Ted Cruz put on a show when he won the Iowa caucuses. The impression was that of a rookie football player dancing in the end zone after scoring a touchdown. In the NFL, teammates stop an exuberant player from celebrating too long and being penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. The stage at his victory speech was full of Cruz backers, but nobody stopped him. He danced for 32 minutes.
The advice to rookies from football veterans is when you score, act like you’ve been in the end zone before. Cruz didn’t. He claimed the 28 percent of the Republican caucus vote he received sent a message to the world that “morning is coming.” Not quite. He likened himself to Ronald Reagan. But he was very un-Reagan.
Cruz relied almost entirely on applause lines. We know that because he paused after every sentence, signaling the crowd to cheer. Did Reagan do that in his presidential campaigns? Not that I recall. He was calm, positive, and focused on the future.
What Cruz delivered was a stump speech. As such, it was effective in stirring the crowd, much as his speeches at campaign rallies are. Of the Republican candidates, Cruz is the best stump speaker. The problem was the speech didn’t fit the moment.
This was Cruz’s first chance to talk directly to a large national TV audience. He didn’t face the limitations of a debate or a press conference. He was on his own. To say he misunderstood the opportunity is putting it mildly.
He talked too long. It was late at night. Even Fox News cut out, when Cruz showed no signs of concluding. He thanked too many people. It was touching when he embraced his parents on stage. He thanked his mother for her unconditional love and said his father was his hero. Thanking “cousin Beebs” seemed unnecessary.
Speeches at critical moments are clues to a politician’s strengths and weaknesses. Cruz has many strengths. He’s very smart. Candidates are often either strong stump speakers or good campaign organizers. Cruz is both. And more than any other candidate, he has capitalized on the anger of the Republican grassroots over the lack of conservative victories in Washington.
But his speech last week reflected his weakness in reaching beyond his natural constituency. His message to voters in the New Hampshire primary was the same as his pitch in Iowa. Yet New Hampshire has far fewer conservatives and evangelicals than Iowa and many more moderates.
Even if Iowa provided evidence “the old Reagan coalition is coming back together,” as Cruz insisted, that does not mean it’s true for New Hampshire. And I doubt it’s congealing behind a single candidate. Besides, New Hampshire is a different state than it was in 1980 when Reagan won the primary on his way to the White House.
Unlike Cruz, Marco Rubio delivered few applause lines. He spoke for 12 minutes, which struck me as the appropriate length for a speech following the first of dozens of caucuses and primaries between now and early June. He glanced at notes, as Cruz did, and some of his speech seemed scripted. But he did several things that Cruz did not but should have.
He did not act like Iowa is the world, as Cruz did. True, Rubio finished third, while Cruz was first and thus had more basis for exaggeration. Rubio put his showing this way: “We have taken the first step, but an important step, toward winning this election.”
He focused on beating Hillary Clinton in the general election. Cruz stressed his success in thwarting a nebulous “Washington cartel.” Clinton, Rubio said, “can never be commander in chief. Because anyone who lies to the families of people who lost their lives in the service of this country can never be commander in chief of the United States.”
Rubio characterized the race as “not an ordinary election between two political parties. 2016 is a referendum on our identity as a nation and a people.” Who knows if Reagan, were he running today, would have said something like this about 2016? But he might have. And sounding like Reagan is nearly always a plus, given Reagan’s sense for what’s appropriate to say at a particular moment.
“In America,” Rubio said, “there are only two ways forward for us. We can either be a greater nation than we’ve ever been or we can be a great nation in decline.” He said “history” will decide if “we did what needed to be done.” Was this a bit pompous? Perhaps.
Trump gave a four-minute speech against type. He was gracious. He congratulated his opponents. When Cruz topped him in a poll in Iowa a few weeks ago, he said Iowans must be stupid. But when he actually lost to Cruz, he took the defeat in stride.
“We finished second and I want to tell you something,” Trump said. “I’m just honored, really honored.” He said he was “happy with the way everything worked out.” He said Iowans are “special.” Trump said he may buy a farm in Iowa.
The new Trump didn’t last even 24 hours. By the next day, he was denouncing Cruz for stealing the caucuses by sending a deceptive mailer to voters. The real Trump was back. He had thrown off the nice-guy packaging.
There are a few conclusions we might draw from the post-caucus speeches. Cruz needs to limit the applause lines. He didn’t steal Iowa from Trump, but he’d be wise to swipe some of Rubio’s message. Cruz doesn’t need to prove how conservative he is. He’s made that case. Rubio has the ability to inspire. But can he hold his own in the big southern primaries in March? I’m not sure. As for Trump, he’ll never change.
Fred Barnes is an executive editor at The Weekly Standard.
