Bob Dole Warns of 'Cataclysmic' Losses With Ted Cruz, and Says Donald Trump Would Do Better

The New York Times ^ | January 20, 2016 | Maggie Haberman

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bob Dole, the former Kansas senator and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, has never been fond of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. But in an interview Wednesday, Mr. Dole said that the party would suffer "cataclysmic" and "wholesale losses" if Mr. Cruz were the nominee, and that Donald J. Trump would fare better.

"I question his allegiance to the party," Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. "I don't know how often you've heard him say the word 'Republican' - not very often." Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word "conservative," Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: "extremist."

"I don't know how he's going to deal with Congress," he said. "Nobody likes him."

But Mr. Dole, 92, said he thought Mr. Trump could "probably work with Congress, because he's, you know, he's got the right personality and he's kind of a deal-maker."

The remarks by Mr. Dole reflect wider unease with Mr. Cruz among members of the Republican establishment, but few leading members of the party have been as candid and cutting. ...

[cookcounty]

Trump might do better, on the issues, he’s less conservative than Cruz (actually Trump is about as conservative as Bush) so if more moderate people can get past the bombast and being seen as “arrogant, Trump may be able to get big support from the middle. It’s just that it’s hard to get over Trump mocking Vietnam POWs, etc., especially when he markets himself as “saying what he means and meaning what he says.”

[ek_hornbeck]

Trump is about as conservative as Bush

Like most populists, Trump is ideologically incoherent, and like most populists, it's almost impossible to figure out how he would govern if/when he takes office.

Trump is obviously trying to sound well to the right of Bush and the GOP establishment on some issues (immigration), while on other issues (his tax plan, views on social issues), he's more or less on the same page as the moderates.

On foreign policy he's even less coherent. On the one hand he sounds gung-ho about "bombing the hell out of them," but he's generally opposed specific interventions like Gulf War II or getting involved in Syria. That being said, I don't consider interventionism vs. anti-interventionism as left vs. right issues, there have always been both right wing and left wing interventionists and anti-interventionists.