“What exactly is the problem with answering what I asked?
Being warm to Cruz as a person, and then not is FAR different than Cruz’s line that Trump is a fake...blah blah blah, when he was OK with being allies with him, and letting him run crazy over the other candidates, and becoming the prohibitive polling leader in the primaries.”
It is now clear that the “bromance” between Trump and Cruz was a strategic calculation on the part of both men. Trump made a calculation that warming up to Cruz would give him credibility with the conservative movement — which it did and still does (though it may start to slip if he continues to ratchet up the attacks). Cruz made a calculation that warming up to Trump would position him to inherit many of Trump’s voters when/if he imploded. Cruz always maintained he had nothing personal against the Donald, and he also said that there would come a time down the road when their policy differences would be discussed.
While I think Cruz would have preferred to wait a little longer to have that debate, Trump forced his hand by going full birther on him and attacking him personally by calling him a “nasty person.” But note that Cruz’s responses have been about policy differences — that’s what the “New York values” debate is about — Trump’s positions being largely informed by his Manhattan roots (paraphrasing Trump’s own words when he was already 54 years old and very well-developed in his thinking).
And yes, I think Cruz was OK being allies with Trump when Trump was drawing attention to important issues like immigration, and burning down the GOPe — which Cruz is undeniably an enemy of. As long as they had that common enemy (the GOPe), Cruz (and I would guess many of his supporters) were willing to largely overlook Trump’s numerous inconsistencies on policy over the years.
Was this a mistake? Maybe. But I believe there was a well-thought out reason for the strategy. Had Cruz attacked early on in the summer when his polling was 5%-7%, he could have suffered the same fate as Perry, Jindal, and others who went after Trump and whose attacks ended up looking gimmicky and like attempts to garner attention. So Cruz chose to wait to have the debate about policy differences (of which he has always maintained there were several, so no inconsistency there) until he was a clear top tier candidate with a strong base of support of his own. When you’re running with a guy like Trump in the field, there is very little precedent for what strategy will work and what won’t, and most candidates seem to have gotten it wrong. As far as I can tell, thus far, Cruz’s strategy has been as good as anyone else’s. We shall see very soon (once the actual votes start getting counted) who had the best strategy.
“It is now clear that the “bromance†between Trump and Cruz was a strategic calculation on the part of both men. “
So Cruz compromised his “true Christian conservative” consistency why?
He was fine with Trump well enough as long as he could skate through the fall while letting Trump do all of the work, and not having to confront any other candidates.
If I was Trump, I would be PO’d to when he then tries to use him to catapult to the nomination.
“Had Cruz attacked early on in the summer when his polling was 5%-7%, he could have suffered the same fate as Perry, Jindal, and others who went after Trump and whose attacks ended up looking gimmicky and like attempts to garner attention”
And this is the person some people want to send up against Hillary? I don’t think so.