Texas Senator Ted Cruz may very well be the smartest guy in Congress. Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz has commented numerous times in the past that Cruz was by far one of Harvard Law’s smartest students, describing Cruz as ‘off the charts brilliant’. Cruz used his intellectual prowess and champion debate skills in many arguments before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General of Texas prior to serving in the Senate. While many would celebrate someone with the intelligence and experience of Cruz, one political pundit takes issue with Cruz’s brilliance.
Supposed conservative David Brooks, who writes for the New York Times, discussed with NPR the beef he has with Cruz.
My problem with Cruz is that he’s very, very smart – he’s going to Wall Street these days and impressing people with his intelligence – but he’s in the new era of performance politics. He actually hasn’t done much governing in his life but he’s done a lot of performing.
Perhaps Brooks views arguing before the Supreme Court and serving as Solicitor General for the State of Texas for five years as performance art and not serious business. In contrast, as noted by American Thinker, Brooks heralded former Community Organizer Barack Obama, with no real substantive reason, for his supposed intelligence.
This pundit Brooks (who is supposed to be the New York Times’ house conservative) is the same guy who claimed Obama was the smartest presidential candidate ever, based on nothing but press releases and the crease in Obama’s pants. For Brooks and the others this was a good thing even though the contention was completely unverifiable by his college transcripts, which remain legally sealed and never revealed. If we are talking about a Democrat, or Obama specifically, presumed intelligence is a good thing. If we are talking about a Republican, or Cruz specifically, demonstrated and proven intelligence is a problem, according to Brooks.
With this hypocritical slam of Ted Cruz, Brooks demonstrates why no one in the conservative movement considers him to be anywhere close to a conservative. Perhaps its high-time he, and the New York Times, stop trying to pass himself off as a conservative and label himself as the liberal he time and again demonstrates himself to be. Stop the charade.