Ted Cruz and The Moral Equivalence Litmus Test

Before getting to the meat of this post I just want to say that I’m incredibly proud of Marco Rubio and his campaign. I believe in Marco, and I saw how humble, passionate, and decent he was. In a better world a man of good character, such as Marco, would have an easier path to the White House. Unfortunately in today’s world, the rejection of the angry masses is a badge of honor.

I think the featured image (GIF) explains my mood on Wednesday. Who’s with me?

Now, to the post:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

– Benjamin Franklin

You guys may be shocked to hear this [sarcasm], but I’m a rather stubborn person. From the time I was little I made choices and came to conclusions independently (to the displeasure of some) and, while I listened to others, if I didn’t agree I didn’t concede – regardless of their title (I owe a few pastors apologies). Oftentimes it wasn’t even concerning moral issues; if everyone dressed their Barbie in pink, but I didn’t like pink, I wasn’t going to put my Barbie in pink. Not out of defiance, but simply because – in my opinion – Barbie looked better in yellow.

Now, I wasn’t obnoxious (to the best of my recollection), but more quiet and observant. My family moved around a lot, I frequently met new people and friends, and always stayed away from the crowd mentality. I wasn’t a loner, per se, but I was never a troublemaker, never grounded, sent to my room, etc., and spent most of my time in my head and really never felt the need to conform. By the time I was old enough to really grasp reality, getting in trouble wasn’t simply “wrong,” it was just illogical, pointless, and I didn’t really have a rebellious bone in my body. I’m not saying that’s always a good thing, but that it has always been my mentality. I was the teenager who had to have my book and headphones taken before being told, “Listen, stay out until curfew, go have fun with your friends!” Yes, fellow millennials, I was a nerd before it was cool.

I was asked during a show on Wednesday evening  (listen here) why people like to run their political opinions past me, and my spur of the moment poor answer was, “Well, because I’m opinionated,” and I really wanted to say, “I have no idea why some people want to hear my random ramblings.” The truth – in my opinion – is that I don’t really pledge allegiance to anyone. If I don’t agree with a popular individual on an issue, it causes me zero regret to say as such. If I agree with someone unpopular on an issue, it causes me no shame to declare it. From Rand Paul to Steven Colbert, no one is above reproach, nor below a compliment.

Except Lena Dunham.

The point: I’m not bound by an editor who filters my content, I’m not limited in topics. I think my small readership appreciates the fact that I’m not dedicated to any particular camp. I keep it clean, but I’m filter free. I am bound only by my principles, which dictate my politics. Today I find myself bringing up a topic that many of my followers will not appreciate, many may even call me a “traitor to the conservative movement,” but I hope that even if they don’t find themselves on the agreeing side, they respect the fact that I chose to share my stance as opposed to pandering for clicks. I could have easily written a moving article on unity that would have gained me readership and views.

Heads up: I didn’t.

When Marco dropped out last week I watched a lot of my friends jump on Team Cruz, and many sent me messages wanting to know if I planned to do the same. My reply was, “I don’t know what to do, to be quite honest.” Some were astonished! “But we’re talking about the future of Conservatism!” they proclaimed. For many it was easy, just a simple flip. For others it was painful, but in their eyes necessary. They may strongly dislike the senator from Texas, but they’re going to do what’s right for the republic, darn it!

I wasn’t ready to make a decision, I applied the 48 hour rule. I take 48 hours to fight with myself, I give every logical argument I can think of against both sides. I berate my decision, and I let every thought go to war. Sometimes the prevailing opinion emerges from the battle unscathed, sometimes it emerges bruised and burdened, but victorious. This decision fell into the latter camp.

I am on team #NeverTrump, with zero reservations.

I am on team #NeverHillary, with zero reservations.

I am on team #NeverBernie, with zero reservations.

And right now, I cannot support Cruz, either.

According to Ben this makes me a child, foolish, anti-conservative, and without even knowing my name, he has assumed that my reasoning isn’t good enough. That’s his choice, and I don’t bemoan his feelings on the issue; however flippant and misguided they might be, those are his opinions.

John Quincy Adams once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,” and when I thought about Cruz during my 48 hour mental version of the Napoleonic Wars, I could never escape the fact that a vote for him was a vote against my core principles. I was never on team #OnlyMarco – as many would have you believe – and there are many issues where I allow for give, but there is one that I simply do not:

Mass deportation.

Ted Cruz has frequently dodged the subject, as he did in this interview with Duke Machado, but as of late he has made his opinion clear:

Every time I gave myself an excuse, one question kept coming back to the surface: If he won the presidency and did exactly what he has said he would do – if families were displaced, children’s lives destroyed, lives ripped apart – could I sleep at night knowing I put my stamp of approval on his presidency, knowing what he said he’d do?


On Wednesday night I was a guest on Duke’s show, and we discussed the issue. My friend, the brilliant Carolyn, made a few tweets about kids brought here as children, people that Ted has said need to go.

(DISCLAIMER: My opinions on Cruz are mine, and I do not presume to speak for Carolyn.)

She then went into more detail on Facebook:

It was a real “aha” moment for me. I was a college senior myself, doing an internship at a station in South Dakota. I’ll never forget sitting down with this very bright, intelligent 18 yr old who described to me how she couldn’t apply for financial aid, couldn’t get into college because she had only recently discovered she had been brought to the US illegally as an infant. She NEVER knew. Her parents had stable jobs, were respectable members of the community–she was shocked.

You just can’t tell me that in our party, in our society, people like that are to be dismissed and deported. I just can’t get behind that.

I think the much larger, more pressing and realistic issue is controlling the border. Talking about rounding up 12mil+ people for one big “We showed them!” stunt is like patting yourself on the back for mopping the blood up off the floor before applying the tourniquet to your severed limb. We cannot simply treat the symptoms without curing the disease–and then claim victory.

These stories aren’t rare:

During the South Carolina debate, Cruz was asked about a list of DACA recipients, “You would have a list. Would you use it?” Ted Cruz dodged the question while railing against the Gang of Eight… again.

Like a broken record.

I spent months upon months listening to Cruz and his supporters tell me that “Ted Cruz follows through on what he says he’ll do!” Shockingly, their attempt to convert me had the opposite effect, it was instead the death knell of any chance I had of supporting him – I just didn’t know it at the time. If what they incessantly repeat is true, then I am to believe that he will follow through with his deportation plans. If I voted for him and, God forbid, someone was killed, kids were instantly thrown into poverty, young women thrown into desperate professions, etc., (repercussions that have followed every other mass repatriation attempt) my name would be tattooed on his rise to the White House. Worse yet, I will have put my name there after acknowledging that he made his plans known, and told me that he always follows through with whatever he says he’ll do.

I can’t do that.

I assure you, I’ve thought of the variables: Supreme Court appointment(s), Benghazi, abortion rights, Socialism, health care, poverty increase, foreign policy (or lack thereof), Planned Parenthood, ISIS, gun rights, etc., etc., etc., blow by blow I went through the scenarios. The conclusion I’ve come to is that, sadly, the top four candidates for president of the United States each threaten the livelihood of some faction of innocent human beings.

As my fellow Collision writer eloquently pointed out: “The intruder who has taken the family hostage and insisted I name the first family member, apart from myself, to be executed will NOT get an answer. And nobody can convince me I’ve chosen by default.”

If Hillary represents continued funding for Planned Parenthood, and Ted Cruz represents the innocent child who will be swept away in the tidal wave of a police state level repatriation, I can’t vote for either and be consistently pro-life.

So let’s discuss some of the replies:

“But I would have supported Rubio if he was the one left in the race!”

Good. I’m glad to hear that, and not surprised. Rubio’s policies were sensible, and he wasn’t advocating for mass deportation, carpet bombing, war crimes, socialism, or continued funding for Planned Parenthood like the current front-runners of both parties. He wanted to fix the immigration system, and right the wrong in a logical set of steps, but said flat out that mass deportation is not a sensible solution. And as I’ve said before, in order to mass deport in any successful and remotely compassionate way whatsoever would require the government to grow in ways Obama can only dream of. Plus, if you really get into the logistics, we’re talking about the need for internment camps. I’m not being a foil wearing fool, that’s just the facts. If you want it done in under 15 years, it won’t be done morally.

“You’re being a spoiled brat!”

Trust me when I say that it would be much easier to go on social media and join my friends in their Cruz accolades. Those praising him, supporting him, etc., are receiving the proverbial cold water spritz in the desert. Here I am without one candidate who represents what I believe to be the core values of compassion, decency, and sensibility that made America the country it is. In reference to Benjamin Franklin’s point, we have become corrupt and vicious, and now have more need of masters. The four leaders in the race represent an angry faction in want of overwhelming power, and they do not represent me.

If calling me a “spoiled brat” releases you from the self-appointed responsibility of countering my arguments you took on when you made the choice to respond, then so be it. Whatever makes you feel better. However, your opinion of me doesn’t negate my point, it only strengthens my resolve.

“Choose the lesser evil or you’re not a conservative.”

Continuously picking the lesser of two evils has given us a popularity contest. By always choosing the lesser evil, we are simply breeding politicians who have discovered the art of effective evil. They don’t have to be good, they just have to be less evil than the other choice. Their evil just has to be more convincing, appealing, and less offensive. If we go by the standards of those screaming “choose the lesser evil,” isn’t the #NeverTrump crew – of which I’m a part –  saying that Hillary is the “lesser evil“? And if that’s the case, they shouldn’t just abstain from voting for Trump, they should cast their vote in her favor, right? However, we don’t say that, because Hillary and Trump both violate our moral code. Nevertheless, that same group – of which I’m a part – is now demanding that I violate my moral code and be taken to the city square and thrown in the proverbial pillory of conservatism because I won’t violate my moral code.

So I guess what’s good for the goose is subjective for the gander.

If I take the immigration issue off the table, I’d still have a lot of lesser evil to embrace, including the poor character he’s had on display throughout his campaign. As well as questionable theology, flippant response to foreign policy questions, and his bromance with Trump – all of which would rank at the top of my list. However, I could probably find a way to crawl to the polls.

At some point a line must be drawn. I drew that line, and he crossed it. Oddly, the one thing that pushed me over the line was a stance born of a merciless big government ideology inconsistent with conservatism. So – in short – I’m not a conservative because I don’t support their candidate’s anti-conservative position.


“I see you care about illegals more than the livelihood of citizens!”

Considering millions of illegals were children brought here without the power to disobey their parents and crawl back across the border (and may not even be eligible for citizenship IF they went through the right channels), and the fact that I’ve repeatedly said we should deport criminally minded illegals, reform the system, etc., I just suggest we care about illegals and citizens… Because, you know, we claim to be more morally sound than other countries. How about we reform the system to be less of a burden on tax payers, tighten up border security, and complain about how government funds have been used to study obese lesbians and cow flatulence, and stop using our economy as an excuse to take a child that was raised here, throw them over the border to the wolves, and then deny them reentry when they try to come back home?

Just a thought.

“Cruz is our chance to get a Reagan Conservative in the White House!

Alright, here’s your homework:

  1. Research the middle ground/left leaning conservatives Reagan used within his administration.
  2. Listen to every word Reagan ever said about illegal immigrants.
  3. Listen to every word Reagan ever said.

If on Monday you still think Reagan and Cruz are even remotely similar, I recommend a good cult detox program.

“You’re being selfish!” 

I’m not the one who supported a candidate that had the second lowest favorability rating among general voters. I’m also not the one supporting a man who intends to displace innocent children just to keep you happy. I’m also not the one cheering over the term “carpet bomb.” I’m also not the one who spent the last year complaining about a bill on immigration that never passed, so that I could prop up a candidate who never tried.

“Oh yeah?! Well, Marco supports Cruz, and other conservatives you like have endorsed him too!”

That’s the worst way to convince me on something. I’m not connected to any politician at the hip. Does Paul Ryan carry weight with me? Of course. Does Rubio? Of course. Trey Gowdy? Tim Scott? Nikki Haley? Yes, yes, yes. However, while I take their opinions under consideration, they do not make the final call. Unless God himself descends from the heavens and endorses your candidate, no endorsement is going to sway me when my discrepancy is this voluminous.

“When Hillary puts a radical into the Supreme Court, it will be your fault!”

For months now, I’ve been telling Cruz supporters, “Listen, guys… other than on immigration, Rubio and Cruz are not worlds apart. However, Rubio has more female support, more Hispanic support, more young supporters, etc., and that’s why he consistently polls better against Hillary. We need those demographics to win, and he’s our best hope.” 

Do you know how they’d reply?

Wait for it.

“I’m going to vote for the candidate I align with the most, the most principled. If we don’t win, at least I know that I supported a Constitutionalist like Cruz.” 

So what you’re saying is that when you vote your conscience, knowing that Hillary will probably beat your candidate, it’s okay. But when I refuse to vote against my conscience, knowing that Hillary will probably win, I’m a spoiled brat and it’s all my fault.

Listen, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s always going to be the fault of whatever they deem the GOP establishment. I get that, I’ve accepted it. The remaining members of the Tea Party, or the self-proclaimed “real conservatives,” are like the parent who has an obnoxious child, and when the teacher says he impaled the class pet, exposed himself on the playground, and tried to stab the class helper –  in kindergarten – they blame it on the school instead of their horrible parenting.

People like that are unreasonable.

People like that disregard the moral stance of other’s while touting their immovable moral stance.

People like that scream about establishment conformity while demanding establishment conformity.

People like that break into your house, hold your principles hostage, and demand that you choose which one they execute.

I won’t pick.

I’m done with an anti-establishment establishment that is hell bent on demanding that I conform to them. I’m done listening to you whine. I’m done listening to you complain about Congress “doing nothing.” I’m done pretending like you mean any of your anti-Trump rhetoric considering you held off on holding him accountable – for his all out assault on our principles – until your golden boy was no longer in the fallout zone playing the role of Trump’s algae eater.

Let it fracture the party.

Let the riots and anger towards the “establishment” commence.

Bring on the contested convention or the third party, because I’m ready for war.


12 thoughts on “Ted Cruz and The Moral Equivalence Litmus Test

  1. haloway13 says:

    Bouncing in here from Google+ link to your blog.

    Very good and long read. It seems to me that a major point that keeps you from supporting Cruz is his stance on immigration that he would deport all of those here illegally and that it keeps your from sleeping at night.

    I contend that Cruz understands what the executive branch is currently assigned to do and is not doing it. So that is why he will not waver.

    The real question whether Cruz would support a reasonably thought out position on immigration. I believe he would. Congress would need to carefully craft a good solution agree to it and not tack on a bunch of B.S.

    Another point that you bring up is about Reagan and his centrist tendencies. Yes, he had many, one of them granting amnesty. He is on record stating it was probably his one big mistake. I would put up another one: what happened to mental health institutions under his watch… He had to hold to these centrist positions because he did not have the support of congress. Pragmatic.

    If you were to look at Cruz as the one candidate that follows the constitution it might help a bit. You have probably dug deep and thought about this.

    I could have easily pulled the lever for Rubio.

    Thank you for letting me spew my $0.02.


  2. William E Richardson says:

    Ma’am, I’ve read your articles before, and I’ve grown to respect your opinions. While I disagree with some of your stances on immigration (I’m actually a proponent for open borders, for multiple reasons, mainly economic, but also humanitarian), you have struck me as perhaps the most insightful and well-reasoned commenter concerning Cruz. I live in Texas, and it has disheartened me to see my beloved state become rampant with the populism and quasi-nativism that has infected the “conservative base” of the GOP, especially throughout the South.

    Thank you for pointing out Cruz’s Machiavellian-lite tendencies and policy proposals; his support for increased government expansion domestically is obvious, his dearth of foreign policy knowledge borders on embarrassing, and his political calculation concerning TPP and TPA reeks of blatant opportunism. In short, it is absolutely false he is the principled conservative he claims to be; a demagogue populist and nationalist is more his motif throughout the campaign. Even as a man who has not attained twenty-one years of age, I can readily understand the repercussions of electing a supposed “champion of the people;” it did not work out for the nation’s well-being when the citizenry elected a Left-of-center individual beloved by supporters of his ideology, and the country will continue to decline if we elect a Right-wing version of that type of individual.

    Finally, I thank you for bringing to light Cruz’s anti-life position on an issue that should be thought of in the same vein to conservatives as the issue of abortion. While anecdotal evidence, such as the one you shared involving a friend, is essential to attempting to garner and siphon support to our position on this topic, I think, and I pretty much know you agree, is that the question of the validity of mass deportation is a question of morality: are the people of this beautiful country so cruel as to support a man (Cruz) who wants to deport not just illegal immigrants who came over to this nation on their own volition, who have otherwise committed no crime, who have worked hard, paid taxes, provided wealth to the country, but also their children who either 1) came over here as young children or 2) were born here and are natural-born citizens under the 14th Amendment? To hear it from supposed advocates of limited government, they, incredulously, want to resurrect the NKVD and fashion it in the red, white, and blue, imposing hundreds of billions of dollars and impugning the fear of a massive police state into the minds and hearts of all 320 million individuals who call this country home. Not only is this not conservative or classically liberal in any sense, but such proposals are nothing short precursory to abject totalitarianism.

    Thank you for writing this post, Ms. Glenn. Though I only discovered your blog months ago, I will be sure to continue to read and imbibe the political wisdom and punditry you write. My gratitude, and much appreciation.

    P.S. I wrote a reply to an individual who was supported Cruz, in large part because of this issue. I posted the response in full on my Facebook page. If you would like to view it, I attached the link below. If nothing more, I just think it’s important to clear up some misconceptions and wrong thinking. Thank you for reading my post, ma’am, and I am grateful that I found this website.

    Liked by 1 person

    • collisionofchurchandstate says:

      Fantastic reply! I’ve been away from my computer since yesterday, so I just got on here to reply. Can’t wait to check out your response on your Facebook page!


  3. Cheryl says:

    Hello. As others have commented via Twitter, you’ve put into words what many of us feel. That said, if you are pursuing writing as anything more than a hobby, please consider: Relying less on spellcheck and more on proofreading your work to spot grammatical errors (verb tense-“wrote” should have been “written”); spelling (“complement” should have been “compliment” in this instance); and finally, most importantly, being concise. Think of your reader. You make excellent points in your argument for the dilemma (never Trump, loss of Rubio, can’t warm to Cruz) many of us face, but used too many words when fewer would have had same, or greater impact. This is offered sincerely and with good wishes to you with regard to your blog. Cheryl

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Steve Spotts says:

    From the beginning of history, in the garden itself, God has given mankind the capacity to make moral decisions, including the one regarding whether we would allow Him to choose right & wrong or whether we would decide to do it ourselves. Obviously, that was a very consequential decision and one from which we are still reeling. From the “tree” onward we continue to have the freedom to make those moral choices & live with the consequences.

    When you think about it, it’s not only us that experiences the negative consequences. It was God’s garden & creation. In almost every moral decision since we’ve made a terrible mess of things; and together, He & us, live with the scars of those decisions. Suffice to say, we do not do a very good job at being the pinnicle if creation Fortunately for us, He did it perfectly, but I digress.

    Perhaps we should follow God’s example and allow for the consequences of our electoral foolishness to play itself out. Of course, that makes me ill to think about when I consider what could have been. As I’ve watched things unfold in this election, I am incredulous that voters reject someone like Marco for a candidate like Trump. I’m almost as perplexed that people chose Cruz over Rubio for many of the reasons you have already articulated. I especially resent how feverishly Cruz & his supporters worked to pull down Marco (I.e. continual misrepresentation for political expediency) as opposed to simply supporting and advocating for their candidate. Now they act shocked that I would not feel compelled to jump on their bandwagon or help push him over the finish line. I’m thinking, I didn’t create this mess and I’m not inclined to clean it up, especially since it still wouldn’t be clean and I would have their mess all over me!

    History is replete with our failed efforts to make the right moral choices. Somehow we’ve survived them (usually thru divine intervention) but it always comes at a terrible cost. I don’t have an inside line to the right choice in this instance, but I think you’ve made a good case for not letting ourselves be bullied into making a patently bad one to somehow possibly prevent a different bad one. Makes me wonder what was going through Adam’s mind before he partook. “Should I abandon my wife, or my Creator?” Actually, looking at it that way, if I replace “wife” with “GOP” or “Cruz” the decision isn’t that hard.

    Liked by 2 people

    • collisionofchurchandstate says:


      Thank you for your comment, this was just wonderful and eloquent!

      “Should I abandon my wife, or my Creator?” Actually, looking at it that way, if I replace “wife” with “GOP” or “Cruz” the decision isn’t that hard.”

      That line in particular was so profound!


  5. Micah says:

    This is where I stand on this issue. Cruz was willing to compromise to allow legal status (i.e. not kick everyone out of the country). I would much rather have someone who can actually bargain on this issue than a complete sell-out like Rubio who was giving away not only legalization, but also citizenship to anyone who wanted it. I mean it’s like “free citizenship for everyone! Jihadi? Free citizenship! Crossed the border 2 months ago? Free citizenship!” I mean, really? Is that what we want? The point is this: as President, Cruz knows he will not always get his way, but when he is required to compromise his original position from the position of “No Legalization and no citizenship” – it would be an adequate argument to say “well for there to be compromise, Cruz needs to at least allow legalization.”
    The problem with your thinking in this one situation (that probably does happen relatively often) of the girl who was not eligible for grants, is this. Do we make all DACA persons eligible for all things citizens are eligible for? I mean we have way too many people who already should not be receiving government aid, but do regardless of their legal status. It really if anything needs to be done on a case by case basis – which, yes, means that people in her situation may be required to wait. Making the argument though, that it isn’t fair for her because of her parents mistake of not getting her legal and them “not worrying about it” is similar to the argument liberals make about “white privilege.” It is what liberals use to make the argument that there should be affirmative action. We either follow the law – and some people get hurt, or we ditch the law and throw our country over the cliff.
    All Cruz has ever advocated is following the law (which BTW – HUGE DISCLAIMER HERE – IS THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT!). He is only saying he will do exactly what the Constitution tells him to do! Without the rule of law, where are we? Change the law if you want (which as I pointed out above, Cruz may well be willing to sign legalization at some point), but do NOT accuse Cruz of being heartless because he would want to do his CONSTITUTIONAL duty as President. I believe common-sense immigration reform would be something Cruz would/ could get behind; however with the current way of running things with “comprehensive reform” – means that a whole bunch of stuff that doesn’t belong in an immigration will is added. Cruz would not stand for that mess.


  6. Pingback: Ted Cruz and The Moral Equivalence Litmus Test | teapartymama
  7. ericotown says:

    I am a big Rubio supporter. I’ve donated lots of time, money, heart and soul during his campaign and I was crushed when lost Florida and even before when he fell behind Trump and Cruz in the delegate count. In every election since 1991 when I turned 18 I have voted GOP party lines in every election local, state, congressional, and for President. More often then not my favorite GOP Presidential candidate didn’t end up winning the primary, but in every election I got behind the GOP nominee and supported them fully in the general election because the alternative Democrat nominee was always a far worse alternative. I’ve never voted for a 3rd party even when I may have liked the 3rd party candidate more then teh GOP nominee because pragmatically I always knew that the 3rd party never had a chance to win and I would only be helping the Democrat win the general election.

    Never in a million years would I have ever thought there would come a time when I couldn’t support the GOP nominee in the general election because again the Democrat was always infinitely worse. But this election is very different. For too many reasons to list including issues, policy positions, values, principles, morals, and my faith, I cannot and will not every vote for Donald Trump in the general election even if he is going up against a Clinton or Sanders. I don’t agree on a single issue or policy position with Clinton or Sanders, but with Trump my concerns are about far more important things. I believe that is a narcissist, egomaniac, a fraud, a con man, unethical, indecent, vulgar, treats women like crap, xenophobic, if not outright a bigot and a racist. I believe that he is unstable and has serious personality disorders and mental issues. I don’t belief he has any qualifications to be President. He does not have an understanding of foreign policy, national defense, and the military. He has flip flopped on every major issue that defines someone as a liberal or a conservative and I do not believe that he believes even half of what he says and is proposing. He is a pathological liar and I do not trust him at all. He is a divisive, populist, demogogue, and an authoritarian with fascist tendencies. He does not believe in the conservative principles that so important to me. He is simply not fit to be president of the Unites States, Commander and Chief and Leader of the Free World. I am not willing to sell my would to the devil just to help my party win an election and I honestly believe that if Trump were to win the election and become President the damage to conservatism and the Republican Party would be far great than if Clinton wins. I am a strong supporter of the #NeverTrump movement.

    With all that said, I am on still on the fence about Cruz for a number of reasons. While I’m not an advocate of mass deportation and I do think that if Cruz becomes President he will try to make it happen, I put the chances at less than 5%. He won’t do it as an execute order and even a GOP controlled congress will never pass the laws and fund the enormous bureaucracy that would be needed to deport 11 to 12 million illegals. I don’t support blanket amnesty. I believe in pragmatic approach to immigration not a purely idealogical approach. What is possible and feasible and what can pass a congress where we only have relatively slim majorities (especially in the Senate) and our majorities may be even slimmer after November and it’s possible we could lose our majority in the Senate especially with all the damage that Trump has already done to the image of the GOP.

    Even if Cruz gets the nomination, it is very likely that many Trump supporters stay home and don’t vote in the general election will will hurt the GOP congressman down ballot. Regardless, I really don’t think Cruz as President will ever be able to get mass deportation thru congress, especially when the majority of Republican voters have said time and time again in exit polls that they support a path to citizenship for illegals who are employed and haven’t committed any serious crimes, other than being here illegally in the first place. Not blanket amnesty, but a long and difficult path to citizenship. Many of these Republican voters reside in purple states with GOP congressman and an overwhelming majority of Democrat voters who are against mass deportation. Bottom line mass deportation just isn’t going to happen. I respec your decision and I’m not critizing you for not supporting Cruz. I’m just telling you how I look at it pragmatically.

    But my concern with Cruz is the fact that I don’t find him to be genuine. If you look at all the trouble he caused on the Senate with his filibuster on Obama Care and the countless other actions he took that damaged the party and our chances to actually do some good things, I do not believe that Cruz genuinely did all these things to fight the establishment. I believe that it was all about Cruz building street cred as an anti-establishment warrior to prepare for his Presidential run. If you look very closely at these anti-establishment actions that Cruz took while in the Senate the past few years, none of them has a chance to really work and they only served to build his anti-establishment street cred and hurt the GOP’s agenda and opportunities to make real headway against Obama care. Another thing about Cruz that is very concerning to me is that I recently read an editorial in National Review written by a congressman who is also a West Point grad and served in the military. He wrote a scathing editorial outlining that the whole Cruz has been calling himself an advocate of the military and the men and women who serve, his time in the Senate has been littered with example after example where Cruz took actions that hurt our military and the men and women who serve. I won’t get into all of the specifics but the author of the article laid out many specific examples where Cruz voted against or took specifics actions to undermine many bills that would have strengthened our military, increased funding for veterans, and increased benefits for military service man and women. The case he made was strong and compelling. So again Cruz is saying one thing but his actions are in complete conflict.

    I do not trust Cruz. But I am still willing to give him a chance to earn my vote. I believe that Cruz is infinitely better option than Trump. I also know that Cruz will be much better than Clinton or Sanders so at this point I am leaning towards voting for him in the general election, but I will have to hold my nose to do it.

    However if Trump is the our nominee, I will vote for a conservative or libertarian 3rd party.

    Liked by 2 people

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s