The GOP establishment in Congress, such as McCain, Graham, Chambliss, Alexander, Collins, McConnell and Hatch, would have us believe that they are the pragmatic, political sophisticates who understand the art of the possible in DC, and that only they understand the nuances of governance. They pose as the experienced stalwarts who know what's wise and unwise when it comes to politics and negotiating. These professional politicians in the GOP are offended by Ted Cruz, because Cruz has pushed these old birds past their comfort zones.
It's funny to listen to some of them as they talk about the days when they had energy and spirit, then realized that governance is all about compromise, knowing what's possible and what's futile. Still, they think Cruz has passed all rules of decent behavior. Cruz isn't playing by the rules. Cruz has put them in a bad light, and some of them are afraid the base will punish them for their lack of political courage in opposing Obamacare. It's obvious now that not for Cruz, the GOP Centrists would have put up only a facade of opposition, demanding tweaks to Obamacare, but not attacking the law itself.
When Cruz bravely faced the condemnation of Democrats, the media and the GOP establishment, he made GOP Centrists look weak and complicit in the consequences of Obamacare. The Old Birds have now developed a narrative that Ted Cruz is brash and ignorant when it comes to political tactics and strategy. GOP pundits have taken the narrative and they're running with it. They all preface the narrative by saying how conservative they are, but it means nothing, because they never spell out what they stand for -- a truly free market? Real limits of government power? Roll-back of regulations? Repeal Obamacare now? A cessation of reckless interventions overseas?
The other day on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough told Elijah Cummings that when he was in the House he voted to oppose raising the debt ceiling, but, he jokingly told Cummings, it was with 300 votes or so to raise the limit and keep the government open. In other words, Scarborough was admitting that his positions were phony, that his votes were intended to placate his base, and if his vote had been necessary to raise the debt limit, he would have. Scarborough then went on to push the narrative that politicians have to understand how to compromise, to get things done, and that if the other side has the political advantage, then you don't fight a losing battle. It's about subterfuge and keeping the base happy so you get re-elected, basically. These people in Congress has such sweet, profitiable gigs, they'll do just about anything to keep their jobs.
Ted Cruz, so far, has shown to be a different type of politician. The irony is that professional politicians accuse him of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. Cruz spoke for 21 hours on the senate floor, and he was intellectually powerful. Cruz is fighting for principles, something politicians scoff at. When the professional politician hears the word principle, it means to them that someone is being stubborn, not playing nice, not falling in line -- the word intimidates them because it means they'd have to take a stand, to risk something.
Ted Cruz is worth 50 McCains and 100 Kings. If more represenatives like Cruz were voted in, America might witness progress in getting out of the statist morass in which we find ourselves now. This narrative that the McCains and Hatches and McConnells are wise protectors of real conservatism, while the upstarts are just making a name for themselves, is a pitiful rationalization for their lack of courage and principles. These times of progressive advancements call for relentless opposition by those who value liberty and the Constitution. We need more Cruzes, Pauls, Lees, Amashes, and less Grahams and Kings. We need radical change.