I support Ted Cruz 100%. His message has been tuned to reach out to evangelical voters, because he thinks that is who the Republican Party needs to reach, in order to win the November election against Bernie or Hillary.* But he should have focused on getting more broad support for his conservative stance on the issues, in order to win the nomination against Trump. Ted Cruz is the only true conservative voice in the race. Some people perceive him as part of the Washington establishment, because he is a sitting US Senator. But that couldn't be farther from the truth. His record in the Senate is not to 'go along' with the Party line, but rather to stand in opposition any time a bill comes through that is contrary to the US Constitution. Trump says he is a 'nasty' guy, and that nobody in the Senate likes him, and that is because he will not make deals just to get things done. He is not afraid to stand up to bullies in the Republican Party who want him to vote with them on compromise issues.
But it seems that what the voters want is a Populist, not a Conservative. They want someone who tells them what they want to hear, whether the issue is immigration, health care, or whatever. They don't seem to care what someone has done in the past, as long as they spout populist rhetoric, and have some charisma.
* In the 2012 general election, there were said to be 4-5 million voters, primarily evangelical Republicans, who did not vote, because the Republican Party nominee was Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Conventional wisdom is that if those voters had turned out to vote for Romney, the Republicans would have defeated Obama in 2012. Those voters are primarily the ones whom Ted Cruz is seeking to convince they should vote for him.
Wait a moment JD, I haven't heard from you in a long time, but you support Ted Cruz? He's ultra religious and has been bringing religion into affairs of state. It's terribly worrying to anyone not of his religious persuasion.
Ted Cruz was not my first choice, but as the field winnows down, I would support him before Trump.
My copy of the Constitution states that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...". This is direct quote from the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. This seems to offer several important elements to protect the public from concerns the Founding Fathers had about the role of religion in the public square.
–Notice first, the Federal Government's passive role concerning religion both in creating a national religion and, equally important, prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Because of this I don't think we have to worry about a sharia law kind of situation but at the same time, allowing the input of various perspectives.
–Second, the free speech clause immediately follows its stance on religion. This allows for the free flow of ideas to be considered, faith based as well as secular.
–Finally, note the absence of the phrase
"separation of Church and State", a comment made by Jefferson in a letter 15 years after the ratification of the US Constitution.
If you disagree with a candidate's opinions, don't vote for him or her. After all, we should all have a say in a democracy about the future direction of our country. To deny a office holder's ability to use their personal convictions to help shape their position on issues is discriminating against their religion or world view and is in violation of Article VI.
And what are these radical religious views Ted Cruz supports?
The most prominent is probably his advocacy for the unborn. I'm pro-life, but I can understand honest disagreements about when personhood begins. Some have suggested it isn't until roughly 2 years old. No, I'm not making that up. One would think, however, that after 57 million abortions since 1973, someone would have come up with a better way of controlling unwanted pregnancy than that. I, and most people in America, find late term abortions particularly egregious.
Another, is his support for the rights of people who are forced to provide services which they find morally offensive. A case in point is the baker required to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. You may not agree with the bakers views but it is logically inconsistent to insist on the couples right to marry but not the right for a businessman to have an opposing opinion on the morality of it. Especially in the case of a baker, whose craft involves a certain amount of artistry. Imagine being forced to build a custom keyboard for someone who wants Alps when you're a Topre man. How could you really give it your best?
I don't see either of these as either radical or even unreasonable.
We live in a society where individuals are allowed to have different perspectives and voice them. For now at least.
