WSJ Wrong on Cruz Again

Conservative Review ^ | November 22nd, 2015 | Jeffrey Lord

[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.

[American Constitutionalist]

It’s still hiring H-1B workers that Trump’s companies are actually doing that a lot of Trump supporters condemn Ted Cruz for.

So ?

Just because Trump isn’t a senator and not in Congress that gives him a pass on hiring H-1B workers that the Trump supporters constantly harp about ?

Talk about hypocrisy.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The truth of the matter is that overall polls are pretty accurate. Right now and we are getting pretty close to the voting Trump is topping all the polls and absent an alien abduction he will be the nominee whether he wins Iowa or not.

Starting next week we will be in the holiday season and traditionally voters do not pay much attention to politics until after Jan 1st. By then it will be so close to the Iowa caucus and NH then SC a contender will have no time to catch up.

[Duchess47]

LOL, it’s hypocrisy? That’s the silliest thing I’ve read here in awhile.

One of these persons is involved in setting the limits on a program that many of us believe is highly abused. Said person has not demonstrated in the past that he understands.
This person is not using the H-1B that I know of, he is part of determining the program’s limits.

The other person is using that program to obtain employees that he needs for his businesses. Whether we think that a major increase in this program is right or not, said person has the right to use that program.

[arthurus]

I don't even like Trump, but I believe him to be the only one running who can do what has to be done. Trump is capable of seeing where the train is going and getting in front of it and staying the course. Cruz is guilty of very bad judgment in his votes for Trade and Iran. I am ambivalent about the H-1Bs but that the alternative is eliminating most of the taxes on business and most of the regulations. That would quickly render the H1-Bs as beneficial as they were in the past when this country sucked in the best brains from the world and kept them helping to keep this country on top economically and scientifically. Cruz is needed in the VP spot as a stable Constitutional and principled anchor for a Trump presidency.

The truth is that the Presidency is now a dictatorship and a straight line Constitutionalist cannot change that without simply transferring the dictatorship to the Agencies and to the Democrats in which category I include most of the Republicans in office no matter what they said they were during their initial election campaigns. A Trump who can use that Dictatorship can clear away the dams and the tides that make any alternative unfeasible can then impel the states toward a Convention of the States which is the only way to return to the status of being a real Republic. I believe Trump is the only one who can do all that. I also believe that there is only a chance that he will do it. When you have to rely on a Napoleon for salvation, he just might turn out to be Napoleon.

Without Trump I would prefer Cruz far more than any of the others but would only feel I can hope from him a respite from the onset of the Total Democrat State because without a fiat abolishing of the EPA and the other Agencies it could only be a respite. Reagan was only a respite. He brought the longest period of real prosperity the nation has ever had but the totalitarian Bureaucracy continued to grow exponentially in that time, growing stronger off that prosperity as the people did not pay attention to the siphoning off of some of their wealth into the Agencies. He tried but was unable to get rid of even the DOE. The Presidency was not a monarchy thirty years ago. It is now.

[arthurus]

It doesn't matter so long as there are enough conservatives running that Trump does not get 8 outright primary majorities. This is why the rules were set up this way. It is, however, possible that Trump could even deny Bush those required 8 majorities in the True Blue GOPe states that the RNC is counting on. The RNC can deny Trump the nomination no matter how he does in the primaries, actually. The RNC is not focusing on winning the Election, only on giving the Nomination the next gope in line. They expect to not win the Election and do not desire to win it.

[Georgia Girl 2]

When the primaries are over there will be a clear winner just like there always is. All the talk of a brokered convention is just that. Talk. Its fun to speculate but will never ever happen.

[arthurus]

I don’t expect any brokered convention. I believe the RNC is planning a dictated convention, though.

[arthurus]

And to get to that convention, Trump has to do so well,even with all the other conservatives in the running, that he wins at least 8 primaries by more than 50%. If he wins at 49% and the other conservatives split 40% and Kasich and Bush share the remainder, Trump still loses vis a vis Bush and the RNC.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Most of the others will be gone by the NH primary. Even if they are still in it they will get such insignificant amounts of votes it won’t matter.

[arthurus]

I do hope so. I would love to see it Trump vs Rubio and Bush or just vs Bush.

[Isara]

Presidential Candidates Comparison (Cruz vs. Trump)

Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.

Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"

[Isara]

Trump supported TARP, auto bailout and Porkulus bill, i.e., Trump is for big government.

Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)  This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN) 

Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN) 

Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller) 

Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC) 

Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post) 

Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review) 

In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)