What Went Wrong For Cruz, Part III: Political Correctness


Chicago, 12 March 2016: Libtards celebrate after the announcement that their violence and intimidation has caused the Trump rally to be cancelled.


In this last blog post about what in my estimation contributed to the best candidate for us Catholics (and for every Christian, I think) not making it, I would like to examine two major mistakes I believe the man made. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. But some mistakes can damage you more than others, particularly when they feed into a mistrust that is already there.

Cruz could have presented himself – and could have been reasonably be believed as – an anti-establishment candidate in normal circumstances. However, the circumstances in 2016 aren’t normal.

Too often the so-called GOP has betrayed his people. Too often promises of conservative policies have given way to do ut des and accommodations of all kind once the alleged champions of conservatism have smelled Washington’s air. As a result, in this cycle the one who promised to damage the party the most was the one with the best cards. If another candidate had come and had presented himself as even more in opposition to the party establishment as Trump, he might have had a chance. If a candidate had come and promised to nuke the party, he would have been cheered out loud by many party members.

2016 is not the expression of a malcontent, it is the unfolding of a revolution. A revolution will devastate anyone remotely connected with the old regime. Cruz did not differentiate himself enough (not enough for 2016 standards, I mean) from the old regime, and a couple of situations certainly persuaded many the man would have been a more sophisticated variation of the betrayal already seen so often.

I have noticed two episodes that were, in my eyes, extremely grave.

The first: the incidents in Chicago. The usual, aggressive libtards make use of violence and intimidation at a Trump rally; they even manage to get it cancelled. Cruz thinks he can profit of the occasion to kick Trump in the balls and condemn him, rather than the liberal nutcases and their Alinsky tactics of intimidation and publicity seeking. A cheap, despicable shot, and a big, big mistake. In normal times, this wouldn’t have done so much damage as the personal animosity between the two (and the heat of the battle) would have been taken into account. Also, Trump himself has made far bigger mistakes (yours truly has reported). However, when millions of GOP voters are determined to see the party die rather than ever, ever again electing another sellout this is exactly the kind of mistake Cruz should not have made. In revolutionary times, your revolutionary credentials must be unimpeachable. Trump has far better revolutionary credentials than Cruz, and his mistakes were of the “you know, at times I am an idiot” sort. No friend (and no enemy!) of his thinks he will be a sellout, and this counts a lot. 

The second: the choice of Carly Fiorina as potential vice-president. I wanted to bang my head on the wall, repeatedly. Let us forget for a moment the arrogance of acting like one is the nominee. Let us also forget the implicit admission that one needs to add another name to his own, because he has seen his own name is not good enough. But the worst of all is this: that one who is clearly losing because he is seen as not revolutionary enough picks the very epitome of PC establishment loser as potential VP.

Fiorina’s campaign has gone absolutely nowhere. She has lost more massively than Christie. She has basically persuaded no one besides family friends, domestics and (perhaps) the dog. She is seen as the expression of the usual, old, stale, mischievous way of doing politics; which is what led to the rapid extermination of her vanity candidature. Why on earth pick… her? 

I am afraid we all know the answer: because she has a vagina.

Granted, the situation was serious already when the announcement was made.  However, with it Cruz chose the best way to kill his candidature for good. I cannot imagine a better way to commit suicide than the one he chose. Even Jeb Bush would have been less embarrassing. This was pure PC, middle-of-damn-nowhere, focus-group-rubbish, Rove-mentality, which is the best way to lose.

Trump is not steered by focus groups. He does not care a straw about the “demographics”. He talks so that the demographics follow him, not that he may follow the demographics. This, my friends, is (massively flawed as Trump is) the mark of the real leader.

Trump shoots with the Uzi, and when the libtards cry switches to the bazooka. He serves you The Original Donald, and does not ask you whether you will like what he is about to say. He is outrageous because he is authentic. It works. People love authenticity and forgive mistakes to those who are passionate. They become far more critical of those who looks at the “demographics” before they open their mouth or take big decisions.  Cruz is smart enough to know all this, but I think he did not have the guts, the sheer balls to do what Trump does effectively and effortlessly all the time: being smartly, unapologetically, bravely countercultural. Cruz had the better platform, but Trump had far more leadership. A leader leads you where he wants you to go. A follower tries to understand where you want to go. 

Cruz had some “follower” moments, and he paid for it. Can’t say he didn’t deserve it. There’s a revolution ongoing. This is no time for demographics accountants and poll strategists. Ask Trump, who has been devastating polls with a giant wave of support since last August. 

Why I write all this? 

Because Cruz is and remains, to me, by far the best of the crop, and I credit him with vastly more integrity and fear of the Lord  than Trump will probably ever have. I think there is greatness in this man. But from what I could see, he must still ripe to the kind of conservative Reagan was, and he is clearly not there. 

I hope (and think it probable) that Trump will break the witch’s spine come November. This gives Cruz eight years to ripe to a truly formidable candidate. He will still be young in eight years’ time, and in a wonderful position after Trump has (hopefully) cured the country of his PC disease. There might be great years ahead. But there must be changes.

The man is smart. Smarter, I think, than the already very smart Trump. He will reflect and, hopefully, ripe. I wish him all the best.





Posted on May 6, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Trump nailed it with Cruz: Lyin’ Ted. There is something conniving, dishonest and inauthentic about him. He seemed to combine the vocalization of a revivalist preacher, the ideology of college professor, with the personality of Richard Nixon. A fatal combination to say the least.

    • I never agreed with the characterisation of Cruz as a liar. If anything, Trump is ten times the liar, as he contradicts himself as I change shirt.
      However, I agree Cruz is, to put it bluntly, not likeable. Revivalist preachers seldom were, I reckon.

  2. Mundabor, your three “post mortems” are totally accurate. As to the personality aspect of this contest, it was almost impossible for anyone to compete with Trump. The man already had a built-in audience from his years on a popular reality tv show, where he was known as “the boss”. Even low information voters knew about him and his persona before the campaign, whereas Cruz was an unknown to most people. The instantly accessible 24/7 celebrity pop culture we live in conditions us to focus on the visual and the 15-second soundbite. Cruz just didn’t have an immediate appeal, although he is the true conservative and he would have been the better president IMO. But this is where we are, and it’s time for the Republican Party leaders to put their egos and personal feelings aside to support Trump for the good of the country. The alternative will only accelerate America’s downhill slide towards becoming a third world hellhole.

%d bloggers like this: