GOP Coherence Should Trump Presidential Politicking

A couple of odd intra-party GOP quibbles appeared this week, aimed at Senator Ted Cruz, an early frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination.

National Review has a curious attack on Ted Cruz, written by Jim Gehrke, called “Ted Cruz tries, and fails, to win over WSJ. “

Mr. Gehrke claims that after a personal meeting, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal did not fall in love with the senator, as much as Mr. Cruz expressed his admiration for the WSJ ed page.

The trouble is that Mr. Gehrke gives no substantive basis for this lack of mutual regard.  Instead, we get a gossipy report that might run in Variety magazine about Kim Kardashian’s latest steatopygous enlargement.  

Two reasons are given for the ed board’s lack of sympathy for Ted Cruz.

1. Mr. Cruz was perceived as an arrogant Princeton type.

Well, shucks.  I didn’t realize that the great minds at WSJ were so easily annoyed at cerebral Princeton types.

2. Nobody loves Senator Cruz in the GOP Senate.

This is completely predictable, since every single member of the Senate notoriously believes s/he should be president of the United States.  Since Ted Cruz has been hitting the headlines more successfully than his senatorial competitors, it is no surprise whatsoever that they love him not.

As for the Wall Street Journal editorial board, I’m surprised at (reportedly) their knee-jerk reaction after just one meeting with Senator Cruz.  They are highly intelligent people who are not likely to come to snap judgments.  The next presidential election will make history, for better or worse – regardless of who wins.  This is a major, major time of decision, not just for editorial boards, but for every sentient person in the country.

Obviously Mr. Gehrke’s hit piece reflects hot competition in the GOP.  That’s good, because there are some excellent candidates for the GOP – much, much better than Hillary vs. Fauxcahontas (Liz) Warren.

Substantive competition is desperately needed, in a country that has seen almost no rational political debate in years.  We do not need gossipy sniping at this time of crisis, in the only political party that could offer a new Morning in America. 

Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment applies.  “Thou shall not speak ill of your fellow Republicans.”

Reagan did not mean that substantive debates should be avoided.  On the contrary.  Substance, yes; character attacks, no.  We’ve had our fill of those from the liberals.

Go to it, stay decent, and let the best candidate win.

The country cannot afford anything less.

A couple of odd intra-party GOP quibbles appeared this week, aimed at Senator Ted Cruz, an early frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination.

National Review has a curious attack on Ted Cruz, written by Jim Gehrke, called “Ted Cruz tries, and fails, to win over WSJ. “

Mr. Gehrke claims that after a personal meeting, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal did not fall in love with the senator, as much as Mr. Cruz expressed his admiration for the WSJ ed page.

The trouble is that Mr. Gehrke gives no substantive basis for this lack of mutual regard.  Instead, we get a gossipy report that might run in Variety magazine about Kim Kardashian’s latest steatopygous enlargement.  

Two reasons are given for the ed board’s lack of sympathy for Ted Cruz.

1. Mr. Cruz was perceived as an arrogant Princeton type.

Well, shucks.  I didn’t realize that the great minds at WSJ were so easily annoyed at cerebral Princeton types.

2. Nobody loves Senator Cruz in the GOP Senate.

This is completely predictable, since every single member of the Senate notoriously believes s/he should be president of the United States.  Since Ted Cruz has been hitting the headlines more successfully than his senatorial competitors, it is no surprise whatsoever that they love him not.

As for the Wall Street Journal editorial board, I’m surprised at (reportedly) their knee-jerk reaction after just one meeting with Senator Cruz.  They are highly intelligent people who are not likely to come to snap judgments.  The next presidential election will make history, for better or worse – regardless of who wins.  This is a major, major time of decision, not just for editorial boards, but for every sentient person in the country.

Obviously Mr. Gehrke’s hit piece reflects hot competition in the GOP.  That’s good, because there are some excellent candidates for the GOP – much, much better than Hillary vs. Fauxcahontas (Liz) Warren.

Substantive competition is desperately needed, in a country that has seen almost no rational political debate in years.  We do not need gossipy sniping at this time of crisis, in the only political party that could offer a new Morning in America. 

Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment applies.  “Thou shall not speak ill of your fellow Republicans.”

Reagan did not mean that substantive debates should be avoided.  On the contrary.  Substance, yes; character attacks, no.  We’ve had our fill of those from the liberals.

Go to it, stay decent, and let the best candidate win.

The country cannot afford anything less.