The idea of Ted Cruz running for president is both amusing and intriguing.
It is amusing because so many of Sen. Cruz’s opinions are clearly based on not knowing the facts — or, if he does know the facts, he chooses to disregard them in favor of donations or political gain.
The idea of Ted Cruz running for president is both amusing and intriguing.
It is amusing because so many of Sen. Cruz’s opinions are clearly based on not knowing the facts — or, if he does know the facts, he chooses to disregard them in favor of donations or political gain.
So, his stance on climate change appears to be based on the idea that it is not real or that it is a conspiratorial science hoax. And for him to be right, it would have to be an absolutely gigantic hoax, because the scientific consensus is that climate change is real and made worse by human activity.
His viewpoint on Net Neutrality is equally ridiculous. He hates the whole idea, even though in recent interviews, he has shown a complete misunderstanding of what it means or how it works.
Net Neutrality is based on the idea of preserving online liberty and avoiding corporate dominance. In other words, let the Internet operate as a level playing field, and don’t let AT&T, Verizon and Comcast manipulate the market the same way that they monopolize cable television and telephone service. These corporations shouldn’t be allowed to intentionally block or slow down Web sites. The FCC’s recent ruling merely takes that principle and puts the force of law behind it.
In a battle with YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook and LOLcats on one side and faceless telecommunications giants on the other, there’s no question which is the more populist, people-friendly side — and it’s not the side that Cruz stands on. Cruz won’t win many friends on the Internet by bashing Net Neutrality, and modern political campaigns need the Internet.
But most of what Cruz says about religion, the Internet, the environment or the Middle East isn’t that much different from what you will hear from a Jeb Bush or Donald Trump. What makes Cruz intriguing is this — he was born in Canada.
Cruz’s eligibility crisis echoes Barack Obama’s “birther” problem. Liberals cringed when Tea Party conservatives attacked Obama’s legitimate birth certificate and questioned his heritage, his birthplace and his nationality. So, to a certain degree, there is a touch of tit-for-tat to the whole “Cruz was born in Canada” issue.
There is a certain joy in seeing a conservative face the same problem that they hounded Obama with. Conservative Republicans helped sow the seeds of anti-immigrant fervor, and now that is coming back to haunt one of their own.
Of course, there is a huge difference. Obama really was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii really actually is a real state of the Union (this hasn’t stopped morons from asking if they need a passport to fly from LAX to Kona). It doesn’t matter where Obama’s father was from or what religion he was, Obama is eligible for the office he holds.
Cruz’s situation is more complicated. Yes, he was born in Calgary. But, his mother was a U.S. citizen, which makes Cruz one, too. His situation is essentially the same as mine. I was born in Tokyo, and my mother was born in Alton, Ill. So, I was a citizen before I even stepped foot in the United States. Birthright citizenship is a wonderful thing that has helped many.
The closest thing to a real question in this debate is the whole “natural born” thing, which the Constitution says the president must be. And I’m willing to let him have it. After all, if Sen. Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president, then so am I.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Cruz, but his nationality isn’t one.
James Fujita is a former GVN news editor. He works as a copy editor for the Visalia Times-Delta in California’s Central Valley. Fujita can be contacted at jim61773@yahoo.com
