Those of us that are more politically active would have the task of speaking out so that people know that if Cruz does move to the left for a general election, that those are not his real beliefs. I certainly don’t consider myself to be very good at convincing other people in a political discussion. But for the Democratic activists out there, this would be a top task.
Well, yeah, but what are we supposed to be doing now? I think it goes without saying that we’d take the campaign seriously if he won the nomination.
A heart attack? Well, shit happens, I’ll probably be fine. My son having “666” tattooed on his scalp? Its just a phase. SO joining a radical lesbian separatist collective. Help her pack, I guess, long she doesn’t take my truck.
Ted Cruz President of USA? AIIIEEEEEE! Aiiiieeee! Red alert, panic in the situation room, situation in the panic room, flee in every direction…
Cruz will be fine doing this as long as there is no way of broadcasting what he used to say about the issues.
“I would have won if it weren’t for those pesky cameras!”
I don’t think there’s any chance in hell that Cruz, one of the most consistently batshit people in the country, has the remotest notion of what liberals actually want, as opposed to what the phantom demons in his head tell him. I have no doubt that he subscribes to the Republican notion that Obama only beat Romney by promising gifts to poor people. It will be pretty amusing to see what he thinks he has to do to appeal to the few percent that Romney was chasing.
That said, yes, he is definitely well organized. But I’ll believe in this mythical swing left when I see it.
Gotta agree with this wholeheartedly.
Reminds me of running into this “ten things liberals hate” thing earlier today. The closest the people who wrote that get to actual liberals is seeing them caricatured on Fox News and talk radio. I fully expect Cruz is the same way.
“Same style marriage”?
Was funny to read an article posted on Yahoo! which said not to underestimate him because he’ll say and do anything to be elected.
I think we know that, and none of us are buying it.
It does not concern me. I would take it as a given that even Cruz would shift his campaign once he’s trying to appeal to voters rather than Republican primary voters, so an article listing the ways that he’s left himself room to do so is unsurprising. However, he’ll still have massive disadvantages in a general election:
[ul]
[li]He’s the poster boy for government shutdowns, which are quite unpopular among the general electorate[/li][li]“I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.” Threatening nuclear war will go over with the general electorate less well than among Republican primary voters[/li][li]He’s extremely unlikeable[/li][/ul]
These aren’t things that he can etch-a-sketch away. His very identity will cost him dearly, should Republicans actually be foolish enough to nominate him.
What I’m worried about is that I think that last part might not be correct. I worry that enough people in the middle will buy it and that Cruz might have a chance in the general against Clinton. That could just be my inner pessimist, but I am starting to worry about the possibility.
Well, Jesus was American. He gets a vote, doesn’t he?
What do you think about the controversy over the Washington Post political cartoon that portrayed his daughters as trained monkeys? The cartoon was written after Cruz released a campaign ad that featured his kids. Are they fair game once he involves them in an ad?
I think yes. If he wants to protect his kids from parody, keep them out of the campaign.
Is there a candidate alive who has not used his kids as props in a campaign? I doubt it. Assuming they have kids, or course. 
And I doubt if you would approve when someone portrays Sasha and Malia as monkeys. Just a feeling I have.
The remarkable thing about this incident is that about 80% of the coverage seems to be focused on the fact that Cruz used this as a fund-raiser, rather than on the incident itself.
I think he’s right. Even if he involves his kids for political purposes, that doesn’t mean the kids are okay to target. The kids aren’t responsible for any mistakes of their parents, and shouldn’t be attacked or mocked in any way, in my opinion.
This cartoonist handed Cruz a political gift.
I agree; they all use their kids as props. I just think his outrage is convenient.
I think he’s right too. Doesn’t matter if he used his kids as props, no one else should be able to.
So, this is the first thing that I’ve ever agreed with Cruz on.
I think Cruz opened the door for mockery by using them the way he did. Also, I think the intent of the Washington Post cartoon was to mock Cruz and the way he used his daughters, not to mock the daughters themselves.
However, portraying the daughters as trained monkeys seems to point it a bit at them. Any efforts to mock the situation should be solidly aimed at Cruz, not derogatory towards the children. I think that cartoon was poorly chosen.
Does anyone really think the point of the cartoon was to attack his kids by portraying them as monkeys?
No, of course not. It doesn’t have to be the point, thesis, or anything else to be a facet, and that facet is a low blow.