Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing how many Republican leaders don't like Cruz.

He certainly seems like an ass on television, but based on the vitriol of his critics, it appears that he is even wprse

Virtually everyone who works with Cruz thinks he's an insufferable ass.

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing how many Republican leaders don't like Cruz.

He certainly seems like an ass on television, but based on the vitriol of his critics, it appears that he is even wprse

Anonymous wrote:Scene from Sen. Ted Cruz’s New Hampshire headquarters: a college student in a Confederate flag T-shirt watches a silent feed of Fox News as she makes calls to voters,” via Robert Costa:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While Cruz has the better of the argument on "natural born citizen", it is an overstatement to claim the issue is settled, because as far as I know it hasn't even been litigated. I agree with posters upthread that any judicial challenge to a Cruz election would almost certainly be dismissed as a political question, and given the strength of the Cruz argument I cannot imagine a Supreme Court setting aside a presidential election on that ground as a practical matter. I mean think about how that could play out: Cruz wins, the Supreme Court says he is ineligible, and Cruz says fine, Court, try to make that stick. No way a federal court risks that on these facts. (Standing is a red herring, I think, not-being-ruled-by-an-ineligible-President is almost certainly sufficient to create standing.)

Having said that, there is sufficient uncertainty that Trump's attack that the Dems will challenge him is clever and is drawing blood. People don't want to deal with that, even if the risk is actually rather small, and for good reason. I don't understand the Trump-as-dummy sense here, his campaign has been tactically brilliant and moved him from joke to likely nominee.

He doesn't have the "better of the argument." He is a citizen, and nobody disputes that. What makes him different is that he was not born on the soil of the US or any of its territories or possessions. That means he is not a natural born citizen. The context of "natural born" was clear at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, that it was to be someone born on the soil of the country. Nobody disputes Trump, because he was born in the US, and his mother's citizenship is irrelevant, his father was an American citizen. The question of citizenship requirement also came up with John McCain - it was satisfied in his case because his parents were US citizens and he was born in the Panama Canal Zone during a time that it was a US territory. Same goes for Barry Goldwater, he was born in Arizona before statehood - still a US territory. The challenge has come up many times before, and it is a legitimate Constitutional question, the precedent has been that it has to be US soil, territories or possessions. Cruz's Canadian birth is a serious and legitimate issue.

Please cite to the relevant precedents then, since you claim they exist.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Palin endorsement of Trump is a major blow to Cruz's claim to the Radical right wing Tea Party voters. He may start to deflate rapidly now, like Ben Carson.

+100 palin is big with evangelist and tea partiers. The governor of Iowa(big time establishment republican guy) just came out against Cruz, but did not endorse anyone. Cruz attacked him by calling him something like an establishment republican who lives on off special interest handout. The reporters quickly asked Cruz if he would support Farm subsidies and ethanol fuel programs. Cruz did not answer. Cruz is being attacked by both the tea partiers and the establishment republicans. This will hurt him.

Palin did not attack Cruz. She mentioned liking several candidates other than Trump and noted that she had supported some in previous races. Cruz was one of these, and he responded to her endorsement of Trump by saying he still has high regard for her and is grateful for the help she gave him in his Senate primary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bob Dole said yesterday that Republicans would suffer “cataclysmic” and “wholesale losses” if Cruz wins the nomination. ... Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, another fixture of the Republican establishment who is officially neutral, publicly said he wants Cruz to lose his state. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) has also previously expressed disdain for Cruz, but she’s stayed neutral ahead of the primary and kept a low profile because she faces a tough reelection battle this year and cannot afford to alienate his supporters.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bob-dole-warns-of-cataclysmic-losses-with-ted-cruz-and-says-donald-trump-would-do-better/?_r=1

Ayotte is feckless. Almost as bad as picking Palin as your VP candidate.

Anonymous wrote:Bob Dole said yesterday that Republicans would suffer “cataclysmic” and “wholesale losses” if Cruz wins the nomination. ... Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, another fixture of the Republican establishment who is officially neutral, publicly said he wants Cruz to lose his state. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) has also previously expressed disdain for Cruz, but she’s stayed neutral ahead of the primary and kept a low profile because she faces a tough reelection battle this year and cannot afford to alienate his supporters.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bob-dole-warns-of-cataclysmic-losses-with-ted-cruz-and-says-donald-trump-would-do-better/?_r=1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While Cruz has the better of the argument on "natural born citizen", it is an overstatement to claim the issue is settled, because as far as I know it hasn't even been litigated. I agree with posters upthread that any judicial challenge to a Cruz election would almost certainly be dismissed as a political question, and given the strength of the Cruz argument I cannot imagine a Supreme Court setting aside a presidential election on that ground as a practical matter. I mean think about how that could play out: Cruz wins, the Supreme Court says he is ineligible, and Cruz says fine, Court, try to make that stick. No way a federal court risks that on these facts. (Standing is a red herring, I think, not-being-ruled-by-an-ineligible-President is almost certainly sufficient to create standing.)

Having said that, there is sufficient uncertainty that Trump's attack that the Dems will challenge him is clever and is drawing blood. People don't want to deal with that, even if the risk is actually rather small, and for good reason. I don't understand the Trump-as-dummy sense here, his campaign has been tactically brilliant and moved him from joke to likely nominee.

He doesn't have the "better of the argument." He is a citizen, and nobody disputes that. What makes him different is that he was not born on the soil of the US or any of its territories or possessions. That means he is not a natural born citizen. The context of "natural born" was clear at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, that it was to be someone born on the soil of the country. Nobody disputes Trump, because he was born in the US, and his mother's citizenship is irrelevant, his father was an American citizen. The question of citizenship requirement also came up with John McCain - it was satisfied in his case because his parents were US citizens and he was born in the Panama Canal Zone during a time that it was a US territory. Same goes for Barry Goldwater, he was born in Arizona before statehood - still a US territory. The challenge has come up many times before, and it is a legitimate Constitutional question, the precedent has been that it has to be US soil, territories or possessions. Cruz's Canadian birth is a serious and legitimate issue.

Please cite to the relevant precedents then, since you claim they exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While Cruz has the better of the argument on "natural born citizen", it is an overstatement to claim the issue is settled, because as far as I know it hasn't even been litigated. I agree with posters upthread that any judicial challenge to a Cruz election would almost certainly be dismissed as a political question, and given the strength of the Cruz argument I cannot imagine a Supreme Court setting aside a presidential election on that ground as a practical matter. I mean think about how that could play out: Cruz wins, the Supreme Court says he is ineligible, and Cruz says fine, Court, try to make that stick. No way a federal court risks that on these facts. (Standing is a red herring, I think, not-being-ruled-by-an-ineligible-President is almost certainly sufficient to create standing.)

Having said that, there is sufficient uncertainty that Trump's attack that the Dems will challenge him is clever and is drawing blood. People don't want to deal with that, even if the risk is actually rather small, and for good reason. I don't understand the Trump-as-dummy sense here, his campaign has been tactically brilliant and moved him from joke to likely nominee.

He doesn't have the "better of the argument." He is a citizen, and nobody disputes that. What makes him different is that he was not born on the soil of the US or any of its territories or possessions. That means he is not a natural born citizen. The context of "natural born" was clear at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, that it was to be someone born on the soil of the country. Nobody disputes Trump, because he was born in the US, and his mother's citizenship is irrelevant, his father was an American citizen. The question of citizenship requirement also came up with John McCain - it was satisfied in his case because his parents were US citizens and he was born in the Panama Canal Zone during a time that it was a US territory. Same goes for Barry Goldwater, he was born in Arizona before statehood - still a US territory. The challenge has come up many times before, and it is a legitimate Constitutional question, the precedent has been that it has to be US soil, territories or possessions. Cruz's Canadian birth is a serious and legitimate issue.