Trump might well say it, loudly and often.
Sorry, No. Ted has proven with his words, actions and professed beliefs that he is a pretty vile human being. Notice that I did just call him a human being and in the OP called him a man several times. I did not refer to him as some inhuman abomination. He’s as Human and as completely fucked up as our own Smapti or Adaher.
I was thinking that he just positioned himself really well for the base in 2020. He’ll be able to point to this and be all, “See? Told ya so…”
On one hand, I totally get what you are saying. Cruz’s stand would be a lot more virtuous if his disdain for Trump weren’t so blatantly personal. Yeah, Trump was a dick for taking potshots at his family (and the one against his dad was really nasty). But you can still be an okay president and be kind of a dick, personaity-wise. Cruz comes across like he cares more about defending his family’s “honor” than anything substantive.
However, I do share the OP’s reluctant respect for the guy. Maybe it is too much to ask for a politician to actually stand more on principles than his personal interests. So in such a case, Cruz is looking better than the bozos who are drinking the Trump-ade and pretending to love it.
What’s pathetic is that the Republican who took a stand against Trump is the one who had nothing to lose by it: if Trump is wildly successful, Cruz has no chance, ever. His best chances are either Trump loses, or wins but is such a disaster that Cruz can attempt a primary run in 2020 anyway (and if any president could be that bad, it’d be Trump).
Disobedience is measured by the cost you’re willing to pay to have your message heard–your willingness to go to jail, leave your country, be shunned by your former friends and allies. Well, all the Republicans hated Cruz anyway, so it’s not like he gave up his place in the party power structure.
I am glad he didn’t endorse Trump. Truly. I wish someone who had skin in the game would be willing to make a real sacrifice. I think that would make much more of an impression.
He kind of had to try and thread the needle of giving Trump a clear middle finger, and yet not giving the Republican party and voters that same clear middle finger. That, I believe, is why he made it more of a personal thing than a political ideology or principle thing.
Had he got up there and said anything else, he’d still have been pilloried by Trump supporters, but he’d have looked more like he didn’t agree with the party and by extension, their choice of candidate, than saying “He’s a dick who talked shit about my family, so I won’t endorse him.” You can’t really argue with the latter, while the former makes you look even more disloyal.
I’m kind of torn on who would have been worse though; Trump seems to have his volatility, unpredictability, and non-politician status as his most horror-making attributes- he’ll do something unconsidered and stupid that will get people killed or wreck the economy. Cruz strikes me more as someone who would fiddle while the US burns, because the fire doesn’t fit his ideological beliefs.
Does it make a bit more sense as a two-step?
“I’m not endorsing Trump, because he’d be an awful president.”
“But you pledged that you would endorse Trump.”
“Yeah, well, then he attacked my family.”
I agree. I, too, have just developed the smallest measurable quantity of respect for Ted Cruz. I think your gram is a bit generous.
TED CRUZ WILL RETURN in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
Exactly. Cruz hasn’t exactly been a good little toy soldier for the Republican party. He’s made a career out of pissing off his colleagues and Trump was just the next colleague to piss off. It’s not like it was Rubio or Jeb, that would have been more of a shocker.
There is no coming disaster. Well, not for Trump. The polls are very close and there is no current reason to think that’s going to change. He has a good shot at winning, and if he loses it won’t be a landslide.
Take a look at our politics. One candidate insults another, calls him nasty names, makes nasty insinuations about his father, makes nasty insinuations about his dad. The second candidate refuses to endorse the first one. And this is surprising?
Jesus. This seems like a baselines: someone is that personally ugly to you, why on earth would anyone expect you to endorse them?
This team sport thing is being taken way too far.
I assume that either “father” or “dad” was meant to be “wife”. I could have edited the quote for you, but not sure that’s a good idea … 
Anyway, I agree with you about the general point, and I’m pleased that Cruz did not endorse Trump. But that said, I think you’re overstating it a bit. Had Cruz stayed home and not endorsed Trump, it would not have been this big issue. The issue is because the convention is primarily about nominating the Republican candidate and anyone who doesn’t want to be part of the program has the option of not participating - and many Republicans did choose that option. So the criticism of Cruz is about the fact that he chose to speak at the convention, and in this very speech made a point of not endorsing Trump. That’s something else, and you can’t hijack the party platform to pursue your personal agenda, no matter how valid.
That’s the notion, anyway. Bottom line IMO is that Cruz earned his speaking slot by winning a lot of primaries, and I think he did the right thing. But it’s not so clear-cut, as above.
Right on both counts :).
I see what you’re saying about how he could have stayed home. At this point, though, I’m enough of a non-team-player that I have trouble mustering sympathy for folks who think he should show any deference at all to the well-being of someone who has so thoroughly staked out the “personal enemy” territory that Trump has staked out.
Thanks to you (and Barrett Borden) for this. But I will disagree minorly that Cruz will come out smelling like a rose. There is a genuine risk to Cruz’ political career for this. He refused to endorse Trump right in front of the nominating convention - not behind the scenes, not by disassociating himself by not showing up, but he bearded the lion right in his den, in front of all the Trump supporters. And it is not my experience that saying “I told you so” makes someone all that popular. I still think it was smart, but repudiating Trump, especially after he had pledged to support the nominee when he (Cruz) still had a shot at the nomination gives the GOP establishment a legitimate cause for a beef come 2020, or even in Cruz’ attempt at re-election to the Senate.
I still have a higher opinion of the US electorate than that. Of course, I didn’t expect Trump to last beyond the first wave of primaries, and here he is the nominee, so FWIW - namely, not much.
The latest pollsthat I can find show a consistent lead for Hillary, and that doesn’t include any post-convention bounce after the Democratic nominating convention. I am talking about the popular vote - Hillary has a much better shot at an electoral landslide, at least at this point.
But I worry. I don’t know what more can be pointed out about Trump that would induce the whatever, 18% undecided to not vote for him. It seems like normal politicking doesn’t work against Trump. Hammering on his negatives hasn’t prevented him from getting the nom. Pointing out that you can’t trust him further than you can drop-kick him hasn’t worked. Pointing out the inanities about his trade policies hasn’t worked. Pointing to his statements about deporting Muslims hasn’t worked. I am afraid that a new round of negative campaigning against him from Hillary won’t work either. She should come up with something else, and I don’t know that she has it in her. If she plays up the policy wonk, she bores people. She can’t point to her family. She can’t present herself as the typical American success story. She can’t really point to herself as a model of probity and integrity as a contrast.
I still think she’ll win, but what worries me is that Cruz is the first one to stand up and say, in essence, “Are you out of your minds? This guy can’t be President - he’s a slimy nut!” And it is seen as this huge act of political courage.
P.J. O’Rourke said that he was supporting Hillary because “she is wrong about everything, but she is wrong within normal parameters.” (That’s from memory - don’t ban me for altering quotes!) Why is it that a candidate who is wrong outside normal parameters is even within twenty points in the polls?
Regards,
Shodan
That wasn’t principle. That was payback. Which is a sort of principle but not one that is universally admired.
I don’t admire him for getting payback, although I do sort of admire the results.
Oh no. Since I meant every word in my post to be taken completely literally your post has convinced me that you were completely right to be torn because Cruz did something you didn’t consider vile. :rolleyes:
A landslide Clinton victory is not only still possible, it’s about as likely as a Trump victory. More to the point, a Trump victory will still be a disaster for the GOP in the long term. He is utterly unqualified and his policy positions are impractical, unconstitutional, or both. He would be the worst president in history.
By the time 2020 rolls around, anyone who can say “I saw this clusterfuck coming, and have stood in unwavering opposition to it from the beginning” is going to be in a strong position. Cruz has positioned himself to be that person.
It’s convenient for him that this positioning also allows him to ‘take a principled stand’, but I don’t for one moment think that was his primary motivation.
I don’t think that I’ve ever really approved of anything Ted Cruz does, but anything that can provoke this response from Trump isn’t all bad.
But I agree that this was personal, not necessarily principled. Cruz was fine going along with Trump when he thought it was to his benefit to do so, and even now he is withholding an endorsement but he doesn’t explicitly say that Trump is horrible and unqualified.
I can’t summon up even a microgram of respect for Cruz based on his non-endorsement of Trump. And I’m apparently not alone.
*"Mr. Cruz’s sudden burst of “conscience” would be more believable if Mr. Cruz hadn’t played Tonto to Mr. Trump’s Lone Ranger for most of the primary campaign. When it mattered last year, when Mr. Trump still might have been stopped, Mr. Cruz was lip-syncing the businessman’s lines.
While other candidates were opposing Mr. Trump on immigration, Mr. Cruz was imitating him and even moving to his right. Mr. Cruz wrote an op-ed in this paper with Paul Ryan supporting trade promotion authority. After Mr. Trump opposed it, Mr. Cruz came out against the bill right before the Senate vote.
Principled opposition? Mr. Cruz was Donald Trump’s leading enabler." *
And that, friends, is the Wall St. Journal’s editorial take (7/21).
[QUOTE=Shodan]
…what worries me is that Cruz is the first one to stand up and say, in essence, “Are you out of your minds? This guy can’t be President - he’s a slimy nut!” And it is seen as this huge act of political courage.
[/QUOTE]
Except I don’t see where he has said anything remotely like that. John Kasich (who even refused to attend the convention) has publicly based his refusal to endorse Trump on his opinion that Trump is a mean and nasty guy who doesn’t play well with others. Nothing about how Trump’s ideas are loony and destructive, and that his unstable nature and lack of experience make him totally unsuited to be the nominee, much less President.
All Cruz deserves from his convention behavior is to not sink any lower in our estimation.
I agree with Shodan that Hillary should find a better campaign strategy than attacking Trump on grounds that have already failed. The problem is that she doesn’t have many positive attributes of her own to trumpet.
And while I see her winning by a comfortable electoral margin, I don’t expect a double-digit margin in the popular vote. Unless Trump implodes via something unprecedently stupid and indecent (which is always possible).