Ted Cruz: Stakes Are Too High To Not Support Romney

Tampa – After easily winning his primary in July, the Ron Paul endorsed Ted Cruz is well on his way to winning a US Senate seat in Texas. Cruz, a darling of the insurgent Tea Party movement,  has rocketed to national stardom in conservative and Republican circles. He got a primetime speaking slot at this year's convention. At a breakfast sponsored by the Iowa Republican Party, Cruz maintained that backers of Congressman Ron Paul need to stay in the Republican Party and not bolt for Libertarian Gary Johnson because "the stakes are too high."

"I understand the passions, but at the end of the day this is about liberty. Liberty will be profoundly threatened if Obama is elected to a second term. I think if the liberty movement stays active in the Republican Party it will help ensure that the Republican Party stands for liberty. The Senate is the battleground. It is so incredibly important we have small-government, free-market conservatives in the party to help ensure that when we win we will hold the party accountable," he said.

Cruz sounded a somewhat apocalyptic tone when talking about the prospect of a second term for President Obama.

"Liberty is threatened right now like never before in our country. A second term for Barack Obama would make us look back to these last three years as the end days of the moderate Barack Obama," Cruz said.

"I think in a second term an Obama administration would have no limits to its attempt to expand government spending, grow our debt, and most importantly expand the control of the federal government over the economy and every aspect of our lives. I feel the damage would be fundamental and profound," Cruz continued. "Any lover of liberty should be horrified at that notion and I believe motivated to do everything within our power to prevent it from happening." 

Cruz is facing a former Democratic state representative and Libertarian business owner in a race for the open US Senate seat in Texas. I interviewed his Libertarian opponent earlier this month. 

Comments

[Shmurphy]

Jesus fuck, Ted, if liberty is being threatened how about not throwing your support behind one of the guys threatening it?

[Cenotaph]

Because if we don't then the Obama threat becomes a reality.

[CuriousGeorge]

So instead we get the Romney reality?

no thank you, its not any better.

[Paul.]

Even if you convince me that liberty is uniquely threatened under a second Obama term (and Biden in 2016), give me the bullet points on how liberty is going to be uniquely advanced under a Romney administration?

[Cenotaph]

You have to stop the bleeding before you stitch up the wound.

[wef]

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

years of republican control of house, senate and executive

six years of gushing, open multiple gashes, lesions, gouges, slashes and general lacerations and trauma.

what did that party of con artists do to stitch up the wounds?

Most Important Election Ever!!!!

[Cenotaph]

This isn't GWB's Republican Party anymore. The TP did not exist in 2005.

Also, Dems controlled the Senate from May 24, 2001 (with Jim Jeffords switching parties) until Jan 1, 2003.

[Shmurphy]

I disagree, I haven't seen anything to convince me that these aren't the same war-mongering social cons. They still play lip service to the free market while propping up their own favored entitlements.

The very least that I can hope for is that perhaps this back-and-forth leadership swap between the two parties will demonstrate just how necessary it is that libertarian viewpoints be taken seriously.

[Penis Carrot]

Paul Ryan- voted for TARP, and was pathetic in explaining what he was doing. Romneycare Mitt.

You're right- these guys are worse than GWB.

[Stormy Dragon]

This isn't GWB's Republican Party anymore. The TP did not exist in 2005.

And this demonstrates the problem with the Tea Party. It's all the same people who were in the GWB Republican Party, just with a shiny new name so they can avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for their past actions. The Tea Party is the Republican version of the anti-war movement. It appears out of nowhere when the Democrats are in control and will disappear just as suddenly the second the Republicans are back in charge.

[Sam Grove]

I'm not buying it.
I've heard this story ever since I paid attention to politics, in 1980.

Republicans increase the power of the state and then tell us how bad it will be if Dems control that power.

Which party do you want to get the blame for the next economic debacle?

[Cenotaph]

The economic libertarians will get the blame regardless. The statists will control the govt, the media, and have a much easier story to tell than we do.

Our best hope is to try to prevent the crisis or at least mitigate it. It may be easier to sit on the sidelines and piss and moan about what the people who actually do something are doing, while refusing to lift a finger to produce real change, but it's not a role for a lover of liberty.

[SML]

Most important election ever!!!!

[Death Rock and Skull]

If Obama is removed from office in this election, it would be pretty sweet to witness the disappointment of progressives and throw the dissatisfaction with their policies in their face.

However, I do not expect Romney to do much of anything that libertarians and people who prefer limited government would approve of. With Romney in office, it would take eight more years for there to be another chance for a libertarian leaning person to be nominated as a republican presidential candidate, because of course the republican party will not hold a primary against its own sitting candidate. Meanwhile, another democrat might get elected after four years of Romney and during all this time it will be difficult to get either party to actually support limited government.

If Obama gets four more years to make things worse, it might be the persuasion that is needed to show the blatant failure of progressive policy and put someone who actually favors limited government in office in only four years rather than a minimum of eight years.

I don't know which of those paths will better lead to the outcome I want, but regardless I will be voting for Gary Johnson to help keep as much libertarian voting presence as possible visible. If Romney gets elected I will be proud of the ego blow to Obama voters, but if Obama gets reelected and his policies fail for four more years it could radically charge up the preference for limited government.

[Cenotaph]

if Obama gets reelected and his policies fail for four more years it could radically charge up the preference for limited government.

Wishful thinking. Why not hope for 20 years of statism and failure to really amp up the support for libertarianism?

Oh wait, we've already had it.

[goneGalt]

"Liberty is threatened right now like never before in our country."

oh...

FUCK you!

[Sevo]

Obamney or Robama? Really tough choice.
Glad Johnson is on the ballot.

[Brian from Texas]

Anyone who thinks Mitt 'Barack Obama II' Romney is going to save this country is a fool. Just like Obama picked up where Bush left off, Romney will pick up where Obama left off.

[cavalier973]

Exactly so.

[Cenotaph]

Romney isn't going to save the country. He's just going to not destroy it as quickly, while we liberty lovers continue the work of edumacating the people so that a libertarian-ish candidate actually has a chance to win something more than a House seat for a district where he's delivered 75% of the babies.

[Sam Grove]

No, when Mitt fails to turn the tide, libertarian policies will be blamed.

[Cenotaph]

And if Obama is in office, they won't be? They're still blaming GWB for this crap and people lap it up like hotcakes.

[Sam Grove]

The point is that a Romney win won't do anything for libertarians.

You can play the "our tribe" vs "their tribe" (just like the other side) forever and there will be no significant change.

That's why Ron Paul had to be squeezed out of the race, to ensure there will be little change in the course of the state. Too many are too invested in the status quo to permit that.

[Paleo-ConAvenger]

Good point..

[Stormy Dragon]

If we're doomed either way, frankly I'd like to destroy the country as quickly as possible, while I'm still young enough to survive the rebuilding.

[Cytotoxic]

Cruz maintained that backers of Congressman Ron Paul need to stay in the Republican Party -Yes.

and not bolt for Libertarian Gary Johnson because "the stakes are too high." -Fuck off.

[Cenotaph]

You have to stop the bleeding before you put on the antiseptic...

You have to rub in the antiseptic before you put on the bandage...

You have to pull off the bandage before you stitch up the wound...

You have to rip out the stitches before you can let the wound heal completely.

Why do you insist on doing it all in one step, a step that you have to know is never going to happen (electing GJ). Are you just going to let this country bleed to death because you want the effusive wound to go away immediately without even leaving a scar?

[Cytotoxic]

I was open-minded but Romney, while an improvement over Obama, is just not good enough. Romney is offering NO equivalents to even 'stopping the bleeding'. More like 'beating us less harshly to cause fewer wounds'. I can't vote, but if I could I would refuse to give my sanction to a statist like Romney. We can't do it one step and we can't do it with zero steps.

[Stormy Dragon]

Actually, I think Romney is worse than Obama. An Obama administration will just cost me money. Romney wants to use force to make me a good little Christian. I'd rather be poor in France than rich in Iran.

[Sam Grove]

Romney doesn't care why you vote for him, neither does the GOP. A vote for Romney will be taken as an endorsement for the Patriot act, continued war and militarism, and a dismissal of the idea of actually reducing government spending in time to prevent fiscal calamity.

A vote for Gary Johnson tells everybody that you are not buying into perpetuating the status quo, that you will not sanction increasing spending, perpetual war, and the concurrent fascism.

[Cenotaph]

Tells who? 99.9% of Americans won't even know what Gary Johnson's vote total is, let alone consider the deep ramifications of what your vote says about you.

[Rob]

99.9% of Americans won't even know what Gary Johnson's vote total is, let alone consider the deep ramifications of what your vote says about you.

That isn't much of an argument against voting for Gary Johnson.

The first step in electing better leaders is to stop voting for shitty ones. I realize Johnson won't be elected, and accept that by voting for him I will be part of an incredibly small minority. What I refuse to accept any longer is throwing my vote behind a candidate just to make sure "the other guy" doesn't win.

Neither Republican's nor Democrats have any substance. Every election boils down to a race to beat the other guy. No vision, no ideas, no plan for the future. Win the election, and gear up for the next campaign. Fuck them, I'm not voting for that anymore.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Though I feel a bit dirty about it I voted for Cruz in the primary and runoff. I will not be voting for him in the general (and never was). Dewhurst is a piece of shit and his negative campaign was truly sickening.

[John Jay]

He sounds like a smurf that has been programmed to say the word "Liberty" instead of smurf.

[Apogee]

Cruz has it backwards - It's Romney that needs to appease Paul and his supporters if their lack of participation can throw the race.

[Srungbee]

lol, thats too funyn dude, they are ALL lairs. They tell the sheeple what they weant to hear to get the votes then kick them in the nuts once elected.

http://www.IP-Privacy.tk

[EdK]

Obmney/Robama NO SIGNIFICANT difference.

Vote Gary Johnson!
Vote John Jay Myers!

[MuscleSmith]

John Jay Myers for U.S. Senate 2012!!

http://www.JohnJayMyers.com/

Way better choice than Cruz! 😀