Sen. Cruz Loses His Base for Good Reason

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

“Live by the sword, die by the sword”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has a history remarkably similar to another divisive political figure – President Barack Obama (D). And while there are similarity there are important differences.

Both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Obama were born of immigrant fathers; however, unlike Mr. Obama’s father, Mr. Cruz’ father decided to stick around and help raise his son – the two remain close to this day.

Both attended prestigious undergraduate schools – Mr. Obama at Columbia and Mr. Cruz at Princeton. However, Mr. Cruz graduated with honors (cum laude) with a host of academic and debating awards and publication of a treatise entitled “Clipping the Wings of Angels” arguing for constitutional limitations on the power of government. Mr. Obama had neither academic honors or published dissertations.

Both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Obama attended Harvard Law School where each graduated magnum cum laude and where each was selected as executive editor of the Harvard Law Review; however, where Mr. Cruz published articles ad nauseam, Mr. Obama published none, becoming the only editor in chief to do so.

But the real divergence occurs after graduation. Mr. Cruz was much recruited and pursed an active legal career inside and outside of government. Mr. Obama was not recruited and became a “community organizer” which requires neither a law degree nor, in fact, any college degree. (Both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Obama served as adjunct professors teaching elements of constitutional law and whereas Mr. Cruz’ students probably learned a great deal, given Mr. Obama’s growing list of failures before the United States Supreme Court, his students should ask the University of Chicago for their money back.)

Both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Obama learned the patois and cadence of the revivalist preachers and became mesmerizing speakers – Mr. Cruz during college, and Mr. Obama after he quit smoking dope. Mr. Cruz learned his from his father, a traveling evangelical minister; while Mr. Obama probably learned his from the likes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright – although Mr. Obama apparently learned only the patois and cadence given that he could not remember any of the racist and anti-Semitic sermons routinely preached by Rev. Wright.

Both began running for President of the United States before the ink was dry on their elections to the United States Senate. And finally, neither had any friends or admirers in the Senate – albeit Mr. Cruz colleagues were downright hostile while Mr. Obama’s were simply dismissive. And it is at this point that there is a final divergence. Mr. Obama was elected twice to the presidency, while Mr. Cruz will never be elected. And here is why.

Mr. Cruz mapped out a careful and detailed plan to win the Republican nomination. The centerpiece – the foundation – of the plan was an invigorated bloc of conservative evangelical voters. With access to a wide cadre of evangelical ministers through his father – an evangelical minister – Mr. Cruz began a carefully orchestrated courtship of those evangelical leaders. Initially, Mr. Cruz was successful. He created a small army of volunteers in Texas and early primary states. He imbued them with a fervor that the abuses of the secular politicians would end and that a person’s faith would be honored. That nearly fifty years of the liberal assault on religion would be halted and that a moral climate based on the Judeo-Christian teachings would ascend – a moral climate based on principle and not on relativism. And that is precisely where the wheels began to come off the wagon.

So long as Mr. Cruz was giving speeches, the fires of hope burned brightly. So long as Mr. Cruz was organizing, the primacy of the mission was apparent.  But Mr. Cruz is duplicitous.

Hidden from view was the growing reputation that Mr. Cruz was gaining in the United States Senate as an orator who played fast and loose with the truth; as a back-stabber willing to sacrifice his colleagues for his own ambitions; and as an “ally” that could never be trusted. When those things began to be made public, Mr. Cruz promptly blamed others and declared that he was running against the “establishment” and that the criticisms were merely the “slings and arrows” that he had to endure from the powerful.

But that characteristic of moral relativism carried over into his presidential campaign. His inner circle was composed of people, like him, who would do anything to win. His campaign literature (ads, flyers, and speeches) began attacking other candidates using innuendo, half-truths and outright lies. During televised debates, he accused Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens when it was readily apparent by Mr. Rubio’s actions that he had withdrawn his support for any plan involving a path to citizenship in favor of securing the border before ANY discussion as to the future of those already here illegally. In Iowa he sent his minions out to falsely tell caucus attendees that Dr. Ben Carson had withdrawn from the race and that his followers should support Mr. Cruz. He created a flyer that appeared to be an official document relating to “voter violations” if you did not attend a caucus. His campaign published a “photo-shopped” picture of Mr. Rubio shaking hands with President Obama in an effort to impose guilt by association. But my favorite is when he accused Donald Trump of favoring abortion because Mr. Trump said that Planned Parenthood provides valuable services to women’s health – that despite the fact that Mr. Trump had repeatedly said that he would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood based on its refusal to segregate women’s health services from its abortion practices. (Of course Planned Parenthood provides valuable services to women’s health – the same services that other organizations provide to women without encouraging unrestricted abortions. The fact that one recognizes the value of those services does not reflect one’s support for abortion on demand.)

When confronted with these facts, Mr. Cruz dissembled. He embraced moral relativism. He never answered for his own wrong doing but rather said that others were worse. In an interview this past Sunday with FOX News, when the host Chris Wallace read him the litany of his half-truths and dirty tricks, Mr. Cruz accused Mr. Wallace of reading from a Trump press release. And when Mr. Wallace quickly disabused Mr. Cruz of that notion and asked for an answer, Mr. Cruz instead asserted that others had done similar things and had not been called to account.

As the nature of Mr. Cruz began to become apparent, his evangelical base began to erode. And for good reason, most of the evangelicals that I have met actually live the life they espouse. They DO believe in the Judeo-Christian principles and they DO try to practice them in their own lives. They DO NOT believe in moral relativism and recoil regularly at the parsing of words, the stretching of truth and the convenient lies that have become the hallmark of politicians – they have come to expect it of those on the left but continue to be dismayed by those who engage in it on the right.

In Iowa, Mr. Cruz received only one-third of the evangelical vote, while the thrice-married Mr. Trump received twenty- two percent and Mr. Rubio receive twenty-one percent. In New Hampshire, Mr. Cruz lost the evangelical vote to Mr. Trump by a margin of twenty-seven percent to twenty-three percent. In South Carolina, the evangelical vote again went to Mr. Trump by a margin of thirty-three percent over Mr. Cruz’ twenty seven percent. And finally, in Nevada, Mr. Trump crushed Mr. Cruz amongst evangelical voters by a margin of forty-one to twenty-seven percent. This column is being written as voters in the Super Tuesday primary states go to the polls. With the exception of Texas, Mr. Cruz will lose every state to Mr. Trump and is more than likely to lose amongst evangelical voters in those states.

Mr. Cruz may have energized the evangelical vote, but after those voters got a look at the real Ted Cruz, they turned elsewhere with their support. Just because you have declared yourself to have been “born again;” just because you have acquired the vernacular of the evangelicals; and just because you have condemned the concept of moral relativism (while practicing it yourself) does not make you an evangelical. More likely it makes him like Elmer Gantry and just as the soiled minister of Sinclair Lewis’ tale, Mr. Cruz needs redemption from his hypocrisy.

Should Mr. Cruz be struck by lightening and actually become the Republican nominee, he will become the third Republican presidential candidate for whom I have refused to vote (President Richard Nixon twice and Sen. John McCain).

 

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2016 Presidential Election, Leadership, President Obama, Religion, Ted Cruz | 42 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • MrBill

    All the candidates in both parties have their share of hypocrisy. But I wouldn’t dismiss Cruz as being somehow less qualified than any of the others. I would still vote for him in spite of his campaign tactics.

    • thevillageidiot

      Why would you vote at all on the national level. you vote does not count. Locally is the only vote that can matter.

      • MrBill

        I vote both. My national vote may count as one among a much bigger number, but it still counts for something.

        Rubio is fine as a nominee as well. As good as Cruz. Trump’s another matter, but I’d still vote for him over that bar exam failing, pervert enabling, pant-suited, liberal fascist harridan.

        • thevillageidiot

          The candidates are chosen for you by a group you cannot influence. how else do you explain continued policies of war, interventionism, support for wall street, deficit spending etc. regardless of the party in charge or president. the expansion of the police state and welfare state.

          • Eric Blair

            Yet, I would argue that Donald Trump is not an establishment choice for the Republicans, and he appears to be doing quite well… compared to the others. Perhaps there is room for demogoguery to, and pardon the pun, trump insider politics.

          • Roger Enout

            An auld Carnac saying instituted by Johnny Carson, to pair a phrase upon Eric Blair and David Appell: “Fleas, many thousands from camels come and invade your armpits” – and a nocturnal anthem sung by the fiat lady from Benghazzi ring aloud 24/7 in their belfry mindsets.

          • redbean

            The fiat lady did indeed lie with dogs and awake with fleas.

          • redbean

            Yes, Mr. EB it currently appears that Trump is not the establishment choice. He is indeed doing quite well among the unwashed electorate, the vulgarians…which is why those who prefer continuation of village idiot’s list of “war, interventionism, support for wall street, deficit spending” are outspoken in their revulsion against Trump and their preference for Killary.

            Of course, Trump is obviously an insider, but it seems he doesn’t belong to the “right” clubs. Maybe not sufficiently “old blood.”

          • MrBill

            The more I look at Trump, the more he seems like the ultimate establishment choice. This is someone who has been working the system for decades to get his way. As he put it, “I send them money and they kiss my a-$. I kind of think that will continue if he’s elected. The only difference is he’ll be the payee instead of the payer.

            Tying this back into my original post, I guess he’s sort of the male equivalent of a harridan. Sort of. Personally I think he was misnamed as a child. He seems more like a Richard than a Donald. Or maybe just a Dick for short. But then again, after that last debate, it’s probably not wise to use the words Dick and short in the same sentence when talking to the Donald.

        • Eric Blair

          LOL.. wanna revisit that opinion after tonight’s debate? What is the male equivalent of a harridan? Whatever it is, there were 3 of them on the stage tonight.

          • MrBill

            My understanding is that a harridan is an angry, unpleasant woman. How may angry, unpleasant women did you see? I didn’t watch, but I’m pretty sure there were none.

          • Eric Blair

            I think the key phrase was, “male equivalent of a harridan.”

          • MrBill

            Got it.

          • redbean

            A harridan is also old, per my research above. Male equivalents on the debate stage? Surely you don’t include “foam boy” Marco – why, he’s not old at all.

          • redbean

            I admit it, I had to look up “harridan” in the dictionary – “an odious old woman, a hag.”

            Then I had to look up “odious” – “deserving of hate, repugnant.” Yep, that describes the Clockwork Orange Pantsuit to a tee. (Not to be confused with “odorous” obviously, which is merely unfortunate and unpleasant, but harmless.)

            Male equivalents on the debate stage? Surely you don’t’ include “foam party boy” Marco – why, he’s not old at all.

        • redbean

          I admit it, I had to look up “harridan” in the dictionary – “an odious old woman, a hag.”

          Then I had to look up “odious” – “deserving of hate, repugnant.” Yep, that describes the Clockwork Orange Pantsuit to a tee. (Not to be confused with “odorous” obviously, which is merely unfortunate and unpleasant, but harmless.)

          Please do some due diligence on Rubio, since the MSM isn’t. Fine nominee? Not.

          • MrBill

            Consider yourself wiser for the effort. Use of the word harridan may be on the uptick in the next year. But hopefully not for the next four years.

    • DavidAppell

      Cruz’s campaign is clearly quite shifty. Why would you expect anything different if he became president?

      • MrBill

        Perhaps he is. I guess you have to consider the other choices.
        But I do like Cruz. Anyone who can go into Iowa and campaign against subsidizing corn for ethanol production also deserves some measure of respect. He may be shifty, but he also looks like someone who will stand on principle rather than just do whatever’s safe, politic, or popular.

  • thevillageidiot

    Well Thank fully Rubio will be the next candidate. from Breitbart

    https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/01/how-the-gop-insiders-plan-to-steal-the-nod-from-trump/

    And the Dems have their own version of the same thing called Super Delegates and guess who they support.
    Remember your vote does not count. You have no choice for president. hardly choice for Senator and Congressman. I predict Schrader will win district 5 in November. The GOP sees no percentage in supporting a candidate running against him and therefore will not send any financial support. But Schrader receives big dollars from the DNC. So to whom does Schrader owe allegiance? it is not the people who elect him.
    Vote locally. Betty Komp is not running, Hurray!! Opens one more seat to the republicans if they want to take it.

  • GObill sizemore

    Well, as it turns out Mr. Cruz won three states last night. That was better than expected. Marco Rubio finally got one win in his column. As a Rubio voter it would be easy to embrace everything you said, Larry, but I see things somewhat differently. Trump was getting a larger share of the evangelical vote than Cruz long before all of the revelations you mentioned became widely known. There are probably many reasons for that, but I will mention just a few.

    First of all, Cruz is lacking in the charisma department. He is not an eloquent speaker. His words are usually good, but everything he says comes across as contrived. That makes his hard to like. Second, the term evangelical has been so broadly applied that it now includes a lot of people for whom faith plays but a minor role in their life. Without stepping in and attempting to judge the sincerity of anyone’s faith, there have been many very wide studies of this phenomenon, George Barna’s being the most prominent, that make it very clear that about two thirds of so-called evangelicals are very border line at best. Cruz has attempted to appeal to evangelicals as if they were some monolithic group with the same depth of commitment and same set of beliefs, but that is less true now than it was even a decade or two ago.

    And finally, once prominent evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr. came out and started endorsing Trump, a fact that totally befuddles me, the barn door was suddenly wide open. Oh, and let’s not forget that Republican officeholders have used, abused, and taken for granted evangelical voters for so long now that they have every reason to vote for the biggest outsider they can find just to show their disdain.

    I settled on Rubio some time back and decided he is out best chance of winning. He is not as conservative as Cruz, but close enough. Besides, I have never believed it possible or even wise to attempt to deport 11 million illegals and both Trump and Cruz advocate for that, though I don’t think Trump means it as sincerely as Cruz does.

    There has always been something about Ted Cruz that has not set right with me. I am sure he is a staunch conservative, but if my senses tell me not to trust him or that he is just a little too ambitious for his own good, I suspect a lot of others will feel the same way come General Election time. If he is the nominee I will vote for him, but I can’t say the same for Donald Trump. That man scares me.

    • thevillageidiot

      your vote does not count. The outcome has already been decided. stick to local politics something you know about.

    • DavidAppell

      “First of all, Cruz is lacking in the charisma department.”

      That’s putting it mildly! In fact, it seems that absolutely everyone he has ever met hates him intensely.

      • jmac

        The discourse is getting pretty dicey in the GOP.

        @FrankthorpNBC

        Sen Graham at the #WPCFDinner: “If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial is at the Senate, no one will convict you.”

  • Roger Enout

    BushOne previously translated ‘Saddam Hussein’ as: “little boy with no pants” .
    Stints then, BushTwo, posterior, WJ Clinton, went on to Posse’ fie the post 9/11 threat and succeeded by impartially neutering the threat to US.
    Then came about the Obamanation finessing to US, condiments of US Navy Seals, and buried at Sea, another one Islamic antichrist haute cultures; Yet then drawls a flim-flamsy red line and employs Hillary Rodham Clinton to SOS the surety, Benghazi, bile huckstering her presents; what does the death of US Ambassador make, so long as we can kiss the morass of those still bent on killing US and our sovereign Constitution.
    Please folks, wake up to the blight before our eyes and cull those who still persist treading upon US for some alien snort of New World Odor.
    Today, the DNC vaunts left wing socialism to prevail, to wit what the hell are they smelling of? Sulfur and demurrer – albeit unless what’s right can upset the secular applecart with a resolute Trump card to the Michael Moore jackasses dealing US into further decay.
    Please folks, flip over the canard of the DNC, and vote for right minded conservatism, no matter who the viable standard bearer be.
    Omen.

    • Eric Blair

      “Today, the DNC vaunts left wing socialism to prevail, to wit what the hell are they smelling of? ”

      Are you kidding me? The DNC wants nothing of the sort. They are, in fact, doing their best to make sure Bernie Sanders doesn’t get the nomination and have been actively favoring Hillary. If you think Hillary is a left wing socialist, I would seriously consider suggesting that you check yourself into rehab

      • thevillageidiot

        When did you first realize your vote does not count?

        • Eric Blair

          What would you replace our current electoral system with?

          • thevillageidot

            You did not answer the question

          • Eric Blair

            I asked this question on a different thread and you didn’t answer it then… so you first. 🙂

      • Roger Enout

        Liar, liar, rants on down around your needs.

        • DavidAppell

          Clearly all Roger can do is call names, and is devoid of the ability to reason.

          • Roger Enout

            You’re remains a rotten Appell and continue to air jackass such, shillgrim.

    • thevillageidiot

      Your vote does not count.

  • Diane Schendel

    All of the supposed “dirty tricks” you list are laughable. The voter violation mailer was used successfully by the RNC in the 2014 campaign season and by other Republicans.

    The Ben Carson/CNN fiasco was misunderstood by several of the campaigns including Rubio’s. All campaign teams on the ground speculated and tried to get Carson people to switch their vote. Where are the people who supposedly switched their votes? They would be complaining that they meant to vote for Carson but were deceived. The Carson people in the caucuses would have confirmed that he wasn’t officially dropping out. Carson outperformed the polls in Iowa.

    Jeff Sessions went on Levin’s radio show and said without Cruz, the gang of eight bill would have passed and Marco was a gang member!

    Cruz is brilliant and he has done everything he promised his constituents he would do. Imagine that, actually being principled and doing what you say you’ll do!!! That’s why the old guard hates him. Larry must be old guard establishment and feeling threatened.

    Runio has embarrassed himself by getting down into the gutter with Trump. I will vote for the adult in the room.

    Nice try smearing Cruz. If you’d vote for Trump over Cruz, that says it all.

  • DavidAppell

    Larry lies again.

    Obama won a scholarship to do graduate study at Harvard. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year. He graduated with a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991.

    Larry, if you did better research, you wouldn’t be lying often. (Maybe.)

    • Where’s the mink. DA.

      BO won or garnered? DA you slant so far to the left with your revel, Polaris shines Southward twit your stye in the eye.

      • DavidAppell

        Won. Obviously.

  • Eric Blair

    After tonight’s Republican debate… does anyone on here truly believe that any of the 3 leading contenders should be President of the United States? Are there any adults running for President as a Republican other than Kasich?

    • redbean

      Eric, your reaction is exactly the one FOX intended to create in the public’s mind.

      When so-called “moderators’ act as prosecutors, or goad participants to attack each other, we are witnessing propaganda, not a debate. You’ve been punked.

      • Eric Blair

        That doesn’t say much about the candidates then if they are so easily manipulated.

        • redbean

          In a traditional debate, participants answer points raised by the other side and moderators are rarely heard from.

          These “debates” are products put forth by the parties and their media partners. It’s the voters who are being manipulated, not the candidates. The Republican candidates are fulfilling their roles as good “company men.” The Democrats likewise are putting on a show to give the appearance of an actual choice.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)