Posted on | March 27, 2016 | 123 Comments
In reply to Who Is Ted Cruz?, I’ve got to say: judge the tree by the fruit. A sample:
With Cruz, though, even the most fervent peroration always feels like a debater’s patter, an advocate’s brief — compelling enough on the merits, but more of a command performance than a window into deep conviction.
Sure. Cruz always seems to be playing verbal chess, as Ross allows two paragraphs later: “. . .Cruz never seemed to take a step on any contentious issue without gaming it out 17 moves ahead.”
But if Cruz is merely cynically phoning in his entire career, then why did he lay on a 21 hour filibuster? Restated, can the detractors get beyond accusing Cruz of being excessively measured, and perhaps show where Cruz is actually inconsistent in his conservative approach? Or is our current state of Sophist decadence such that merely exhibiting principles of any sort is evidence of “his own extremism”.
I can understand a negative reaction to Donald Trump as a used car salesman with hair suitable for a Primus video. There is known audio at the NYT of DJT sounding somehow wobbly on his signature issue, immigration. Can anyone come up with similar examples for Cruz? Are we supposed to believe that Cruz’s immigration bill amendment proves anything beyond the fact that Cruz is. . .a politician?
Limbaugh’s point that “they hate Trump, but they fear Cruz” has the ring of truth. The Donald is the one apparently capable of pretty much anything for 30 pieces of silver. While falling short of accusing Cruz of perfection, he seems the straightest shooter in politics today. And that is the motive for all the innuendo in the NYT: the apprehension that Cruz actually does mean everything he says and does, as stated.