This post represents some of my personal feelings about the matter of the controversy over Ted Cruz’s address to the Republican Convention two nights ago, and his withholding of a specific endorsement of Donald Trump.
Ted Cruz never said he will not vote for Trump, unlike a member of a certain prominent political family, the hands-down pick to win the nomination last year at this time.
I was a Ted Cruz supporter and remain so. I will vote for Trump and encourage others to do so. That is a pledge that most people with their heads screwed on straight will understand is not something that is irrevocable no matter what the candidate says or does. We can argue about what is sufficient.
Ted Cruz has been beat up for what was left unspecified during his speech at the Republican National Convention. The adverse reaction is a reflection of how needy and insistent people can be for validation. It is the contention of the article linked here that Ronald Reagan, number two in 1976 to Gerald Ford, in spite of latter day whitewashes, would have done no more than Ted Cruz in similar circumstances, probably less.
Stilton Jarlsburg, editor and artisan at HopeNChange , happens to have captured the essence of much of my take on the Cruz controversy, expressing them “picturesquely.” The essay portion added useful words to his always worth a thousand words graphics. Always a treat I always look forward to opening his e-mail notifications of a new post. I highly recommend signing up. My comments expanding, emphasizing and adding some things follow the repost of his commentary.
GOP heads exploded Wednesday night when Senator Ted Cruz spoke at the Republican National Convention and spoke passionately of the need to defend freedom and the constitution…and got booed off the stage for his trouble.
The reason? He failed to endorse Donald Trump by name, and instead told the audience to consider who will be best for America and then vote their conscience. It’s pretty hard to see that as an endorsement of Hillary “Cackles” Clinton, but many Trump supporters seem to have taken it that way – oddly suggesting that they think that there’s some inherent schism between supporting the constitution and voting for the now-official GOP nominee.
Personally, Hope n’ Change thinks Cruz gave the closest thing to a pro-Trump endorsement humanly possible while still retaining a shred of integrity after the myriad personal attacks the billionaire made on his family and character during the primary campaign. Any “pledge” was rendered moot by Mr. Trump himself – after all, how could he have eventually “supported” any other candidate credibly after having destroyed their reputations through name-calling and vile assertions during the primary season?
Moreover, by eloquently making the case for conservative values (something we’d frankly like to see Mr. Trump do), Cruz was certainly making it clear that our nation can’t afford to have Hillary in the White House. And by telling hardcore conservatives that they must not stay home on election day, and must cast votes up and down the GOP ticket, he was reminding even those not in love with Trump that there is more at stake here than one candidate, and many more offices which must be held or won.
So we say “good for Ted Cruz” and “good for those who plan to vote for Trump” and “good for those who plan to vote against Hillary by voting for Trump.”
The circular firing squad on the Right has got to stop shooting their allies and keep the larger targets in sight. And while “Never Hillary” isn’t all that matters, it’s currently what matters most… and Ted Cruz said as much.
My comments, somewhat random but I hope fitting
One misunderstands Cruz support if the thought is that they are somehow controlled by him and unable to think on their own. They are the most intellectual of conservatives in my judgement, and independent. I also believe ninety-five-plus percent of Cruz supporters will end up voting for Trump because Hillary is that bad. Cruz told them that was a conscientious decision. Cruz agreed with Newt regarding that very thing, saying so explicitly in his town-hall with the Texas delegation the next morning. Quoting him:
“Listen I actually thought later last night that Newt had it exactly right, we want to win this race Newt stood up and said you know the standard Ted laid out — who will defend freedom — who will be faithful to the constitution — Newt said Donald Trump is the only candidate who meets that standard (pause) I’ll tell you this, if we want to win this election, that is the only way we are winning this election (pause) but were going to win this election by making the case to the American people were not going to win this election by yelling and screaming and attacking people.”
And Cruz went on to say that he would not be “yelling and screaming” about Trump.
But Cruz is under no obligation politically to kiss Trump’s ring. Not for the good of the country as Trump turned political discourse into a something as deep as professional wrestling. And as Stilton said, seriously, why would Trump want the support of a lying, son of an assassin, illegitimate competitor with an ugly wife when he is holding all manner of dark secrets about her held in abeyance ‘cuz that’s the kind of gentleman Trump is (says Trump with his PR director at The National Enquirer nodding)?
But yes Hillary is fundamentally bad, dedicated to evil things and pushing the country over the cliff. Trump can win because of the state of American politics and Hillary’s negatives (but not the only one that could had they won the nomination). We know what Hillary will do, and it is nothing good. I believe Trump will do many things that need to be done right, he absolutely could not be worse, and is noticeably improving “refining” some of his statements and positions from the primaries. Conservatives in good conscience, as Cruz advised, can vote for him using their best long-term political analysis.
My long-term analysis is that conservatives should vote for Trump for those reasons and AS THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. We can talk about improving the party and the stupid rules that produced this situation, we can plan on or migrate to an alternative party, but that groundwork has not been laid and the situation is dire. But the coronation mentality, and the beating up on Cruz is too much for me to take.
When we were reminded that Ronald Reagan did not endorse Ford at the 76 convention, and did not cooperate with the Ford campaign afterwords, a number of published commentators were all over that saying that — well he almost did, or sort of did, or did the next thing to it, and that Cruz was petty, — words to that effect.
First of all, what was demanded from Cruz by his critics in order to be credible and save his political future was that he must explicitly endorse Trump because otherwise he must not want to see Hillary defeated. Never mind that much of Cruz’s speech was about how bad Hillary and liberals are. Those critics absolutely wanted to see him kiss the ring.
Using their standards of “water under the bridge, bla bla bla ” Reagan who according to the history not only did not say “vote for Ford” at the convention but would not campaign for Ford even when asked, would have to be referred to as more petty, a loser, unprincipled, undependable, political toast. As Strief who writes at Red State, and who has evolved from accepting the whitewash that Ronald Reagan “essentially” endorsed Ford at the 76 convention, now takes a contextual view of Reagan’s speech and what he did afterwords for Ford – which was nothing, in spite of pleas — and supports that the Cruz /Reagan analogy is reasonable.
But none of us with a memory far back enough should need Strief to ask how can anyone imagine Reagan, given his devotion to Nancy, (not to mention Nancy’s demeanor) doing more than Cruz did had Ford personally said equivalent things about Nancy or his family or his truthfulness? Instead Reagan’s pique was over unscrupulous maneuverings he directly attributed to Ford’s campaign (independent PACs were not a factor) perhaps even things Paul Manafort was involved in, — who by the way is now Trump’s campaign manager, spinmeister, and in 76 was Ford’s convention controller.
Oh, but we hear pounded away that “‘lying Ted’ pledged to support the nominee.” Indeed Cruz did make such a pledge early, never mind how long Trump took and his subjective conditions. Again imagine Reagan in good faith making the same pledge, and as the campaign went on, Ford said such things as Trump said. Who with any dignity would feel duty bound to such a pledge? Who thinks Ronald Reagan would take it lying down?
So some will say Trump showed magnanimity in allowing Cruz a prime-time speaking slot (which he proceeded to disrupt). It was calculation not magnanimity. Magnanimity would have been, as best as Trump could muster, probably something like ~~ I apology for any offense Ted might have taken you know, about things said, you know, in the heat of the campaign and all, and I will forgive all those bad untruthful things Lying Ted said about me~~ . Now I believe that there were no unarguable misstatements that Ted said that he didn’t correct, but Ted probably would have accepted that as a Trumpesque apology. But Trump would not even hint at or seriously “do the next best thing.” as far as an apology to Cruz.
However Trump calculated that not having the number two delegate winner be offered an appropriate speaking spot was untenable, endorsement or not. They knew any speech conditions would be rejected. Indeed Cruz told them his speech would not contain an endorsement. Nevertheless with Cruz’s appearance they can claim magnanimity, however phony. That is real world convention politics. And surely Cruz knew that.
My view, and perhaps it is similar to Cruz’s, is that conventions are properly about party platforms, rejuvenation and occasionally reformation, not coronations. To the extent it is about the presidential nomination, that part is about the standard-bearer not the standard-bearer being the standard. I am closer to the idea that conventions should give the candidates their marching orders, and support them accordingly. But alas for the most part they have become predominately coronations in too many people’s minds, the pomp, the circumstance, the pledges of allegiance, more so with the power of the presidency.
As for the RNC platform, although I haven’t looked up a completed text of it yet, I hear it is good. In my idealistic view that should be enough, candidates should run under that banner, including Trump, be willing to defend it with an occasional demurral, tell how you will implement the principles, and people would vote “Republican” no names necessary. it would engender straight ticket voting, no need to endorse Trump. That is a fair reading of what Cruz advised in essence, vote for upholders of a good constitutional platform, and by implication, keep the candidates pressured to keep to the platform, to always earn (conservative) support, rather than as is so often the case, watch them “run right for the nomination and left for the general.”
So with no semblance of an apology from Trump and all this bad blood why did Cruz agree to show up at all? I do not know but I can proffer some reasons besides the foregoing 1) Trump asked him even though Trump was told there would be no endorsement. 2) Both knew that not appearing was more the message to those unsure of Trump, more schismatic, than not specifically endorsing 3) Cruz had some things to say about good conscience, which DID NOT eliminate Trump, and the importance of voting the constitution up and down ticket.
Could Cruz have massaged things somewhat differently and avoided the extent of the controversy, the definitive calls that he is political toast (and worse) for not jumping on the Trump train? I don’t know, heck people probably said Reagan was doomed. No one is 100% perfect in their communications – one such person being Donald Trump — or he would not have as high negatives as he continues to have.
Cruz asked the key question in defending his remarks, — how is it a bad thing to call for voting your conscience and the Constitution and how does that eliminate Trump?
R Mall
