Does the Republican Party have a future without Ted Cruz?

[MACVSOG68]

I don't give a tinkers' damn about any of that.  It's just another distraction and deflection from the BS that is ongoing currently and an attempt to pretend that what the American voters are now faced with choosing between are NOT two extremely and exceedingly flawed candidates (and that's putting it nicely).  Nice try.  No ceegar.

Compared to Hillary and Trump, Ted Cruz would have been a breath of fresh air, among other desperately needed changes in American politics.  But the DC idiots and their savant supporters are so accustomed to breathing in the stench of dirty laundry, they apparently just couldn't wean themselves from that smell.

You deserve the leaders and the government you voted for.  You know who you are.

In other words for those who believe a constitutionally ineligible candidate would make a great constitutionally conservative president, you're at least willing to live with that "compromise"?  It may be a distraction to you now, but before Cruz announced, it certainly was an eight year long crusade.   

[skeeter]

I think you are referring to the Revolutionary War not the writing of the Constitution, where if a constitution could not be agreed upon, the Confederation would have continued.

The phrase is from the wartime period but the new republic was vulnerable to foreign powers for several decades thereafter. Rhetorically the phrase would still apply.

[TomSea]

DC has faltered and with that, the Senators really don't have much to show for it.

Republican governors and state legislatures have had solid success.

Another writer who is focused on the nation's capital.

[skeeter]

There's no reason to believe our founders compromised their principles. In fact its kind of foolish to believe all compromise has to do with principle.

And while we're playing the founder game, it was only a few days ago that Trumpers were screeching at delegates about the will of the voters. Not all of our nation's founding delegates voted the will of their constituents. Many of them voted for independence against the will of a largely loyalist voter base.

When you're a "conservative" & support a guy like Donald Trump your principles have to be situational.

[MACVSOG68]

When we all sit back every election and get mad that we never elect anyone of principle, we finally got a few candidates that have exactly that.
3 of them are Senators now.
Lee, Cruz, Paul, etc. show some principle and backbone.
Cruz sticks to those principles,and is now being called out for it, to the point that some say his career is over.
Do we really want someone who actually stands up for what they believe in, or do we all just give that lip service?

Does the Republican Party have a future without Ted Cruz?

Possibly, but a damn sight weaker one.

A majority of Americans want to see both sides sit down and work through the major issues.  Immigration reform, an energy policy, tax reform, balancing the budget, and a host of other significant issues can only be resolved through negotiation and compromise, not simply through rhetoric about principles.  Reagan understood that far better than some today.  I still think Cruz has a future, but he has to demonstrate an ability not only to take a position, but to find ways to get legislation passed.  Nothing succeeds like success, but Cruz' success in the Senate extends no farther than his ability to stand up and talk to an empty chamber. 

[TomSea]

Ted Cruz called McConnell a liar in congress, his campaign had a number of disparaging tactics against other candidates.

And yet, the man who broke his pledge and yes, maybe he had reason to do that, is always called the man of principle? We will see how someone who shows himself not to be a team player fares.

[GrouchoTex]

A majority of Americans want to see both sides sit down and work through the major issues.  Immigration reform, an energy policy, tax reform, balancing the budget, and a host of other significant issues can only be resolved through negotiation and compromise, not simply through rhetoric about principles.  Reagan understood that far better than some today.  I still think Cruz has a future, but he has to demonstrate an ability not only to take a position, but to find ways to get legislation passed.  Nothing succeeds like success, but Cruz' success in the Senate extends no farther than his ability to stand up and talk to an empty chamber.

Yes, Reagan once said that if he got 70%, he'd say that was a victory.
However, not everything needs to be legislated, with new laws.
Sometimes the best votes are those not taken.
"Do no Harm, law of unintended consequences, Government that governs least, governs best,etc..."

[MACVSOG68]

The phrase is from the wartime period but the new republic was vulnerable to foreign powers for several decades thereafter. Rhetorically the phrase would still apply.

The Republic has frequently been vulnerable to some external power or influence.  But the phrase about hanging together had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.  And it was filled with compromise after compromise, not out of fear of hangings, but of a desire to create a more perfect union.  There were a few of the Ted Cruz no compromise types, but somehow the strong central government delegates were able to come together with the strong state government representatives and forge a document through these compromises that kick-started the longest ongoing constitutional republic in history.  Ted and Mike might take a lesson from these Founders.

[MACVSOG68]

Yes, Reagan once said that if he got 70%, he'd say that was a victory.
However, not everything needs to be legislated, with new laws.
Sometimes the best votes are those not taken.
"Do no Harm, law of unintended consequences, Government that governs least, governs best,etc..."

Indeed not everything does have to be legislated, but the greatest issues we face as a Country do demand some serious compromises on both sides even if the goal is to eliminate rather than add new laws.

[GrouchoTex]

Indeed not everything does have to be legislated, but the greatest issues we face as a Country do demand some serious compromises on both sides even if the goal is to eliminate rather than add new laws.

Agreed

 

[JustPassinThru]

I agree that Cruz is a natural born citizen.  Having said that though, there is a great irony in the fact that many of Cruz' most ardent supporters firmly believed that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and that two citizen parents were required as well as birth within this Country to make one a NBC.  Now those supporters including several here who claim to want Cruz because of his "constitutional conservatism" actually don't believe he is constitutionally eligible but will try to keep that secret buried forever.   You know who you are.

The LAW.

Does the law matter?

The Naturalization Act of 1940 spells this out.  One parent being an adult American citizen, being abroad temporarily, is enough to legally bequeath citizenship to the child.  This was common law since the early 19th Century, but was formalized with the 1940 Act.

The figure in question is the age of the parent.  The Naturalization Act stipulates an age of 21.  An adult parent over the age of 21.   Barry Dunham's mother was, by various accounts, either 17 or 18 when he was born.

Should it have happened overseas, with a minor mother and an alien father, he is NOT, under law, bequeathed citizenship.

[JustPassinThru]

The disingenuous (lying) people that continue to attempt to make Cruz's birthplace an issue, when it is not, is much akin to the same despicable efforts by the idiot left that claimed that Bush was AWOL when he was merely helping Blount with his Alabama senate run.  All perfectly legal and above board, but they slimed Bush anyway.

It's the exact same despicable politics of personal destruction that the rabid left uses and I posit that that is no accident.  The same people in both instances display the same values.  Crap values, that is.

The thing is, CRUZ is NOT an issue!

He's OUT!  WHY is this jackass and his stooges all continuing a pile-on of a former opponent?  Are there not enough REAL issues and REAL enemies out there?  Is it that God the Donald cannot fight anyone but strawmen and bogeymen?

[GrouchoTex]

It is meaningless to talk about calling something a victory with 70% win if you do not fill in context.  What if the subject is the 2nd Amendment?  So we give 30% gun control to the Dems?  What about freedom of religion, speech, press?  30% loss is OK?  Reagan's statement might apply well to cutting spending.  It does not apply well to every issue.  Mostly that argument is talked about in generalities by those who want their opponents to compromise but have no intention of compromising themselves.

First thing is first.  You do not lead talking about how grand compromise is.  You lead by fight as hard as you can for conservative principles.  After the vote you assess whether it was a win or a loss.   Some things can be "good enough."  Other things are equal to "splitting the baby in half."  Compromise is a loss.  Period.

Compromise can be a loss, I understand that.
I think the last 3 sentences I wrote after the 70% comment spell that out, but maybe not clearly enough..
If it isn't helpful, or if it is harmful, do not pass ANY legislation.
I get it. I am a huge 10th amendment supporter.
I do not have a problem with "Congress shall pass no law...."

However, some changes as, you state may be "good enough, while other are "splitting  the baby in half".

I will stand up for the Constitution, but I realize that to get back to this, some changes will be a struggle. They may not happen overnight, and some "victories" may require a more piecemeal approach.
This isn't to say I am thrilled about it.

[aligncare]

The draw of Cruz to his most ardent supporters including many here is his "principles" over compromise stance.  The founding of this Nation came about through the most amazing compromises imaginable from slavery to representation to an executive.  Compromise after compromise.  Not everyone would sign the draft, and it was a difficult sell.  A reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers shows the deep divisions that existed in every aspect of the new Nation...including the rights amendments.  It was not a time Ted Cruz would have fared well in.

Point well made, and hopefully...well taken.

[Rivergirl]

Fun to watch the sore winners, er, whiners, flitting from site to site spewing vitriol.
Like their hero, nothing will make them happy. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The GOP has a future without Cruz (nobody is irreplaceable), though a future without all of his supporters would be grim.  Then again, the future for Cruz and his supporters without the GOP is grim as well.  But the way it's looking, it's going to be one of those two things, or perhaps some mix that's just as bad.

[MACVSOG68]

The LAW.

Does the law matter?

The Naturalization Act of 1940 spells this out.  One parent being an adult American citizen, being abroad temporarily, is enough to legally bequeath citizenship to the child.  This was common law since the early 19th Century, but was formalized with the 1940 Act.

The figure in question is the age of the parent.  The Naturalization Act stipulates an age of 21.  An adult parent over the age of 21.   Barry Dunham's mother was, by various accounts, either 17 or 18 when he was born.

Should it have happened overseas, with a minor mother and an alien father, he is NOT, under law, bequeathed citizenship.

Naturalization laws have changed many times since the first one in 1790.  But many of those who now support Cruz, supported their version of the definition of natural born citizen, which during Obama's eight years, required two citizen parents and birth in the US.  Now of course, they seem to have moved on.  The fact is though that they were wrong then, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 provided what seems to have been the intention of the Founders, that natural born simply means born in the US or its possessions, and if born out of the jurisdiction, having citizen parents.  Thus Cruz is a natural born citizen as is Obama, neither of whom I care for as a leader.

[MACVSOG68]

Point well made, and hopefully...well taken.

Thank you AC, but I doubt well taken.

[MACVSOG68]

Fun to watch the sore winners, er, whiners, flitting from site to site spewing vitriol.
Like their hero, nothing will make them happy.

...and yet...here you are.   

[JustPassinThru]

Naturalization laws have changed many times since the first one in 1790.  But many of those who now support Cruz, supported their version of the definition of natural born citizen, which during Obama's eight years, required two citizen parents and birth in the US.  Now of course, they seem to have moved on.  The fact is though that they were wrong then, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 provided what seems to have been the intention of the Founders, that natural born simply means born in the US or its possessions, and if born out of the jurisdiction, having citizen parents.  Thus Cruz is a natural born citizen as is Obama, neither of whom I care for as a leader.

It's not "our version."  It's codified law; and recognized in case law and court decisions.

Was George Romney not eligible?

Was John McCain not eligible?

Was Barry Goldwater not eligible?

There were several other figures from the 19th Century in similar situations, as well.  Once again, it's amazing how the propagandists pick and select facts.

[skeeter]

The Republic has frequently been vulnerable to some external power or influence.  But the phrase about hanging together had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.  And it was filled with compromise after compromise, not out of fear of hangings, but of a desire to create a more perfect union.  There were a few of the Ted Cruz no compromise types, but somehow the strong central government delegates were able to come together with the strong state government representatives and forge a document through these compromises that kick-started the longest ongoing constitutional republic in history.  Ted and Mike might take a lesson from these Founders.

OK the phrase had nothing to do with the Constitution. That really wasn't my point, but you win.

And I believe if you are going to criticize Cruz in the context of how he would stack up against the founders you will have a tough row to hoe. Especially in view of who we are now stuck with as a candidate.

[Cripplecreek]

The GOP has a future without Cruz (nobody is irreplaceable), though a future without all of his supporters would be grim.  Then again, the future for Cruz and his supporters without the GOP is grim as well.  But the way it's looking, it's going to be one of those two things, or perhaps some mix that's just as bad.

Its going to be a grim GOP future without me. They made it pretty clear during the convention that they don't want any upity constitutional conservatives.

[skeeter]

Naturalization laws have changed many times since the first one in 1790.  But many of those who now support Cruz, supported their version of the definition of natural born citizen, which during Obama's eight years, required two citizen parents and birth in the US.  Now of course, they seem to have moved on.  The fact is though that they were wrong then, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 provided what seems to have been the intention of the Founders, that natural born simply means born in the US or its possessions, and if born out of the jurisdiction, having citizen parents.  Thus Cruz is a natural born citizen as is Obama, neither of whom I care for as a leader.

Ironically Trump was one of the more prominent birthers. I guess he's moved on as well.

[andy58-in-nh]

The draw of Cruz to his most ardent supporters including many here is his "principles" over compromise stance.  The founding of this Nation came about through the most amazing compromises imaginable from slavery to representation to an executive.  Compromise after compromise.  Not everyone would sign the draft, and it was a difficult sell.  A reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers shows the deep divisions that existed in every aspect of the new Nation...including the rights amendments.  It was not a time Ted Cruz would have fared well in.

The compromises that were made attendant to the formation of our republic were made among people who agreed centrally on principles, most specifically on the rights of man. They disagreed upon a great many things that dealt specifically with form and function, which is to say that they had to negotiate the best way to accomplish common goals with respect to the organizational structure of the proposed government. 


One area in which compromise was achieved only with great difficulty was on the issue of slavery, which resulted in a formulation (the 3/5ths clause) which Northern Federalists quietly intended reduce the power of southern states which the latter mistook as implicit support for slavery itself. But the principle was not dealt with until two generations later, when the matter began to come to an inevitable point of conflict, culminating of course in the Civil War.

We find ourselves I believe in a similar but more vexing situation today, because America is divided into two camps that do not disagree on policy alone, nor upon a single principle, but instead upon all principles of the proper role of government and the organization of a good society.

On one side, we have Progressives who are committed to the complete remaking of our government and our society. That end necessarily implies the "fundamental transformation" of our foundational principles and a recasting of the documents that enshrined them.

On the other side are conservatives who believe in the protection, maintenance and in many cases a return to the principles we have abandoned over time that are found in our constitution that the Progressives have either already succeeded in abrogating, or now seek to do so. In such circumstances compromise is not difficult. It is impossible.

Ted Cruz, I sense, understands this conflict, where many Republicans do not.  When one side is explicitly committed to the destruction of the other and of its foundational institutions, then compromise will only result in the achievement over time, of the destruction so desired. And yes, I know the practical consequences of such an understanding. And no, it will not be pleasant to live through. It never is.

[XenaLee]

The thing is, CRUZ is NOT an issue!

He's OUT!  WHY is this jackass and his stooges all continuing a pile-on of a former opponent?  Are there not enough REAL issues and REAL enemies out there?  Is it that God the Donald cannot fight anyone but strawmen and bogeymen?

Trump only presents more and more questions, like the ones you just asked, as this "campaign" goes on.  His insistence on continuing to attack Cruz instead of Hillary just confirms my (and others') suspicions re: his real agenda and intentions.

One thing I have to mention is....how Trump and his supporters all chime in that "You attack Trump, he attacks back."....as if that is a constant in the universe.  Already proven to be just another untruth since....Hillary Clinton has been running attack ad after attack ad against Trump and he has yet to attack back.  It's astounding to me that his supporters aren't wondering WHY that is.  I already know and have stated it.  But they are blind to the truth....or willfully obtuse and ignorant re: that truth.