Skip to content

What the Media Got Wrong About Ted Cruz

October 22, 2013


Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Ted Cruz thinks the press doesn’t understand him. Addressing the barrage of criticisms he’s faced since he launched the government shutdown earlier this month, the junior senator from Texas told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview on “State of the Union” Sunday: “The strategy in Washington is to launch personal attacks … and to encourage the media to do what a lot of folks in the media like to do, which is cover this like it’s a Hollywood gossip column—this politician versus this politician, who’s up, who’s down, who’s mad. Who cares?”

Point taken: this is a criticism the right and left (and, yes, many journalists) would probably admit is true. Cruz might have some standing as a media critic. A great deal has been written about him since he beat the establishment choice, David Dewhurst, in a contentious primary last year—and some of it, even by the authors’ admissions, turned out to be wrong. Here’s a brief catalogue.

1) Ted Cruz is the Republican Barack Obama. “A young, Harvard-educated lawyer, an ‘intellectual‘ with a compelling life story, the son of an American mother and an immigrant father, a practiced orator thrust into the national political spotlight, and buoyed by a cult of personality,” Republican strategist Mark McKinnon kicked off a column from The Daily Beast last summer. “[I]s Ted Cruz going to be the Republican Barack Obama?”

No. Nope. Not even a little. Beyond a few basic biographical similarities, there’s virtually nothing the two have in common. While it’s true that Barack Obama is, a year into his second term as president, intensely disliked by the opposition, Cruz has in very short order made himself extremely unpopular both among the opposition and his own party. That’s nothing like Obama, who managed to come through a contentious primary against an establishment favorite with the party united behind him. To put it another way: Can you imagine a Secretary of State Mitch McConnell in the Cruz administration? Didn’t think so.

In August 2012, McKinnon said that Cruz’s victory could be good for Texas, the Tea Party, and maybe even the GOP itself. He’s since changed his tune. Last month he told the Financial Times that he “hardly recognizes” the person he’d always considered a “thoughtful, really smart guy”; in a CNN segment last week, he said: “I think he basically burned down the reputation of the Republican Party and is standing on the ashes to just stand a little taller for himself personally.”

2) Ted Cruz is the next Marco Rubio. “Can Cruz pull off an upset and become this year’s Marco Rubio?” asked The Week in 2012. Yes, by that standard—pulling off an upset in a Republican primary—Cruz may have seemed like “the next Marco Rubio.” But there really needs to be a moratorium on the journalistic habit of comparing a new lawmaker from a minority background to the most recent example of a lawmaker from a similar minority background. Cory Booker is not the next Barack Obama—he’s just another up-and-coming politician who happens to be black. Kirsten Gillibrand is not the next Hillary Clinton, although, yes, they’re both blonde New York women, and Gillibrand succeeded Clinton in the Senate. How perceptive! Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both Cuban, but their modi operandi couldn’t be more different. Rubio worked quietly to build up a great reserve of political capital that he used in an effort to pass sweeping, bipartisan reform on one of the most important political issues in the country, immigration reform. Cruz tossed the whole notion of political capital aside and led a quixotic charge on the Senate floor, then stuck to it in the press as his colleagues stuck it to him.

3) Ted Cruz would follow the examples of past Texas dealmakers. To be fair, this was more of the Houston Chronicle’s wish than their prediction. They endorsed Cruz over his Democratic opponent, Paul Sadler, after paying Sadler compliments, because they felt he was never going to be able to win the election (which raises interesting questions about what they think an endorsement editorial is supposed to do, but never mind). In endorsing Cruz, the editors said they expected “that Cruz will be schooled by the examples of previous senators from Texas, beginning with [Former Senator Kay Bailey] Hutchison and continuing with Lloyd Bentsenand Lyndon B. Johnson.”

By last week, they were lamenting just how fall short of expectations he’d fallen. “One reason we particularly believe that Hutchison would make a difference in these hectic days is that if she had kept her seat, Cruz would not be in the Senate. When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November’s general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation—that he follow Hutchison’s example in his conduct as a senator. Obviously, he has not done so. Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution.” Read more in the National Journal.


From → Analysis

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s