Tea Party

Ted Cruz's Tea Party Win in Texas

|

Ted Cruz, the Ron Paul-endorsed former state soliciter general of Texas identified as the "Tea Party" guy in a year where the Tea Party hasn't done much, wins his run-off against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to become the GOP candidate for Senate in Texas, a seat he is expected to win. The anti-tax Club for Growth spent over $5 million independently to push Cruz. 

David Weigel at Slate thinks that Cruz and Dewhurst weren't so different on Republican policy that Cruz's victory should have seemed so important–but that Cruz's Hispanic background and relative youth (he's 41) made him a key get for the GOP in the Senate.

The New York Times on Cruz and how  he campaigned:

A Harvard-trained lawyer, a former Washington official under President George W. Bush and the former solicitor general of Texas, Mr. Cruz had argued cases before the Supreme Court but never before run for office. He turned out to be a natural campaigner and with his implacable opposition to big government, he won the enthusiastic support of Tea Party activists in Texas and around the country…..

Mr. Dewhurst has a deeply conservative record, and often during the campaign the two candidates seemed to mimic each other on the issues, with both vowing to repeal President Obama's health care law, cut spending, get tough on the border and fight abortion.

But Mr. Cruz relentlessly portrayed his opponent as a creature of the establishment who is too quick to compromise.

In an Election Day appearance before a small but revved-up crowd outside a polling station in Houston, Mr. Cruz gave credit to his thousands of fervent, on-the-ground volunteers. "We're here today because of the grass-roots organizing," he said.

Reason 24/7 from earlier today on the Texas Senate runoff election.

NEXT: Bittersweet Celebration for New Charter Schools

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. On the one hand, a Ron Paul endorsed Senator is probably a good thing. On the other hand, there apparently wasn’t much difference between the two? On the gripping hand, no alt-text. My conclusion is that I am saddened by the post.

    1. Is that a mood ring he’s wearing?

      1. See Doherty? Look how easy that was!

    2. David Weigel at Slate thinks that Cruz and Dewhurst weren’t so different on Republican policy

      What Weigel says he thinks and what is real are almost never the same thing.

      1. Stop pimping Weigel.

        David Weigel

        ….I’m voting for Barack Obama [in 2008], the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions,…

        [Journolist] E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats

        …In the e-mails, Weigel appeared particularly invested in the President’s health care law, expressing undisguised scorn for moderate Democrats who seemed fearful about voting for it….

        1. Yep, I continue to not understand why Reason continues to shill for this asshole just because he worked here for a little while. It’s not as thought he returns the favor or anything.

  2. Though I intend to vote for John Jay Myers, the Libertarian Senate candidate, in November I am pleased to see Ted Cruz win the GOP run-off. I don’t like Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst now and I know I wouldn’t like a Senator Dewhurst either. I saw Mr. Cruz speak at a Tea Party event in Austin a few months back and like some of the things he had to say.

    1. I saw him speak at the Tea Party Express event with Ron and Rand. Same event?

    2. If Team RED can get another guy like the Pauls in the Senate, that’s a good thing. Rand is not perfect, but knowing that he is my senator is almost like a wearing a warm blanket on virtually everything that really matters. Almost all of the time, he is on the right side of a given issue.

      1. Exactly. From a libertarian perspective, how is Rand not the best current Senator?

    3. Dewhurst did his best to blow the brains out of his campaign during the run-off. Between his incoherent debates (well to be fair, I’m pretty sure I was the only viewer) and his ridiculous commercials, culminating in the baffling attack from a Pennsylvania woman insinuating that Cruz was somehow responsible for her son’s death because he defended a developer in a civil trial appeal involved in the “Cash for Kids” scandal up there (lawyers do that you know, defend people).

      Dewhurst should have just stuck to his record and given up the spurious attacks on Cruz’s legal record. All he did was make people wonder “what the hell is going on” and encourage those already backing Cruz. But I assume its in the nature of someone who played the game of government as long as he has. He doesn’t have a clue what’s resonating with people.

      1. I agree with you there. At that Tea Party event I was at somebody from the Dewhurst campaign was driving one of those trucks with the big electronic signs on the sides flashing messages about “the REAL Ted Cruz”.

  3. Maybe now Red State will stop devoting half theirs posts about this guy.

  4. Did Weigel call him a wetback?

  5. I voted for him today. But it was strategic. If there’s a libertarian candidate in the general, the’re getting my vote. Shit, the tea party nod wasn’t why I voted for him, the Perry endorsement of Dewhurst is why I voted for Cruz.

    1. I voted for Rand Paul because virtually every police agency in the state was endorsing Conway. If every cop in the state supports a guy, you know he’s a cocksucker.

  6. I expect messages from numerous groups, by tomorrow morning at the latest, celebrating this victory and thanking me for my support, even though I haven’t sent them any contributions this year. At least that is how it’s gone all primary season.

    Off-topic, but about the new website configuration:
    Please work out the bugs; navigating around here has been terribly slow today.
    Thank you for increasing the font size in the comments section
    but
    the sections before it still have that terribly small size, and at my age that is a real inconvenience.

    1. You should probably consider changing your browser settings, or investing in a set of reading glasses.

      1. snarc
        “investing in a set of reading glasses.”
        Investing? Are you with the gov’t?
        /snarc

      2. That’s just it. With the bifocals I got for computer screen reading, and with my default view setting at 125%, the main page is legible. Barely.
        This page is OK
        but
        maybe I could use a smaller view setting for those comments from un-named trolls.

  7. in a year where the Tea Party hasn’t done much

    Perhaps I am only half paying attention, but with Cruz beating Dewhurst and Mourdock beating Lugar, can’t that be taken as having “done much”?

  8. Like others above I voted for Cruz today but will vote for LP in Nov. Only R I’ve voted for in 8 years besides RP. Just fucking hate Dewhurst.

  9. reading Weigel:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei…..enate.html

    What i can decipher from his piles of BS:

    “I don’t actually know anything about this guy but I once read a NYT article…

    So I decided to claim he got nominated because he was Hispanic.”

    This all makes sense cuz we all know how strategic Texan republican primary voters are in regards to choosing the optimal racial background of their candidate.

    Ratfucker.

    1. Even more nauseating is that he titles the blog post “The Inescapable Logic of Nominating Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate” and claims “There is an inescapable logic to nominating Cruz, just as there was logic for the 2004 Illinois Democratic primary voter to pick charismatic, black Barack Obama over drab, white machine candidate Dan Hynes.”

      Yeah sure “inescapable logic”

      Hacky hack hack hackratfucker

    2. What i can decipher from his piles of BS:

      “I don’t actually know anything about this guy but I once read a NYT article…

      And he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

  10. David Weigel at Slate thinks…

    Brian please, you need to come up with something more accurate before you loose all credibility. Something like

    “David Weigel emotes…”

    “David Weigel excretes the following…”

    “David Weigel babbles thus…”

    “David Weigel as we all know is full of shit and look here, he’s proven it once again.”

    The one thing we know David Weigel does not do, is think. Never mind that he was once the poster child around here.

  11. “soliciter general”?

  12. You know, if you guys need someone to test a functional Preview ability in Chrome on a Mac, just let me know.

    “It works fine on my machine” isn’t really a good testing strategy.

    1. It works fine on my machine too.

      1. Are you using Chrome — which is, as far as I know, the only browser with an add-in specifically for this website — on a Mac?

        1. I did yesterday, but I didn’t try to preview because I always write it prefectly the first time.

  13. Dewhurst lost my vote when I heard his ads, which all amounted to “My opponent is the Anti-Christ. I’m David Dewhurst, and I approved this message.” If he had released an ad which extolled his own record (after 10 years as Lt. Governor, he does have a record of accomplishments — doesn’t he?), I might have thought about voting for him. As it stands, the measure of a candidate is what he puts his name to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.