Althouse: "Any time you hear someone talking about a brokered convention it is the Washington establishment in a fevered frenzy."

March 4, 2016

"Any time you hear someone talking about a brokered convention it is the Washington establishment in a fevered frenzy."

"They're really frustrated because all of their chosen candidates, all of their golden children, the voters keep rejecting. And so they seized on this master plan. We go to a brokered convention and the DC power brokers will drop someone in who is exactly to the liking of the Washington establishment. If that happens we will have a manifest revolt on our hands.... If you want to beat Donald Trump here's how you do it: You beat Donald Trump with the voters."

Said Ted Cruz, in a massive affront to Mitt Romney.

Extremely well stated, I think.... but, Cruz's self-interest is obvious. Cruz was called upon to work like mad to produce the brokered convention, but he can't think he'd be the man the DC power brokers would drop in. He's certainly not "exactly to the liking of the Washington establishment."

81 comments:

Fabi said...: An article posted this evening at NRO is trial-ballooning Paul Ryan as the desired candidate to emerge from a brokered convention. I won't link to comedy gold. Gold, Jerry!; 3/4/16, 8:35 PM
YoungHegelian said...: You know, you'd think that the Republican establishment would be aware of the fact that, unlike all the Hippies & Yippies who disrupted the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, their motley crew of fly-over country good ol' boys ( & girls) are often armed.; 3/4/16, 8:38 PM
eric said...: He is right though. How does the GOP go to a convention where a plurality of voters have picked Donald Trump and say, nope. Sorry. We are going to go with this other guy?

They'd never win another election and would be mocked mercilessly on every television station and magazine and newspaper.; 3/4/16, 8:39 PM
rehajm said...: Rinse says no.; 3/4/16, 8:41 PM
rehajm said...: eric said...
He is right though. How does the GOP go to a convention where a plurality of voters have picked Donald Trump and say, nope. Sorry. We are going to go with this other guy?

Today this was the consensus in the office where the Romney Christmas card still sits on top of a file cabinet.; 3/4/16, 8:43 PM
Qwinn said...: "He's certainly not "exactly to the liking of the Washington establishment."

Hmmm, is that based on his phony exterior or his phony interior? I mean, if he were the phony you claim, Ann, wouldn't he have been phony by claiming to be against that establishment and then giving them what they want behind the scenes?

That they still hate him proves that he hasn't done that, and that his position of valuing conservative ideals over party loyalty isn't phony or a pose.

In my mind, this is further evidence that Trump's support is really coming from Democrats. Conservatives who want to vote against the Establishment *have somewhere to go*. The idea that Trump is popular because people want to give a finger to the Establishment would make sense if he was the only one who would do so, but he isn't. And I don't buy the "but he's not likable" argument. If you're trying to revenge-fuck the Establishment (and full disclosure, yeah, I'm pretty much in that camp myself at this point), you don't pick Mr. Congeniality to do it. Far more important than "likable" (and Trump is the likeable one? Really? He's a complete ass) in that scenario is confidence that he won't cave and go back on his pledge to take that Establishment on.

Cruz has proven that he will piss off the Establishment with no arm-twisting required repeatedly (campaigning against ethanol subsidies in Iowa? What more proof do you want?) Trump has proven repeatedly that his 'principles' and promises expire probably even faster's than Obama's.

I think this is very obvious to conservatives. It is Democrats crossing over to vote for Trump because they figure if both candidates are Democrats, they can't really lose in the general.; 3/4/16, 8:44 PM
The Godfather said...: If I were Cruz or Rubio (or even Kasich) I'd say the same thing. Certainly neither Cruz nor Rubio would expect to be selected by the "brokers" at a brokered convention (and although the brokers might like Kasich, he's done so badly at the polls that it would be hard to justify annointing him).

But the fact is that Tromp may not get a majority of the delegates, so then what happens? Usually, the candidate with the largest minority of delegates is acceptable to the rest of delegates, who will swing over to support him. That may not be the case this year. If between them Cruz and Rubio control a majority of the delegates (or close enough to make it plausible that they could gain the additional delegates needed), they could be the "brokers" of a Cruz-Rubio or Rubio-Cruz ticket. This would probably lead Tromp to run as a third-party candidate, or throw his support to the Dem candidate, and assure victory for Hillary! (or Biden, if Hillary! is forced to withdraw "for reasons of health"). That's not an ideal outcome, but as a Republican I'd regard it as preferable to Tromp running as the Republican candidate.; 3/4/16, 8:45 PM
Kylos said...: My brother was at a breakfast this morning where Jim Messina and Karl Rove spoke. He said Rove implied that Kasich was partly staying in to make the odds of a brokered convention greater by keeping Trump from winning Ohio.; 3/4/16, 8:46 PM
Qwinn said...: "Certainly neither Cruz nor Rubio would expect to be selected by the "brokers" at a brokered convention"

Um, Cruz wouldn't, but the "broker" would give their right arm to crowbar Rubio into the nominee slot. He is their boy, lock stock and barrel. It's a shame too, I really liked him at the beginning of his career, he had so much promise, but he sold his soul almost entirely to the Establishment. Cruz doesn't even bother returning their calls, which is the proper response.; 3/4/16, 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Fabi: An article posted this evening at NRO is trial-ballooning Paul Ryan as the desired candidate to emerge from a brokered convention. I won't link to comedy gold. Gold, Jerry!

Jaysus. Are these people trying to get themselves tarred and feathered?; 3/4/16, 8:58 PM
Henry said...: To say Romney overplayed his hand is assuming he had one to begin with.

That is how it looks to me from the outside. I would be interested if some insider could explain exactly how an insider works on the inside.; 3/4/16, 9:01 PM
buwaya said...: There will be some very interesting books written about all this.
Eventually.
If we survive.; 3/4/16, 9:03 PM
Fabi said...: @Qwinn: Do you think it's reasonable to assume that D's are crossing over to vote for DT in the R primary while they were, until last Tuesday, fighting for the future direction of their own party in their own races? No way. Look at the vote totals and results from both races in Nevada as an indicator.; 3/4/16, 9:05 PM
Qwinn said...: "@Qwinn: Do you think it's reasonable to assume that D's are crossing over to vote for DT in the R primary while they were, until last Tuesday, fighting for the future direction of their own party in their own races? No way. Look at the vote totals and results from both races in Nevada as an indicator."

Hillary was preordained. Bernie is simply there to mask that fact. His race is nothing but a sideshow.

More important than the vote totals and results, look at turnout. In most of the analysis I've read, Democrat turnout has been down about 30% and Republican turnout has been up 30%. It's the same people.; 3/4/16, 9:08 PM
Fabi said...: @Anglelyne: It beats all I've ever seen. I often accuse the GOPe of living in a bubble, but their recent behavior excludes a mere sealed vessel and points squarely at a mental breakdown. We have a few exemplars here. That said, I have little doubt that they will try anything to stop Cruz and Trump. If they do so within the rules, that's fine -- if not, it will be Biblical.; 3/4/16, 9:14 PM
David Aitken said...: Trump has won mostly open primaries; Cruz has won mostly closed ones. Which should tell you that independents are driving Trump's numbers. Most of the upcoming primaries are closed, so Cruz should do better. We'll see.; 3/4/16, 9:20 PM
eric said...: Fabi, what do you mean if they do so within the rules?

The convention rules are made as the first order of business, at the convention.

So, of course it'll be according to the rules that they just determined.; 3/4/16, 9:22 PM
Fabi said...: @Qwinn: Democrat turnout is down about 10%, Republican turnout is up well over 30%. In four states R turnout has been 70 - 95% higher than 2012.; 3/4/16, 9:25 PM
TWW said...: Clearly Cruz's strategy in Fla is to knock Rubio out; not to win or e.ven finish second.; 3/4/16, 9:31 PM
Fabi said...: @eric: I understand that. I'm just observing that it's been a bizarre primary season, viz. the previous R nominee taking to the airwaves to discredit the party's front runner, so the situation is "fluid". Expect the unexpected.; 3/4/16, 9:31 PM
Michael K said...: "Most of the upcoming primaries are closed, so Cruz should do better. We'll see."

Yes, we'll see.

If not....; 3/4/16, 9:50 PM
future toothless bum said...: It's Trump's election unless Rubio bows out. As far as I'm concerned it's the GOPe that are making the call. I hate them most certainty.

Republicans are tired of the GOP. The reasons are everywhere. Trump is a con man they say. It takes one to know one. Trump is uncouth and base. Better than patronising while stealing your pocketbook. Trump knows nothing about world events. Um, look at the near past.

Trump has become the underdog. Everyone in the establishment hates him. It's come to a point in time where he is the guy who reflects yourself.

I'm for Cruz but I wouldn't hesitate for a second.; 3/4/16, 9:53 PM
wildswan said...: Why not answer Donald Trumps points?

Why not admit that considering the unemployment rate Americans are right to want immigration brought under control? Why not say that GOPe gets what GOP has been saying about immigration?

Why not admit that income inequality has gone through the roof under Obama but many in the GOPe have benefited and this has made them cold and indifferent to the problems of the middle class?

Why not admit that Obama has made an incredible mess of the Middle East and the GOPe is going to want soldiers to go out and die to fix it all but the GOPe never worked and voted to stop him? See the last budget. Soldiers must take risks; lobbyists/ Congressmen/ Senators not so much

Why not admit that 30% of the Muslims in this country support jihad - why would we let in more without vetting them? Would each Congressman and every lobbyist be willing to hire an unvetted Muslim? No, they don't even hire unvetted Americans. OK, why not the same safety precautions for fellow Americans?

Basically, DC is playing by different rules and they are so used to it that they could make the incredible preposterous suggestion that the GOP candidate will be someone other than one of those now running. And that GOPe guy doesn't have to pay any attention to any lessons from the Trump/Sanders phenomenon.

Also the DC crowd thinks of themselves as sharply different from Trump. But from a very short distance away they look just the same. Politicians look and behave like Trump to the average person. This is another thing they just don't believe in DC, it's to horrible to think.; 3/4/16, 10:18 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: Ted Cruz strikes me as the kind of guy who has steadfastly remained loyal to his high school Sex Sock.

Washed gently in the sink with Woolite, softly patted dry: always.

Special place in the bureau drawer. Unfolded, atop a classic white handkerchief.

It reminds him that he is an Outsider, baby, an Outsider: he is the same boy who no one would even think of fucking, but Sex Sock was always there.

Sex Sock will ALWAYS be there.

After winning a debate the losers would go off to parties; Cruz would simply celebrate, in private, upstairs, with Sex Sock.

Sometimes the Unfairness Of It All would torment him, but Cruz would NEVER Hate-Fuck Sex Sock: it would not be good for the longevity of the cotton / polyester blend. Cruz, always thinking forward.

Sure, he has thought of rolling it up and shoving it in the mouth of a naked woman or two, a runaway maybe, but those were just Thoughts. Ted Would Not Do That. Sex Sock would not want it that way.

Still, things could have been different. Without his inner resilience Ted could've ended up being that Creepy Texas Drifter in a White Van with No Windows on the Back, just following girls home from school down dusty Texas roads, him and Sex Sock, cruising in the woozy heat.

Good times.

Also: Argyle. Of course.

I am Laslo.; 3/4/16, 10:22 PM
iowan2 said...: Can someone detail all the planks of the Republican platform Cruz has worked against and violated? Exactly what has Cruz done that so irks the establishment? To me the only thing Cruz has done is refuse to bend to the will of Democrats.; 3/4/16, 10:24 PM
Michael K said...: The Ruling Class is dealing with the fact that the cover is blown.; 3/4/16, 10:28 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Cruz doesn't play by the GOP establishment rules; Heck he doesn't play by the Democrat establishment rules---which is why every other Senator hates him.

Your average "conservative" Republican senatorial candidate makes a lot of noises during the campaign about fixing what is wrong in Washington--then goes to Washington and promptly becomes part of what is wrong in Washington. They are simply Democrat lite--getting along by going along.

Democrats expect the Republicans to be their little pet doggies--rolling over when told.

Cruz came to Washington and said "screw all that". Bad little doggie--you can't do that.

And it looks like The Donald will at least pretend to be a bad big doggie not following the rules--for a little while. But The Donald is a deal maker--or at least thinks he is. So after a while, he'll be getting along by going along.; 3/4/16, 10:45 PM
mccullough said...: The GOP establishment are in the bargaining phase of their demise. Trump is going to win a majority of delegates. The national GOP is done. A general dislike of progressives is not enough to keep the plutocrats, the tea partiers, the evangelicals, and the blue collar whites into a cohesive enough group.; 3/4/16, 10:49 PM
bleh said...: Cruz, along with Christie, is making a play for the Trumpian anti-establishment mantle. At a brokered convention, the party will need to satisfy the voters who are angry at the establishment, whatever that means. Cruz is no fool.; 3/4/16, 11:24 PM
Howard said...: Don't kid yourself, the establishment hates the sociopath Cruz more than teh Donald and Christie is a libturd. Eddie Munster has been chosen the brokered convention savior... it's an open secret trial baboon.; 3/4/16, 11:49 PM
future toothless bum said...: Cruz is a constitutional scholar. It may be a little male brain eccentric which many here can't grasp, but that is all he cares about. Maybe someone makes a deal and he becomes the next Scalia. I would vote for Rubio for that.

If a brokered convention is going to steal my soul, give me that.; 3/4/16, 11:57 PM
Birkel said...: Howard is practicing psychiatry without a license or a clue.; 3/5/16, 12:04 AM
Beldar said...: So Ted Cruz makes a statement in favor of democracy and against depriving voters of their choice.

Althouse: "His self-interest is obvious."

You say that like no other candidate shares an interest in being elected.

You have a reflexive emotional bias against Ted Cruz. You ought to just admit that, Prof. Althouse. To yourself, if not to your readers.; 3/5/16, 12:07 AM
future toothless bum said...: To Beldar,
She is only stating Cruz isn't a shill. In so many words of course. That's his self interest. God help him keep it.; 3/5/16, 12:46 AM
Anonymous said...: The only issue with a brokered convention is that the party has set up the process to ask the voters for input on whom the candidate should be. If they don't like the results they're getting from that process, then they should either reform the process for 2020 or perhaps their leaders should stop folding like a cheap suit every time the going gets tough, thus encouraging their voters to abandon the leadership quite as much as the leadership has abandoned them lately.

A more central problem for the party is reflected in the last 3 presidential primaries as well - what exactly does this party stand for? Sympathetic as I am toward voting for them, it's hard to say they stand on any principles aside from the 2nd Amendment. The decision not to confirm an Obama nominee for the Supreme Court this year is one of the few real displays of spine seen during the Obama years. I keep thinking that maybe if that kind of resolve had been shown a bit more often over the previous 7 years, the party's voters wouldn't be flocking to someone who has about as much use and respect for the Republican establishment as a dog does for a fire hydrant.

While it's self serving of Cruz to argue against a brokered convention, I also think he's correct about the result. I cannot see a nominee selected that way winning unless they are some sort of mythical national unity figure the Republicans have waiting in the wings. The only person who fits that bill is 12 years in his grave and barred by the 22nd Amendment, which presumably also applies to vampires, zombies, mummies, resurrected corpses, heads in jars, computers with uploaded memories, or any other possible second coming of Reagan.; 3/5/16, 1:00 AM
averagejoe said...: Massive affront to Romney? LOL! Romney tried to steal the show but his ballyhooed speech laid an egg, and Cruz just smashed it on his head and pushed him off the stage. Go away, Mittens. This isn't about you.; 3/5/16, 1:10 AM
chickelit said...: Beldar stated: You have a reflexive emotional bias against Ted Cruz. You ought to just admit that, Prof. Althouse. To yourself, if not to your readers.

It's more common than you'd admit, Beldar. I forgive your Texan zealotry (which is part of the American fabric).; 3/5/16, 1:57 AM
chickelit said...: @wildswan: Great style at your 10:18!; 3/5/16, 2:05 AM
Diamondhead said...: No need to worry about a brokered convention if Trump gets the required number of delegates to ensure his nomination. That number was presumably chosen in order to ensure the nominee is acceptable to the party. As it stands a majority of delegates chosen by voters are committed to someone other than Trump, meaning he has not yet met the acceptability threshold. If he does eventually, fine. But if he doesn't, Trump and his supporters don't really have a valid complaint (not to say they won't complain (and loudly)).; 3/5/16, 2:11 AM
Qwinn said...: The "self interest" is not as obvious as you think, Ann. In a brokered convention which denies anti-Establishment Trump, the anti-Establishment guy who got the second highest number of votes *is* the Unity candidate, their only choice that can possibly keep the party in any sense of together in this situation. They hate Cruz, oh, it's very obvious that they do. But Trump scares them shitless. He may be the *only* acceptable alternative to enough of the actual Republican Party to keep it together, not counting the absurd crossover votes.

No one is voting for the Establishment (except for Rubio's tiny 3rd place standing and single win in the home of Jesse Ventura and Al Franken) this election. The Establishment knows it can't dismiss BOTH the guy with the most votes AND the guy with the second most votes and install their puppet and get away with it.

Cruz very much has a path to victory through a brokered convention. You see self serving because, in multiple ways, you really really really want to.; 3/5/16, 2:43 AM
Saint Croix said...: If you want to beat Donald Trump here's how you do it: You beat Donald Trump with the voters.

The problem Cruz is running into is that the people who know him best, the other 99 Senators, will not endorse him. Not one. Strange!

The only Senator who has come close to endorsing Cruz is Harry Reid. Strange!

Why is Harry Reid angry with Marco Rubio? Bizarre!

I suspect the Trump fans will vote for Trump, and the Cruz fans will vote for Cruz, and the Marco fans will vote for Marco. Cruz is trying to get the Marco fans without attacking Marco. He has decided that he must attack Trump. And Marco is attacking Trump too.

My optimistic prediction is that our possible tickets might be something like these options:

Rubio/Trump

or

Cruz/Kasich

or

Trump/Christie

I am happy to vote for the first two.; 3/5/16, 3:46 AM
Saint Croix said...: My super-optimistic prediction is that

Rubio is the nominee

Trump is the veep

the wall is built

the illegals have a path to citizenship

and Cruz is nominated for the Supreme Court

is everybody happy?!; 3/5/16, 3:57 AM
Saint Croix said...: also, Mexico does not pay for it

so they are happy too; 3/5/16, 4:00 AM
Saint Croix said...: The bad outcome would be if Trump is the Republican nominee.

Then we not only have a brokered convention. We might have a brokered election!

The promise that the candidates made to not run third party is irrelevant. We already have a third party, the Libertarian party, who is on the ticket in all 50 states. Ron Johnson will be their nominee. He's a former Republican and a lot of Republicans will jump ranks, rather than vote for Trump. I know I would.

So either Hillary Clinton will be President (oh shit!) or it goes to Congress, and they have to decide between Trump, Hillary, and Ron Johnson.

Donald Trump could absolutely crack the Republican party up. He's doing it already! So that's my unhappy outcome.

Republicans who vote for Trump ought to think about how much they hate the Republican party. I do not hate the Republican party. I like our party. But I see a Trump vote as anger at Republicans. And if a good chunk of "Republicans" are angry at Republicans, our party is in real trouble.; 3/5/16, 4:12 AM
cubanbob said...: All this hysteria. Chill people, chill. Let the primaries play themselves out and then see who has the delegates. If Trump is the guy, then so be it. As has been said many a time on these threads in a choice between Hillary Clinton or Trump, Trump it is. It's amazing all of the commentary about the Republican party splitting up, committing suicide and the rest of the hyperbole all the while the Democrat's presumed nominee is under criminal investigation and the other contender is a Communist. One of the parties has a real serious viability problem and it isn't the Republican Party.; 3/5/16, 4:20 AM
Mick said...: and he is not eligible.

Cruz would not have even been a US citizen at the time he was born until 1934, so he certainly can't be a natural born Citizen today.; 3/5/16, 4:24 AM
Mark said...: Saint Croix, you mean Gary Johnson not Ron.

Ron Johnson (Senate, WI) looks to be losing his election to Russ Feingold by 10+ points.

Wrong Johnson, though with Little Marco and Big Donald constantly talking about their own Johnsons it's easy to be confused.; 3/5/16, 5:57 AM
CStanley said...: I agree with the post. Cruz is not an establishment candidate and it would kill his brand to be seen as one. Not only that, but this goes to the "likeability" problem. If he has a path to the presidency it has to be one that is seen as an unquestionably legitimate one, because it's not as though people will rally behind him because they like the guy. He has to make his case to the conservative voters and ask them to turn out in sufficient numbers to nominate, and then elect him.; 3/5/16, 6:36 AM
Oso Negro said...: Dear Professor Althouse - I view you as a national treasure, but your self-interest ("social issues" aka the mainstreaming of homosexuality) is well evident on this blog too. Do you think that a person can possibly achieve the nomination of a major party for President without acting in their self-interest? You have been dogging Cruz since the beginning - the "I don't think he can be the President of all Americans" continues to echo in your writing on this campaign. Why don't you just come out and plainly state your case against Ted Cruz, who as far as I can tell, holds no social positions that would have been considered "extreme" in the past century?; 3/5/16, 6:57 AM
Oso Negro said...: St. Croix, I think that for anyone to get to the delegate count required for the nomination, two of the big three have to gang up on the other. The obvious combo is Cruz and Rubio against Trump.; 3/5/16, 7:01 AM
Saint Croix said...: Cruz is campaigning against Rubio in Florida. He's determined to drive Marco out of the race, and he's risking that all those former Marco fans will vote for him, instead of Trump. That is a risky strategy. Rubio is 16 points behind Trump, and fighting to catch up. Cruz is 16 points behind Rubio, and 32 points behind Trump.

So it's Trump and Cruz vs. Rubio in Florida. We shall see!

And why do this in Florida and not Ohio? Why is Kasich still in the race? I suspect he's aligned with Cruz, that's why.; 3/5/16, 7:04 AM
Saint Croix said...: thanks for the catch Mark!

that was funny; 3/5/16, 7:06 AM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/5/16, 7:15 AM
traditionalguy said...: If Mick is right this time, then a vote for Cruz is a vote to disqualify the GOP ticket from any chance to win the 2016 Presidential election.

So maybe The Establishment should run a team of two men for " President or Vice President, as the case maybe, to be determined later by the Court." Instead of hanging Chads we will enjoy the drama of hanging Canadians.

Or Mighty Romney can fly to the rescue and save us from the Canadio-Cuban Bros and the mean old Bad Man Trump. But that will mean no Trump Vodka, no Cuban Coffee, no maple syrup on our pancakes.

Interesting times.; 3/5/16, 7:18 AM
Saint Croix said...: The obvious combo is Cruz and Rubio against Trump.

Obviously both men want to be President, and neither wants to be veep. Cruz has more delegates now, Rubio has a better path going forward. So who is the nominee and who is the veep? They can't agree.

Also, nobody knows how much of Trump's appeal is due to racial fears. I'll bet Bill Clinton and Donald Trump discussed this at great length. The agitation so many white working class people feel about "losing their country." And Trump is going after that group hard. He went too far with his refusal to distance himself from David Duke or KKK. He's not sure where the racial lines are. But he's using a lot of racial code words to signal that he's running against hispanics.

I hate Little Baby Satan!; 3/5/16, 7:31 AM
Oso Negro said...: traditional guy - Mick's historical record on Presidential nativity and eligibility is poor.; 3/5/16, 8:15 AM
Michael K said...: "To me the only thing Cruz has done is refuse to bend to the will of Democrats."

Exactly. That makes him an enemy of the GOPe. The problem is he has to get those damned voters to pull the lever for him.

I agree with those who said Trump may have trouble in the GOP primaries that are "closed" i.e., only registered Republicans can vote.

What if he still wins ? Hmmmm.; 3/5/16, 8:18 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "So Ted Cruz makes a statement in favor of democracy and against depriving voters of their choice. Althouse: "His self-interest is obvious." You say that like no other candidate shares an interest in being elected. You have a reflexive emotional bias against Ted Cruz. You ought to just admit that, Prof. Althouse. To yourself, if not to your readers."

Of the 3 remaining non-Trumps, Cruz is the only one who absolutely knows he will not be the one the Establishment would converge on in a brokered convention. Kasich and Rubio have reason to believe they could be the guy. So, Cruz is in a different position and he must know it. The proposal is to use him as a means to an end.

You have a pro-Cruz bias and it's distorting your thinking about me. To the extent that you are hinting that I am dishonest, I take offense.; 3/5/16, 8:21 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Dear Professor Althouse - I view you as a national treasure, but your self-interest ("social issues" aka the mainstreaming of homosexuality) is well evident on this blog too. Do you think that a person can possibly achieve the nomination of a major party for President without acting in their self-interest? You have been dogging Cruz since the beginning - the "I don't think he can be the President of all Americans" continues to echo in your writing on this campaign. Why don't you just come out and plainly state your case against Ted Cruz, who as far as I can tell, holds no social positions that would have been considered "extreme" in the past century?"

1. I have been a social liberal all my life. I have never had a conservative position of any sort on these questions. My support of gay rights goes all the way back to my early 20s, to when I first heard of the subject. Social issues are not just gay rights, however, they include many things that have to do with the liberty of the individual, especially things that relate to women's bodies. I have been on the liberal side of these questions all my life. I don't want legislation that impinges on the freedom of individuals. This is the libertarian position.

2. "I don't think he can be the President of all Americans" is a quote you must have made up to represent what you think I am saying. I'm sure I didn't write that. I don't write like that and I don't talk like that.

3. I don't write that much about Ted Cruz. I respect him for the legal work that he did. I respect the conservative side of these arguments and teach them with respect to my students. This is something I've done for more than 30 years. But politically, it's just not where I stand. You should imagine Ted Cruz with his positions flipped on the issues you care about, so that he's the opposite of pro-life and traditional marriage and all those things you hold dear. Really get inside that visualization. Picture him arguing those positions in his inimitable style, with utter conviction and inflexibility. If you can do that, let me how much you like that version of Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz 2.0.; 3/5/16, 8:30 AM
mikeyes said...: If Senator Cruz is the nominee and if he wins the Election (by the Electors), no one except the Congress can question his eligibility under the law. Look it up in US Code 3. Somewhere, para 19 I think, allows a challenge, two hours of debate and a vote on the issue of eligibility. Nowhere else can there be a court challenge because this is a political question clearly outlined by the Congress and it will not be debated by the courts.; 3/5/16, 8:32 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said..
You have a pro-Cruz bias and it's distorting your thinking about me. To the extent that you are hinting that I am dishonest, I take offense.

You got off easy. Saint Croix just called all the Trump supporters racists.; 3/5/16, 8:40 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "If you can do that, let me how much you like that version of Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz 2.0."

Should read "If you can do that, let me know how much you like that version of Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz 2.0."

And I've made this a new, separate post, so you might prefer to respond there.; 3/5/16, 8:41 AM
Francisco D said...: Ann,

I partly fit your description of a social liberal. I identify as a conservative libertarian who is pro-gay rights and pro-choice, although I do not think abortion is a constitutional right.

I tend to vote for conservative candidates (such as Ted Cruz) because their social conservative views don't matter. Even if we get a constitution-based SCOTUS that overturns Roe v. Wade, most states will not outlaw abortion. Neither will most states outlaw gay rights. Those that do will lose liberal professionals they need in different fields. When the shortage of MDs and psychologists becomes dire (as it is in small states like Iowa), they will change their ways.; 3/5/16, 8:56 AM
hombre said...: "Extremely well stated, I think.... but, Cruz's self-interest is obvious."

Covered by others, Professor, but no one would mistake your acknowledgement of a Cruz positive without adding a negative to be an endorsement.; 3/5/16, 9:29 AM
Maddad said...: In Romney's universe people are voting for Trump because they think a) that he's a Republican and b) he's s Conservative. Romney's do out of touch it's embarrassing.; 3/5/16, 9:30 AM
Rich Vail said...: A brokered convention would destroy the GOPe...but they don't realize just how much the base of the party loathes them. Too many broken promises, too many lies. We The People who elect the GOP candidates are finished with the leadership. They've gone along to get along for so long they're the problem and not the solution...I'm voting Cruz on Tuesday because I think that he can actually fight Congress and win...furthermore, I think that he will do more to reduce the size and scope of Government by submitting a budget the zero's out many useless departments...at least I hope he will...; 3/5/16, 9:49 AM
rcocean said...: The only way to stop Trump is to rally around Cruz. The establishment won't do that. They hate Cruz more then they hate Trump.

Trump will be nominated -; 3/5/16, 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Maddad: In Romney's universe people are voting for Trump because they think a) that he's a Republican and b) he's s Conservative. Romney's do out of touch it's embarrassing.

I lot of people around here seem to think that, too.; 3/5/16, 10:13 AM
TBlakely said...: It finally occurred to me as to what is going on with the Republican party. Especially now that the Democrat party is tacking hard left, the Republican establishment sees an opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for decades. To shed their conservative base and replace it with independents and recast the Republican party as 'middle of the road' moderate political party.; 3/5/16, 10:16 AM
Dude1394 said...: I saw an article today surmising that Cruz was bolstering his campaign in Florida to damage Rubio even more than he is going to be humiliated in his home state. The article then went on to pontificate the possiblilty of a Trump/Cruz ticket. It would really be a delicious thing. What would the Republican Party do? The heads exploding over at National Review would be so delicious.; 3/5/16, 10:30 AM
RonF said...: "How does the GOP go to a convention where a plurality of voters have picked Donald Trump and say, nope. Sorry. We are going to go with this other guy?"

By pointing out that a majority of the GOP primary voters didn't want him.; 3/5/16, 10:53 AM
admin said...: Lots of wailing and knashing of teeth over the prospect of a brokered convention. How soon we forget that brokered conventions were the rule over most of America's political history. And, while I am a Cruz supporter, I do not have any angst over a brokered convention apart from the hay the Dems and the Press will make of it.

Michael; 3/5/16, 10:57 AM
admin said...: Per RonF
"How does the GOP go to a convention where a plurality of voters have picked Donald Trump and say, nope. Sorry. We are going to go with this other guy?"

Well, a plurality also means that a candidate who holds the plurality has failed to capture the majority of delegates. However, in brokered conventions, as our history has shown, the plurality holder has the stronger negotiating position going in. It's the way it's always worked.

The drawback to brokered conventions is the loss of transparency. The advantage of brokered conventions is that they become less coronations and more democratic. A fair trade, in my view.; 3/5/16, 11:04 AM
john marzan said...: Kasich will be the chosen one if this goes to a brokered convention. that's why he hasnt attacked trump yet. and ohio is the site for RNC convention; 3/5/16, 11:17 AM
Fabi said...: A Trump / Cruz ticket would be interesting, Unknown. I laugh at the National Retard Online implications, as well. Have you read many of their articles the last few weeks? I've never seen so many allegedly intelligent people have simultaneous meltdowns. My Orville Redenbacher stock is going through the roof!; 3/5/16, 11:18 AM
Saint Croix said...: Saint Croix just called all the Trump supporters racists.

I did not. Try to read my words and think about what I am saying.; 3/5/16, 11:51 AM
Saint Croix said...: The article then went on to pontificate the possiblilty of a Trump/Cruz ticket. It would really be a delicious thing. What would the Republican Party do?

They would say they were right about Ted Cruz. I'm hoping they are wrong about Ted Cruz. If Ted wants to be Trump's veep, he should go ahead and do that now, so people have a chance to follow him or abandon him.

Trump/Cruz is like Trump/Christie or Trump/Rubio. I'm not voting for Trump. Trump at the top of the ticket is a disaster.

I laugh at the National Retard Online implications

I'm sure they would join me in voting for Gary Johnson.; 3/5/16, 12:02 PM
Saint Croix said...: I got his name right that time!; 3/5/16, 12:05 PM
Qwinn said...: I consider myself a Tea Party conservative who despises the Establishment as much as anyone.

I don't think National Review fairly deserves to be called "Establishment". They have many authors, some are Establishment (such as Lowry, and yes, his position as an editor is problematic) but quite a few others are not. Jonah Goldberg, for example, also an editor, is closer to the Tea Party than to the GOPe IMHO. And it's hard to see a GOPe publication printing an article (like this one, written by David French):

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432345/ted-cruz-defeats-donald-trump-gop-debate

Then there's Thomas Sowell, who has endorsed Cruz, and that has been published by NR as well.

I think NR's hostility toward Trump is based on the same reasoning as my own, and as shared by most of the Tea Party. This isn't simply "the enemy (NR) of my enemy (Trump) is my friend". I think NR hates Trump because he simply isn't conservative, and I think they're right about that. The idea that NR must be GOPe because they oppose Trump is to claim there can be no legitimate conservative argument against Trump, which is, frankly, ludicrous.; 3/5/16, 12:57 PM
Danimal28 said...: Qwinn is right:

"Cruz has proven that he will piss off the Establishment with no arm-twisting required repeatedly (campaigning against ethanol subsidies in Iowa? What more proof do you want?) Trump has proven repeatedly that his 'principles' and promises expire probably even faster's than Obama's"

Cruz is the only guy to shake things up as he has already demonstrated.; 3/5/16, 5:38 PM
Saint Croix said...: I just figured out this "GOPe" shit.

e is for "establishment," right?

Nobody tells me anything!

What a weird election.; 3/5/16, 7:09 PM