Diary

Washington Post and New York Times: Ted Cruz is the next Barry Goldwater

It is no coincidence that with [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ]recent rise in the polls come attempts to downplay or diminish him as a viable GOP candidate.

Two recent columns, one each from the Washington Post and NY Times, attempt to do just that.  A column on November 24th by obscure Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman titled “Sen. Ted Cruz could actually be the Republican nominee for President” is especially derogatory in nature.  Although conceding Cruz’s rise in the polls and the momentum he currently has, Waldman makes the following statement:


 “But from one angle — probably yours if you’re a member of that vaunted Republican “establishment” — the idea of Cruz being the GOP nominee is absurd. He’s been in the Senate for less than three years, he’s never written a significant law, let alone one that meaningfully advanced conservative goals, he has no foreign policy experience or executive experience, and he’s a singularly unpleasant person, despised in Washington by Democrats and Republicans alike. If he somehow won the nomination, it would be a disaster for the party to rival Barry Goldwater’s defeat in 1964.”


And not to be outdone, right on cue comes NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd on November 26th featuring guest analysis from her Republican brother Kevin Dowd on the GOP and Democratic presidential candidates.  From his analysis on [mc_name name=’Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000595′ ], and then on Cruz, it is apparent her brother is towing the Republican establishment line first praising Rubio and then downplaying Cruz with these comments:


“[mc_name name=’Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000595′ ]: Young, whip smart and self-assured, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign affairs and is a stunning contrast to Hillary Clinton both in generation and vision. Wait until he starts delivering his speeches in Spanish.

Ted Cruz: The Hispanic heir apparent to Barry Goldwater had the best moment in the third debate, calling out an obscure cable TV host looking for his 10 minutes of fame.”


 I will concede one cannot predict with absolute certainty the outcome of the 2016 presidential election should Cruz become the nominee, but the comparisons to Goldwater are premature.  The GOP base has been waiting since Ronald Reagan for a candidate who will hold true to conservative principles.  In my estimation, Cruz is that candidate who will bring the disenchanted GOP conservatives and evangelicals to the polls.

I hope to see more skeptics eat crow on Cruz. A column found on The Blaze could become typical.  “Ok, I Admit It: I Was Wrong About Ted Cruz“, written by Justin Haskins, editor in chief of the New Revere states the following:


“So, as I became convinced someone had to talk some sense into the well-intentioned but delusional conservative masses, I penned a reasonable critical assessment of Cruz’ chances against Clinton in the general election, warning Cruz supporters that he probably couldn’t beat Clinton and that any money given to his campaign would likely be wasted….. But, given the current state of the race and what’s likely to occur in the future, I have to admit that what I said before about Cruz was wrong. He can win against Clinton. In fact, he may have a better chance than others currently polling against him because I don’t think any of the other candidates could handle Clinton (especially on Benghazi) in a debate as well as Cruz can.”


I couldn’t agree more.  Well said.