Friday, March 4, 2016

PRINCIPLED TED CRUZ v POLITICAL, PROFESSIONALLLY AND PERSONALLY ETHICALLY SQUALID HILLARY (AND BILLARY) CLINTON

I managed to sneak into a Ted Cruz rally Wednesday night in suburban Kansas City. Upon leaving, I no longer counted myself among the uncommitted. I and thousands of others in this overflow crowd had to be thinking the same thought, “Why would a...

The nation has barely survived eight years of Barack Obama. It will be unrecognizable after four years of Hillary Clinton, let alone eight.


March 4, 2016

Why I am Supporting Ted Cruz for President

I managed to sneak into a Ted Cruz rally Wednesday night in suburban Kansas City. Upon leaving, I no longer counted myself among the uncommitted. I and thousands of others in this overflow crowd had to be thinking the same thought, “Why would a conservative vote for anyone else?”

That is not to take anything away from the other candidates. This is easily the best Republican crop in anyone’s memory. Even the remaining go-along, get-along candidate, John Kasich, would make for a better president than the five go-along, get-alongs the Republicans have nominated since 1988.

If Cruz is not nominated, I will vote for the Republican who is. 

Those luminaries who insist they will not vote for Donald Trump if he is the nominee, confuse idealism with narcissism. The nation has barely survived eight years of Barack Obama. It will be unrecognizable after four years of Hillary Clinton, let alone eight. To worry about the Republican “brand” while the country speeds down the diamond lane towards serfdom flirts with treason.

Cruz represents conservative values more consistently, intelligently and forcefully than any candidate in the field. I recall seeing George Bush speak during the 2000 campaign. He used a briefing notebook to guide him through his speech. Lacking a fully formed understanding of conservative principles, he had to remind himself how he felt about a particular issue, and Bush was a more serious conservative than Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or his own father.

Barack Obama, of course, has no gift for impromptu speech.

At a campaign event in Virginia in June 2008, Obama was making an impassioned speech about the wasteful use of ER services in the treatment of childhood asthma when, suddenly, he seemed to lose his place on the teleprompter.
As he signaled his distress, he stuttered badly, talked about the use of a “breathalyzer,” corrected himself to say “inhalator,” laughed, stuttered some more, and blamed his performance on not having much sleep in the last 48 hours. The right word, by the way, is “inhaler.”

It is unimaginable that Cruz would falter so. At the rally he spoke for forty-five minutes without notes, let alone a teleprompter. His speech was a mix of time tested tropes and new riffs pulled from the headlines. He did not stutter, stammer, or search for a word. There was an ideological coherence to his presentation that I have not seen from a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.

Nor was this just all talk. In his three-plus years in the Senate, Cruz has deviated from his stated principles far less than any of his colleagues and has the stab wounds in his back to prove it. One can compromise, Cruz noted, on details like, say, the top marginal rate on taxes. What one cannot compromise on are core beliefs.

Of this year’s candidates, no one has a more solid core than Cruz. One cannot imagine him proposing a David Souter for the Supreme Court or expanding Medicaid or creating a new federal agency. For obvious reasons, one cannot have quite the same confidence in Marco Rubio, an otherwise exceptional candidate.

If Cruz has a weakness as a candidate it is that he can sometimes seem preachy and unpersonable. Watching him last night I got a sense of why that might be. Given his roots in the evangelical tradition, he is fundamentally a big tent speaker. That style does not work well on a small screen.

Charm is a valuable commodity in televised politics, and no candidate has more of it than Rubio. All factors being equal, charm carries the day, but in deciding between Cruz and Rubio, all factors are not equal. Besides, the Republican nominee will likely be running against a candidate with no charm at all.

A final question, perhaps a preliminary question, is whether Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen. This is a subject I have researched at some length. In merely raising this question earlier in the campaign, I was smacked with the Scarlet R for racism by two different writers for the left-leaning TPM.

The delusional Amanda Marcotte insisted that my argument was “just an elaborate mechanism for conveying, without coming right out and saying, that ‘real’ Americans are white -- preferably of the blonde and WASPy stripe.” No, Amanda, it is a legitimate question, one that the left will surely raise if Cruz is the nominee.

The founders, I am convinced, were less concerned that a child be born in the United States than that he born to two parents of undivided loyalty. As to Cruz and Rubio, the courts would likely rule in favor of both of them, with Cruz, despite his Canadian birth, having the stronger case. I would like to say I welcome input on this subject, but I don’t. I have been inundated with input for months. Basta! Please! Tell me something I don’t know.

After I posted a picture from the Cruz rally on Facebook, a liberal friend from New York responded, “Cruz? Really Jack? He would suffer a Goldwater style defeat.” No, the most principled Republican in thirty years would be running against the least principled Democrat in the history of the Republic.
This is a match-up I would enjoy. These are debates for which I would have friends over and make pop
corn. This campaign season, finally, would be fun.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/why_i_am_supporting_ted_cruz_for_president_.html#ixzz41xlMlUJr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


MORE HERE:

Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information by using her private, unsecured server to store sensitive documents makes it look more and more as though a criminal case is being developed against her by the FBI. One by one, her campai...


Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton may be the most pathetic presidential nominee of any major political party in our nation's history.


Just How Bad a Candidate Will Hillary Be?

I asked last March, "Just How Bad a Candidate Would Hillary Be?"  As Hillary locks up the Democrat nomination, the question is "Just How Bad a Candidate Will Hillary Be?"  Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton may be the most p...


I asked last March, "Just How Bad a Candidate Would Hillary Be?"  As Hillary locks up the Democrat
nomination, the question is "Just How Bad a Candidate Will Hillary Be?"   Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton may be the most pathetic presidential nominee of any major political party in our nation's history.



First dispel the myth of her husband as a consummate politician.  Bill was a flop as governor of Arkansas and as president of the United States.  Bill managed to be the only Democrat in Arkansas state history to lose re-election as governor and won two presidential elections with a minority of the popular vote.  He entered the White House with huge Democrat majorities at every level of government and left with Democrats in the minority at every level of government. 

Bill Clinton was impeached, disbarred, and found in contempt of court while president, which was a worse record of determined malfeasance than any president in history.  As an ex-president, Clinton seems frail, dull, and testy – as evidenced most recently by his snapping angrily at a veteran in South Carolina asking about Hillary ending corruption in the  Veterans Administration.

Since my article last March, the women who have been harassed, threatened, and raped by Clinton have served notice that they will not be quiet while his wife, Hillary, ignores and dismisses them.  This is a problem Hillary has never addressed but cannot ignore, as Republican candidates have made clear, in a presidential election. 

The hideous behavior of Hillary towards these women brutalized by her husband is one problem.  A related problem is the limp appeal of "women's issues" in electoral campaigns.  Consider the utter failure in the 2014 election cycle of every candidate who based a campaign on "women's issues."  Further, the failure of Hillary to attract young
women in primaries against an ancient Vermont Socialist shows how little she appeals to female voters.


If there is an issue that motivates Americans across the spectrum, it is trust, because we have been lied to so often and so cavalierly by Washington politicians.  No sane person trusts Hillary.  She not only lies even when the truth would serve as well, but she lies about telling the truth, as in her recent CBS interview.  She lies almost as much as her husband.

Compounding this pathological dishonesty are the natural consequences of aging, obesity, and health problems that strongly suggest a slowing down of her mental processes.  The ravages of immoral life and old age clearly have
reduced her husband into a very dull mind, and it is likely that many of the same abuses of youth harrowing her husband are affecting her, too.


There is another aspect to her lying.  Hillary has a very ordinary brain, artificially inflated by the left because leftists always consider those who agree with them "smart."  In college she followed the familiar path of lackey to leftism.  Hillary failed the District of Columbia Bar Examination; nearly everyone who takes it passes.  Her legal career was
constructed around her husband's political success. 


Hillary has for decades been surrounded by flacks and toadies whose work is making Hillary seem and feel intelligent.  Some of the emails released from her server note that these minions, among themselves, note that she
is often confused.  The numerous unforced errors in her campaign also suggest a rather mean old lady used to bullying rather than reasoning.  This, too, becomes over time a mental limp, a cognitive sloth, an atrophied intellect.


The stench of criminal conspiracy follows Hillary, and that is because Hillary is so utterly conspiratorial in nature, but these crimes are also so frequent that if the FBI and Justice Department does nothing, then the Justice Department itself may face future investigation – indeed, some of us may ask why we even need a department to protect criminals like Hillary. 

Finally, Hillary cannot embrace that "change" Americans want when she has been a Washington insider so long.  How can Hillary campaign for those goals in a general election when the only real selling point she has is
"experience"?  There is nothing Hillary says that is not hopelessly tired and hackneyed rhetoric, and nothing that inspires hope. 


Forget the fact that she is finally dispatching the non-Democrat running against her for the Democrat nomination, and ignore the general polls today, which mean nothing.  Hillary will be swamped this November.   

No comments: