Tag Archive for: Texas Senator Ted Cruz

The Political Landscape of the Ted Cruz-Colin Allred Race

The race for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas is heating up as incumbent Senator Ted Cruz faces off against Democrat Colin Allred. Texas, a state known for its conservative values and robust economy, has long leaned Republican. Significant achievements and unwavering support from the electorate have marked Cruz’s political career. In contrast, Allred, a former NFL linebacker turned politician, presents a starkly different vision for Texas, raising questions about his experience and alignment with the state’s values.

Ted Cruz, first elected to the Senate in 2012, has built a formidable political career committed to conservative principles and strong advocacy for Texas interests. A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Cruz’s intellectual prowess matches his oratory skills, making him a prominent figure in national politics.

Cruz has consistently championed tax cuts, border security, and religious freedom, resonating deeply with Texas voters. His role in spearheading the fight against the Affordable Care Act and advocating for the Second Amendment has solidified his reputation as a staunch defender of conservative values.

Cruz’s political career is marked by significant accomplishments, including:

  • Legislative Achievements: He has played a pivotal role in bipartisan efforts, such as the CHIPS and Science Act and tax relief initiatives for hurricane victims. His ability to navigate complex legislative landscapes has earned him respect among his peers and constituents.
  • Popularity in Texas: Despite criticism for specific actions—such as his controversial trip to Cancun during a winter storm in 2021—Cruz maintains a strong support base among Texas Republicans. Polling data shows he consistently leads Allred by margins ranging from 2% to 5% in recent surveys, indicating that many Texans still view him as their representative in Washington.

Cruz has also been instrumental in shaping Republican strategies on a national level, positioning himself as a critical player in the fight against big government and for individual liberties. His influence extends beyond Texas, as he is often called upon to provide insight into the Republican Party’s direction.

As for Colin Allred, one of the most significant drawbacks is his limited experience in national politics. While Cruz has spent over a decade navigating the complexities of Senate legislation and building a national profile, Allred’s tenure in Congress has been marked by just one term. This lack of experience raises concerns about his ability to effectively represent Texas at a time when critical national issues are at stake.

In a state as large and diverse as Texas, voters often look for candidates with proven track records in leadership and governance. Allred’s relatively short political career could hinder his ability to connect with seasoned voters who prioritize experience when electing their representatives.

Allred’s policy positions present another challenge as he seeks to unseat Cruz. Many of his stances, including support for expanded government healthcare programs and strict gun control measures, diverge significantly from the values held by many Texans. According to a recent Texas Public Policy Foundation survey, 68% of Texans oppose new gun control measures (Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2024), making Allred’s advocacy on this issue potentially unpopular.

Furthermore, Allred’s proposed increase in taxation and regulation is at odds with Cruz’s focus on economic growth through lower taxes and deregulation. In a state that has experienced significant economic expansion, particularly in the energy sector, voters may be reluctant to support a candidate who advocates for policies perceived as detrimental to job creation and financial stability.

Allred’s several other policy positions may also alienate some voters in Texas. He has advocated for progressive policies that may not resonate with the state’s conservative electorate, such as Abortion Rights. Allred has been vocal about protecting abortion rights, opposing Texas’s stringent regulations. While this stance may appeal to specific demographics, it risks alienating conservative voters who prioritize pro-life policies.

These policy differences highlight how Allred’s positions contrast sharply with Cruz’s conservative platform, which emphasizes individual freedoms and limited government intervention.

Public perception plays a crucial role in any political campaign, and Allred has faced scrutiny regarding his background and affiliations. While he positions himself as a candidate for change, his association with more progressive elements of the Democratic Party has raised eyebrows among conservative voters.

Any past controversies or missteps could impact voter trust:

  • Lack of Transparency: Critics have pointed out that Allred’s campaign has not always been transparent regarding funding sources and endorsements. This lack of clarity may raise questions among voters about his integrity and motivations.
  • Association with Controversial Figures: While seeking endorsements from former Republican representatives like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney may seem strategic, it could backfire by alienating core Democratic supporters who view these figures unfavorably due to their opposition to Trump.

Additionally, there have been reports of ethical concerns regarding some of his campaign financing, which could further complicate his efforts to build trust with voters.

In contrast, Cruz has navigated controversies with political acumen, allowing him to maintain his support base. His ability to confront challenges head-on, including those posed by his opponents, has only solidified his reputation as a resilient leader.

These factors contribute to an image that may not resonate with all voters, particularly those prioritizing transparency and accountability.

As the race progresses, concerns about Allred’s electability become increasingly prominent. Polling data indicates that while he has garnered some support, particularly among urban voters, Cruz still maintains a commanding lead in statewide surveys.

  • Polling Data: Recent polls show Cruz leading by approximately 2% to 5%, with around 5% of respondents still undecided.
  • Voter Sentiment: Analysts have noted that despite demographic shifts in Texas favoring Democrats, many voters still identify strongly with Cruz’s conservative values. Allred’s challenge will be mobilizing enough support from moderate Republicans and independents while retaining Democratic voters.

The race between Ted Cruz and Colin Allred is emblematic of broader trends within Texas politics – a state grappling with shifting demographics and political ideologies. While Allred presents himself as a moderate alternative to Cruz, several negative aspects associated with his candidacy raise questions about his viability as a challenger.
In summary:

  • Experience: Allred’s limited political experience compared to Cruz raises concerns about his readiness for Senate responsibilities.
  • Policy Positions: His progressive stances may not align with the values of many Texas voters.
  • Public Perception: Issues related to transparency and past associations could undermine voter trust.
  • Electability: Although polling data suggests he is within reach, doubts remain about his ability to defeat an established incumbent like Cruz.

As Texans prepare to vote on November 5th, they must weigh these considerations carefully. Their choices will shape the future of Texas and influence the balance of power within the U.S. Senate.
With Cruz’s track record of fighting for conservative principles and advocating for Texas’s interests, the stakes have never been higher. In a time when leadership matters more than ever, the choice between experience and inexperience, conservatism and progressivism, could define the Senate seat and the future trajectory of Texas politics.

©2024 . All rights reserved.

References:

1. Emerson College Polling Results on Ted Cruz vs. Colin Allred.
2. Analysis from The Hill on polling trends.
3. Coverage from AP News regarding debates and public perceptions.<
4. Insights from Politico on campaign strategies.
5. Background info.rmation on Ted Cruz’s political career is from Wikipedia.<
6 Sen. Ted Cruz’s Leadership Secured Approval for Four International Bridges
7. Cruz’s legislative accomplishments touted
8. Ted Cruz, Colin Allred clash on abortion, border, transgender rights in US Senate debate

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Calls Out Democrats Ignoring Antifa Anarchy In Portland

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz spoke with the Daily Caller’s Samantha Renck about Tuesday’s hearing on antifa, why he believes Democrats have continually failed to condemn antifa violence and more.

“Thousands of people across the country engaged in peaceful protest and the Constitution — the Bill of Rights — protects your right, it protects my right to speak. It protects our right to protest. It protects our right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. All of those are fundamental liberties protected by the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “What is not allowed, however, is violence. What is not allowed is rioting.”

Cruz continued, “those rights end when you physically assault another citizen. They end when you firebomb a police car. They end when you loot and rob and destroy a small business. They end when you murder a police officer.”

“In the last six months, in Portland alone, there have been 277 officer injuries,” Cruz said. Typically, early evenings would be met peaceful protests, “where people stand and speak and wave signs. But then late at night, the rioters replace the protesters and the rioters arrive with weapons.”

Cruz emphasized that “these riots are not spontaneous. These riots are not simply one actor deciding to engage in an act of violence. Rather, the rioters are showing up with extensive preparation, bringing weapons with them with extensive planning. There’re numerous organizations that are involved in this — the most notable of which is antifa, which is explicitly a violent terrorist organization.”

During the hearing Tuesday, Cruz gave Democratic Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono the opportunity to criticize antifa.

“In the course of the hearing, a total of seven Democratic senators participated in the hearing,” Cruz said. “Not a single one of those Democratic senators criticized antifa in any way. They were unwilling to say even a negative word about antifa. I think they look at antifa and they believe those are their base, that those are their supporters and they don’t want to upset them.”

Cruz also discussed his recently-introduced legislation, “The Reclaim Act,” what should be done to protect law enforcement officers and more.

COLUMN BY

SAMANTHA RENCK

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Intelligence Community Believes These Countries Are Helping Biden Win the Presidency

Here’s What You Missed From The Congressional Antifa Hearing

City Of Dallas Drops Young Americans For Liberty Convention

Rep. Jodey Arrington Rips Jerry Nadler, Democratic Party Leadership On Portland Response

Ted Wheeler Warns Protesters They Might Re-Elect Trump If They Keep Trying To Murder Cops

EDITORS NOTE: This The Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Congress Unanimously passing Sanctions won’t stop North Korea from building Nuclear ICBMs

What a week it has been. No, we are not talking about the New Hampshire primary results or Saturday’s South Carolina debate, but rogue North Korea stealing the oxygen out of the international media’s lungs. It started with the second successful satellite launch since 2012 on Sunday, February 7, 2016 nearly over shadowing the Broncos victory in the 50th Super Bowl.  As we wrote in an NER Iconoclast post on February 8, 2016, this game changer demonstrating the rogue regime’s ICBM technology and America’s inadequate ballistic missile defense, especially on our vulnerable heartland coast on the Gulf of Mexico:

Launched in a southerly direction, the 200 kg observational satellite is in polar orbit. That means it passes over the US every 95 minutes, perhaps providing imagery and GPS coordinates for possible later use. Yesterday, it missed the window of opportunity, by an hour, to pass over the stadium for 50th Super Bowl Championship game with tens of thousands of fans intent on watching the Denver Broncos beat the North Carolina Panthers for the title

“it’s great that the US has THAAD and ship borne X band radar floating in the Pacific and both ship and shore based Aegis installations in Eastern Europe (Romania) protecting us from missiles fired towards the East Coast. However, we have nothing in place to provide missile defense our vulnerable Gulf of Mexico coast.”  Ambassador Hank Cooper, the Reagan era SDI chief, warned about the absence of Aegis missile defense installations on our Gulf coast in November 2015 and most recently in a Feb.2, 2016 High Frontier alert.

He argues that that our ballistic missile defense shield  on the Gulf coast lacks the means to combat the threat of a possible North Korean bomb in a satellite (Fractal Orbital Bomb) or missiles launched from either ships in the Gulf or those silos that allegedly Iran has been building in the Paraguana Peninsula in Venezuela. Ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey and Dr. Peter Pry discussed in a July 2015 article the threat from FOBS that could trigger an Electronic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) effect over the US sending us back to the dark ages of the 19th Century before the advent of electricity.

north korean missile distance chartOn Friday, February 12, 2015 CNN reported the rotund Kim Jong Un played another round of the Pyongyang version of the Games of Thrones with the dramatic execution of another high military officer, General Ri Yong-gil for, “factionalism, misuse of authority and corruption.”  The young Kim family successor may yet set the record for summary execution of North Korean military officials surpassing that of his father and grandfather.   The same day in Washington, the US Senate and House overwhelmingly passed a new round of North Korean sanctions. Reuters reported:

Lawmakers said they wanted to make Washington’s resolve clear to Pyongyang, but also to the United Nations and other governments, especially China, North Korea’s lone major ally and main business partner.

The package includes sanctions targeting North Korea and “secondary sanctions” against those who do business with it.

The vote was 408-2 in the House, following a 96-0 vote in the Senate on Wednesday.

Impatient with what they see as Obama’s failure to respond to North Korean provocations, many of his fellow Democrats as well as the Republicans who control Congress have been clamoring for a clampdown since Pyongyang tested a nuclear device in January.

Pressure for congressional action further intensified after last weekend’s satellite launch by North Korea.

Obama is not expected to veto the bill, given its huge support in Congress.

Earlier Fox News reported Gordon Chang expressing skepticism that more sanctions would not achieve the end of punishing North Korea for violating UN and US sanctions against missile development. We wrote:

Chang holds that sanctions don’t work with North Korea. Instead He suggested that we might control the aid to North Korea endeavoring to separate the people from the autocratic ruling Kim family. He also suggested that South Korea move 143 companies out of the Kaesong industrial shared with North Korea.  He noted that after the January 6, 2016 nuclear test, no further sanctions were proposed at the UN because China would effectively block them. China he pointed out does a fair amount of banking with North Korea.

North Korea must have paid attention to Chang’s comments, as they seized jointly owned companies in the Kaesong industrial park.  Deutsche Welle reported South Korea cutting off the power to the Kaesong complex on Friday, February 12, 2015.  Effectively it was shutting the cross border industrial park down in retaliation for the North’s nuclear and missile tests in January and February 2016.  South Korean News agency, Yonhap, reported on Sunday, February 14, 2014 the South Korean Unification Minister accusing the Hermit State of using funds to develop weapons systems:

In a television appearance, Unification Minister Hong Yong-pyo said “70 percent” of the money that flowed into the Kaesong Industrial Complex has been used by the ruling Workers’ Party to bankroll weapons development.

“Workers at Kaesong are paid in cash (U.S. dollars), but the money doesn’t go directly to these workers. It goes to the North Korean government instead,” Hong said.

“Any foreign currency earned in North Korea is transferred to the Workers’ Party, where the money is used to develop nuclear weapons or missiles, or to purchase luxury goods.”

Last week, South Korea shut down the industrial park in response to the North’s recent nuclear test and long-range rocket launch. Opened in 2004, the complex had long been a big cash cow for North Korea.

North Korea, in turn, expelled all South Korean nationals on Thursday from the complex and froze factory assets by South Korean firms, further driving the last remaining symbol of inter-Korean reconciliation to the brink.

For the last two weeks, the National Security Task Force of America (NSTFA) of the Lisa Benson Show has been running twitter rallies directed at the media and Republican Presidential hopefuls on one issue: our vulnerable Ballistic Missile Defense. The NSTFA sent out tweets and retweets at the rate of 400 to 600 an hour.   The first NSTFA twitter rally, occurred before the New Hampshire primary debates, caught the attention of a South Carolina supporter of Texas Senator Ted Cruz who relayed the information to his campaign staff.  Those NSTFA tweets focused on the most vulnerable area of the US exposed to a possible North Korean ICBM launch, the lack of any missile defense on our Gulf of Mexico.  The result was that Cruz raised the issue during the debates.  The second NSTFA twitter rally occurred Thursday, February 11th producing more than 6,000 twitter impressions.  One of those Republican hopefuls targeted by the NSTFA twitter rally was Florida Republican Senator Rubio. Rubio’s platform statement on rebuilding and modernizing our military noted his missile defense proposals:

  • Expand missile defense by speeding up deployment of interceptors in Europe, deploying a third site in the United States, and ensuring that advanced programs are adequately funded.
  • Work interoperably with allies on missile defense – we should encourage the spread of missile defense technology as a solution to the spread of ballistic and cruise missiles.
  • Increase the Missile Defense Agency’s Research & Development budget and create a rapid-fielding office to focus on fielding directed energy weapons, railguns, UAV-enabled defenses, and other means to defeat a threat missile across its entire flight trajectory.

The  Wall Street Journal  (WSJ) lead editorial in the  Presidents Weekend edition on February 13-14, 2016, “The Rogue-State Nuclear Missile Threat,“ resonated some of the Rubio and others concerns about the US vulnerability to North Korean  and possible Iranian missile strikes.   The WSJ editorial noted, “North Korea can now threatens most of the continental US:”

Americans have been focused on New Hampshire, Iowa [and South Carolina}, but spare a thought for Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago. Those are among the cities within range of the intercontinental ballistic missile tested Sunday by North Korea. Toledo and Pittsburgh are still slightly out of range, but at least 120 million Americans with the wrong zip codes could soon be targets of Kim Jong Un.

The WSJ editorial went on to contrast the Bush versus the Obama Administration actions on missile defense:

You can thank the George W. Bush Administration for the defenses that exist, including long-range missile interceptors in Alaska and California, Aegis systems aboard U.S. Navy warships and a diverse network of radar and satellite sensors. The U.S. was due to place interceptors in Poland and X-Band radar in the Czech Republic, but in 2009 President Obama and Hillary Clinton scrapped those plans as a “reset” gift to Vladimir Putin.

Team Obama also cut 14 of the 44 interceptors planned for Alaska and Hawaii, ceased development of the Multiple Kill Vehicle (an interceptor with multiple warheads) and defunded the two systems focused on destroying missiles in their early “boost” phase, when they are slowest and easier to hit. By 2013 even Mr. Obama partially realized his error, so the Administration expanded radar and short-range interceptors in Asia and recommitted to the 14 interceptors for the U.S. West Coast. It now appears poised to install sophisticated THAAD antimissile batteries in South Korea.

Yet the Administration has failed to support a third East Coast site (to protect against Iranian and Russian threats) and provide adequate funding. Budgets are down about 25% from the Bush Administration’s roughly $10 billion a year. Mr. Obama’s final budget proposal released Tuesday would cut another $800 million from the Missile Defense Agency, nearly 10% from last year’s total.

The WSJ editorial concluded:

The overarching lesson of North Korea is the folly of arms control, starting with the 1994 Agreed Framework that first tried to buy off Pyongyang with energy and food aid. The U.S. would be safer today if it had moved to topple the Kim regime before it got the bomb. But having failed to act when the costs were lower, it is now necessary to buttress defenses in East Asia and the U.S. in what is fast becoming a new age of nuclear and missile proliferation.

From last Sunday’s Super Bowl game in Denver to Valentine’s Day, the evidence is piling up that Chang presciently opined; unanimous sanctions passed by Congress this past week will not deter North Korea from building nuclear ICBMs.  Rather, it is the ironical proposal for a preemptive strike against North Korean missile launches by present Obama Pentagon chief Ashton Carter and former Clinton Era Secretary of Defense William Perry in a 2006 Time Magazine article.

The conclusion in our February 8, 2016 NER/Iconoclast post appears equally prescient:

The North Korean satellite launch coupled with the January 6, 2016 nuclear test exposes the vulnerability of the US to possible missile attack by rogue regimes like North Korea and ally Iran. The lack of a Ballistic Missile Defense demonstrated by this latest successful North Korean satellite launch now vaults the issue to the top of national security issues along with Islamic terrorism for serious discussion in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Korea Set to Deploy KN08 Ballistic Missile

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.