Sen Lee Endorses Ted Cruz for Texas U.S. Senate Race. Anyone Know Anything About This Guy?

[Zatch]

http://www.tedcruz.org/post/2011/03/07/Major-Endorsement.aspx

[Brett85]

http://www.tedcruz.org/page/Proven-Record.aspx

This is his issues page. I agree with everything here, but he doesn't talk about foreign policy at all.

[Slutter McGee]

Assuming that Medina or Robert Paul doesn't run, I was considering voting for Michael Williams - good fiscal conservative but silent on issues of foreign policy. Sounds like their views on the latter, should they become clear, will decide my opinion between him and this guy Cruz.

But I had never heard of him before.

Slutter McGee

[Jeremy]

http://www.tedcruz.org/page/Proven-Record.aspx

This is his issues page. I agree with everything here, but he doesn't talk about foreign policy at all.

That's usually a good sign.

[MikeStanart]

Assuming that Medina or Robert Paul doesn't run, I was considering voting for Michael Williams - good fiscal conservative but silent on issues of foreign policy. Sounds like their views on the latter, should they become clear, will decide my opinion between him and this guy Cruz.

But I had never heard of him before.

Slutter McGee

I have this large suspicion that Williams is your typical war-hawk. Why? My parents love him. :D

[sailingaway]

I think De Mint endorsed Williams. I wonder if this means Lee knows Ron isn't running for Senate?

[Zatch]

I think De Mint endorsed Williams. I wonder if this means Lee knows Ron isn't running for Senate?

I think Ron Paul pretty much ruled out a senate run when he said he'd rather run for Barack Obama's seat than Hutchinson's.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-likely-won-t-try-to-join-son-in-senate-20110120

[tsai3904]

He contributed to Bush-Cheney in 2004:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/advanced.asp?searchtype=contributors&cycle1=04&lname=cruz&fname=ted&work=&occup=&zipcodes=&fdate=&tdate=&state=TX&cycle2=10&cmtetype=&cmtename=&cmteorg=&igc=&cmteparty=&cycle3=10&cndoffice=&cndtype=&cndlname=&cndfname=&cndstate=&cndparty=&orderby=

And to Fred Thompson in 2008:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/advanced.asp?searchtype=contributors&cycle1=08&lname=cruz&fname=ted&work=&occup=&zipcodes=&fdate=&tdate=&state=TX&cycle2=10&cmtetype=&cmtename=&cmteorg=&igc=&cmteparty=&cycle3=10&cndoffice=&cndtype=&cndlname=&cndfname=&cndstate=&cndparty=&orderby=

[Bryan]

I've done some research on him- I like what I see, so far. While he may have donated to Bush, he did openly oppose some of his actions in the GWOT-- see this piece from Chuck Baldwin:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071012.html

In his autobiography, "A Charge To Keep," G.W. Bush addressed the
subject of granting clemencies for people convicted of capital crimes.
He said that it was not his job "to replace the verdict of a jury
unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or
evidence that the trial was somehow unfair." He has now obviously
forgotten this principle.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz is arguing on behalf of the state
court and its death penalty. He called Bush’s actions "breathtaking."
He told the Houston Chronicle, "It is emphatically not the province of
the president to say what the law is. If this president’s assertion of
authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous
mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents
be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the
books?"


Back in '09, the Austin area Ron Paul meet-up, headed by top activist Don Zimmerman invited Ted to speak- see:
http://www.meetup.com/TravisRFC/messages/7328233/?action=detail&messageId=7328233

Here's a speech Ted gave at a Tea Party- thought it was pretty good- worth listening to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lywnhnpCdCU

All that said, it's just a few data points.

[libertybrewcity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

National Debating Champion 1992...lawyer...lawyer..

[AZKing]

http://www.tedcruz.org/page/Proven-Record.aspx

This is his issues page. I agree with everything here, but he doesn't talk about foreign policy at all.

Doesn’t look all that great to me. He doesn’t really mention foreign policy or spending/taxing policies. Let’s see... I’d rather return to the original pledge. Protecting traditional marriage… none of the state or federal government’s business.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Don't be taken in. Ted Cruz is a hardcore neoconservative on foreign policy, who praises the George W. Bush/Rudy Giuliani approach:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/212709/calling-all-conservatives/ted-cruz


Three years ago, on a crisp blue September day, vicious murderers attacked us at home, killing innocents and declaring war on American values. President Bush has shown extraordinary leadership, courage, and calm resolve. As Rudy Giuliani observed this fall, thank God he was president. He was there for a reason.

Kerry, by contrast, is further to the left on foreign policy than any Democratic nominee since George McGovern. Like McGovern, Kerry is a decorated combat veteran, and his personal patriotism should not be impugned. But his policy views are dangerous.

For four decades, he has been an unyielding voice for appeasement–that is, for capitulation to those who would see America destroyed. From his early days as an anti-war protester, accusing American servicemen of widespread war crimes, to his years as a U.S. senator–when he championed nuclear freeze, called for massive reductions in defense and intelligence spending, staunchly opposed missile defense, and loudly resisted President Reagan’s leadership to win the Cold War–Kerry has been a constant critic of American fortitude. (For a more extensive account, see here.)

From Vietnam to El Salvador to Cuba to Grenada to the Soviet Union, Kerry’s far-left position was consistently in favor of Communist and totalitarian forces and against American strength or resolve. Even in 1991 his “global test” was not satisfied, and Kerry was one of the very few senators to vote against the first Gulf War.

Today, Kerry promises to fight a “more sensitive war on terror.” That milquetoast pledge–and his demonstrated public record–are antithetical to President Bush’s strong and steady leadership. Given the fanatical Islamic terrorists who aspire to yet more mass murder on the streets of America, his is not an approach suited to defending this country in a time of war.