Ted Cruz is one of the best there is in the Senate. He currently sits at some high ratings with conservative organizations, such as:
- Freedomworks: 100%
- Club For Growth: 96%
- New American: 89%
- Conservative Review: 96%
Those scores are based off the latest info available, from 2014 and 2015 votes.
Now, the one I see used the most would be the New American Freedom Index score. Ted get’s an 89%, which to some, serves as a shock. How is he below 90%? Rand Paul has a 94% right now. What gives? This brings me to why I’m making this post.
Ted Cruz, as great as he has been, is losing me, and fast. His tactics are something I do not agree with, and he certainly isn’t trying to appeal to me. Here are 10 reasons why Cruz does not, and will not have my vote.
#1. Ted Cruz is missing votes left and right, and not doing his job.
We get it, you’re running for President, and that’s a big thing. But that does not excuse you from actually being present in Congress and doing your job. While you’ve been running for President, you’ve missed 64 votes, which translates out to being 22% of the votes since you’ve announced. You know, if I lived in Texas, I’d be a bit upset, because you’ve missed so many.
Do you, the reader, not believe these votes are important? I think they are, considering one of them was the Loretta Lynch confirmation vote. When the GOP had a chance to shoot down Lynch, where was Ted? Fundraising for his campaign. He missed that vote, but he and his supporters have desperately tried to cover up for this, playing it as nothing of great importance, and equating his absence to a no vote, which is laughable. I may add that he was the only Senator to not vote.
#2. Ted Cruz supported Trade Promotion Authority
I have documented this in several of my own post that Ted was all in favor of the TPA when it came up for a vote in the Senate, to which, he supported and voted for. Now, what other conservative Senators voted for the TPA? Not Mike Lee. Not Rand Paul. Not Jeff Sessions. Oh, that’s right, the “conservative” hacks that got elected back in 2014. That’s who, and along with the Establishment, such as Mitch McConnell.
The TPA usurps Congress’s authority to regulate the nations trade to international powers. I find that to be strictly opposite to protecting national sovereignty, or even free trade for that matter.
Now, his supporters will say that he “changed his mind” on the TPA. This is a good thing. Thanks for coming around. Just one thing though. That came 1 MONTH after the vote. What did this tell me? He didn’t care to read Obama’s TPP, which I know is completely different, but reading it would have changed his mind. Perhaps he was busy campaigning? I certainly don’t know.
#3. Ted Cruz is all in for Foreign Aid
Remember back to the Ukraine crisis? The Senate took up a measure to send $150 million to them, which was nearly unanimously passed. The vote went 98-2, and Ted Cruz wasn’t one of the two of the no’s (they were Rand Paul (r-KY), and Dean Heller (R-NV)). Now, why is this a bad thing. First off, point out to me where in the constitution foreign aid is allowed. Take your time, I’ll wait.
Second, do we have $150 million just sitting around? In case Ted forgot, we’re trillions in debt, and we still have a deficit. Short answer, we don’t have $150 million just lying around to be sent anywhere for anything. Ted should know better.
Third, I’d like to say this. I’m well aware that Ted worked with Rand to bloke the initial bill, which would have sent over $1 BILLION in aid. That’s great, but voting for the end result doesn’t help you. In the end, you still sold out. You did not hold firm in your opposition.
When it comes to foreign aid as a whole, I’ve seen Cruz all in for it. He specifically points to Israel as a reason as to why we must continue the program, even going as far as saying “I’m no Rand Paul on Israel.” I’m not sure what he means to say, though I take it like this: Israel needs to be coddled and always supported by the US and should never grow up.
Here is Netanyahu himself calling for an end to foreign aid to Israel himself:
And even Israeli economists agree that it is time for the US funds to stop flowing freely to Israel. But I found this to be most interesting. This comes from back when Ron Paul was running for President. A little old, but I think it’s well worth the read:
The US puts pressure on Israel to surrender parts of the homeland. Even worse, this relationship seems to foster a mentality of dependence amongst many Israelis who, it seems, cannot imagine Israel defying the United States in any major way.
In the upcoming presidential election, however, there is a chance to change this dramatically, by electing Congressman Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. Paul favors a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Dr. Paul’s position is based upon a principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy – not upon anti-Zionism. Indeed, in a way, his foreign policy is mirrored by his small government domestic policy. Both recognize there are real limits to what a government can usefully do.
Cutting the apron strings to the US would, I think, make Israel become more maturely self-confident, because it would be more self-reliant. Ron Paul would both end this infantilizing, and even corrupting, aid and respect Israel’s national sovereignty.
Ted has some thinking to do.
#4. Ted Cruz endorsed Establishment John Cornyn
Wait, you thought only Rand was capable of endorsing his fellow establishment hack Senator? Well you thought wrong. Back in 2014, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) was up for re-election. He had several opponents, with Steve Stockman (R-TX36) being his biggest opponent. Stockman was a big conservative in the US House, and would’ve made a great liberty Senator. Where was Ted? Holding off till after the primary.
Now, note the difference here. Ted didn’t get into the fray. He didn’t endorse before any major candidate other than Cornyn was running. He didn’t get involved, leaving Stockman all on his own. This isn’t like what happened in Kentucky, where Rand endorsed McConnell before Bevin even entered the race. Ted was a complete no show till after the primary.
#5. Ted Cruz believes he can win over the libertarians
Recently, Ted Cruz brought on former Georgia Representative Bob Barr, who ran as the Libertarian candidate for President back in 2008, as his envoy and outreach person to libertarians. The goal here was to bring libertarians over to the Cruz camp, and away from the Paul camp.
There’s just one problem with that, and that’s that libertarians don’t see Barr as a great figure. To say the least, he’s controversial. Barr is hated by big L Libertarians, and many regret his nomination for their PArty back in 2008. On the other side, libertarians don’t see Barr as being serious here.
The idea that Cruz can pull off libertarians from Rand is another interesting thing. Cruz himself isn’t something a lot of libertarians like. Sure, he did well at the RLC, but when I’m talking with other libertarians, they’re not the biggest of fans. They certainly don’t support his war-mongering. They don’t support his constant cries for government involvement in personal lives of people. These things are big issues with libertarians, and I don’t see how Ted can pull them.
Now, Ted has picked up some. He boasts of picking up Ron Paul people, but there’s something he doesn’t get. The Ron Paul camp contained a wide variety of people, from conservatives to libertarians. More than likely, he’s picking up the more social conservative of the spectrum, but the libertarians surely haven’t gone towards him.
#6. Ted Cruz doesn’t understand the 4th Amendment
The 4th Amendment reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Treat that “shall not be violated” part like “shall not be infringed” like in the 2nd Amendment, and you’re golden. Ted Cruz does not do this.
Back when the USA Freedom Act was up for a vote, Ted Cruz voted for the bill. Rand Paul voted against it. What was the issue? Key phrases of the PATRIOT Act were going to be extended through 2017. This part was what caused Rand Paul to vote no on the bill. This is why he said that the bill did not go far enough.
These key provisions in the PATRIOT Act violate the 4th Amendment, and the whole bill needs to be killed off once and for all.
#7. Ted Cruz is sounding hawkish on war
I’ve known that Cruz isn’t the biggest war hawk, but this?
“And if the ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to the 72 virgins,” Cruz said, grinning as the crowd cheered in approval. He was referring to the belief among some Islamic extremists that they will receive 72 virgins in the afterlife upon martyrdom.
ARE YOU F****** KIDDING ME? Are you trying to start WWIII? Do you really want war with Iran? I would think that’d be bad for Israel.
Going into Iran is a bad idea. Especially for Israel. What kind of person says something like this? This is crazy, and it speaks to what Cruz believes on foreign policy. Ted, you cannot go around the world, and force people to like you and the US. The US has been trying that policy for decades. We tried that under the Marshall Plan. We’ve tried it under foreign aid. IT’S NOT WORKING.
Was is a bad thing, and you shouldn’t be making stupid quotes like this, especially if Cruz wants libertarian voters, or even rational voters.
#8. Ted Cruz has flipped on issues
What, he hasn’t been consistent on issues? I must be lying.
Nah, let’s bring this up. Cruz used to be very much against marijuana legalization, and that’s something I cannot agree with, though I know many conservatives (mostly older in age) will agree with him. However now, when he announced, he’s now all for leaving it up to the States to decide, and is now for it.
As Marijuana Politics points out:
Appearing at the conservative conference CPAC earlier this year, Ted Cruz made clear that he would not crack down on legal marijuana should his presidential bid be successful:
“I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy,’” the Texas senator said. “If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”
These remarks certainly bode well with drug policy reformers, but Ted Cruz has not always held these views on the issue. In January of last year, Ted Cruz spoke out against the Obama administration’s policy towards states with legalized marijuana. According to Ted Cruz, Barack Obama should have sought action through Congress to reform the federal enforcement of marijuana. While Sen. Cruz did not provide clues as to what reforms he would endorse, he complained that people in violation of federal law were not put in prison:
“Now, that may or may not be a good policy, but I would suggest that should concern anyone — it should even concern libertarians who support that policy outcome — because the idea that the president simply says criminal laws that are on the books, we’re going to ignore [them]. That is a very dangerous precedent.”
What is the real flip I’m concerned about? It’s actually not the marijuana one. It’s this one: he has made it clear he won’t enforce a law, yet he also has criticized the President for not enforcing those same laws he now supports not endorsing. Which is it Ted; will you enforce all the laws as President, or will you pick and choose?
#9. Ted Cruz is only appealing to certain groups
Does this sound stupid to you? Let me explain. Right now, when I see Ted Cruz graphics from either the campaign or even fan-made, I feel like there’s a general trend to them being tailored more to the Christian conservatives. The same goes for his campaign messages, as well as practically anything.
Now, while that might be working now, how will that work come the general election? Will it work as great then? My thoughts are no. I might be a Christian myself, but that message of his does not appeal to me. I care about my government shrinking. I don’t care if my government is Christian or secular. If it’s a big government Christian nation, then that doesn’t change anything. That’s social engineering, at worst.
What do I like? Rand’s message is about the Constitution, and shrinking the size and scope of government to expand economic and personal liberties that we’ve lost. It’s not tailored to just Christians, or any specific religion. It’s not tailored to any particular group, except those who want their freedom back.
So, that’s it for this post. I don’t really have any other problems with Ted other than these that come to mind at the moment. Ted is a good guy, but he’s far from perfect, and certainly not as good as Rand.