The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: flowers on January 04, 2014, 09:05:29 pm
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/4/cruz-hopes-renounce-canadian-citizenship-soon/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
AUSTIN, Texas — Canadian-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has yet to renounce his Canadian citizenship as promised, but looks forward to the process being completed soon.
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the tea party darling from Texas, said Saturday that lawyers are preparing the paperwork.
SEE ALSO: Ted Cruz coloring book breaks onto best-seller list
She said Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta, “has been fully focused on fighting for Texans’ values and interests” and that he “looks forward to the process being completed soon.”
Cruz took office just last year, but is already being mentioned as a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016.
Amid questions about his eligibility, Cruz released his birth certificate in
-
CRUZ/GOWDY in '16
-
i like that suggestion
-
Yesterday on Cavuto Frank Luntz was on to review the best and worst political video's of the year. There was one and only one which had scored off the charts high in focus groups from both Democrats and Republicans..... Ted Cruz....... the entire video was a speech he made in the senate about how Americans are sick and tired of being ignored by DC and watching as DC appeals only to special interests ..... anyone who says Cruz has narrow appeal is likely not a supporter, but anyone who can turn the dials upward from both Republicans and Democrats in a speech is not to be taken lightly.
-
Cruz is the only one on the horizon for 16 that I could get excited about
-
..... anyone who says Cruz has narrow appeal is likely not a supporter,
It is possible to support Cruz and his objectives, and believe he has narrow, appeal at the same time.
I do.
-
It is possible to support Cruz and his objectives, and believe he has narrow, appeal at the same time.
I do.
and you are entitled to that opinion even if many of us disagree with you. We were also told no way in hell he would win the senate seat in Texas. Fact is he appeals to regular people.
-
and you are entitled to that opinion even if many of us disagree with you. We were also told no way in hell he would win the senate seat in Texas. Fact is he appeals to regular people.
I think Scott Brown appeals to "regular" people, too. Regular people in Texas are different from regular people in New Hampshire, but their votes count the same.
I truly hope the Tea Party movement matures very quickly to embrace these facts, lest their potential be severely limited.
-
The notion that Cruz's appeal is only to tea partiers is faulty. His intelligence, speaking/debate ability and strong support of the constitution will appeal to a wide swath. Right now he is defined in large by the media. He has the ability to change that
-
I think Scott Brown appeals to "regular" people, too. Regular people in Texas are different from regular people in New Hampshire, but their votes count the same.
I truly hope the Tea Party movement matures very quickly to embrace these facts, lest their potential be severely limited.
Scott Brown. Seriously! Mr. "no-labels"
-
Scott Brown. Seriously! Mr. "no-labels"
So what do you propose? Running an unelectable candidate for the GOP? Seriously.
-
So what do you propose? Running an unelectable candidate for the GOP? Seriously.
Well, #1 Scott Brown is preparing to make yet another run for the senate - this time from New Hampshire. And #2 he is a member of "no labels" along with Jon Huntsman, Jr. (who I seem to recall you supported).. neither is a Republican.
-
Well, #1 Scott Brown is preparing to make yet another run for the senate - this time from New Hampshire. And #2 he is a member of "no labels" along with Jon Huntsman, Jr. (who I seem to recall you supported).. neither is a Republican.
#1 what do you propose? Running an unelectable candidate?
#2 You recall wrong, again. I never supported Huntsman. Apparently your recaller failed you again. Maybe best not imputing the thoughts of others, as you seem to frequently resort to.
#3 Brown is a New Hampshire Republican, a concept you are apparently incapable of grasping.
Good luck prevailing in national politics, by writing off those regions that don't hold your own personal views. But that is a big part of the dilemma facing the GOP right now.
-
To go back to the OP for a second:
Why is he renouncing his citizenship in the first place?
He's American. Wants to be President. Is kicking the country that supplies a lot of raw materials to the US and has always been a steady ally in the crotch a good tactic?
-
#1 what do you propose? Running an unelectable candidate?
#2 You recall wrong, again. I never supported Huntsman. Apparently your recaller failed you again. Maybe best not imputing the thoughts of others, as you seem to frequently resort to.
#3 Brown is a New Hampshire Republican, a concept you are apparently incapable of grasping.
Good luck prevailing in national politics, by writing off those regions that don't hold your own personal views. But that is a big part of the dilemma facing the GOP right now.
Vote for whomever you want. Even if he did run he's be a 1% candidate.
-
To go back to the OP for a second:
Why is he renouncing his citizenship in the first place?
He's American. Wants to be President. Is kicking the country that supplies a lot of raw materials to the US and has always been a steady ally in the crotch a good tactic?
Because after the fuss "true conservatives" made over Obama's birth certificate, etc. they want to leave no loophole in case Cruz decides to run.
However it is not cut and dried, that Cruz qualifies, under the criteria "true conservatives" were citing just a few years ago for Obama.
I like Cruz. And I can simultaneously wonder if he is qualified. What a trick. Two ideas at once. And they are my own, too.
-
in a head to head between brown and cruz can there really be any doubt cruz would eat him after crushing him in a national race? Mr cheesecake vs Mr constitution. Seriously?
-
Because after the fuss "true conservatives" made over Obama's birth certificate, etc. they want to leave no loophole in case Cruz decides to run.
However it is not cut and dried, that Cruz qualifies, under the criteria "true conservatives" were citing just a few years ago for Obama.
I like Cruz. And I can simultaneously wonder if he is qualified. What a trick. Two ideas at once. And they are my own, too.
Next thing you're going to start telling us you can walk and chew gum at the same time! :tongue2:
-
in a head to head between brown and cruz can there really be any doubt cruz would eat him after crushing him in a national race? Mr cheesecake vs Mr constitution. Seriously?
Depends on where they are running. In Wisconsin Brown beats Cruz. I will vote GOP no matter who the primary voters pick. By the time it comes to WI my candidate will be chosen. If it's Ted I vote Ted. The bad news is it won't be Ted. No amount of self flagellation and prayer will change that. If I had to put money down today it will be Christie. Seriously.
-
Depends on where they are running. In Wisconsin Brown beats Cruz. I will vote GOP no matter who the primary voters pick. By the time it comes to WI my candidate will be chosen. If it's Ted I vote Ted. The bad news is it won't be Ted. No amount of self flagellation and prayer will change that. If I had to put money down today it will be Christie. Seriously.
Put your cash away, it won't be Christie. This is a nation of p u s s y(bleeped? not that context)-footers and toe in the water types. Only Leftists have the right to make statements with their votes. Along with won't be Christie is, it won't be Cruz or Paul or even Walker. Get ready for not any of them. Who's turn is it to fail? Huckleberry. Gov Huckleberry. That you can take to the bank.
-
Put your cash away, it won't be Christie. This is a nation of bleepfooters and toe in the water types. Only Leftists have the right to make statements with their votes. Along with won't be Christie is, it won't be Cruz or Paul or even Walker. Get ready for not any of them. Who's turn is it to fail? Huckleberry. Gov Huckleberry. That you can take to the bank.
1. Christian.
2. Chubby without being fat.
3. Name recognition.
4. Enough of nanny statist to care about the "children".
5. Christian.
6. Enough baggage to be destroyed in the "General"
7. Enough weakness to be unable to debate.
8. It's his turn.
9. Christian
-
So what do you propose? Running an unelectable candidate for the GOP? Seriously.
At this very moment in time there is no unelectable 'pub candidate. IMO
-
CRUZ/GOWDY in '16
:thumbsup: