No doubt this will only embolden a portion of you to oppose Ted Cruz all the more, but NR’s editorial endorsing Cruz lays out, with eloquence, the case for Cruz (and saves me a lot of time writing).
We supported Cruz’s campaign in 2012 because we saw in him what conservatives nationwide have come to see as well. Cruz is a brilliant and articulate exponent of our views on the full spectrum of issues. Other Republicans say we should protect the Constitution. Cruz has actually done it; indeed, it has been the animating passion of his career. He is a strong believer in the liberating power of free markets, including free trade (notwithstanding the usual rhetorical hedges). His skepticism about “comprehensive immigration reform” is leading him to a realism about the impact of immigration that has been missing from our policymaking and debate. He favors a foreign policy based on a hard-headed assessment of American interests, one that seeks to strengthen our power but is mindful of its limits. He forthrightly defends religious liberty, the right to life of unborn children, and the role of marriage in connecting children to their parents — causes that reduce too many other Republicans to mumbling.
That forthrightness is worth emphasizing. Conservatism should not be merely combative; but especially in our political culture, it must be willing to be controversial. Too many Republicans shrink from this implication of our creed. Not Cruz. And this virtue is connected to others that primary voters should keep in mind. Conservatives need not worry that Cruz will be tripped up by an interview question, or answer it with mindless conventional wisdom when a better answer is available. We need rarely worry, either, that his stumbling words will have to be recast by aides and supporters later. Neither of those things could be said about a lot of Republican nominees over the years.
Of course the Trump forces will just say that this is proof that Ted Cruz is really a member of the Establishment (as indeed one wag on Twitter suggested immediately upon seeing this news), but basically anyone who doesn’t think Donald Trump is the Messiah is deemed to be part of the evil Establishment by Trump supporters.
I’m independent. Cruz has been my choice from day one. Second was Dr. Carson.
Cruz, even without the much needed charisma.
Too late
A republic, if we can keep it….
“Of course the Trump forces will just say that this is proof that Ted Cruz is really a member of the Establishment (as indeed one wag on Twitter suggested immediately upon seeing this news), but basically anyone who doesn’t think Donald Trump is the Messiah is deemed to be part of the evil Establishment by Trump supporters.”
Funny thing is, the Republican Establishment hates Cruz more than it does Trump.
CRUZ! CRUZ! CRUZ!!
I believe that Cruz is a man of integrity who stands by his principles regardless of pressure to do otherwise. He would make a good president, but I feel uncertain whether he can beat Clinton because I fear he will not go on the offensive and attack strongly and relentlessly as Trump will. Trump will continuously make media headlines, keeping him before the public eye. Whereas Cruz has not demonstrated this ability. He could use an expert to help him in this area. I am still upset at the way Romney wimped out and did not hit Obama strongly regarding his Benghazi negligence.
Interesting and noteworthy. Now that Rubio has imploded, Cruz is the best option About time Catholics took a stand. Obama was elected by professed “Catholics” despite being the most antii-Catholiic president since the Know-Nothings.
the third entry is also interesting.. It was an answer on Jeopardy last night. I had never heard about it
Cruz’s wife Heidi works for Goldman Saks, and is a member of the Globalist Council on Foreign Relations. Funny how no one ever speaks of this. He is a long time insider and was a staffer on the Bush Campaign. He is just another politician.
First of all, it’s spelled Sachs, and Trumbots repeat this meaningless bit of information roughly every three minutes.
I fear he will not go on the offensive and attack strongly and relentlessly as Trump will.
There is literally nothing in either man’s respective backgrounds that would suggest the above is true. If anything, Cruz has already demonstrated a far greater willingness to go on the offensive against Hillary than the man who invited her to his wedding.
By way of full disclosure, I have been a subscriber to the National Review since my puppy-hood Goldwater campaign days. WFB Jr. has gone to his reward but his spirit yet guides his absolutely not establishment magazine. Anyone who thinks NR is establishment is a borderline anarchist. Of course, I generalize.
I feel uncertain whether he can beat Clinton because I fear he will not go on the offensive and attack strongly and relentlessly as Trump will.
The guy called Mitch McConnell, the leader of his own party, a liar. On the floor of the Senate no less.
.
I don’t think you have to worry about Cruz unless your idea of a strong, relentless attack is calling Hillary Clinton a nasty, shriveled old hag or some such.
What did Mrs. Cruz say in her involvement with the CoFR?
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses.
This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for
the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such,
investmentfundsandfinancingmechanismsshouldbedeemedattractive
instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed
in conjunction with market participants.
Heidi S. Cruz
I can see how someone supporting property rights, business at the service of people, and subsidiarity would be horrifying to those who think Trump does great stuff with his business choices, but it’s not the track I’d use for arguing how evil a lady’s husband is on a Catholic blog.
Subtly put madam. Too subtly perhaps.
.
But then, I’m a blunt instrument. Or an obnoxious, loudmouthed jerk.
.
take yer pick
I’m happy for National Review writing this, but seriously…this has got to be the easiest call in my lifetime, in terms of primary support. Usually you have to balance the issues, the personalities, who you’d like to win versus who you think can win in the general election, et cetera. This time around? There’s one candidate who is as good or better than each of the others in every aspect that would drive my vote. It’s not a choice between the legal conservative versus the social conservative, between the candidate with experience versus the one with vision. I was discouraged at this campaign early on because it looked like the best people weren’t getting any traction. I’m discouraged now, for a different reason, but I couldn’t be happier with the lever I’m going to pull this time around.
They could have attacked Hillary and Bernie for not denouncing the violent attacks on Trump’s First Amendment campaign activities.
.
Who on Cruz’s stellar staff advised him to execrate Donald Trump for suffering attacks organized by Black Lives Matter, Moron.Org, and terrorist bomber Bill Ayres?
.
I will file it under “bad form.”
Bad form, yes. And also failure to correctly identify the enemy. I forgive him.
T – Has National Review ever failed to criticize Hillary or Bernie?
What he said.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432729/chicago-trump-incitements-cruz-response
Yes, Paul. What he said. This is not a fine point in an academic debate, and it’s not a matter of casual speculation. Calling on your supporters to commit assaults always leads to the same thing. We can’t say “he’s a thug but he’s our thug”, because the fact of being a thug means he’s not ours. He is opposed to our founding principles of liberty and justice, and he campaigns on his opposition to them, and his campaign embraces the opposition to them as a matter of practice.
This country is a rarity: we have believed that no one should be able to gather all our possessions up, even if they promise to allocate them out in our favor At least, one party has believed that. whether by erosion of principles or fear of the other guy’s thugs, a part of our party has come to believe that we need a thug of our own. But there’s no such thing as a thug in defense of self-governance.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is supposed to be holding a nationally televised “town hall” meeting in Springfield IL on Monday, the night before the IL primary, but to date she hasn’t announced where it’s being held or who’s been invited. A secret town hall meeting? Guess she’s not taking any chances….
BTW, Cruz finished fourth in the DC primary. If ever finishing last was better than victory, this is the time. It’s the equivalent of an anti-endorsement. Yes, DC cronies prefer Trump to Cruz.
Rubio won the DC primary. I don’t think the Mondale map is what he envisioned as the path to victory.