Ted Cruz disagrees that the GOP should ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues…

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Ted Cruz, when asked about Rand Paul’s statement that the Republican Party should ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues in order to grow the party, didn’t address Paul’s statement directly. But rather, he stated his position clearly, that the Republican Party should continue to defend life and traditional values.

Of course, this means he doesn’t agree with Rand Paul on the issue, but he obviously doesn’t want to feed the media beast and have another public ‘disagreement’ with Paul like happened recently.



Watch:

NOTE: If you pause the video momentarily, it should load faster.

[flowplayer id=”93766″]

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

175 thoughts on “Ted Cruz disagrees that the GOP should ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues…

    1. Sign the official Ted Cruz for President petition at RunTedRun.com
      It was started by someone at RedState who now runs this SuperPAC for Ted Cruz.

  1. I would be happy with a President that was unashamedly stood on the side of God since the Democrats have gone anti-God over the last 5 years.

    I would also appreciate a President that understood when you put your hand on the Bible and swear to God to uphold the Constitution you would accept death before breaking that oath. But that would take a genuinely saved Christian to understand that standard.

  2. I see two main types of issues of interest to social conservatives: those legal versus illegal and those “moral” versus “immoral” for want of a better word. For example, smoking is usually legal but can be harmful. Abortion is legal but often is immoral and harmful to all involved. Alcohol is legal, healthy in moderation but unhealthy in excess.

    I think social conservatives should express their opionions. but be sure to preface them with the fact that they realize that much of what they opposed is and will be legal. They should let people know that their goal is not necessarily to make something illegal, especially with regards to issues already decided upon by the Supreme Court, rather them to .try to talk people out of exercising legal rights.

    Smoke them if you got them but in the long run tobacco / abortion / anal sex will be a detriment to your life.

    1. I was with you Freddie on the smoking and drinking, but abortion is down right murder. Doesn’t the Supreme Court get it wrong at times?

      Murder is always wrong whether one wants to argue legality or morally. What is interesting is that murder crosses both types. There are many issues that do.

      1. The Supreme Court gets it wrong: see Plessy v Ferguson which took almost 60 years to overturn.

        The question is not whether a law is right or wrong but whether we are a nation of laws. Slavery is always wrong but it has been legal for most of history. The question is, if slavery were legal today, would you go all John Brown, cutting off peoples’ heads and raiding Harpers Ferry or Harriet Beecher Stowe and demostrat why slavery is wrong independent of whether a good or bad person owned Tom.

        I will stick with saying abortion is legal and will remain so absent a Constitutional Amendment My goal is to talk women out of doing it and helping those who do to forgive themselves so that they can heal.

        FYI. drinking in moderation correlates with a longer life expectancy than either not drinking at all or excessive drinking. If drinking is always wrong than what the Sheol was Jesus thinking at Cana?

        1. Never said drinking was always wrong….if you noticed, I did say I agree with you on that issue.

          Are you suggesting then that we should not go “Harriet Beecher Stowe” and demonstrate/write books that abortion is wrong?

          So, you would return a slave to their master because it was the legal thing to do and then talk to the master trying to convince them to repent before the beat the slave?

          You would not help hid the Jews during WWII because that would be illegal if you were in Germany, but as you see one is about to be killed you hope to convince the soldier to seek forgiveness after the fact?

          I wonder where your line is for action?

          1. No, I pick Harriet Beecher Stowe over John Brown., preaching over unproductive violence. From your reading of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, you should be aware that some of the characters escaped to Canada and used violence to assure their freedom. Good for them but history has shown us only one one slave revolt that was “successful”, the one in Haiti.

            There is a difference between slavery and genocide. In the 13 Colonies and the early United States, slaves actually were able to be fruitful and multiply. In many slave cultures this was not the case. The analogy between slavery and abortion is imperfect because a child depends upon its mother to allow it to be born.

            I do not equate the US with National Socialist Germany. We have at least three choices wrt laws we disagree with: obey the law while preaching against it, refusal to cooperative with the government where we disagree with it or armed rebellion. I lean towards the first two choices.

            1. Just to clarify, you lean towards the first two options, but are not against the last choice in extreme circumstances.

    2. I think any candidate should be truthful about their personal beliefs, but let’s face it – none of these social issues should be addressed at the federal level and it is perfectly acceptable for a candidate to say they believe in life and traditional American values, but that these issues should be left to the states. Period. Problem solved, and constitutionally at that!!!

      Abortion was addressed at the national level and never should have been (now they are trying to do the same thing with gay marriage by making it out to be a civil right, which it is not). The majority of Americans oppose abortion after 20 weeks when a baby feels pain… so a conservative candidate can begin there and have a lot of support for that stance. Then hopefully over time we can turn this issue over to the states as it should have been from the start. It is very difficult for a president to make a difference on these issues, or Reagan would have done it during his eight years in office! You have to work with the popular culture to change hearts and minds over time, and that is slowly starting to turn. Insisting we want to overturn Roe v. Wade is not the approach to take.

      1. I pretty much agree with you, Lady. I watched a debate for governor by Sarah Palin. She was repeatedly asked about abortion and each time responded that she personally would chose life. Candidates should accept that the law, preach life and help those who have made a mistake forgive themselves and start the healing process..

        1. The US Supreme Court once decided that slavery was legal in the Dred Scott decision and more recently the Supreme Court decided that Nero ObamaCare was legal and the Chief Justice Roberts performed some very high flying mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.

          But we should just accept it and move out of the way because the Supreme Court has decided it and that is that. They never make any mistakes.

          Why even bother with trying to have a States’ Constitutional Convention to consider ammending the Constitution with the Liberty Ammendments as Mark Levin has proposed?

          I don’t agree with any of what you all have said about anything with regard to our inalienable rights.

          The right to life is inalienable and enshrined in our nation’s founding document the Declaration of Independence from which our Constitution was derived. It is a total pretense to say that abortion is not a national issue when it denies a national and inalienable right found in our founding document.

          As far as redefining marriage, there’s natural marriage between one man and one woman and unnatural marriage which is just about anything else you want to pretend marriage to be.

          John Craven
          New Orleans

          1. The Supreme Court decided that slavery was legal given that it preexisted our Constitution but that was made moot by the 13th Amendment. Plessy vs Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs Board of Education. What are the odds that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe or that the Constitution will be amended?

            I am all in favor of having a States’ Constitutional Convention but what if it doesn’t come off or goes against your way of thinking? My preferred option is to not cooperate with the government rather than taking up arms against it.

      2. Not a single social issue should ever be addressed at the federal level? Am i reading you correctly?

        One needs to remember that what is being proposed will be sheer chaos that reflects the time when this country was under the Articles of Confederation. Every state for themselves!!!!

        I guess the question would be, “Under what circumstance do you see that the governance on the national level should address such issues?” One has to remember that all fiscal issues are social issues.

        In fact, if we want to go this far, we should then say that George Washington was a modern day liberal: ” Shays’ Rebellion had a generally unifying effect upon the supporters of a stronger national government, and it was a lesson frequently invoked on the floor of the Federal Convention during the summer of 1787.

        For George Washington, who gave the insurrection as a reason for his own attendance at the Philadelphia convention, “there could be no stronger evidence of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders.”

    3. That’s not the problem. The Left would take any word a social conservative (any conservative) and photoshop it /video edit it until people like Gloria Allred is done with you.

      1. I remember what they did to Palin in that news interview when they cut her sentence in half. I remember when they cropped a video of a guy open-carrying at a Tea Party event to hide that he was a conservative African American.

        But the people who did that are not the audience we are trying to reach. We are trying to bring as many conservative and libertarian groups together because, let us face it, the Republican Party sucks less than the current Democrat Party.

        I am all for spirited primaries as long all the candidates promise in advance to support the winners.
        .

  3. RedState just endorsed Ted Cruz and started a petition at RunTedRun.com… Let’s all go and sign up to support Ted Cruz. RedState is a trustworthy place just like therightschoop

    1. I am ON it! I dream of Cruz being sworn it. He is THE NATURAL and will clean the floor debating anybody! I am headed to Red S Tate now to sign my 200th petition to see Cruz into the oVal Office!
      I adore him!

      1. Luckily this is the official petition by Ted Cruz for President PAC so lets get more people to sign.

        1. I signed it and donated. He will be president of this country either in 2016or at some point. But he will be president! The guy was born to lead. He is THE NATURAL made from the cloth of Thomas Jefferson. for the record, I am not from Texas either. I love Cruz !

            1. Thanks Joshua. that is the first thing antiCruz people bring up. it will be a huge distraction in 2016 but Cruz will handle and diffuse it with poise
              and intelligence. his passion for liberty is like none other.

  4. Since equal justice implies that laws apply equally to all, and the range of skills and talents varies between each of us, the same rules will naturally lead to a wide range of unequal results.

  5. For the record, it was Rand Paul who turned a simply worded statement of disagreement into a personal attack.

    We’ll have to see if his skin remains thin.

  6. Saying “agree to disagree” is the same as throwing in the towel. When liberals carry on their Godless, anit-American, destructive social agenda conservatives must fight back. I’m not saying it should be the number one issue (given all the other vital issues) but social issues are going to come into play leading up to 2016. Can’t let the leftists control this issue any longer. Paul is listening to consultants (losers) Cruz obviously is not.

  7. Throughout human history societies destroyed themselves when they abandoned their own and adapted some else s traditions. Today America is in such dilemma. Should she give up her own traditions -as flawed as it is- that made her great, or adapt some foreign tradition that may turn to be suicidal..

  8. Social issues are not separate and apart from economic issues. Without question, generally speaking, the most successful cultures are those based upon the nuclear family. Such a structure, in most cases, sustains its members without the need of government, therefore, without draining the treasury causing increased taxation. The family unit should be favored and preferred by law above all other lifestyles. There are no moral equivalents that justify increasing the economic challenges faced in responsibly raising a family.

  9. While I believe in most of what Ted Cruz says, we are being drug into the same useless trap of trying to legislate morality. The past two elections have clearly demonstrated that it’s the wrong approach. Don’t worry about personal choice legislation until you can stabilize basic liberties such as policies that encourage a stable currency.

    1. I’ve heard the phrase “legislate morality” and how you can’t do it. What does that even mean???? Killing your own baby is a personal choice? Really? It only became alright in the eyes of the law a little over 40 years ago and still it causes great angst and consternation. This “choice” has caused problems the day it began and our culture has suffered for it. It is the reason we are losing all of our liberties because too many people don’t see anything wrong with it. Same with gay marriage. These people have no morals.

      1. I did not say I thought it was right, quite the opposite. I said we have much bigger problems than trying to control what someone chooses for moral values. Trying to impose your will through legislation will lose every time.

        1. You do realize that taxpayer money is used for abortion, right? That’s “legislating” morality right there.

          1. that was after Obamacare, which is in direct opposition to my beliefs, therefore, I will never consciously support it.

            1. I was actually referring to Planned Parenthood, (i.e. Title X clinics) whose budget is in the hundreds of millions.

              So, in order to “un legislate” if you will, you have to “legislate” to fix it. That’s what people like Cruz and socons argue.

              The liberals are legislating morality everyday w Common Core, health care, etc. the cat is already out of the proverbial bag.

            2. Tax dollars have been going to Planned Parenthood since its’ inception. That was before Obamacare.

              GB

      2. This is where education has been very lax and people don’t know what constitutes Western Civilization and what it was originally derived from. People are parroting cultural taglines when they say “can’t legislate morality”. They parrot them without any deeper understanding or thought. You see it with a lot of things in the culture if you take a closer look. I believe it is why a lie does indeed get half way around the world before the truth gets it boots on….h/t Mark Twain. People glom onto things without any extra thought because we are inherently lazy by nature.

        We not only legislate morality, we legislate because of morality. Justice itself is a concept that is derived from morality. Legislating due to anything else is moral relativism and it causes government to grow because justice is not served.

    2. I don’t remember McCain or Romney ever talking about social issues, on the campaign trail.

      I do remember Obama and the Dems bringing it up quite often and centering their campaign around it.

      So, I don’t know where you are getting your info from.

  10. Take notice how the leftist media is having a field day with pitting Cruz against Paul. No need to pit the current administrations errors against the people that suffer because of it.

  11. TRS, you make a note to pause the vid but its DivX and you can’t pause it. When did you switch to DivX?

    1. Scoop embeds the vids as he finds them. They come in a range of formats and different “players”. Some players are quirky.

  12. Fiscal Conservatism begins with social Conservatism. They are inextricably connected.

    Never apologize, never surrender.

    1. If you look at the voting records of these “dreaded social conservatives” they are usually 100 percent on spending and budget issues.

      1. The same can be said of so-called fiscal conservatives. After all, Bush 43 increased the national debt by $4.8 trillion while Republicans controlled Congress for 6 years during his presidency. And that’s not fiscal conservatism IMO.

        1. GWB was not a real conservative. He was a compassionate conservative which means he doesn’t have a problem with spending other people’s money as long as he looks compassionate doing it. Fortunately he had other priorities, too, but voters can’t seem to figure it out anymore. Bailing out car companies and banks just isn’t all that conservative. Beware of conservatives saying they are conservative. Tell us what you believe and we will understand what you are. Dumping social conservatism is a Libertarian’s wet dream. They are so busy telling us that social conservatism is a lost cause. We will lose because of it. Ha! All of those Libertarian types lost us an important election last fall in VA. I’m done with them.

          1. Of course I agree, but you can’t just blame Bush. He had 6 years of Republicans who supported his ‘compassionate conservatism.’

            I was a severe critic of G.W. Bush’s presidency on many issues. To date, I have never sent or called any Republican administration as often as his to state my criticism.

            I have posted this before, but prior to Reagan the GOP was a pro-choice party that was moderate and even liberal on domestic issues. Reagan gave us 8 years of conservatism for the 1st time in my life. He had to deal with Democrats on many issues when the control of Senate change back to the Democrats. And of course, Tip O’Neill’s House prior to Republicans gain control.

            But, there were moderate Republicans who also interfered with Reagan’s agenda. Anyway, that conservatism began to decline when Bush broke his “read my lips, no new taxes pledge.” And RINOs began to move into leadership positions as well.

          1. Well, I don’t know … Sometimes, it seems like I am these days.

            It looks like my reply to Conservator was in the wrong place. Oh well.

  13. Full disclosure: I fully support and endorse Ted Cruz, whatever his ambitions, political or otherwise. I’d like to make three observations:
    1) He’s in Iowa or at least interviewing with an Iowa paper – yes it’s VERY early for the 2016 Presidential campaign… but is it really?
    2) He’s already jousting with an out-of-the-closet Republican Presidential contender for 2016.
    3) He’s already adept at side-stepping the MSM landmines and doesn’t fall for their BS.
    I know there’s been contention about his qualifications to run for President in 2016… but imo, he’s more qualified than BO by a LONG shot! We need another George Washington – someone to step up and lead after we’ve been freed from tyranny… someone who has character and God and patriotism in their heart. Someone who loves this country deeply. I believe that person is Ted Cruz and believe he’s running in 2016. I pray that he does…

  14. He’s seen what ‘compromising’ has done and I love that he wants to stand and not give in. Good on ya Ted!

  15. I believe Senator Ted Cruz from the Great State Of Texas is a Statesman in the making and we need one sooooo bad! He is a cool customer talking to basically a typewriter. With all the corruption and disgust going inside the dc beltway he is a political warrior and still a freshman. If you have time youtube Senator Cruz grilling the esteemed and wonderful lifelong senator from california on gun control (magazines). It is worth revisiting primarily because the anger she has for the upstart Senator is popping through her eyeballs is priceless. It’s fun!

  16. Notice he left legalizing pot out of his comments. I agree on this one…pot should be de-criminalized. Not legalized, but de-criminalized.

      1. And their hypocrisy. Smoking cigarettes bad, smoking pot good. The smell and effects of second hand cigarette smoke bad, but apparently a non-issue with pot because it doesn’t have second hand smoke?

        1. They’ve already started down the road on “3rd hand smoke”. Which is described as the latent residue, stain, and smell from a smoking environment. They’ve managed to fund some fringe studies to link it to cancer. I’ll leave it to everyone’s imaginations what kind of regulatory control of the population they might seek if this gets the play they want.
          They already have everyone believing that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer, but they gave never solidly linked a single case to it in history.
          I don’t like smoking or smelling it, but I shudder at the amount of capitulation this society has undergone in the name of safety. I truly believe that pot is the next pawn for more regulatory control.
          There are solid scientific facts around how pot hurts the developing brain. There are scientific facts around real contact highs from being around it. There is solid scientific evidence that it impairs people’s ability to react normally (DWIs). There are plenty of reasons to keep this drug from being legalized.

        2. Cigarettes don’t turn you into a walking accident waiting to happen with the situational awareness of an infant.

        3. Yeah, there’s going to be a lot of blue-on-blue conflict there between the nanny staters and the potheads.

          Especially in New York, where potheads will be getting the munchies, and they will try to stop them from consuming too many salty calories.

  17. I hope a small government, low tax, non-religious, fiscal conservative such as myself, who has no objection to non-heterosexuals having all of the rights marriage brings to heterosexuals, is welcome under the Republican tent. I thought it was a mistake for CPAC not to include GOProud and the even older Log Cabin Republicans. Because there is more that unites us than divides us.

    I’m much more concerned about big government RINOs masquerading as conservatives while campaigning, only to reveal their true allegiances once in office—to our detriment. As former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels said, we’re facing a red menace, of red ink; on it’s current unsustainable path, debt will engulf and drown believers and non-believers alike.

    Being a results-oriented pragmatist,
    Scott Walker
    2016

    1. I left a comment on thecampofthesaints.org. yesterday describing us as “heterosexuals” and the following was explained to me by David R. Graham of theological-geography.net: ” hetero is a Greek prefix meaning strange, foreign. In the usage you mention it is not our word. It is theirs. The normal to them is strange, foreign, which from their POV is indeed the case. And, we do not define ourselves sexually. They do. We define ourselves as a multi-dimensional unity, a whole comprising immanent and transcendent components, finitude and infinitude, not just one part.”
      It just shows how these words and terms permeate our society.

      1. I wish Bob would hook up with Disqus. That way we could all visit there more easily. He’s a good man.

        I think the reason ‘hetero- ‘ is used is simply as an opposite to ‘homo-‘. in Greek, homo doesn’t mean “man” it means “same”. (In Latin, Homo means ‘man.’)

        So using the Greek meanings, “hetero-” means people of different sex, and “homo-” means people of the same sex.

        But yeah, we should have terms that are more useful. Like normosexual and devosexual.

      2. I’ll leave the philosobabble to others, without the arrogant “We define ourselves”; I don’t designate others as my immanent, transcendent spokespersons.
        I’m a male attracted to females; my gay friends are attracted to people with the same anatomy they have, and that’s enough of a description for me. Meanwhile, when that iceberg labeled Insolvency rips open the hull of the S.S. Dependency we’re all sinking together.

  18. The more he talks, the more I like him. What is so unusual about believing abortion shouldn’t be used for birth control or believing that marriage should remain as it has always been? It is perfectly mainstream. Why should anyone shy away from it?

    1. DITTO! unionville! DITTO!

      Defending natural marriage between one man and one woman is the only rational and courageous thing any candidate for public office should do.

      Defending the inalienable right to life of all human beings is also the only rational and courageous thing any candidate for public office should do.

      It is sad that it takes an act of courage for an American politician to stand up for the rights of the unborn and for natural marriage. But Ted Cruz has that courage.

      John Craven
      New Orleans

    2. The Republican Platform goes further than that. It says they oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest. That’s not so mainstream.
      Then, guys like Mourdock, Akin and Smith elaborate on rape with wild hypothesis creating the impression that all pro-lifers believe the same crazy things.
      But, you probably knew all of that already.

      1. Yes, there are crazy ones. And the opposition tries to paint the reasonable ones with the same brush as the crazy ones.

        It is better for the reasonable ones to speak up than to fall silent out of fear of that brush.

      2. Sadly it was the GOP that painted Mourdock and Akin as being crazy. In fact, Lugar and his minions purposefully attacked and underminded Mourdock throughout the campaign. So much for the “stateman”.

        I also don’t buy that preventing the killing of any baby is a crazy idea. The crazy idea is that there are exceptions to murdering an innocent life.

      3. I don’t believe the platform goes further. I had read during the last presidential election that the platform remained deliberately mute on the subject of exceptions for rape and incest. Tony Perkins from the FRC said “exceptions for rape and incest don’t belong in the Republican platform because it’s a document that outlines broad government principles, not specifics.”

        I did read a lot of articles by the leftwing media that stated because the platform did not get into specifics, than it must mean that Republicans are against any exceptions.

  19. One of the many things I love about Cruz is he doesn’t step in it every time some lib asks him about social values unlike others who will go nameless. He states what he believes and lets the lib wallow around trying to find another angle and then states it again. He leads instead of being lead.

    1. It’s easy for him because he actually believes in what he’s saying. He is what he is and he’s not pretending like the RINOS (until they’re elected).

      1. EXACTLY !!!!

        People want someone who walks, talks, and breathes conservatism as if it was second nature. Someone who doesn’t have to mask or massage their messaging (Rand Paul).

        Ted Cruz does it naturally, because it is who he is. It’s not marketing, packaging, or trying to walk a fine line to appeal to as many groups as possible. It’s genuine.

      2. You mean like “severely Conservative” Mitt Romney who spoke of conservativism as if it was a head wound?

        1. When they have to say it, I’m always suspicious. Cruz simply says what he believes in, and from what he says, we know that he’s a conservative.

    2. He takes them on their own ground and proceeds to cram their talking points down their throats.

      Often doing it so nicely that they don’t realize how stupid he has made them look.

  20. We are tired…tired…TIRED… of being bullied by the media and all these groups who act like THEY are the majority because they have a dem in the white house. Guiness just pulled out of the NY parade over LGBQTRZABC123’s threats against the parade organizer over “exclusion”. Not every parade HAS to include you! Who do you think you are! We are TIRED of being cast as the “bad guys” because we happen to have a different value set than you do. ENOUGH. Good for Cruz for sticking to his guns.

    1. Exactly John. The reason those Gay activists are banned was because the year they were allowed to mark they were vulgar taunted the crowd. At St Patrick cathedral threw condoms at the church. It’s there idea of tolerance.

  21. Ted Cruz 2016. Rand Paul really disappointed me when he admonished Ted Nugent, when he called Obama a, “subhuman mongrel.”

    Obama has hurt so many. I personally believe he is part of a six year terror attack, with the help of the left. He’s destroying peoples lives with his seizing our private health care system. He lies to America.
    Just because he’s not using a bomb or airplane doesn’t make it any less so. He managed to fool enough people to slither his way into our White House. He manages to have Congress look the other way when he commits numerous crimes.

    Rand Paul was wrong to admonish Ted Nugent. He should have just kept his mouth shut and let the man exercise his right to free speech. Ted Nugent didn’t deny cancer patients their chemotherapy. He isn’t killing anyone. Rand Paul also endorsed Mitch McConnell. I’d still vote for him, but I see some waffling with him.

      1. DITTO! BS61! DITTO!
        Libertarians, in my view, are simply cheap liberals and moral relativists.
        John Craven
        New Orleans

        1. As a libertarian, I am as far from a moral relativist as someone can get. And I don’t agree with liberals on anything – even when they liberals flip-flop on whether they are “anti war” depending on is in the White House.

          1. Of course, you are anti-war and support a non interventionist foreign policy that has been a failure throughout American history. Rand Paul, like his father, will never be a serious candidate in any presidential campaign running as a Republican.

            Paul would get greater support as a Democrat. But likewise, his social conservative positions would never afford him a chance to run for president as a Democrat.

            If such views are held by anyone with presidential ambitions, they should leave both parties and run as a Libertarian. At least the right candidate could garner great support from the largest group of voters – Independents.

    1. Paul didn’t stop Nugent from using his free speech. For example, Paul didn’t stop Nugent from using his freedom of speech in apologizing for his remarks. Paul didn’t stop Bashir from apologizing to Palin, either.

      BTW, has Cruz endorsed anyone in Kentucky?

  22. Poor widdle reporter didn’t get to stir the pot and give herself more than 15 minutes of fame. Still, she should be grateful to Ted Cruz for allowing her that close to him…LOL

      1. Lol, all I had to say was that, I am a bit wordy eh? Thanks friend for summing it all up!

      2. Said it before many times, I will say it again.

        I listen to Rand and hear shades of Ron and careful messaging..
        I listen to Cruz and hear shades of Reagan as if it were second nature..

        1. Me too…. Let’s sign up at RunTedRun.com (a petition by the folks at RedState to draft Cruz)

  23. Rand Paul receives more letters of disagreement out of all the presidential candidates combined. Rand Paul RETIRED 2016!!!

  24. Sorry, but it sounds a bit like pandering to me. Ted Cruz clearly understands the value of Libertarian leaning conservatives…he just didn’t want to stick his neck out on this issue…in Iowa. Agreeing to disagree speaks of acceptance. The big L’s refused to accept any views not deemed pure enough and have been cut off, marginalized and run an ineffective third party. Paul has seen this in action. Social conservatives are becoming the moral minortiy these days and would be wise to stay in the tent, accpet conservatives of all stripes and take back our country.
    “Defending life and traditional values” is pretty broad and could be acceptable to all. Libertarian leaning conservatives could accept this.
    This notion that “agreeing to disagree” = an utter abandonment of principles is utter nonsense…it is about acceptance and the refusal to become disengaged.
    Would Ted Cruz be bold enough to openly reject states who choose to legalize gay marriage? Doubt it.

      1. Yes, that’s not the same thing. That’s “leaving it up to the states, which is consistent with the Constitution as “marriage” is not specifically mentioned and anything not specifically mentioned is to be left to the states.
        Cruz’s comment alludes to his disagreement with gay marriage as an individual. But he doesn’t say that out right.
        Pandering…I really like Cruz, but his recent behavior leads me to believe that he has another agenda, it doesn’t have that much to do with “we the people”. I hope I’m wrong, but he seems to be desparately trying to coalesce some kind of base to the detriment of the Conservative movement at large.
        We’ll see.

        1. Yes, he does disagree with gay marriage as was the position of Barack Obama and the republican party. Sen. Cruz as always stated his position on marriage and yes he has said that outright. Sen. Cruz is not ambiguous on this issue. You say, “Pandering…I really like Cruz, but his recent behavior leads me to believe that he has another agenda, it doesn’t have that much to do with “we the people”.” Do you know that Sen. Cruz is a Constitutional lawyer and was the Solicitor General for the State of Texas? And if he as another agenda, as you say, I bet you it’s Constitutional and Conservative.

          1. Yes, I’m aware of Sen. Cruz’s pedigree. He also worked on policy for the Bush campaign in 2000 and has argued before the Supreme Court. I think the differences between Cruz and Paul have more to do with how they approach things. Cruz, the lawyer, works to win the argument…then what? Paul, the physician, diagnoses problems and proposes fixes. Steve Hayes did a column where he stated that both men generally work for the same things but come from different directions. I just don’t like the wedging that Cruz does. If he divides the Liberty movement to make a name for himself then I can’t support him.

            1. Do you mean Mark Levin’s Convention of the States? Other wise what the heck is “the Liberty movement.” Is that the right to make marihuana legal?

              1. The Liberty movement is a return to Constitutional principals, fiscal responsibility and yes, the COS. Levin is totally correct in his assessment of Article V and the need to amend the Constitution on a number of things. We have been distorted by the Progressives long enough.
                Legalizing marajuana doesn’t even enter into that discussion. Paul, BTW, has gone on record a number of times as being opposed to legalizing marajuana. The big L’s give him a lot of heat for that.

            2. If anyone is “wedging” it’s Rand Paul. Who says, let’s agree to disagree on social issues? Rand Paul is the one moving away from traditional American values to appeal to those who want marijuana legalize. Period.

        2. Well you can always support Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christi for president if you want someone who’ll appeal to the base of the GOP elite’s ruling class in Washington? He only panders to them!

          You don’t have to support Cruz no matter how many conservative Americans like him like me!

          John Craven
          New Orleans

          1. Nope, Christi is a Democrat. I could never support him…besides, he reminds me of Tony Sorprano without all the bling.

      2. I think we tend to forget that historically speaking we did not need the constitution to speak towards marriage due to the consensus of what constitutes it, similar to parental rights

        Now, each state was able then to make their own laws based on this consensus, in regard to age of consent, divorce, etc. When two states disagree on such a definition of marriage, the federal government will need to step in since constitutionally, every state must recognize the laws of the other state (i.e. marriage licenses, divorce decrees, death certificates, etc).

        One just has to look at slavery before 1860 to see how that all worked so well, right? The idea that each state can determine something contrary to that which requires a consensus of all states is dangerous.

        1. Ok let’s get one thing straight. Slavery has nothing to do with homosexual. When I see a person I do see his skin color. On the other hand when I see a man or women you don’t know a person is homosexual until they say so. Black liberals may equate that they are the same but black Conservatives and common sense thinking people do not. Even most Black Americans. Slavery is wrong and even the Supreme Court got that one wrong.

          When DOMA was in place State’s did not recognize gay marriage under the 10th amendment a State’s rights. In fact, many States further solidified their positions by adding an amendment to their Constitution that defines marriage according to the culture of the citizen who voted to send representatives to the legislature to amend their respective Constitutions. Barack Obama held this view until he saw it more profitable not to. These homosexuals are militant and disrespectful to those of us who recognize natural law and the fact the marriage between one man and one women is the best model for children and for furthering the human race.
          I like what the Pope said and you should educate yourself.

          1. You are completely missing my point. Please reread my comment again. I am not equating slavery with homosexual marriage. Please note that the comparison I am making is that not all the states were on the same page regarding slavery and look what happen . . . .the Civil War.

            Likewise, since the definition affects the whole nation just like slavery did, having states define what they think marriage should be will only lead to chaos.

            And to the argument that it isn’t in the Constitution, one has got to remember what the national consensus was regarding marriage. Why would they think that they needed an amendment to the Constitution to define an institution that EVERYONE agreed to. It is similar to the problem we are seeing with Parents rights. Both are national not just state issues.

            And if you like what the liberal Pope stated, you may want to read about the Reformation again.

    1. Ted Cruz is on record as saying these matters are best handled not on a federal level, but on a state by state basis

      1. And that’s fine, but he isn’t going to come out and directly bash gay marriage. If he did, the l’s would leave him flat.

    2. Social conservatives are not the minority. I might characterize them as being far less vocal in this climate and that’s really the point IMO that Cruz is trying to make in this interview.

      Cruz is saying that it’s a good idea to bring in the Libertarians based on fiscal conservative values, but it’s equally a good idea to keep the Social conservatives because both ideals are valid and worth promoting.

      The way I see it, Rand Paul’s idea of agree2disagree as an actual option is the wrong view. There’s no such thing. You either accept both sides of the conservative coin or you’re only accepting one of them.

      Both Paul and Cruz believe in leaving things to the states, but Cruz is the only one that’s properly articulating it. We can’t just make believe that the social conservative stance doesn’t exist. You either agree with it or you don’t. Cruz is taking a more honest and public stance on it. Paul is not.

      You think those with liberal views on the social side will believe Paul’s personal views won’t be what drives him once he’s in office? Of course not. That’s why it still makes more sense to just be honest about it and do what Cruz is doing. Put it out there. They’ll either follow him or not, but it will be because they know exactly what he stands for and not what they “think” he stands for.

      1. What you are describing IMHO is integrity and the courage of your convictions. Something Cruz possesses in abundance.

      2. Libertarians don’t hold liberal social view. Libertarians are for limited government. Liberals are for debauchery.

        It is one thing to know that the federal drug war and FDA are plainly unconstitutional. It is another to be in favor of drug abuse.

      3. I think it depends on which issues are the make it or break it issues for a national election. As a social conservative I understand that there are other conservatives that don’t care about gay marriage. And I’m OK with that. I believe that issue should be left to the states because that is what the Constitution says. The Constitution comes first, and is the common denominator for the two types of Conservatives.
        The Social Conservative voice is in the minority amongst the independents. Sway them away from our current Marxist regime and we can save our republic. Push them away and we’re sunk.

      4. BTW, Cruz lays out a dandy straw man argument in his reply to the reporter…he is the king of the backhanded compliment. That bothers me about him.

          1. That Rand is advocating to back off abortion…the quote that everyone is freaking out about, agree to disagree, was pretty specific about gay marriage. It worked too, as CNN is interpreting that Ted Cruz is separating himself from Rand on backing off of abortion. Rand is not advocating for Republicans to stop supporting Right to Life/Life Begins at conception. Good grief.

    1. Exactly.

      The Marxists can fight for their depraved statist utopian tyranny.
      The Libertarians can fight for their libertine ideology

      But, Constitutional Conservatives are told that we must “agree to disagree” [code for shut up], incrementally surrender our principles, and adopt the morality or immorality of the left.

      I will not comply. I will fight for my principles. And, I will work to elect not only people who share my principles, but people who will also fight to promote them.

      1. As far as I can tell, the Libertarians ARE the Constitutional Conservatives. You want government to enforce your values, not just be government.

        1. Libertarians are often as pollyanna as the Left. Conservatives aren’t against all government like the Libertarians. We realize the need for governmentto promote and unhold a civil society.

          It’s the Left that is using the government to judge shop and impose their values on states. They attack traditional, accepted values with a radical new definition of marriage. here in NJ ONE judge imposed gay marriage on the state. Is that a representative republic?

  25. Cruz and Paul need to stop allowing the media to play them against one another. Stay focused on Obama.

      1. He declared his position and that was it.

        As he should. That is what leaders do.

        As you said, he was careful not to criticize Paul directly.

        In essence, Cruz was following Rand’s directive by agreeing to disagree.

  26. It’s the rare person who would disagree that we should agree to disagree, especially in public life. Not when the RINOs want to “enlarge the tent.”

    Stand on the solid platform and hold all the planks. If our leaders would do that, conservatives would come out in droves to vote, take the White House, win the senate, keep the House of Reps, and just maybe get this country back on a right course. It is not too late!

  27. Cruz 2016 !!!!

    No pandering, posturing, and/or carefully chosen “messaging”…. (cough, cough Rand Paul)…..required.

    1. The only thing I disagree with in there is when he says, that’s why it’s the first amendment. Actually, it was second. The one that was first amendment that was first didn’t get ratified – and that bumped up all the numbers. The amendments are not in hierarchical order. Other than that, his answer is my answer.

  28. Thank you Sen. Cruz for standing for traditional values that made America America. Spoken like a true Conservative-articulate and principled.

  29. Bravo, Senator Cruz! The reporter was obviously looking to stir up yet another side show. Handled like the true statesman that you are. God bless you!

    1. I agree! Sen. Cruz doesn’t want to get into an intellectual disagreement with Rand Paul because frankly in my opinion, Rand will lose. I think Rand Paul does whatever is popular at the time if not the moment which leaves one empty of Conservative principles.

      1. In all honesty, Rand Paul’s flip flopping makes me nervous. I don’t trust him around a hidden open mic, ’nuff said.

        1. BAM! That is a very good observation. We would be setting ourselves up for failure if he is chosen. Plus he really is Obama light, as Chris Christie. Both are big government spenders and both support immigration although Rand tries to give the appearance that he doesn’t. JOKE!

        2. Rand Paul should retire out of all the presidential candidates combined. Rand Paul RETIRED 2016!!!

        3. I’ve seen Paul act like Christie in its all about me positioning. He supported the Obamacare shutdown then bailed when the Rinos and media turned up the heat. He’s throw his own party under the bus on race and identy politics from a left wing perspective instead of making the case. On national defense he is a joke. His support of Mitch McConnell, who fought against Paul’s election, shows him to be an opportunist. I’m fine with him in the Senate but could never vote for him as President.

Comments are closed.