You may have read The New York Times' David Brooks column describing Sen. Ted Cruz as "brutal." He bases his "analysis" on arguments made while Cruz was the Texas Solicitor General.
No Christian himself, Brooks criticizes Cruz for not personifying Christian values. If you read Brooks and nothing more you'd get a skewed view of what transpired, one not flattering to Cruz.
Before drawing conclusions, you should read The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto. He digs a bit further into the TX case and finds that Cruz was doing the job for which he was elected by the state's good people. For a detailed legal analysis of the case criticized by Brooks, see what Scott Johnson has written at Power Line.
It appears Brooks intended a hatchet job on Cruz, and accomplished this by telling only part of the story. Brooks' goal appears to have been damaging Cruz's substantial appeal to evangelical voters.
In this election cycle, Brooks has shown a steadfast commitment to the GOP establishment. He appears ready to bitterly cling to Jeb! and the other "centrist" candidates (Christie, Rubio, Kasich) while watching with consternation as two-thirds of the base exits stage right following Trump and Cruz.
As a political commentator his role heretofore has been that of a voice of reason on the right. As the party center of gravity moves away from him, he has to wonder where (or indeed if) he will fit in the new political alignment emerging. Perhaps he can reinvent himself as a voice of reason on the left, that rarest of creatures, a conservative Democrat.
