Boy, does the GOP establishment hate Ted Cruz. On Saturday night, one of the moderators for the GOP debate will be Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, a notorious Cruz-hater with a laundry list of attacks on the conservative candidate.
In truth, this should not be surprising; despite the patina of conservatism ascribed to the Journal because of its op-ed page. In 2004 a study rated the rest of the paper more leftist than the New York Times.
Here are some examples of Strassel’s Cruz-hatred:
For starters:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz recently gave a speech to some FreedomWorks activists, delivering a fascinating retelling of the Senate gun-control fight. After taking credit for killing the bill with his filibuster threat, Mr. Cruz went on to divide the Republican caucus between those who have “principles” and those who are “a bunch of squishes.”
This is one way to divvy up the GOP caucus, though it is a largely false (and self-serving) construction. The real divisions in today’s Republican Party are not so much over ideology as they are over strategy. The GOP is split between those who insist on making a point, and those who want to make some progress.
And this, from an article titled, “Defunders Give Democrats a Pass”:
This effort has not, for some time now, been about victory. It has become, as RedState’s Erick Erickson put it with his usual eloquence, about shining a light on the “cockroaches” in the GOP. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has spent months berating his own side as “appeasers” who care only about “being invited to all the right cocktail parties in town.”
How about this implication, from Strassel’s appearance on Fox News Sunday:
Well, look, here is the thing: everyone is saying this is some divide in the Republican Party between, you know, the people who are principled versus the people who are sellouts. What is becoming clear is that the real divide here all along has been between those who actually wanted a commonsense strategically planned way of going forward, and those who just sort of marched ahead, into the headlines, they didn’t do any of the hard work that is necessary for adventure of this sort to make it work. And, you know, I called some of these groups, the fund ring leader and said, what’s your plan, what Senate Democrats are you targeting to get to come along with you? What is your PR strategy if shutdown comes up to get the American public behind you, what’s your fall back when the president doesn’t do this?
I was told these were all tedious questions. And so, you know, now this is what we have. And the reality is they have made a lot of strategic blunders. That’s the cold eye appraisal. They decided to do this on the budget rather than the debt ceiling, which the American public is much more behind as the issue. They have no fall back plan. They have sacrificed some of their best leverage, things like this congressional exemptions subsidy, fighting on the individual mandate. And they’ve given Democrats an excuse now to just say we’re not doing anything, because this is such a spectacle. This has been a strategic error.
Still again, as she disparaged Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee for their staunch defense of conservatism:
The Republican Party is in a disorderly retreat from its own Valley of Death, having been led there by Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, flanked by drummers Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, Senate Conservatives Fund, and Club for Growth. Their cause was just, their charge courageous. And it was utterly suicidal. They were mowed down by a Democratic Party that was dug in, fully alerted and had every advantage.
Wait, there’s more, with her smug title of “Another Misguided Cruz Missile”:
Members of Congress routinely cook up situations that force opposing parties to take “tough votes.” This may be the first time a senator did so solely to damage his own party. It may also be the first time a senator has used the privileges afforded him under Senate rules to benefit a small and coordinated band of conservative campaign groups. Their No. 1 target is Mr. McConnell, who Mr. Cruz hasn’t forgiven for failing to embrace his damaging shutdown.
The woman simply can’t help herself. Check this one out:
Mr. Cruz’s insight into voters is smaller and more calculating—but effective nonetheless. The Texas senator understands that people are mad. Mr. Trump has caught the attention of many of these voters, but Mr. Cruz is presenting himself as a more effective alternative. And he’s quite believable, having proven he’d throw anybody under the bus—right, left or center—to accomplish his aims.
Keep going, Kimberley; you’re on a roll in this one, titled, “Ted Cruz’s Security Misstep”:
It may have seemed like a good idea to Mr. Cruz at the time. But after Paris, he finds himself with a national security agenda that is increasingly at odds with the public will. Florida’s Marco Rubio (who opposed the NSA bill) had fun this week reminding Americans of the stark foreign-policy differences between himself and the Texan, noting that Mr. Cruz has supported laws that “weaken U.S. intelligence.” Mr. Rubio, who has delivered at least 10 major foreign-policy addresses in the past few years, is running as the unabashed hawk, calling for robust new U.S. world leadership. Mr. Cruz may have walked himself into playing the counterpoint—a Rand Paul stand-in.
Ripping Cruz and intimating voters were stupid as she slammed Cruz for his attempts to explain why his efforts on an amendment dealing with immigration were designed as a “poison-pen” maneuver to kill the bill: “I guess, the question is, he’s putting his faith in whether or not voters are going to understand the arcane legislative maneuvering that goes on in Washington.”
This pretty much sums Strassel up; she can’t believe that a man who attended Princeton, Harvard, and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice could actually reject leftist values.
And finally, from January 16 of this year, as Strassel attacked Cruz for his “New York values” comment. This pretty much sums Strassel up; she can’t believe that a man who attended Princeton, Harvard, and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice could actually reject leftist values: “It’s very tough to listen to Cruz talk about some of these things, because this is a guy who went to Princeton, went to Harvard, clerked for federal judges, and is married to a woman who worked for Goldman Sachs.”
The supposition is ridiculous; look no farther than Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro for someone else who attended Harvard Law School and still remained a fierce conservative.
But that’s the point; the ferocity of Cruz’s conservatism unnerves Strassel enough that there is no way she can act as an impartial moderator.