Posted on 11/22/2015 8:30:35 AM PST by Isara
It is the real schism in the conservative world that just never seems to end.
This one caught my eye: a column in the Wall Street Journal by the redoubtable Kim Strassel, in which she goes after Senator Ted Cruz—who has been scorned repeatedly on the WSJ’s editorial page—for supposed “missteps” on national security.
Along the way, Strassel says this:
“The senator’s supporters adore him because they see him in those moments when he has positioned himself as the hero. To them he is the stalwart forcing a government shutdown over ObamaCare. He’s the brave soul calling to filibuster in defense of gun rights. He’s the one keeping the Senate in lame-duck session to protest Mr. Obama’s unlawful immigration orders.
Mr. Cruz’s detractors see a man who engineers moments to aggrandize himself at the expense of fellow conservatives. And they see the consequences. They wonder what, exactly, Mr. Cruz has accomplished.
ObamaCare is still on the books. It took the GOP a year to recover its approval ratings after the shutdown, which helped deny Senate seats to Ed Gillespie in Virginia and Scott Brown in New Hampshire. Mr. Obama’s immigration orders are still on the books. The courts gained a dozen liberal judges, all with lifetime tenure, because the lame-duck maneuver gave Democrats time to cram confirmation votes through. Mr. Cruz’s opportunism tends to benefit one cause: Mr. Cruz.”
Gee. Once again we launch into the difference between Ronald Reagan and Establishment Republicans. Reagan believed, and acted as president, to draw a line between the GOP and Democrats, between conservative and liberal. He had not the slightest hesitation in vetoing a bill when he knew his veto was certain to be overridden, because it drew a contrast with his opponents. He had zero problem fighting knowing he would lose, because sometimes that is the best way to make the point of a “bold colors” political party, as opposed to one comprised of what Reagan disdained as the “fraternal order” Republicans.
The Reagan strategy is the Cruz strategy exactly. So when Strassel writes that Cruz opponents in the GOP “wonder what, exactly, Mr. Cruz has accomplished” there is an answer. Specifically it is this from Reagan himself: “[W]e can point out to the people how different the Dems & Reps are.” That is what Cruz has done, and that is what he has accomplished.
Note Strassel says this: “It took the GOP a year to recover its approval ratings after the shutdown…,” as if polls were more important than actual election returns. In fact, the 2014 elections were a triumph for the GOP, in no small part because the line was drawn sharply and quite publicly, by Ted Cruz and others as well. Strassel, incredibly, blames the GOP’s Ed Gillespie narrow loss of a Virginia Senate race on Cruz, when in fact the main responsibility goes to former Republican Senator John Warner, who, retiring after 30 years representing Virginia, made a point of spurning Gillespie to endorse Democrat Mark Warner. And Scott Brown? Brown made a point of running as the anti-Ted Cruz, a moderate Republican. And once again yet another moderate Republican lost. That is hardly Ted Cruz’s fault. Then Strassel moves on to foreign policy. She scolds Cruz for “opportunism,” writing:
“Yet getting away with this kind of thing is harder in foreign policy, and the Paris massacre is illustrating that difficulty. For months now, Mr. Cruz has been presenting himself in debates and national forums as hawkish, even as he panders to Mr. Paul’s voters at smaller events. Last month he attended the Republican Liberty Caucus in New Hampshire, where he boasted that the “liberty movement has been integral to our campaign since Day 1,” and touted the endorsement he received from (the isolationist) Ron Paul during his run for the Senate. He enjoyed a standing ovation.
Mr. Cruz regaled the crowd about how he had opposed a proposal to intervene in Syria and how he doesn’t support “nation building.” To this he could add a few others: He has consistently voted against defense reauthorization bills that enable troop funding. And this spring he ginned up support to pass a law that undercuts the National Security Agency’s ability to use metadata to root out terror plots. Mr. Cruz, citing “privacy rights,” co-sponsored the bill, along with Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Al Franken and Barbara Boxer.”
Suffice it to say, I have been a vocal Ron Paul critic. But it is a staple of politics for a candidate to try to gather all factions, or whatever factions may be willing, under his or her banner. There are aspects of the Liberty Movement supported by, yes, the Wall Street Journal. Yes, both the WSJ and the Liberty Movement cited by Cruz oppose—gasp!—ObamaCare! Oh noooooo! In fact, George W. Bush ran as being opposed to “nation building,” and there is nothing wrong with protecting the “privacy rights” of American citizens. It is hardly correct to try and portray Cruz as some sort of security squish. In fact, illegal immigration—or “open borders”—is seen by many as one of the defining security issues of our time. And the WSJ has been aggressively in favor of the “comprehensive immigration reform” that many see as a decided threat to national security.
In fact, in terms of the latter, Strassel praises Florida’s Marco Rubio “for running as the unabashed hawk.” Except, of course, it was Rubio who joined in with New York’s Chuck Schumer and other liberals to push the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill—again something many, Cruz decidedly included, saw as a direct threat to US security. As my colleague Daniel Horowitz has noted:
“There is a lot to like about Marco Rubio. But as it relates to the all-important compound issue of immigration, one would have to erase all of history to suggest he is on the same playing field as Ted Cruz. When it mattered, Cruz wasn’t just a vote for sovereignty and security, he was a voice for it. Rubio wasn’t just a vote for Obama’s prize agenda, he was a voice for it.”
There is a fundamental disagreement here over not Ted Cruz, but, as Ronald Reagan would have it, “fraternal order” Republicanism. Ted Cruz is not willing to go down that path, just as Ronald Reagan was not. To portray Cruz as an “opportunist” who is not a Reagan-style conservative on national security issues is simply a non-starter. No one believes it, and with good reason.
But the real difference here comes earlier in that Strassel column when she cites Cruz’s fight against ObamaCare. She is far from alone in seeing this as a failure. While there are others aplenty who see Cruz’s actions as Reagan-style accomplishments, one suspects these disagreements will go on. But the suggestion here is that there is a reason why Cruz and Donald Trump are either on the rise or on top of the 2016 campaign, and why Jeb Bush’s fading campaign is providing Rubio with potential Establishment supporters.
The difference between the Establishment and the GOP conservative base is as plain now as it was when Ronald Reagan took on Gerald Ford or George H.W. Bush. It isn’t new. And it isn’t going away anytime soon, either.
The WSJ needs to hire some competent fact-checkers.
Blaming Cruz for the failure of Republicans to reign in Obama is like blaming the one lit candle because the world is still dark.
McConnell has close ties at WSJ. He hates Cruz. They hate Cruz.
How can he win Senate votes against McConnell.
Cruz is a martyr and has in the end lost every battle. He’s proven a hypocrite on TPP and Iran, now finally flipped on H1B but still refuses to openly address amnesty. He’s been a loser from day one. He is also not very well liked and has only a small core of supporters, plus the big money donors that own him. Last I saw he was trailing in his home state of Texas. Not a promising record. That WSJ points this out is not unexpected. What is a bit is that people still want to defend him when he has nothing to show for his efforts and some of his positions are so offensive as to be disqualifying. I am embarrassed that I initially supported him and donated several hundred dollars to his campaign.
I am embarrassed that I initially supported him and donated several hundred dollars to his campaign....I’ll bet you did.
Ping
Just a note on your graphic. In the top center obviously photoshopped Cruz/Reagan at least try for accuracy - Reagan was 6’1”, Ted Cruz is 5’8”.
Not to scale works for me.
H1-B expansion. Cruz supports it.
The Trade Bill. Cruz voted for it, apparently enthusiastically.
The Iran deal. Cruz voted to give Hussein essentially plenary power to negotiate it and to ratify it.
It is possible that Jeb will turn out to be too embarrassing a candidate for the Bush family and Jeb will be induced to drop out in which case Rubio will probably become the RNC candidate and nominee. Even someone like Kasich is not completely out of the picture as Rubio may be making himself obnoxious to the Bushes and thereby to the RNC. Rubio's job was to collect conservative base votes- and not steal gope votes from Bush- and then bow out handing his delegates over to Bush.
It is possible that Jeb will turn out to be too embarrassing a candidate for the Bush family and Jeb will be induced to drop out in which case Rubio is supposed to become the RNC candidate and nominee. Even someone like Kasich is not completely out of the picture as Rubio may be making himself obnoxious to the Bushes and thereby to the RNC. Rubio's job was to collect conservative base votes- and not steal gope votes from Bush- and then bow out handing his delegates over to Bush. Rubio has deviated from the script and that may not be acceptable to the RNC.
Because voters can rally around a president who's veto is overridden.
A senator whose bills are always getting defeated or vetoed is more likely to be seen as wasting people's time.
Presidents have a residual monarchical appeal with people that 1 out of 100 senators or 1 out of 435 congressmen doesn't.
But yet ?
You and other Trump supporters condemn Ted Cruz for some supposed phantom H-1B legislation that hasn’t even been passed in Congress while at the same time give Donald Trump a pass for the fact that his own companies have sought 1,000 H-1B workers.
Talk about blatant hypocrisy.
Could be that Donald Trump isn’t a Senator and has no control of H-1B. Oh, and that part of his H-1B workers over the past many years and many companies have been things like foreign models.
Some truth, Donald Trump’s own companies have sought 1,000 H-1B workers.
Donald Trump supports growing more government socialism in a new goverment welfare program to help collage students with their tuition, same thing Rand Paul advocated and rightfully condemn here on FR.
Government welfare programs do not create jobs.
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.