A short-term Senator with no major leadership experience, documented as having been born outside the United States, whose father and major religious figure in his life is known to be vehemently racist, along with associating with known Communists.

Historically, that's a winning combo.

That screeching sound you just heard was two million birthers going into reverse.

• RE: Ted Cruz runs for President,kingfish, 07:57 AM, 03-23-15
  • RE: Ted Cruz runs for President,Estee, 09:20 AM, 03-23-15
    • RE: Ted Cruz runs for President,dabo, 02:17 PM, 03-25-15
• He made the announcement at Libery University.,Estee, 10:25 AM, 03-23-15
  • RE: He made the announcement at Libery University.,kidflash212, 12:58 PM, 03-23-15
    • RE: He made the announcement at Libery University.,Estee, 01:03 PM, 03-23-15
      • RE: He made the announcement at Libery University.,kidflash212, 05:05 PM, 03-24-15
• Make that 1,999,999 reversing birthers...,Estee, 06:39 PM, 03-23-15
  • RE: Make that 1,999,999 reversing birthers...,kingfish, 09:18 AM, 03-24-15
    • RE: Make that 1,999,999 reversing birthers...,Estee, 09:28 AM, 03-24-15
      • RE: Make that 1,999,999 reversing birthers...,kingfish, 10:36 AM, 03-24-15
        • Wait.,Estee, 12:44 PM, 03-24-15
          • RE: Wait.,kingfish, 01:45 PM, 03-24-15
            • RE: Wait.,dabo, 02:23 PM, 03-25-15
• RE: Ted Cruz runs for President,kidflash212, 04:18 PM, 03-24-15
  • RE: Ted Cruz runs for President,dabo, 02:48 PM, 03-25-15
    • Disagree,AyaK, 09:24 PM, 03-25-15
      • RE: Disagree,dabo, 10:45 PM, 03-25-15
        • RE: Disagree,kidflash212, 11:37 AM, 03-26-15
          • RE: Disagree,dabo, 12:15 PM, 03-26-15
            • RE: Disagree,kingfish, 12:38 PM, 03-26-15
            • RE: Disagree,kidflash212, 01:33 PM, 03-26-15
              • RE: Disagree,kingfish, 03:06 PM, 03-26-15
                • RE: Disagree,kidflash212, 03:55 PM, 03-26-15
                  • RE: Disagree,kingfish, 08:52 AM, 03-27-15
              • RE: Disagree,dabo, 03:09 PM, 03-26-15
          • RE: Disagree,newsomewayne, 02:23 PM, 03-27-15
            • RE: Disagree,Estee, 05:56 PM, 03-27-15
              • RE: Disagree,dabo, 01:05 PM, 03-28-15
                • RE: Disagree,Estee, 01:29 PM, 03-28-15
                  • RE: Disagree,dabo, 03:41 PM, 03-28-15
              • RE: Disagree,newsomewayne, 04:22 PM, 03-28-15
• Cruz compares climate change believers to Flat Earthers,Estee, 06:30 AM, 03-26-15

Throw in an ethnic name, and it's "can't lose".

LAST EDITED ON 03-23-15 AT 09:20 AM (EST)

But according to the paid talking socks on the political boards, we're not allowed to bring that part up. Because if we do, we're racists.

We can't be, Hispanics hate him too.

Carrying a cross and wrapped in the flag...

"Instead of a federal government that wages an assault on our religious liberty, that goes after Hobby Lobby, that goes after the Little Sisters of the Poor, that goes after Liberty University, imagine a federal government that stands for the First Amendment rights of every American. Instead of a federal government that works to undermine our values, imagine a federal government that works to defend a sanctity of human life and to uphold the sacrament of marriage..."

An excerpt from his speech. Somehow this American doesn't feel he'd be standing for my First Amendment rights. Of course, despite being actually born in this country, raised here and paying taxes since I had my first after school job at 16, somehow I'm not a "real" American.

Have you met his future head of the campaign's legal team?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/california-lawyer-pushes-proposition-to-make-it-legal-to-kill-gay-people/

(Don't read the Comments section.)

And I'm betting his father winds up as head of public relations.

Guess who just publicly questioned Ted's right to run.

Aw, come on. Guess.

Okay, here's a hint: he and Sheriff Arpaio just might have to send that Special Investigation Team to Calgary.

Rubio? He has questionable bona fides.

It was not an uncommon practice at one time (I actually had an Granpa who did this) to fudge a birth certificate to indicate a US rather than Cuban birth. In his case he did it twice, the first time changing it from Spanish to Cuban.

I'm pretty sure ICE doesn't read these boards. Right? Right!

It may be disappointing for most of you to know that, although I also have an ethnic surname (European), I will not be throwing my hat into the presidential ring this year.

If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. If convicted, I will... well I will have that presidential pardon power in my back pocket.

Nope. Insane accusations of not being American = well, these days, just about most of the GOP's public faces. But in this case? Donald. He has nothing else to do.

Cruz is making the media rounds, including those soon-to-be-death-camped liberals. NBC asked him about compromise in government: he's for it as long as those compromising do everything his way. He also dropped by Hannity, but I really didn't feel the need to bask in the radiance of their mutual love.

My second choice.

The subject is 'certifiably insane birthers who never deliver on the evidence they claim to possess' and Donald was your second choice?

I misread insane to be inane?

(Ok, I was sleepy).

Where The Donald is concerned insane and inane are one and the same.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-ted-cruz/

'You're supposed to be born in this country' No ifs no ands no buts, once The Donald interprets law it is written in stone and that's just how it is, he can never be wrong! Got it!!!

"The question of whether Ted Cruz should be President ignores the more pertinent question of whether Ted Cruz should be free to roam the streets"

A quote I read today.

Tribe!

Better quote http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/ted-cruz-launches-campaign-for-vice-president-417129539892

Rachel Maddow 3/23/15: "Elizabeth Warren has more of a chance of being elected president in 2016 than Ted Cruz does, and that includes the fact that he is running and she is not."

But there is one thing for CERTAIN: Elizabeth Warren has more of a chance of getting Rachel Maddow's vote than Ted Cruz does, even if she doesn't run.

But of course she will. Warren envisions herself as the great radical-left savior, just as Cruz sees himself as the great radical-right savior. We Harvard Law types have delusions of grandeur. Just ask the second president in American history who is a Harvard Law graduate: Barack Obama!

I've met both Cruz and Warren (whom I had as a professor). The only circumstance that I could see myself voting for Cruz is if he and Warren were the final two major-party candidates, because I would never vote for Warren.

But it's funny!

I like Warren, at least I can believe she actually means what she says and says what she means. And of course I've never actually met either of them.

I don't believe she could win the White House unless, like Cruz, her opponent is even further to the right that she is to the left.

I would love for her to enter the primaries just to give Hillary Clinton someone to win against.

Is there anyone who wants to see another Clinton vs Bush Presidential election? And does anyone see any way to avoid it? What is it about these two families?

I don't know, there are lots of factors. The GOP hasn't won a general election without a Bush on the ticket since 1972, that ought to be prime conspiracy theory fodder.

Sticking with what works.

How different history would be if Reagan had not chosen Bush as a running mate in 1980. I've read that Reagan changed his mind to Bush pretty late in the process.

LAST EDITED ON 03-26-15 AT 03:43 PM (EST)

Great idea for a thought experiment;

- whoever was VP under Reagan likely would have run, and possibly won in '88.

- he (or whoever was president, actually) would have intervened if Saddam invaded Kuwait. Only George H. Bush would have stopped the war when he did, though. IMO, that was one thing that almost no one else would have done. Continuation of that war and toppling Saddam then may have really changed what happened in the following 25 years.

- But he (whoever was president) very well may have had a son of the right age and already in politics.

- That son may have run for pres. using the prestige of his father's name.

- Regardless, whoever did run and win very well may have also swallowed the implication that (bolstered by Saddam's actions) he had those WMD's. Saddam's evasiveness was very suspicious.

- And whoever was president would have surely invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. If 9/11 happened under that scenario.

- And he also very well may have become impatient with Saddam's evasion tactics of the inspection teams, and that coupled with the rage in regard to Al Qaeda could have led him to Invade Iraq, deciding that that was the only way to avoid Saddam using those weapons.

Names may very well been different, and there are a lot of ifs, but history may very well have been largely the same.

From the behind the scenes accounts of Reagan advisors I've read (naturally these can be taken with a grain of salt), the person who would have been VP was Gerald Ford. Walter Cronkite questioned Ford about a co-presidency and Ford gave a non-answer that caused Reagan to switch to Bush. Ford's four children have never run for political office.

LAST EDITED ON 03-27-15 AT 09:07 AM (EST)

To be clear, I hope we don't have another Bush v. Clinton contest too. I really do. I disagree with many of their positions, and either might be a capable president, but well, just NO.

Anyway, to continue the thought experiment, the elder Bush wasn't responsible for Iraq invading Kuwait, and the younger didn't instigate 9/11. It wouldn't really have mattered who was president at those times, our reaction would very likely have been the same. So a lot of what has happened very well could have happened no matter who was in the hot seat.

Even with the second Iraq invasion, things weren't as clear then as they are now, and as many would have us believe. The unintended after effects weren't all that predictable either. The threat of those invisible but not disproven and very possibly real WMDs could have induced whoever was president to get rid of Saddam once and for all.

But Ford as VP? Hadn't heard that before, and it's a bit hard to believe that a man who had been president would then consent to be a VP.

His sons may not be in politics, but a lot of ex-presidential relatives are. I can't even count the number of Kennedy's that have run for office. And, of course, there's the Bushes. To me it's obvious that Chelsea is being groomed for a political role.

Cuomos, Romneys, Gores, etc. etc.

My feelings: Cruz? Just NO there too. I kinda wish Christy wasn't in such a bind and could be a serious candidate on the republican side. I don't see much hope for a candidate for me to like on the Dem. side. I said up there ↑ that Clinton might be a capable president, but to be honest, I have grave doubts about her as a leader in times of crisis.

yep

And GHW Bush also changed some of his political positions at that time, though he always hated being branded a "right-wing extremist" and continued to try not be so labeled.

That would not be a problem for him these days in the Tea Party hijacked GOP, in this era he would be labeled a RINO.

another Clinton vs Bush Presidential election

Well, that would make 5 straight prez elections where Dems run against a Bush. Right now they're 2-2. So the best reason I can give to go C vs. B is that we need the tiebreaker because true Americans hate ties.

Paid for by AgPAC, a 2008 registered 527 organization.
"Who, me? I was unaware. I found out about this when you did. Nobody's madder than me...." - President Barack Obama on, well, everything.

"We will eventually pay for it, but we can argue about that later.” – former Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA.)