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.
Cruz Bows the Knee
“Hail Hydra.”
The principled junior senator from Texas has officially endorsed the guy who claimed Rafael Cruz assassinated JFK. His full, lawyerly, too-clever-by-three-quarters statement from Facebook:
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.
If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
Unbelievably, pasta-spined John Kasich and low-energy Jeb Bush are the only GOP candidates who haven’t caved to the Republican nominee. Trump protégé Omarosa said this week that “every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump.” In that case, put me on Team Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Published in General
Conservatism.
Something Cruz might realize, as more Reluctant Trumpers put their reluctance behind them and get on board. Why antagonize those voters if you’re a politician who wants to appeal to them?
Principle in support of Clinton is no virtue. Expediency in opposition to Clinton is no vice.
Thanks for the non-answer.
Let’s take one at a time. How would Clinton’s SCOTUS nominees be better than Trump’s? C’mon. Do me a favor and explain.
I’ll go with “Keeping your promises is for suckers.”
Recognizing those aren’t the only choices is no problem.
I don’t know what the best part of all this is; that Cruz wised up and now has a shot at a Supreme Court appointment… a good thing, I think… or the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the NeverTrumpers that are mad other people refuse to slip beneath the waves with them as their ship rams that iceberg called “reality”.
*scooping buckets of seawater furiously* Don’t go! It’s just minor damage! We can still make it to shore!
Do we even have folks here who think Hillary’s will be better than Trump’s?
Or is it more like, they are probably less secure than you that Trump’s picks will be that much better – they just don’t trust Trump’s claims about SCOTUS very much – and so for them the upside of Trump’s SCOTUS picks is smaller, doing less to outweigh other ill effects they believe Trump will have?
I bet we do. I think there are at least a handful of Christopher Buckley types here that think her judgment in all things is sound compared to his, and would prefer everything from her executive orders to her SCOTUS picks. “Reasonable Republicans” and all. Hell, George H.W. Bush falls into that basket. Surely there are some HW type guys here.
So does this mean that if Trump loses Rick Wilson gets to purge him from the party, too?
Thanks for making my brain start to play an endless loop of the “Love Theme from Titanic” . . . here, there, wherever you are . . . argh
Never said they were. Lots of people simply oppose Clinton on principle.
It is a myth that Cruz took a principled stand against Trump (or that any of the GOP candidates did, really). Cruz only became “opposed on principle” to Trump once they were basically going head to head late in the primaries.
Jonah Goldberg, February 23, 2016: “Although the queue for allotments of blame [for Trump’s rise] would be longer than a Great Depression bread line, the person at the head of it is Sen. Ted Cruz…..For months, Cruz embraced Trump as a comrade in arms, which helped send the signal to talk show hosts and various conservative activists that Trump was a healthy addition to the political conversation.”
I vehemently disagree. Conservatism helps us to recognize that which is worth conserving (freedom of conscience/religion, free association, free exchange of labor and goods…). Politics is the sausage-making method by which we try to save what is left of our freedoms. If Donald Trump is ignorant of conservatism, Hillary Clinton is an enemy of it. Ted Cruz seems to understand this now.
The problem we’re having with NeverTrumpers is your stubborn insistence on your “principled” conservatism suggests those of us who’re trying to save the country from the last ratchet of leftism have somehow made an unprincipled decision to vote for Trump.
“Equally bad” is a poor argument, given the six reasons Cruz articulates, among others (weaponized bureaucracy, for example).
The few conservatives contemplating voting Hillary that I’ve talked to have all said they expect Hillary’s SCOTUS picks to be worse, they just don’t think Trump’s will be better by enough to outweigh the rest.
It is not exactly hard to distrust Trump’s attitude toward our legal institutions and so disbelieve his promises about them, while also expecting him to break promises on SCOTUS in ways still less bad than Hillary’s likely appointments. But that kind of distrust (and I know some who have every reason to feel it) might estimate Trump’s million-dollar SCOTUS claims as fifty cents’ worth of actual good – still not negative, but also not much.
I consider the recognition of reality to be a principle worth upholding, too.
No matter how wonderful your Ideals, none of them mean squat if you ensure that none of them are ever put into practice.
With a President Hillary, no conservative principles will be put into practice at the federal level. None.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he made a hard, principled choice. Given your opinion that he has demonstrated principle, it seems uncharitable (at least) to refuse to countenance this possibility.
That problem takes two to tango, though.
It really isn’t all that hard for someone not supporting Trump to recognize that other conservatives, because they estimate Trump differently, or estimate the value of their vote differently (a value which genuinely differs across states), can support Trump without being unprincipled, while also acknowledging one’s own estimations differ enough from those people’s to make the outcome of applying one’s principles to one’s own estimations different.
Conservatives can have principled disagreements about Trump – meaning (as “principled disagreement” usually does) that it’s unreasonable to call either side of the disagreement unprincipled.
Not a problem, just wishful thinking.
Ultimately though, policy and picks is not what this is about. Just like which quarterback has the stronger arm is not what football is about.
Either you believe in limited government or you believe in strong government. So you either have nobody to vote for or you pick one. Cruz claimed to be conservative then blinked when the chips were down. That’s fine, good for him. But now he’s not someone I would vote for.
I’ve consistently maintained that a Trump victory alters what a Republican is. That it would be for a strong government just like they are for strong government. Just differently.
I’ve been repeatedly told conservatives can work with him, can control him, etc. And yet, conservative #1 is already out. And Trump hasn’t even won yet. The whole idea of limited government is dying before our eyes.
Somebody turn out the lights when the Freedom Fries are gone.
I am personally disappointed with Cruz, but I do understand. The last couple of weeks as Trump has attempted to be less needy and arrogant, has actually been acting more like a real candidate, and Hillary, the media and the left, in general, has become more and more onerous, the desire to stop Hillary at any cost seems almost appealing. It is that “at any cost” that still sticks in my craw. A couple of days ago Ben Shapiro said that Cruz would do this. However, he also said that the real reason would be a promised position on SCOTUS. The fact that Senator Lee is on the list seems to squelch that, but “who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”
No, political thinking. That’s important in politics. Though rare.
Tom, you should know that pretty much all who are Ricochet members are college educated, clear-eyed individuals. We all come to our various conclusions with our eyes wide open, but thank you for the concern.
In which way does this alter what a Republican is?
Agree.
Yes. A great many NeverTrumpers don’t bother to make any argument at all, just as Jon didn’t bother to substantively address Cruz’s statement.
To suggest that Cruz, by endorsing Trump has violated “conservatism” is the kind of empty argument one does not expect from a serious individual, especially not the Ricochet EIC!
Jon has just stated in no cryptic manner that anyone who votes for Trump is not principled and not a conservative without any need to elaborate.
The most typical NeverTrump argument: “Go to Hell,” he explained.
It is starting to resemble a wildlife show, where the announcer, off camera and behind a blind of tall grass, speaks in golf announcer tones:
“And heahs the wild #nevas upon hearin the rich beller of the leada promptly begin devouring their own hind legs… and now a word from Mutual of Omaha”
You’re welcome. If you need help with the search function one of Ricochets stellar staff members can assist you.
It is not our responsibility to assuage your consciences but to speak the truth as we see it. If that causes you psychic pain that’s on you, not us.