he runs a strong, solid, long lasting campaign. I really don't care if he becomes POTUS or VP so much as I hope he is able to steer the party towards the enactment of many of his ideas into the party platform. If the way he his kept out of office is by co-opting much of his tenor and message by the group, then he has won - even in defeat.

At this point, it is way too soon to say who I will vote for (if I don't skip voting). But I could see a vote FOR - Walker / Cruz or Cruz / Walker.

For the record, I will not place a vote against a candidate this go round. If my choice is a flaming RINO (Christie et al) or the Democratic nominee, I will not make a mark on the POTUS tab. Bring the pain quickly, crush the economy, our civil rights quickly so we can have a fast band aid removal and get back to healing this Republic. We can't do the slow boiling frog technique and survive.

[Greg]

My question, although I like Cruz, is why after the example of the last six years, we'd even consider a first-term Senator? Walker has been a governor, Perry has been a governor. Successful governors, with a record of accomplishment.

Cruz is good for the Party, and I'm glad to see him announce, but I don't think he's ready for the Big Time yet.

Not everyone who runs for President does so with the expectation of winning now. The hope of winning certainly, but aren't we the type of folks who mock short-term thinking?

[blackeagle603]

I'm not coming out for Cruz but I'm sure glad to see him in the mix. He puts a good humored hip conservative front and center. He's good for the right of center, constitutionalist movement. H

(To borrow a phrase from La Coulter) more than anyone else in the current mix, Cruz knows how to talk to a liberal. He's got an unmatched media sensibility, esp new media. He's makes points with humor, even able to mock leftists and get a laugh from the left of center crowd. That's a good thing. Haven't seen a conservative able come close to communicating conservative ideas and counter leftist attacks with humor like this since Reagan.

[MarkD]

Sigh.

Chris Christie will be the R candidate.....

[Weetabix]

There is an enormous difference between acknowledging a Creator and natural law, and a Christian theocracy. Where Ted Cruz falls on that scale, I really don't know. I suspect he is pandering to the "bible-thumpers".

This. Plus, I feel quite certain that no one could impose a Christian theocracy on America at this point, so I don't believe it's even a remote danger. Too many anti-theists have successfully made the Long March for that to happen.

And, all comments considered, I think I'd like Walker/Cruz much better than Cruz/Walker. I like what Walker has accomplished.