Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Ted Cruz more radical than Donald Trump?
KABC-TV ^ | April 11, 2016 | Timothy Stanley

Posted on 04/11/2016 5:58:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

In “Through the Looking Glass,” the Queen tells Alice: “sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” She might have choked on her grits, however, at the thought of Ted Cruz becoming the Republican nominee. Until a few weeks ago he was low in the polls and loathed by the GOP establishment. Sen. Lindsey Graham joked about murdering him. But now, the impossible has happened: Cruz’s unlikely emergence as the favorite to beat Donald Trump. His transformative win in Wisconsin. And even his unthinkable endorsement by Graham.

Can Ted believe this is happening? And does he — or his party — really understand what it all means? The impossibility of this story begins with the very character of Ted Cruz. He has Cuban heritage but somehow wound up an evangelical. He is unquestionably a cultural conservative, yet that rhetorical flourish was honed at Ivy League schools. He later became defined as a tea party outsider, but he began his political career by working for George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign — an effort that backfired because, as he admitted later, he made far more enemies than friends. The question of likeability dogs him to this day.

A lot of critics have written unpleasant articles about his face. In fact, it’s hard to think of a candidate who has attracted such mean and spiteful commentary. For proof that he’s both normal and soft-centered, one only has to view footage of him killing time during a debate break by playing with his daughter. All the same, the man is no Marco Rubio. While Rubio looked like he ought to win and lost in spite of it, Cruz is winning in spite of even George W. Bush — a famously laid back man — reportedly saying “I just don’t like that guy.”

But, then again, Cruz likely never imagined that he was going to be the front-runner. He thought he’d be running the classic conservative outsider candidacy: win Iowa, win the South, monopolize the religious vote. He narrowly pulled off the first part, the rest went wrong. Trump performed better among Southerners and evangelicals, which led many commentators to assume that Cruz was on the way out.

But in this year of surreal turns, Cruz’s assumption that he’d be the second-ranked candidate actually helped him survive the Trump tsunami. While the other candidates were focusing on big primaries, his staff was quietly preparing victories in caucuses and working hard behind the scenes to turn popular vote losses into more delegates than expected — as happened in Louisiana.

This approach paid off big time in Colorado, where Cruz campaigners achieved a clean sweep of all 34 delegates selected at byzantine conventions.

Remember, this strategy was originally intended just to keep Cruz in contention against a mainstream candidate like Jeb Bush. But deployed against Donald Trump, in a year where the race is astonishingly close, it’s actually turned him into the only credible choice for the establishment.

For instance, I’m told that Cruz’s people had every intention from the very beginning of exploiting Rule 40(b) to his advantage. This rule stipulates that only a candidate who has won delegate majorities in at least eight states can be nominated. It could be used to disqualify John Kasich — perhaps leaving Cruz as the only lawful alternative to The Donald at the convention, presuming he himself is judged to have met the criteria.

But there is yet another unexpected twist: In their rush to beat Trump, the party elite may find itself elevating a man who is even more radical than the person they’re trying to beat.

Trump is rhetorically extreme but on paper quite moderate. His shifting views on abortion are, I’m sure, the product of never having thought very hard about the subject — and the occasional foray into anti-Muslim prejudice or the war over Christmas are cover for an instinctual liberalism.

Trump is for universal health care, protecting U.S. industry and withdrawing from world affairs. Cruz, by contrast, would be one of the most conservative men ever to head the GOP ticket. He favors the gold standard, rejects orthodoxy on climate change, and likes the flat tax. His foreign policy could be summed up as “whatever is best for America.” He would carpet bomb ISIS, but only because it is an imminent threat. Libya, he would have avoided.

The difference between Trump and Cruz is that Trump is just a populist. Cruz is motivated by philosophy — a constitutionalism that has a libertarian streak. For example, Cruz does not personally approve of marijuana use but would allow the states to legislate on it. And his opposition to National Security Agency data gathering, the use of torture and ethanol subsidies all attest to his willingness to take on big government.

They reflect the rugged individualism of a very individualist candidate, and point to the fundamental paradox of the Cruz candidacy. What has made it resilient and a bold contrast to Trump is also what could make it frightening to many voters: its cool, calculating stubbornness.

I’m not of the view that Trump has lost the nomination. On the contrary, he remains the front-runner. But presuming that Cruz does win the nomination, there will have to be a reckoning. The party will probably discover that it can’t force a running-mate or policy choices on a man who only ever does things his way.

Cruz may discover that while the party is happy to dump Trump, it’s not so happy to be dictated to by another maverick. Both party and candidate will find themselves on the receiving end of attacks by a Democratic National Committee overjoyed to run against an ideologue.

Cruz’s nomination would be a legacy of Trump’s candidacy, and the way that it messed up the primary fight. It would change the GOP’s problems but not end them. That, I fear, really is an impossible task.


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; Parties; State and Local
KEYWORDS: 1stcanadiansenator; cruz; cruzbundlerposting; cruzisobama2; cuckservative; donatetofr; gangof14; gaslighting; globalistcruz; incestuousted; lyinted; merrickgarlandlvscrz; moosebitsister; noteligiblecruz; openboarderscruz; propagandadujour; selectednotelected; sidebarspam; stopthesteal; tdscoffeclutch; tdsforumtakeover; tdsinsanity; tdsnightshift; tedcruz; tediban; tedspacificpartners; trump; usualsuspect; willthemudstick
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
Editor’s note: Timothy Stanley, a conservative, is a historian and columnist for Britain’s Daily Telegraph. He is the author of “Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between L.A. and D.C. Revolutionized American Politics.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
1 posted on 04/11/2016 5:58:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ted Cruz is a FAKE with “0” ACCOMPLISHMENTS, not even a full term in the Senate.


2 posted on 04/11/2016 6:00:54 PM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

... But now, the impossible has happened: Cruz’s unlikely emergence as the favorite...

The GOPe is willing to do anything to fend off Trump.


3 posted on 04/11/2016 6:02:25 PM PDT by Sasparilla (Hillary for Prosecution 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Cruz is toast. He’s now going to lose Nebraska and Montana with the “anti-Hispandering” vote, as well as the east and west coast.

The arrogance of boasting of 34 delegates and 100% vote is astounding.

Rich guy Trump has been turned into the humble guy by the media and the used car salesman.

I think Stanley wrote a book about Buchanan as well.


4 posted on 04/11/2016 6:02:47 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal (Mofopolitics: Trump probably gets 1,237 even w/out OH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Radical? Rules for Radicals?

No, “Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One”

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents…

Cruz, Kasich, Sanders, Clinton and the remainder of current and former members of the gang of 535 should be in federal prison.

11. As soon as sufficient progress in the intended change shall have been made, and the public mind duly prepared according to the rules already laid down, it will be proper to venture on another and a bolder step toward a removal of the constitutional landmarks. Here the aid of the former encroachments and all the other precedents and way-paving maneuvers will be called in of course.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt...


5 posted on 04/11/2016 6:08:57 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/freneau/republic2monarchy.htm


6 posted on 04/11/2016 6:09:39 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He is by far more conservative. He is not a radical.

He is, however, less electable.


7 posted on 04/11/2016 6:17:15 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Ted Cruz was the man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Even though Trump promotes himself as anti-establishment, Cruz is less establishment than Trump is. I believe that Boehner called him “Lucifer”, and McConnell is a bitter enemy. Cruz as an ideologue is feared more than Trump by both the Democrats and the so-called Republican leadership.

If Cruz and Kasich deny Trump a win on the first ballot of a contested convention, the party leadership, after having used Cruz, may well turn on him by promoting Kasich.

I am getting tired of this whole mess. because I see Trump as already planning for, and preparing his voters for, a third party.


8 posted on 04/11/2016 6:18:42 PM PDT by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The GOP power establishment is simply playing Trump against Cruz against Kasic. The goal is to make sure nobody gets the requisite number to be nominated. These power brokers no more back Ted, than they do the Donald. Either of these men would make a fine President but it will never happen because the voters are so divided, that they are ripe for Ryan to snake in their as the base watches with disgust.


9 posted on 04/11/2016 6:23:30 PM PDT by Glad2bnuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

A limited monarchy however was out of the question. The spirit of the times — the state of our affairs, forbade the experiment, if it were desireable. Was it possible moreover in the nature of things to introduce it even if these obstacles were less insuperable. A House of Nobles was essential to such a Govt. Could these be created by a breath, or by a a stroke of the pen? No. They were the growth of ages, and could only arise under a complication of circumstances none of which existed in this Country. But though a form the most perfect perhaps in itself be unattainable. we must not despair. If antient republics have been found to flourish for a moment only & then vanish forever, it only proves that they were badly constituted; and that we ought to seek for every remedy for their diseases. One of these remedies he conceived to be the accidental lucky division of this country into distinct States; a division which some seemed desirous to abolish altogether.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057


10 posted on 04/11/2016 6:23:56 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

He has won multiple Supreme Court cases and single ha deadly shut down the USFG.

His accomplishments are many


11 posted on 04/11/2016 6:24:17 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Trump is anti-conservative / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Glad2bnuts

Yes, Cruz will be WORSE than Obama! he will be a divider.


12 posted on 04/11/2016 6:24:51 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll Onward! Ride to the sound of the guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Trump and his supporters have the zeal to jail every conservative that does not agree with Him once they get power.

This season has convinced me of that.


13 posted on 04/11/2016 6:28:26 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Trump is anti-conservative / Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

Federal UNIPARTY ALERT!

The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.

Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.

So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power…

And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all.

In a free republic…

Brutus #1 - Anti-federalist


14 posted on 04/11/2016 6:28:37 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Cruz likely never imagined that he was going to be the front-runner.

No one can imagine it, because it hasn't and won't happen.

Stealing a diamond doesn't make you its owner and losing an election but making backroom deals doesn't make you a front runner. It makes you sleazy.

15 posted on 04/11/2016 6:30:25 PM PDT by Defiant (The Shills are alive, with the sound of Cruz-ick....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

“jail every conservative”

Socialism Is Legal Plunder - Bastiat

http://www.usdebtclock.org

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G016


16 posted on 04/11/2016 6:34:41 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ted Cruz wouldn’t be in 2nd place if Trump hadn’t take out all the rest. Especially Bush.

That is the Truth of the matter.


17 posted on 04/11/2016 6:35:58 PM PDT by crusher2013 (Liberalism is Aristocracy masquerading as equality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


18 posted on 04/11/2016 6:38:33 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

CRUZ is a CANADIAN who denies being womanizer and a lying sack of shiite who’s in bed with Goldman Sachs!

You CRUZ people are falling for a lier and a fraud.


19 posted on 04/11/2016 6:39:51 PM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ask Robert Reich.


20 posted on 04/11/2016 6:41:09 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Diversity is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sharing the same jail cell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson