Texas Selects a New Guy
Texas just held a US Senate Republican run-off, you might have heard, and elected a new guy by the name of Ted Cruz. There's been a bit about it in the media, mostly written by people who have rarely actually been in Texas, but I found this one by a guy in Dallas that I thought was pretty close to my personal interpretation of the reasons why Cruz won. This is not a Tea-Party triumph, although the Tea Party does gain momentum and credibility from it.
What Cruz offers is line-in-the-sand clarity concerning the ills of the
moment. He feeds on fed-upness. Which isn't, in the least, to call him a
demagogue -- a stirrer-up of popular emotions for political profit. As I
read Cruz -- who I expect to be my senator, the necessary electoral
formalities having been observed -- he's plain had it with the
corner-cuttings and obfuscations of the political fraternity. Four years
ago, we hoped for change. What happened? The kind of change we actually
got was merely a speed-up of existing trends toward costlier and more
YMMV, but I found that to be a rather non-partisan summation, acknowledging that many here voted for Obama because we agreed that hope and change was needed, badly, and stating the core of the problem: the political fraternity, and not just one side's. Cruz's campaign focused on exactly the right thing. People here are just plain fed up and are going to do the only thing they can: vote in the new guy. That the new guy is well-educated, far more articulate than Dewhurst, and has never held office made it a no-brainer. That he appeals to the Tea Party is irrelevant to most. I kid you not.
The Democrats were also having a run-off, but the Democratic candidate is always a long shot here. The open primary system at least allows one to cast a vote that matters, and people were taking advantage of that: the line for the Republican half was a good 60 to 1 at my polling station.
Do you think he'll make a difference? Can the Senate actually get more dysfunctional than it is already?