Thankful

Sharing Options

So Ted Cruz refrained from endorsing Donald Trump last night, and so my respect for him remains high. I appreciate it deeply. If he had endorsed Trump, then my support for Cruz would have gone the way of the woolly mammoth. The pressure on Cruz to cave must have been enormous, as can be ascertained from the outraged reactions to this failure to kiss the ring.

The issue is power versus principle. Trump has won the Republican nomination, and he is in a position to call a number of shots, particularly within the party apparatus. Cruz will definitely pay a price for this, but I think it will be acute and short term. Long term I think that Cruz is ahead of the game.Cruz Trump

If Trump is elected in the fall (which, in a year of populist-driven, Brexit-like surprises, is certainly possible), he will likely make all sorts of executive decisions that will be the executive equivalent of corned beef hash. In such a case, Ted Cruz will be perfectly positioned for a primary challenge in four years. If Trump surprises the world (and astonishes me) by being not half bad, Cruz will be in a position to “come round,” and his working with Trump at that time (on anything) will not be seen as pragmatic cravenness.

If Hillary wins — as the received wisdom holds that she will, and we all know how astute the received wisdom has been in these troubled days — then Cruz spends the next four years as Reagan did after 76. He is the front runner, the heir apparent, the one who should have been listened to this time around. He will be the front runner in a badly damaged party, one that that will desperately need to restore its center. In order to do that, you need someone who actually has a center.

Two other comments. Is it not obvious that if Cruz had endorsed Trump, he would be called upon to answer for every cockamamie thing that Trump says between now and November? In other words, Cruz is being assailed for not supporting Trump, but if he had, he would be assailed for that. And if you are going to be assailed regardless, you might as well do it with your principles intact.

The second is related to Cruz’s comment that he is “not in the habit” of supporting people who attack his wife and father. But there was a downside to that stand, showing again that Cruz is a man of principle. As one person on Twitter put it well: “Major mistake by Cruz tonight: this probably torpedoes any chance he had of a President Trump pardoning his dad for killing JFK.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
207 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ZLee
ZLee
6 years ago

That last line ;)

John
John
6 years ago

My question would be why he accepted the speech at the convention if he had no intention of endorsing Trump. Why not just stay away like the rest of the GOP who won’t support him?

jps294
jps294
6 years ago
Reply to  John

Because it is a Republican Conference. He was there to talk about protecting our Constitution, not Trump. We as Republicans should have been excited that Cruz did. We have cried that the Constitution is being violated every day by B. Obama and probably will be by Hillary. But instead of pointing at that, angry voters attack Cruz for no endorsement.

What I don’t understand is why people think you have to be a Trump supporter to be a Republican.

John
John
6 years ago
Reply to  jps294

I am not a Trump support and don’t think that, but it’s well known that the convention’s purpose is to help the front runner (unless the race is close). Let’s not pretend ignorance about that.

BC
BC
6 years ago
Reply to  John

He did congratulate him on his win, but I am also thankful he stood by his principals, when it comes to his family. My thoughts on Mr. Trump go back and forth. I personally do not know much about the man other than what the media spouts about him as some sort of buffoon, so it was good to hear the many insider views from his family and friends. Even Hillary Clinton puts on a show about her own beliefs depending on who she is talking to, but she has shown a total disregard for the constitution and the laws… Read more »

NHConservative777
NHConservative777
6 years ago
Reply to  John

Trump invited him after dropping his demand that Cruz endorse him in order to be a speaker. Furthermore, Trump read the speech hours before it was given and said nothing and did nothing to stop it.

John
John
6 years ago

From what I understand, Cruz told Trump that he wouldn’t be endorsing him after accepting the speech.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago

Cruz is acting like the bitter, passive-aggressive snake he is. Adios Ted, your political future is over.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

More likely, our political future is over.

Jon Swerens
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

Yep, just like how Reagan’s was over after not endorsing Ford. BIG MISTAKE RON

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jon Swerens

So did Reagan endorse Chevy or Pontiac?

Oh wait! It sounds like he endorsed Jeep! ; – )

BC
BC
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

No he isn’t. He’s acting as a man of Principal and standing on the side of his family against a man who disparaged them. When Mr. Trump started attacking his wife and father is when Mr. Cruz made the decision not to endorse him if he wins, had Mr. Trump refrained from the personal attacks Mr. Cruz would have endorsed him.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  BC

Ha, as if Cruz’s campaign didn’t attack Trump’s wife first. The guy is a snake, not a man of “principal.”

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

How did the Cruz campaign attack Trump’s wife? I’ve never heard of this.

You’re not referring to the PAC which is legally unaffiliated with the Cruz campaign, pointing out that a woman who posed nude for a major publication so that everyone would see her do it, once posed nude, are you?

Newsflash: Michelle Obama lives in a big white house.

Mono
Mono
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

The PAC is unaffiliated, yet Cruz never apologized for his supporters doing this… this is not principle, this is like Hillary alleging no connection to the Clinton Foundation. Cruz is not much different.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Mono

If they’re unaffiliated, then they’re unaffiliated, not something Cruz has the ability, let alone the responsibility, to apologize for, and not parallel to the Clinton Foundation, which is affiliated with the Clintons.

And again the question: what is the moral problem with publicly noticing that someone did something that was deliberately done in order that people would notice it?

Mono
Mono
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Cruz’s PAC opened the discussion re wives. Cruz knew it and chose to be silent. That’s not illegal or even immoral, but it is calculating… I would have respected a comment that he disavows that type of campaign smear (bringing in family members’ activities that have no real bearing on policy). Trump also could have reacted against the PAC vs against Cruz’s wife, but I see no nobility in either man in this case. Cruz vigorously defending his wife, fine… but remaining silent against the attack on Trump’s wife? I believe he was hoping for political advantage from the PAC… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Mono

The word that comes to my mind for Cruz is “smarmy.”

David R
David R
6 years ago

The fascinating thing is he never said one negative thing in his speech about Trump. He spoke on liberty, the Constitution, and freedom. Yet when he says to vote your conscious, he got booed. When he said vote for the person who defends freedom, he got booed. When he said vote for the person who stands for your principles, he got booed.

He held up a mirror to the GOP and they didn’t like what they saw.

TedR
TedR
6 years ago
Reply to  David R

It is telling that the reason he go booed is that everyone knew he wasn’t talking about Trump when he admonished everyone to vote their conscience. So, he got booed by advocating for a conscience vote and he got booed because we all know that Trump is not a conscience vote. This is a sad state of affairs but should be not be at all surprising when you consider the Jews of the Old Testament. When they worshiped other gods, they were plagued by “leaders” just like Trump.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  David R

Exactly!! Using the “vote you conscience” language identical to that of the #NeverTrump camp isn’t actually attacking Trump or implying that he’s beyond the pale! If you think that’s what Cruz intended, that’s the Holy Spirit!

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Whose fault is it that the language of the NeverTrump camp is “vote your conscience”? How could that be an effective line if voting Trump was something we could all do with a wholly untroubled conscience?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

So, you don’t think there was any dog whistle there at all?

And when Trump spoke of Kelly bleeding from “wherever,” we can all agree that any apparent reference to menstruation was purely coincidental?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

I didn’t say there was no dog whistle. However, it is also an absolutely true, correct, and defensible statement. If it’s a dog whistle it’s because the dogs answer, not because there’s anything wrong with either the content or the message being sent.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

It’s a dog whistle because the dog being whistled for is the #NeverTrump crowd and everybody knows that was the intention.

To pretend that it wasn’t and that anybody who took it as such did so on account of their own conscience being stung is disingenuous.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

I didn’t say it was because of their own conscience being stung. However, a dog whistle might function as a dog whistle, and also be a legitimate thing to say, because the dogs might have the right idea. Is that not a possibility?

Again, whose fault is it that that language works as a “dog whistle?” People who advocate voting their conscience for people who believe in the Constitution, or people who can’t line up with that slogan?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Correct, you didn’t, so that was more directed at David R for a bunk comment. But Cruz can’t play coy and pretend that his words were innocent and his intentions were as pure as the driven snow, especially after he let his feelings be know about viewing an endorsement of Trump as being the work of a “servile puppy dog.” But now, this whole subject is the past. They’re all politicians playing political games, and I don’t fault them for doing that — they’re politicians seeking votes, after all. It’s the pretending that they’re more noble than they actually are… Read more »

David
David
6 years ago

Reminds me of Thomas More.

Chris
Chris
6 years ago

For Cruz to have endorsed Trump would have been like the guy from Judges 11. There is always time to ditch a rash oath.

James A
James A
6 years ago
Reply to  Chris

And there are times when you should obviously NOT make an oath

James A
James A
6 years ago

What about Cruz’s pledge – His oath to support the nonminee? I guess that doesn’t matter as long as long as you unctuously protest on principle.

David R
David R
6 years ago
Reply to  James A

What about his oath to his wife and family? To honor, protect and cherish them? Trump viciously attacked his wife, his father, and his honor. Cruz stood by his oath to his family and to the Constitution, something the thrice married, authoritarian knows nothing about.

There are people on this forum who lament the emasculation of society, but when this man refuses to kiss the ring of his wife’s attackers and defends her honor, watch these same people scoff at him.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  David R

If you live practically separated from your wife for 7 years so she can have a job on the East coast, have you stood by your “oath” to your family?

James A
James A
6 years ago
Reply to  David R

He knew Who and how Trump was when he signed the oath. Aaaaaand his father did a little attacking himself.

James A
James A
6 years ago
Reply to  David R

Cruz should have repented for the pledge, asked for forgiveness, and then unctuously protested. We all know what happens when we make rash and political pledges with nerfarious actors (cause we all have in one sort or the other). This was a biggun’! May our Sovereign Lord have mercy on us!!!

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  James A

The duty to keep the oath to Trump was voided the day Trump announced, before the primaries were decided, that he had no intention of keeping it himself.

Scott McClare
6 years ago
Reply to  James A

Cruz made his reasoning more plain this morning: amongst other things, he wasn’t going to kowtow to a man who attacked his wife.

He also made an oath to love and honour her. Which one of those oaths should (ahem) trump the other?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Scott McClare

Love and honour her by not living with her for 7 years? Interesting.

Scott McClare
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

A poor decision that has since been corrected, and hence not to the point of whether he is right to stand up for her now.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Scott McClare

Do you feel the same about Trump’s marital past?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Depends. Has he stopped boasting about adultery yet?

Scott McClare
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

No, I feel quite differently about a man who cheated on his first wife with his second, and then cheated on his second wife with his third. Donald Trump is sleaze, marriage-wise.

Scott McClare
6 years ago
Reply to  Scott McClare

Which does raise a further question: If Trump ignored his promise to support the Republican candidate (if it had turned out to be someone other than himself), and (so far) two of his three wedding vows, what does that say about his ability to keep the oath he may swear on January 20, if it comes to that?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Scott McClare

What part of the oath should I be afraid of him breaking based on his marital infidelity?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Scott McClare

That’s certainly reasonable to feel that way about Trump and I’ve no interest or intention in defending that, but do you think that a willingness to allow your wife to live a thousand miles away so you can both keep your influential careers doesn’t indicate a characteristic or thought-pattern that simply ends with moving back in together?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Scott McClare

Especially when standing up for her now makes you look good during campaign season.

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago
Reply to  James A

It seems to me that Trump and his loyal drones are in no position to criticize Cruz concerning this pledge.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/flashback-remember-when-trump-renounced-the-gop-pledge

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago

“The second is related to Cruz’s comment that he is “not in the habit” of supporting people who attack his wife and father. But there was a downside to that stand, showing again that Cruz is a man of principle.”

Where do meme contests regarding a man’s wife fit in here?

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Well, to be fair, it was the man and his wife!????

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago

And another — Is allowing Glenn Beck to speak of you as being the fulfillment of Joseph Smith prophecy some more principle?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

Cruz pledged to support the Republican nominee and didn’t.

What’s left to respect?

Dan Kreider
Dan Kreider
6 years ago

There’s one more contingency to mention: if Trump loses narrowly, Cruz will be the subject of countless Republican death threats – because he’ll doubtless be perceived by many to be the reason Trump lost.

I doubt Trump will get a royal drubbing. It’ll probably be close.

Zachary Hurt
6 years ago

I’m pretty decided on voting for Trump based solely on the SCOTUS issue. Trump seems to be content to leave the conservatives alone on the social issues, which the he seems to little understand or care about. His choice of Mike Pence (whose Christian spine is admittedly more gelatinous than desirable) seems to confirm that. Or am I living in a Spanish pipedream?

FrJ+
FrJ+
6 years ago

I’ll preface my remarks by commenting that I really enjoy this website and Pastor Wilson’s articles and the comments which follow. This is one of my “go to” sites for solid biblical analysis and whilst I could not be accused of being “Reformed” I very often find myself in solidarity with what is shared here. That said, whilst Pastor Wilson is quite an able theologian, as they might say here in the west side of Philadelphia, “he don’t know jack about politics!” First of all Cruz was an absolute disaster. He turned what might have been a brilliant, gracious speech… Read more »

eli
eli
6 years ago
Reply to  FrJ+

If Cruz hadn’t said what he said, I’d have left the Republican Party today. I’ve been deliberating leaving since it became clear they were going to nominate a progressive who’s also a pathological liar. If the Republican party is supposedly a “big tent”, surely there’s room for those of us who oppose Trump on principle. For now, I’ll stay in and hope and pray Cruz will run again in 4 years.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  eli

So, you don’t care that the US Constitution prohibits Cruz being president, as he is a *naturalized* citizen, not a natural born citizen?

eli
eli
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Cruz is a natural born citizen. He never had to be naturalized since he was born a US citizen. The fact that he was born in Canada is irrelevant- he was born to a US citizen and hence is a natural born citizen.

John
John
6 years ago
Reply to  FrJ+

Trump got the brunt of it because he’s in first. I wouldn’t disagree that Cruz has some huge failings. As far as I can tell, he’s a quintessential sleazy politician. The difference between the two is that I think Cruz actually has a foundation of conservatism while Trump has nothing but a foundation of narcissism.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  John

Do you actually know any narcissists? From personal experience they have almost no overlap in personality traits with what we’ve seen of Mr Trump.

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I know actual narcissists. I’m pretty sure we have one in the white house right now.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

Narcissist, the new word for selfish!????

John
John
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

It seems we don’t know the same people.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Two of the diagnostic markers for narcissism are the inability to admit faults and a compulsion to strike back, no matter how trivial the provocation.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I agree that the election process selects for the ability to behave in a narcissistic fashion.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Obama has done both of those numerous times, though often in passive-aggressive ways.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

I think it might be generally true for politicians. Would a really normal person be willing to go through all that? I think you would have to have an unusually healthy ego. You are probably right that Obama is passive/aggressive. I see both Trump and Hillary as being aggressive/aggressive.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I know! I have never made any political gaffes, but still, I was not nominated for president! I’ll get those guys if it’s the last thing I do!????

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

ashv wrote: Do you actually know any narcissists? From personal experience they have almost no overlap in personality traits with what we’ve seen of Mr Trump. One doesn’t have to be on personal terms with a narcissist to know what the word means. Trump is nothing if not an admirer of his own attributes. Remember the meme contest with the photo of Trump sitting at a golden piano? Does ashv think that’s normal, even for wealthy people? It is the essence of self-aggrandizement and vanity. That ashv can’t see it may tell us more about ashv than about Trump. Now… Read more »

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I agree that the USA is headed in the wrong direction, but hopefully it’s been clear for the last year that Christians supporting people like Cruz are complicit in that.

(Also, narcissism is different from thinking you’re better than everybody else or being a good self-promoter.)

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  FrJ+

Nice post, Father J!

Eric
Eric
6 years ago

Hey, I *like* corned beef hash! How dare you sully such a fine dish with that association!

katecho
katecho
6 years ago

Aside from Cruz’s ill-advised choice of Fiorina as a running mate, and aside from Cruz making a foolish pledge to support the Republican party nominee (and then breaking it), it’s interesting to hear the cries of disaster concerning his speech. If it was really such an unmitigated catastrophe, why did Cruz deliver it? Is the argument that he hates himself and his own political career? That doesn’t make sense. Is the argument that Cruz was too stupid to know there would be backlash from the Trump worshipers among the convention mob? That makes even less sense. While Cruz didn’t say… Read more »

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

While Cruz didn’t say (or need to say) anything overtly negative about Trump at all, the result was to show the Republican party what it has become… a drooling ball of desperation, rallying around a last hope with all of its idolatrous might.

That’s 100% fair and valid, but Cruz, Cruz Sr., and Beck all spoke of Cruz in the exact same terms.

ME
ME
6 years ago

This is a brave post.

Not that anyone will listen to me, but I think it would be wise for Trump supporters to back off the rabid misogyny. It might be fun to say “bros before hos” and “Trump the Tramp” but it is evidence of that conservative disconnect from the culture that often costs them so many elections.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

Women shouldn’t be voting. Repeal the 19th.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

What arguments would you use to persuade us women to disenfranchise ourselves?

jigawatt
jigawatt
6 years ago

Cruz should have never pledged support in the first place.

FrJ+
FrJ+
6 years ago

After today’s post-speech comments, I can understand why (to paraphrase Ann Coulter) Ted Cruz has been hated by everyone every place he’s ever been from kindergarten to the United States Senate.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  FrJ+

“Everyone hates Cruz in every place he’s ever been.” Repeat this 10 times before going to bed every night, and it will become true. This is how sound logic and reason works now. And it’s so substantive and such a righteous way to treat others. We would all like to be treated this way by others. Just wait until the press discovers this technique.

FrJ+
FrJ+
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Yawn

mkt
mkt
6 years ago

“If he had endorsed Trump, then my support for Cruz would have gone the way of the woolly mammoth.”

From someone who voted for McCain just because he had a dingy broad from Alaska on his ticket? I’m not impressed.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

I never could see how the math worked on that one. With friends like McCain, true conservatives don’t need enemies.

Wendell Dávila Helms
Wendell Dávila Helms
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Wilson endorsed McCain?

mkt
mkt
6 years ago

Yep. ” For example, I voted for John McCain — something I would not ever ordinarily do — and I did it simply because of her presence on the ticket.”

https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/who-would-palin-comparison.html

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago

So… Cruz’s refusal to explicitly endorse now [supposedly] justifies the defamatory “Lyin’Ted” moniker, huh?

I guess we’ll just ignore Trump’s wildly slanderous attacks on Cruz’s family? Or, the fact that Trump renounced his own pledge to support the GOP nominee long before Cruz’s convention speech?
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/flashback-remember-when-trump-renounced-the-gop-pledge

I could go on; but, at this point, what difference does it make?

So… for all the Trump-worshipers so willing to gleefully revile Senator Cruz with their shameless double-standard, I must ask: where, now, is their moral basis for prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her crimes?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Brian M

The point is not that Trump is good, but that Cruz is bad.

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Okay… care to define “bad”?

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Brian M

Cruz is “creepy” and doesn’t have any friends. I thought everyone had gotten that memo by now. It was all over the press.

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Oh, ok. Silly me. That’s a perfectly good reason to destroy him. What was I thinking? :|

Trish Hay
Trish Hay
6 years ago

What everyone seems to be missing is that. Cruz is not eligible to be President of the US according to the constitution

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  Trish Hay

They are assuredly not missing it; they are actively refusing to see it.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

We aren’t missing it, and have already refuted the misinformation multiple times.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  Trish Hay

Cruz will never be President, so this is hardly interesting to discuss.

jigawatt
jigawatt
6 years ago

I guess what Trump wanted was for he and Cruz to be like Obama and Hillary. This question came when Obama announced Hillary as his Secretary of State back in 2008. I remember hearing this announcement and thinking that Peter Baker’s question was indeed reasonable. Looks like I wasn’t alone. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/147698.html BAKER: You’ve talked about the importance just now of having different voices and robust debate within your administration. But, again, going back to the campaign, you were asked and talked about the qualifications of the — your now, your nominee for secretary of state. And you belittled her travels… Read more »

Tony
6 years ago

“And if you are going to be assailed regardless, you might as well do it with your principles intact.” -Well said Mr. Wilson.

jinx
jinx
6 years ago

It’s a sad day when you are booed by conservatives for saying “vote your conscience.” The constant attack regarding the inexperience of a novice senator, the immoral behavior of liberals, immigrants and even the Flotus’ arms was the mantra for years. So why is it that we now have a candadite with no experience in foreign affairs/policy/public sevice not even an alderman, a candidate who is an admitted adulter, pro-abotionist, hires illegals, owns and strip clubs and casinoes, is prideful and his wife the potential flotus has soft porn photos. Winning at all cost seems to be the general theme… Read more »

En folkefiende
En folkefiende
6 years ago

A thoughtful post, but it doesn’t square the circle. What about the fact that Cruz pledged – without qualification – to endorse the Republican nominee? This is about power, yes, and it’s about principle, I agree. What about the principle of living according to your promises?

KingAlbert2nd
KingAlbert2nd
6 years ago
Reply to  En folkefiende

Is a pledge that you’re bullied into making, really worth anything?

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  KingAlbert2nd

Yes. It says a lot about someone’s susceptibility to being bullied. Of course we shouldn’t forget that Trump also made a similar pledge.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Granted, but once the pledge has been made, is there out, even if it requires what the one who made it violate his own conscience and do what he believes to be active harm, by keeping it?

I don’t think anyone here is defending Cruz having made the pledge. But is it really true that having made a foolish pledge, possibly having been bullied into it, you’re stuck keeping it regardless of the harm it may do?

That line of reasoning leaves Katherine von Bora stuck in the convent, showing fealty to the Pope.

Wendell Dávila Helms
Wendell Dávila Helms
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

If you want to salvage any principles and retain any integrity, then yes, you’re stuck keeping your foolish pledge, UNLESS you at least admit you made a foolish pledge (instead of absurdly trying to blame Trump for the foolish pledge you made about him.)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago

I can agree with the “unless you admit you made the foolish pledge” part. But that doesn’t seem to be a concession most are willing to make. They seem to want to keep Katie in the convent, and tell Ted to tell people to vote for someone that Ted doesn’t think people should vote for, period.

Bike bubba
6 years ago

Amen. Too often, we get along too well despite things that are “no go” in terms of morals, and then we wonder why we get narcissists in office. Duh. We’ve encouraged them. Thanks, Ted.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago

Douglas Wilson:So Ted Cruz refrained from endorsing Donald Trump last night, and so my respect for him remains high. I appreciate it deeply. If he had endorsed Trump, then my support for Cruz would have gone the way of the woolly mammoth.
Oddly, the fact that ol’ “TrusTed” no more honors the US Constitution than any Democrat does seems not to factor at all into your respect/support of him.

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ok, I’m genuinely curious… would you care to elaborate on that charge with solid evidence?

If those of us who still respect Senator Cruz are being misled, we surely need to know about it!

St. Lee
6 years ago
Reply to  Brian M

Really Brian? Your going to invite Ilion to get back up on his hobby horse again with his “Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen” rant? He has already pretty much worn the rockers off of that thing, so I for one was hoping to not be forced to see it any more.

St. Lee
6 years ago
Reply to  St. Lee

I think he’s mounted it twice already in this comment thread alone.

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago
Reply to  St. Lee

LOL… Notice, I said solid evidence. I’ve seen so many opinions of how awful Sen. Cruz is; but, so far, they seem to be just that. And you know the old saying about opinions, right? At the risk of exposing myself to all kinds of ad hominem attacks, I am a Texan who heartily supported my senator for President, and still have a great amount of respect for him. That said, if there’s some justifiable reason that I should believe otherwise, I want to know about it – I want the truth, as much as I can know. What I… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Brian M

Indeed. Cruz has enough faults without making stuff up, and without being steered into a prejudice about him being “creepy” and “sleazy” because someone suggested that he was and the bias went viral.

Brian M
Brian M
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Well… given that you didn’t specify any of these ‘faults’, I can only assume that they’re of a general nature, common to all sinful creatures. None of us, including Cruz, are without sin; but, I don’t think that’s what is in view here – and it’s certainly not among the grand accusations lodged against Cruz. What’s truly astonishing is that Trump, demonstrably, has many of Cruz’s alleged flaws in spades and, apparently, that’s perfectly fine. Now, I’ll be the first one to admit that Cruz occasionally has some subtle, irritating mannerisms when he speaks that I wish he would fix.… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  Brian M

Did I say anything about “how awful Cruz is”?

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  Brian M

I’d like to do an experiment (*) — I’d like to see if you are willing to reason it through for yourself. Now, to reason through this, we need to know what a natural born US citizen is, and is not. So, as a first step toward determining what a natural born US citizen is, I ask you this — What is the purpose of the natural born citizen restriction written into the US Constitution? (*) I (and others here) have presented not just evidence, but undeniable proof that Cruz is not a natural born US citizen … and it… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I’ll bite. I was just reading the Harvard Law Review which defined natural born as the child of one parent holding US citizenship, regardless of where they are born. I assume that you must disagree with this definition, but I am not sure where your alternative definition comes from. Do you think natural born means born on US territory, and if so, what would you do with a child born of two US citizens working in Africa? Or do you question the citizenship of Cruz’s mother?

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

jillybean,
If you’re going to bite, wouldn’t the way to do that be to try to answer the question I posed?

What is the purpose of the natural born citizen restriction written into the US Constitution?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Hi llion, I don’t actually know on account of I am not American and did not learn the US Constitution. My assumption would be that the founders wanted to avoid problems arising from divided loyalties. For example, if I became president (heaven forbid), would I still have substantial hidden loyalty to my home and native land? Might I be tempted to favor my homeland’s interests, or take orders from a foreign potentate? Best answer I can give!

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I recall, you’re Canadian.

Your answer is good, and it gets to the heart of the matter.

But, to put it more precisely, and in more legal terms, the purpose and point of that restriction is to (try to) ensure that the US president does not have a divided allegiance.

Do you agree with my restatement?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Yes.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

OK.

So, given that the point of the natural born restriction is to prevent the presidency being held by a person with divided allegiance (or loyalties), does that tell us anything about what a natural born US citizen is? Does that tell us anything about how the Founders understood the term?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Well, clearly the Founders would have interpreted natural born as being born here. They didn’t want people coming over from England and becoming president 10 years later. But I am not convinced that they would have intended to exclude the foreign-born children of serving American military or diplomacy personnel. Also (and here I really am lost), did subsequent amendments alter the Founders’ intentions or understandings?

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“Well, clearly the Founders would have interpreted natural born as being born here.” Not simply “born here”, but born (here) to parents(*) who were citizens at the time of the chilld’s birth. Thus, it is quite possible for two full siblings, the children of a naturalized citizen, to have different chitizenship status: the elder (born before the father naturalized) being a naturalized citizen and the younger (born after the father naturalized) being a natural born citizen. (*) One must understand — at the time, the entire Christian world’s conception of, and laws on, a woman’s rights and duties included the… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

In reply to *your* questions, I have a question for you — Do you know who George Washington Adams was?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Yes,he was the son of President Adams. He was seriously mentally troubled and prone to paranoia, and he committed suicide while still very young. Why?

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, yes, he was the son of *one* of the presidents Adams. Specifically, he was the son of President John Quincy Adams and the grandson of President John Adams.

So — knowing his pedigree — was George Washington Adams a natural born US citizen?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I would say yes because he was the child of a US diplomat serving in Berlin. Given that almost all births back then were home births, couldn’t be said that if baby George was born in the US embassy, he was born on US territory? But even without that, wouldn’t George have been a citizen in the same way McCain is a citizen? (I am jumping ahead, but I do see a huge difference between being born abroad to a serving US government official and being born abroad to an ordinary US citizen.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

That’s what *I* would have thought, also.

However, his family (*) — both parents, and apparently also the grandparents, since John Adams (*) didn’t “set them right” — disagreed with us on that. His mother (and, I think, even his father) *rejoiced* that George Washington Adams was not a natural born US citizen … because, in her view, that meant that he would not grow up subject to the intense familial pressure to pursue the highest levels of leadership as John Quincy grew up with.

(*) Whom, one may expect, understood what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen”.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

That is extremely interesting. Thank you. We have clearly departed from that as, according to the Harvard essay I read, the marital status of the parents is now considered irrelevant. In fact, it is easier to acquire citizenship through your unwed mother than through your unwed father, because identity is harder to prove. Although Canada is usually more liberal on these matters, I had to supply proof of marriage in order to claim Canadian citizenship for my daughter who was born here. Although my daughter has birthright citizenship and could become president (heaven help us all), she does hold dual… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“Although my daughter has birthright citizenship and could become president (heaven help us all), she does hold dual citizenship. It seems to me that this status should be a natural disqualifier.” “Birthright citizenship” doesn’t confer the status of natural born US citizen — only birth to parents (*) who are US citizens can confer natural born US citizenship. Dual citizenship *is* a disqualifier from legally holding the office of US president. Recall back when you and I started this discussion — what is the purpose of the “natural born citizen” restriction on holding the presidency? We haven’t yet discussed the… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Well, llion, I am sure it is small comfort but I think you are probably right. I had not realized that both the senior Cruzes had taken out Canadian citizenship before Ted was born. That makes him entirely Canadian as far as I can see. Doesn’t taking out a foreign citizenship have some effect on your US citizenship? I don’t think they have released the records from Ottawa on when the mother did this, but it would not have happened automatically when Raphael Cruz took Canadian citizenship. She would still have had to apply for naturalization in Canada. I was… Read more »

David
David
6 years ago

Quote David Brooks “The G.O.P. used to be a party that aspired to a biblical ethic of private charity, graciousness, humility and faithfulness.” “Trump has replaced biblical commitments with a gladiator ethos. Everything is oriented around conquest, success, supremacy and domination.” We have 2 Democratic parties now.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  David

“Quote David Brooks”
I stopped reading there. I pay no attention to “the liberals’ favorite conservative.”

David
David
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

David Brooks is not making a point about his favorite conservative; he is making an observation. David Brooks also said, “carcinogens cause cancer.” Stop reading because his name?

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  David

Yes, because he’s an establishment neo-con who has betrayed real conservatives for years. I have zero interest in his opinions.

David
David
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Well then, I wish the best for you.

David
David
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

I don’t like Brooks. But when he (or anyone) says stuff like “carcinogens cause cancer,” I agree. And thanks for the links.

David
David
6 years ago
Reply to  David

And based on last night, I agree with Brooks that the old GOP has lost the biblical spirit: private charity, graciousness, humility and faithfulness. That’s all.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  David

I also agree, but that started decades before Trump. The neocons, with their overseas meddling and “kinder, gentler” welfare state should get most of the blame.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

If Hillary wins in November, will Bill be called the First Gentleman? Can we get rid of the First Lady, First Dog business?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“First Dog Business”

There we go!!

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

That would be “first dude”.

How hard is it to emigrate to Canada? Eh?
????

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Many people have been asking me that. One must marry a Canadian. I wonder if I could get a good price for my special snowflake?

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Your special snowflake is no doubt, priceless!

Anyway, Celine Dion appears to be single, if I unexpectedly become single, I’ll let you now how plan B works out!????

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

I think we have the Trump Apocalypse here. The fires have completely darkened the sky, and there is ash pouring down everywhere.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, considering who is president now, it’s possible you are witnessing the “Obamanation that causes desolation!!” ; – )

(are there brush fires in LA today?)

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Huge! Twenty thousand acres up in smoke. I live quite far from the flames, but the smoke is a thick pall across the valleys. Blocking out the sun brought the temperature down ten degrees but it is still awful. The next major quake and I’m out of here!

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Jilly, I have always found it bizzare, that one can drive down a 6 lane highway in LA at night, look up at the hills on fire, and think, wow, there is nature taking it’s course, except that people’s houses are burning down in the fire! : – ( I hope it does not smell too smokey. I have family who live in Black forest, Colorado Springs. Their house was one of the few that survived that fire a few years back! Emotionally, they are still processing that fire. Good thing you have a refuge and strength! ; – )… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago

Cruz is not a natural born US citizen — his US citizenship was obtained by an Act of Congress, which is an act of naturalization. Moreover, his mother didn’t even fill out the paperwork until he was 16. So, until he was 16, he wasn’t even a naturalized US citizen, but merely a Canadian citizen.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I’ve already addressed the fallacies of this argument. The government forms that Cruz’s mother filed were not for the purpose of granting citizenship, but for the purpose of simply documenting that Cruz had satisfied the conditions of natural birth citizenship. This is why Cruz didn’t need to undergo any process of naturalization. Since Cruz was a citizen from birth (natural born), his citizenship status didn’t change before or after the forms were filed. The forms simply documented his status for the purpose of setting up things like Social Security Number, etc. The key to understanding Ilion’s confusion hinges on the… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

Anyone who troubles to read my maunderings knows I am studying for the citizenship exam. I have read Washington’s final speech warning against the dangers of party politics. Can anyone tell me what he suggested as the alternative?

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Religion and morality !

(Here my morals compel me to concede that I googled the speech, skimmed it, and found that phrase!)????????????
Good luck on the test !