DLH responds to Cruz was at least Reaganesque at the RNC
(Conservative Tree House graphic)
Perhaps my friend Roger’s lengthy and strenuous justification of Ted Cruz’s behavior at the GOP convention is persuasive to many. For me, it falls somewhat short. My own view is that Senator Cruz decided to take the “long view”, as a good number of those in the GOP establishment have chosen to do. The “Brett Stephens Strategy” as it were…do whatever possible to insure that Trump loses so badly that in 2020, the GOP will be welcomed back to dominance with great celebration (See V’pac articles here, here, and here).
However it is couched, and however many comparisons to Reagan, to me the bottom line is that this was a cynical, “classless” calculation by the senator, more out of pique than principle, to position himself for the 2020 election that could only play out successfully if Hillary Clinton becomes the next president.
I believe that Mr. Cruz’s blindness to his own personal and political defects may have led him to a tragic demise of his political ambitions. His prospects for a successful presidential run in 2020 or beyond relied on his building on the strong solid support of the people who got him as far as he got in 2016 in order to overcome the well-financed and implacable opposition of the establishment.
Ted’s performance at the convention was hardly constructive, in my view. It was a display of petulance and selfishness that one seldom sees from anyone other than the current occupant of the White House. There are other ways, with greater dignity and integrity by which Cruz could have expressed his “non-endorsement”. What he chose to do was, I believe, intended to inflict maximum damage on the Republican nominee and in so doing assure the first objective of his strategy…the election of Hillary Clinton.
To latch on to Newt’s wise and sensible effort to rehabilitate Cruz and soften the damage, I don’t find to be redemptive.
To pledge to vote for Trump while justifying Cruz’s action does nothing to sway the “independents” and wavering Democrats who might have have chosen to go with a party united in purpose and willing to fight hard for our nation’s ideals and values… not one pouting over personal affronts and divided by petty and selfish agendas. (It was Ted himself who revealed it was not high principle that drove his actions but rather deep resentment of personal insults. I’d resent them, too, which is why I’m not in the political “arena”.)
But where was all the outcry and conservative support while Sarah Palin was being savaged from every corner of the political/media universe? “Personal affronts”? From the “jokes” by the the repulsive satyr, David Letterman, about Palin’s daughter being “knocked up” by a baseball player in the dugout to attacks involving her Downs Syndrome infant’s maternity, to the blatant undermining of her candidacy by members of McCain’s campaign. I don’t recall her pouting. I also don’t recall a whole lot of courageous defenders counterattacking in righteous rage on her behalf.
That’s not the Republican way. We “seek compromise” and we look for “better quality candidates”…like the Barack Obamas and the Hillary Clintons?
And the “Reagan did it” defense is uncomfortably close to the usual well-worn extreme and false justification by the left for Obama’s many unrestrained corrupt actions, as in “other presidents did it”…or in other instances of their party’s favorites: “other Secretaries of State did it”.
As to all those shortcomings of Mr. Trump, including those that obviously triggered Cruz’s ill-chosen retaliation, they have all been recounted ad nauseum by left and right, by media and academia, and especially by the Washington elite. These pages (Veritaspac) have plowed that ground thoroughly as well…both in cartoon (as in the post) as well as in verse.
For any who believe they’ve not been aired enough will undoubtedly enjoy the DNC’s efforts over the next 3 months.
An admittedly unscientific survey tells me that Ted could be well on his way to becoming the next Harold Stassen. It is only a “sampling of two”, but I suggest it may be predictive of a larger universe. Two strong supporters of Ted Cruz’s run for the nomination…Roger and me…are clearly split on how we see the consequences of Mr. Cruz’s post-nominating process behavior. My big regret is that the place where Mr. Cruz’s talents and temperament would most effectively serve America…the Supreme Court… is now not to be.
I fear that the embittered senator’s few remaining options may include his joining, full time, Glenn Beck’s “media ministry”, battling fiercely for the “good and just” while his efforts assure the triumph of the bad and brutish.
Roger indicates he intends to vote for Trump but continue to support Ted. I too, intend to vote for Trump but a realistic second Cruz presidential run, I believe, is not in the cards.. He is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
I hope that doesn’t hurt Ted’s feelings.
================================
(Note: As I wrote it occurred to me that my comments seem to beg the question: On one hand I suggest that Cruz’s actions Wednesday night were part of a long term strategy. On the other hand I seem to suggest they were driven by petulance, reacting immaturely to personal insults from the nominee. Which is it?
I would contend it is both. Perhaps sincerely believing that Trump will lose regardless of efforts, Ted seeks to claim an early position as a champion of a GOP revival in 2020. The response he chose was an entirely visceral one which produced a serious miscalculation.)
Don Holmes
Related reading: Defeating Clinton all that matters by Mark Davis. The commentary also appeared in the Argus-Dispatch but a link to it is not available.
