Ted Cruz Gets Top Slot at CPAC

Can’t wait to hear what former Rick Perry supporter Ted Cruz has to say about foreign policy — a small matter I am expected to overlook, according to an astonishingly large number of people in the “liberty movement.”

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Chris Barcelo

    I think a lot of people in the ‘liberty’ movement are being duped or in the least celebrating too early. I REALLY hate to state this but I think that Wenzel from EPJ is absolutely right about the false victories lately with #standwithrand and more importantly, I think he is right about Rand Paul’s playing with fire. I think the real liberty movement, as in the individuals that comprise it earnestly pursuing the spread of liberty, should be cautious and on guard. The notion that we need to compromise and take shortcuts to gain support from the mainstream is contrary to everything Dr. Ron Paul has accomplished and will destroy the glue that holds this movement together. We don’t need division, we don’t need ‘help’, we need liberty. Plain and simple.

  • Anonymous

    Cruz supported Perry? I was at the Ft. Worth convention, and Perry got booed for backing Dewhurst over Cruz…

  • Anonymous

    What are the odds that a 100% pure libertarian can win a nationwide office, let alone the White House?

    Rand is a significant step towards a libertarian Republican candidate. Perfect? No. Pure? No. But he moves the Overton in the libertarian direction, and that’s important.

  • Jake

    You were there too? Didn’t he say afterwards: “I thought they were saying DEW, as in DEWhurst”

  • Jake

    No, no one expects you to overlook that. Never be afraid to speak your mind.

  • Franklin

    He moves very little. Not being a cynic, only a realist.
    The fuss was certainly welcomed as it highlights the consistent evil emanating from Washington’s love affair with warfare.
    But as a practical matter it’s hardly a blip. And unless I’ve been dreaming, casualties continued, American and foreign, over the past days.
    Not to rain on the parade, but I agree with Chris. It’s about hearts and minds, not compromises over “a little bit of this and a little bit of that.”

  • David

    As a senator yes that’s true. If he were president, based on his record, he would be a major improvement over Obama, Bush, and other recent presidents on virtually every issue. Hearts and minds do need to be won over, but that doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t support libertarian and libertarian-leaning candidates. In fact I think the latter makes the former easier. Do you seriously think suddenly one day a significant mass of people is going to become libertarian in a country with virtually no libertarians or libertarian-leaning people in office?

  • David

    Didn’t Ron Paul endorse Ted Cruz?

  • Aleks

    yes, he did, but that’s too inconvenient to remember.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds Perry-plausible. You’d think all the “Cruz” signs being waved would be obvious…

  • Chris Barcelo

    I guess a more refined way to say what I’m trying to say is that I think it’s dangerous that Libertarians are getting wrapped up in this. We keep looking to 2016 with hope? Why? Why is 2016 any different then 2015, or, 2017?

    Point is that liberty will not come from the White House. Liberty will not come from Government. While these may play an integral role in getting there we shouldn’t look with hope that once we seize the power we’ll achieve it. This is, I feel, Rand Paul’s angle – even if not as ‘dark’ as I make it sound. I believe Rand does want the best for this country and it’s citizens and I agree that every bit of help toward the cause of liberty should be applauded regardless.

    But Ron Paul didn’t get the response from individuals he had because he was running for President. We all knew he wasn’t going to win deep down. We didn’t expect him to make magical policies that would send our nation and world into a ‘recovery’ of senses.

    Ron Paul stirred our hearts with his passion for truth and his never wavering dedication to the idea of liberty. Paul Sr. knew that only when the hearts and mind of the people were changed, not some seat in the upper echelons of power, would the world be.

    With Rand the ambiguity is dangerous. We risk not so much supporting ideas, but supporting the man.

  • Chris Barcelo

    I agree with you here, hearts and minds are necessary but so is the ‘hands on’ approach. That being said there must always be the recognition that the battle for hearts and minds should be held utmost, even over the battle for political power.

    If we compromise simply to advance with politics we contradict and permeate what we’ve worked so hard to achieve in the hearts and minds of the people. It’s a lot easier to change a political chair then to change one’s mind. You often only get one chance at gaining it’s consideration.

  • Chris Barcelo

    Yes… Sadly.

  • uk6strings

    I never knew we had to overlook one part of Cruz’s philosophy to agree with another part.