Posted on 11/27/2015 7:56:40 AM PST by Isara
I have a column up at RollCall today suggesting that the GOP should root for a Ted Cruz vs. Marco Rubio clash. Cruz, skilled at channeling indignation, is a better choice than Trump—if the “populist” lane wants a candidate who can beat Hillary. Likewise, Rubio, who can communicate compassion and optimism, would stand a much better chance in the so-called “establishment” lane than Jeb Bush.
But aside from the fact that Cruz has a better chance of beating Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, I’m constantly hearing from Republicans who believe he is more cunning and “flexible” than he is an ideologue. The good news it that this might mean he can pivot and run a more centrist General Election campaign in 2016.
The suggestion is that his bluster in the U.S. Senate and on the campaign trail has been the product of a very smart and calculating politician who might eventually move to the center—when that suits his interests. (The fact that Cruz formerly worked in the Bush administration is cited as evidence that at least some of his current image is a reinvention—which suggests he might one day reinvent himself again.)
One smart conservative even recently suggested to me that Ted Cruz is a modern Richard Nixon.
No—nobody is suggesting Cruz is “Nixonian” in the sweaty, paranoid Watergate burglary sense of the term. Instead, the idea is that Cruz might follow Nixon’s path—which was to be an ambitious young conservative in a hurry, who then transformed into a savvy centrist in order to win the White House and govern.
Remember, Nixon was once seen as a hard-core Right-winger. The whole reason Eisenhower selected Nixon as his running mate was to balance the ticket—and keep the GOP’s Taft wing inside the tent. Running against Helen Gahagan Douglas, the anti-Communist Nixon once even famously declared she was “Pink right down to her underwear.” As Ross Douthat recently noted, “Nixon knew how to channel an angry, ‘who's looking out for me?’ populism without letting himself be imprisoned by its excesses.” Sound familiar?
But later, Nixon became a champion of affirmative action, the EPA, and all sorts of liberal policies. It was ironic, which is exactly why the expression “Only Nixon can go to China” exists.
It’s impossible to predict the future, but trust me when I tell you this theory is widely believed and whispered about. There is a real sense that Cruz, having rounded up the support of grassroots conservatives who might propel him to the GOP nomination, could later pivot—and run as a “kinder, gentler” Cruz. He certainly has the credentials, pedigree, and moxie to pull it off. And, frankly, it might not be all bad. As Douthat averred, “there are times, and this might be one of them, when the country needs a little Nixon.”
And he never sent arms to Mexico.
As Cruz gains support, one can smell the drive-by media’s fear.
Hey Matt, is YOUR candidate losing?
I believe that he is a RINO.
Ping
Closer to Iowa, that is the plan!
Pinged it FRiend.
if you look at the RealClearPolitics polls today, Cruz has a better chance than Trump!
Average—Cruz vs Clinton—Clinton +1.3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
Average—Trump vs Clinton—Clinton +4.4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
If I am a Republican consultant I am promoting ways to dramatize the scofflaw nature of all that grifting. State governments should be lobbied to pass a law against the selection of Electors pledged to anyone one tenth as corrupt as the Clintons. There would be no problem passing constitutional muster because:
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
IMHO Donald Trump will exactly run against Hillary’s money. He has not accept a dime from anyone, and she has been on the take from everyone.
- Each state’s legislature has (as SCOTUS put it) plenary power to determine how the Electors are selected. They do not even have to be popularly elected, so there would be no grounds for complaint SCOTUS about how the election was run. Unlike, say, states trying to impose term limits on Congressmen by keeping them off the ballot.
- Even if SCOTUS heard a case, it would have to complain that the states were enforcing a constitutional provision in a minimal way; no criminal penalty would be involved, and not even a fine would be imposed. And SCOTUS has upheld McCain-Feingold - notwithstanding the opinion of four justices that it violates the First Amendment - on the basis that campaign finance contributions were a threat to the honesty of politicians. Here, there is no constitutional issue and the states would be on the side of cleaning up money in politics.
- If you were really squeamish, you could simply require that the candidate with the illegit money not be on Row A, Row B, or Row C of the ballot. Democrats statewide would go ballistic over the thought of having to compete on even terms with Green parties and Right-to-Life parties . . .
Where’s the evidence that shows Cruz and Rubio would be more likely than Trump to beat Hillary?
Or creating the EPA. Nixon did that. Grrrrr.
Yep.
But don't worry -- Trump promised "compassionate" conservative Hugh Hewitt that he'd have a military so good "your head will spin." We know this is true because he's built bit skyscrapers and stuff, and talks back to reporters. He also scornfully talks down McCain's status as POW, saying he's only a war hero because he got captured. "I like people that weren't captured," he quips, and the audience laughs in sympathetic agreement with Trump.
And I'm sitting there thinking about a man I knew who survived the Bataan Death March.
Trump should have loved Nixon -- didn't Nixon end the VN war, from which Trump had five deferments to avoid service?
No, not faking it, but he's not going to make it on his first try. Maybe if Ted stays in the game long enough and makes enough tries he will finally get to the White House, but by then he'll have aged and ripened a bit and won't be the Ted Cruz you remember or want him to be.
It's not at all uncommon for politicians to be different from what they were at the beginning of their careers when they finally get the brass ring or golden ticket. Many politicians are in the game a long time and aren't very likeable to begin with. Nixon's the one who finally won, and that's one reason for taking him as an example here.
Of course, Nixonian has other connotations as well and the author probably intended to get the negative ones out there and make them stick to Cruz. Hillary against Cruz would in a way be a contest to see who comes across as less Nixonian, Hillary with her lying or Ted with what a lot of people see as his unlikeability.
Amen.
Cruz has been a "consistent conservative" for forty-four years.
When he wins the nomination, he's going to change into a whole new person???
Bullhockey!
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.