Why the Establishment Fears Cruz More Than Trump

Read these two quotes carefully: The first: “Cruz cannot win because the Washington elites despise him.” The second goes: “[T]here are a lot of good candidates – I like nearly all of them… …except Cruz.” Which one of the similar quotes is from a pro-Cruz Super PAC and which is from a former Republican nominee for president?

The first quote is from an ad from Keep the Promise I, a Cruz Super PAC. The second is from Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican nominee and war hero, who got trounced by Bill Clinton. Both purport to highlight a negative of Senator Cruz, but do they really?

The answer is hidden in an examination of the conservative insurgency in Massachusetts, of all places. Five years ago this very week, things were starting to turn around for then-State Senator Scott Brown (R–MA).

Knowing how much of a train wreck RomneyCare had become, the voters of Massachusetts were drawn to Brown’s singular campaign message: “I will be the 41^st vote to stop Obamacare.” Attorney General Martha Coakley’s team misread the electorate and put out ads that in effect said, “If you elect Scott Brown you will stop the president from giving healthcare to millions of Americans.” Two different candidates, same message, and we all know who won that race.

That same dynamic is playing out in the presidential race this year; be it with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. The establishment keeps telling the voters how awful these two candidates are, but that just makes the voters gravitate to them even more.

Nowhere is this playing out more clearly than in Iowa where a series of establishment allies are swinging hard at Cruz in advertisements and mailers. All of this comes as Cruz further cements his lead in the state. On Christmas, CNN reported that a collection of five independent groups, aligned with the establishment and Mike Huckabee have begun attacks on Cruz in Iowa.

The attacks are being spearheaded by two people with ties to the establishment: Nick Ryan, who is an establishment activist in Iowa, and Sean Noble, another establishment hack who is backing Rubio. Mark Levin wrote of Noble’s Alinsky-like tactics back in November. Regarding Noble’s attacks on Cruz’s vote for the America Freedom Act, Conservative Review’s own Daniel Horowitz said: “Mr. Noble worked for Sen. Jeff Flake who also voted for the Freedom Act. I guess his boss and all of Rubio’s backers are also weak on national security.” Noble boasts, on his own website, of his ties to the “elite” of the party. He says “…or nearly 20 years, a pretty elite cast of characters has been doing just that [paying attention to Noble].”

Ryan is a longstanding force in Iowa politics, allied with the moderate Governor Branstad. On his website, Ryan describes himself as having investments in renewable energy—i.e. ethanol—in Iowa. Ted Cruz is very much against ethanol mandates.

When you scratch under the hood of the attacks on Cruz, and ask why they are more pointed than the attacks on Trump, a common theme begins to emerge. That is self-interest. It can be as plain as someone who has financial stakes in ethanol running ads against an anti-ethanol candidate, or it can be more complex, like with Noble—someone trying to hold onto the power they’ve carved out in the political industrial complex. Therein lies the real truth of why the attacks are stronger against Cruz than Trump, even though they really aren’t working against either candidate.

Trump is a dealmaker running a campaign as a disrupter to the status quo. Cruz is a proven disrupter to the status quo. That is a very big difference indeed.

The political industrial complex believes deep down that they can negotiate with the author of The Art of the Deal; they know they will lose the levers of power with Ted Cruz. You can see it in the voracity and frequency of their attacks.

The establishment consultants and chattering class know they have the most to lose with a Cruz presidency. What do they lose with a Cruz presidency? The very levers of power by which they enrich themselves: the Republican Party apparatus.

It goes much deeper than Cruz holding the reins of the executive branch. With a President Cruz, the positions of the self-described elite within the GOP power structure are in jeopardy. As much as the establishment screams electability from the rooftops, deep down they know that Cruz can and will win in 2016 if nominated. That is an existential threat to business as usual and the ruling class itself.

Rule #1 of the political industrial complex is: maintain power at all cost, even if it means torpedoing an electable conservative like Cruz. Here is how it would play out badly for them were Cruz the nominee:

Cruz is the larger threat to establishment because, if he wins, they lose all the levers of power. McConnell and his allies would be tossed out of organizations such as the Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, etc... If history is any guide, the sitting president of a political party has a large leeway in choosing those in key power positions. That puts the earning potential and power of the current political industrial complex in complete jeopardy.

That is why, come January, the establishment will continue to turn all their guns on Cruz because they would rather Trump win the nomination and lose to Hillary than for Ted Cruz to have a chance of being president. If that happened they would attempt to blame a Trump loss on the Tea Party, and keep their cushy jobs. As Cruz inevitably gains on Trump, the establishment will go after Cruz 110%, even if they are currently waging a rhetorical war on Trump.

As the calendar turns to 2016, and the political industrial complex realizes they can’t field a winning candidate on their own, they will increasingly turn their fire on Cruz over Trump. When they do so, be very aware that it isn’t for the “good of the country” or even because of “electability.” It pretty much boils down to what they have to do to keep food on their tables and their pockets lined.

Based on what?

Look at the Gang of Eight fight. Cruz basically gave the Rush Limbaugh opposition-- which was not opposing legalization, but only legalization before the border was secured and the pathway to citizenship. Rush Limbaugh even accused people who supported deportation for all illegals of being "seminar" callers, a fact I learned from an article I read recently.

So Cruz does not think for himself, but he looks to see what the "conservative" media pundits are saying and then goes off and fights and then usually doesn't accomplish anything.

Who led on TPA?

Not Cruz. He followed Paul Ryan.

Who led on the border wall?

Not Cruz, he didn't even mention it when he announced his candidacy.

Who led on illegal immigration?

Until 2 weeks ago, Cruz was still telling reporters that legalization wasn't off the table, and is now lying to his supporters about his history on the subject.

Who led on the Muslim moratorium?

Not Cruz, he's still telling folks the problem is "radical Islam" originating from certain countries.

Who was using the "let's bomb them to hell" rhetoric? Not Cruz, he only adopted it later. In fact, most of his rhetoric is stolen Donald Trump rhetoric.

Cruz a leader? Nope. He's a follower and a panderer.

Cruz is in the same profession, playing the same game.

Trump is outside Washington politics and unpredictable.

So who is Cruz going to put in his cabinet? How many people are there with the necessarily qualifications who can't be labeled "establishment" or "elite"?

Chances are, he's going to pick people from the established Republican talent pool. Where else is he going to go?

Trump may give us Oprah or Omerosa, or who knows who. That at least, is what the Establishment thinks and why it fears him more than Ted Cruz.

What Ted Cruz did for E-Commerce was no small feat:

PJ Media What No One Seems to Know About Ted Cruz's Past In his first significant leadership role , as president of the Screen Actors Guild , Ronald Reagan fought communist influence in Hollywood and prevailed in a tough contract negotiation.

In his first command , as a captain during the Black Hawk War , Abraham Lincoln overruled his men to prevent the execution of a suspected Potawotami spy.

To win his first congressional race, Richard Nixon disingenuously linked his opponent to communist sympathizers, the start of a pattern that would earn Nixon the nickname "Tricky Dick."

With presidents, the past is often prologue. So what do Ted Cruz's early leadership roles tell us about his presidential proclivities?

Now that Cruz regularly polls toward the top of an ever-shrinking field, his early tenure bears closer scrutiny. Cruz has gained fame as a social conservative and an unwavering opponent of Obamacare. In his first major leadership role, however, he developed economic policy as the director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning.

At the FTC, Cruz's agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.

Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government's role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the "Uber of American politics."

Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz's initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.

Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.

From the start of his tenure in 2001, Cruz strategically reoriented the FTC to focus on ways in which government restricts competition. To lay a foundation, Cruz organized a conference on regulatory barriers to e-commerce. Large online companies, such as Amazon and eBay, explained that government regulation and legacy laws threatened the growth of e-commerce. For example: funeral licensing laws meant online retailers could not legally sell caskets into certain states, even though they typically offered much lower prices. Other laws hampered online sales of cars, contact lenses, and legal and medical services.

In response, no brick-and-mortar company defended the government's role , in regulating other industries.

Instead, like taxi cab drivers in New York or "green" energy companies demanding subsidies, every special interest argued that his particular industry uniquely required protection from competition.

The auto dealers complained that cars were too "sophisticated" for e-commerce, the funeral dealers explained that caskets were a product for "a very sensitive and specific time," and the lawyers expounded that â€œwe're talking about something very different when weâ€™re talking about access to the justice system."

Cruz had little patience for anyone who sought to use the government to limit competition.

After the conference, Cruz testified at a hearing supporting the online sales of contact lenses and pushed the FTC to file an amicus brief supporting online casket vendors. Cruz also initiated a comprehensive study of the wine industry, which found that online competition lowered prices without increasing underage drinking. The study's findings were ultimately embraced by the Supreme Court and by state legislatures around the country, who opened an entire industry to online competition and new small businesses.

Beyond the e-commerce initiative, Cruz also reoriented the FTC's use of antitrust laws. For most of its history, the FTC has focused on private conduct that harms competition, such as (allegedly) anticompetitive mergers. Under Cruz's leadership, the FTC instead targeted governmental conduct that harms competition. For example, the FTC successfully sued a state dental board to open the dental market to competition from non-dentists. This type of lawsuit primarily helped lower-income individuals, who would get more and cheaper options for basic health care.

Cruz also sent dozens of letters to states to fight new efforts to enshrine crony capitalism. Cruz sent a letter to New York to challenge a legislative attempt to impose a "minimum markup" on the sale of gasoline. This bill was a naked attempt to force gas stations to raise prices, but was couched as helping consumers. Cruz also sent letters to promote competition in financial services and energy markets. Through it all, Cruz kept his focus on the ultimate little guy , the consumer.

Perhaps surprisingly, Cruz secured a high degree of consensus in pursuing his agenda.

As an independent agency, the FTC has five commissioners, and during Cruz's tenure, two of them had served in President Clinton's administration. All five commissioners voted to support almost all of Cruz's proposals.

Link to article

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.