There's no better time or opportunity for this imperative - and no better Republican presidential candidate to carry it out.
Good hunting, Senator Cruz:
“If Donald wants to have honest, open policy contrasts, we’re ready for that,” campaign chairman Chad Sweet said. “If, on the other hand, he’s going to engage in discussions over nonsensical issues, over birther issues or who’s the real evangelical — which, by the way, someone from his background should be careful about questioning the faith of our candidate,” something Trump has also done recently.
Asked what he meant by Trump’s “background,” Sweet continued, referencing a Trump appearance at a cattle call in Iowa last summer. “I think it’s interesting that Trump … basically said at [a] family values forum he’s never asked for forgiveness, but yet he is Christian. I would ask most Christians the question, ‘What is the first thing you do to become a Christian?’ Christians know what the answer to that question is.”…
“A thrice-married man is going to come into South Carolina expecting to be the Republican nominee?” [Charlie] Condon asked incredulously. “He’s pro-[abortion]. He’s pro-[sodo]marriage. He’s against traditional values. He’s New York, and he’s got to talk about that.”
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Trump attacks; he's a bully; it's what he does; it's who he is. He personifies circular logic: "Vote for me because I'm winning; if you don't vote for me then you're the loser". He calls himself a "counterpuncher" but nobody ever "punches" him except in retaliation.
But now he's met his match in that he "punched up" at somebody much, much smarter than he is. And he led with the low-blow, instead of, say, glomming Marco Rubio's attempt to paint Senator Cruz as an immigration squish or flip-flopper. Why did Trump not try an issue-based attack first? Interesting that nobody is asking that question, isn't it? I see at least two reasons for it: (1) he knows Cruz is much smarter and more knowledgeable on substantive policy issues than he is and could never get away with his trademark ignorant demagoguery as he has with the rest of the field; and (2) that would be an opening for scrutiny of his past across-the-board leftism ("New York values") and his selective and very recent flip-flopping and all-around incoherence.
Trump would have been better off leaving Cruz well enough alone. But he isn't capable of leaving anybody well enough alone, because he's Trump. So he went with the fringe wacko birther attack, which Senator Cruz has used to score the hat trick: (1) Make Trump look like a fringe wacko birther, (2) highlight his numerous Democrat connections and alliances, and now, (3) highlight how Trump has been a lifelong Democrat until moments before he announced his Republican candidacy. This leaves Trump with three basic options: (1) Double down on the birther attack (which he's already doing by all but dubbing Cruz "Dudley Doright"), (2) throw even sillier bombs, or (3) go "humina-humina-humina" - which really isn't an option for him, because his ego will never permit him to look that foolish when he's actually aware of it.
I'm still trying to figure out how it is that after having nominated and lost an election with a flip-flopping businessman of questionable conservative bona fides last time, so many Republicans appear so passionately enthusiastic about nominating.....a flip-flopping businessman of questionable conservative bona fides. About the only ways in which Mitt Romney and Donald Trump differ is that Trump has a bigger mouth and fortune. And that is what Ted Cruz will be exposing for the entire electorate to see.
When he tweeted out the Trump shark-jumping reference last week, did you think he was kidding?