WSJ > ESAD
Posted on 12/04/2014 6:24:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) walked into a meeting with Wall Street Journal editorial writers last year and laid his cards on the table. “I don’t really care what other people write about me, but I really do care about what the Wall Street Journal writes,” Cruz said, according to a source in the room at the time.
The blandishment failed to move his audience. Cruz occupies a place of singular ignominy on the opinion pages of the paper, which treats him as an opportunistic charlatan — even by Washington, D.C., standards. And yet, the strained relationship between Cruz and what is perhaps the Right’s most widely read editorial page underscores the strengths and weaknesses of his political brand as well as the obstacles he will face if he joins the 2016 primary field.
Cruz maintains that the tension is one-sided. “I’m a big fan of the Wall Street Journal,” he tells National Review Online in a statement. “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.”
The feeling is not mutual. Journal editorials routinely attempt to diminish his potential as a presidential candidate, with critical asides woven into pieces on issues to which Cruz is only tangential.
When the paper’s editors applauded Republicans for scuttling a Senate bill that purported to reform the National Security Agency, they chastised Cruz while noting the slim GOP support for the bill. “Four Republicans voted in favor: Dean Heller (Nevada), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mike Lee (Utah), and Ted Cruz (Iowa caucuses by way of Texas),” the editorial board quipped before the Thanksgiving break.
That simmering contempt flared up most dramatically during the last year’s fight over the government shutdown. In one editorial, the Journal suggested that tea-party freshmen Cruz and Lee were motivated by a desire for “fund-raising lists or getting face time on cable TV.” In another, they argued that Cruz was giving Democrats a chance to avert disaster in the 2014 midterms.
“I think there was a sense that Cruz was sort of leading the Tea Party on Pickett’s charge — that it was just going to be a slaughter and there was no hope for victory and there was going to be a setback for what they were trying to achieve,” one person familiar with the thinking of the Journal’s editors says.
Their critique of Cruz at the end of the government shutdown was particularly blistering. “For weeks Mr. Cruz scolded his fellow Republicans as the ‘surrender caucus’ and closet supporters of Obamacare because they wouldn’t support his strategy to tie a vote to fund the government to defunding Obamacare,” the editors wrote. “Yet now even Mr. Cruz is admitting that there are limits to what Republicans can achieve when they control only one house of Congress. Maybe he’s learning, or maybe his earlier accusations were, well, less than sincere.”
The tension between Cruz and the Journal goes back years now, to his meeting with the editorial board when he was a Senate candidate in 2012. One person present at the meeting says Cruz “came across as a bit of a know-it-all,” and that the editors thought he wore his Ivy League pedigree too proudly.
They aren’t the only ones. “There were 44 other Republican senators when Cruz first came to Washington,” one reporter who covers Capitol Hill tells NRO. I think it’s fair to say over 40 of them do not hold him in high esteem personally. I would say with Paul, that number is probably 15. There’s your personality gap.”
Cruz’s poor relationship with other Senate Republicans has amplified his media problems, typified by his dealings with the Wall Street Journal. He wasn’t the first tea-party senator to strike his colleagues as arrogant. Mike Lee had the same problem when he first arrived in Congress, but he shook the reputation by making a habit of reaching out to senators individually. Even when they opposed Lee’s ideas, no one was caught off guard.
“Ted Cruz has never really been able to do that or — at least as far as I know — hasn’t tried or hasn’t been able to work to do it,” one Senate aide said.
That contributes to a number of senators making comments, however privately, that tend to confirm the Journal’s critical view of Cruz. And that, in turn, has a cost, because many of these Senate offices have long-standing relationships with reporters at the Journal and elsewhere.
“The Cruz sources are brand-new,” the reporter says, explaining why Cruz’s opponents usually have more credibility in the press. “I haven’t worked with them much. And ten months into his first term, we have a government shutdown.”
A Senate aide concurs, saying that “the impression that [many Senate sources] give to the Wall Street Journal is that Ted Cruz is just running for president.”
That’s reflected in the Journal’s editorials. Take their recent commentary on the Senate’s failed NSA bill. In it, the Journal noted that Rand Paul voted against the proposal that Cruz backed, but only because he thought it didn’t do enough to reform the agency. They predicted that Paul would use the issue as a issue in the presidential election, but they conceded that he is “sincere in his libertarian anxieties.”
Cruz, the politician from the Iowa caucuses, received no such nod to his principles. How much that will hurt him when the actual Iowa caucuses come around — well, that remains to be seen.
— Joel Gehrke is a political reporter for National Review Online.
I don’t believe a word of this puke’s opinion.
This is a sign of the decline of the Wall Street Journal more than the other way around...
I am getting more and more shocked by the leftist stand the WSJ increasingly takes. i think they have been infiltrated by libtards
So, National Review Online gives the report of TC’s meeting with the WSJ...that right?
The WSJ has really become the mouthpiece of the Karl Rove GOP-e, and by extension the chamber of commerce.
I don't doubt it. Cruz is one of those guys who really is smarter than everybody else, unlike the Grubers and Krugmans who predominate in the world. He'll always attract hate for it.
Actually, this article tells us a lot.
Remember; the left will always tell you who they are the most afraid of .. and it appears the WSJ just did.
Personally, I have no use for the greedbags that call the shots at the WSJ.
WSJ called Cruz the “minority maker” back in ‘13 during the shutdown. Their case was that Cruz was dooming the Republicans for the 2014 election cycle.
So, tell me now - WHO WAS RIGHT? The answer is Cruz Control.
Ted Cruz stands in the gap, (there has not been one willing to do that for a very long time), and still stands taller than the rest, he will be hated and assaulted so long as he stands, he is the standard bearer for our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights as such he acquires mountains of enemies from without and within “We The People” have the responsibility to stand with him, if we are to have any hope of restoring our Free Republic IMO!
The National Review Online did; I’m not sure about the WSJ.
But you’re correct, Gehrke’s hit piece reveals who they don’t want up against Hillary.
They still can’t fathom the idea that a politician might be motivated by principles of piety and liberty and not personal gain. They do not know how to coerce (buy, woo, threaten) such an anomaly.
So here's the thing; Cruz isn't there to be another rino at the feeding trough, f' decorum and waitng his turn for the big payoff.
I used to have a paper subscription to the WSJ; then a esubscription. Now all I have is harassing emails asking me to re-up.
The 2014 election cycle was not a referendum on Cruz. It was a referendum on Obama.
WSJ > ESAD
The political process is about the use of power to distribute wealth or benefits to various groups. For the most part this sort of sordid marketplace system works well enough. Far better than than places where clique politics or power challenging and tribalistic mentalities prevail. Unfortunately today in the US much of the electorate is withdrawing its allegiance to the normal regime as the surmise correctly the deck is being stacked against them in ways that are and will have very adverse impacts on their immediate family's interests. Cruz understands this, which men such as McConnell , to whom politics is just constant game playing and parliamentary maneuvering never will.
The question is whether the political class will have enough perception of their true long term interests to take steps to contain and reverse policies which a very large piece of white middle class America see as damaging and destructive to their livelihoods and possibly their lives or continue on the pathway of further detachment and obsession with the Beltway game playing. Cruz is a messenger to the political class telling them to make some adjustments while there is time. If his and those like him are ignored and the current social trends con tinue the US is headed towards a crisis somewhat like the one that destroyed Yugoslavia.
It was somewhat of a referendum on Cruz and the filibuster - and it was a positive one at that.
And of course, it was referendum on Obama, but with Cruz shutting down the sucker due to Obama Care, these two are not exclusive of each other.
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.