Raddatz asked Cruz how saturation bombing, or "carpet bombing," could work against an unconventional terrorist army that hides among the civilian population.
Cruz didn't answer the question directly at first and pivoted to attack President Barack Obama.
"It starts with a commander in chief that sets the objective," Cruz said. "And the objective has to be utterly and completely destroying ISIS. Obama hasn’t started with that objective, and everything else flows from there."
ABC moderator Martha Raddatz confronts Ted Cruz over his 'carpet-bombing' plan for ISIS
Do you people honestly believe this scumbag would win a general election?
You're right, he deflected the question, which expert politicians do. I don't like Cruz, but really, that question is only appropriate for someone with experience on battle strategy. At least that's what I would think.
The question is a simple one I think-------> If we ALL believe that all of these candidates are incompetent on both sides of the aisle, then who/whom would be the safest bet and why?
ANSWER-----> If we discard momentarily the supreme court appointees that the next President will surely get to nominate whomever it is; which I contend that whichever party does not hold the White House will be screaming about because it is not their person..........then the obvious answer is Ted Cruz.
Why?
Because it makes absolutely no difference what the man believes, he is a constitutionalist. He; unlike others, will not use EOs to govern, he will have to pass bills. His words last night prove the point.............he will recind all of Obama's EOs, but he would have to legislate a repeal of Obamacare through congress.
Here is the other tidbit-------> he can remove Obama's EO on deportation, but he would not use an EO if the congress passed an immigration bill, then over road his veto. The will of the people in this country is in the "peoples house." We can change them like socks almost, every 2 years, which is why the "peoples house" most often reflects the current will of the citizens.
I don't want another Obama elected, from either side of the aisle. We need congress FORCED to make decisions, not have someone make decisions for them so they can accept credit, or pass blame.
In my opinion, the only 2 people running on either side of the aisle who would enforce the constitutional limits on all branches of government are, Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. The rest of these people would walk through the open door of Pandoras box that Obama pried up, and we will be right back where we started.
All Americans, on both sides of the aisle, need to realize that these firewalls were put in place by our founders to protect ALL of us. Tearing them down by either side of the aisle for expediency of agenda, removes protection for yourself somewhere down the road. For anyone to whine about a law that they believe is unfair is stupid! We have a way to change laws we don't like, and it is called elections. Elect enough people who agree with your position, and you will change the law. Isn't that really how the Democrats got Obamacare? Oh sure, a little sleight of hand was used, but as far as I know, it was all legal.
So, the point is that Cruz would be the safe bet if you can't stand them all, because he won't EO like Obama to impose his will, no matter what he thinks! His desires would be tempered by congress, and a President who can't impose his will without convincing us to put people in congress who will vote for his agenda is my, kinda, guy.
