Are you ready for President Ted Cruz?

posted at 12:01 pm on May 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’m betting that you are.

Politico teased this possibility two weeks ago in a piece about the budding Cruz/Rubio rivalry, quoting one Texas Republican in the know as saying, “The worst secret in D.C. is Cruz is going to run for president, and he’s going to lean in hard against immigration to separate himself from all other 2016-ers.” NRO’s Robert Costa poked around and determined, yep, that’s increasingly plausible:

“If you don’t think this is real, then you’re not paying attention,” says a Republican insider. “Cruz already has grassroots on his side, and in this climate, that’s all he may need.”

“There’s not a lot of hesitation there,” adds a Cruz donor who has known the Texan for decades. “He’s fearless.”…

Cruz’s allies whisper that the 42-year-old attorney, who holds degrees from Harvard Law and Princeton, doesn’t take the groundswell of enthusiasm lightly. Besides talking with conservative grandees, he has called his peers in the legal community and raised the prospect.

“We all see a path, and he does, too,” says a former Cruz colleague. “This isn’t someone who needs to be told the obvious. He didn’t run for the Senate to get cozy, so no one who knows him is surprised that he’s at least looking at it.”

A conservative consultant calls him “the purest of the young conservative senators,” which might as well be Cruz’s campaign slogan given his appeal to the base. What about money, though? Per Costa, Cruz is buds with billionaire Peter Thiel, who’s donated big bucks to his campaigns before, and is reportedly “as good at wooing financiers as he is at wooing the Tea Party.” There’s no shortage of opportunities for wooing either, according to GOP consultant Rick Wilson:

Random thoughts:

1. Love Cruz or loathe him, if you’re a border hawk then this is all to the good as a way to keep Rubio and Paul honest on immigration in the next few months. Until now, the pro-reform Republicans could afford to cheat to the center on the theory that no one formidable would emerge on the right in 2016 to steal conservative votes from them. Yeah, granted, Santorum or someone like him might run and take a hardline anti-amnesty position to charm the base, but no one thinks Santorum’s going to upset Rubio or Paul. Cruz is a more legitimate threat, especially as a Latino superstar at odds with Rubio on his showcase bill, so now Rubio might be forced to tilt back to the right. Which, maybe, explains this.

2. If Cruz jumps in, we could end up with a 2016 field of him, Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Chris Christie. Not one of those guys will have served more than a single term of elected federal office. The oldest of them, Christie, is currently just 50 years old. Whether that’s good or bad, and whether it would have been possible had Obama not won in 2008 as a 47-year-old with not quite four years of Senate experience, I leave to you to decide.

3. Per the second point, if all of them run, we could end up with a primary where the first few crucial states are won with less than 30 percent of the vote. If Christie jumps in, his path is clear: Woo the centrists and hope that the conservatives split. Cruz’s path is the opposite but just as clear: Woo the conservatives and tea partiers and let the others fight over the center-right. The other four are all left with headaches. Rand Paul will clean up with libertarians, but he’s counting on no one running to his right so that he can pile up votes from mainstream conservatives who find Rubio too squishy. Cruz would complicate that. Rubio, of course, would see his brand as the young, charismatic, tea-party-elected Latino star suddenly watered down, which risks reducing his identity to “guy who supported the immigration bill that lots of conservatives hate.” I don’t know what happens to Walker and Jindal, who’ll now be competing against four bigger names with no obvious constituency among Republican voters except as a none-of-the-above choice vis-a-vis the other four. Not impossible to win that way, but given all the ink spilled on the others, it’d be hard.

4. Some of this will depend on whether Hillary runs in 2016. An older Republican who realistically won’t have an opportunity to run in 2020 might feel obliged to try three years from now, no matter how formidable Hillary seems, but none of the guys mentioned above are old. The risk in waiting is that some other Republican might end up running and beating Hillary next time, which means other GOP aspirants won’t be able to run in 2020 either, but that’s okay. Every one of the big six can afford to wait 10 years or more, provided they figure out how to hold office/keep themselves politically relevant during that time. Worst-case scenario: You’re shut out until 2024, when you’re still in your mid-50s but with lots more government experience to tout to voters. Best-case scenario (for you, not for the party or the country): Hillary wins as expected in 2016, and then has to somehow figure out a way to win a fourth consecutive Democratic term in 2020 even though neither party has pulled that off since FDR/Truman. That’s when you pounce. Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are each so young that not one of them will be 50 on election day 2020.

5. Purely as spectacle, a Cruz run would be nothing but fun. He’s replaced Palin as the media’s chief conservative hate object, so the coverage will be even more acidic than it is for the average righty candidate. (That’ll help him consolidate support among the base in the primaries, needless to say.) If you think the sputtering about Cruz as a neo-McCarthy is intense now, wait until he starts talking openly about running. The fact that he was born in Canada will bring out some Birther stupidity too. And watching him spar with Rubio and Paul will be a treat, partly because it’s not clear yet where he differs with them on various forms of policy. Obviously he’ll go after them on immigration, but he and Paul have been joined at the hip on everything else during Cruz’s time in the Senate thus far. Are there considerable other differences, or will a voter’s preference for one or the other come down to whether you think Rand’s a bit too Ron-like to be a safe choice? And if Cruz does choose to make immigration his main line of attack, how excited do you think establishment Republicans will be after all the post-2012 wooing of Latino voters to see the primaries turn into a referendum on whether the party betrayed conservatism by supporting a path to citizenship?

Exit question: If Cruz does run, how soon will it be before Beltway GOPers start whispering about unifying the party behind one center-right candidate in 2016 in order to stop him? And which candidate will it be? Rand Paul’s going to run no matter what, so even if the rest of the 2016 hopefuls play ball, you’re looking at a three-man field at a minimum.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

E9RET on May 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Lawyers won’t touch it because it isn’t settled law. And they don’t want to be labeled as a birther for even weighing in. At least that is what I have found to be the case.

Some will claim that the 14th amendment did away with the Article ll requirement, but I have yet to find evidence of that anywhere.

GrandeMe on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM

YES, Ted Cruz!! I will work tirelessly to elect him. Rhinos and libs don’t scare him!

AnnaS on May 1, 2013 at 5:32 PM

I would love ‘President Cruz’-but Texas needs him! I would still like Perry to try for it.
Go Rick!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Chester Arthur

workingclass artist on May 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I would love ‘President Cruz’-but Texas needs him! I would still like Perry to try for it.
Go Rick!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Cruz is testing the waters…and maybe goading Perry a bit…All in good fun.

workingclass artist on May 1, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Meredith on May 1, 2013 at 12:58 PM

lookee! It’s Meredith!
///

annoyinglittletwerp on May 1, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Lawyers won’t touch it because it isn’t settled law.

GrandeMe on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM

It is effectively settled law. Lawyers won’t touch it because it sounds crazy. There is precisely 0.000% chance that any court beyond district level would agree that a NBC requires 2 citizen parents. We have had at least 2 presidents who did not have 2 citizen parents. There is a lovely doctrine in law called “don’t create constitutional crises where you don’t have to”. Invalidating 2 presidencies over the course of 100 years isn’t going to happen. Jusy because someone wrote something around the time the Constitution was written does not make it law.

alwaysfiredup on May 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Theil– the guy who wrote the first code to pay for porn on line? Paypal led the way on that. But what can I say, Paypal is who handles my income now, guess I sold out too.

leftnomore on May 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM

It is effectively settled law. Lawyers won’t touch it because it sounds crazy : alwaysfiredup on May 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM

If by “effectively settled” you mean everyone runs away from the question, you are correct.

Frankly, I don’t think it “sounds crazy” to search out an OFFICIAL definition from the period the Constitution was written. I mean, why not? If obama had been full white and the topic had been addressed, NO ONE would have fricken blinked.

What on earth is “wrong” with researching what the men who wrote and signed our Constitution actually meant by the term?

It had to have meant something quite specific if it was changed from, “born a citizen”, to “natural born citizen”. I don’t feel in the least bit crazy for noticing the difference in the two phrases, nor for wondering exactly what they were going after – or meant to specifically exclude.

GrandeMe on May 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I will support Cruz if he runs.

Bmore on May 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Despite Paul Ryan holding strong that marriage is between a man and a woman, he now has reversed an earlier position on gay couples being able to adopt. He says he voted in his first term in Congress that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt in Washington DC, however now he says he’d vote that same-sex couples should be able to adopt children:

http://www.therightscoop.com/paul-ryan-comes-out-of-the-closet-says-gay-couples-should-be-allowed-to-adopt/

So, in the case of two homosexual males, the adopted children won’t have a Mother. And in the case of two homosexual females, the adopted children won’t have a Father. What terrible fate for children.

Tell me again, what is considered child abuse?

bluefox on May 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I will support Cruz if he runs.

Bmore on May 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Hi Bmore, nice to see you surface:-) Hope all is well.

I’ll go door to door for him.

bluefox on May 1, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Despite Paul Ryan holding strong that marriage is between a man and a woman, he now has reversed an earlier position on gay couples being able to adopt. He says he voted in his first term in Congress that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt in Washington DC, however now he says he’d vote that same-sex couples should be able to adopt children:

http://www.therightscoop.com/paul-ryan-comes-out-of-the-closet-says-gay-couples-should-be-allowed-to-adopt/

So, in the case of two homosexual males, the adopted children won’t have a Mother. And in the case of two homosexual females, the adopted children won’t have a Father. What terrible fate for children.

Tell me again, what is considered child abuse?

bluefox on May 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Conservative French Citizens liken this and IVF to human trafficking in children. They protested saying it is an injustice to intentionally deny each child a mother and a father.

workingclass artist on May 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM

“But Cruz swatted down the rumors Wednesday in a Facebook post, saying his focus remains on serving as a senator.

“In my short tenure, my focus has been — and will remain — on two things: fighting for conservative principles in the Senate, and working to help elect strong conservatives to win a majority in the Senate in 2014. The Senate is the battlefield to defend liberty,” he wrote.

“I was elected because thousands of grassroots conservatives came together to protect the Constitution, shrink the federal government, and promote growth and opportunity. It is a continued source of amazement that the simple fact that I am working hard with like-minded Senators to keep my promise is seen as newsworthy and cause for wild speculation,” he concluded.

The Canadian-born senator’s eligibility to be president has been questioned by some, but a spokesman for Cruz told the Washington Examiner that he “is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother,” and the law would appear to bear him out…”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/01/ted-cruz-report-of-2016-presidential-ambitions-is-wild-speculation/#ixzz2S5CJZ8hb

workingclass artist on May 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM

You have to ask? You bet I am.

Mirimichi on May 1, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I called it a long time ago.

“President Ted Cruz” has a beautiful ring to it!!

The man is amazing.

bluegill on May 1, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Once these little waves start there always seems to be another revelation about a candidate that spoils it. So far so good Mr. Cruz. What a cool name too.

Mojave Mark on May 1, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Once these little waves start there always seems to be another revelation about a candidate that spoils it. So far so good Mr. Cruz. What a cool name too.

Mojave Mark on May 1, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Yep, Cruz to Victory.

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 8:47 PM

President Cruz — has a nice ring to it.

Bet John McLame and his valet Lindsey Grahamnesty are jealous that the base is for Ted.

By the way, Marco who?

Conservchik on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

President Cruz — has a nice ring to it.

Bet John McLame and his valet Lindsey Grahamnesty are jealous that the base is for Ted.

By the way, Marco who?

Conservchik on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Marco Schumer, McCain or Graham perhaps:-)

bluefox on May 1, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Ted sure has a lot of energy.

Check him out here with a blogger you may have heard of;

http://youtu.be/wtAj91Msn5c

bluegill on May 1, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Hmmm a hypocrite on disaster pork “no for Sandy, yes for West Texas” and a communism conspiracy theory nut job. Get this man the nomination!

libfreeordie on May 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Salon’s Joan Walsh (Yeah, I know) snarks a Ted Cruz candidacy. In fact, she doesn’t like our Texan senator at all.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/ted_cruz_will_never_be_president/

onlineanalyst on May 1, 2013 at 11:27 PM

I like Cruz the best, followed closely by Paul. But they’re all good really. Except Christie. I will not be voting for him. No matter what. I don’t care if Hugo Chavez rises from the grave to form a zombie Chavez/zombie Castro unity Dem ticket.

besser tot als rot on May 1, 2013 at 11:59 PM

I’m betting that you are.

You bet correctly. What do I owe?

rukiddingme on May 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM

Hmmm a hypocrite on disaster pork “no for Sandy, yes for West Texas” and a communism conspiracy theory nut job. Get this man the nomination!

libfreeordie on May 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Which of his Communism related theories are incorrect?

Kataklysmic on May 2, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Exit question: If Cruz does run, how soon will it be before Beltway GOPers start whispering about unifying the party behind one center-right candidate in 2016 in order to stop him? And which candidate will it be? Rand Paul’s going to run no matter what, so even if the rest of the 2016 hopefuls play ball, you’re looking at a three-man field at a minimum.

It will be Chris Christie, the RINO. And they started pitching him for this upcoming election before the previous one.

But nothing doing. I am not voting for another Democrat-lite ever again. Period. I voted for McCain and I voted for Romney and that is it. Either the Republicans go Conservative or the wither on the vine (hello Whig Party!).

Theophile on May 2, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Someone needs to start a campaign with a website like http://www.rejectchristie.com (or something with similar name) and lay out, in a very well-organized, comprehensive manner, all the ways that Christie has betrayed conservatives and why we should NEVER support him. Use quotes, videos, etc. Do not wait until later to toxify the Christie brand for Republican voters.

START NOW.

bluegill on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 AM

Cruz or Perry.
I’d be happy with either one.
I’d be happy with Rand, too.

Christie, Rubio, Santorum, or Huckabee would send me to the polls voting Libertarian.

DRayRaven on May 2, 2013 at 6:18 AM

If Cruz is the GOP nominee, or Rand, or Perry, (and I pray any of them), please line up at my betting window to take bets about how hard their asses get kicked. You thought the 192 EV stomping McCain got was bad?

inklake on May 2, 2013 at 7:25 AM

E9RET on May 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Lawyers won’t touch it because it isn’t settled law. And they don’t want to be labeled as a birther for even weighing in. At least that is what I have found to be the case.

Some will claim that the 14th amendment did away with the Article ll requirement, but I have yet to find evidence of that anywhere.

GrandeMe

You sound way smarter than me. I suspect little people have more problems in that regard than important people. My sister was born in Germany while my father was stationed there. due to distances involved she was born in a German hospital instead of a U.S. military hospital.

In my six year old recollection and familiy stories it took the rremaining two years of Dad’s assignment to get ‘temporary” permission to bring her into the U.S. I forget what he official status was, but she didn’t have a passport. Dad swore that she had not been recognized as a U.S. citizen, but a few years later she got an official passport when we went back overseas so I guess that cleared that up.

I was born in Hawaii while it was still a territory and I remember the disappointment when my fourth grade teacher told me that i was not a “natural born citizen” and could not be president. At that time I was told that NBC meant you had to be physically born in the U.S.

I still think that if the Cruz family ever took any Canadian assistance for their Canadian born son the long knives would come out.

Similarly I think Obama, legitimately born in Hawaii, lied at sometime about his birth location to take advantage of a foreign student quota.

It would have been a lark to lie about that as an 18 y.o. student; quite another while running for president. That’s why all those records are sealed.

E9RET on May 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Why yes, yes I am.

jake49 on May 2, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I was born in Hawaii while it was still a territory and I remember the disappointment when my fourth grade teacher told me that i was not a “natural born citizen” and could not be president. At that time I was told that NBC meant you had to be physically born in the U.S.: E9RET on May 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Funny thing about your teacher telling you that, I have read a similar thing by a LOT of people. Usually from people being born a dual citizen though, or born in a different country while parents were serving. Even my 26 year old said that he had been taught in school that one needed to be born in the US to two US citizens.

I’m betting they don’t teach that now – anywhere, LOL. I have been surprised that the meaning as it is used in the Constitution isn’t easy to produce. By that I mean in a “irrefutable proof” sort of a way. I have found it intriguing to read the old laws and court findings and things.

I also suspect that if Cruz runs the left will absolutely go after him for being born outside of the US.

Similarly I think Obama, legitimately born in Hawaii, lied at sometime about his birth location to take advantage of a foreign student quota.

I think you might be right about that. He seems the type to do such a thing.

GrandeMe on May 2, 2013 at 12:16 PM

The party/ movement didn’t care about the birth status. That was a handful of extremists.

Mister Mets on May 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM

One of the main issues with Cruz is that his temperament is unpleasant.

Those types of people rarely get elected President. And when they do, they lose quickly. See Jimmy Carter.

Mister Mets on May 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I see what you tried to do there.

You fakers aren’t fooling all of us.

Sly but still fake.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Exit question: If Cruz does run, how soon will it be before Beltway GOPers start whispering about unifying the party behind one center-right candidate in 2016 in order to stop him? And which candidate will it be? Rand Paul’s going to run no matter what, so even if the rest of the 2016 hopefuls play ball, you’re looking at a three-man field at a minimum.

Based on the most recent election, the nominee will be whoever the Republican Establishment supports, and even if they were to support Cruz or Paul, they will then control the candidate like they did with Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan. I would guess that Rubio is being controlled in many ways by the Establishment already. Cruz and Paul will never be the Republican nominee, and Republicans will lose.

lea on May 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

It will be Chris Christie, the RINO. And they started pitching him for this upcoming election before the previous one.

But nothing doing. I am not voting for another Democrat-lite ever again. Period. I voted for McCain and I voted for Romney and that is it. Either the Republicans go Conservative or the wither on the vine (hello Whig Party!).

Theophile on May 2, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Ditto. I changed my voting status to unaffiliated the day after the election. My hope is that there are many more like us out there.

lea on May 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM

That Cruz hasn’t been in the Senate for years is a big plus about his credibility.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Theophile on May 2, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Ditto. I changed my voting status to unaffiliated the day after the election. My hope is that there are many more like us out there.

lea on May 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I’m still registered GOP but if they pass this Obama-Rubio-Gangster “immigration” mess, that’s it, I’m registering as Independent.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

After reading MOST earlier comments, I think these “possible GOP Presidential candidate” posts are noteoworthy mostly because they bring out the Liberals who pose as concerned voters and do their subtle but persistent worry-wart commenting about this, that, then that thing, this, all that as to negatives about that possible candidate.

No one person is ever going to or can satisfy all the preferences for every voter. I’m not suggesting anyone vote for the ‘least of’ in a competition but I am saying it’s realistic to accept a great candidate based on the biggest of positions, behaviors and qualities and stay away from those that are the most compromised in those areas.

Cruz, so far, looks very attractive as a GOP President. I wouldn’t support Christie and I’m finished with voting for the McCain’s from the GOP and that includes Jeb, Rubio, people of that aspect of the GOP.

I like Cruz’s qualifications and think that he HASN’T been in the Senate as a careerist is a good thing, a big plus about him. He’s academic, he’s obviously very intelligent, and as to issues, so far, he’s been rooting for the people, the nation, the Constitution and not for the bureaucracy.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I’m struck by the sentiment of many here that they will not vote for a McCain/Romney again.

I’m sure Rush will disapprove but I’ve had it with the “Well if you don’t vote Republican lite you deserve what you get” school of thought.

Guess what? I’ve voted Republican lite for the past 8+ years and what have I gotten that I deserve?

We got Republican congress people who are (and you can take this to thee bank!) going to give cover to the Dems on Obamacare.

We have Republicans in the House and Senate convinced that every American wants Amnesty and will do whatever they have to to get it passed regardless what their voters say (us bitter clingers.

We have Republicans proposing gun control laws and ways to make it easier to identify and register my guns.

We have Republicans threatening other Republicans “don’t campaign in my state!”

And Congress is upset that Cruz isn’t getting along with his “colleagues” Well, God Bless him!! I’m tired of ‘collegiality” and “getting along”

Nothing I’ve done in the last few years, other than vote for Cruz, has done a damn thing for me or any other Americans.

When we vote Republican lite we get Democrats apologists.

I’m not voting for another Republican lie, ever, let someone else screw the country.

E9RET on May 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I’m not voting for another Republican lie, ever,

E9RET

Well, i was going to correct that but on second thought I’ll let it stand, quaecumque vera

E9RET on May 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

By the way, Marco who?

Conservchik on May 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Marco Huntsman?

TMOverbeck on May 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Almost got fired for laughing so loud at this headline.

HotAirLib on May 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM

..almost choked on my pocorn when I read you almost got fired..

…like you actually have a job !! HAHAHAHAHAAH!

Now go back to bed Twinkie!

cableguy615 on May 2, 2013 at 8:32 PM

what nonsense is this ???????

Seriously, we have BARRY BAMSTAHHHHHHH!!!!! YOU DA MANNNNNNNNNNN BAMMMMMMMY BABYYYY!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLLLLL!!!!!! YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mits on May 7 PM

cableguy615 on May 2, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Ted Cruz is not intimidated by the Constitution hating Left.
He will not stand there and take their crap. He will not try to make nice.
If he runs, he will have my support.
I am tired of being nice. It is time to stand up and fight back!
Can’t wait till the Ugly American BHO is out of office

Delsa on May 3, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Cruz does not shoot his mouth off as someone suggested.
He stands up for what he believes and that is appreciated. He does not take any crap and that is also appreciated.

Delsa on May 3, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4