Posted on 03/11/2016 2:55:39 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz spent the CNN debate Thursday drawing policy contrasts between himself and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. On ISIS, trade, and immigration, Cruz said Trump speaks to voters' concerns but doesn't have solutions that address the problems America confronts. The personal attacks and shouting that have characterized the previous Republican debates were gone, replaced with somber candidates trying to hit target audiences with messages that have worked in the past. Trump was the politically incorrect straight-talker who wants America to win again. Cruz was the conservative ideologue ready to take on the bipartisan Washington cartel. Marco Rubio was once again the youthful, eloquent voice of a rising generation of conservatives. And John Kasich is the experienced governor who wants to expand the Republican coalition by reviving the tradition of compassionate conservatism.
If 2016 were like previous elections, Rubio and Kasich would be neck and neck in the delegate count and ready to give Hillary Clinton tough competition in the general election. But 2016 is not like previous elections. It features a black swan in the form of Donald Trump, the celebrity real estate mogul who is taking over the Republican party, and whose rise is evidence of a powerful anti-Washington sentiment among GOP voters. So the race isn't between Rubio and Kasich. It's between Trump and his closest rival, Ted Cruz, who is disliked by his Senate colleagues and alienated most of Washington when he shut down the government in the fall of 2013.
I doubt either Trump or Cruz is likely to win in November. But in recent days I have encountered the opinion, especially among liberals, that there is no difference between the two candidates. And this is a ridiculous idea. Cruz would make a much better president than Trump. It shouldn't be hard to see why.
For one thing, Cruz actually knows what he's talking about. If you listened to Trump during the CNN debate, you heard little in the way of policy detail. His answers begin with a few words describing how angry people are and how China is taking our jobs before ending with a demand that we negotiate better deals. Trump is full of bluster, often funny and impolitic. He's a great communicator because he reaches peoples' deepest emotions. But to call him "articulate" would be an exaggeration, and to call him a "wonk" would be delusional. You might not like Cruz's policies or the manner in which he communicates them, but there's no question he has firm convictions, a grasp of detail, and knows how to make an argument.
Then there is the question of the Constitution. Trump never mentions it. But Cruz worships it. He mentions it often in his speeches, knows its contents, is devoted to the memory of the Founders and wants to protect their legacy. I don't know how a President Trump would respond if one of the other coequal branches of government challenged his authority. Indeed, I am somewhat afraid that Trump would ignore or move against that other branch, whether it's Congress or the Court. But I don't have that worry with Cruz. He may be an ideologue, but he's an ideological constitutionalist. Trump is neither an ideologue nor a constitutionalist. His only principle is winning. And he's not talking about you winning. He's talking about Trump winning. That's all that matters to him.
The president is not only our head of government. He's also the head of state. He represents America. And I truly don't understand how one could think Donald Trump would be a better representative of America than Ted Cruz. Trump is riveting, entertaining, even charismatic. But he curses, he offends, he disturbs, he confronts, he bends and twists and pushes reality until it suits his needs. Having him as president would be like living on a rollercoaster. You wouldn't know whether you are up or down, and you are likely to wake up nauseous.
Cruz is very conservative, a Bible-believing Christian who is fiercely pro-market and hawkish (if not as interventionist as other Republicans). That might upset secular liberals worldwide. But would Cruz be as erratic, would he be as explosive, would he be as unsettling as Trump? I doubt it. The man idolizes Ronald Reagan. Well, we survived, indeed flourished under, one Reagan presidency. Not a bad model for our next president to have.
Who does Trump idolize? Himself. And his neutral and sometimes flattering attitude toward authoritarian governments ought to make you think twice about seeing him in the Oval Office.
The Oval Office seems very far away right now. It's unlikely either Trump or Cruz will be elected president. But nominating Trump would change the Republican Party in a way nominating Cruz would not. Trump overthrows the apple cart. He's already breaking one weak institution--the GOP--and there's no telling what other weak institutions he could break if elected to high office. For reasons of policy, presentation, and character, there is only remaining choice in this GOP primary. It is Ted Cruz.
Here’s my comment. He’s the son-in-law of Bill Kristol - writes a little blog and is in the family business of Punditry for Profit.
:-)
He would make a better Class President of a Texas high school. Because he is never going to be elected to a national office. He is Pugsley Addams.
This is like having a blind man tell you that Rosanne Barr is prettier than Marilyn Monroe.
Do you guys have a whole art department there in Mumbai producing that material for you?
Every ONE of these kinds of questions or statements have an adjective or verb that can be understood in more that one way
Trump could never stand for two days in front of the Senate and talk, nor can he sound like William F Buckley Jr, but that does not take away his ability as a man to be President of The United States
Too many people think Trump cannot win against Hillary because she has a lifetime of verbal gymnastics to draw on in a confrontation
Hillary will not stand up against the one syllable facts Trump will throw at her when they meet
When totaled up, you get a huge pant load of bullsh*t from the so called 'conservative' press.
Yep. And we made India pay for it. /s
I’ve been to those parties when I was stationed there. Decent food but mostly dull people.
Cruz cannot win if he loses Florida and Ohio on Tuesday night. It is a mathematical thing. That day he is also already losing Illinois, north Carolina, Missouri. At that point he will need 900 of the remaining 1100 delegates. That won’t happen. In fact trump would be leading in a large majority of the remaining states. Cruz will not win the delegates necessary to win.
I see Pugsley Addams. He’s grown increasingly repulsive over the last month or two.
Do you think any Trump supporter is going to admit that “if they don’t behave we’ll just build the factories over here.” is quite possibly the dumbest statement made last night?
Of course not. Drudge poll says he won the debate, so he won. It ends there.
The Free Beacon has been well-regarded here for years but let them write one article daring to say that Lord Trump has no clothes and they’re tossed into the dustbin with the National Review, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and 100 others and we must also attack their looks. On behalf of the man with what is possibly the worst hairpiece in the world. What’s really funny is that half of you will probably be calling for Trump’s impeachment a year or two from now and swearing up and down that you never supported him.
Now, as to the substance of what this apparently reviled source said: The article makes a point I somehow hadn't thought of, in this shouting match of a primary season. Being President is more than posturing and image. Like anything else, it's mostly a day-to-day job.
How would Candidate X behave in office? "Knowing what you're talking about" suddenly looms large, gigantic, actually, when you think about the cumulative effect of someone working at a crucial job 365 days a year for a limited amount of time.
>>The Oval Office seems very far away right now. It’s unlikely either Trump or Cruz will be elected president. But nominating Trump would change the Republican Party in a way nominating Cruz would not. Trump overthrows the apple cart. He’s already breaking one weak institution—the GOP—and there’s no telling what other weak institutions he could break if elected to high office.
So, in the opinion of this professional pundit, neither will win so we must preserve the institution of the UniParty scam. In other words, “dammit people, we need to turn the heat down and go back to slow boiling you frogs! Too many of you are starting to jump out of the pot.”
You nailed it.
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.