Much Ado About Ted Cruz Running for President

     I don't know if it's deserved. Lots of pundits seem to think it is. Greg Sargent-who sounds too optimistic to me here-thinks this might give us that thing he's always looking for: a 'real debate.' Art least at the end of a primary with Ted Cruz involved we'll know whether or not Cruz is an outlier:

    "Ted Cruz will announce in a speech at Liberty University today that he is running for president. All signs are that he will position himself as the candidate who is willing to fight hardest in defense of conservative values. Some analysts have posited that if Cruz were to somehow win the nomination, he’d be the most conservative GOP standard-bearer since Barry Goldwater.

But how different is Cruz from other Republicans on the issues themselves? How much of an outlier is Cruz in today’s GOP? Those are not rhetorical questions. A Cruz run will be a good thing, because it will bring clarity to  them."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/23/morning-plum-is-ted-cruz-really-an-outlier-in-todays-gop/

    If watching the GOP over the years tells you anything, it's that it's beliefs are more at least immutable since Goldwater. The debate about issues is always really about process and tactics. The other GOPers in the race will dismiss Cruz as unelectable and the GOP primary voters will ultimately agree. No way Cruz is allowed to win the nomination. 

   And no, I don't think there is such a difference in principle at stake just that the GOP establishment knows that Cruz doesn't work in front of a general electorate. 

    The GOP usually debates process: if the question of gay marriage comes up they try to avoid saying they oppose it, just that they think it ought to be a state issue; this is how they debate abortion at least nationally, and is even how they argued against the Voting Rights Act. 

   To the extent that the GOP tells you what they really think it's at the state level provided it's a red state. Nationally, they're careful enough. Cruz isn't so prudent-he's the opposite of prudent and so he can't ever sniff the nomination. 

  Sargent himself considers Cruz's stand on a host of issues compared with other GOPers-Obamacare, immigration, etc. and by his own admission there isn't much difference on principle. 

  You want to see someone who appears to be different on principle: Rand Paul on military matters. Nevertheless, alleged libertarians like Paul never do any damage to basic conservative dogma on issues like abortion, the military, drugs, etc. Voting for a 'libertarian' gets you little practical difference at least at the federal level from voting for a conservative. 

   Sargent suggests there might be a difference between Cruz and the rest on gay marriage:

    "On gay marriage, there is the potential for real differentiation. Cruz has signaled that he will demand that Republicans keep up the fight for traditional marriage until the end of time. Jeb Bush, by contrast, hassuggested that we must “respect” court decisions legalizing marriage equality. If the Supreme Court finds a Constitutional right to gay marriage later this spring, Cruz may keep up the crusade in the form of supporting a Constitutional marriage amendment, effectively challenging Bush to oppose it. More broadly, as Ed Kilgore notes, Cruz’s choice of Liberty University for his announcement speech shows he is positioning himself as the candidate of the Christian right."

   Even here I think it's more about tactics than substance. It seems to me that Sargent is really struggling to note an important difference. Even if Jeb Bush were forced to oppose such an amendment, so what? He likely wouldn't outright say that anyway-he'd find a way to be vague enough that both sides could feel like he was on their side. 

   The GOP strategy on such social issues is to leave it to the states. Now on gay marriage so many states are going the other way, that for once the federal argument doesn't seem to be helping. But like I said, I doubt Jeb will let himself say outright that he opposes the amendment but if he did-so what?

   Sargent seems almost desperate to see if the GOP establishment can be faced with a position held by the Far Right that is so wildeyed they'll have to repudiate it on the level of substance not just tactically. Such a position hasn't materialized yet, but even if it did-so what? Maybe tomorrow Cruz will say it's ok for parents to eat their young if that's the teaching of their personal religion and Jeb may come out against that. If so, how has this benefited any kind of public debate? Does this make Jeb Bush a Renaissance Man?

   Sorry, I don't think it's a big deal, The nominee will likely be Jeb and I agree the debates will be interesting-as they always are-but not because will finally get a debate on policy. 

   The closest to that might be immigration as Sargent has suggested before but even so, I doubt it. If pushed on this, Jeb will just engage in Orwell's DoubleThink like Romney did in 2012 where he both credited himself for passing Romneycare and criticized Obama for passing Romneycare.

   Jeb's position on immigrating reform is needed but not like that bad Ole Obama did it. So he's going to run on both deporting those protected under the President's executive action and then bringing them back under his own presumably legal method of amnesty. 

   Meanwhile. if Jeb were to win, it's quite likely that we would still have the GOP House and maybe even the Senate and therefore the GOP Congress would be just as hostile to immigration reform as it is now. So even Jeb, to pass reform would only be able to do it via executive action which as we know he's already ruled out the use of in apocalyptic terms. 

   My main point is keep your expectations down regarding the GOP and you won't be disappointed. Ted Cruz might be entertaining in the race but it won't magically make Jeb a better choice as President. Cruz's terrible position on the issues won't make Jeb's better than they are now despite the comparison with Cruz. If anything, Cruz might even have the counterproductive effect of making Jeb seem more 'reasonable' or 'moderate' than he really is.