Ted Cruz

5 Things to Know About Ted Cruz's Run for President

|

C-SPAN

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) just announced that he's running for president at a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He's the first candidate to make the announcement official in the 2016 cycle. Here are five things to know about Cruz and his candidacy.

1. He wanted to be the first candidate to announce because he thought it would bring him attention. Being first out of the gate, his campaign hopes, will catch the eye of both high-engagement Republican primary voters and the media—and, in the process, might slow or stop Gov. Scott Walker's rapid rise. Via The New York Times:

By becoming the first candidate to declare himself officially in the race, Republicans briefed on his strategy said, Mr. Cruz hopes to reclaim the affection and attention of those on the party's right wing who have begun eyeing other contenders, particularly Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

"It's the shiny object principle. He wants to be first, get in the conversation, not show any doubt or hesitation," said Dave Carney, a longtime Republican strategist. "There's an advantage to being first. He's now the only one running for president, instead of engaging in this Kabuki dance that the others are."

Of course there's always a danger to being first, too, which is that by the time the big scrum gets going, you're old news. 

2. He's targeting tea party conservatives first, social conservatives and libertarians second. A Houston Chronicle report over the weekend sketched out the basic strategy: "Cruz will vie for the support of the tea party electorate, his advisers say, but will fare well enough with social conservative and libertarian voters to assemble a powerful coalition." The content of the speech, which leaned heavily on Cruz's personal faith, and the location of the announcement, at a prominent evangelical college founded by the late Jerry Falwell, make me wonder if perhaps he's targeting social cons as much as tea party types—leaving libertarians a distant, lonely second.

3. He's loved and adored by the GOP's conservative base. As Ben Domenech writes in this morning's Transom newsletter:

Ted Cruz matches up with the activist base better than any other significant candidate in a long time. I don't think people outside of that base really understand how powerful Cruz's appeal is to the populist energized conservative voter, which is of course just a faction of the right, but is a sizable faction. Cruz's critics need to hope that he is limited to this faction, and incapable of appealing outside of it. But that may not prove to be the case, particularly if Cruz is able to cut into the appeal of, say, Walker for pro-business types, Huckabee for social conservatives, Paul for libertarianish Republicans and the like. And he doesn't just match up with them on policy, he matches up with their brashness, their yearning for someone who loves the taste of blood in his mouth.

I can vouch for this. I saw Cruz's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference a few weeks ago, and the crowd ate it up. He was speaking their language; it was a rock-concert-like mind-meld between speaker and audience. Cruz really connects with these folks, and, perhaps just as importantly, he doesn't embarass them like some other base-friendly candidates in years past. 

4. Cruz is running on a flat tax. He hasn't offered a whole lot of details, but he's said repeatedly that he wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service entirely. And in today's speech, he touted the idea using a familiar pitch, saying his goal would be to "let every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard."

5. Cruz is adamantly against ethanol cronyism—even in Iowa. Cruz has pushed a bill to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, and, as Politico's Morning Energy notes, he stood his ground against the RFS in a recent trip to Iowa.

Cruz has co-sponsored legislation that would repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard over a period of five years, and when he spoke at an agriculture summit in RFS-loving Iowa earlier this month, he stuck to his guns. "The answer you'd like me to give is 'I'm for the RFS, darn it,'" Cruz responded to Bruce Rastetter, the agribusiness mogul who organized the summit. "That'd be the easy thing to do. But people are pretty fed up with politicians that run around and tell one group one thing and tell another group another thing. Then they go to Washington and don't do anything they said they would do."

That's a real contrast to Scott Walker, who flip-flopped on the issue at a recent Iowa stop. Indeed, Cruz's clear stance against the federal ethanol mandate makes him somewhat rare in the GOP field.   

NEXT: Constitutional and property law scholars amicus brief in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture - the raisin takings case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 7 Reason why I’m unexcited.

    1. I’m actually pretty excited about his candidacy.

      If he can deliver socially conservative voters, he’d make a great Secretary of Labor in the Rand Paul Administration.

      1. Why not make him ambassador to the Ukraine?

        1. Ever since Obama nationalized GM (on my dime) by way of TARP, I’ve had a mean hankering to see the UAW overseen by a too legit to quit Tea Party member.

          Audit the Fed? I’d rather audit the UAW.

          1. Bet it really pisses you off that the bailouts worked and turned a $50 billion profit.

            1. Why would I be happy that the government has extracted any money from the private sector, Tony?

              1. Because that’s what governments do.

            2. Were you an Enron CPA or something?

            3. The U.S. Government lost over $11 billion directly in the nationalization of GM.

              http://www.reuters.com/article…..MR20140430

              That $11 billion figure doesn’t include the special tax exemption that GM was given on its profits by the Obama Administration.

              http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB…..2149103202

              According to that Wall Street Journal article, GM’s tax exemptions means they might not have had to pay as much as $45 billion in taxes on the profits–stiffing the taxpayer again.

            4. CNN documented them exercising those options and not paying $14 billion in taxes they owed here:

              http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/2…../index.htm

              It doesn’t surprise me that Tony is wrong on the facts.

              You’re wrong about everything else, too.

              And besides that, Tony has never found facts that conflict with his views to be any impediment to continuing to trumpet them–however wrong he is–whatsoever.

              1. If you read that CNN link I posted above, there are some excellent examples of people telling the truth:

                “Why give GM a break?

                One reason the government might have let General Motors claim the loss, was to reduce the perceived cost of the bailout, said Linus Wilson, finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

                By allowing GM to carry over its losses, the reduced tax collections from the company were unlikely to be counted under most accountings.”

                Giving them $45 billion in taxpayer cash just sounds so…harsh. Let’s just give them a get out of jail free card worth $45 billion!

                Note: They’re not letting them shield $45 billion in profits from taxation.

                They GM [which was majority owned by the UAW] a tax credit worth $45 billion that no one else gets!

                1. I love how Tony glossed right over the fact that they got special tax exemption treatment.

              2. The GM bailout alone did not turn a profit, but the bailouts taken in total did. One could argue that $10 billion is a good price for keeping a major interconnected industry afloat. You don’t have to argue that, but you could. It’s not the end of the world.

                1. Actually, having to pay any price to keep a “major interconnected industry afloat” is proof that the industry isn’t worth paying for in the first place. You’d have been better off letting GM fold and cutting checks to the employees.

                  Or do you feel that the only problem with a leaky rowboat is not having a big enough bucket?

                2. The UAW didn’t make any structural changes from stopping the same thing from happening again.

                  “One could argue that $10 billion is a good price for keeping a major interconnected industry afloat.”

                  There would still be an auto industry in this country with or without GM–much to your dismay. I thought you were all about the environment?

                  If the American taxpayers wanted to take out loans against their future paychecks and send the money to support the UAW, they would have done so of their own accord.

                  I hope UAW workers starve to death. Why did Obama force me to underwrite their bankrupting lifestyles with my paycheck?

                  Because YOU think it sound like a “good investment” to you?!

                  That’s my money. I earned it. Fuck you, Tony.

                3. That’s rich. How did Ford do so well without the bailout? Not to mention Toyota which are made here and other companies.

                  The bail out was to help the UAW. It had nothing to do with industry.

                  Oops I forget you only read at a blue team level. Government good. Self responsibility – bad

                4. One could argue that Tony supports large corporations, and empowering them via the state, and is therefore a fascist.

                  And since he’s a “liberal,” he almost certainly is, and a racist as well.

                5. Yes, Tony, many of us Could argue that ‘keeping a major interconnected industry afloat’ WAS a Bad Idea, but yes, we can’t prove it because that’s not what happened. There are rarely, if ever, ‘controlled, double-blind experiments’ in Economics or Politics.

                  I’m wondering if you defend any or all of the ‘megabank bailouts’ with the same rationale?… Just curious. Wondering if there’s any consistency there, wherever ‘there’ is… 🙂

                6. Did you account for the losses to the bondholders like me who were essentially zeroed out? My personal loss was about $5K, but, I’m very happy for the UAW workers who got to keep their 6 figure jobs and pensions.

                  When do I get paid back?

            5. I stole my neighbor’s old TV, pawned it for $50, bought some scratch-off lottery tickets, won $1,000, fed a bunch of orphans, bought my neighbor a new TV, still had enough to buy me a couple of crack rocks. Hooray for me, right, the theft of the TV worked?
              .
              Yes, it does piss me off that the bailouts “worked”, because the bailouts “worked” best if you think the plus side of the ledger includes the lesson the government learned that they can simply seize control of an enormous company like GM and do whatever the fuck they want and not only will nobody do shit about it but plenty of people will applaud.

              1. Except the bailout didn’t work.

                It put the taxpayers more than $50 billion in the red.

                $11 billion in cash.

                $45 billion in tax credits.

                See any one of my links.

                And the bailout left an implicit guarantee in place that if the UAW destroys the company again, the taxpayers will bail them out again.

                The UAW used the government to screw the hardworking taxpayers to finance the UAW member’s lavish pay and lifestyles. They shit all over working Americans, and they expect us to thank them for it.

                Fuck the UAW. I hope they all starve to death.

                1. Thanks for pulgging the numbers, Ken.

                  PS you are a Kulak and a wrecker.

                2. Didn’t the govt also screw the bondholders of GM, like the Indiana St Police Union that sued them?

                  Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC was a lawsuit brought in SUS federal court June 2009 by several pension funds against Chrysler and the US Dept of Treasury, to block the planned sale of Chrysler assets to a “New Chrysler” entity in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

                  The case arose from the high-profile bankruptcy of Chrysler, in which the U.S. Treasury orchestrated a sale under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code to avoid the debtors’ having to fully compensate a group of first lien priority creditors, which included roughly 100,000 retired teachers and police officers from Indiana. The UAW, which was closely allied with the Obama Administration, was a junior, unsecured creditor who stood to gain from the plan of sale.

                  []

                  The sale had been ordered to proceed by the decision in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The order was appealed by the pensioners to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and from there to the United States Supreme Court, who decided not to hear the case, and dropped the stay allowing the asset sale to proceed.[3][4][5] As a result of the sale the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) gained a 55 percent ownership stake in the automaker

                  So much worse than the $54 bn of direct losses

                  1. Oh, that was wholesale theft of Chrysler’s bondholders.

                    I was just talking about the hit to the taxpayers, specifically.

                3. you forgot to include $30 billion in secured debt taken from creditors and handed over to the union. Under bankruptcy law the secured creditors would have gotten their money back in the form of ownership of whatever entity came out the other side of bankruptcy, or from the sale of assets (which would have covered the secured debt as well).

                  Instead they were bullied into “forgiving” the debt by white house threats to run them out of business. The equity they rightfully owned was given to the unsecured “creditor”, the UAW.

                  This was straight-up, undiluted theft. Not even a “for the public” angle to it.

            6. Bet it really pisses you off that the bailouts worked and turned a $50 billion profit.

              If you rub together two of your brain cells together long enough, I think we might generate enough energy for you to compute that $50billion profits were taken from an escrow account set up by the government with tax payer money, accounts explicitly designed to give the appearance of paying back the “loan”.

            7. Bet it really pisses you off that the bailouts worked and turned a $50 billion profit.

              No, 60… uhh… 70 billion! Yeah that’s it, that’s the ticket.

            8. No this pisses me off

              http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..w-cover-up

              and this

              http://www.reuters.com/article…..MR20140430

              But that’s ok right?

            9. Tony|3.23.15 @ 12:13PM|#
              “Bet it really pisses you off that the bailouts worked and turned a $50 billion profit.”

              I’ll betting long odds that the lefty asshole really has no idea what “profit” means.

              1. I’ll betting long odds that the lefty asshole really has no idea what “profit” means.

                I think it’s the prize money you get for exploiting the labor of others or something.

              2. Profit is money that capitalists steal from workers. In this case the government made the profit, so for once the people made the profits. Power to the people. The people, united, will never be divided. This is what democracy looks like.

            10. WHAT? Are you serious? GM is bleeding cash every month. $50 billion profit? WHat planet are you on?

    2. We can refer to him as Pat Buchanan Lite.

      1. I still see Joe McCarthy when I look at Cruz, but Pat Buchanan Lite is pretty good.

        1. I think, as was pointed out..it’s Mr. Haney…

    3. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

      1. I will pay you $500 an hour to run your privates through a ham slicer.

    4. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

      1. $90 an hour working from home!

        Do you work for the UAW?

        1. Then that must be the wages after union dues.

        2. No, $90/hour is donkey-porn money.

  2. Two more things I found amusing:

    1. Attendance at the “rally” was mandatory. So Cruz was addressin a captive audience of fundamentalist Christians, which is a visual I’m not sure he should strive for.

    2. A clever group of Rand Paul supporters attended the rally and managed to insert themselves in their “Stand with Rand” shirts into multiple photos of Cruz. That’s A level trolling right there.

    1. So Cruz was addressin a captive audience of fundamentalist Christians, which is a visual I’m not sure he should strive for.

      I know people who go there who aren’t fundies. It’s kinda bizarre given the school’s mission statement, but apparently it’s not a bad school for some things. It caters hard to vets and a lot of the programs are available to online students.

      But mandatory attendance to a political rally poorly disguised as a “convocation ceremony?” Pfft.

      Cruz proves he’s a tool with this move.

      1. To align himself with the Tea Party base there is little better place to do it than Liberty University which has a rather large alumni network and influence in that sphere. For Liberty, this raises there profile even more and like minded people that may have never heard of them are now very aware. Worked out rather well from each point of view.

        As far as Liberty as a school it states explicitly they will indoctrinate you with their values, so you know what you’re getting if you go there. I know certain programs do an excellent job getting their grads jobs, but I can’t speak for all. I would say they are a slightly better version, on the opposite side of the spectrum, of most state universities.

        1. What does bible-thumping have to do with the tea party.

    2. 1. Attendance at the “rally” was mandatory.

      “Liberty” University, lol.

      1. “Live free or die”
        And if you don’t like the license plate, you can go to jail.

    3. Rand Paul might have good ideas, but damned if I’m not having trouble separating him from his piece-of-scum father.

  3. Anybody that isn’t actively hostile to the principles of free market capitalism is going to be head and shoulders above Obama.

    What’s he like on foreign policy?

    1. Ted Cruz Is Prepping a Foreign Policy-Focused Presidential Campaign

      So he’s one of those preppers.

      I’m guessing we’ll have “National Bug-Out Day” if he’s elected.

    2. “What’s he like on foreign policy?”

      “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Wednesday he considers his views on foreign policy to be ‘somewhere in between’ the poles of libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and hawkish GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).”

      1. He’s somewhere south of the north pole, and north of the south pole. It was nice of him to narrow that down for us.

        Interesting how after all this time, the Democrats still don’t have a foreign policy to speak of.

        Or, maybe you can sum their foreign policy stance up in three words: “climate change treaty”.

        1. If they tried to articulate a foreign policy I think they would sound approximately as clear as Senator Cruz.

        2. “Interesting how after all this time, the Democrats still don’t have a foreign policy to speak of.”

          Interesting but hardly surprising. That’s because they don’t have a political philosophy, per se. They just spout whatever feels good. Principles? Nah. Same with their lack of domestic policy — other than being against “inequality”, they have no template to apply to an issue.

          1. What counts as a principled foreign policy? Only make war when there’s oil to be had? That’s a principle. One might assume that in the real world a smart foreign policy would be determined by pragmatic assessments of international realities. The only people who need concern themselves with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be an “Obama Doctrine” are TV pundits who need to have thoughts condensed to two-word phrases.

            1. Please don’t take my bashing of Dems to mean support of the GOP. They suck at foreign policy, too. I repeat: they suck.

              1. “Democrats and Republicans are both bad” is far, far too nuanced a position for Tony to grasp.

                1. “Democrats and Republicans are both bad” is far, far too nuanced a position for Tony to grasp.

                  There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who think binarily and those who don’t.

              2. The only people who need concern themselves with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be an “Obama Doctrine” would be anybody who thinks there should be some, you know, principled views on things, some way to judge beforehand what one’s views would be on something rather than an eternal ad hoc approach to dealing with the issue of the day. Or waiting to hear what somebody else says about the issue before deciding whether you’re for it or against it like some people do.

            2. How about not fucking with other people’s countries and bombing even our supposed allies via drone?

              Oh wait, you support foreign intervention bullshit when Obama does it.

              It’s especially funny that you try to accuse us of supporting the Iraq debacle when just about every person here, save Cytotoxic, has denounced that war that your great leader wanted to continue and is agitating to start up again.

              1. Among the many reasons to be against the Iraq War, one is that it was destined to create a neverending shitstorm that would be nearly impossible for the US to extricate itself from. And don’t presume to tell me what I support. US military intervention seems to have produced precious little benefit for the US or anyone else who’s not a defense contractor. Not a fan. Also not a fan of implicitly forgiving Bush’s debacle by pretending that Obama’s actions are somehow equivalent.

            3. Only make war when there’s oil to be had? That’s a principle

              That’s not a principle actually. Though it’s not at all surprising that you don’t know the meaning of the word “principle”.

              1. Yeah I know, a principle is a thing that lets you believe in shitting on poor people without feeling bad about yourself.

                1. Disagreeing about the proper role of government in helping people = “shitting on.” Ok, Tony.

                  God, you’re a terrible person. I hope you get an itch on the bottom of your foot that won’t go away.

                2. Yeah I know, a principle is a thing that lets you believe in shitting on poor people without feeling bad about yourself.

                  How does this relate to anything in this thread or article? You just throw shit at the all to see what sticks. Every debate with you is more pathetic than the last.

            4. Damn that bastard Bush for going after all that oil in Afghanistan!

        3. I thought the Democrats foreign policy was the same as it had been since Woodrow Wilson.

        4. the Democrats still don’t have a foreign policy to speak of.

          Sure they do. The Muslim Brotherhood should be in charge of Sunni Islam, and Iran should be in charge of Shiite Islam. And Russia should be in charge of whatever Russia wants to be in charge of.

          1. +1 snappy salute

          2. And Russia should be in charge of whatever Russia wants to be in charge of.

            I think Russia thinks that any territory once held by Russian (or Slavs?) and any Russian (or Slavic?) speaker should fall under Mother Russia’s protection?

            1. So . . . similar to Islam? They’re still talking about ending the occupation of Andalusia.

      2. “I only support undeclared never-ending war thiiiisssss much,” holding thumb and forefinger apart.

        Gee Cruz, only that much? Wow, what a guy.

        /sarc

    3. AmCon is not impressed:

      http://www.theamericanconserva…..gn-policy/

      Of course, they’ve also recently labelled Rand Paul a hawk.

      1. I’ve been keeping up with their website for a little while. I like it. I’m not impressed by any of the candidates (or potential candidates). Hell, even Ron Paul was a pretty mild libertarian when it came to his public statements.

        Let’s not get sloppy, here, folks. Being better than the current administration is a low hurdle — and call me a cynic, but I look forward to bashing the next administration, even if it turns out to be led by a member of the GOP.

        1. Any Administration run by anyone short of the Risen and Return Jesus Christ deserves to be bashed. And I am sure some saints would snipe at the Son of Man, if libertarian enough…

          1. ^^This.

      2. They’re also run by a man who declared Putin to be the Great Conservative Hope.

        I don’t think AmCon’s opinion carries much weight with many people.

        1. They’re also run by a man who declared Putin to be the Great Conservative Hope.

          Pat Buchanan is, well, really, really stupid.

          He takes dipshitted Rothbardian revisionism and takes it to the most fantastically moronic level imaginable. Derptologist would get sucked into the vortex staring at the void of Buchanan’s derpitude.

    4. Full neocon, full so-con and full Fortress America. How is going to appeal to libertarians again?

    5. He’s a Canadian.

  4. Five things to know about Almanian’s run for President:

    1) I’m not on any TEAM, and don’t have a party. It’s just me.
    2) I accept no donations and intend to spend no money campaigning.
    3) No, fuck you, cut spending (yes, I stole that from ProL – deal with it)
    4) The White House will be sold to Disney or Cedar Point or someone and turned into an amusement park to make money that will be applied to pay off the deficit. My house will the “the White House” during my term, and we’ll still have bonfires on the weekends.
    5) It’s probably hopeless, but

    Almanian for President – 2016
    “I probably won’t make it any worse.”

    1. Why switch horses midstream?

      1. Why switch horses’ asses midstream?

        FIFY

      2. Why switch hosings midstream?

        1. Because what’s coming out of that hose right now is infected with HIV.

          1. I thought we were scared of ebola these days.

    2. I’m intrigued. Who’s your running mate? And what’s your position on the US continually letting Warty run free?

      1. Banning Warty just made him more expensive and more dangerous. Best to just let Warty remain legal but teach your children to stay away from him.

      2. No jail can hold him.

        1. Indeed.

          I’ve heard that every time the “authorities” try to catch Warty in their nets Warty immobilizes the agents in cocoons of a strong substance shot from anterior spinnerets before scampering along the strands and darting off with a sinister chuckle.

          1. Warty used to fuck jails like you when he was in prison.

            1. You’re the first person who’s mistaken me for a penal institution.

              I’m no slammer.

              I found a good shirt for Warty (or Epi, I suppose): http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/b3b2/

              1. Warty is not Chaotic Evil. His Evil is very well-planned and deliberate.

                1. Thanks, SF. I’m relatively new and haven’t seen that yet.

                  *makes notes*

              2. No comment.

    3. You were born in Almania.

      DQ’d, big dawg.

    4. But what about the really important questions. Do you know who the president of Shitfuckistan is? How much is a gallon of milk? Do you believe AGW is killing mother Gaia or do you hate children and puppies? Are you a racist or sexist?

      1. 1) No.
        2) Too damned much, even though the fucking government subsidizes it. I wait till it’s on sale for $2/gal at Kroger. Why are grown ass adults drinking milk anyway? It’s made to fatten baby cows. What do you think it’s doing to you? That said, I like a nice, cold glass of whole milk about once a month – the rest is for cooking. Also, stop the goddamned farm subsidies – and that’s from someone whose dad escaped the farm, but still grew up in the middle of Farmtown, Mid-Michigan, USA (lotsa dairy, sugar beats, beans and corn in my neck o’ the woods).
        3) I’m all for AGW – I like my granddaughter and my dogs – I don’t really give a shit about yours, except in the general sense. Fuck, mother Gaia – she’s a bitch.
        4) Given current prog definitions, yes, proudly. Is it too early to mention that some of my cousins are 1/2 Messican, and some of my best friends are black?

        1. Re. #4: But how many of your cousins smoke pot and are into buttsex?

          1. I think all the female ones….

    5. The White House will be sold to Disney or Cedar Point …
      .
      Sounds to me like you’re dangerously squishy on the proposition that the only real roller-coaster is a wooden roller-coaster. Cedar Point or GTFO.

  5. I am all for ethanol.

    Just don’t waste it by putting it my gas tank.

    1. I tried to explain to someone once that ethanol was far too valuable a commodity to burn in engines.

      1. Particularly corn ethanol-the proper term for this is bourbon whiskey.

  6. The location of his announcement says a lot about how much he’d care about libertarians versus SoCons.

    If we’re going to get an establishment Republican in 2016, I’d rather it be Walker. I know he’d be bad, but at least he has some credibility in standing up to unions (even if he pussied out on messing with public sector unions). And he’d piss off the progs the most.

    1. Yeah well, it so happens that the 200 seat conference room at the HoJos was booked that weekend.

    2. That’s kinda where I am. I don’t know what it is about him, but I just don’t trust Cruz in office, and I’ve found my spidey sense rarely fails me in this regard. He says some very positive things regarding policy and his Senate record is promising, but there’s just something about him I can’t quite put my finger on.

      Within the establishment, Walker has a proven record in an executive capacity putting his ass on the line for small government stuff. He successfully did battle with the unions in a very union-friendly state and won, and he rebuffed Obamacare by rejecting the federal funds and coming up with a solution within the state. I part ways with him on gay marriage and abortion, but he seems to have no trouble separating his personal beliefs there from his role and power as a governor.

      Of course, this all becomes moot if the establishment can be shifted and reformed around Rand Paul, which would probably be the best of all possible worlds for a libertarian within the Republican party.

      1. I really don’t trust Ted Cruz. He strikes me as awfully similar to Obama in ways that are offputting – first term senator with minimal experience, an incredibly exuberant base that just adores him, speaks largely in platitudes that this base loves despite the total lack of substantive policy contained therein.

        He seems like a demagogue. Unlike Obama, he’s actually accomplished something in this life in the legal field, so I don’t think he’s the empty suit Obama is, but politically he worries me.

        1. Exactly. I can’t help but fear he’ll hit the White House and abandon his campaign rhetoric entirely. Like I say, I don’t have any evidence whatsoever to back that up, but it’s just a funny feeling I have.

          I will say this, though. His voting record, while nice, isn’t necessarily a guarantee that’s he’s going to follow through with that as an executive. There’s a lot of horse trading and inside baseball that happens in Congress when it comes to voting, so casting votes against Obamacare or whatever doesn’t necessarily mean he had the same amount of skin in the game as, say, Scott Walker turning down Obamacare funding, or even Rand Paul when he did his filibuster.

          1. He’s Canuckistani.

          2. I’ll third this. Besides which, governors inherently have a more proven capacity vis a vis Presidential duties than Senators. Senators are good at gabbing and playing various parliamentary games and are rarely held accountable due to the byzantine ways that legislatures work; the buck really does stop at the governor’s office.

            I’m mostly in for Rand, but I have to admit that this is one reason that Walker is a strong second (despite my disagreements with him).

    3. “The location of his announcement says a lot about how much he’d care about libertarians versus SoCons.”

      Candidates will care about libertarians as much as they care about socons when libertarians start providing votes and volunteers in the numbers that socons do.

      1. That’s true. How do people think so-cons became a significant force in the GOP? They did a great deal of work helping the party on the local level in the 1970s, making themselves indispensable in some places. If libertarians did that in other political parties, they could make themselves indispensable there too. That’s how you get influence.

  7. I think he’d be better off staying in the Senate

    1. I think the Supreme Court is his ultimate goal.

      He’d love to be the next Antonin Scalia.

  8. Crucial issue;

    If the New York Times likes him, he’s a doomed pick. If they hate his guts, we might be on to something.

    1. Not sufficiently defining.

      The NYT hates anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren.

  9. No candidate is perfect. It all comes down to which issues you consider more important than others. Cruze is the one of the few Republicans you might be able to trust to actually try and repeal Obamacare since he made his name filibustering trying to stop it. He wants to abolish the IRS and implement a flat tax. He is very pro second amendment. And is very pro states rights on education and most other things.

    The downside for reason is that he is not pro total open borders, he isn’t pro gay marriage and he isn’t pro abortion. I am not sure what he thinks of the drug war, though I can’t imagine him being any worse than Hillary or Jeb and given his real dislike of the federal bureaucracy would likely be better if for no other reason than he would do something to reign in DOJ.

    I like Cruz but I can’t see the Reason staff having much other than loathing for him. He is pro Israel, so Richman and Chapman will think he is Satan’s minion on earth. He is not pro open border, so there goes Dalmia. And he is of course on the wrong side of the most important human rights question since slavery, gay marriage, so there goes the rest of the staff.

    1. To be fair, isn’t Rand Paul anti-gay marriage, too?

      My biggest knock on Cruz is that he isn’t Rand Paul–and Rand Paul winning the presidency would be the best thing that could happen for the libertarian cause since the Soviet Union disintegrated.

      It really is a zero-sum game, isn’t it?

      Every Cruz gain is a loss of Rand Paul.

      Forget the rest. It’s time to Worship Aqua Buddha.

      1. I would be happy with either. I am not sure what Paul’s view on gay marriage is. I don’t think gay marriage is a very important issue. If Paul were pro federally mandated state recognition of gay marriage, I wouldn’t like it, but it wouldn’t cause me to not support Paul. Gay marriage is very important to a lot of Libertarians. They are effectively single issue voters on it. Cruz’s unapologetic rejection of it makes me skeptical he will get much Libertarian support. But who knows.

        1. Well, you bring it up enough–gay marriage must be an important issue to you.

          My understanding is that Rand Paul is against gay marriage.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..x_marriage

          He has to be to win the nomination. The establishment and social conservatives won’t nominate you unless you’re on the right side of certain issues–abortion, the Second Amendment, and gay marriage, for sure.

          Rand Paul has to be on the right side of that issue to be nominated. Once he’s nominated, I’d expect all bets are off. He’s a politician, and isn’t going to do the libertarian movement much good as the junior Senator from Kentucky.

          1. I agree Ken. I just can’t see that position not disqualifying both of them with a lot of Libertarian voters.

            1. Oh, in Obama’s wake, especially now that most of the gay marriage battles are behind us, I think we libertarians are perfectly capable of seeing past Rand Paul’s stand on gay marriage.

              I know I am.

              1. On the list of important issues, the opinion of the possible future Pres on gay marriage is not very important. Taxes, size of government, drug war, foreign policy are the real issues.

          2. “…and isn’t going to do the libertarian movement much good as the junior Senator from Kentucky.”

            I respectfully disagree. Being one of only 100 senators is important. Look, his father didn’t even win his party’s nomination, but I would argue that Ron has done more for the libertarian cause than anyone.

            1. I appreciate that there are things Rand Paul can do as a Senator that we ordinary folk can’t do.

              But being one-one hundredth of one-half of one-third of the federal government isn’t as big of a deal as being a full one-third of the federal government.

              Having a libertarian minded executive would be more power than any libertarian has ever had before.

              1. Absolutely, even though I don’t consider Rand hardcore. I just don’t see him winning. I’ll never forget an old coworker of mine declaring that Ron Paul was “dangerous” because of his non-interventionist stance.

            2. Careful, you’ll summon Michael Hihn and then we’ll all get a lecture about how Ron and Rand aren’t really libertarians and that we are awful socons to like them in any way.

              1. how Ron and Rand aren’t really libertarians

                That’s true.

                that we are awful socons to like them in any way.

                That’s a lie,

                How many libertarians have ever tried to forbid an entire class of citizens from defending their constitutional rights. Umm, how many ANTHING? (Since slavery)

                How many libertarians claim that “separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the Constitution … or in the writings of ANY founder? Do YOU believe anything so wacky?

        2. “Gay marriage is very important to a lot of Libertarians. They are effectively single issue voters on it”

          Can you expand on this?

          1. Aren’t they? I can’t see the reason staff compromising on the issue, can you? Maybe if a candidate was absolutely perfect on the drug war and the NSA, being anti- gay marriage might be ignored. Anything short of that, however, and it mostly likely disqualifies any candidate from getting a good number of Libertarian votes.

            1. Nixon in China.

              Only a virulent anti-communist could have made peace with communist China.

              If Rand Paul has to be anti-gay marriage to win the nomination, then that’s what it takes.

              We have to take what the market will give us and make the best we can with it, and if that’s all the market of ideas will give us right now, then we have to make the best of it.

              And who’s to say, like Nixon in China, that Rand Paul will always be anti-gay marriage? Rand Paul isn’t an ideologue. He’s a politician. They flip-flop all the time! Obama was against gay marriage, too! He campaigned on the slogan that “marriage is between a man and a woman”.

              So what? Flopping at the right time is what winning elections is all about.

              1. Im not sure about larger libertarian trends toward gay marriage; Ive seen plenty of disagreement about it among self-avowed libertarians. Personally I think the executive branch has very little ability to do anything on this issue, so I am unconcerned about presidential nominees opinions on the subject.

            2. You think Reason is going to not support Paul because of SSM?

              1. I am not sure Frank. It wouldn’t shock me to be honest. They might give Paul a pass because he seems more outspoken about other issues like the NSA. I can’t see them giving Cruz a pass.

                As I said, no candidate is perfect. So it comes down to which issues are important. Gay marriage is pretty important to Libertarians and thus it is going to take a lot for a candidate to overcome being against it. Paul might do that but he is the only one.

                1. If Reason is stupid enough to dis Paul, they will not receive another dime from me.

                  Not worried, it ain’t gonna happen. Paul is the first libertarianish candidate to stand a chance. They won’t piss it away.

                  And as far as the Libertarian party goes, if they do not support Paul, even running as a Republican, they sealing their inconsequentiality for all eternity.

                  There are principles, and there are principles “enough” to not be fucking retarded. Paul is far enough over the line to support.

                  1. Bob Barr.

                2. Paul thinks gay marriage is a state issue. I always thought that was the Libertarian position on the issue. Does the Reason staff believe the SCOTUS should be creating gay marriage rights?

              2. You think Reason is going to not support Paul because of SSM?

                They’re already making excuses for it like, “He believes it should be a state matter.” Oh, since when can states violate fundamental rights? And states have no delegated power here, on both the 9th and 14th Amendments … and never did have any such power,

          2. It’s John. Just nod politely and move on.

        3. Gay marriage is very important to a lot of Libertarians. They are effectively single issue voters on it.

          Dunno, I’m fairly apathetic about SSM and think it’s retarded that this happens to be a topic of serious debate.

      2. My biggest knock on Cruz is that he isn’t Rand Paul….

        I’m kind of in the same boat. I’d say Cruz is “libertarian-friendly”, but not really even “libertarianish” the way Paul is. That said, he’s definitely hit some of the right notes, but there’s a lot to be skeptical of.

        Among the likely GOP candidates, Cruz really does seem like the second best, from a libertarian perspective.

        1. According to his Noilan Chart rating from On the Issues, Cruz is right smack-dab on the conservative line. He may be libertarian friendly, as you put it, IOW he tolerates them, but that’s no where near enough to earn my vote. If it’s Cruz, I’ll vote 3rd party.

          So far, as far as voting republican goes, it’s Paul or nothing.

          1. I understand where you’re coming from on this. I just disagree. Honestly, there’s a lot of things the Nolan chart doesn’t capture. The guy has argued from a position that shows, to me at least, that he gets federalism and at least understands you can’t make the world perfect by perpetual intervention. He’s at least acknowledged that the surveillance state raises some pretty significant constitutional issues. None of that shows up on the OtI Nolan chart. I mean, look at their Nolan chart for Lindsey Graham, it shows him as more “libertarian” than Cruz. Is that something you’d really want to say with a straight face?

            1. I’ll give you it isn’t perfect. I am the only perfect thing in this universe. 🙂

              But it’s what I’m using as a summation and a cutoff. Anything falling in the right-most block is unacceptable. PERIOD! I’ll vote Libertarian.

              If it makes it into the upper block, it is acceptable. Note, Rand is borderline.

              And THIS is how On the Issues is scoring. Which is as good at quantifying as I can do.

              1. I am the only perfect thing in this universe. 🙂

                I guess a perfect what is something you’re leaving to the reader’s discretion. 🙂

                Ultimately, it’s a judgement call. I’ve seen enough from Cruz to suggest to me that he at least gets the libertarian critique. And that puts him well ahead of the major party players, except for Paul. That’s enough for me. While I’d prefer an actual libertarian, I can settle for someone who wouldn’t treat libertarian arguments as a punchline. But, I could very well understand that it wouldn’t be enough for you.

      3. Heck, I’m against same sex “marriage”, but I don’t rule somebody out of consider’n as libertarian for disagreeing w me, because so many have fallen into that trap. Same with abortion, where I’m as pro-choice as they come, even favoring legal infanticide, and same with freedom of movement & settlement. I recognize that I’m not the only radical libertarian in the world, and that other radical libertarians, not to mention moderate ones, might analyze these things differently.

    2. That is the weird thing: The things that make him less interesting to Reason writers have little to do with losing him popularity among libertarians generally.

  10. Maybe he can nominate Sarah Palin for Vice President and make it the perfect ticket.

    1. Hazel! Don’t give away what we can sell!

      1. What do you think Cruz will give us in exchange for her?

    2. I’d say that President Amash, with Cruz or Paul as VP would be the best possible GOP ticket. Me? I imagine I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson again.

      1. Ooh, I’d vote for Amash. But it’s almost not worth wasting his candidacy yet. Let’s see another four years of Progressivism in the executive send the country’s economy further down the shitter, and then play your ace in 2020.

    3. Speaking of Sarah Palin, I watched Iron Sky for the first time this weekend?

      1. Just looking at his responses, I’m wondering how he was Nolan charted. It couldn’t’ve been via the WSPQ (which of course has problems anyway). It looks to me as if the social issues dimension is scored very differently, and on much less data, from the way I’d judge.

  11. Meh. Cruz is ok. He’s better than some congress critters. Like all of the democrats and 90% of the GOP.

    I’d probably vote for him over Walker, but still prefer Rand.

    I don’t see Cruz getting much of the libertarian vote, as he’s not libertarian enough to pull the votes away from Rand. And Rand, unlike Cruz will attract a lot of young voters and even some democrat voters.

    I think cruz will appear most to SoCons.

    1. I think cruz will appear most to SoCons.

      Like in a Jacob Marley sense? Because the ghostly rattling of chains all night might be a problem for the quiverful movement.

      1. A quiver full of squalling babes.

      2. Is that anything like the shakers? Do they like quiver a lot, in terror of God’s judgement?

        1. No, they are supposed to have as many kids as possible.

    2. A lesser of two evils is still evil. I’m voting for Gary’s johnson.

      1. My sentiments exactly.

    3. Cruz is pretty much the ideal Tea Party candidate looks like. Of course the establishment hates him and the Democrats are peeing in their pants in terror that one of “those people” has the nerve to run for President. Rand Paul is more of the ideal Tea Party Libertarian fusion candidate. If Libertarians can’t live with Paul, they can’t live with anyone who could get the GOP nomination. If the Tea Party can’t live with Paul, then they can’t live with anyone who would command a lot of Libertarian support. How willing Libertarians would be to live with Cruz, I am not sure. My guess is they won’t simply because gay marriage and open borders are the dominating issues for Libertarians and Cruz is on the other side in those.

      1. the Democrats are peeing in their pants in terror that one of “those people” has the nerve to run for President

        So Canadians are now on the Democrat hate list along with Israel and white males?

        1. If you are Ted Cruz, yes. The Democrats are terrified of Cruz and hate his guts.

      2. Agreed. Rand Paul would be the first Libertarian (not libertarian) president in much the same way that Bill Clinton was the first black president.

      3. “Cruz is pretty much the ideal Tea Party candidate looks like.”

        Phil Gramm once said that he was too ugly to be President, and I think Cruz has a problem like that in the age of hyper visual media.

        Cruz’s problem is probably worse than the Dean scream.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0

        Cruz has a smirk.

        And it’s not a good smirk.

        There are professional wrestlers who would kill for a smirk like that. But they’re all playing heels!

        I’m not sure someone can win the presidency with a smirk like Cruz’s smirk.

        It’s a liability.

        1. George W. Bush had a much worse smirk than Cruz and he managed to win two elections. Cruz to me comes across as one of those wicked smart lawyers you meet once in a while. A guy that is kind of an asshole but whom you have to respect. I am not sure how that plays nationally since we have never had a candidate like that that I can remember.

        2. I just think he looks like a clown. Not figuratively. His cheeks get red and his nose is so weird looking and he looks like he belongs in a circus. Am I alone in seeing this?

      4. “gay marriage and open borders are the dominating issues for Libertarians”

        I asked a similar question above, but how did you reach this conclusion? Do you mean Libertarian Party members as opposed to voters with libertarian values?

        1. I mean the Reason staff. I assume they are as a group fairly representative of Libertarian voters.

          1. ah ok. for what its worth, Ron Paul had a fairly strident anti-immigrwtion stance during his own campaigns. Im less sure what Rands like on the issue

          2. I’m not sure how true that is. I tend to look at FEE.org as more of a mouthpiece for actual LP voters than Reason, but I could be wrong.

          3. Marriage maybe. Libertarians seem to be split on borders. And what about spending? Isn’t that kind of a largish issue?

    4. appeal, lol, I can’t believe I didn’t catch that…

  12. 6. He’s not a natural born Citizen.

    Wong Kim Ark

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,…”

    1. It will be kinda fun to see Team Blue turn into a bunch of birthers.

      1. It’s different when they do it.

        1. Principals, not principles.

          1. WE FUCKING GET IT.

            1. You can read, Tony, but you cannot comprehend.

              1. It is impossible for such a simplistic play on words to remain clever the millionth time you’ve posted it.

                1. I, for the first time, agree with Tony; of course on nothing economic, political, or otherwise worldly and sophisticated.

                  Conspiracy theorists range from your skeptical neighbor to the tin-foil-hatters.

                  Tony is a foil-hat communist. In his case the foil works, but it only filters opposing views.

            2. No, you really don’t.

            3. You get nothing, Tony. You are just a sort of howling clear area in society with smells emanating from it.

            4. No, Tony, the correct response is, “DRINK!”

              1. I am. A strawberry orange juice mimosa. Keep em coming, sarc! I’m on vacation.

      2. some of them did about McCain. He was born in Panama I think while his dad was in the Navy. They tried to claim that that meant he was ineligible. Since he lost, that went away. I have no doubt had he one they would have embraced it as a way to claim his Presidency was illegal. I have no doubt they would do the same to Cruz.

        1. McCain was born in Canal Zone which was US territory at the time?

          There was some rumbling about Goldwater not being eligible because he was born in Arizona Territory which wasn’t a US state.

          Then there’s George Romney who was born in Mexico?

          1. I’m pretty sure the Arizona Territory was US territory.

          2. Mexico is basically a U.S. territory.

            People move freely from and to it, anyway.

  13. Also, why does Cruz always look like he’s on the verge of sobbing?

    1. He has a puffy face and puffy eyes.

      1. He has a smirk he can’t get rid of.

    2. If things don’t work out he’s going to make a run for Speaker of the House.

    3. He’s prissy.

    4. Cruz has a very punchable face. Maybe looking like he’s on the very of weeping is a defense mechanism.

      1. He does have that. He is kind of the exception that proves the rule that having a punchable face is reflective of your character. If you just judged him by his face, you would think he was some College President throwing students out of school for thought crimes or some asshole public interest attorney suing businesses into bankruptcy.

        1. I’ve thought so since the first time I saw him. But he doesn’t give me the heebie-jeebies like Hillary, America’s Ex-Wife.

          1. Yeah. he is not that far down the punchable scale. But he is definitely on it.

          2. I watched (for the first time) Matilda as part of a Family Favorites movie series at Tampa Theatre (an old-time theater still operating–organ coming up through the floor, the whole works). I realized while watching it that Hillary Clinton is the Trunchbull.

            1. Coolest place to watch a movie ever.

  14. HEY! Reasoinoid duffi,
    Get on this: https://reason.com/archives/201…..-positions

    Warren

  15. How do you appeal to both socons *AND* libertarians?

    I’m trying to think of something beyond saying “Chicks. Am I right?”

    1. “The government should not be subsidizing children born out of wedlock. Therefore we should end the welfare state.”

      See how easy that was?

      1. Yeah, I’m not seeing the socons getting on board with that. “But what about WIC? WIC is good. We should make sure that the children get enough nutrition! Christ told us to feed the hungry!” and so on.

        1. Socons are on board with cutting government. Just not any part that will cost anyone their job or their entitlement check. But everything else is on the table!

          1. YOU LEFT DEFENSE OUT! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

        2. i think that the public and the media are both deeply confused by what libertarianism is. for many folks libertarianism=propot socon. i also suspect a lot of ppl actually gravitate toward the label based on stupid leftists critiques of it.

    2. Why do you WANT TO?

      If anything we should be trying to convert social cons, not appeal to them.
      A universe in which libertarians are forced to keep appelaing to social cons is not a universe where libertarian policies make very much progress.

      1. Because socons aren’t “indiecons” or “I-cons” (and yes, you can use that if you’d like); they’re social conservatives, not personal conservatives. Individual choice and personal liberty are not goals for them, righteous behavior and a society that conforms to Judeo-Christian values is the one and only. If you can get there with personal freedom, that’s awesome. If you’ve got to get the law to give folks a bit of a nudge, well, so be it.

        You can’t convert them unless and until personal freedom becomes more important than being a “good Christian” or whatever. That’s why the gay marriage thing is such an odd issue. There are small government types who argue against it because they don’t believe the government should be involved in marriage at all, but the socon argument is that marriage is only ever between a man and a woman because of Jesus, and if two dudes in San Francisco get married it disturbs the righteous slumber of any number of good Christian men and women all over the nation, apparently.

        tl;dr Because socons believe that if you just let people do whatever they’d like to do, they’ll start marrying horses and worshiping the devil and dancing and such, and that’s just wrong.

        1. You can’t convert them unless and until personal freedom becomes more important than being a “good Christian” or whatever.

          I’ve tried arguing that morality by force isn’t morality, because for actions to be truly moral then they must to come from within, not out of fear of retribution. Didn’t go very far.

          1. I’ve tried arguing that morality by force isn’t morality, because for actions to be truly moral then they must to come from within, not out of fear of retribution. Didn’t go very far.

            Likewise.

            It’s odd how conservatives & progressives don’t seem to recognize each other in their mutual fixation to regard the state as an omnipotent parent.

            1. They hate to hear it, but they’re both more alike than not. Socons and Progressives both want the state to control individual lives, the only real difference being that socons look to Jesus as a model and Progressives look to Sweden. One might be talking about gay marriage and prayer in schools and the other might be talking about “common sense” gun laws or “fair” shares of taxes or whatever, but at the end of the day they both want the state to have the final say on the lives of its citizens.

              I guess there’s some merit in the fact that the socons at least aren’t as well-versed in sophistry; they’re just like, “We think the gays are icky because Jesus, so we’d like to amend the Constitution to make sure they can’t prance around saying they’re married and so forth.”

              I guess that’s better than the Progs:

              “We want everyone to have access to healthcare.”
              “Everyone already does.”
              “Right. We meant we want everyone to only have access to healthcare we approve of, and would like you to pay for it.

              1. I guess that’s better than the Progs:

                “We want everyone to have access to healthcare.”
                “Everyone already does.”
                “Right. We meant we want everyone to only have access to healthcare we approve of, and would like you to pay for it.”

                It’s really not any better, because SoCons would argue for exactly the same mandates if they’d the power to do so. It wasn’t long ago when GWB was signing off on new budget-busting social welfare programs under the guise of ‘compassionate conservatism’.

              2. There’s a goodly number of Progressives that push for state control of all things because “Jesus”.

                1. There’s a goodly number of Progressives that push for state control of all things because “Jesus”.

                  Yeah. The feel that supporting charity at the point of a gun is altruistic.

                  1. Yeah. The feel that supporting charity at the point of a gun is altruistic.

                    The gun has a holy cross etched on it, so that makes it legit.

                2. There’s a goodly number of Progressives that push for state control of all things because “Jesus”.

                  While at the same time talking about separation of church and state. 😀

          2. I agree that socons and libertarians are in reality opposite ends of the politixal spectrum. libertarians will likely find less in common with them than many liberals, if partisanship is disregarded.

            social conservatism is based on the very old notion of a “body politic” that sees a metaphor for the state as a human body as a literal truth. immoral behavior like gay marriage is a disease of the body politic: as a result it is the civic duty and interest of the entire society to eliminate it.

            there is no such thing as a private sphere of individual righta for a true blue socon. some confuse the household sovereignty prescribed in the bible as the same thing, but its not. any modern that seeks to use the bible orr holy document as a template for a society and legal system is by neccessity backwards and terrifying. I just read Numbers and Deuteronomy again lately – the same chapter that is often used to decry gays outlines how a man should murder his entire family for trying to convert his religion and that its every mans duty to burn a city to the ground if its discovered other religions proselytize there. Im not anti-christian or anti-religion, but these 8000 year old ideas on social organization are anathema to human liberty and condemn even entirely homogenous religious societies to horrific bloodshed and furmoil (see: the entire history of europe)

            1. At least they’re somewhat consistent. I see people on the left regularly trot out Leviticus to argue that Bible is meaningless, and in the next breath quote something from the New Testament in an effort to argue that progressives uphold Christian values.

            2. social conservatism is based on the very old notion of a “body politic” that sees a metaphor for the state as a human body as a literal truth.

              Progressives hold like beliefs. They conceive collective societies as being like actual organisms, complete with popular ‘general wills’ of their own, which democratically elected leaders are ostensibly tasked with deciphering and such.

              1. They conceive collective societies as being like actual organisms, complete with popular ‘general wills’ of their own, which democratically elected leaders are ostensibly tasked with deciphering and such.

                The Will of the People is nothing more than The Divine Right of the King dressed up in a suit and tie instead of voluminous robes.

                1. The Will of the People is nothing more than The Divine Right of the King dressed up in a suit and tie instead of voluminous robes.

                  Pretty much. And govt academics are now what was formerly the court clergy, the media is the contemporary court jester, and so on. Same shit, different era.

              2. They conceive collective societies as being like actual organisms, complete with popular ‘general wills’ of their own, which democratically elected leaders are ostensibly tasked with deciphering and such.

                The proper term for that is “corporatism”.

        2. Although the ground under them is always shifting, redefining so-cons involuntarily, they’re still mostly Calvinist, which makes them very good on fiscal & monetary issues, which is most of what’s on the table at any given time.

          1. The point is they’re against redistribution & for free enterprise. They’re only against those things in the cases where they bump against a higher value. But when you realize those cases are the minority of what most people have to deal w in their lives most of the time, that’s not much of a price to pay.

      2. Because you want Libertarians to write essays and you need Socons to drive the vans, sit at the tables, bake the cupcakes, and know where the pens are.

        The Socons are the logistical backbone of the Republican Party. They’re the ones who have a set of keys to the church, know where the tables are stored, and can tell you which of the coffee pots acts up. They know how to run a phone bank. They show up every week. If you want them to stop showing up every week, you’re stuck with a bunch of kids who have never done this before.

        That’s bad.

        The Libertarians are capable of writing sermons that convert the heathen, not just preach to the choir. (Well, in a perfect world, anyway. They legalized pot in Colorado. That’s not nothin’.)

        If you want someone on the fence to join, you might need a decent argument. The libertarians can type while having a conversation with someone else on a different topic while catching up on their email in another window.

        Cruz wants to appeal to both. It says so much in the post.

        I’m just trying to figure out how in the freakin’ heck that’d be possible. (Indeed, the post mentions libertarians being left behind.)

      3. “If anything we should be trying to convert social cons, not appeal to them.”

        Great idea. Start by figuring out how to talk about them without pissing all over everything they believe in.

        1. What constitutes “pissing all over everything they believe in?” Serious question.

    3. How do you appeal to both socons *AND* libertarians?

      You don’t. SoCons reduce otherwise intelligible discourse into inane religionism about “muh bible”, and generally believe that the state should act as the morality police.

  16. Cruz is better than most of the alternatives, which is mildly distressing. He does seem to stick to his stated positions more than most politicians, and I think he legitimately opposes TOTAL STATE.

    That said, I think Rand Paul is the clear choice if you’re at all libertarian. Or the LP candidate, of course.

    1. No matter what you think of his positions, I think it is hard to deny that Cruz is three things; fearless, subversive of the status quo, and committed. Those are not bad things to be and also pretty rare things to be in politics these days.

      1. Sorry — when I think ‘status quo’ I think ‘Cruz’.

        1. So the guy who tried to shut down the government to stop Obamacare and again to stop the debt ceiling increase is “status quo”? Either you are living in a paralell universe or you are concern trolling.

      2. He certainly has balls, but so does Rand. I can’t even remember the last time that there’s been 2 Republicans congress critters with a set of those.

        Either of the 2 will them will lay right into Hillary and I think she’ll just freak out and do something or say something so incredibly stupid that it basically will end her chance of winning. She thinks she’s entitled and she doesn’t like any criticism. I think the idea of Rand as the GOP nominee scares the hell out of her. She wants to run against Bush, easy debates and easy win.

        Not sure about Walker. I know he freaks out the left, but not sure what kind of candidate he would be.

        1. I am not sure about Walker either. In the end, I look at the fact that Walker could have so many times and so easily made peace with the public sector unions and made his life so much easier and didn’t. He was made into a national target and hung in there and ended up building a thrown out of the skulls of his enemies. That fact alone makes me like Walker even if I don’t find his positions as specific or appealing enough as I would like them to be.

          1. Honestly, I’m skeptical of the argument that we should vote for someone because they stood up to the public sector unions. Chris Christie stood up to the public sector unions. That doesn’t mean he should be president. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to the argument that you can make Leviathan okay by making it more efficient. You can’t. Even if you pared back salaries and benefits to zero, the burden of an excessive state would remain.

            1. Not for long. With nothing but volunteers in those jobs, you’d stop attracting competent people to gov’t work. They’d go into the private sector for pay, so the private sector would grow at gov’t’s expense.

        2. The thing I like about Walker is he’s gone through several rounds in Wisconsin and still stuck to his agenda and kept the public behind him despite the media opposition. That’s the sort of thing a pro-liberty president needs. I’d like to see Massie as his running mate, keep Paul and Cruz in the Senate for bit to muscle legislation through, and put Cruz on the Supreme Court later. Pelosi’s orange crypto-Democrat needs to get yanked out of a leadership position.

          Having said all of that, I’d probably be disappointed that whoever got elected didn’t bring Leviathan down far enough or fast enough, assuming there was much movement in that direction at all. See Reagan.

        3. “He certainly has balls, but so does Rand.”
          Rand Paul not only has balls he has a spring on his ass so he can get away from DREAMERS in a jiffy!
          http://www.alternet.org/rand-p…..frontation

          1. Who’s the imbecile that made up that stupid fucking name?

            Here you go little sheepies, I am making a name for you to divide society up even more and set them against each other, don’t forget to vote for me and I’ll throw you some scraps from my kingly table.

            1. Also, in that video, I didn’t see anyone running. I saw Rand stand up and walk away looking like he had something in mind to do. No one was talking to him and he didn’t even seem to be paying any attention.

              Hyperbole at it’s worst.

              1. “I saw Rand stand up and walk away looking like he had something in mind to do.”
                Ha! Ha! Ha! Spin like a top!
                He had something to do yes.
                He had to hack up that burger he choked on when she said “DREAMER”!

                1. Yeah, he looked terrified.

                  1. “Yeah, he looked terrified.”
                    U said that Hype not me.

                2. Would you say he was moving more or less quickly than Hillary when she was dodging that sniper fire?

                3. ernieyeball|3.23.15 @ 1:51PM|#
                  “”I saw Rand stand up and walk away looking like he had something in mind to do.”
                  Ha! Ha! Ha! Spin like a top!”

                  Ha! Ha! Ha! Make up lies!
                  Fuck off.

          2. “Rand Paul not only has balls he has a spring on his ass so he can get away from DREAMERS in a jiffy!”

            He has better things to do than contribute to some SJW’s 15 minutes of fame.

            1. “He has better things to do?”
              Like tap dance?
              “I’m kind of one of the Senators who’s in favor of negotiations?”
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muoAYm…..e=youtu.be
              “Kind of?”? But not really?

              1. Nice,
                A link to a vid with loaded questions, and I’ll bet you are stupid enough to think someone here buys that pile of crap.

                1. “…a vid with loaded questions,..”

                  “If you are no longer Sen. Rand Paul but President Rand Paul?”
                  Yeah. Loaded with delusion!

                  1. “How would you like to have negotiations “undermined” if you were president”?
                    Asshole, you think we’d miss that?
                    Not only are you misleading, you’re stupid besides.

                    1. No Zippy. The delusional part is “…President Rand Paul?” anything before or after that is irrelevant.

                    2. ernieyeball|3.23.15 @ 7:50PM|#
                      “No Zippy.”

                      No, asshole, I posted “loaded” questions. Please learn to read and fuck off anyhow.

                2. “…a vid with loaded questions,..”
                  If Dandy Randy Paul fails at a bid for the White House or just fails to run it will most certainly be the fault of the press.

                  1. ernieyeball|3.23.15 @ 8:49PM|#
                    “If Dandy Randy Paul fails at a bid for the White House or just fails to run it will most certainly be the fault of the press.”

                    An asinine comment from an ignoramus; surprise!

                    1. Sevo you are full of anger. You should get some help with that.
                      But in the meantime don’t worry, be happy!
                      The Aqua Buddah loves u anyway!

      3. You know who else was fearless, committed and subversive of the status quo?

        1. Jesus Christ?

        2. Sean Payton?

        3. Ned Stark?

    2. That said, I think Rand Paul is the clear choice if you’re at all libertarian. Or the LP candidate, of course

      The difference being that Rand could win.

      1. Naturally. If Rand is the nominee, the LP should back his candidacy. Close enough for right now.

      2. Between the two, I even think the GOP establishment would like Rand better.

        1. They should like Rand if they want to win. But they aren’t known as the stupid party for no reason.

    3. Cruz has almost zero cross-over appeal and a reputation as being difficult to work with. So in other words, he’s kind of the opposite of Rand within that area of the GOP.

      1. I am pretty sure a reputation for being difficult is a plus in the eyes of a lot of GOP voters. It doesn’t matter what any of these guys say if they don’t have the balls to tell the media and the mass culture to go fuck themselves. The danger for any Republican, no matter how great they sound, is that once in office they will get bullied and or seduced into not following through out of the desire to be accepted in Washington. Cruz’s reputation for being difficult is the flip side to his reputation for not caring what the media or people in Washington think about him.

        1. Obama also had a reputation, well-deserved, as being a prick and difficult to work with. And now we see that manifested in a president with utter contempt for Congress and zero desire to actually compromise or find common ground.

          You can be well-liked on Capitol Hill while maintaining your principles. Rand has worked with several Democrats on legislation, they all have nice things to say about him.

          Even Harry Reid publicly thanked him on the Senate floor for his medical advice on recovering from his eye injury.

          1. I see your point. And you are right, you can be an asshole in Congress much easier than being one as President. That being said, there is a fine line between being “easy to work with” and being of weak will and rolling over as President for fear of being disliked. Any President who does anything close to the right thing and tries to fix the problems the country faces is going to be loathed and vilified by the media and mass culture. So any candidate who doesn’t possess the fortitude to stand up to that is worthless no matter how good they sound or how great their positions. Maybe Cruz can stand up to it but is too much of an asshole to get anything done. Lets see how his candidacy plays out. If it is not Cruz, whoever it is has to be willing to not care that the media hates their guts.

            1. Any President who does anything close to the right thing and tries to fix the problems the country faces is going to be loathed and vilified by the media and mass culture.

              This is why we won’t see a strongly libertarian President ? a strongly libertarian President would be too dangerous and might fix things that make a real difference in the long run rather than stick to the major parties’, media’s, and mass culture’s obsession with trite issues.

        2. I am pretty sure a reputation for being difficult is a plus in the eyes of a lot of GOP voters.

          It appeals to the more emotionally zealous GOP voters (who are the most vocally active base). But it’ll be a turn-off to the general electorate who will perceive this demeanor as unprofessional.

          1. “emotionally zealous GOP voters”

            People would would say something like:

            He was made into a national target and hung in there and ended up building a thrown out of the skulls of his enemies. That fact alone makes me like Walker even if I don’t find his positions as specific or appealing enough as I would like them to be.

            ?

  17. “Cruz will vie for the support of the tea party electorate, his advisers say, but will fare well enough with social conservative and libertarian voters to assemble a powerful coalition.”

    Seems like there would be a huge amount of overlap here. What do “tea party” voters who aren’t also at least partially libertarian(ish) or socially conservative look like?

    1. Yes. He is competing with Paul for many of the same votes. I think Cruz’ plans to get the voters who worry Paul is secretly like his dad on foreign policy. On domestic policy, I am not seeing a whole lot of difference between them.

  18. This is a productive thread. Here is a cat waiting patiently in a sink.

    1. Don’t eat at their house.

  19. I would go to the polls and vote for him. He got through Princeton and Harvard at the top of his class and he is still able to see the value of the Constitution.
    AMAZING!

    1. meh. law enforcemenf issues are a big deal to me. Cruz is absolutely awful there, at least on par with if not worse than the unspeakable hillary. cruz may be good on obamacare and debt but, call me crazy, i care more about the government literally caving in my door and murdering me than about the national debt.

  20. One can only hope that Cruz secures the GOP nomination.

    1. Jackand Ace|3.23.15 @ 1:21PM|#
      “One can only hope that Cruz secures the GOP nomination.”

      One can only hope you die after a long and painful disease.

  21. When are we going to get beyond this stupid flat tax/fair tax debate, or saying we have to repeal the 16th Amendment?
    The US Individual Income Tax is a classical liberal tax on public offices and privileges. The income itself is not taxed, but the privilege bestowed by the feds is taxed, and the income merely provides a measure for the amount of the tax. This is how the income tax has always read, and been understood, until the “Voluntary Income Tax” for WWII, and William F Buckley’s imprimatur on continuing the unconstitutional collection of it after WWII, in order to fight the cold war.
    All politicians have to do, including libertarian candidates, instead of conceeding this major point by talking about a flat tax, is to talk about due process of law in tax collection, and simply start saying stuff like “I don’t think you can tax the right to work” or “I don’t believe the federal government has the power to tax your basic earnings”. What a difference that would make over this flat tax/fair tax baloney!
    Read my blog: http://www.nontaxpayersforronpaul.blogspot.com

    1. Tell us when you’ve done that stuff; I’m sure it’ll be from jail.

  22. Isn’t abolishing the IRS just a way of ginning up the base? He’s not abolishing income taxes so there still needs to be a government agency to manage it. Simplifying is good, but you still need somewhere to send the “postcard.”

    1. Isn’t abolishing the IRS just a way of ginning up the base?

      Basically, yeah.

      Abolishing the IRS (along with income taxes) would be lovely, but realistically that’s just not going to happen, so it’s stupid to demagogue about.

    2. I had thought it was stale GOP anti-tax stuff, but apparently it’s all about IRSghazi. The base thinks in fake Obama scandals at the moment. Nothing can be referred to that isn’t tied to one of them.

      1. PHAYKE SKANDULL!!1!1

        1. Sounds like a good name for a metal band.

    3. Yes, but it sounds better than saying were get rid of all those tax credits you like and helps play on all the recent scandals. Right now is probably the perfect time for a major overhaul of the IRS and hopefully whoever is elected can minimize the IRS’s involvement in my life.

    4. And someone to audit you and send you to jail.

    5. It was Ron Paul who first drooled, “Repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.” Then he’d talk about excise taxes and the like … somehow forgetting that FICA taxes are 90% of what’s left. His base never saw it either.

  23. “Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming.” — Dr. Ian Malcolm on the run up to a presidential election

  24. HA! if this fool gets the Nomination, Hillary wouldnt even have to campaign!
    Save the Dems ALOT of money.
    And, I do not want to see Hillary President.
    SO, please pick someone else.
    Republicans STILL think they can win with religious values mumbo jumbo!
    HINT: THEY CAN NOT

  25. And the good news:
    6) His candidacy lasted a very short time.

  26. 4. Cruz is running on a flat tax.

    Am I the only 1 who 1st saw that as “Cruz is running on a flat tire”?

  27. I’m making $4 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

    ………………………. http://www.work-cash.com

  28. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  29. According to the cited source, he’s targeting the tea partiers because he expects to do well. enough with — a strange mix — social conservatives and libertarians.

    Tea Partiers originally avoided social issues, intentionally, but it’s hard to say how badly the extreme socons have infiltrated. Back in the 70s, when libertarian Republicans were defending gays, Barry Goldwater famously said “Every good Christian should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass.” My how times have changed.

    If Cruz does well among libertarians, that will show how badly the movement has been damaged by the anti-government libertarians (as opposed to hundreds of thousands of “pro-liberty” libertarians who are in office achieving a liberty agenda.)

    This MAY also explain the Cato/Zogby Survey which found the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians.

    1. Michael Hihn|3.23.15 @ 8:11PM|#”
      “This MAY also explain the Cato/Zogby Survey which found the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians.”

      Yes, Mike libertarians don’t like the libertarian brand. Or something.
      Why do you waste time here proving you’re an ignoramus? Don’t bother answering (laughing!)

      1. Sevo
        Why do you waste time here proving you’re an ignoramus?

        I’ll prove somebody is. THIRD time I’ve shown you the proof.

        http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

        “? only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way:
        … We asked half, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”
        … 59 percent said “yes” to the first question ? they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”
        (adding) “libertarian” made the question more challenging. .. 44 percent of respondents answered “yes” to that question.”
        (At source, scroll down prox 2/3, below boldface, “How Libertarians See Themselves”)

        Honest analysis (mine)
        59% hold “libertarian views” Of that 59% only 9% will identify as libertarian, or 5.3% of all respondents. 44% of respondents accept our brand ONLY if it’s defined as the Libertarian Ethos. That’s a 25% decline.

        The Libertarian Brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. We do best if we stress our definition, worst if we use our Brand. If we run on BOTH fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. PLUS “libertarian, we lose 25%” of potential voters.

        Love and kisses,
        -ignoramous

  30. Between 8 and 16 States will be voting on cannabis in some way in 2016. Cruz is doomed by reality.

  31. I think it is really funny that one of the criticisms of Cruz is he is first term Senator, yet those saying this will in the same sentence state their support for Rand Paul. Last time I checked, Paul was also a first term Senator. And if he runs, win or lose will be a one term Senator since Kentucky law prohibits him from running for both offices. What is his experience vs. Cruz? It is insulting to compare Obama to Cruz for a couple of reasons. First Cruz wants to return the government to the people by making it a servant, not a master. Second, he focuses on governing, not just winning the next election like the Establishment GOP. Most important, Obama is a narcissist. If you look up the traits of a narcissist and compare them to Obama you will find they are identical and this is the one thing that makes Obama so dangerous. You can not like Cruz for alot of reasons, but most of the ones being stated here are just crap and more the fitting as the words of a progressive than a libertarian.

  32. Cruz is a clever plant by the nefarious CIA (Canadian Intelligence Agency). Once in office, he will open the borders and let in hordes of hockey fans drunk on Labatt’s, eating poutine and saying things like “hey, it’s a lot warmer here than in Winnipeg, eh?” and demanding discount tickets to the Celine Dion show. He will make Justin Beiber Minister of Culture and that will be the end of Western Civilization for good, eh?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.