So We Should Only Criticize the Dems?

All this whining about Ted Cruz is getting on my nerves.  They're upset that he's criticizing Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell, instead of rallying to the Republican establishment banner in all the primaries, the better, they seem to think, to take over the Senate after the November elections.  "Fight Obama, not the Republican leadership."

So their argument is that hard-fought primaries might produce more conservative candidates in November, and this would be a bad thing.  It's going to be hard to convince Cruz, since he's only in the Senate because he challenged the establishment candidate in the Republican primary in Texas a couple of years ago.  And won the primary.  And then won the general election bigtime.

Mind you, I'm not in favor of supporting deranged candidates.  I shudder at the thought of repeats of some of the latest conservative nominees.  But I'm not at all convinced that tough primaries are bad for the Republican Party, or indeed for the country.  Quite the contrary.  I'm all for it.  The country's in a terrible jam and we need outstanding leaders, men of strong will and conviction, who won't catch Potomac fever, who won't go along to win the next election.  I don't think the Republican Party is well led.  Who does?  I think McConnell and Boehner have run away from too many important fights.  If they had been up to their challenges, we'd know a lot more about the use of the IRS as a Democrat political weapon, we'd have a clear timeline for Obama's actions on Benghazi day and night, we'd know exactly what this administration agreed to with the Iranians, and we'd stop raising the debt limit, cutting state profligacy instead.  I'd love to see them replaced, and I don't see any chance of that happening unless they have to pay a price for their lousy leadership.  Like losing.

Don't we believe in accountability?  If you want to tell me that Cruz's targets are better than their challengers, I'm all ears.  But to say he's wrong to go after them for their actions and lack of action, I'm not impressed.  He's right.

We need a very vigorous debate, and no one should be given a free pass.  If a sitting senator or representative has failed to fight the expansion of state power and the policy of global appeasement, I want to hear why.  Tough Republican primaries will help define the issues in the November election.  That sort of debate will produce criticism of Obama, and perhaps lead to the election of those who may provide the will and the vision to start undoing at least some of the damage his presidency has done to us.

So it's misleading to accuse Cruz of ignoring Obama and only going after Republicans.  He's going after Republicans who have failed to fight Obama.

When I read some of the attacks on Cruz, I wonder if at least some of the anger is the result of his tenacity.  I remember being told, when he was in the midst of his filibuster against Obamacare, that it was going to be damaging to the country and deadly to himself.  He would lose, and that would pretty much end his role as a potential party or national leader.

He's still standing, and he was proven right to go all out to try to stop Obamacare.

I quite agree with Jeffrey Lord when he says:

Simply put, Ted Cruz — like Ronald Reagan before him — understands what it takes to make a majority. And he’s doing it. Over the vociferous objections of the same kind of people who kept warning Republicans that if they listened to Ronald Reagan they would get clobbered. Which is exactly why Ted Cruz is being greeted as a hero.

I think he's right to call attention to the shortcomings of his party's leaders.  Would you rather shut him up and then hear the criticism from Bill and Hillary?