Five Reasons Why Candidate Ted Cruz Is Good News For the Republican Party

Brian Brady Brian Brady 17 Comments


Ted Cruz announced that he is running for President in 2016. To date, he is the only Republican or Democrat who has announced his campaign. Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Elizabeth Warren, and Hillary Clinton have sent a lot of messages but Cruz is running for President.

This is a great thing for a Republican in the November 2016 Presidential campaign. Here are five reasons why:

1. Ted Cruz mobilizes a disaffected base of the Republican electorate. Ted Cruz is an unabashed conservative. He is a constitutionalist, a populist, a social conservative, and strong on national defense. More importantly, he is a gifted orator, has a brilliant mind, and communicates the “Reagan Revolution” to the next generation of Republicans (the under 40 crowd).

2. The progressives hate him so much that they’ll expose their bigotry. It’s already started. While calling Ted Cruz “uppity” might appear to be a racial slur (Ted Cruz is Hispanic), the real reason the Big Government crowd hates Cruz is because they perceive him to be a traitor. Progressives are collectivists so they think of people as members of a “group.” Ted Cruz is Hispanic. Ted Cruz is an Ivy-League-educated lawyer. Ted Cruz is supposed to be “one of them”– the disenfranchised but educated elite who make policy for us mere mortals. But Ted Cruz is a constitutionalist — he values individual liberty, limited government, and opposes crony capitalism (aka fascism). The fascist-minded progressives hate him because he betrayed the groupthink they cherish so much.

3. Ted Cruz is going to talk about bold ideas. He wants to repeal Obamacare, abolish the IRS, defend the pre-born human beings, uphold the Sacrament of marriage, and defend the Second Amendment. While most Republicans might individually disagree on one or two of those issues, Ted Cruz is a Republican platform candidate, fighting to promote the platform when few will.

4. Ted Cruz will take on the Republican Party bosses. Cruz’ career has been opposing the Republican Senate leadership as much as he’s opposed the Democratic Senate leadership. Republican Senator John McCain has called him a “whacko bird” and Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid called him a “schoolyard bully.” Cruz has a history of shaking up the D.C. establishment in his four short years as a US Senator. Republicans voters are increasingly disappointed in Republicans’ acquiescence to the Obama agenda and furious in their abdication of their constitutional duty to confront an overreaching Executive Branch. Cruz gives them hope that the Constitution still matters.

5. Ted Cruz can win. 36 years ago, a former Republican President (who hadn’t won a national campaign) said, “It would be an impossible situation. Reagan is perceived as the most conservative Republican. A most conservative Republican can’t win in a national election.” Moderate Republicans are always encouraged (by the media) to talk about “electability” because it alienates conservative voters. The tea party movement taught (most) establishment Republicans that there could be hell to pay if they start trash talking the more conservative Republicans. Expect them to keep their mouths shut and criticize Cruz on his policy ideas rather than his “electability.”

I personally support Rand Paul for President but I love Ted Cruz. I don’t agree with everything he advances, does, and proposes but Cruz is a constitutionalist, a far cry from the establishment sell-outs the GOP has given us these past twenty years. I’ll #StandWithRand in June of next year but Cruz is going to drag the conversation back to where it belongs; talking about a federal government which has trampled on the US Constitution.

We’re going to talk about ideas in the 2016 election, conservative ideas. That’s a great thing for the Republican Party.


Comments 17

  1. Ted Cruz and his wife are fake. However your support for Paul, will explain your rah rah rant.

  2. great post Brian!
    As much as I admire & love Ted Cruz, I feel his roadmap to the White House is via the VP for Gov. Scott Walker. I love that Walker has as his record what Cruz has as his principles.
    I hope Ted Cruz wins but that’s my heart speaking, my brain tells me that after 8 horrible Obama years (as opposed to 4 Carter yrs) we are able to squeeze at least 16 years of Conservative Presidencies.
    BTW, what ever happened to Governor Perry?

  3. Mike, Ted Cruz is very “real”. HIs actions are consistent with his words and he’s done everything (in office) he said he would do (while campaigning).

    Would you explain your last statement about my support for Paul and this essay?

  4. Ted Cruz talks the principles of Ronald Reagan and that’s all good to me and many other Christian Conservatives. The fact that he has only been in Washington a few years is a huge plus. It means he hasn’t been brainwashed into the smug and cynical mindset of “going along to get along” of Boehner and McConnell.

  5. Any candidate that understands our rights come from God and not government is a welcome addition to the field.

  6. “Cruz is a constitutionalist”

    “Any candidate that understands our rights come from God and not government is a welcome addition to the field.”

    These two statements which support Cruz’s ideology are contradictory.

  7. Bill I would regard the two statements as synonymous. Your can’t be a constitutionalist without understanding the natural law framework of the founding fathers. The framer’s themselves believed that rights come from “the law of Nature and Nature’s God.” That’s why the Bill of Rights uses the carefully chosen word of “enumerating” rights … the framer’s recognized they were powerless to grant them.

  8. Post

    Jason is correct, Bill. The natural law is recognized and the reason FOR government is spelled out in the Preamble of the Declaration:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

    The Founders knew that Man was born with certain rights which could NOT separated from him—the three they mentioned were not a complete list. The Founders understood the concept of the Natural Law. They didn’t stop there–they told us the exact role of government in the next paragraph.

    “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

    Securing rights is different from granting rights. That is the primary role of government; to secure our natural rights, gifted to us from Almighty God. Quite simply, the government has no jurisdiction “grant” rights.

    The Preamble to the Constitution draws from that concept in its first three words; “We the People”. The people, and their pre-existing rights, established a limited government in order to secure those pre-existing rights.

    Stated differently, a constitutionalist who doesn’t understand that our rights are a gift from Nature (or Nature’s God) isn’t really a constitutionalist.

  9. Well, I knew this would spur discussion. The posts and links referenced here refer mostly to the Declaration of Independence, which does not establish the national government and fundamental laws, and does not guarantee certain basic rights. A constitutionalist should know that our rights come from the constitution and the constitution doesn’t mention God, thus the contradiction. True, the Declaration of Independence has some flowery language, but its ideals were hardly incorporated into the Constitution and it is not law. For example, the Declaration of Independence didn’t recognize slavery; but the Constitution did.

  10. Post


    I don’t want to presuppose that you understand that mainstream thought in this country suggests that the two are inextricably linked. I’ll offer some sources:

    “The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are the two most important, and enduring documents in our Nation’s history. It has been said that “the Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.”

    SOURCE (US Citizenship and Immigrations Service):

    Five or six great examples of the aforementioned thought are offered by the National Constitution Center here:

  11. It may be true that natural rights come from a higher power, but anyone even remotely in tune with what is happening in this world knows that men (and women) have the power to take any and all of those rights away.

  12. HQ, indeed, you describe the history of the world. Most interesting is that free people often forget or have no concept that free nations have existed for only a relatively short period of time in world history, and thus take it for granted. One of the best passages from the Sharon Statement: “…history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…”

  13. Coming into this a little late but,…I’m not sure why Brian refers to the Declaration when arguing for the Constitution’s supposed natural rights doctrine.
    After all, it was the distinction between these two documents and implications that flowed from the major differences between them (for free, consensual government) that was the major contention between Lincoln and Douglas in their famed debates.
    The Constitution, after all, acknowledged the right of some men to own others, a fact was repeatedly pointed to by Southern apologists who, in their defense of the South’s “peculiar institution,” claimed that it was they, and not their Union antagonists, who were the true Constitutionalists.
    Lincoln conceded their point, but insisted that even the Constitution must yield to the dictates of higher law referred to in the Declaration–the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
    The content of this debate is so durable that even the Civil War failed to bring to conclusion. It is, as you probably know, a major debate within conservation ranks even today. No one, in my opinion, has done more to clarify the issue than Harry V. Jaffa:

  14. Barry,

    Even in a free country such as ours, the rights of the innocent are sometimes taken away and all it would take is a Constitutional Convention to take away many more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.