Lion Ted

[EasyAce]

By Jeremy Carl
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438154/cruzs-stand-conservatism-lion-ted

What happened last night on Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messenger, and e-mail was unprecedented,
for this writer at least. It started almost as soon as Ted Cruz left the podium in Cleveland, and it built up
momentum until it quickly became an avalanche. I didn’t just hear from politicos (though I certainly did
hear from them) or conservatives (ditto) – I heard from liberals, moderates, and even from friends who I
believe are relatively apolitical. Some wanted to hear my opinion on Cruz’s speech and the subsequent
reaction. But most just wanted to let me know that they thought it was fantastic.

Most of those I heard from were movement conservatives – not surprising considering that movement
conservatives have been among the strongest anti-Trump partisans. But other messages came from liberals,
including my sister, who messaged me “Yeah, Ted Cruz!”, constituting the first time she has ever praised a
Republican other than her brother.

Obviously, not everyone at the convention center felt the same way, though to some degree, as Trump
campaign manager Paul Manafort seemed to acknowledge, the boos were choreographed by the Trump
campaign. Yet the party establishment (and hard-core Trump supporters) will be more furious at Cruz than
ever before, at least until November, at which point the political wisdom, or lack thereof, of Cruz’s move will
be more apparent. However, it is well worth pointing out, even a Trump victory in 2016 would not automatically
be devastating to Cruz’s future prospects. Trump must both win in 2016 and govern reasonably effectively
(by conservative lights) for Cruz’s non-endorsement to live in long-term infamy. Cruz is betting that won’t
happen.

Yet for all of the political analysis of Cruz’s supposed calculation in not endorsing, much of it seems too clever
by half, with the analysis largely reflecting the author’s predisposition toward Cruz. In that regard, I should
state my own biases. While I have at times been critical of Cruz, in general I am a fan. I endorsed him in the 2016
election, and nothing from last night causes me to reconsider that endorsement (quite the opposite). What’s
more, Cruz’s decision shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone paying attention to the post-election statements
from either the senator or his team. In various conversations with people close to the campaign in recent weeks,
they were unanimous that they did not expect Senator Cruz to ever endorse Donald Trump, and certainly not at
the convention. And Senator Cruz’s team went out of its way when they were given a speaking slot to indicate
that an endorsement was not required of them in exchange for it. Frankly, it was gross political malpractice by
the Trump team to allow Cruz to deliver his speech essentially unvetted, yet, given other gaffes made at the
convention, it can hardly be seen as surprising.

In this case, the simplest explanation for Senator Cruz’s behavior is also the best one. He didn’t endorse Trump
because he didn’t think Trump was worthy of endorsement.

Donald Trump insulted Cruz’s wife, (presumably) planted false tabloid stories about him in the National Inquirer,
and suggested, completely baselessly, that his father might have been involved in the assassination of President
Kennedy. Beyond these outrageous personal insults, it is clear that Trump’s conservatism, such as it is, has little in
common with the limited-government, pro-federalism conservatism of Senator Cruz.

Does that mean that Cruz might not have endorsed Trump were it obviously politically advantageous for him to
do so?

Of course not.

Cruz is a political animal—he isn’t Ron Paul searching for the most extreme way of standing by his principles with
no regard to their practical consequences. But those close to Cruz felt that strategically, the political implications
of his move were unknowable. While a Rubio-style soft endorsement would have been politically much safer, ultimately
 there were presumably enough unknown unknowns about the politics that Senator Cruz decided that the best course
of action was simply to do what he felt was right and hope, without any guarantees, that the politics would eventually
work out for him.

Ultimately, Cruz’s performance in the hall outlined his strongest political quality: his courageousness, a virtue that,
ironically, he shares to some degree with his Trumpian nemesis. For those of us who believe that courage is the virtue
we will need most if we are to have any chance of effectively challenging liberalism’s false premises and rolling back its
cultural hegemony, that courageousness is the reason why we can make peace with Cruz, whatever his other flaws.

And Cruz’s courage is very different from Trump’s. Trump’s “courage” is more akin to the courage of a man who simply
doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him (and therefore it tends to come packaged with a healthy dose of pathological
narcissism and a failure to listen to good advice). Despite the stoic face he puts on, it is clear that Cruz is to some
degree bothered by the opprobrium that is heaped on him (indeed, his discomfort was even visible at times during the
speech). But it is a far more human and admirable courage than Trump’s hyper-confident bluster. This is not to suggest
that Cruz is not a calculating politician (indeed he is, far more than most). Nor does it deny that he may well bear some
responsibility for other behaviors that have not endeared him to his Senate colleagues. But at the end of the day, after
all of the calculating is done, Senator Cruz, in a greater degree than any other national Republican, is willing to go out
alone and defend an unpopular conservative position when doing so may have substantial personal and political costs.

“It was the glory of this man that he could stand alone with the truth, and calmly await the result,” said Frederick Douglass
at the funeral of his fellow radical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who first took up the cause at a time when it was
deeply unpopular. While the stakes of Cruz’s speech, significant though they were, pale in comparison with the battles
fought by Douglass and Garrison, the core principles Douglass stated apply equally. And in this case, the truth, whether
or not the delegates in Cleveland wanted to hear it, is that Donald Trump, whatever virtues and vices he may have, and
regardless of whatever GOP officialdom wants to pretend, is not a conservative, at least in the way that Americans have
thought of conservatism over the last several decades. Ted Cruz didn’t join #NeverTrump yesterday. But he did declare
that he wasn’t going to pretend that Trump’s record was something it wasn’t.

Senator Cruz’s decision was clearly unpopular with many GOP delegates and insiders in Cleveland. But for many in the
wider political world outside the convention hall, Lyin’ Ted became Lion Ted on Wednesday night. And 2016 will likely
not be the last time we’ll hear his roar.

— Jeremy Carl is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

[Polly Ticks]

By Jeremy Carl
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438154/cruzs-stand-conservatism-lion-ted


[...] He didn’t endorse Trump because he didn’t think Trump was worthy of endorsement.

[...]  Ted Cruz didn’t join #NeverTrump yesterday. But he did declare that he wasn’t going to pretend that Trump’s record was something it wasn’t.

For me, this hits the nail on the head. 

The whole idea that Cruz owes Trump a full-throated endorsement because he is now officially the Republican candidate absolutely REEKS of the sense of entitlement that is a blight on our society today.  Trump isn't owed anything.  He is welcome to earn it if he can, but it isn't something he is owed. 

[EasyAce]

For me, this hits the nail on the head. 

The whole idea that Cruz owes Trump a full-throated endorsement because he is now officially the Republican candidate absolutely REEKS of the sense of entitlement that is a blight on our society today.  Trump isn't owed anything.  He is welcome to earn it if he can, but it isn't something he is owed.

Let me put it this way: If I were damn fool enough to aspire to the presidency (I wasn't brought
up to make a life of organised crime), and I had lost a primary race to a distasteful front-runner,
and said distasteful front-runner expected my subsequent endorsement after insulting my wife
(ok, I'm not married now, but let's not get technical), and accusing my father of involvement
in a presidential assassination, it would take even more courage on my part not to reply, "Pick up
your marbles and get the f@ck out of my face and don't come back unless you're looking for me
to re-arrange yours," instead of merely giving a speech in which said expected endorsement
never comes.

[Just_Victor]

If Trump needs Cruz's endorsement, then it is on Trump to do what is necessary to get it.


And conversely, if he isn't willing to do what is necessary, then he must not need it, or is calculating that it somehow isn't worth it.


But either way, the choice has fallen on Trump, and him alone.

[SirLinksALot]

Let's think about it for a moment -- What was the most important thing on the third night of the convention? Was it Ted Cruz's endorsement or non-endorsement of Trump, or the introduction of Mike Pence as Trump's VP to the national stage?

Of course it has to be Mike Pence. Whether Ted Cruz would endorse or not should not even be a consideration.

The success of Mike Pence as he takes the national stage is of UTMOST importance, heck -- he IS the Vice Presidential nominee and not many people know him nationally.

Yet, as Leon Wolf observes,  if you check social media and in the news, the Trump supporters might as well have not even seen Mike Pence's speech. None of them are talking about it. None of them are the slightest bit interested in what Pence brings to the ticket or his vision for America. On the other hand, they are hopping mad and incessantly bitching about Ted Cruz not endorsing Trump - in spite of the fact that the first words out of Cruz's mouth were congratulating Donald Trump for his victory, and in spite of the fact that he did not say a single negative word about Trump, and additionally in spite of the fact that he encouraged people not to stay home in November.

And here's another piece of information for those who don't know -- TRUMP KNEW ABOUT TED CRUZ's SPEECH. He tweeted so. READ HIS TWEET HERE:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/755972015249645568


So, THE CONTENT OF THE SPEECH WAS NOT EVEN A SURPRISE. It was PRE-CLEARED by both Trump and the RNC.

Leon Wolf said this in his article:

 I began to hear reports in the afternoon that Cruz told the RNC that he would not endorse Trump, and that the RNC was exerting a lot of pressure on him to change his mind, but that he firmly told them that he would not. He said he would congratulate Donald Trump, would avoid saying anything negative about Trump, and talk about the principles he stood for. The RNC and Trump both agreed to let him proceed with the speech as is. So the idea that Cruz sprung this on them as some sort of surprise is absolute BS.



People KNEW about Ted Cruz's speech BEFORE he made them.

See here:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/755957089143549952

Quote
Wow. We've looked at advance remarks sent by RNC at 8:21. Contains exactly what Ted said. He didn't change anything! http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ted-turns-the-tables-on-trump-hard …


So, is this not a case where Trump supporters ( and Trump himself, when he made his grand entrance towards the end of Cruz's speech causing the cameras to pan to him ) INTENTIONALLY chose to create a ruckus to derail Ted Cruz?

It's hard not to think that.

One cannot help but wonder and ask what if the crowd ( especially the New York delegation) had simply remained silent or applauded at Cruz's exhortation to vote their conscience?

If they did that, people would be talking about Mike Pence today and not Ted Cruz.

Just look at our forum, there's NOT ONE thread about Mike Pence.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again ( or was it INTENDED? )