Actually I think the WSJ may have stumbled on to something important. Their analysis is wrong but they make a point nevertheless.
This is not a picture of Ted Cruz although you could easily have thought so. Of course it is actually Nathan Hale.
Posted on 12/21/2015 7:07:06 AM PST by Isara
The paper's conservative editorial board says he's disingenuous and demagogic. The senator says the paper is shilling for Marco Rubio.
When tea party upstart Ted Cruz began his ascent in 2012, The Wall Street Journal's editorial board saw enough promise to hint at a new era of GOP reform politics.
But it didn't take long for the influential opinion page to sour on the Texas senator. Within months after Cruz was sworn in to office, the Journal was castigating him for his tone and tactics - along with his naked pursuit of the presidency just months after joining the Senate - as disingenuous and counterproductive.
"Mr. Cruz will have more success in the Senate, and in his mooted Presidential candidacy, if he stops pretending that he's Nathan Hale and everyone else is Benedict Arnold," the paper wrote.
Now, after a steady stream of harsh editorials panning the first-term senator, the Journal finds itself at war with Cruz, who accused the ed board of shilling for presidential rival Sen. Marco Rubio during a recent interview on "Morning Joe."
"For the next three months, the Journal should change their header to the 'Marco Rubio for President Newspaper,' because their attacks - and it's going to keep coming because Marco fights for the principles they care about," Cruz said. "There is no one, no conservatives in America who think The Wall Street Journal is the voice of conservatism."
For many conservatives, it would seem unwise to pick a fight with one of the most important editorial pages on the Right. The ed board, which espouses the pro-business, muscular foreign policy approach of traditional Republicanism, continues to have an outsized voice in highbrow conservative circles, and the paper itself delivers news intravenously to Wall Street executives and the megadonors who fuel presidential campaigns.
"In an era where print newspapers have long been on the decline, the one exception is the editorial page and the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, for Republican primary voters especially. They're the gold standard," said Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush.
Calling the paper a front for Rubio, Fleischer added, is "a wrong read of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. ... They're a consistent voice for conservativism, especially on economics and supply side Reaganomics."
For Cruz, however, the criticism dovetails with his indictments of the Washington establishment and old-school Republican politics. It could also play well with the tea party and evangelical voters Cruz wants to connect with in Iowa and elsewhere.
"If the Journal's opposition does anything with those voters, it validates Cruz as an outsider not favored by the political and media elites," said Matt Strawn, a former chairman of the Iowa GOP. "Does the WSJ editorial board have clout with many in the Republican party? Of course. Does it have clout with the segment of Republican voters that Ted Cruz needs for success in the Iowa Caucuses? Not really."
Editorial page editor Paul Gigot, who notes the Journal hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since Herbert Hoover, said the paper's differences with Cruz are rooted in nothing more than substantive policy differences. The paper has called for comprehensive immigration reform, backed President Barack Obama's trade agenda in Asia and supported the NSA's controversial metadata program to screen domestic phone calls for potential terrorism connections - and it has criticized Cruz for being on the opposite side of those issues. All three happen to be issues where Rubio - along with many establishment Republicans - is aligned with the paper.
"Some people take it better than others," Gigot said, referring to the ed board's criticism of Cruz. "It's not a personal thing. It's a business thing. It's a professional thing. We call them as we see them. That's been the case since the beginning."
At times, the Journal has gone further than highlighting simple disagreements. The paper has disparaged Cruz as an opportunist and blasted his brinkmanship in the Senate, which contributed to a government shutdown in late 2013, and referred to his leadership of Congress' "kamikaze caucus." When Cruz launched his presidential candidacy in March, the opinion pages included two items - an unsigned editorial and, a few days later, a column by Peggy Noonan - that drew unflattering comparisons between Cruz and Obama.
"Neither man will like this comparison, and their world views are as divergent as any two men in politics. Yet Messrs. Obama and Cruz are strikingly similar in their pedigrees and political style," the editorial said.
Journal owner Rupert Murdoch has also been unfriendly to Cruz on Twitter. On Nov. 11, he called Cruz's comments on banking during a CNBC debate "nonsense" and suggested Cruz's more recent proposal to "carpet bomb" ISIL would make matters worse. Just before the government shutdown in 2013, Murdoch tweeted, "Cruz' grandstanding will cost him long-term."
Over the years, Cruz has sought to fix his relationship with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Gigot said he's had two "long personal meetings" with the Texas senator, well before Cruz announced for president. In late 2013, he attempted to woo the page's editors with an in-person meeting. He told National Review in 2014 that he was a "big fan."
"The Journal's editorial page has long been the most important space in journalism, a thriving intellectual platform that provides space for ideas to compete," Cruz said.
That was then.
The WSJ editorial page's continued antagonism has left Cruz and his orbit frustrated, and last week the senator seethed over an editorial that panned his positions on the civil war in Syria, leading to his more aggressive stance against it.
In leaked audio from a private fundraiser, posted recently by The New York Times, Cruz lumped the Journal's recent criticism with knocks from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and a Times columnist. "My reaction to all of that," Cruz told the friendly crowd, "was 'thank you for your endorsement.'"
The Cruz campaign declined to weigh in on the senator's dispute with the paper, saying only that his recent comments speak for themselves.
Kellyanne Conway, a GOP pollster who runs a pro-Cruz super PAC, said the paper's editorial page "remains one of the most respected and instructive daily reads in the center-right movement." But she called its "all-out assault" on Cruz "perplexing."
"The occasional disagreement on substance, or a distaste for style, does not merit the persistent and sometimes personal attack on Cruz," she said. "We receive complaints from voters a fair amount. They see the WSJ playing favorites; I remind them it is an opinion page and they are entitled to theirs; they remind me that it is the center-right WSJ and not BuzzFeed, and so it goes.
"After Speaker [Paul] Ryan, Rubio seems the page's favorite son," Conway continued. "Protecting and promoting Rubio means knocking and knifing Cruz."
Gigot refuted the suggestion that the Journal has been soft on Rubio, noting that the paper has at times been critical of the Florida freshman, from his position on sugar subsidies to his tax plan.
"I suspect Ted knows that is silly," Gigot said. "As for who is the voice of conservatism, I'm not sure Ted Cruz gets to define what's conservative, but our views haven't changed very much in 125 years."
Rubio's campaign declined to comment for this story.
Gigot pointed out that Cruz himself has published op-eds in the Journal, one in October unveiling his tax plan and another in April, co-authored with Ryan, on Congress' role in the national trade debate. A third ran in early 2014, ripping Obama as an "imperial" president.
"He's welcome any time up here," Gigot said. "Send him a message, you can tell him through your piece that he's welcome any time ... I just want to repeat. Ted Cruz, it's an open invitation."
"If the Journal's opposition does anything with those voters, it validates Cruz as an outsider not favored by the political and media elites," said Matt Strawn, a former chairman of the Iowa GOP. "Does the WSJ editorial board have clout with many in the Republican party? Of course. Does it have clout with the segment of Republican voters that Ted Cruz needs for success in the Iowa Caucuses? Not really."
The paper has called for comprehensive immigration reform, backed President Barack Obama's trade agenda in Asia and supported the NSA's controversial metadata program to screen domestic phone calls for potential terrorism connections - and it has criticized Cruz for being on the opposite side of those issues. All three happen to be issues where Rubio - along with many establishment Republicans - is aligned with the paper.
The Ben Arnold Street Fish Wrap.
Cruz voted against, Rubio voted for. All the rest of this is useless obfuscation by people trying to immunize Rubio’s vulnerability on this issue
I gave up my subscription to the Wall Street Journal when they chose Gang of 8 amnesty over national sovereignty. Crony capitalists trying to sell the rope to hang us.
Hilarious.
All parties quoted are pretending the WSJ editorial page isn’t concerned with one thing and one thing only - amnestying illegal immigrants, which Cruz has always said he’s not down with.
Read Investors Business Daily. Its editorials espouse real conservative values and its data is much better.
Dear politico: mistake in line one. “The wsj’s conservative editorial board....” You don’t really believe that, do you???
WSJ is conservative?
Who knew?
Politico reporting on a WSJ editorial about Cruz.
FR needs a fiction/humor forum.
The WSJ is way too liberal for me now. I had to cut them off too.
Cruz is right. They are shilling for Rubio, who they know is lying about immigration and we should just call him Flipper.
My new name for Rubio is Flipper.
The Journal never met an amnesty plan it didn’t like. That is why I gave up my subscription a year or two ago.
The WSJ is an open borders rag Uber Alles....that has become their main purpose.
The WSJ was once an intelligent and insightful alternative to the MSM. While not always conservative, their articles were thoughtful and well reasoned,
That is no longer the case. Today the journal is politically correct and out of touch with the American people. It merely delivers a weaker, more watered down version of the Democrat Party agenda.
Cruz has benefited by being attacked by the NYT and WSJ.
Actually I think the WSJ may have stumbled on to something important. Their analysis is wrong but they make a point nevertheless.
This is not a picture of Ted Cruz although you could easily have thought so. Of course it is actually Nathan Hale.
The old WSJ was hard core, anti-USSR, anti-liberalism, pro-Reagan, and even anti-social-liberalism: anti-atheism, anti-corruption, anti-foul-language-in-public.
Now it's hard to tell the WSJ from USA Today, New York Times, or other pinko fishwraps.
WSJ is now very GOPe, globalist, pro-H-1B, and loves corporate boardrooms, loves saving large financial entities that are "too big to fail", loves "Acts of Love" in importing cheap labor, also it loves the totalitarian atmosphere that has developed in the average American company which makes its employees suffer under a lukewarm totalitarianism a la Office Space.
All this got worse, as expected, with News Corp buying it. It is one of the great things about America that, alas, has faded away. It's now just a part of the MSM monolith. RIP WSJ.
I prefer to call it the Wall Street Crony Capitalist Journal. Their weekend show on Fox has become painful to watch. Does anyone from the NY/DC corridor ever venture out into the frontier that starts 100 miles west of it?
They're trying to convince us that they are the innocent Eloi, but IMO they're part of the Morlock population.
... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally -- another proposal he has usually rebuffed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.