In no surprise at all…
…Ted Cruz has thrown his hat into the 2016 presidential ring.
Early-bird Cruz is one of the smartest guys ever to run for the presidency. And I don’t think even the staunchest conservatives would be likely to question his conservative bona fides.
Although I suppose someone can find a way—and indeed, just now when I checked, I find that the paleo/Buchananesque/isolationist wing of the party seems to detest him. They think he’s too hawkish, and that too many candidates will split the conservative wing of the party (I agree with the latter assertion).
Of course, Cruz is the only declared candidate so far, so the field is decidedly unsplit at the moment. But they think he has absolutely no chance of winning and therefore should never have tried in the first place. I believe he’s certainly a long shot, but not an impossible one. I happen to like Cruz, although he’s not my frontrunner. I think he’d be a better president than senator; as senator, he’s more of a lonely voice crying in the wilderness.
[NOTE: By the way, a quick perusal of that paleo publication to see which Republican candidate they do like doesn’t reveal anyone. They seem to detest Walker at least as much as they hate Cruz, and I can’t imagine that Jeb Bush is their man. This Buchanan article makes it clear that his isolation is intact, even now, and it seems that all the conservatives and Republicans are too hawkish for him. Maybe he wants another go-round for…Pat Buchanan? Now, there’s a longshot. He’s 76 now, by the way, but it seems he’s been around forever.]
How ironic that Buchanan people would speak of diluting the vote.
I doubt that Cruz has a chance of winning; but, then again who thought that Obama would have “snow ball’s chance in hell”? Twice yet.
Cruz needs to be heard. I could live with a Walker-Cruz ticket.
BTW I read the Alan Dershowitz said that Cruz was the smartest student he ever saw at Harvard Law. Just add seasoning, and let simmer.
Oldflyer:
They’re the only ones who are allowed to dilute the vote.
How long will it be before the dems raise the Article 1, Section 2 “natural born citizen” clause?
I have no doubt that Cruz is smart and conservative. I want to see how he can build a team and reach out to others. BTW, McCain supports him at this point.
Cruz reminds me a lot of Newt Gingrich; both are diabolically intelligent: easy to admire but hard to like.
Cruz reminds the left of Joe McCarthy.
For What It’s Worth Dept.: Was gonna vote for Pat in 2000, wound up voting for W.
kaba: I’ve wondered about that too. I imagine that Cruz has a ready answer for the question, when someone gets around to asking him. (One possible answer is that he’s at least as eligible as the current incumbent is.)
I agree that Cruz would probably make a better president than Senator. I still want an executive for President, not a legislator… and I’m not aware of any significant executive experience for Cruz. (That’s one of many things I like about Gov. Walker — he has run a state, he has gotten runaway budgets under control, and he’s fought as fiercely as anyone — and won.)
There’s no question in my mind that Cruz is a fighter, that he’s willing to go against entrenched interests if need be, and that he’ll fight hard and fight well. But is he a leader? I have no idea.
Mind you, if Cruz becomes the nominee, I’d support him in a heartbeat against Hillary. I’d support a ticket consisting of Cruz and his pet hamster against Hillary.
carl in atlanta:
I know what you mean, but although Cruz isn’t all that easy to like he is likeability personified compared to Gingrich.
kaba Says:
March 23rd, 2015 at 4:38 pm
How long will it be before the dems raise the Article 1, Section 2 “natural born citizen” clause?
They raised it enough for McPain during the 2008 follies that eventually it took a resolution from the Senate.
Meet professor Prof. Gabriel J. Chin.
Ted Cruz is not a viable presidential nominee, and I cannot understand the enthusiasm that some people have for his candidacy. One of the strongest criticisms of then-Senator Obama in 2008 was that he’d only been in office for a few years, he had no legislative experiences to speak of, and was not interested in the necessary activities presidents need to take part in – negotiating and compromising. These same criticisms apply for Senator Cruz, whose most notable activities in the Senate are self-aggrandizement and torpedoing Republican strategies. He’s doubtless a very intelligent man, but our nominee needs to have much more than an Ivy-League degree and a barbed tongue
I suspect that the ‘paleo/Buchananesque/isolationist wing of the party’ will naturally gravitate toward Rand Paul.
I strongly approve of Cruz’s positions on the issues, I give him little chance of securing the nomination and his lack of executive experience gives me concern as well. I’d really like a Walker/Cruz ticket. Eight years of executive mentorship under Walker and Cruz would be well qualified for President.
Interested to know why neo and others don’t think Ted can win?
Too conservative? Not likeable? Untested? Slimed already and can’t win the independents?
I like he a lot. I would love to see Cruz/Rubio or Rubio/Cruz ticket. Lots of electoral votes in TX and FL.
And, frankly, we would see a whole bunch of ethnic and illegal persons voting GOP. Back to Blood per Tom Wolfe.
I’m worried about Walker and the Marquette block isn’t big.
I liked Cruz’s speech. Heck, I could have written it for him. The points he highlighted are the things that need to be done to get this country moving again. A positive agenda to restore economic vigor and get government out of so many areas of our lives. Do I think that agenda has a chance of being enacted? Only over a period of time. The progs are opposed to every tit and jottle of his policy positions. And they will have a say. The way forward will not be easy or quick.
Cruz is a master orator, and extremely good at debate. However, in many ways he seems to be the conservative version of Obama. He’s full of himself, in a hurry to get to the top, and has shown no ability to horse trade with his fellow Senators. A good executive must be willing to enter into the give and take of democratic governance. An ability which Obama does not have. At this point Ted Cruz seems not to have it either. I support his conservative ideas, but my support for his candidacy for President is lukewarm. That said, If he should become the Republican nominee, I will vote for him.
Coolidge, agreed that Cruz’s ability to “work” the Congress (herd cats) like LBJ is an unknown. Nor do we know that he CAN’T do it.
But we do need someone who’s got the right course heading. Barry O, whatever his deficits and assets, has used same to get us going over Niagara Falls. We need someone who is willing to FIGHT to reverse course. Incrementalism isn’t always the way: it depends on how close the the falls we are.
I’d say very close.
I like where his compass needle is pointing. More of that, please.
Cornhead:
I didn’t say he couldn’t win. I wrote:
The are quite a few reasons I think he’s a longshot. The first is that he is somewhat more extreme in his conservatism than the other conservatives (such as, for example, Walker). I think that would only hold him back a little bit, however. The biggest reasons I think it would be an uphill struggle are that (1) there’s something cold about the way he comes across; he doesn’t have enough of that elusive “likeability” factor that seems quite important to voters; and (2) the MSM has already painted and pretty much defined him as that extremist hothead who shut down the government, and that is all most people know about him. Other reasons are that he’s Texan, and a lot of people have bad associations with that; and he’s been a senator rather than a governor, and therefore doesn’t have much of a track record with being an executive and manager.
Conservatives really like him because he’s perceived (and rightly so, I think) as being (in Romney’s words) a severe conservative, as well as an articulate one. He also has a compelling personal story (the Cuban thing). Those factors are in his favor with conservatives in the primary. I fear he would cut into Walker’s vote, although I think in the end the winner between the two would throw his votes to the other, and leave Bush in a cloud of dust. At least, I hope so. I think Bush would be a disastrous candidate.
1. We are all looking for the next Reagan.
2. The Progs must be defeated in 2016.
3. Bush would be nearly as bad as Clinton.
4. I’m open to anyone at this point.
I like Ted, and at this point I’d vote for anyone but Jeb. Not voting for any dynasties in America.
Cruz is brilliant and Cruz would make a great president. but the same applied to Goldwater. to win you have to have crossover appeal.
Principles come first for me, but not to the mushy middle, many of whom voted for Baraq. I despise the middle, a huge bunch of frogs in pots on stoves.
My hope is that Cruz runs a brilliant campaign, without burning his bridges or sliming other conservatives much… and thereby positions himself to be somebody’s Vice President (and campaign attack dog). I’d be delighted to vote for Walker and Cruz, for example.
cornhead,
Too conservative.
Take a look at this Pew Research Center poll; “Steadfast Conservatives are staunch critics of government and the social safety net and are very socially conservative.” 12% of the American public
“Business Conservatives share Steadfast Conservatives’ preference for limited government, but differ in their support for Wall Street and business, as well as immigration reform. And Business Conservatives are far more moderate on social issues than are Steadfast Conservatives.” 10% of the American public
That’s a total of 22% of the public and all business conservatives are not going to vote for Cruz.
Just saw the CNN hit piece by Nebraska alum Jeff Zelny. Favorite line, “The word compromise is not in his vocabulary.” Obama can’t even spell it!
Thankfully no one watches CNN.
Also thankful for my Jesuit education to cut though the rhetoric. Another reason to pity the education at Lincoln. Worse than their basketball team.
And let’s stop playing the prediction game. How is your bracket working? Mine is ruined.
The smart money had the Jayhawks beating the Shockers in Omaha. They played the game and WSU dominated the last 25 minutes and won it.
Walker/Cruz was my ticket many months ago. The well tested executive and the able and elegant firebrand. This is the ticket that can beat warran/o’malley
“paleo/Buchananesque/isolationist wing of the party seems to detest him.”
That is about the best possible endorsement for Cruz, except maybe for the fact that he is equally detested by leftists. Cruz is being dismissed as “too far right” but he should not be underestimated. He is going to do a lot better than people think.
I met Cruz briefly during his insurgent run for the Senate. He is extremely focused and very likeable. I saw him interact with a large range of people and he effortlessly did so. He is not aloof, he does not talk down to people, and is a very good listener. Laugh if you must but he reminded me of a young Bill Clinton in brilliance, charm, and ability to infuriate his detractors. He is not from the approved social class to get admittance to the DC clique.
I also think this is a practice run for national office. He is polishing up, networking, and getting his name known. He is very young and a the Energizer Bunny of politics which scares a lot of entrenched party members. You can’t win if you don’t run.
I agree with J.J. and Elliott. Republicans like to nominate someone who has run for President in a previous cycle, so you will see a lot of hats in the ring this time, if only to prepare their longer-term career options.
Cruz is very smart, and lots on the right like his positions, but never forget that being President is not the same as a bundle of political platform issues and a high IQ. Presidents have an executive job to do, need to handle the unexpected, will have a Congress that does not play along all the time, and need to have strategic sense to make desirable change happen.
It cracks me up how some otherwise bright people lose sight of the requirements of the job and instead get all caught up in the campaign fervor and the celebrity aspects of running for the office and being in the news every day.
Cruz has a reputation already of being too clever, intense, and good at rallying the faithful, but not being so good at convincing anybody who did not always agree with him. If he can’t do better at that, he can’t win the job, and if he wins it anyway he can’t then be successful at it. If he demonstrates that ability, he may do well. Or he is just setting himself up for a future try, he’s young.
It’s important that we get this done correctly in 2016, so we have to carefully observe how the various candidates handle the challenges. Too much is at stake to vote emotionally, this time.
Dan D:
That’s one of the reasons why Walker has been my favorite for quite some time. My choice isn’t set in stone, of course, but his executive experience is much more impressive to me than the experience of most senators.
“paleo/Buchananesque/isolationist wing of the party seems to detest him.”
They’re also a really small part of the party. Your right about the tea parties vs the ‘establishment’ republicans fighting (goes back to at least Goldwater) but the general conservative movement and the paleos pretty much parted ways decades ago…
I say this often enough to liberals online:
Only 3 times in the last 100 years has the same party won 3 or more elections.
The odds are very much against the VP ever making it into office, so take that into consideration. The Veep should enhance the top of the ticket, and be at least minimally acceptable as a backup. Nothing after that is essential.
I used to share the view about experience, and was in the Walker camp. I read a commenter who made a point: lack of experience didn’t make Obama a bad president, his ideology did. Having experience doesn’t make Boehner and McConnell more effective. Their attitudes hobble them.
Maybe the most important thing is the right, fighting attitude. Cruz has that. He can hire talent and expertise later, as Reagan did.
Of course, I’d still take Walker.
But after seeing his speech, Cruz is awfully tempting.
Thankfully, we will have enough time to see how this all shakes out.
I like your take on Cruz, Elliott. People who dismiss him as a shrill right-wing extremist are going to be in for a surprise. Has anyone else here seen the infamous photoshopped poster of Cruz covered in gang tats with a cigarette dangling from his mouth? What is most notable is the tweet he made in response:
“Saw this, but noticed an error. So I wanted to make one thing clear: I don’t smoke cigarettes”
Cruz poster