According to a September 14, 2013 piece in the Daily Caller, David Brooks, the liberal Republican columnist for the New York Times, took to the airwaves on PBS’s “News Hour” and warned of the rise of “Ted Cruzism.”
Leaving aside how a freshman senator with less than one year in the upper body of Congress can have a term like that attached to his name, it is useful to understand what that means.
“And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, doesn’t have an idea that he’s going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he is going to pass a lot of legislation. He’s going in more as a media-protest person.”
Brooks is wide of the mark in this case. For instance, Cruz has joined with Sen. Kristin Gillibrand to develop ways to combat sexual assault in the military.
Brooks also accused Cruz of being “obstructionist,” which is a term often used by the establishment for people who are trying to stop legislation that it favors but that the person opposing it believes is bad. It also only applies to one party. Thus Republicans who want to stop Obamacare are “obstructionist.” Democrats who want to stop tax and entitlement reform are following their principles and are stopping granny from being tossed over the cliff by the evil Republicans.
Brooks also accused Cruz of wanting to “take over” the Republican Party. One gets the impression that he thinks this is a bad thing.
The pundit lamented the fact that the old ways of disciplining senators who don’t toe the line, committee assignments and earmarks, don’t work with people like Cruz. Of course Cruz does have some good committee assignments, such as Armed Services and Judiciary, thanks to his alliance with the senior senator from Texas, John Cornyn. Again so much for not making alliances.