Senator Cruz may well be a "principled, articulate, uncompromising Conservative" but this does not automatically translate into a good fit for the Oval Office.
Politics, especially Presidential politics, takes a unique combination of an iron will and the capacity to connect with the American people --- across a whole host of issues. This is especially needed in a candidate from a minority branch in a minority political party. I see neither in Ted Cruz.
I am unaware of any legislation with Sen. Cruz's name on it passed during his eight years in the Senate. I am unaware of the Senator throwing his name in the ring for a leadership position in the Senate during these eight years. I am unaware of any personal experience he brings from the job creating, global economic wing of the private sector.
Where is the fire, creativity, courage and accomplishments that transfer to the Presidency?
I've not hidden that Cruz is too didactic for my tastes---too out of touch with us "averages". And I maintain removing the requirement that our POTUS be born on US soil is a paradigm shift too far; especially with the ascendancy of a global order.
Ted Cruz is, however, a scholar of the US Constitution; and herein lies his gift. It is my opinion that both Cruz and the nation is best served with Cruz claiming his seat on the USSC. Heaven knows the court could use him.
Cruz's personality and approach, even the cadence of his speaking, do turn people off; that's simply a fact. Just like it's a fact that Trump's personality, approach, and cadence of speaking turn people off. But Trump still won the presidency and Cruz might not be able to. Cruz really does not connect with as large a segment of the American people as Trump has.
But after Cruz told the farmers of Iowa that he opposed ethanol subsidies during the 2016 caucus (and turned the entire R establishment in Iowa against him as a result but then still won the caucus); after he stared down the entire 2016 R national convention in his speech; after he stood for election integrity in Congress before, during, and after the demonstration on 6 January; while Trump consistently ducks and deflects accountability and appeals to the gallery via social media, the suggestion that Trump has "iron will" while Cruz lacks it is simply absurd.
Why are there no amendments or passed congressional acts with Cruz's name on them? Why is he not in a Senate leadership position? Simply read one line up in your own post
@Right_in_Virginia - he represents a minority branch of a minority party. Cruz
actually does the thing you credit Trump for - he stands his ground, consequences be damned. That's not a recipe for popularity among the establishment.
Where is Cruz's record for creating jobs? The same place as Trump's record for defending conservative legal values in front of the SCOTUS. Each man has done the things that can be done in his chosen career. It's entirely valid to favor a private sector candidate over a government sector candidate, but it's intellectually dishonest to expect one to demonstrate accomplishments only achievable within the other's career.
There is no Constitutional requirement that POTUS be born on US soil. You can continue pretending that's a valid argument against Cruz but it's nothing more than a convenient rationalization that people see through. If it were a real issue I'm sure such a crack manager and omniscient genius as Trump would have taken it to court during the 2016 primaries, but of course he did not.
I'm not arguing here that Cruz is the best choice for president or that he could win; I'm arguing that most of the criticisms of Cruz I see are obviously manufactured excuses that don't withstand a few moments of careful thought. In fact Cruz's best service to the country might be on SCOTUS, and I wish he would indicate that he recognizes that possibility. He might be blinded by his ambition.
