Posted on 12/02/2015 8:56:07 AM PST by Isara
He may be known as an unyielding conservative, but on issues from national defense to political experience, the Texas senator is staking out a position as the goldilocks candidate.
One underappreciated element of Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign—which has recently come in for a great deal of praise by savvy operators on both sides of the aisle and in the press—are his quiet but effective acts of triangulation.
The Texas senator's self-image is premised on his uncompromising, unyielding, principled conservatism...
While that may play well among, say, socially conservative Iowans, it makes it tough to win a primary nationwide. But Cruz is very smartly positioning himself as—well, maybe even almost a tiny minimal bit moderate. For example, take his views on foreign policy.
....
...Cruz is setting up his own position “as a third way between the stalwart, non-interventionist views of Senator Rand Paul and pro-interventionist policies in pursuit of spreading democracy and human rights through the Middle East that [Senator Marco] Rubio espouses.” How different is Cruz’s position here than Paul’s? It seems like more of a matter of emphasis than substance....
To which Cruz replied that there was “a middle ground that brings both of these together… [That’s] exactly right, that we have to defend this nation. You think defending this nation is expensive, try not defending it. That's a lot more expensive. But, you can do that, and pay for it. You can do that, and also be fiscally responsible.” Cruz is calling Paul an isolationist, but at the same time he’s usurped his support by espousing much the same view: Defense is important, and it should be paid for, but foreign adventurism is the realm of Democrats like Clinton and neocons like Rubio. No surprise that as Cruz has risen, Paul has faded.
Cruz did something similar on the question of Syrian immigrants....
...
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
.
hilliary triangulates (when not lying through her teeth) and is called “brilliant” ...
ted cruz (allegedly) triangulates, and is called “tricky” ...
the msm is a complete riot sometimes ...
.
Liberals always tell you a lot about themselves by their analysis. What they call triangulation is really just a consistent political philosophy. NSA spying on all Americans, using the military to overthrow Assad? How are those conservative principals?
How frigging clueless would a writer have to be to think Rand Paul and Marco (I'll make them Citizens) Rubio are a real challenge. Really....I'd have expected better, frankly.
Triangulation is a CLINTON word as is NUANCE. It is a substitute for truthfulness and common sense. The article is just more trash spewing from media who want something much different than us.
It’s a three man race now between Cruz, Trump and Rubio and I think it will remain that way for a while.
The Atlantic. Enough said . . . but to keep you from giving their site an internet ‘hit” let me help.
They can’t attack Cruz’s position on issues directly, so the attack him by labeling him “tricky” and “clever” as if he is untrustworthy. Any movement from a position he might have set out years ago, is seen as a calculated devious move. They can’t consider this “evolving” as they do for their dear leader.
Don’t bother with this article. I am a Ted man, but know that all politicians are fallible beings. That’s exactly why our Founders created a written Constitution to limit the damage even good men can do.
Oldplayer
Go Cruz! Go Trump!
They are trying to associate Ted Cruz with "Tricky Dick."
agreed ...
Bingo.
Ted Cruz also recognizes what doesn’t work and looks for a different way.
For instance the Israeli/palestinian issue. Ted Cruz says its time for the USA and everyone else to get away from the negotiating table and let the Israelis and Palestinians do the negotiating between themselves without our or anyone else’s interference.
I AM NOT A CROOK!!!
Cruz is the only consistent conservative with a shot. Period. He’s the only one who has stood up to the Washington cartel time after time.
Exactly. Their "analysis" clearly shows how little they understand about conservatism and just how knee-jerk liberalism really is. Without any firm principles, the adherents to liberalism float in the breeze on whatever feels good, or sounds fair, or fits within an ends-justify-the-means rationalization. It's why they can't understand conservatism. Liberals can't admit truth exists, is fixed, and isn't defined by human ideals.
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.