When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November's general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation - that he follow Hutchison's example in his conduct as a senator. - Houston Chronicle's mea culpa editorial for endorsing Ted Cruz for senator.The Houston Chronicle is not known for its courageous and incisive editorials, but it may have set a new record for obtuseness yesterday with its whining about how their preferred candidate for the Senate from Texas, Ted Cruz, has not followed their advice and lived up to the example set by former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Of course, then they followed that up with a weasel statement about how, no, they were not unendorsing Ted Cruz! Way to go, guys. Way to try to have it both ways.
It was never a mystery what kind of senator Ted Cruz was going to be. The campaign he ran fully revealed him as a self-serving political nihilist only concerned with advancing the cause of Ted Cruz. He was and is a complete narcissist, lacking in empathy and concern for the effect of his actions on others. For any person of normal intelligence paying attention to last year's senatorial campaign, that was perfectly obvious. Apparently, that description did not include the Chronicle's editorial board which is now so disappointed that Cruz turned out to be exactly the kind of politician that he had said he would be, i.e., as someone aptly characterized him "a showboating far-right bomb thrower," and not the kind of responsible moderate which they now praise Hutchison for being.
It's true that the Chronicle cannot be blamed for Cruz's electoral victory. I'm sure that their endorsement had exactly zero effect on the outcome. Even so, there was a more honorable and sane - and moderate in the mold of Hutchison - choice available to them. His name was Paul Sadler and he was the Democratic candidate. He's no bomb-thrower and he would have represented Texas with dignity and intelligent pragmatism.
But the Chronicle, as it almost always does, took the path of least resistance not the path of courageous and responsible journalism, because they are in thrall to their vociferous tea party readers and they knew they would get angry letters and possibly subscription cancellations if they endorsed a Democrat. So they gave their "vote" to the radical reactionary candidate and now they regret that he turned out to be exactly as advertised. Sorry, guys, you don't get a do-over. He's your candidate and you are stuck with him.
Will they learn from this experience? Not likely. I can practically guarantee that in the next state-wide election they will again endorse the candidate who loudly proclaims that he is "the most conservative" without any consideration given to the candidate who may be open to pragmatism, moderation, and bipartisanship. Because that's just the way these idiots roll.