The pages of The Wall Street Journal have not been kind to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.).

Politico reports that Cruz accused the Journal of being shills for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

"For the next three months, the Journal should change their header to the ‘Marco Rubio for President Newspaper,’ because their attacks — and it’s going to keep coming because Marco fights for the principles they care about," Cruz said. "There is no one, no conservatives in America who think The Wall Street Journal is the voice of conservatism."

Politico tried to offer a lukewarm defense of the Journal, quoting former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer as calling the Journal the "gold standard" for conservatism and Reaganomics. It's ironic that a former Bush staffer would say that, since it was the establishment-backed Bush family that sought to defeat then-GOP presidential candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980. Politico does eventually admit that the Journal has gone after Cruz because the editorial page supported comprehensive immigration reform, President Barack Obama's trade policies and the National Security Agency's metadata program–all of which are issues on which they agree with Rubio. The editorial page has also compared Cruz to Obama and referred to Cruz leading the fight on defunding Obamacare as the "kamikaze caucus," a play on words from establishment columnist George Will's reference to conservatives that supported Reagan as "kamikaze conservatives."

Kimberly Strassel, who is on the Journal's editorial board, wrote a piece in which it was quite obvious she was fed talking points from the Rubio campaign. For instance, she parroted the absurd Rubio line that Cruz is an isolationist.

"If national security continues as a pressing theme, will voters put their faith in a candidate who is on record (whatever the nuance) against military spending, against intelligence capabilities, against a proactive stance in Syria?" Strassel wrote.

Strassel also calls Rubio "an unabashed hawk."

These lines of attack are false. The military spending Strassel was referring to was Cruz voting against the National Defense Authorization Act that allowed the government to detain American citizens indefinitely–blatantly unconstitutional. The head of the NSA recently said that the agency is actually doing well thanks to the USA Freedom Act that Cruz supported, and in Syria Cruz clearly understands the Sunni-Shia civil war and that both sides–Iran on one side and ISIS and al-Qaeda on the other–are bad and hence it's better to stay out of it. That does not make Cruz an isolationist.

Cruz at one point tried to woo the support of the Journal, only to get rebuffed. Radio host and constitutional scholar Mark Levin wrote on his Facebook page at the time:

What's not reported here (see link) is that Paul Gigot, the WSJ editorial page chief editor, is an amnesty radical who's thin-skinned and often sophomoric. He uses the paper's opinion pages to carry not a conservative message but the corporatist water -- bailouts, subsidies, debt increases, amnesty, etc. He has also smeared the Tea Party, attacked talk radio, etc., with unsigned editorial opinion pieces. Gigot has cost the editorial page much of the prestige it once had among many conservatives since his appointment as its chief editor. The editorials reflect his predictable role as a mouthpiece for the GOP establishment. Thus, the praise for Jeb Bush and his ilk while mocking Ted Cruz.

Time and again, the Journal's editorial board attacks conservatives for trying to fight against the leftist agenda. When Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Ut.) attempted to defund Obamacare, the Journal accused them of simply wanting "fund-raising lists or getting face time on cable TV." The Journal also came out against conservative efforts to defund the baby-dismembering Planned Parenthood and Obama's illegal executive amnesty. What good are the Republicans if they can't even fight against those two issues?

Also, Bret Stephens, who is on the Journal's editorial board, wrote a snarky column called "Let's Elect Hillary Now" in which he accuses conservatives like Levin and radio host Laura Ingraham of having purity tests for Republican candidates that will guarantee a win for likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The column was light on substance, but heavy on elitism.

Before Cruz, the Journal channeled Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) in mocking conservatives as "Tea Party hobbits" in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown for simply wanting to fight against the burdensome debt that will eventually cripple the country.

To really get an idea of the mindset of the Journal, one simply needs to look back to their editorial on July 3, 1984 called "In Praise of Huddled Masses" in which they called for open borders.

"If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders," the editorial read.

Open borders, especially given the rise of Islamic terrorism, are insane. Yet it seems that the Journal has not backed away from this stance given their support for comprehensive immigration reform. The reason for this is because open borders provide cheap labor for corporations, which is what the Journal really wants because they're a corporatist newspaper. That's why they hate Cruz and lash out any conservatives who seek to change the status quo in Washington.