jerseyhoya wrote: I think that has more to do with the fact that he's a preening douchebag than any policy proposals he supports.
yep
Part of the reason I much prefer Rubio to Cruz even though they're pretty similar on the issues is I think Rubio would be an effective president selling his proposals to the American people and building bridges to Capitol Hill needed to get things enacted.
could be, but he should scurry around & round up any vidclips of his CPAC spiel over the weekend because whew, that was pretty breathtakingly nutty
But we've reached a point with a lot of conservative media (and subsequently conservative voters) that having the right enemies is seen as more of a validator for support than having the right allies, so Cruz is better than Rubio because he's loathed by the left and by the GOP establishment. 1) Piss everyone off, including natural allies; 2) ...?; 3) Get elected president and govern effectively. It's nuts, and the worst part is it isn't even close to being our worst option.
this aspect of contemporary R reality is what gives purchase to the "authoritarianist" evaluation of R dysfunction.
Because it IS nuts, and seems to be the default organizing principle of the most reactionary nuts. "It's my "pure" way, or....", with the "or" never really clarified, because it can't be.
