I think the main objections to [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] as a presidential candidate can be boiled down to the following two:
- [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] lacks the necessary executive experience needed to lead effectively as president
- [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] is too conservative and controversial to win in the general election
This is basically a trust issue. The objection can be restated “Do I trust this candidate to preside in a way the moves the country in a conservative direction?” This concern really has two parts a) ability to govern b) adherence to conservative values. Let’s drop Bush, Carson, and Christie from the discussion right now. The remaining top candidates are Walker, Huckabee, Paul, Rubio, Perry, Jindal, Santorum, and Kasich. We need to recognize that a “Senator, not an executive” argument would include Paul, Santorum. and Rubio leaving Walker, Huckabee, Perry, and Jindal. We then need to trade-off the executive abilities learned as governor vs the trust in remaining loyal to conservative values. Now, considering full spectrum, let’s compare:
- Right to life (judicial appointments): Walker vs Cruz
- Fiscal: Huckabee vs Cruz
- Crony Capatalism: Perry vs Cruz
I do not trust Walker to leave a seat open rather than appoint a
right to murder pro-choice nominee. Ditto for Huckabee on taxes, and Perry in regards to government handouts leaves a little something to be desired (HPV for one, Texas corridor for another, business incubators if we want to keep going). Really if you are going to raise this argument you either better be gunning for Jindal or assume that Walker is more likely to vacate a Supreme Court seat than Cruz is likely to learn how to faithfully execute the laws. Or alternatively you have to assume that dropping an area of conservatism (social for example) is worth the trade-off of limiting union power.
Electability in the General
The basic argument is that Cruz is too polarizing and out of the main stream to win a national election. Let’s note that Obama wanted to “spread the wealth” and thought that babies born alive could still be “aborted.” Both of these views are further from the main stream of American thought than any of Cruz’ positions. However, Obama won rather handily. Again in 2012 after ramming ACA through and all the fallout from that he was still re-elected. The American people have repeatedly shown themselves to be willing to vote for someone far outside main stream views. To believe differently is to deny the reality of probably half of all US presidents. Since at least as far back as JFK (probably further) electability is determined not by positions but by other factors (charisma, intelligence, TV presence, etc). While there are areas of polish that Cruz could address, it is difficult how the electorate would be more likely to vote for Walker than for Cruz since swing voters are swung more by likability than by positions.
Additionally you have to bring in the fact that Cruz is Hispanic. If he could beat Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote while also energizing Romney’s 6M missing voters that would far outweigh the swing voters who vote against him based on the issues.
If you think Cruz is too conservative a candidate in general or on specific issues, please name the issues. If you think he is less likely to beat Clinton in the general please name the states he would lose that Walker would win and why. If you think that he is too liberal point to a candidate who is more conservative. If you think he lacks charisma pull a couple comparison speeches to show how Walker/Perry/Rubio or someone else is more engaging. If you think his lack of executive experience is a too damaging please let me know why I should trust the alternative more than Cruz. Basically please improve upon MSNBC’s critique.