Some thoughts about Tuesday's debate

At National Review, some Jonah Goldberg thoughts about Tuesday's debate:

The whole rationale for Trump’s candidacy was based on exploiting animosity towards the “establishment.” Jeb represents the establishment for lots of people, fairly or not. If Jeb bows out, that would give a lot of Trump supporters a victory and an excuse to look elsewhere. I hate saying candidates should drop out before the first ballot is cast, but at the very least, if Bush does poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, he should hang it up. The sooner Trump can’t claim he’s the alternative to the “establishment,” the sooner more people will look at alternatives to Trump.

I think Cruz got the better of Rubio in the debate, but Rubio accomplished what he wanted: igniting an upsurge of Cruz skepticism. People aren’t talking about Rubio’s continued support for a path to citizenship (after enforcement). They’re talking about Cruz’s credibility on the issue. It was akin to sacrificing a couple pawns to get a castle. After all, people already knew about Rubio’s vulnerabilities on immigration. But this conversation about Cruz is new, at least in public.

Cruz has worked assiduously to create a brand as the purist in the race. He’s had a lot of help from his friends in talk radio and elsewhere. To listen to his supporters -- and Cruz himself -- Republican animosity towards Cruz can be explained as wagon-circling by the “Washington cartel.” Cruz is the principled man in a dirty town, according to this story.

No doubt there’s some truth to this version. But not everyone subscribes to it. There are a lot of very conservative and principled politicians and activists who don’t like or support Cruz -- and not because they’re “RINOs.” They see him as a calculating politician willing to set the house on fire for his own political self-interest, not for the party or the cause.

The charge that he was lying about his immigration amendment in order to cram in a poison pill against amnesty may or may not be persuasive, but it is not the kind of explanation that helps maintain his brand. (And, I suspect, he will have a similar problem down the road if/when Donald Trump finally jumps the shark and Cruz has to explain that he never really meant that “Donald is great” he was just saying it for strategic reasons.)

Wherever you come down on the Story of Ted (I think both versions have merit), as a political matter, it does not help Ted Cruz to have people debating whether his purism stems from strategic calculation rather than conviction.

Goldberg on Trump:

His comments this morning celebrating Vladimir Putin as a “leader” even though he kills journalists and political opponents, were exactly what you’d expect from someone who only cares about strength, power, popularity, and “winning.”

Read more here.