Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ted Cruz, Weasel
On my first viewing, I was quite moved by this:
Ted Cruz: "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father." https://t.co/LMsN84Z2IT
— CNN (@CNN) July 21, 2016
On my second, I realized a very serious problem with it: By implication, Ted Cruz was fine — absolutely fine — with Trump mocking Ben Carson’s faith, a reporter’s physical handicap, and John McCain’s torture. And that’s just the stuff off the top of my head.
If Cruz had said “Trump’s attacks on my family opened my eyes to his abuses and I repent that I didn’t take a stand against them when others were similarly attacked” then I’d be really moved. As it is… Look, I’m glad to see someone show some spine, but I really wish it wasn’t so nakedly self-interested.
Published in General
I thought you were talking about Ted Cruz.
Is it okay if I draw a parallel?
Regarding the question of Cruz’s “naked self interest.”
I have never, ever, seen a politician who was so often accused of “overweening ambition,” “naked self interest,” and “political calculation,” at the same time, and sometimes in the same sentence, as someone will bemoan his judgment, his timing, his intelligence, and say his political career is finished.
How does this work?
Yeah, except that Cruz has already said those things about Trump. During the last part of the primaries, he didn’t ignore those obvious observations about Trump’s more general behavior. But here, he’s at a convention where the man is being nominated, and he’s giving a speech in which he declines to openly endorse the candidate. Keep in mind that stupid “will you support the nominee” question early in the primaries… Basically, Cruz is trying to be quiet enough (i.e. not going full attack-Trump mode) while still giving some justification for breaking the “vow.” That’s a pretty fine line to walk. The obvious solution is to not speak at all.
A side note: my biggest problem is that all of them were attacking each other instead of touting their own policies and plans and showing how they were better than those of the Democrat candidates’.
Eric Hines
(Peeking out from under the covers) Is the election over yet??
Ryan, She, would you agree that it would have shown more character if Cruz had said something like:
I thought Cruz’s speech was too coy and clever. It was, and okay this is idiotically ironic given the context of a Donald Trump nomination, classless and mean girlish. Cruz’s arc from friend to frenemy to enemy of The Donald was always a little too manipulative.
Had Cruz shown the self-critical instincts Tom suggests (I am afraid they are utterly absent), or made a strong case against Trump after Indiana and made this speech outside of the formal convention program I’d have more respect for him.
Had he tossed aside his prepared speech and gone full Bulworth and challenged an arena of Republicans to reclaim their party from Trump, it would have been somewhat heroic.
But it was too clever, tactical and totally lacking is honest self assessment.
It was Cruz.
Are you applying to be his speechwriter?
How many times have any of us wished we’d said something more articulately?
Careful what you wish for.
The irony of all this vow talk is that the loyalty pledge was a spectacularly stupid idea from the RNC to bind Trump once Trump was defeated by a real candidate.
To top that off Trump himself said he wasn’t bound by the loyalty oath in question. He even said Cruz didn’t need to support him. This is much ado about nothing.
Good observation. In that case, the self-interest is located in not turning down the chance to make last night’s speech.
Once the speech is made, finding ways to justify it while still allowing Trump and the party to save face becomes necessary if Cruz is to show any regard for those in the party who disagree with him, and limiting his justification to, “Well, he attacked my family, and I cannot let that stand,” is a fairly effective way to do that.
Those who think Cruz was wrong to make the speech in the first place will naturally find him wrong in this also, but those believing it was right for Cruz to make the speech – or if not right, at least only reasonably ambitious rather than wickedly ambitions – must live with Cruz’s attempts to be as tactful as Cruz can be (which may not be very) about mitigating the disharmony such a speech is likely to cause.
Honestly, Cruz could maybe use a speechwriter like Tom.
This sounds sensible. Charles Krathhammer agrees – he said the speech was fine, but Cruz should have given it elsewhere.
No, that would be another copout. No one can abrogate one’s pledge but the one who made it. What Cruz could have done is say something like:
I’ll be voting for Donald Trump
at the end of an otherwise identical speech. Unless he has someone else in mind for whom to vote.
Eric Hines
No, but I’m happy to have Peter’s attorney look over the NDA for me if offered. ;)
Ted Cruz isn’t married to a reporter mocked by Trump and Ben Carson isn’t his father.
You have to cross a long bridge to make that connection to being a weasel Tom.
That would have worked very well for me.
He could also loosen up some.
He has a tendency when he hasn’t spoken on a big stage in a while to come out over rehearsed and stiff.
Cruz made his Machiavellian calculation early on in the campaign that he would praise Trump until Trump faltered and then he would snatch up Trump’s supporters because they shared so much in common about immigration policy, combating terrorism, etc. This was revealed in an audio clip with Cruz donors and supporters. And it might have even worked. Except Trump defied conventional political logic and never faltered. And in the interim Trump hurled his vitriol and insults at just about every Republican candidate in the race and many conservative commentators. Cruz also had to deal with his own campaign’s issues of deception and smear, particularly against Carson and Rubio which I personally found disingenuous. So, to me he continues to have a Machiavellian taint.
Last night he articulated the frustration that many, who have not knelt to Trump or embraced the Trump coronation, have been feeling since late May when Trump garnered the necessary delegates. I believe he was sincere in his concern that Republicans need to vote for candidates who stand for freedom and the Constitution. He chose the word, “dictator” purposely at the beginning of his remarks because he senses that whether it’s Hillary or The Donald, Congress will have to do all it can to restrain either of them if they exhibit an attempt to act tyrannically and outside the bounds of the Constitution.
My guess is that Cruz had made the calculation that not endorsing Trump would be quite risky and either damage his career or position him for a run in 2020. So, that took some guts. Especially to walk into an arena where he knew the crowd would eventually turn on him based on the content of his speech and the payoff that the crowed was waiting for but never came.
If or when the Republican Party is ripped apart, historians will no doubt look back to Cruz’s speech as perhaps a catalytic moment but there were numerous other contributing factors and moments well before Trump or Cruz even surfaced in the political arena that has brought the republic to this dismal state of affairs.
Were you to call my late father a weasel, are you saying that I would forfeit my right to punch you in the snout had I not first punched you in the snout for calling Cruz a weasel?
It wouldn’t have worked for Ted Cruz. I make a distinction between voting for someone and supporting them, perhaps you do as well. I’ve been told there is no difference and that a vote for someone is the same as a max donation, volunteering, etc. by the esteemed Ricochet Bar Association who is now ensconced in their private library.
He had a very specific purpose last night as did Ken Cuccinelli and Mike Lee earlier this week. Endorsing Trump didn’t fit that agenda.
Yeah, but that doesn’t fit the NeverTrump agenda, but then again Never Trump doesn’t always fit the NeverTrump agenda either.
Brian, I am too cheap to be a Thatcher or Reagan member so I can’t quote it, but your #51 is very good.
Concur. Wholeheartedly.
May I point out that the convention is the National Convention of the Republican Party. Sen. Cruz came with the second largest set of elected delegates. He certainly had every right to address the party. He had every right to ask voters to vote their conscious – indeed that should always be the voter’s motivation. He was the only speaker who reminded (indirectly) that Trump is no Republican, let alone a constitutional conservative. I remain unwilling to blindly roll the dice on a candidate who is unfamiliar with that document.
So why should he conspire to destroy the Republican Party? With so many sheeple ready to be sheared, why do you want him to crowd into the arena to share your shearing?
I’ve seen a lot of moments that a Republican has turned on his own party and put personal interests above the good of the country. I believe I’ve condemned each and every one of these. Who do you believe has decided that their personal emotional state is more important than the Supreme Court and not been dinged for it?
It’s not implication by omission. Cruz changed his position from “I will endorse Trump” to “I will give Clinton the largest gift she’s received from any other candidate but Trump this election”. The former position made it clear that he was comfortable endorsing Trump despite Trump making vile allegations. The latter position made it clear that he was not when those allegations were personal to him. In other words, it’s not about the country, or about Trump’s character, it’s about Cruz.
I can see the argument that Cruz ought not to have defended Carson etc.
Cruz did not just stand by and let people defend themselves, though. He actively protected Trump, saying that Reagan’s 11th commandment meant that people should desist from attacking Trump.
He then said, repeatedly, in paper and verbally, that he would endorse Trump for President if Trump won the nomination. There is no stronger proof possible that he did not believe that vile attacks were not disqualifying for the role or President (or, I guess, that he did not want to portray himself as believing that; obviously, we’ve no way of telling what he actually believed).
When Trump mocked a journalist’s physical disability, was that different from Heidi because the journalist was in the ring? It appears to me that Heidi had done considerably more to insert herself into the public sphere than he had; she voluntarily campaigned as a leading surrogate for a candidate for the Republican nomination.
Are you glad that he’s persuading people not to vote Republican? Until yesterday, one of the better arguments for Trump was that he would appoint conservative judges, and that we could tell that he was sincere because he promised to involve Cruz; by having this be the price of Cruz’s support, he went some distance toward giving himself strong incentives to follow through on his commitment. Whoever wins in November, Cruz made it less likely that we’ll have conservative justices by supporting Clinton and reducing Trump’s incentive. Are you glad that he’d invigorating the split in the party? One of the greatest difficulties faced by Republicans running for downticket offices is that they get asked about their views on Trump and any answer costs them votes. Raising the profile of that issue is a significant problem for Senators, whether they’re pro- or anti- Trump. As She says, we should move on when we can, but one of the best moments for persuading voters available, a night with a series of great speeches by persuasive orators has, instead, been dominated by a bid to divide the party further. Other than emotional validation, I’m not sure what the benefit to hijacking the night was.
I think he pretty much said that, with respect to himself, this morning, in explaining why he felt that he was absolved of ‘the pledge.’
I know you are ‘stuck’ on ‘why didn’t Cruz defend everyone else that Trump had abused?’
My recollection of that narrative, (using Ben Carson as an example), relates to that utterly spurious story that was peddled after the Iowa Caucuses, that Cruz torpedoed Ben Carson by claiming, without any corroborating evidence, that Carson was quitting the race. I really can’t be bothered to find the link. Google it, and you’ll see plenty of reports, favoring one side or the other.
Trump (who did not win in Iowa, if I recollect correctly), jumped all over Cruz as a result of that, and that was probably the beginning of the end of the Cruz/Trump bromance that people write so fondly about.
That was the point, if I remember correctly, at which Carson began his flirtation with the Trump bandwagon, because Trump, at that point was supporting Carson against Cruz (probably because he saw, correctly, that Cruz might be more of a threat to him (Trump) in the long run). This gave Carson the cover he needed to support Trump, after Carson himself quit the race (and convinces me that Ben Carson does not need me, or even you, to defend him, especially since neither of us is in a position to offer him a position in any potential new Republican administration).
Considering the number of times that Trump himself said that he might abrogate ‘the pledge’ if he lost, I think ongoing discussion of this issue is absurd.
And, in the unlikely event that the Republic survives four years of President Trump, I think that whether or not Ted Cruz, or anybody else, hewed strictly to the letter of ‘the pledge’ in 2016 will be irrelevant, and probably forgotten.
But the video of Marco Rubio, who looked like nothing so much as a hostage speaking under duress, or of Scott Walker, shouting into the virtual Wisconsin farmland that served as the video background for his speech, will not.
As for Ted Cruz, his speech, in front of video of the US Constitution, and the American Flag–people will remember that.
For better, or for worse.
@jamielockett‘s made an observation about another brouhaha last week (I can’t recall, maybe Jamie can?) that people were opining in exactly the manner you’d expect them to.
Same thing here. Maybe we could replace these posts with polls to cut down on wasted time?