Campaign Evaluation: Ted Cruz (POTUS)

[ArrestPoliticians]

Don't waste too much time thinking about the obvious bloodthirsty hawk and opportunist Ted Cruz. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17...cy-team-makes-him-as-extreme-as-donald-trump/

 

[pmbug]

Pros:

- previously stood against interventionism.

Cons:

- has taken on neoconservative advisers, which calls into question his previous opposition to foreign intervention and nation-building.

I read the other day about Graham endorsing Cruz and it troubled me greatly. Then I heard about Cruz' new neocon advisers and it all made sense. I think this needs a bit more emphasis as, I believe, it speaks a bit to Cruz' (lack of) character, commitment and integrity.

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, has unveiled his new foreign policy team, stacked with some of the most aggressive hawks imaginable, saying they are a group of his “trusted friends” who believe in a “strong America.”

At the center of his team is neoconservative ultra-hawk Frank Gaffney, a loudly anti-Muslim figure who believes in a wild array of conspiracies, including that a number of top political figures from both parties of being part of a secret Muslim cabal plotting the conquest of America.

Gaffney had previously been speculated to be a Trump adviser, as his dubious work has been cited by that candidate repeatedly in trying to back up his proposals to ban Muslim immigration. Gaffney’s overt hostility toward Muslims in general made him a virtual pariah during the 2012 campaign. Incredibly, a number of Republican hopefuls have courted him this time around, with Cruz declaring him “clear-eyed” and “a patriot.”

Also featuring prominently in the Cruz team is Michael Ledeen, the man at the center of the yellowcake uranium forgeries, among the pretexts for the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Ledeen has been involved in a litany of scandals, dating all the way back to Iran-Contra. He was also, notably, the man who got Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard his job at the US Navy.

Of course speaking of Iran-Contra, one must inevitably discuss Elliott Abrams, who famously pled guilty to two charges of withholding information related to the scandal from Congress, and is likewise a central player in the new Cruz team. In addition to the Contra scandal, Abrams was involved in myriad ugly Reagan-era operations, and was a close ally of both former presidents Bush, receiving a pardon for his Reagan-era crimes by George H.W. Bush, and being appointed as a special adviser to George W.

During his tenure with the later Bush, Abrams was accused by The Guardian of being at the center of a failed 2002 US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela, and was said to have personally given the go-ahead for the effort.

Abram’s most recent media comments, interestingly enough, were railing against Cruz, accusing him of being anti-semitic for even using the term “neocon.” Now that Cruz is establishing himself as the neocon candidate of choice, that allegation has been quickly brushed aside.

With this team and more, Cruz is surrounding himself with warmongers and criminals of the highest caliber. While the attempt appears to center on making him a more straightforward Republican insider, to serve as a counter to Trump, the jingoist and xenophobic policies these advisers portend also threatens to sabotage any hope he has of presenting himself as a safer alternative.

http://news.antiwar.com/2016/03/17/cruz-hires-neocon-loons-gaffney-ledeen-abrams/

If he's willing to turn 180 degrees on foreign policy to garner support of the neocon wing, he's liable to capitulate on any issue IMO if the political calculus is in his favor.

 

[jascott]

State of the campaign, and whether to vote tomorrow in AZ and UT

What's the ideal? STV/Condorcet voting, of course! Then we wouldn't have to vote for a marginal candidate as our primary choice; we would be able to rank candidates, e.g.
1. Jesus Christ (but wouldn't win, and is unwilling to take the office)
2. Ron Paul (but not running, and wouldn't win)
3. Rand Paul (but already withdrew, and wouldn't win)
4. Ted Cruz
5. Random person from Boston phone book
6. Donald Trump
7. Hillary Clinton
8. Satan

Unfortunately, the reality is that we DON'T have STV or Condorcet voting; we only get to choose one candidate. So any of #1-3 would just be a symbolic protest vote; you effectively throw away your vote and have no chance of influencing the actual outcome. That leaves #4 as the rational choice (assuming you'd prefer Cruz over Trump).

Of course, if those of you in AZ and UT really have no preference between Cruz and Trump, you'd be wasting your time to vote tomorrow (except for a symbolic vote, in which case you might as well write in Christ if you're Christian, or vote for Paul), the same as if you have no preference between Cruz/Trump and Clinton, you'd be wasting your time to vote in November.

But AZ is winner-take-all, and if somebody gets over 50% in UT, it's also winner-take-all. Through a combination of delegates and campaign momentum, those of you in those states will likely effectively decide tomorrow who the Republican nominee will be. If you have a preference, please go vote.

Grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference. Tomorrow is probably the last chance to change the outcome of this race.

 

[dannno]

There are like 25+ in-depth, well researched presentation slides in this video..




If you look at his policy claims and stump speeches alone, they probably closely align with my political philosophy than any other candidate besides Rand - but I think he is snake in the grass, sleazy neocon lackey with George Bush connections and is one of my least favorite people on the planet.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It seems that Rafael E Cruz is the last remaining glimmer of hope for the war/interventionism militants lobby:

Lindsey Graham to fundraise for Ted Cruz's presidential bid

Cruz is on Fox right now bragging about his support from Lindsey Graham. Last time I saw Graham talk about it in an interview he was pretty explicit that it was simply a way to try to deny Trump a majority. Not really a brag worthy "endorsement".

 

[enhanced_deficit]

[h=1]Ted Cruz attacks Obama for not fully funding NSA spying during shutdown[/h]

Intel Chief: Shutdown Seriously Damages Spying Programs

Bulk of Surveillance Workers Dubbed 'Nonessential Personnel'

by Jason Ditz, October 02, 2013

Simultaneously underscoring how every government official is trying to play up the shutdown as particularly harmful to them, and how little Director of National Intelligence James Clapper understands America’s opposition to NSA surveillance, his Senate testimony today focused on how the shutdown has damaged the NSA’s capabilities.
Clapper told the panel that the shutdown had put an estimated 70 percent of the NSA’s “intelligence workers” on unpaid leave. NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander elaborated that this included 4,000 computer scientists and 1,000 mathematicians.

Clapper went on to warn that the layoff “seriously damages” the ability of spies to protect the United States, devastated worker morale and that the number of employees laid off indefinitely without pay made them inviting targets for foreign spies.

“This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services,” Clapper warned, saying that it was also dramatically degrading the nation’s global intelligence capabilities.


Pro-surveillance senators criticized the move, saying that the DNI’s lawyers should’ve prevented such large-scale layoffs, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R – TX) saying that the shutdown left the US vulnerable to terrorist attack, adding “I don’t believe President Obama should be playing politics with this.”



Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Wednesday that intelligence community leaders' testimony about the impact of the government shutdown was "deeply disturbing," accusing Obama of "playing politics" with national security.

"The person who should be most out front correcting this is our commander in chief, and I don't believe President Obama should be playing politics with this," Cruz said at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the National Security Agency's intelligence collection. "He should be stepping forward to correct this problem right now."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4030847.html

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/10/02/i...ying-programs/


[h=1]Who is Ted Cruz?[/h]
Says Iraq invasion was based on nobel reasons - check
Called for US led invasion of Syria - check
Supports sanctions against Iran - check
Supports tax payers funded war with Iran - check
Supports tax payers funded oppression/occupation abroad - check
Opposed even tiny cut in NSA spying funding during "shutdown"- check
Champions Christian Zionism/CUFI/John Hagee - check
Salutes Iraq war sniper who wished he had killed even more Iraqis - check
Says Canada makes better Maple Syrup than US - uncheck
Can be used as a partisan "attack dog" against SWC droneking - check

Ted Cruz is either a stealth,opportunistic agent of Neoconservative Establishment or
a brainswashed Christian Zionist lacking critical thinking abilities... or both.

 

[Bryan]

Bump. Anyone want to make an argument in favor of site support?

 

[brandon]

Bump. Anyone want to make an argument in favor of site support?

Hell no. Ron Paul has said this guy is poison. I don't always agree with RP's endorsements, for example I think Chuck Baldwin sucked balls, but I'd hate to see this site endorse a guy Ron Paul has vehemently opposed.

 

[Bryan]

Hell no. Ron Paul has said this guy is poison. I don't always agree with RP's endorsements, for example I think Chuck Baldwin sucked balls, but I'd hate to see this site endorse a guy Ron Paul has vehemently opposed.

Fair points.

Any arguments opposing an F grade? Post now, we'll be getting a preliminary rating out very soon. It's not looking good at all at this point.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Nonetheless, I do think it would be helpful to the libertarian movement if he won the nomination, for two reasons: (1) If there is even a small chance that I'm wrong about his motives, and he actually does intend to pursue at least some these relatively libertarian policies, that would make him marginally superior to any of the other potential candidates; and (2) Even if I'm right, and he would do nothing libertarian as president, his mere nomination (on a relatively libertarian platform) might further the mainstreaming of our ideas, making the task of electing real libertarians easier in the future (though there's a counter-argument: i.e. that, if Cruz is a fake trying to co-opt the libertarian movement, nominating him would help him do that). But all around, taking into account how horrifying the Trump alternative is, I'd say it would still be best for us if Cruz won the nomination.

That said, I WON'T be lending him any material support, nor my vote, and I encourage other libertarians to do the same[. Those resources are scarce, and I think our time, money, effort, and votes would be better spent supporting a third party candidate, to make it known that we don't really approve of ANY of these candidates, and to separate ourselves from what will probably be a very bad and unlibertarian administration, whichever of them wins the presidency (if any of them do). Even more important than a third party, we need to concentrate on rebuilding our grassroots infrastructure, to get ready for the next contest - and any kind of active support for Cruz would distract from that.

Conclusion: This is not the same as with Trump, an indisputably anti-libertarian candidate, but I still think that Cruz promotion should be banned on the site, just like Trump promotion. While much more understandable, and debatable, I don't think it serves the liberty movement or the site mission, for the reasons explained above. That said, it's not really a pressing concern, since there's been very little Cruz promotion thus far, and I don't expect that to change.

Just a reminder that it is NOT the "libertarian movement", but the liberty movement and it is not just for libertarians. That is all.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Con: Picked neocon, establishment shill Carly Fiorina as VP.

Automatic disqualification.

 

[Bryan]

First cut of the analysis is complete, see OP. Final grade = F.