As you all probably know there is a runoff election for the Republican nomination in the Texas Senate race to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison. Well tonight the two candidates—sitting Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz—sat down for a debate moderated by two local Dallas television reporters. Come November one of them will run against the Democratic runoff winner—in a race between former state Rep. Paul Sadler and Grady Yarbrough (most think Sadler will easily win).
The GOP runoff has turned out to be much closer than had been expected—with polls from each camp (in the last two weeks or so) claiming that their man holds a lead over the other. This runoff has garnered a lot of statewide and national attention and money—something close to $25 million has been spent on the election, with Dewhurst spending nearly $17 million. This expenditure is obvious in Texas, as for months both before the primary and now during the runoff, TV viewers have been barraged with many Dewhurst ads insinuating that Cruz, a former state solicitor general now in private practice, had done legal work for a Chinese client who had allegedly sent jobs overseas and hurt workers here at home. Dewhurst is taking a play from Obama against Romney in order to strike a hit.
From the beginning, the race was pretty ugly, but Cruz—both a Tea Party and Washington pundit favorite—was nonetheless able to force a runoff against the long time Texas politician and multi-millionaire businessman. In the runoff Cruz has raised enough money to fire back at Dewhurst with ads claiming that he supported a state payroll tax and a guest worker program.
The debate was interesting, but the young and politically inexperienced Cruz obviously won the night (by my lights). Still, one wonders if this matters, because as the moderator pointed out, on most of the issues Dewhurst and Cruz share similar positions. They both claim to be fiscal conservatives who are strong on defense, wish to secure the border with Mexico, and are in favor of repealing Obamacare. Dewhurst has the name recognition, but tonight it was the personal differences that seemed to matter.
In the debate Cruz appeared to be ready to discuss the issues and defend himself against Dewhurst’s attacks, while Dewhurst fumbled for answers a few times, and seemed to be somewhat shocked that, as an “establishment” favorite, he had been put in the position to argue for his apparent inevitable nomination. Cruz pinned Dewhurst down on the guest worker program issue, at one point alleging the Lt. Governor had instructed state workers to remove a speech he had once given in favor of the policy from the Lt. Governor’s official website. Dewhurst never answered whether or not he ever advocated for a guest worker program, and he denied that he instructed state employees to remove his speech. However, he claimed that if you wrote the Lt. Governor’s office, you could be provided with a transcript of the speech. Amazing!
Dewhurst hammered Cruz on his legal support for the Chinese tire company, but this time Cruz himself pulled a play from Dewhurst’s own Obama play against Romney—or was it a Newt Gingrich play?—insinuating that Dewhurst had his own money personally invested in China and that this might constitute some sort of conflict of interest. Dewhurst said he didn’t know the answer because his money was in a blind trust, and Cruz said that this lack of transparency raised the question of where his money might be invested. Once again, but for different reasons—Amazing!
It seems to me that if anyone were actually watching this debate tonight—meaning if any Texas conservatives and Republicans were watching—then Cruz would be the hands down favorite. He’s smart, and he doesn’t seem too concerned to curry favor with the Texas political “establishment.” However, Dewhurst has strong support. He has aired ads featuring Mike Huckabee in support, and after this evening’s debate he got former Dallas mayor (and former Republican Senate candidate) Tom Leppert’s endorsement. He already had Rick Perry’s support.
So this race will be close—between a well-respected politician and a smart conservative upstart.
The closing bit of the debate was enlightening—the moderator asked whether either candidate would be a senator like Sen. Hutchison who he claimed brought home the bacon and looked out for Texas. Neither candidate answered entirely in the affirmative. Dewhurst said that, as senator, he would need to look toward the national interest. Cruz struck a balance between the state and the nation, but also ultimately spoke in terms of what was good for the nation.
As fiscal conservatives, they both argued that national insolvency works to the detriment of Texas. Rather than viewing the role of a senator as an agent or delegate, they were willing to speak in terms of representation that refined and enlarged, as it were, the opinions, passions and—since this was both moderators’ primary concern throughout the debate—INTERESTS of their constituents.
I guess the moderators helped to foreshadow the debate in the general election. The Democratic candidate, in order to protect the economic well being of Texans, will bring home the bacon a la Sen. Hutchison. Dewhurst or Cruz, on the other hand, will speak of the looming debt crisis and the need to get the nation’s fiscal house in order. That would be best for Texas they both say.
This debate seems to be a Texas-sized (meaning in this case, micro) version of our more national issues and concerns. As such, it should continue to attract national attention, at least if Obama really thinks he has a chance in Texas. Given what I anecdotally know, the interest will subside once the Republican nominee is decided. Nonetheless, the debate between Dewhurst, a conventional Republican, and Cruz–who I had never heard of until National Review ran a cover story on him that at first sight I thought was about the actor Bill Murray–is of both interest and importance.
Perhaps Cruz’s undeniable intelligence and rhetorical skills could keep this race in the national spotlight, even if, should he win the runoff (as he ought to), he were running as a Republican in Texas.


July 18th, 2012 | 7:52 am
“at least if Obama really thinks he has a chance in Texas.”
I’m deeply unimpressed with Obama’s allegedly world-class intellect, but not even I think he’s that dumb…
July 18th, 2012 | 8:10 am
Indeed!
July 18th, 2012 | 10:11 am
With all of these attacks on forign investments in Texas and even nationally, I have seen nary a comment on the investments of this adminiostration in BRazil) off-shore drilling which they do not allow in our waters), Finland (Green sports cars at which has gone bust) and GMC (not repaying their debt to US, but investing in new operations in CHINA). What is wrong with this picture?
July 18th, 2012 | 10:12 am
The Texas Senate race really has been an interesting one. I’d like to see Cruz win now, but admittedly Dewhurst is pretty good too. I even liked the third Republican in this primary whom you mentioned, Tom Leppert. I did an interview with him back in January and was quite impressed: http://claremontindependent.com/2012/01/leppert-talks-campaign-for-senate/
The question that keeps running through my head is: why couldn’t one of THESE guys have run for President?
July 18th, 2012 | 12:08 pm
CJ Wolfe…what? Why would a state lieutenant governor, former mayor, or state solicitor general who wasn’t even born in America run for President? I’m not thrilled with Romney but none of these guys are remotely qualified for the Presidency. I do enthusiastically support Cruz to become our Senator though.
July 18th, 2012 | 6:28 pm
Jay, do you remember Herman Cain? He never served in any public office and was able to make a run on the nomination because Romney has so much baggage. This nomination cycle was a fiasco.
You’re right to point out Cruz’ immigrant citizenshipship; that does disqualify him, I forgot about that. I just wish there would have been some more capable Republican politicians up on that debate stage.
July 18th, 2012 | 8:23 pm
CJ, I think there was more to the Herman Cain campaign that Romney’s weaknesses. Absent a dominant Reagan-in-1980 figure who had both huge cred as an authentic conservative and a record of governance, the conditions were there for a Cain boom from voters who had an authenticity-first orientation. Or to put it differently, I could see Can having a boom even if Romney hadn’t run but Jindal/Daniels/Christie had. Maybe not if Ryan had run.
Cain tapped into a longing for a POPULIST businessman, who was socially conservative. He also, for a moment, offered a kind of technocracy that sounded really attractive. The populist conservative businessman would get the really smart people together after the election and they would produce the answers we need. It would be like a center-right version of the WEST WING.
Cain the presidential candidate (as distinct from Cain the restaurant executive of years ago) was a fraud – an attention seeker manipulating the process to get a better media landing spot. But for a moment, he did strike some chords of public sentiment and those chords are still there.
July 18th, 2012 | 9:17 pm
That’s a good points Pete, I think you are right. My Cain counterexample is flawed because he’s an exception to the normal pattern of republican nomination. Come to think of it, there really haven’t been many presidential candidates with zero public experience who came as close to the nomination as Cain did. So Jay, your point is well taken too
July 19th, 2012 | 9:12 am
Why do so many people think that you have to be born in America to be president? That’s not even close to correct.
July 19th, 2012 | 11:51 am
As near as I can tell, Brian is correct and Cruz is legally qualified to be President. As far as I can find out, both his parents were American citizens when he was born in Canada. This, in most reasonable interpretations, makes him a natural-born citizen just as John McCain was.
July 19th, 2012 | 3:21 pm
Brian, it is “close to” correct, due to the wording of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
You can be born to citizen parents anywhere and still be a natural born citizen. Unfortunately under the Citizenship Clause (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”)–and unlike every other industrialized country–if you are born within our borders, you are also a citizen. Nowhere else is this the case.
July 19th, 2012 | 6:36 pm
Not nowhere else. Jus soli is the case in virtually every country in the Americas, including Canada. It is true it is practically unknown anywhere but the Americas, though.
July 19th, 2012 | 10:17 pm
Barry: Right, it’s not even close to correct. I know lots of folks don’t like the idea that anyone born in the USA is automatically a US citizen, but whether that were the policy or not, the constitution clearly says that someone like Cruz, and McCain, and any other person who is unambiguously a citizen at birth, is eligible for the presidency, regardless of where he was born.
August 2nd, 2012 | 1:37 am
[...] I’d provide an update to an earlier post. Ted Cruz handily defeated David Dewhurst in the Texas state senate Republican runoff. Barring [...]
August 2nd, 2012 | 9:48 am
[...] I’d provide an update to an earlier post. Ted Cruz handily defeated David Dewhurst in the Texas Senate Republican runoff. Barring [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact