Apologies for the lapse in posting. I’ve been struggling with a cold (yes, a cold in the heat of Texas summer!). However, I’m going to catch up here, and for my first post, want to give some initial thoughts on Tuesday’s Senate runoff between Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst. This race has really dominated the political scene in Texas this summer, particularly these last two weeks. It’s been an interesting one on so many levels, and one I’ll be thinking about (scratching my head?) for a while.
For one thing, I find the emergence of Cruz (a Princeton and Harvard alum, lawyer and former Supreme Court clerk) as a Tea Party favorite surprising to begin with, given the movement’s anti-establishment tenor. The way the race played out, moreover – with the candidate with greater national support trampling the candidate with more local support – highlights the tension between the Tea Party’s image as a “grassroots, homegrown” movement and its actual strategy, which has come to rely heavily on national publicity,air-dropped endorsements, and out-of-state campaign cash. (This particular contest featured a very high-profile host of out-of-towners swooping in to support Cruz, including Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and Jim DeMint. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it also attracted three times more outside money than any other Senate primary. This is a strange dynamic, particularly for Texas – a point this Austin American-Statesman piece captures well.)
Picking up on the jobs theme I mentioned in my initial post, I also find it odd that Dewhurst couldn’t manage to make more of his background as a former energy executive, and the fact that, as Rick Perry’s #2 for the last ten years, he has helped oversee a relatively impressive period of statewide economic growth. As we’ve seen with Romney, apparently a strong business background just isn’t an ace in the hole, even as strengthening the economy is at or near the top of everyone’s priorities list this election season. Indeed, the Club for Growth in Washington was one of Cruz’s largest contributors, pumping $1.5 million in pro-Cruz TV ads during the final week of the campaign alone. So much for Dewhurst’s “native Texan, proud veteran, successful businessman” mantra!
While I’m at it, let me comment on a few other aspects of this race with respect to the themes I laid out in my June 19 post:
Growing Hispanic political clout: Cruz is a Cuban-American whose father immigrated to the U.S. in the ‘50s, and his primary victory (essentially guaranteeing success in November’s general election), has made him the nation’s newest “Latino star-in-the-making” and an “overnight A-lister of Republicans to watch.” I’m very curious to see how his relationship with the Hispanic community will develop. While Cruz has been drawing comparisons to Florida senator and fellow Cuban-American Marco Rubio (also a Tea Party darling), the course of the primary suggests that he and Rubio will go very different ways with respect to the immigration debate; while Rubio has been a vocal supporter of the DREAM Act, Cruz’s approach to immigration/border control issues during the primary was basically: “be more hardline than Dewhurst.” (Same as with everything else – point for consistency, I suppose!) I certainly can’t think of any good reason to expect he’ll start to back down.
Campaign finance: At a speech last Friday in the Woodlands, Cruz spent most of his time attacking Obama but briefly jabbed at Dewhurst: “My opponent thinks a big, big checkbook can buy this race… Let me tell you, nobody is going to buy this U.S. Senate seat. This race has been a testament to the power of grassroots.” On one hand, given my concern about the role money plays in electoral outcomes, I suppose it’s encouraging that Cruz was even able to prevail against someone with $20 million of his own money to pour into his campaign. (As opposed to just ~$1 million of his own money, like Cruz!) But let’s face it: money played a ridiculously huge role in this race. So far, it has been the most expensive in the country in terms of money spent. (And the second-most expensive in terms of fundraising, with Massachusetts in first.)
Tea Party vs. the establishment: At a rally for Cruz last week in Dallas, Sarah Palin promised the crowd that he would “never make nice with the frou-frou, chi-chi cocktail crowd” in Washington, and I think that sentiment (in less than 10 words!) really captures what has fueled Cruz’s dark horse candidacy all along. Frank Bruni seems to me to hit the nail right on the head:
Politico’s Mike Allen goes further, anticipating Cruz’s likely triumph in the general election and noting: “This means a growing swath of Capitol Hill Republicans have NO allegiance to leadership: The incentive, rather, is to REMAIN PURE. And these candidates have access to their own media and money—the traditional party levers for containing rebels. So even if Romney were to win—even if the GOP held the House and took the Senate—there’s no guarantee he’d be able to broker a deal with his own party, on deficits or anything else.”
Lovely. Just lovely. And just what Congress needs: more rancor and stasis. We’ve seen so very little of that over the last few years.
If, like me, this story depresses you, please stay tuned – I plan to discuss old-school and up-and-coming Texas Democratic women in my next posts. On to happier things! : )
Emily in Texas 