It should go without saying, but probably needs saying anyway, that I only claim to speak for myself in the post below.
As Governor McAuliffe still has yet to weigh in on the budget sent to him by the General Assembly, I’ve been able to spend more attention on the presidential race. The Wisconsin results naturally have folks buzzing: Matt and Ken have decent takedowns of Trump’s follies, while Brian Kirwin reminds us that Hillary Clinton is still having trouble winning the Democrats’ nod despite being the only actual Democrat in the nomination race.
Regarding the Republicans, much of the conversation (on BD and elsewhere) has been about “stopping Trump” – if it can be done, if it should be done, etc. That osbcures something important (to me, anyway): when looking at the issues and records of the remaining candidates, Ted Cruz is actually a good choice – the best in my opinion. As those who read me know, Cruz wasn’t my first choice (Marco Rubio was), but he was my second choice. Here’s why.
First and foremost: Cruz has the best anti-corporatist record of anyone running, in either major party. While Cruz is best known for his William Henry Seward 1850 impersonation during the Obamacare debate of 2013 (note: that’s not entirely a perjorative label), he has also fought to sunset the Export-Import Bank and been the loudest voice against industrial and financial bailouts in the entire campaign, quite an achievement when you consider that Bernie Sanders actually voted against TARP in 2008 (Cruz wasn’t elected to the Senate until 2012). Even his (mistaken, in my view) decision to drop his support for Trade Promotion Authority was due in part to concern that it was part of a scheme to revive Ex-Im. As for the Obamacare 2013 kerfuffle itself (given the president’s continued use of executive orders to change the legislation, I’m now comfortable with using that label), we should not forget what it really is: corporatism for health insurers disguised as “socialized medicine.” Furthermore, Cruz was also the loudest critic of the ethanol regime that is bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and a bonanza for Iowa corn growers. While Kasich ignored the state and Trump praised the ethanol regime, Cruz took on the Governor and the senior Senator from the state on the issue.
Second, and I think even more importantly: Ted Cruz has the right executive experience. The nation has sent four governors to the White House in the last 40 years: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Younger. All cited their experience as Governors as a positive. All of them ended up with problems adjusting to Washington. With the exception of Reagan, none even came close to accomplishing what they initially set out in their first successful campaign for the presidency (Clinton and Bush in particular ended up largely repudiating – the former in word, the latter in deed – their visions for the size and scope of government). Part of that is the Pennsylvania Avenue dynamic (White House vs. Congress), but far more has to deal with the politics within an Administration that slows political appointees’ momentum, grinds agendas to a halt, and leaves mandates suffering death by a thousand paper cuts. Ted Cruz, unlike his Republican opponents, actually has experience in the federal executive branch (the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission), meaning he’s seen how the Sir Humphreys in Washington operate up close.
In case you don’t take my word for it, here’s Jim Geragthy on Cruz’s time at the FTC:
Rolling back regulations has been a perennial promise of GOP presidential candidates for a generation. Every Republican presidential hopeful says he’ll cut red tape; very few make it a top priority once they’re in office. Cruz faces a steep climb to the nomination and the presidency. But if he can defy the odds and claim the White House, he’ll bring a level of hands-on experience with the regulatory state — and a proven zeal for cutting it down to size — that few, if any, of his predecessors could match.
That is exactly the kind of experience we need in a president. It was why I still considered supporting Cruz until his change of mind on TPA last year. It is why I support him now.
Given how remarkably weak Mrs. Clinton is, within her own party – and the fact that her bizarre treatment of classified information is likely to cause the most anger among voters in the ultimate swing state (Virginia, home to the Pentagon, Langley, and Hampton Roads) – all Republican candidates have a path to victory (if you can’t see Trump’s, you’re not alone, but just give Brian Kirwin a chance to comment on this). All also have weaknesses: Trump’s are obvious; Kasich’s record on gun rights and Medicaid could cause him serious trouble in the swing state of Colorado; and Cruz’s shutdown tactics from 2013 will certainly come back to haunt him with voters – although President Cruz would do far better in shut down battles because, well, presidents always win shutdown battles). I would humbly submit that Republicans can still vote for someone, rather than just against someone…
…and were I in a state that was still to hold a Republican primary or caucus, the above is why I would vote for Ted Cruz.
