All politicians promise, few live by those promises. Plenty of experienced “:conservatives” have gone astray. So no, record means little when they start pandering.

Being “new” to the game of politics does not mean a thing. It does not prove they will keep their word or break their word. And that is what elections are for. If people actually started voting out liars, few would break their word. But being new to the game does not mean he is bad or will not stand on his convictions.

I am reminded of two losers in my neck of the woods that started out so strongly conservative yet wen the way of the RINO, Graham and Ingliss. Just because someone has been in office for so many years does not mean that tomorrow they will not become squishes. Your argument makes little sense and is in no way a reason to not vote in a guy who states he believes they way we believe. If he turns out to be a liar, you vote him out. It is that simple.

I said I like both, but there is a ton to complain about with Dewhurst. So let’s not act as if the voters are taking a big chance by voting in Cruz and in fact, they will win big if he turns out to be the conservative he claims to be. With Dewhurst, they will keep the same ole moderate person they had yesterday.

My read of your comments is:

A. Experience, of any kind, is arbitrary as far as determining whether someone will be a good or bad lawmaker

B. Beliefs are more important

C. Convictions in your beliefs are important

Um, yeah. This is the kind of stuff that wins a debate tournament.

What a person *does* with their convictions is what we should be looking at, especially those who have served in office and are seeking reelection. Voters have no idea how, or whether, Cruz will stand when his convictions are under a test. They do know he’ll give a great speech and argue against the opposition.

Yeah, that’s form over substance. And that’s what voters like me hate about Congress. These guys are great on the stump, but when they get to DC, they cave to lobbyists, drifting away from constituents and the rhetoric on the campaign trail.

But by golly you made a point, some point that is.

It was a privilege to vote for Ted last week. This runoff will be totally about turnout. Interesting – I heard Ted speak at our local University back in January and this is exactly what he and his team predicted. They actually WANTED a runoff (even back then) because they saw a huge advantage for a tea-party conservative to go up against a GOP establishment candidate in a run-off. It’s all about turnout and they think a couple of months of concentrated effort will get more passionate turnout for Ted. I certainly hope DewCrist doesn’t manage to buy this election – he sure put out lots of flat out lies and several mis-truths at the last minute so that rebuttal wasn’t possible. Now that the lies are out in the open, I hope Ted’s campaign picks up the ball and runs!

Owning a business does not make one ready for office nor does it make one a good congressman. Plenty of business owners in the congress who suck bad

Second, one does not have to be a boss to have convictions or be conservative. Being a boss does not guarantee conservatism. In fact past record of conservatism does not guarantee future conservatism.

And being an attorney does not make one bad or good for being on congress. Being a smooth talker is one of the things that separates good attorneys from great attorneys. It is just how that business works. But there are plenty of attorneys out there who can talk like gods yet are as conservative as anyone. And i have no clue how to write amicus briefs, do not know what an amicus brief is, so you are wrong, not everyone can write them.

And last but not least. Being brand new to politics is no less proof a person will govern how they promise than being in politics for some time proves a person will continue to govern the correct way. Every politician has to start new and the only thing that matters is how they governed today, yesterday, and tomorrow. People who have been consistent conservatives change stripes all the time, the only thing we can do is see what happens then vote accordingly.

Now comes Cruz, who has been a government employee for more years than he’s been in the private sector. He’s never run a business. He’s never been in an accountable position to stakeholders, investors or constituents. He’s never held elected office, though he’s run two campaigns to get elected in Texas.

He’s a smooth talking lawyer and a great speaker. He *believes* what he’s saying, but what is his record on those beliefs? As a staffer, he carried out orders. Telling that his Attorney General boss won’t endorse him – probably because Cruz is out taking credit for his boss’s work. As a private sector attorney, his record is not well known. And don’t tell me that he’s written amicus briefs, because anyone can do that.

Talk all you want about Dewhurst, but Cruz is form over substance. He’s a paper tiger and I’m getting tired of conservatives voting for these kind of guys and wondering why they change their stripes when they get to Washington!

At least Dewhurst has a record – in elected office and in business.

We have no idea how Cruz will act in the Senate. He’s more likely to use the latest popular talking points than to stand on principles. That’s basically how he is campaigning in Texas. Form over substance gets America no where.

Or are you suggesting that those who give to campaigns should be responsible for paying the debts of those burdened by household debt?

Regardless, the billions spent on elections would have no impact on the trillions in debt, government or household.