Replies

Rush had a conversation with a Cruz supporter today. [Check the full transcript linked to above on Rush's site.]

The piece is an attempt by Rush to explain why the Cruz campaign has failed.

I've condensed the points Rush made below. In his remarks today, Rush also heavily sourced and commented on the ideas of a Rich Danker, a former guy in the Cruz campaign whose article appeared on the April 24th Weekly Standard.

So here are the Rush/Danekr points followed by my commentary:

Presidential elections are situational and not ideological -- This theory helps you understand why the Clintons won twice and why Obama wins. Obama's not even thought of as a liberal by people who voted for him.

Sure, Obama's liberal to the hardcore leftists. But the low-information crowd that elected him didn't think of him that way. Obama was responding to certain circumstances at the moment like the Iraq war, and he was able to position himself in a situational way and not even have to run as an ideologue.
Ideological conservatives are stratching their heads in this election -- For many people [Rush included], ideology is a single focus. They write about, study it, and try to persuade people to believe it.

And this year, many of them thought the closest thing to the dream conservative candidate was Ted Cruz. But his appeal to conservatives has not been as good as you would predict.
Cruz has followed the traditional conservative consultant's playbook -- You basically have one stump speech, you give it over and over again. And the stump speech is regionalized based on focus groups and polling.

Problem is: instead of the candidate being who he is, a consultant creates a candidate based on the consultants' polling. And while all this is going on, the candidate never has a chance to develop as a human being, because consultants turn them into robots.

And you end up slicing and dicing voters so that virtually everything the candidate says is geared toward an interest group rather than the electorate at large. You're focus-grouping interest groups, you're focus-grouping women here, men over here, immigrants here, Hispanics there, you tailor your message. Soon or later, this pandering turns people off, it becomes predictable, and worst of all, it isn't believable.
Trump's approach is to not get caught up in ideology -- Trump says I'm going to win every state and win over every voter. I'm gonna do as many public appearances I can. Every appearance I do is gonna be a bit different, but I'm not going to overly regionalize my positions other than to connect to the local crowd.

Trump understands that presidential elections are situational, not ideological. The candidate is the one who best applies their ideological outlook to the issues of the day.

And rather than announcing at every speech, "And I'm going to make sure that conservative values triumph in this country," you simply stake out your position on an issue that is conservative. You don't call it conservative.

And here's my own commentary on Rush's points:

Don't lead with ideology -- OK, I get the Rush/Danker point about not overly emphasizing ideology. That makes sense, and Trump has certainly not played up the fact that we should bracket him narrowly as a conservative. Trump's been more intent on explaining his positions on specific areas and not labeling them as part of any ideology.
But what else can Cruz talk about?-- On the other hand, Cruz has zero experience as an executive. He never served as a governor. He's been a senator for only a couple years. And he's had a few years of experience as a lawyer and Soliciter for the state of Texas. Great. But boil it own, Cruz has really very little to talk about except his ideology or his position on various issues.
Voters are not keyed in on ideology alone, but also the man himself -- The other thing that Rush/Danker seem to miss is the experience and proven capabilities of the candidate. These guys are only trying to understand Cruz's defeat through the prism of how the message is deliver. There must be some error in strategy that caused Cruz's message to fail. Cruz got bad advice: that's why he was rejected.

However another explanation is that Cruz was not the consistent conservative he claimed to be. A label like "Lyin' Ted" doesn't stick unless there's some truth to it.

Plus, when you think of a guy like Reagan or Trump, there's a man of steel behind the words. Sure, he may modify his position a bit, but he's got a long history of making decisions and maintaining a general philosophy. For Reagan, it was being Governor or California. For Trump, it's owning and running a successful $10 billion private enterprise.

If you take away Trump's experience in the world and his track record as a successful executive and public figure, you're only left with 50% of the value IMO. Trump's proven ability to execute is key to his appeal.

And if Cruz sounds "robotic", perhaps it's because voters sense there's not enough of a man behind the candidate.

And it's this crucial ability to execute that seems totally missing in the Rush/Danker analysis of Cruz's failure.

I made an attempt to quantitatively factor in the importance of executive experience in an FR vanity: Excel Scoresheet: Who Should Republicans Nominate for President?

It's like I've been saying to people with whom I engage on Donald Trump (family, friends): while ideology is important in choosing a candidate, behind all of that, you're selecting about a person and their suitability for this office. You're choosing an individual, not merely a set of beliefs.

And you're making a judgement about what's inside of a person as well as what you see on the outside.

This piece, and its additional commentary, are actually quite revealing.

I think one of the biggest reasons that the whole "NeverTrump" thing has failed is because American know Donald Trump is nothing like the hysterical caricature that his opponents, detractors and enemies are presenting.

And in making that judgement, they are also passing judgement on the vicious, hateful individuals and groups which have engaged in an all out effort to personally destroy this man, a man all of us have "known" for decades.

Donald Trump is basically much more credible and likeable than his opponents, and much of the reason for the nation ultimately embracing Donald Trump as the nominee will be because of the fact that his opposition, both quantitatively and qualitatively, was so ridiculously over-the-top and Establishment-driven.

Ted Cruz just doesn't measure up as a candidate this time around. And jumping in bed with the GOPe didn't help.

And now he's a caricature, and his campaign has become awkward.

This Fiorina move is like a Hail Mary pass that a football team throws with on fourth down with 1 second left on the clock, and after missing 3 consecutive Hail Mary's on the first 3 downs.

I don't see how it could possibly do anything but make Cruz's campaign look even more desperate, and that's not a good look for the Cruz campaign at this point...

This is the conversation most voters (conservative or otherwise) are having around the water cooler at work: "Why is Ted Cruz still doing this? It's Trump that GOP voters want."

What's the deficit now, Donald Trump has received 3 million more votes than Ted Cruz?

I mean, come on!

Vote Trump

Come on, where are the brains?
All of the GOPe positions evolve from the 2012 loss when mitt was defeated handily while that same body politic expected an easy win over a weak liberal opponent.
The after loss position papers clearly enumerated that the loss was the failure of Inclusion’ not conservative ideology,i.e, we didn’t have a big enough ‘tent,’ and now must pander even more to illegal, gays, and Muslims.
That was an epic mistake that also indicates that they simply do not share our values at all, but are actually more like a uniparty than we of constitutional conservative values.
Understand that and all of the actions of the past 7 years, as well as the focus against Trump fall neatly into place

When Rush didn’t refute Cruz’s claim that Trump & Hillary have the same view on gun control - I couldn’t believe it. Rush is so pushing Cruz - sickening.

Jobs. No one believes Cruz can do anything about increasing jobs

I am not big on calling people out for their religious hypocrisy. At all. BUT, Ted says he’s a SOUTHERN BAPTIST (Though many say he’s a “DOMINIONIST”, which his father---who has called Ted “The Anointed One”---claims to be; or even a Mormon, as he stood by while Glenn Beck recited Mormon-specific references, applying them to Cruz, That Cruz is the “raising of the priests” and the fulfillment of the “prophecy of the White Horse.” Or a Seventh Day Adventist, as his wife, Heidi, who has more than once referred to Ted as “The Face Of God.”)

I am Southern Baptist, raised that way. Let me tell you, Southern Baptist are very loosey goosey when it comes to what it accepts or allows in each affiliate congregation (for example, some can dance, some cannot.) BUT….THREE THINGS are not acceptable ANYWHERE to Southern Baptists: GAMBLING, DRINKING, and NOT TITHING:

_____________________________________
(Today, Apri 27) During Carly Fiorina’s running-mate acceptance speech in Indianapolis, Fiorina described Cruz as a really fun dude who’s able to make last-second bets on exciting basketball games.
She revisited the final moments of that epic national title game between Villanova and North Carolina. Fiorina and Cruz were watching the game on the bus, and after Marcus Paige’s incredible 3, Cruz threw money on the table. – USA TODAY

_____________________________________
On CNN’s Republican Presidential Townhall, Republican candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Anderson Cooper that he drinks alcohol “What is your favorite cocktail?” Cooper asked Cruz. “I am a scotch man,” Cruz responded. – CNN [PS---scotch is not a “cocktail; it’s a distilled spirit, a member of the whiskey family.]

_____________________________________
According to recently released tax records, the Texas senator contributed less than 1 percent of his income to charity between 2006 and 2010. But many Christians believe that the Bible commands a charitable offering, or tithe, equal to 10 percent of one’s annual earnings. – The Atlantic

Cruz' s biggest problem is that he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

So-called "conservatives" seem to care more about faggot's using the lady's room than preventing a Constitutionally ineligible usurper from gaining the presidency.

Rush is in a delicate position. His brother has been all in for Cruz from day one. And Rush has made plenty of comments over the past year that clearly indicated that his preferred candidate has been Cruz as well. Rush’s ratings are down and his contracts with iHeart and Cumulous who carry his shows are about up. Both iHeart and Cumulous are in financial difficulty.

It seems odd that in a year when Republican participation in the primary is way up that Rush’s ratings would be down. Maybe we should all admire Rush for doing what he has been able to do to help out his preferred candidate who he called the best conservative since Reagan. But Rush chose to back someone which many of his listeners can see through and who has now lost. It is like the curtain has been pulled back and Rush has been exposed. I don’t know how other people feel, but I will never see him in quite the same way. At one time I never missed a show; I haven’t listened to him in months.

No one has sacrificed more for Cruz than Rush has, even if he did it a little stealthily at times. Unfortunately, when you back the guy who lost, you get no appreciation. Rush will be fine either way, and I expect that he will still be on the radio, but his glory days are now behind him.