Is Ted Cruz Running For President...In 2008?

Yes, we know the 2008 presidential election is years in the past and will not come around again. The question is, does Sen. Ted Cruz know this?

The question arises because the junior senator from Texas, in hot pursuit of the presidency, has chosen a trail blazed by Barack Obama six years ago. Obama was in the midst of his first Senate term when he barged into a field that featured Hillary Clinton, then a second-term senator from New York, and several other seasoned veterans of national politics. The word was audacity, and it was right there in the title of Obama's book.

When the upstart from Illinois emerged the Democratic nominee that summer and the winner in November, many foresaw a wave of emulation. We now have Cruz, the constitutional crusader, generating White House buzz in just his second year in office, just as Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts does ditto on the left. And that's not to mention old-timers like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, running hard for national notice as they finish their fourth year in the Senate.

But as a rule, in choosing presidents, American voters have alternated between older faces and younger, between the fresh and the familiar, and between the rousing and the reassuring.

This reminds me of the type of arcane baseball statistician who points out that such Jones the 1st baseman, has a batting average of .453 when runners are in scoring position, and a left handed pitcher whose last name ends with a vowel is on the mound.

Alternates between old and young, fresh and familiar ...

Ike, Old and familiar JFK Young and fresh LBJ Old and Familiar Nixon Old and familiar (Ford never was elected, but he would have been old and familiar) Carter Young and fresh Reagan Old and fresh? Old and familliar??? Bush Old and familiar Clinton Young and fresh W Young and fresh, Young and familiar once removed?! Obama Young and fresh Okay. In a small sample of eight, you find the storyline isn't that clean. Especially since an assassination and a resignation were thrown into the mix. But I can play that game, too. I like to use it to root for Elizabeth Warren getting the nomination. For a "moderate" Republican candidate to get a majority of the popular vote, whom must he face? When have moderate Republicans, loosely defined, gotten a MAJORITY of the popular vote? 1. W over Kerry 2. Bush the Elder over Dukakis 3. Nixon over McGovern Kerry and Dukakis were both from Massachusetts, and McGovern was able to win only Massachusetts (and DC). If we go back to JFK, most agree it is quite possible that Nixon may have won the popular vote if IL and TX were not stolen.

I trust Jim’s opinion, but I still want to know why.

Well, I'll give you my opinion in a nutshell:

First I narrowed it down to those who wre not in my judgment RINOs, or corrupted, or pro-abort, and came up with Cruz, Walker and Pence. Those who have illegal immigration as a front burner issue may shy away from Walker understandably. Walker has left wiggle room on this for himself, but it won't be a main issue for him either way.

Pence has been good for a long time, and has BOTH U.S. legislative AND executive experience. Walker has been an active, focussed and successful governor. Pence is quieter, because the SEIU and company decided that Walker couldn't stop them in "progressive" Wisconsin. That was the hill they chose to die on. That said, Pence was also a radio host, so knows how to consuct himself with the media. Cruz, of course has a national stage, and has proven himself to be a well-spoken, consistent and articulate repreesntative of full-spectrum conservative that is rarely found at this level. He draws enemies as well as friends at all levels.

I find that Cruz is credentialed, the most likely to push hard and not let up on the whole package, and owes no man (except Sarah Palin, and that's ok), Walker brings executive experience, excruciatingly vetted record and past, and is perhaps most likely to be able to bridge the divide (for now) between Tea Party and Establishment, because his demeanor is temperate by contrast with Cruz, and because his emphases have been on the fiscal and good govrnment issues (voter ID) even as he has helped close down Planned Parenthood offices through defunding and brought WI gun owners' state acknowledged rights into the 21st century. Cruz has the fire. Walker is the planner. Either can be appropriate. Pence has some of each. On the downside, Cruz has no exec experience and his wife is with Goldman-Sachs. Walker has no college degree (dropped out of Marquette in year four for a job), Pence is at risk of having others define him if he cannot get his name out there and do it himself.

The fact that Cruz would be a first-term Senator like Obama was (though with 2 years more experience in the Senate, IIRC) is the beginning and end of the similarities. The only thing that bothers me about a Cruz candidacy is a lack of executive experience, but I can't see any of the other contenders being able to check off every box of my "ideally-qualified candidate" list:

Executive experience
Ran in and won a statewide election
Solid conservative credentials
Able to articulate those credentials to those outside "the fold"
Likely to get conservative changes enacted if elected

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.