Former Attorney General and Ted Cruz supporter Ken Cuccinelli has penned an open letter to Republicans who, like me, supported Rand Paul. I must admit that Cruz does seem like a natural fall-back plan but I seem to be having a harder time than I anticipated in settling for Cruz. Cuccinelli makes his case, your thoughts?
To All Friends of Liberty,
I know many of you have been supporting Senator Paul for President and today I want to now ask you for your support for Senator Ted Cruz.
I understand your view that Rand has been the most passionate defender ofcivil liberties and personal privacy – not just in the U.S. Senate, but anywhere in government today. I agree with you.
While I don’t expect you to view Ted Cruz the same way you viewed Rand Paul, I would respectfully suggest that when it comes to protecting civil liberties and the privacy of law abiding citizens, Ted Cruz is – by far – the strongest remaining candidate among any of the GOP contenders for President. In fact, as best I can tell, most of the other remaining candidates consider protecting civil liberties a vice rather than a virtue! Rand exposed several of them in the debates (Christie and Rubio) and, without your support, one of them may very well win the GOP nomination for President.
Ted has never sacrificed his commitment to protecting our entire Constitution – including the Fourth Amendment.
When we talk about protecting the Constitution, Ted didn’t just start in the U.S. Senate. His track record of promoting and protecting the Constitution goes all the way back to his teenage days when he traveled to parts of Texas to talk to other teenagers about why our Constitution was such a blessing to America and the world. Later on, as the Solicitor General of Texas, Ted appeared in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on numerous occasions to successfully defend our Constitutional rights.
Protecting the Constitution and respecting the rule of law are habits Ted has demonstrated over a lifetime. Ted has fought for them as a Senator and, with your support, he will carry them back into the White House – a place that has not seen respect for the Constitution and the rule of law for a long, long time.
But there’s a good chance that Ted won’t win without the support of liberty-minded Republican voters.
Rand has also been a leading voice for limited government – a passionate shared commitment which Ted has demonstrated in the U.S. Senate. I would point you to the example of Iowa as evidence of Ted’s commitment to limited government. Of all the candidates to run for President since Big Corn started getting ethanol subsidies and artificial regulatory advantages (cronyism), there have only been three candidates ever to go to Iowa and make the case that Big Corn’s special treatment by the federal government is wrong. Those three are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz.
Both Rand and Ted went into Iowa asking for votes this past year, and if they were less committed to their principles, they might have backed down from their commitment to ending Big Corn’s ethanol subsidies. Most people said that with Ted’s ethanol position, he didn’t stand a chance in Iowa. The Iowa establishment even carried on an “anybody but Cruz” campaign in a desperate attempt to crush opposition to ethanol subsidies forever. Yet we won!
We won because Ted told the truth about special interests and how they are polluting our politics, and we won raising the banner for free markets and warning of the danger of Washington picking winners and losers.
So, I would ask you to consider this question as you contemplate whom to support going forward: If you think that cronyism (in both parties) is corrupting and bankrupting our government, why would you expect any candidate who won’t tell Iowans the truth about ethanol subsidies when he or she needed their votes to go to Washington and tell the 10,000 other special interests that their gravy train needs to go away?! It isn’t going to happen.
If you’re as furious as I am about special interest influence and the Washington cartel, then I ask you to throw your support to Ted Cruz!
On the issue of the Fed, the leadership of both Doctors Paul (Ron and Rand) has successfully changed the thinking of most grassroots Republicans, as well as others, about the damage of the Fed’s irresponsible loose money policies. If you help Ted become the next President, he will sign a re-elected Senator Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, and that’s just a start!
Finally, I also want to acknowledge Rand’s leadership in fighting for criminal justice reform. Again, Ted is not in exactly the same place on these issues as Rand, but unlike much of the GOP field, Ted is open to the need to reform our criminal justice system.
In Ted’s native Texas, former Texas Governor Perry led the nation to achieve exactly such improvements in Texas over the last ten years. Today, Texas enjoys one of the lowest crime rates it has ever had during my lifetime and they reduced their budget at the same time. If tough-on-crime Texas can find ways to reform its criminal justice system while making Texans safer, there is no reason we can’t do it at the federal level too.
Ted’s record shows that he can be trusted to support the implementation of meaningful reform to make America safer, to make real the opportunity of redemption for those who have done wrong, and to save taxpayers’ money – our government is bankrupt after all!
Senator Rand Paul’s election to the U.S. Senate in 2010 was a blow to the establishment and a great day for liberty. I look forward to his re-election this year, hopefully by a big margin! And if many of you in the liberty movement join us in support Ted Cruz for President, then I hope in the years to come to see a President Cruz signing bills from Senator Paul that will reduce government’s footprint in your life and advance the cause of liberty.
To achieve all this, we need your support. With Senator Paul’s departure from the Presidential contest, Ted Cruz is the only candidate running for President who would advance all four of these causes that have been so ably championed by Rand Paul.
To protect your civil liberties, to roll back special interests and the Washington cartel, to reign in the Fed, and to advance criminal justice reform, we need your support for Ted Cruz for President.
Please join with me today to continue to advance the cause of liberty in the GOP Presidential nomination contest by supporting Ted Cruz (www.TedCruz.org).
For liberty,
Ken Cuccinelli, II
85 comments
Ted Cruz is lower than pond scum, and Cuccinelli supporting him is quite telling.
Anyone who would pull the “voter violation” thing does not deserve office. But as if that wasn’t enough, he had his campaign call Iowans prior to the caucus and tell them Dr. Carson was going to withdraw, so caucus for Cruz. Cruz allows these tactics to be used, so he deserves nothing. I can’t remember the last time a candidate showed his colors so clearly. The last 8 years have been bad enough. We do not need the next President to be a man with no decency.
Debunked. Carson himself has admitted in a campaign email that it was the news network and not Cruz at fault.
I don’t think the news network left the message on my aunts phone, or sent her a “Voter Violation”. But based on the points below, I understand your position.
No, they didn’t. The campaign team should have reconsidered their actions before they did them.
I would have fired them because the image of his campaign is impacted by things like this.
I would have as well.
Cruz has a well deserved reputation as a jackass not only by his colleague but the business community as well.
If you’re referring to the Chamber of Commerce, nobody in the grassroots is all that fond of them.
And the VAT tax stuff is a bunch of sound and fury.
Thank you, Mr. Cuccinelli! Very well stated
“Protecting the Constitution and respecting the rule of law are habits Ted has demonstrated over a lifetime.”
Is this a joke? The dude sidestepped Article II right off the bat. Not to mention his support for TPP, CISA, bulk phone data collection, the patriot act-lite, the federal reserve(which his no show proved), etc.
I am a Rand supporter and will not/cannot vote for Cruz. I’m voting for Rand in the primary and Libertarian Party in November
GREAT — Coming Together for the Country.
I absolutely love Ted Cruz. He is very consistent, extremely intelligent, articulate. His knowledge of the constitution will blow your socks off. He says what he’ll do and he does it. He’s very personable. He’s very even tempered as you can tell by the onslaught of horrible crap the media and Trump are doing to Ted. This is the first election that I’m so happy to vote for someone with principles and not to have to vote for the lesser of two candidates. I guess I’m biased.
My thoughts exactly.
KEN CUCCINELLI IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, LIKE RAND PAUL VOTERS, TED CURZ VOTERS LOOK FOR INTEGRITY AND HONESTY, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WITH TED CRUZ!!!!
Wrong! Sending patently false information about voters while at the same tme shaming voters is not a indication of integrity on Cruz part.
There is a reason he is often referred to as a “sleazeball”
I can see why Cuccinelli likes Cruz because they are both into dirty campaign tricks.
False information story debunked, shaming voters was his campaign, not him. Cruz himself commented on that mistake in his speeches.
Sleaze ball is a term used by his detractors, people rooting for his opponents. It’s a talking point, nothing more.
And the Cuccinelli is dirty attack was debunked as well. That’s something Bill Bolling used to hurt Cuccinelli after the convention. That particular smear helped give us Terry when RINOs who didn’t like Cuccinelli stayed home.
As he was elected and sworn in to the position of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli allowed Virginia Employment Commissioner Broadway to classify illegal aliens detected in audits performed under the Va. Employment Compensation Act as bona-fide independent contractors , by proxy that administration deregulated Statutes 54.1-1100.
Ask director Olson of DPOR if you can opperate without a contractors license and opperate as a bona-fide independent contractor , he will tell you NO , the law requires you to have a license.
Cucci used his elected positon to change the width of abortion clinics to help slow the abortion rate.
Cucci would not refer cases of VOSHA/DOLI violations issued to unlicensed contractors/illegal aliens to DPOR for a proper adjudication process.
ROUGE CONTRACTORS UNDERMINE VIRGINIA’S LEGAL WORKFORCE
http://watchdog.org/202012/subcontractors-shadow-economy-
No Cucci had no concern for the victim of the Attempted Abduction at VA. Tech June 2012. The criminal illegal alien was a unlicensed subcontractor { the 1099 exist to prove }.
Implemented policy change VOSHA / DOLI July 01 , 2016 refering all cases of unlicensed contracting with a licensed contractor to DPOR and the VEC for investegation , DOLI Commissioner Davenport made this change only 2 years into his appointed position , was Cucci to dumb to do this ? No , he chose not to. See SB423 by District 08 {R}Senator DeSteph line 4 part {b} he wants to stop notification of licensed contractors using unlicensed contractors/illegal aliens to other state agencies or courts for investegation and prosecution.
Ken C. more worried about the exposed bosom on our state flag than the girl being dragged to the pickup by the illegal alien unlicensed contractor at Va.Tech.
MS-13 infected our Virginia Communities under AG Ken C. because he allowed administrative santurary to be given to illegal alien unlicensed contractors.
Story says 200 violations in lynchburg area alone , not one prosecution.
I personally would not want the endorsement of someone so complicit to illegal commerce and illegal employment by illegal aliens .
Shout out to Cuccinelli… throw your hat in the ring for Governor, please:-)
Cruz has been walking away from Criminal Justice Reform.
Cruz didn’t show up to vote for Audit the Fed (even Rubio, McCain and Graham voted for this)
Cruz voted for the USA Freedom Act, in order for the fed govt to collect 100% of cell phone data of US citizens. The Bills chief author, Justin Amash, voted against this bill because of how terribly it was twisted. And the courts threw out the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, so this bill was a way to circumvent the courts. Cruz is not good on civil liberties.
I will grant that Cruz will probably be against special interests and will reign in a lot of the cronyism. So he’s definitely good on that issue.
What’s missing from Ken’s arguments for Cruz is probably the most important stance for both Ron and Rand and that’s a non-interventionist and more prudent foreign policy. Since Cruz plans to “make the sand glow” in the Middle East, I guess there’s no point in bringing up his foreign policy stances.
The most pressing issue to our country and to the Govt is the pressing Debt situation. Unless Republicans agree to make cuts in military spending, we will never cut spending, balance the budget or reduce the massive debt. With Cruz’s tough talk on foreign policy, I don’t think he’d be willing to cut military spending. But how can we get Dems to agree on cutting domestic spending if we maintain our military sacred cow.
Is Cruz better than everyone else now running? Probably. But he’s no Paul. And I’m still disappointing that Ken endorsed Cruz over Paul, when Rand was the obvious choice as the most liberty-oriented.
Paul dropped out of the race .
He didn’t drop out, he suspended his campaign. He’s still on the ballot in all 50 states. Darn right I”m going to vote for him. He still is the only choice.
Call it what you want… he dropped out of the race.
You sound like you have a good education, but how do you think we are going to exterminate ISIS and all the off shoots of ISIS? Or do you think we should just let them take over all the world until we are the only country left? I hope you know those murdering sick 0’s will not stop unless they are exterminated. That may be called war, but I guarantee you our world is changing, our country is changing and if we stick our head in the sand and pretend it is not what it is…we will not survive. Our country has always been the only country to defend human rights. I know the outcome has not always been what it should have been. That is the politicians fault. Back in the days before social media, when men were real men they knew what had to be done and they did it. They kept us safe all these years and they liberated people all over the world. I can not se allowing the bastards to continue burning children alive, chopping off the heads of Christians, or raping and killing women. If it takes a war to kill those animals then so be it. Get in there and kill them and get out.
The first thing we can do to defeat ISIS is stop arming them. Our actions in the Middle East has directly led to the rise of ISIS. We’ve even directly armed them because they were the “moderate rebels”. Since we invaded Iraq in 2003, we’ve lost the moral high ground militarily. Pre-emptive war is unjust. Iraq was not a threat to us and did not attack us. We were the aggressor in that war and we were not going there to liberate anyone. We toppled a secular dictator without thinking about any unintended consequences and now ISIS has filled that power vacuum, and you think starting some more Middle Eastern wars is the solution?
And to claim that “Our country has always been the only country to defend human rights.” is absurd on its face. Our country that has sanctioned the murder of 55+ million unborn babies since 1973. We have no claim at being the good guys.
What you’re describing is sensationalism and is a result of war propaganda. ISIS is made stronger by our fear. And so is the military industrial complex. The Neocons would love for nothing better than never ending war in the Middle East and that’s what they’re getting with most any candidate running for President now that Rand’s out.
most any , but not with TED.
this article in support of TED is because Paul is NO LONGER running
I am still waffeling…watching
Some very good points. I am so glad that Rand Paul is now supporting Ted Cruz. Actually I wouldn’t even mind if Rand Paul was Cruz running mate. . . . A vote for Ted is a vote for the American people and our safety.
Rand is not supporting Cruz. He has no plans to make an endorsement in this cycle. So not spread misinformation.
What is the misinformation? I see NOTHING that involved RAND Paul. This is Cucinnelli’s though ful and reasoned opinion on where we are and where we need to get to. I would doubt that Paul or Paul would find any fault in it.
My comment was directed at LaVada who said: “I am so glad that Rand Paul is now supporting Ted Cruz.” This is patently false. I never said Ken was spreading misinformation. I addressed my issues with Ken’s weak attempt to convince Rand supporters of Cruz’s bona fides.
You mus be smoking weed and not paying attention to Cruz most recent controversary involving Carson
Cuccinelli is just auditioning for VP.
Cruz doesn’t get along wth anyone on the hill which makes him null and void when it comes to getting things done.
A controversy debunked, including by Carson himself in his emails. It was the news network that passed the story along.
Nobody is going to pick an AG for VP, no matter who he is. Cuccinelli knows that, he’s supporting Cruz because Cruz is the best candidate.
Cruz doesn’t get along with the Establishment, which is a good thing.
Controversy is bogus, according to the people on the ground in Iowa!!
“The fake Ben Carson controversy should end here and now”
http://stevedeace.com/news/the-fake-ben-carson-controversy-should-end-here-and-now/#
Then there is this, from someone else on the ground:
There have been several people come forward with their voice mail messages BEFORE the caucus that clearly said Carson was withdrawing, so “Don’t waste your vote, caucus for Cruz”.
As I said below, debunked. This controversy is all smoke and no fire.
My 72 year old aunt received BOTH the message and a “Voter Violation” notice.
The latter scared her, as she thought she had done something wrong.
So, no…not debunked. It happened.
Yes, it was debunked. The story started with a news network story which was picked up by a couple of volunteers. Cruz said it wasn’t his fault and Carson agreed and told his supporters as much.
The voter notice was a mistake by his campaign, and Cruz commented on it as such.
Both of these events are being contrived to come up with some way to attack Cruz, it’s not working because the events are being gainsaid. It’s hot air being blown, not a tale worth telling.
The experience MY AUNT had is not hot air, or “contrived”. Even as much as you would like to dismiss these tactics as “mistakes” that can simply be addressed, there were actual people, voters who were affected by them.
Your unwillingness to understand that people were affected is like those Trump supporters who don’t care what he does, they just blow it off. I don’t think that’s right, but please don’t think these things didn’t happen. I didn’t even know about the news stories until after I spoke to my aunt.
The stories surrounding the events are being contrived to create controversy.
You’ll notice I never, not once, in my comment said your aunt didn’t experience what she did. I said A. The story about Carson dropping out being Cruz’s fault was debunked by Carson himself and that B. The mailer was a mistake and it was addressed and dealt with as such.
All that’s left is conversations, not controversies, because what there was to the situations has already been addressed and dealt with.
Ok, I apologize for implying your position was that my aunt didn’t have this experience.
But then, A. Who was responsible for the voice mail messages? and
B. Mistake by whom? The mailer said “Paid for by Cruz for President”
No worries, it happens.
A couple of volunteers is the answer to both of your questions. Cruz’s campaign volunteers picked up the thread from the news and ran with it. A staffer or two was reportedly involved as well and they have apparently apologized for not double checking the story.
The mailers were also done the same way. They were an experiment in tactics used by other campaigns in years past. Cruz was so peeved that his campaign did it that he actually told people to burn the mailers when he was talking to them.
OK. I appreciate the clarification.
Every candidate is responsible for everything done on his/her behalf. I appreciate Cruz’s position, but he is ultimately responsible for his campaign. The thing I find a bit odd is that two mistakes happen in short order, but I hope a few folks were fired. Because all in all, I would make the point that he may some internal folks trying to kill his campaign.
He is responsible for the actions of his team. I understand that he has dealt with them in-house. I don’t know all the details save that he has.
Ah, I think I can explain that a little. The Cruz campaign was rushing to try and win. Cruz said, I think correctly, that if Trump won Iowa he’d sweep the board. So, Cruz’s team was cramming in action by their campaign, sometimes without fully thinking their actions through or double-checking their sources.
If Cruz wins or not, he successfully destroyed the “Trump is unstoppable” talking point.
Thank you!
Smoking weed should not prevent anyone from seeing Cruz for the slimy jackass he is.
Crus is slimy based on what? Things that Carson himself has admitted aren’t Cruz’s doing or fault?
Based on the way he (and/or his campaign) made actual people feel. How can you justify scaring and confusing a little old lady?
Justify it? It’s not my job to justify a mistake that has been called as such and addressed and rectified already.
Fair enough. But some mistakes can’t be rectified, after the fact. It’s akin to knowing that asking forgiveness is easier than asking permission.
True, I’m not gonna deny that. But I will say that it wasn’t Cruz’s mistake, his campaign did that and he was quite annoyed with them for it.
Maybe if the party as a whole could have a civil discussion, as we have, even if they don’t agree 100%, we would not have as many issues.
I agree. It’s horrible how much in-fighting there is in Republican circles right now.
Part of that comes with the primary, but it seems to have gotten worse than it was in 2012.
Yes Rand has 2 tread lightly, Rands downfall was endorsement 4 McConnell. Rand needs estab GOP $ 2 get reelected 4 senate. Won’t endorse. Ron Paul, same problem. Bash Cruz so his son gets GOP, estab $! That’s why DEFUND THE GOP! All about themselves.
Rand hasn’t endorsed Cruz and I’m 100% positive that he would never accept a VP slot. Cruz is a lying, slimy politician.
Ken’s letter is very eloquent and persuasive, but I must admit that when I read this sentence, I began to question the validity of the rest of the letter: “In fact, as best I can tell, most of the other remaining candidates consider protecting civil liberties a vice rather than a virtue!” Sometimes, in an effort to make a point, you can damage your credibility.
We need to regain control of the white house. I think that Marco Rubio is our best candidate to do that. Knowledgeable, articulate, respectful, telegenic, and optimistic … he will attract youth and Hispanic voters to the Republican party.
Rubio is an open borders squish on immigration and kinda fascist on the civil rights of Americans (see NSA spying and support for anti-due process legislation). I don’t care how pretty you think he is, I will never vote for him.
I will vote for WHOEVERis the republican candidate. I hope that you are not serious about not voting Republican if Marco Rubio is nominated.
I hope you are not serious about allowing others to pick a candidate for you
You talking to me, Sick? I never said that. I referred to “Republican” commenter AmyH, who would not vote for Rubio … apparently even if he is our candidate.
Thank you, that is the right attitude to have.
Not so , I dissagree with the fact of a personal pledge that was given to me prior to our Governors election Sept. 2013 , and is currently being executed.
What?
The mess about the current oath is done (unless someone brings a suit on constitutionality). RPV voted to scrap it AFTER it went to absentee voters and the state spent 62,000 on it.
Problem with Rubio is he is not a strong man. He will cave as he has done before with the establishment. He votes with McConnell for Obama. Not a fighter. He can not even pretend to say he fought the fight because he did NOT. His record will not begin to stand up to Cruz’s record. Cruz actually did fight for the rights of We the people. Rubio is a RINO. He has started spouting word for word the things Cruz has been saying all along. I find that pathetic.
YOU ARE RIGHT, RUBIO IS NOT A STRONG CANDIDATE. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TED CRUZ, WHO HAS ALREADY PROVEN HIS ABILITY TO FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!
ricktorn, I am going to tell you some of the brutal truth about Rubio. Marco is MY US Senator! In the 2012 cycle, I was nearly as strong behind Rubio as I now am Ted Cruz, even supported him for the VP slot after Romney had acquired the nomination. I dreamed of a future presidency for Rubio, fully expecting he would indeed be elected, maybe even in this cycle, if Romney was not elected, and the next cycle if he was. At the point of the CPAC event in early 1013, Marco polled in the 20s, 2nd only to Rand Paul. As of that time, he had not shown his true colors. Then, he started making noises about joining Schumer’s “Gang,” and did so over my loud protest. This he did after making a solid commitment to oppose legalizing illegals in any fashion. After joining the Gang, his poll numbers dropped into the low single digits, as I assured him they would! (Only after that did I learn him to have boldly supported amnesty as Speaker of the Florida House.) I am officially still a Florida citizen, still vote in Florida, but was out of state during Marco’s term as Speaker. My support for Marco was fueled by my resentment of Charlie Crist, the Governor of Florida who was so cozy with Obama. Marco has told so many lies about Ted Cruz, I consider him to be a sh*t salesman with a mouthful of samples! People will say I must have something against Hispanics. They might want to ascertain how it is that I jumped from one Hispanic to another!
Thank you for sharing this about Rubio. Although I think Cruz is the lowest form of pond scum, I appreciate the information you provide as someone Rubio was supposed to represent.
MAYBE YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT HOW RUBIO SIDED WITH CHUCK SCHUMER AND THE GANG OF 8 DEMOCRATS TO TRY TO PUSH THROUGH AN AMNESTY LAW. IN ORDER TO DEFEAT AMNESTY, TED CRUZ WROTE AN AMENDMENT WHICH WAS SUCCESSFUL IN KILLING THE AMNESTY LAW THAT RUBIO WROTE!!!!!
all of them are much less firm about NOT SPYING on AMERICANS without a WARRANT!!
I’m a Rand Paul guy, and this is really weak.
Rand Paul favors an end to neoconservative adventures abroad; Ted Cruz says he’s ready to carpetbomb the Middle East until the sand glows, regardless of the obvious harm that collateral damage will do.
Ted Cruz reversed himself on Snowden and surveillance as soon as he thought it might be politically advantageous. Likewise, Ted Cruz WAS open to criminal justice reform, then he reversed himself and began to demagogue the issue for political purposes.
I suppose you could argue Cruz is not sincere about this stuff — that it’s for political purposes and he’ll move back in the other direction after the election. That might very well be true, but it’s hardly attractive in my book to be a fair weather, typical politician on these issues.
The bottom line is that the only way to argue Paul supporters should favor Cruz is that the alternatives would be worse (Rubio in particular because Trump isn’t committed to anything but himself). Sure, you can make that argument, and that does seem to be Cuccinelli’s main point, but I come back to where I started this comment — it’s a weak argument.
I have tremendous respect for Rand Paul. I like a lot of his ideas and was delighted when he arrived on the political scene. I hope he’s in the Senate a long time. But I’d suggest your framing of Cruz’s positions on surveillance and the criminal justice reform issue might be inaccurate — “as soon as he thought it might be politically advantageous” and “demagogue the issue for political purposes.” There are valid reasons Cruz might honestly take the position he has on both issues.
I’m very sensitive to the surveillance issue, having experienced it first hand. I was so frustrated with the passage of ObamaCare in 2009 — mostly the legislative shennanigans like reconciliation, holiday and wee-hours votes — that I hung the Stars and Stripes flying outside my home upside down. Though I put it back into proper position after a week, a few odd things followed. Shortly thereafter, a Blacksburg town police cruiser parked in the drive of a vacant house across the road from me. I live five miles outside town jurisdiction. That’s never happened before, and never happened since. In the following weeks, my Facebook account was hacked three times. Then one day I came home from work and found a note in my door from a fellow claiming to be with the Department of Homeland Security, asking that I call him. I sent an e-mail to that agency asking if that individual was really working for them. They replied in the affirmative and told me to call him. I didn’t, but just put the whole thing off to silliness. I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong. One day, after telling a friend about all this, I went to my gmail account to re-read the messages — my e-mail to DHS and their reply were both gone.
Snowden made his revelations soon thereafter. I replaced my usual Facebook icon with Snowden’s photo for a few months. So I get the surveillance issue. I really do. Nevertheless, Snowdown’s flight to Russia, As David Haransyi wrote in the Federalist,
“Opposing the NSA domestic spying doesn’t preclude a person from
viewing Snowden as a traitor. Not only because he probably violated
the Espionage Act by stealing state secrets vital to national security,
but because he chose the worst kind of anti-American polemicists as his
champions (should we feel comforted that The Intercept’s editor has
access to sensitive national security documents in addition to the NSA?)
and decided to level his criticism of the U.S. government under the
protection of authoritarians in Moscow and China. These aren’t the
actions of someone concerned with liberty.
But, as Cruz initially argued, the American people did not comprehend
the extent of a data mining operation that was (and is) broader and
more invasive than anyone had reported. Snowden helped spur a debate
about the constitutionality and usefulness of bulk surveillance. Voters
can be critical of a domestic government spying and Snowden. (Just as they can believe the United States has no business nation-building and that Islamists are civilization’s greatest threat.)”
Similarly, you can be for criminal justice reform, and still have doubts about the particular bill generated in Congress. As I understand it, Cruz is mostly concerned that the bill allows violent felons to be released by judges. Many people in jail on drug charges were persuaded by their lawyers to plea guilty to drug charges in exchange for the violent offense charges being dropped. Saves everyone time — prosecutors and defense attorneys and judges — and takes the offender off the street. I’d bet Cruz would go along with the bill if that loophole were closed, if it can be.
I’d also suggest Rand Paul supporters accept that Rand has made his own compromises, like all politicians. Rand drew back on any criticism of Mitch McConnell in recent years, and even campaigned for his reelection, in order to get Mitch’s endorsement for president, and also to get Mitch’s support for changing KY GOP rules so that Rand could be on the ballot twice — for president and senator — if needed. It’s politics. Every one of these guys and gals make compromises. Every. One.
So I’ll disagree with your suggestions that Ken Cuccinelli’s argument in favor or Cruz is is weak. And even if you can’t be persuaded by any of that, perhaps the prospect of one of the other Republican candidates nominating federal and SCOTUS judges would be a stronger argument. As the Stones sang, “You can’t always get what you want….”
Good comment. You make a better case than Cuccinelli in many respects. But I’m still voting for Rand — whether he’s suspended his campaign or not, he’ll still be on the ballot, and especially at the primary stage, I’m not willing to give up, hold my nose, and try to vote for the least bad frontrunner.
Yours in Liberty….
A symbolic vote is more important than the preservation of our republic? The only chance Rand Paul has of ever being president, is for him to be selected as Ted’s running mate! There was a time when I though that might work- – -not anymore! I want to see Ted select a running mate that will carry on Ted’s stated agenda! You may not take seriously the peril our republic faces. I do! I am an advanced senior citizen- -my days are numbered, but I would dearly love to be able to leave behind the kind of personal freedom enjoyed by Americans in the early years of our republic. It really left the rails in the time immediately after the Civil War, with the appending of the unconstitutional 14th amendment. (If you are supporting Marco Rubio, know that he is depending on the misreading of an unconstitutional amendment for his qualification to be president. Though he is US born, he did not meet the requirements to be a natural born citizen, sans the 14th amendment- -neither parent was a US citizen at the time of Marco’s birth!) I actually financially supported Rand in his 2010 bid for the Kentucky US Senate seat. In that year, I believe he was the only candidate for any office I financially supported. He is very strong on the 4th amendment, but very weak on the Constitution overall. I am not likely to forget Rand seconding the motion on Rubio’s lie about Ted having ever supported amnesty. (If you can prove otherwise, do it!)
Given the contention that a single vote in Virginia’s Republican primary is somehow material to the preservation of the republic, and the assault on the 14th Amendment, it’s tempting to view this comment as satire or farce.
What I will say is that my vote is not symbolic. My vote is mine, to give or not as I see fit. And if a candidate is unable to win my vote, the fault is not mine.
It is essential to the preservation of the republic, all votes are. The saying “Every vote counts” came about because it is true. Every vote and every voter is worthwhile as a candidate needs hundreds of thousands of votes to win. One vote is a building block which stacks with others to form a victorious campaign.
Your vote is yours, and no one has said otherwise. However, your vote is absolutely symbolic if you are deliberately casting it in favor of someone who you know isn’t going to win. And how can a candidate win your vote if you’ve already decided that they won’t? That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, another candidate could earn my vote. There are a few others that I like or want to like generally. But I’m not yet seeing them show the beyond-soundbite seriousness and policy positions that would do so.
Like who? I’m wondering what your criteria and specific policy positons for a good candidate are.
I’m doing the same thing. I haven’t decided whether I’m going to write in Rand or vote Libertarian Party in November, but I’m definitely voting Rand in the primary. He’s still on the ballot in every state. Even if I was doing the lesser of 2 evils thing, I’m still not sure if I could vote for Cruz. I honestly can’t stand the guy anymore.
sounds like you don’t understand the term Carpet bomb.
I think I understand it just fine, thanks. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing
DavidH, Have you ever served in the military or studied battle strategy? I believe in allowing innocents an opportunity to escape the pending battle zone. (IF) they are truly innocents, they will separate themselves from the targets! If they are colluding to conceal the combatants, they are not innocents! It is inconvenient to have to pick up and move, but it is a matter of what you cherish most, your life or your home! The way you bring war to the quickest end, is to rapidly raise the level of pain on the enemy beyond his level of endurance. I am sure Ted Cruz would make every effort to warn non combatants of their pending doom, should they remain in place! Also, you make the enemy pay with their lives with the minimum loss of life from your own forces. What was the death toll of allied forces during the first Gulf War? Thanks to Colin Powell, we did not finish the job while we were there in 1991! His argument was that if we disarmed Saddam, Iran would have moved in and taken over. Not if we assured Iran of the same treatment as we had administered to Iraq! At that time, both Iraq & Iran were recovering from an eight years war with each other. Having a bad taste for Iran after the way they treated our embassy and those serving there, the US actually supported Iraq in their war with Iran!
I have not served in the military. I have read plenty of books about it.
Regardless, you’re missing the point. America has the firepower to destroy the Middle East many times over. We don’t because we don’t live in a world where it’s acceptable to nuke other countries or burn entire cities to the ground for anything short of an existential conflict (which ISIS would like to be but has not yet become). Whether we applaud or bewail that change is beside the point – the world is what it is.
We also don’t start carpet bombing because it’s obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that killing tons of innocent Muslims, or even just blowing up notable cities while their denizens become refugees, is the way to multiply our Muslim enemies, not the way to destroy radical Islam.
Your suggestion that innocents should just be warned and move is stupid. First, many can’t easily do so, or are prevented by nearby countries from doing so, and those that can move face the fate of being refugees, which is dangerous and depressing. (Also, it’s not clear why you want to encourage more refugees, given the world’s struggle to deal with the ones that already exist.) Second, when the evil-doers hear your warning to the innocents to move, exactly how do you plan on preventing the evil-doers from moving too?
the context is ” only if the isis is in great need to be stopped and that is the only way to do it.” In other words, he will carry a BIG stick and MANY of them – everything on the table- !!! MAYBE enemies will believe we will defend our selves . Do you really think a president PAUL would NOT be willing to do this if it were necessary?? If he would not keep this option open, I would not vote for RAND. even tho everything else about him i like.
It is not so weak, when you look at Rubio’s Gang of 8 Amnesty, and now his latest brain storm on the NSA!!
Horowitz: Why Did Rubio Push Gang Of Eight If He Was Aware of Security Risks? https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/why-did-rubio-push-gang-of-eight-if-he-was-aware-of-security-risks#sthash.kSxJJO2O.dpuf
“Marco Rubio Wants to Permanently Extend NSA Mass Surveillance”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/32926/marco-rubio-wants-permanently-extend-nsa-mass-surveillance