Who Says Political Conventions Are Boring?

July 21, 2016

Who Says Political Conventions Are Boring? Ted Cruz Shocked the World.

The delegates in Cleveland wanted an endorsement. The crowd expected an endorsement. The crowd believed an endorsement was coming.

And Ted Cruz, the guy who's proven again and again he'll do what he thinks is right, whether people love it or hate it, for better or worse . . . refused to give them one. And the reaction was apoplectic.

Now, we can argue whether that was the right thing to do in that time and place. I'm surprised by the number of people who think this was a political calculation on Cruz's part, to set up some 2020 ambitions. By almost any measure, Cruz's life and future ambitions are easier if he follows some version of the Scott Walker and Marco Rubio path, to say he has some serious differences with Trump, but the Republican nominee is better than Hillary Clinton, so now is the time for all Republicans to unite, et cetera.

And yet he didn't. There shouldn't be that much wild speculation about Cruz's motive. Occum's razor: Ted Cruz doesn't think Trump has earned his endorsement, feels endorsing him would be a lie, and he's not willing to go in front of the country and tell them to vote for a man he thinks is unworthy of the presidency. You can say, "but the GOP primary voters decided he is" until you're blue in the face, and Cruz won't agree.

He's Rorschach from the Watchmen — "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon."

But why is everyone so surprised? Trump nicknames him "Lyin' Ted," argues he's a Canadian ineligible for the presidency, retweets an image mocking his wife's appearance, and suggests his dad had a role in killing JFK, and never apologizes for any of it . . . and the Trump team is surprised Cruz didn't endorse him?

Why were they and the RNC so surprised by a text they saw beforehand? Trump's chief strategist, Jason Johnson, contends they weren't. "Since it's obvious the shock is contrived, let me ask: What the Hell did they expect from the son of the man who killed JFK? Lighten up."

The reaction has been fascinating. People who can't stand Ted Cruz or weren't fans are saying they have to give him credit; people who voted for him are declaring on Twitter they're ashamed of their vote. I keep hearing people say Cruz's decision was selfish. The problem with this assessment is that it only pays off for him under one scenario. If Trump wins the presidency, Cruz's life in the Senate is going to be miserable. If Trump loses narrowly, Cruz turns into the face of the GOP holdouts and he becomes a convenient scapegoat. Only in a scenario where Trump loses badly, and the party broadly agrees that nominating him was a terrible mistake, does Cruz look like the guy who was trying to take away the keys from a drunk driver.

Wednesday night is going to be one of those nights that political junkies talk about for a long time. Ted Cruz's decision was bold, reckless, politically stupid, brave, principled, divisive, gutsy and vindictive, all the same time. If you've spent the last couple years complaining that all politicians are spineless hacks who only follow the weathervane and refuse to stand on principles, you've got no reason to complain this morning.

Newt Gingrich came out moments later, and actually tried to explain that Cruz had really made an endorsement of Trump. No, Mr. Speaker, see, we actually saw and heard that speech, and we didn't miss any subtle subtext. It wasn't the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Rubio and Walker Made the Trump Sales Pitch that Cruz Refuses to Make

Who would have bet, back in the days of Ted Cruz's "I like Donald Trump. I think he's terrific" or Marco Rubio's "Maybe he wet his pants!" that we would see a convention where Rubio makes the case for Trump, and Cruz refuses to do so?

Rubio's pitch, last night:

Hillary Clinton does not have the honesty, the courage or the independence to be the president we need for the next four years after the president we've had for the past eight. But unlike Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is committed to cut taxes, curb spending and get our national debt under control. Unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump takes seriously the threats from Islamic radicals and is committed to rebuilding our military. And unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he is committed to appointing constitutionalist judges, who will respect the proper role of the judiciary.

After a long and spirited primary, the time for fighting each other is over. It's time to come together and fight for a new direction for America. It's time to win in November.

Scott Walker also did his best, concluding it's not that Trump is all that terrific; it's that Hillary Clinton's unethical and criminal behavior must be punished, and the ballot box is the only remaining potential consequence:

Last August, I said that any of the Republicans running would be better than Hillary Clinton. I meant it then, and I mean it now. So let me be clear: a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Walker deviated from his prepared text at that point, telling the crowd he had spoken to Trump on the phone an hour ago. "We talked about how President Reagan appointed Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court thirty years ago when I was in high school," Walker said. "We cannot concede the Supreme Court to Hillary Clinton for thirty years! The consequences are too great!"

Then Walker returned to his prepared remarks, and how the stakes of 2016 require Trump-skeptical Republicans to hold their nose and vote for the GOP nominee to punish Hillary.

Make no mistake: we can't wait four more years and "get 'em next time." The consequences are too great. After hearing the FBI Director's recent comments, I wouldn't even give Hillary Clinton the password to my iPhone — let alone access to classified information. This isn't just another Clinton scandal, Hillary's scandal put our national security at risk and that makes her unfit to be President of the United States.

It's time to tell Hillary: enough is enough. No more double standards for the Clintons.

Cruz: 'Like a Great Many Voters, I'm Watching and Listening to the Candidates'

Tuesday night, some National Review editors had a chance to meet with Cruz. He wouldn't give a lot of specifics about his convention speech, although our Eliana Johnson had the scoop that no endorsement would come. I asked him if there were a way to pitch Donald Trump to principled conservatives, or whether it all ultimately amounted to, "Well, he's not Hillary, and that's about all we can expect."

"Every voter will have to make that assessment," Cruz answered. "I want to see a president who will faithfully defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a commander in chief who will keep this country safe. Like a great many voters, I'm watching and listening to the candidates and each voter is going to have to make a decision based on his or her conscience."

In other words . . . no, at this point, Cruz doesn't see a way to pitch Donald Trump to principled conservatives.

Ted Cruz is too polite a man to say that cheerleading from cable news and talk radio gave Trump the nomination. I'll let you decide whether that's a fair interpretation of his assessment that the media seemed strangely determined to ignore his wins, and eagerly embraced a narrative that Trump had it locked up.

Cruz, in his own words:

If you go back to March and April, we were winning this race. We had five consecutive elections over the course of three weeks that we won by double digits. Utah, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Wyoming. Those are diverse states, they're markedly different states, and every single one of them was a double digit victory. And 1.3 million people voted in those five states. Two things occurred — and what was happening there is the party was uniting. After Marco dropped out, 80 percent of Marco's supporters came to us, and the party was uniting behind our campaign, that's why we were winning one after the other after the other after the other.

Two things occurred in the aftermath. Number one, in an ordinary world, when you have five consecutive victories by double digits, the press coverage is 'another big victory, momentum is growing, the wheels are coming off the other campaign.' None of that got covered on any network. And instead, we can actually trace the day we lost this race. We lost this election two days before the New York primary. A week earlier we had been within double digits in Pennsylvania — within single digits rather, in Pennsylvania, within single digits in Maryland, we were tied in Indiana. Starting a week out from New York, the 24-7 press narrative was Trump is unbeatable, he's unstoppable, it's mathematically impossible for him to lose, we cannot win, and within 36 hours our numbers dropped 20 points. And they dropped everywhere. And there was no precipitating event. Not like I stuck my foot in my mouth or said something foolish. Their campaign had not said something profound.

What happens is the voters gave up. They were told 24/7 it's hopeless, you cannot win, and they gave up.

Yes, the coverage of Trump's big win in the New York primary definitely added to the sense that the primary was over. Easily overlooked: Ted Cruz won Wisconsin with 531,129 votes. Donald Trump won New York with 524,932 votes.

ADDENDA: Relax, Democrats, Nate Silver says "Clinton's Lead Is as Safe as Kerry's Was in 2004." Wait, what?