Yes, I remembered this. I'm a Texan now. Stand for truth no matter the cost... So glad he is running :)

Not forgotten.

His campaign speeches and interviews sound like a demagogic preacher in style and mannerisms as well as explicit appeals to religion, all of which frightens a lot of people for good reason. He has taken a lot of good political positions -- far better than most in Washington -- and someone who filibustered a big increase in government spending by reading from Atlas Shrugged can't be all bad, but you have to wonder what his actual principles and their practical implementations are, and how he thinks in formulating decisions on practical matters. We don't find that out from his style of campaigning. His rejection of the Obama dictatorial collectivist agenda is very good, but it's not clear what he is for other than vague appeals to the Constitution.

I don't care for it either - I'm looking to vote for a President of the United States, not Pastor of the National Church. But at the same time, with obvious caveats I think people are blowing the Religious Right fear far out of proportion - the worst example being Dr. Peikoff (for whom I retain a massive respect despite his naysayers,) elevating the religious threat to a higher level than the collectivist threat.

Those of us old enough to have lived and thrived through the Reagan years (I turned 18 just in time to cast my first vote for him in 1980,) saw what was the Religious Right at the height of its "powers" - Jerry Falwell running at full throttle, Ed Meese ingeniously finding an excuse to watch lots and lots of porn on the government dime, Tipper and Al Gore crusading for warning labels about lyrics on albums, etc.

The net result of that Religious Right frenzy, in terms of binding legislation passed, was exactly zero.

Unless you count the "Fair Housing Act" expansion of 1988, which removed the right of apartment owners to designate their properties as "adults only." I have had to endure screaming brats ever since as a result - the single worst choice President Reagan made, IMO.

Cruz' choice certainly mandates keeping an eye on the religious angle, but I think a huge factor in that choice was finding a friendly audience. The last thing he wanted was to have his campaign kickoff speech marred by protesters and to have that conflict splattered all over the media from the outset. "Liberty University" was a guaranteed safe bet in that regard.

Given Cruz' stated - and clearly believed - fidelity to the Constitution, at the worst you would have to think he'd get to a conflict point between the urge to religious governance and respect for the First Amendment. Ultimately, I look at the multitude of the man's convictions and his track record of activism for Constitutional governance as qualities persuasive enough for him to be my (current) vote-designate, and as reason to treat the specter of religiosity as a concern that can be pushed aside pending some concrete instance of him attempting to violate that First Amendment. At which point we have the assurance of opposition that would stop such an attempt in its tracks, and the ever-present opportunity to oust him should it happen.

To date he's the best candidate we have. I like Allen West better, but Cruz has more experience in the labyrinth of government and legislation, in wrestling with the collectivist opposition and applying finessed strategy thereto, and more demonstrable commitment to radical government de-clawing aside from national defense. I think Cruz-West 2016 would not only make a great ticket (because we can know with certainty we'll have serious terrorist activity from the moment a Republican President gets elected, also it would blow the Democrats' presumed handle on the Latino and Black vote to smithereens,) but because we need to vote not just for 2016 but for 2024 as well - and by then West will have gained the experience in government to make him an ideal successor. (But I digress on the wish list.)

Bottom line: If we're going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, if we're going to reject candidates for making overt nods to religiosity, we're going to be waiting for an ideal candidate for a long, long time.

Cruz' religiosity does not worry me. Another RINO like Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, Christie, Bush III or Romney II does worry me, lots. We have lost whatever "error buffer" we once had. We cannot allow another do-nothing placeholder to mark time until the next Democrat drags us further into the abyss.
.

I agree with you, I heard him speak and he doesn't seem like anything special, typical cookie cutter politician. He uses all of the key buzz words to make a certain demographic feel warm and fuzzy inside. Disappointing.

Wha, you get voted down for that. Here's +1 back.

But that's a bonus too as the Marxists are driven to further apoplexy when they have their own "birther" arguments shoved back in their faces.

This is going to be a smorgasbord of schadenfreude!

Yes, he did.
He's a mixed bag.
My immediate interest though is making the Marxists freak out.
Which Cruz has accomplished in grand style.

Taking applications for a running mate?

Honestly, doubtful, I'm not even sure he'd be the best choice.

But, I'm *not* going to pass up the opportunity it presents to start hitting back at these smug Marxist SOBs.

Oh, please!
The schadenfreude from the nationwide fits of marxist apoplexy is worth it alone!