Another Big Curveball in an Unpredictable Year: The Cruz-Fiorina Option
What people are saying about the potential Ted Cruz-Carly Fiorina ticket . . . Our Eliana Johnson and Tim Alberta: It soon became apparent to Cruz's allies that Fiorina -- more than Rick Perry, Steve King, or any other high-profile politician -- was proving to be Cruz's most effective sidekick. She complemented his talents (stage presence) and covered his weaknesses (retail politicking). Most important, Cruz, who has few close relationships, seemed to have genuine chemistry with her. From their first days together on the campaign trail, he forged a bond with his former rival. Cruz's wife, Heidi, also hit it off with her. And at a "Women for Cruz" event in Madison, Wis., in late March, Fiorina held hands with Cruz's young daughters as they walked on stage; held the arm of Cruz's elderly mother as she exited; and chatted with Heidi Cruz throughout the event. On stage Wednesday, Fiorina broke into song briefly, chanting a tune for Cruz's daughters. Dan McLaughlin: Cruz may be banking on Fiorina helping him in California, where she won the GOP Senate primary in 2010 (grabbing 56 percent of the vote -- 1.3 million primary voters -- by running to the center of conservative Chuck DeVore and liberal Republican Tom Campbell) and got 4.2 million votes in November, more than Meg Whitman in that year's gubernatorial race or Neel Kashkari in 2014. But again, her real appeal is questionable, since she did end up losing to Barbara Boxer in a great Republican year. Guy Benson: I'll be surprised if this stunt is met with anything other than widespread derision. Here's a guy who's down by millions of votes, and hundreds of delegates, and who's obviously worried that the window to stop his surging rival is closing. So with literally no path to the nomination before a potential second ballot at July's convention, he's going to . . . announce his Vice Presidential running mate? We'll see how the optics play out, but I suspect it'll look and feel like something out of Ted Cruz's land of make believe, in which voters aren't voting the way they are, and the Manhattan media are the only true villains. Fiorina is an accomplished woman and a sound political performer who possesses an elite intellect and temperament. To her credit, she's doing everything she can to help stop a man she and many conservatives view as an unelectable, uninformed, untethered embarrassment to the party. But this maneuver has the stench of a 'final throes' spasm from a campaign that fears it is doomed. Peter Suderman: It's possible, though, that none of this will matter all that much, in part because policies and records of accomplishments simply don't seem to matter much in this campaign. Thanks largely to Trump, it's almost entirely a battle of media-ready personalities and personas. Fiorina, in some sense, is just a supporting character from early in the season returning to make a cameo appearance -- or, if Cruz somehow pulls out a win, to become a regular. Leon Wolf: Cruz understands that the media has a vested interest in making it seem like Trump's Tuesday was a Really Big Deal and that the race is all but over. They have a pecuniary interest in doing so because if Trump wins, that will be a ratings bonanza for them that will last for the next six months. They also have a professional interest in doing so, because the news media never does itself a favor by calling any given story "no big deal." . . . Ted Cruz understood that it was important to give the media something else -- anything, really -- to talk about. And give them something to talk about he did, by announcing Carly Fiorina as his running mate. Substantively, the pick of Fiorina is relatively inconsequential to the ongoing fight with Donald Trump. From a media standpoint, it was a rousing success. Yesterday reminded us that Carly Fiorina is really good on the stump. After weeks of watching Trump's stream-of-consciousness performance art of bluster, it was refreshing to watch a Republican candidate hitting all the right emotional notes, with a coherent theme, Wednesday afternoon. My main takeaway from the news is that the Cruz campaign is now offering the delegates in Cleveland a stark defining choice: Facing Hillary Clinton in November, do you want a Republican ticket that exacerbates the gender gap with Trump-Whoever, or one who minimizes it with Cruz-Fiorina? Cruz is still hanging in there against Clinton in the head-to-head polling, while Trump is way behind. No, there's no guarantee that Fiorina would dramatically alter the gender gap; McCain lost women by a wide margin with Sarah Palin on the ticket. But Fiorina can hit Hillary in ways no male Republican can. While Trump was on his best behavior last night . . . Campaigning ahead of Indiana's critical Tuesday primary, Trump gave Fiorina a free pass, instead going after Cruz for picking a running mate at all. "First of all you have to look. Cruz can't win. What's he doing picking vice presidents?" Trump said, comparing Cruz to a baseball team that had already lost the World Series. "He is the first presidential candidate in the history of this country who's mathematically eliminated from being president who chose a vice presidential candidate." How likely is it that in the coming days or weeks, Trump says something offensive, insulting or stupid about Fiorina? And how many GOP delegates want to send the walking misogynist gaffe-o-matic as their standard bearer against the first woman nominated by a major party for president? Some Political Beliefs Just Don't Line Up with the Facts A caller to Rush Limbaugh yesterday, laying out why he prefers Trump to Cruz: We're sick and tired of fighting with people who won't fight, and when it comes to down to Cruz, you know, my instincts with Cruz is that, yeah, he's a nice guy. And don't get me wrong, if he magically wins this nomination, of course I'll support him. But the problem is, I suspect he won't fight. Three days ago there was an article in Breitbart where he's being interviewed and he said, "You know, if I'm elected," he said something to that effect of, "I'm not gonna get personal. This is gonna be about issues." Okay, great. You just handed them the election, 'cause you know what they're gonna do? They're gonna make it personal against you and you're gonna be like the new George Bush just sitting up there like Jeb. You won't fight. You'll just sit there and take it and we're gonna lose again. And the thing is, Trump, you know what? I disagree with probably 80% of the stuff that he believes in, or he purports to. But the thing is, I think we're facing an existential crisis. It comes down to immigration, illegal immigration and Obamacare. Think about this: Cruz, the man probably most responsible for the government shutdown, is perceived as a guy who won't fight -- on Obamacare, no less! Based on a comment to Breitbart about not wanting to get personal and wanting to campaign on issues, this caller prefers to vote for a man who he, by his own words, disagrees with 80 percent of the time. (A January 2016 CNN report on Cruz supporters found several who said they didn't remember the government shutting down in 2013.) I'm getting accused of being out-of-touch, snobbish, elitist, "Leftist Trotskyist", etc. Ultimately, I see a lot of people making decisions that don't make much sense. I don't understand how you can look at Ted Cruz and, out of all possible flaws, conclude he isn't willing to fight for what he believes in. (His flaw is more likely the opposite, quixotic fights and antagonism to potential allies that isn't helpful in the long run.) And I don't think this is a, "Well, you see it your way, I see it my way' disagreement.'" I think a guy arguing that Cruz is too weak-willed, wishy-washy and excessively conciliatory -- particularly to the Left! -- is simply not that well-informed about the Texas senator. Secondly, if you elect a ferocious fighter who you disagree with on four out of five issues, it means he'll be fighting ferociously against you on four out of five issues. You've empowered a guy who you mostly disagree with in the hopes that he really comes through on that 20 percent. (Somehow I suspect the caller isn't focusing extensively on the "touchback amnesty" portion of Trump's immigration plan. Once an illegal immigrant returns to their own country, they're permitted to re-enter the U.S. legally and apply for citizenship for the normal channels.) I seem to remember people arguing that Delaware Republican Mike Castle wasn't acceptable to conservatives because of his 50 percent or so ACU rating. At the time I thought Castle was electable and the infamous Christie O'Donnell wasn't, but I could see how Castle's compromises could leave a conservative convinced he wasn't worth supporting. But somehow, with the stakes much higher, the threshold for acceptability is lowered from 50 percent . . . to 20 percent. ADDENDA: There's still a lot of buzz the New York Jets will pick quarterback Paxton Lynch tonight at the NFL Draft. I'm still chewing over whether that's such a good idea, or whether the team can afford to spend its first-round pick on a player who won't contribute for at least a year and has never taken a snap under center . . . . . . I'm tentatively scheduled to appear on CNN midmorning Friday.  | 
Comments
Post a Comment