To the voters of Iowa,
This election, like every election, has consequences. But unlike other elections, 2016 is a pivot point, which will have long-lasting repercussions. The candidates vying for your vote have drastically different visions, and the person who wins Iowa, and perhaps the nomination, could go on to have a stunning impact on Washington–for better or worse.
Generally speaking, we wind up with a “lesser of two evils” situation in which we vote for someone with whom we don’t necessarily agree, but believe is at least slightly better than the other candidates. This time around, we have been given a candidate that is a real, battle-tested constitutional conservative.
Trending: Science is Settled
Your vote will be the first in a series that will begin in Iowa, and end in Washington D.C. on June 14. Your vote has a large influence on what comes next. In short, Monday matters.
I’m here to make one last pitch for the person I believe is the best choice for the Republican Party. That person is Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz has a long history of defending the constitution, and advocating for limited government. He is a principled man, who dares to stand for what he believes is right, even when it costs him polling points and votes. I’d like to touch on just a few prominent moments in Cruz’s political career that put on display who he is, and why I believe you should vote for him.
When Cruz worked as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the FTC during the Bush years, he was intently focused on reducing and eliminating governmental red tape that got in the way of teaching, healthcare, and much more.
In March 2015, National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote a lengthy piece about Cruz’s years at the FTC, which I recommend reading. He concluded with this:
“…if he can defy the odds and claim the White House, he’ll bring a level of hands-on experience with the regulatory state–and a proven zeal for cutting it down to size–that few, if any, of his predecessors could match.”
Later, as Solicitor General of Texas, Cruz argued a critical case before the Supreme Court: Medellin vs. Texas.
The New York Times reports:
“[Cruz] rarely lets a campaign appearance conclude without mentioning José Medellín, a Mexican citizen who was sentenced to death in the 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. In 2005, President Bush directed state courts to review the cases of dozens of Mexicans on death row to comply with an order from the International Court of Justice.”
Medellín, an illegal immigrant, was sentenced to death for the previously mentioned rape and murder of two teenage girls, but in 2003, he claimed he hadn’t been made aware of an “international law through which he could have obtained legal aid from the Mexican consulate. Mexico then sued the United States on behalf of Medellin,” according to Conservative Review.
Texas state courts dismissed Medellin’s appeals multiple times, and it went to the Supreme Court. Prior to the case, however, President Bush stepped in and declared that the state of Texas had to review cases like Medallin’s. The case was re-filed in Texas, and after several dismissals, once again went to the Supreme Court.
Ted Cruz made such a vigorous argument–as noted by The New Yorker–that he convinced even Justice Stevens, winning the case against Medellin–and by extension, President Bush.
Conservative Review’s Jen Kuznicki writes:
“If Ted Cruz were a typical politician, he would not have gone against his own Republican President from his own home state; he might have sided with his ‘Hispanic’ roots like Luis Gutierrez, he might have considered his future and his career like Bush suggested he is doing now: ‘opportunistically.’ But Ted Cruz opted for justice and the rule of law…”
Fast-forward to Thursday night’s debate, where Cruz stood firmly on his position regarding the phasing out of ethanol subsidies.
Moderator Chris Wallace asked:
“You’ve called for an end to the renewable fuel standards…As you well know, ethanol’s a big industry in this state–$10 billion a year. Last week, Terry Branstad, the popular governor of Iowa, who is in the hall tonight, said that you’re bankrolled by big oil, and that Iowa voters would be making a mistake supporting you. Why should those voters side with you over the six-term governor of the state, sir?”
In a auditorium full of Iowans, Terry Branstad himself among them, Cruz replied:
“We should be developing oil, and gas, and coal, and nuclear, and wind, and solar, and ethanol, and biofuels. But I don’t believe that Washington should be picking winners and losers. And I think there should be no mandates, and no subsidies whatsoever…no subsidies for oil and gas; no subsidies for anyone…”
In that answer lies the reason to vote for Ted Cruz. From his laser focus on regulatory reform when he worked at the FTC in 2001, to his defiance of George W. Bush and his own party, to his willingness to tell an audience–many of whom are likely beneficiaries of ethanol subsidies–that he doesn’t believe the government should subsidize ethanol, Ted Cruz is a man who stands on principle.
Not one of us is perfect. Not one of us is without fault. Some argue that Cruz is too slick. He is slick–but slick and principled aren’t mutually exclusive. Some argue he’s too extreme. If the law and the Constitution are “too extreme,” then so be it, because that’s the ground upon which Cruz bases his political philosophy. Some say he’s unelectable. That’s just speculative. Some say Marco Rubio is more electable. I don’t agree. Personally, I don’t trust a guy who campaigns against amnesty, then co-sponsors an amnesty bill shortly after being elected. Some say Donald Trump is a better candidate. To them I say: Look to the record. Look at how frequently Trump has flip-flopped; look at his alleged mocking of a handicapped reporter; look at the man himself. He’s more of the same–an elitist who can make deals. He even said it himself: Sometimes, you’ve gotta be a little establishment.
This is a pivot point.
When you walk into the voting booth on Monday, you may like Ben Carson, or Mike Huckabee, or Rand Paul, but you must know that realistically, a vote for them is a vote for Trump. Iowa is a two-man race, and it’s either Trump or Cruz. Vote for the man with the proven track record of fighting for limited government. Vote for the man who is absolutely fearless. Vote for Ted Cruz.