Wait, wait, let me make sure I get this straight: Ted Cruz admitted he was wrong about something? Anything? Seriously?
Yes, it is true:
Senator Ted Cruz did some fence-mending Monday, dismissing "divisions" with tea party-approved colleague — and possible 2016 GOP presidential rival — Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, declaring he'd proudly "stand with Rand."
Translation: He doesn't want to burn the bridge that might lead to his being named Senator Paul's running mate in 2016 should the CPAC straw poll pan out (God forbid). Which draws attention to the fact that Cruz would make a far better veep than a president, given his penchant for and skill at being a hatchet-man....
But, given the next part of this quote.....
"Although some would like to play up divisions among Republicans, I have no desire to play their game," the Texas Republican said in a statement, the Washington Post reported.
....Cruz also appears to possess a heretofore undisplayed knack for shameless, almost oblivious prevarication that would make him just as well-suited for the Democrat ticket in the next canvass. Not that any such offer will be forthcoming, of course - although it would be fascinating if it did.
Still, don't fall for this peace-pipe-toking, my friends; if both freshman senators run for the proverbial brass ring that Godbama will never willingly relinquish, this foreign policy quarrel will be repeated ad nauseam:
It was the foreign policy issue that initially opened the rift between the pair Sunday, when Cruz told ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulous," that "I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world, and I agree with [Paul] that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad, but I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did."Wow. Now I feel a compulsion to turn Libertarian. Here's a "Tea Party-approved" pol echoing the knock I've had on Ted Cruz for the past six months. I guess now we'll see whether the Texan's pride or political ambition will win out. Which is to say, is his apology to Rand Paul heartfelt, a "come to Jesus moment" of chastening once finally called out on his fratricidal rampages by a fellow Tea Party-darling, or is it merely a tactical retreat? Well, he didn't also apologize to Bob Dole, did he?
On Fox News Sunday, Paul swiped back.
"I think those who would try to argue that somehow I'm different than the mainstream Republican opinion are people who want to take advantage for their own personal political gain," he said. "I'm a great believer in Ronald Reagan. I'm a great believer in a strong national defense."
On Monday, Paul expanded on his criticism, writing for Breitbart News that Reagan's legacy was being mangled.
"I don’t claim to be the next Ronald Reagan nor do I attempt to disparage fellow Republicans as not being sufficiently Reaganesque," Paul wrote. "I will remind anyone who thinks we will win elections by trashing previous Republican nominees or holding oneself out as some paragon in the mold of Reagan, that splintering the party is not the route to victory." [emphases added]
The foreign policy scrum, meanwhile, will almost certainly see Rand Paul fighting his isolationist battle mostly or entirely alone in a GOP presidential nominating contest. Since he's far more mainstream than his loopy father ever was, that would quite likely lead to another intra-party fault line as Paulnuts would almost certainly bolt if the Kentucky senator fell short, or at least be rendered apathetically unenthusiastic in the general campaign. Especially so if Cruz somehow wound up coming out on top. Which, ironically and in turn, could probably mean a Cruz-Paul ticket and, if so, would lead to a Goldwater-Miller result.
Just think; we can avert all that tiresome nastiness, and maximize our chances of actually winning, by all uniting under the banner of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. It wouldn't be nearly as....entertaining, but it would be a lot more successful. I guess we'll see which matters more to the Tea Party.