Posted on 04/12/2016 4:57:34 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Niall Ferguson is trying to wrap his mind around the idea of a Ted Cruz presidency. It is not easy, but Ferguson, arguably our most prominent economic historian, professor at Harvard and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is up for the job.
He notes, with some accuracy, that Cruz is “a politics machine.” This means that Cruz has out-organized the other candidates politically. He has a stronger political machine across the country. Among other things, his local political operatives have chosen delegates who, no matter who they must vote for on the first round, are sympathetic to him.
Why does it matter? Because the first test of a presidential candidate is whether or not he is capable of running a campaign. Ferguson is correct to note that Cruz, whose most significant executive experience was running the office of the solicitor general in Texas, is seriously out-organizing a candidate who supposedly brings gobs of executive experience to the race.
One notes that Trump still has Roger Stone—threatening delegates who vote against Trump with physical violence. And now Trump has a seasoned political operative, Paul Manafort, running his delegate operation. Manafort yesterday denounced Cruz for using “Gestapo tactics.” It’s called an argumentum ad Hitlerum… it is the kind of argument that the left indulges regularly. Coming from the Republican front runner, it smacks of sore loser.
If the Trump campaign is going to have any chance it will have to overcome the impression that it is based on bullying, threats and intimidation. Stone and Manafort do not seem to have gotten the memo. And yes, I know that Roger Stone is not officially working for Trump. That does not mean that he is not working for Trump.
Ferguson notes that before Trump entered the scene, Cruz was the burr in the side of establishment Republicans. He was the one man who stood up to both Obama and to members of his own party. As I have noted, the great John McCain stood up to defend the daughter of the Muslim Brotherhood, Huma Abedin.
So Ferguson writes:
Like Trump, Cruz saw the extent to which Republican voters were sick of their party establishment. The difference was that, unlike Trump, Cruz didn’t make it up as he went along. Trump was engaged in what is known on the New York comedy scene as “improv.” Nothing Cruz does is improv. He is always the master of his brief.
Nearly everyone has underestimated this man. Back in October, prediction markets said he had a 4 percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. Today that figure is 33 percent. Before accepting bets on Cruz, Betfair should have checked with his opponents when he ran for the Senate in 2012. The man is a politics machine.
Ferguson is clear that the Republican candidate will either be Trump or Cruz:
There is a lot of wild talk in Washington these days about “white knights” riding to the rescue at the convention. The names of Mitt Romney and his running mate — now House Speaker Paul Ryan — are bandied about. But I doubt very much either would want to accept a nomination so flagrantly at odds with the wishes of the primary and caucus voters. By contrast, if Cruz arrives in Cleveland running a close second behind Trump, then he is the most likely nominee.
As though to irritate the easily irritated Trump supporters, Ferguson introduces an analogy:
No analogy is exact, but consider this. In May 1860 the Republican National Convention in Chicago was expected to nominate New York Senator William H. Seward. Few people reckoned with an unprepossessing but gifted lawyer and debater named Abraham Lincoln. He won on the third ballot.
Now, I am not saying Cruz is Lincoln. I am just saying that, on reflection, maybe I can imagine him as president of the United States.
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I bring you a few remarks from today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The Journal editorial board is seriously upset that Cruz is the alternative to Trump. It argues that Cruz is nearly unelectable. Having alienated most members of the Republican Party, they argue, Cruz will surely not garner their votes. One might say the same of Donald Trump, so the Journal seems to holding out hope for a white knight, like John Kasich to ride to the rescue. On this point, I am with Ferguson. It’s going to be either Trump or Cruz.
The Journal editorialized this morning:
In other words, Mr. Cruz’s chance to become President hinges on the so-called Republican establishment that he calls “the Washington cartel.” He wants the same people whose enmity he otherwise welcomes to ordain him as the only non-Trump alternative. Then he’ll roll into Cleveland with a smaller plurality of delegates than the businessman but depend on the power brokers of a brokered convention to pry away the nomination.
Of course, the local power brokers have chosen the delegates. And the local power brokers are either working for Cruz or terrified by Trump. The process resembles the Democratic Party’s reliance on Superdelegates… the better not to leave the decision entirely in the hands of the voters.
One naturally finds this idea horrifying, but the founders of the American Republic did not write a constitution that guaranteed anything resembling universal suffrage. Even today the president is not elected by a majority vote of the electorate. The founders certainly did not allow the presidency to be decided by popular vote.
You might consider this to be nefarious, but the current rules allow delegates to vote as they please after the first or the second ballot. Apparently, Trump is just coming to this realization. Cruz has known it all along.
As for the Cruz strategy of assailing Republicans, one must say that Cruz assailed Congressional Republicans, about whom most Republicans have a rather negative opinion. Remind us again of the favorability ratings of Congress—are they still in single digits?
The Journal writes:
One reason Mr. Cruz hasn’t rallied more Republicans, despite the fear of Mr. Trump, is that the Texan built his presidential strategy on assailing Republicans. He’s the political leader of the conservative subculture that has emerged during the Obama Presidency that attributes the country’s problems—from slow growth to stagnant wages to abusive government—to a GOP “surrender caucus” that supposedly sold out or didn’t fight hard enough.
It is true that Cruz is running slightly behind Hillary Clinton, but Trump is running a lot behind. As for the argument, made on other occasions by the Journal, that John Kasich is the most electable candidate in a presidential election, the truth seems to be that he is unelectable as a nominee.
True, Kasich has an excellent record, but his positions on various issues are not likely to appeal to Republicans in the general election. Many people like him because they do not like one or the other of the two leading candidates. They also like him because he is more an idea than a candidate. People like the idea of Kasich, but that does not mean that they will turn out to vote for him, any more than they turned out to vote for Bob Dole or Mitt Romney or John McCain.
Moreover, no one has launched any serious attacks against John Kasich. Perhaps this means that he is so wonderful that no mud would ever stick to him, but, rest assured, by the time the Clinton attack machine is finished with him, you will think that John Kasich is the bastard spawn of Darth Cheney.
In addition, Kasich is not a great debater. He recently refused to debate Ted Cruz one-on-one. If you trust his kind and gentle soul to make the case against Hillary Clinton you have been drinking far too much happy juice. Didn't we already see Mitt Romney shrink from a confrontation with Barack Obama? Do you think that Kasich, based on his debate performance, will do any better?
We already saw what happened when the Republicans sent a young and inexperienced Paul Ryan to debate Joe Biden. He was easily overpowered. For reasons that escape me, this has persuaded people that Ryan is the future of the Republican Party.
The Journal concludes:
The point is that Mr. Cruz has to show he’s more than a faction leader if he wants to be the nominee, much less win in November.
The Texan recently appeared on Jimmy Kimmel’s TV program, and the host told him, “What you did is, you kind of held out until they found someone that they liked less than you.” Mr. Cruz replied, “Listen, it is a powerful strategy.” The audience laughed, but the problem is that it isn’t a joke.
One might dismiss the Cruz strategy in the presidential campaign. One would not have to strain too much to do so. And yet, up to now, it seems to be working. One recalls that William James once said: the truth is what works.
One final point. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is one of the beacons of conservative political thought in America. It is not an innocent bystander or a blogger with a limited readership. It does not just observe and analyze; it shapes opinion, and certainly conservative opinion. By now, it is clear that the Journal’s views on Donald Trump are being ignored by the Republican electorate. One can say that same of the views of that other clarion of conservative opinion journalism: the National Review.
But, if the Journal declares that Cruz is unelectable that will make him more unelectable. For now, unless something extraordinary happens, that lends support to the Trump campaign.
“The parallel’s between Lyin’ Ted Cruz and Obama are stunning aren’t they?! “
Actually, the parallels between Obama and Trump are much closer.
Try narcissism to the nth degree, try whining ‘It was someone else’s fault’, the complete lack of social moral character, etc.
Cruz momentum started when he took aboard his campaign the Bush cabal and Neil. Sadly the momentum is the same disrespect that the GOPe foisted on us in 2008 and 2012 resulting in a Kenyan in the WH.
I just find it so interesting that FreeRepublic posters,being erstwhile conservatives, absolutely forget their principles when it comes to Donald Trump. Ted Cruz has been and is the most consistent conservative in the race. Attention is placed on mythical foibles while his rock solid Reagan credentials are ignored.
I think they have started on Cruz, they want him to get the nomination, then they pick his bones
Coker, TPA are consistent conservative??
Try LYING to the nth degree! Lyin' Ted said the voters "spoke" in Colorado when the voters never cast a single vote for him!
Cruzlim's just love it when the voters can't cast a single vote against their guy. Talk about narcissistic.
Not in this Universe.
NEWS FLASH: The presidency is a political job. It requires an astute politician to be successful. Who has shown a higher aptitude as a politician in this race? (Hint: not the Donald)
This could be the Cruz dirty secret.
Was his Mother and Father married at all when he was born?
Daddy was married to another woman and never divorced?
His mother no longer US citizen?
Could this be why Ted has sealed records?
http://running2016.com/html/canadian_ted.html
Let’s face it. Trump has a liberal past. Trump supporters ignore that fact, because Trump, much like obama, is a blank slate politically for many people, and the core of his message resonates. Cruz is not the squeaky clean conservative his campaign made him out to be. He is FAR from the evil lying insider bastard that Trumpster’s make him out to be, though. He is the mosts conservative candidate in the race. Saying otherwise just shows how much kool-aide one has drank.
In the end, the enemy is the Democrats, and having hillary, Bernie, or whoever is the nominee voted in the office will literally change the country forever. With a Supreme Court position open for seating, the next president, who ever they may be, will be able to either save the Republic (or at least stave off for a while its demise), or put in place an ultra liberal majority that will be able to opine our rights away forever.
People on the right need to figure that out, quick. I’ve advocated not voting for a GOPe candidate. I still stand by that should the GOPe decide that one of two candidates that have, combined about 85% of the people’s support are not the nominee. In the end, Trump, or Cruz is much more preferable than any socialist the libs put forward, and any GOPe candidate put forward.
Amen.
you must have drunk too much of the Trump koolaid.
Don’t travel to Guyana
The presidency is a political job.
***********
That’s one way of looking at it but it can also be
considered a managerial position. You have to manage
assets all across the political spectrum and world.
Cruzlims. More and more like muslims every day.
Exactly. That said, I have asked freepers a dozen times-—OK, if you don’t like Trump or Cruz, please name your preferred GOP ticket that meets your moral/ideological threshold and can win in November? I never get an answer. They don’t like Cruz or Trump but neither can they name a viable alternative.
No. He is not electable.
People wouldn’t be motivated to turnout for such an unlikable man.
What has first term Cruz accomplished in the Senate except being a grandstanding gadfly and a pariah in his own party? What executive experience has he had? Do we really need another career politician in the WH?
Regardless, the GOPe will not allow Cruz to get the nomination. Cruz is the vehicle to a contested convention, which will nominate a GOPe candidate whether it is Kasich, Ryan, or some other “fresh face.”
That's retarded. Cruz has no plan that involves enticing electors to be faithless.
Not the same thing at all as getting delegates selected who support you.
What state will trump take, when he is neck and neck with Clinton in Utah?
“What state will trump take,”
Florida .. which Ted Cruz has absolutely no chance of winning.
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.