Why I am not (yet) a Ted Cruz fan

Senator Ted Cruz

Yup.  You read that right.  I am not a Ted Cruz fan.  I should be.  He’s young, conservative, and courageous.  Although new to the United States Senate, he was unafraid of rigid collegiality rules and, instead, interrogated Hagel the way a good lawyer or a good Senator should.  After all, although a president is entitled to his own advisers, the fact that those advisers have to pass Senate review should mean something — and Cruz made sure it did.

That Cruz’s efforts were for naught had nothing to do with his courage or competence, and everything to do with a dysfunctional D.C. mentality.  For those of you who watched Netflix’s House of Cards, while the whole melodrama soap opera part was boring, the political machinations were true to form and they were more frightening than any horror movie could be.

So why aren’t I gaga over Cruz?  Because I’m not putting my heart on the line again.  In past years, conservatives have had the chronic frustration of watching our elected officials get played by Democrats, choose collegiality over values, or behave just plain stupidly.  Our response is to become desperate and are constantly on the lookout for a messiah.

Have we learned nothing?  To begin with, after the experience with Obama, instead of trying to create our own cult of personality, we should be afraid of that path.  I’ll abandon that objection for now, though, because in a media-saturated, low-information age (a sad oxymoron), personality may be all we’ve got.

But more important than this foolish cult of personality is our rush to open our hearts to any conservative candidate who’s not the one that came before.  With luck, Cruz will be everything we hoped.  But as we’ve seen with other candidates, his past (if he has one) will catch up with him, or his ego will outrun his abilities or, of course, the drive-by media will utterly destroy him.  I’m ready to fall in love with Cruz only if the drive-by media is unable to expose a sordid past, his ego remains in check, and he figures out how to play the media better than they play him.  And of course, he has to continue to be a stalwart, intelligent, courageous conservative politician in the D.C. cesspool.

This time around, I refuse to rush headlong into love with the first (or the second or the third) potential presidential candidate who comes along.  I’m not Marlene Dietrich:

Nor am I going to be the exhausted Lily von Shtup, too tired to function after falling in love with one candidate after another.  (And despite the vulgarity of these lyrics, it’s rather uncanny how accurate Madeline Kahn describes the conservative voters’ relationship with the legions of candidates who pass before them and then fail.)

I can help falling in love again — and I will not give my heart to a politician until I’m pretty darn sure the romance has legs.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Freddie Sykes says

    RE:  After all, although a president is entitled to his own advisers, the fact that those advisers have to pass Senate review should mean something…

    The fact that the Constitution requires Senate approval means that the president is NOT entitled to his own advisers.

    A cornerstone of my philosophy is the fact that humans and human institutions are flawed. This is even more important to remember wrt to politicians since they are the only ones allowed to legally use coercion to enforce their agendas.

    Rather than loving politicians, it might be better to just date them as long as they behave like gentlemen while remembering that they are not really marriage material.

  2. Mike Devx says

    Book, you’re absolutely right.  No politician is worth falling in love over, or going ga-ga over.  Not one.
     
    But I think it’s ok to be a fan and express support for what you’ve seen… so far!  I’m using the definition of fan here that doesn’t include “fanatic”!  Just a reasonably enthusiastic supporter.  
     
    And I certainly agree that we do NOT need a messiah.  No messiah!  But I think we do need a *whole bunch* of congress critters who can get on TV and radio and argue their points enthusiastically and based on principle.  We don’t need a bunch of boring apparatchiks or bean counters who wouldn’t know a conservative principle if it walked up and smacked em in the face.
     
    Give me a whole mess of em who are willing to make some noise and shake up Congress, and maybe we’ll have a chance.
     
    I like what Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have been up to so far.  I heard Rand Paul on the Mark Levin show a week ago, and he handled everything Levin threw at him with remarkable dexterity.  He (Rand Paul) even surprised me with the caution in the things he said.  It’s hard to say how much of Daddy (the uncontrolled Ron Paul) rubbed off on him, but so far, he’s *not* following in the footsteps of his unqualified papa.
     
    So, go ahead. be a fan!  Try to be a fan, without putting on those rose-colored glasses or being “blinded by love”.  That’s what got us Obama, and in the very long run, even the libs will admit that they regret it.  (Years from now!)
     
    I feel the same way about Dr. Ben Carson.  I don’t know if he’s political material or not.  But he’s definitely going to be a good warrior on the cultural front no matter what, if he can handle the exposure, the pressure and the slings and arrows.  No need to fall in love, but be a fan!
     

  3. Oldflyer says

    Bravo Book.  The recent enthusiasm for the “flavor of the week” in politics smacks of desperation and  is frustrating.  While I do enjoy seeing Cruz rock the boat in the Senate, I will wait to see how he plays over time.  I feel the same way about  Rubio.  Much too soon.  Is that heresy?  Well, we have been down the road of elevating a relative new comer with a charming manner and an attractive face (as the media tells us) and a glib speaking manner.
    The beat will go on,however.  I have already heard a small drum beat for Dr Carson as a potential Presidential candidate.  Really?  He appears to be a thoroughly admirable man, with something to say that is well worth hearing.  (I wonder if Obama was actually listening.)  I hope that he will have, and take, the opportunity to say a lot more on the national stage.  But, if he wants to be President, let him make the case that he is ready and qualified before we anoint him.  As a relative unknown, he would have a fairly steep hill to climb in my mind.
     

  4. says

    Ted Cruz is a good potential Conservative congressional leader who can’t consumed by the White House Siren song of presidential aspiration. Ted was born in Calgary. Only Democrats can be foreign born presidents – that’s a rule, I think.

  5. jj says

    I think the big issue is the one you only briefly mentioned, in passing.  It doesn’t matter whether Cruz has a past or not, nor is the size of his ego meaningful.  What matters – and it’s the only thing that does matter – is that he’s not a liberal democrat.  No other reason is necessary for the media to dismantle him, and if he begins to look at all dangerous to an approved candidate or office-holder, they will do so.  You’ll never get a read on the true number of the “legion of candidates who fail” – vs. how many of them are simply torn apart before they even get the opportunity to fail.  Expecting anyone to show up as a candidate and rise above it is more or less a forlorn hope at this point.  After fifty years of uncontested democrat control of the levers of education, low-information voters (we used to call them morons, remember?) is all we have. 
     
    Could there be a bigger collection of political and human debris than the democrat party?  Who doesn’t know it?  You think, to take one example, Brian Williams doesn’t know Harry Reid’s a dangerously stupid empty suit?  Of course he does.  You think he considers Pelosi smart enough to tie her own shoes?  Of course not.  He’s met them: dumb as he is himself he knows who they are.  But he’ll defend them to his last breath while making fun of Rubio drinking water because they’re liberal democrats, and that’s all that matters.  They think (if that’s the word) like he does.  He considers himself a smart, well-educated fellow and all-around good citizen: how could anyone who espouses the same stuff he does not be an excellent candidate?
     
    That’s what you’re up against.  You aren’t necessarily choosing badly in the search for a new saviour who can do it: you have no way of knowing if anyone’s a good or bad choice.  They won’t be allowed to survive long enough for you to find out if they begin to achieve any level of success at all.

  6. expat says

    I wish this post would appear on every conservative blog. We tend to echo what society as a whole has been doing for years: If you don’t make it to the top, you don’t count.
    No one person will have all the answers to our problems. We need a team that won’t take potshots at others, but will contribute ideas and approaches in a civilized way. We can observe all these people for a while and then settle on who is likely to be its best leader. We get too caught up on single issues and ignore the fact that a president has to function across a broad range of issues. We knock out good people because we disagree on some fringe pet cause. It has to stop.

  7. Mike Devx says

     
    jj says: After fifty years of uncontested democrat control of the levers of education, low-information voters (we used to call them morons, remember?) is all we have. 
     
    Quote of the day!  Thank you, jj.
    And just where did this “low information voter” phrase come from?  I never saw it prior to the last year or so.
     
    “You think he considers Pelosi smart enough to tie her own shoes?”
    I think I remember this incident.  Wasn’t Pelosi trying on a tennis shoe that was four sizes too small for her feet?  She kept trying and trying to get the heel over her ankle and failing.  “Why do you keep trying?” the salesman asked.  She looked at him with complete disdain.  “Because I must tie this shoe, to find out if I can wear it,” she said.
     
    Or something like that.
     
     

  8. Mike Devx says

    I wanted to provide this link: David Horowitz’ article from about three weeks ago, about why Republicans, and the GOP (and conservatives) are currently failing against the Democrats and the Statist left.  Somehow I missed it back then in early February.
     
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/david-horowitz-how-republicans-can-win.php
     
    I think he’s spot on.  Read what Mr. Horowitz has to say.  I agree completely.  I wonder what you will think.
     
    I’m putting that comment here because Book’s post is about Ted Cruz, and he has one thing definitely right: He is FIGHTING.  And more importantly, everyone KNOWS he’s fighting.  He is demonstrating the courage of his convictions.
     
     

  9. says

    Mike, Neo linked that a few days ago, and I thought it was rather precise in its analysis of the issue at hand.
     
    Too many people resist using propaganda and emotions because they think it is an evil weapon that only belongs to criminals and the Left. This is similar to the superstition the LEft has about guns. They think guns are by nature evil, that only criminals should use them, or at best, police and military authorized by the STATE to use evil doomsday weapons for the protection of the enlightened few. Until people recognize that a tool is a tool, that good or evil comes from how and who uses it, they will always be restrained by their own inner demons.
     
    Why should the evil Left be only allowed the usage of emotions and propaganda? Why should only criminals be allowed the usage of weapons, knives, guns, and bats while citizens are not allowed anything for defense?
     
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply