National Review doesn’t seem to be very supportive of Cruz anymore after his loss in South Carolina. Just take a look at how they covered the South Carolina caucus results…
Columbia, S.C. — “First Iowa, then New Hampshire, and now South Carolina. We don’t know the exact results right now. Right now we are effectively tied for second place. But each time, defying expectations . . . ”
Ted Cruz told an adoring crowd here Saturday night, before thunderous applause cut him off. Cruz was right. His campaign did defy expectations in South Carolina: It fell short of them.
There was no clear moment when things went awry for Cruz in South Carolina. He blew into the state with a head of steam after winning Iowa and earning an unexpectedly impressive third place in New Hampshire, where he had spent little money and less time. But as the week wore on, there was a sharp contrast in fortunes between Cruz and Rubio, his rival for second place here. Everything seemed to be going Rubio’s way: He had recovered his mojo after losing it in New Hampshire, he had Governor Nikki Haley’s endorsement, and another rival, Jeb Bush, appeared unlikely to pose any serious threat. Cruz, meanwhile, faced a ceaseless barrage of attacks from every direction.
In his speech here tonight, Cruz did his best to spin the final vote count as a triumph over the attacks.
“Tonight, despite millions of millions of dollars of false and nasty attacks, despite the entirety of the political establishment coming together against us, South Carolina has given us another remarkable result,” he declared. But one of the more problematic upshots of the past ten days for Cruz could be that it has crystallized a new line of attack that will continue to dog him as he moves on: the perception that he is a “liar” campaigning on a dishonest premise.
For Cruz, who pitches himself as the candidate voters can trust to uphold conservative principles no matter what — he spoke Saturday night, as he often does, in front of a large “TRUSTED” logo — it’s a line of attack that could do him damage.
Read more: National Review