Ted Cruz is dangerous

As Ben Carson and Marco Rubio’s  poll numbers begin to dwindle, commentators are now beginning to point at Ted Cruz as the favourite to usurp Donald Trump and become the Republican Party’s nominee elect. If this is the case, and (in the highly unlikely case) if he goes on to win the presidency, all it spells is trouble and a step back for America. Not least because he has been conscious of not criticising Donald Trump, but because of his borderline-theocratic beliefs and regressive social attitudes.

Let’s think about this for a second. How can anyone support a first-term senator who shut down the Government for 16 days over Obamacare. You can violently oppose what a Government passes, but shutting a Government down inconveniences millions and weakens the image of your nation. Speaking of Obamacare, Cruz likened those who support funding it to the politicians who appeased Nazi Germany. JFW was young but he was not inexperienced –  he  was involved in sound politics for 15 years before taking the presidency. If elected, Cruz will have only had a meagre 3. My very reasonable fear is that Ted Cruz both inexperienced and obnoxiously obstinates, qualities which don’t strike me as particularly presidential.

Furthermore, Ted Cruz and his talking points seem far more destructive than constructive, and if you ask me, that’s not quite what America needs. Repealing Obamacare, repealing the Iran deal, and repealing gay marriage all sound like the ‘ideas’ of a man who has none himself.

Another point I see raised so frequently to the point that it really annoys me is that Ted Cruz is a ‘constitutionalist’, with the myopic implication being that he is some kind of authority on the law. His supporters praise him for supposedly following the vision of the founding fathers and the constitution which they established. It should be noted that it was these very same founding father which stressed that the religion and government shall not cross paths.

John Adams himself said that:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Ted Cruz appears to ignore this as he complains about ‘religious liberty’ coming under assault when Christians cannot discriminate against homosexuals. Really what he is complaining about is the state being responsible and not emphasising religious beliefs of laws that are truly enshrined. Sadly, his bizarre beliefs don’t end there. One line that the Cruz campaign has used frequently is that their man “will never apologise for America”. I would argue this type of blind nationalism is an excuse for ignoring American mishaps in foreign policy (of which there are many, let’s be honest) and his remarks reflect a broader ignorance over how he would strengthen America.

If the Republican party wants a semblance of hope in 2016, then they must nominate Marco Rubio who’s currently still polling at an unspectacular 10%. I’ve already written about why he’s the party’s best bet, and recent polling data suggests that he has a very good chance at beating Hillary Clinton.

Trump, Cruz and Carson? No chance.

11 Comments Add yours

  1. Don Royster says:

    I don’t think a guy that sounds like a chipmunk can be elected President. But then again we elected GWB.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I don’t think we need another president who isn’t a natural born citizen. Cruz and Rubio definitely are not.To be a natural born citizen your father, not your mother, must be a citizen at the time of your birth.


    1. As far as I am aware Marco Rubio was in fact born on American soil.


  3. colonialist says:

    From across the Atlantic and down a lot, none of the gang running seem attractive. Not that we can talk – our mob in office in S Africa are a bad joke.
    Pity there isn’t another JFK around. He had considerable respect and liking from all over the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. True. I hear Jacob Zuma is corrupt.


  4. Dan says:

    Cruz is coming. You should be worried. Heh-heh.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Rick says:

    It is great to see such a good blog from young contributors! You guys are feasting on material provided by our American clowns. I wish, US could get some royalty or cut every time anyone uses content provided by these buffoons – our budget/trade deficits would disappear in no time!

    On a serious note, I agree with you on Rubio being better from my )non-republican) perspective, but I will still like to challenge you on :
    “Trump, Cruz and Carson? No chance.”

    For now, republican nominee is like to be one of Trump or Cruz. And yes, they are lightweight compared to Hillary (near certain Democrat nominee) today. But actual presidential election is still 10 months away. And if Trump has as good a chance to be republican nominee as he has today compared to where he was 6 to 8 months ago, and Bush baby’s no chance today compared to near certainty of republican nomination earlier, any credible political writer/pundit should refrain from giving Trump or Cruz no chance in Nov 2016.

    American politics, like every where else, has strange bedfellows. And actual electoral machinations and politics allows outcomes that are unpredictable. Unlike many countries, it is possible in US Presidential election to lose in popular votes and still win the presidency due to electoral votes process (like Bush win over Gore in 2000). Also, bringing voters to booth is a huge challenge even if they are leaning for a candidate. Given all these factors, Hillary’s significant popularity today does not lead to certain election 10 months later. In Nov 2016, one possible scenario is Democrat voters not getting excited about Hillary while eventual republican nominee may excite republican base. Overall underlying anti-Clinton sentiment may become significant factor. And in this scenario, Presidential election will be competitive and not slam dunk for Hillary. Which means republican nominee (one of these jokers) has a chance. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Firstly, thank you for you kind words. I concede it was presumptuous to rule them out together. Let me just say that I fairly confident that if one one them gets the nomination, that they would lose to Hillary and also to Bernie when it comes to the popular vote. However, as you’ve unfortunately mentioned, there’s a freak chance what happened in 2000 could happen again. I am hopeful it won’t though 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s