I Watched Ted Cruz Debate in College. Don’t Count Him Out.

“In that environment,” says a fellow debater, “he was cool, spectacular, a god.”

Senator Ted Cruz addresses voters during a town hall meeting at the Lincoln Center on the campus of Morningside College April 1, 2015 in Sioux City, Iowa.
National Journal
Sacha Zimmerman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sacha Zimmerman
Aug. 6, 2015, 5:02 a.m.

What do you stand for? Ted Cruz was ask­ing me. We were sit­ting on a stair­case in a tower­ing, run-down New York City brown­stone, at a col­lege party. It was 1991. What would you fight for? he con­tin­ued.

I re­mem­ber think­ing: Who asks ques­tions like this? I was 18 and a fresh­man at Columbia. Cruz was a seni­or at Prin­ceton.

Like, um, ra­cism? I re­spon­ded. I mean, against it.

My memory of the con­ver­sa­tion is less than per­fect all these years later, but I do re­call that Cruz held me in a dis­com­fit­ing gaze and said something about “every Amer­ic­an” that was — to my hor­ror — deeply con­ser­vat­ive. I asked wheth­er he was a Re­pub­lic­an, and he re­spon­ded en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally in the af­firm­at­ive. Cruz ex­plained that we all grow more con­ser­vat­ive as we age. He was thus on the polit­ic­al van­guard. Why wait to grow old, when you can be con­ser­vat­ive now?

Cruz and I were at the same party be­cause we were both col­lege de­baters — spe­cific­ally, par­lia­ment­ary de­baters. For those of us who glommed on to this ex­tra­cur­ricular activ­ity, we had a kind of shad­ow life not ap­par­ent to our col­lege-of-re­cord friends. I took classes with my Columbia com­rades, I roomed with them, I smoked pot with them — but on week­ends, I was with my oth­er friends: my de­bate friends.

(RE­LATED: How Each Pres­id­en­tial Can­did­ate Can Win (or Lose) the First 2016 De­bate)

From Septem­ber un­til April, my team­mates and I would rent cars and cara­van to North­east col­leges — from as far south as Johns Hop­kins to as far north as the Uni­versity of Toronto. Every. Week­end. It was a cir­cuit of hy­per-verbal, hy­per­com­pet­it­ive nerds who were all al­most ex­clus­ively bound for law school. At the time, it seemed ter­ribly cool. In ret­ro­spect, less so. There were about 20 par­ti­cip­at­ing schools, in­clud­ing all the usu­al North­east sus­pects: Mt. Holy­oke, Swarth­more, Har­vard, Yale, Bryn Mawr. Schools had teams as small as two de­baters or as large as 20 or more.

Columbia and Prin­ceton had large de­bate squads with com­pet­it­ive repu­ta­tions. But Cruz’s status was le­gendary. He and his part­ner, Dav­id Pan­ton, dom­in­ated the scene and ended up in more fi­nal rounds than any oth­er team in the coun­try their seni­or year. Cruz and I were friendly, but I have no doubt he looms much lar­ger in my memory than I do in his. (His cam­paign did not make him avail­able for an in­ter­view for this piece.) He was Mi­chael Jordan in a game where I mostly sat on the bench.

Re­cently, I got in touch with eight of my old friends from that world and asked them for their memor­ies of Cruz. Those con­ver­sa­tions, as well as my own re­col­lec­tions, ar­gu­ably shed some light on what we might see to­night when Cruz takes the stage at the first GOP pres­id­en­tial de­bate.

“PAR­LIA­MENT­ARY” IS CODE for ex­tem­por­an­eous de­bate — no le­gions of note­cards, cita­tions, or re­search. We de­bated cases that were re­vealed mo­ments be­fore we were tasked with get­ting up to speak. If the op­pos­ing team hit me with a case in fa­vor of, say, mak­ing Lux­em­bourg a fully owned sub­si­di­ary of France, then I’d have to counter with why that was a ter­rible idea — right then and there, re­gard­less of my pi­ti­able know­ledge of the top­ic or my per­son­al polit­ics. It was an olio of im­pro­visa­tion, cur­rent events, per­sua­sion, and per­form­ance.

When you had to face Cruz in de­bate, “you walked in as­sum­ing you would lose.”

Ted Cruz was a king in Par­lia­ment­ary De­bate Land. And stand­ing out in that crowd was not easy. De­bate at­trac­ted swaths of wun­der­kinds who shared a geeky, cocky con­fid­ence; many of them came from a world of private high schools and rig­or­ous speech teams. Nev­er­the­less, says Raj Vin­nakota — a Prin­ceton de­bater who knew Cruz and who is now the CEO of the SEED Found­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. — when you had to face Cruz in de­bate, “you walked in as­sum­ing you would lose.”

(RE­LATED: Who’s In and Who’s Out for Thursday’s Prime-Time GOP Pres­id­en­tial De­bate)

At Prin­ceton, ac­cord­ing to Vin­nakota and Scott Ang­streich — a reg­u­lat­ory and ap­pel­late law­yer in Wash­ing­ton — de­bate prac­tice was taken ser­i­ously, and Cruz was an ex­cel­lent ment­or, provid­ing feed­back and help­ing to strengthen young­er mem­bers of the team. “In that en­vir­on­ment,” says Vin­nakota, who was two years young­er than Cruz, “he was cool, spec­tac­u­lar, a god.”

He was ex­cel­lent at con­nect­ing with a large audi­ence (think: ma­chine-gun ba­con). Dae Lev­ine — a former Columbia de­bater in Cruz’s year who is now a com­mu­nic­a­tions strategist liv­ing in Aus­tralia and who has twice been the chair of Demo­crats Abroad — thinks of it as a kind of be­witch­ing polit­ic­al nar­ciss­ism: “It’s not visu­al. It’s not: Look at me. It’s: Listen to me. No, be­lieve me. No, fol­low me.” In­deed, emo­tion — not just in­tel­li­gence — was very much in Cruz’s skill set. Ang­streich (who is Jew­ish) re­calls a de­bate that he was ar­guing in­volving the Holo­caust. Be­fore Ang­streich got up to speak, Cruz leaned over to him and whispered, “Be out­raged!”

Cruz also fre­quently re­lied on his now-well-worn ori­gin story in de­bates — his fath­er’s epic jour­ney from Cuban free­dom-fight­er to pen­ni­less for­eign­er in Amer­ica. “Every­body knew Ted Cruz’s fath­er’s story,” says Vin­nakota. “We could all re­cite it!” No one, I think, should be sur­prised to hear this nar­rat­ive to­night or in fu­ture GOP de­bates.

It’s also worth point­ing out — with Cruz fa­cing long odds in the GOP primar­ies, and with oth­er can­did­ates at to­night’s de­bate com­mand­ing a lot more at­ten­tion — that Cruz’s elo­quence proved to be a great equal­izer for him when his back was against the wall. “I’ve ex­per­i­enced and wit­nessed when Ted has pulled out de­bates purely at the force of his rhet­or­ic,” Vin­nakota says, re­mem­ber­ing one de­bate in par­tic­u­lar that he would ul­ti­mately win. The oth­er team, Vin­nakota re­calls, had “crushed Ted’s ar­gu­ment.” By the time Cruz ar­rived on­stage to speak a fi­nal time, the case was “dead on ar­rival.” “But Ted gave one of the most im­pas­sioned, flour­ished speeches. His fo­cused an­ger and the power of his rhet­or­ic just won over the crowd. If you were flow­ing the ar­gu­ment” — chart­ing the de­bate — “he didn’t say any­thing. You have to be im­pressed by it. He is a gif­ted, gif­ted speak­er.”

(RE­LATED: Chart­ing What Sep­ar­ated the Win­ners and Losers in Qual­i­fy­ing for the GOP De­bate)

Cruz’s ex­traordin­ary in­tel­li­gence was very much his call­ing card — on and off the de­bate stage. At one tour­na­ment, I re­call a dozen or so of us be­ing splayed out across twin beds, heads rest­ing against white plaster walls, drink­ing bottled beer. Young men (who con­sti­tuted most of that world) with loosened ties and wrinkled chi­nos sat rapt: Cruz, even then wear­ing boots-and-a-suit in that awk­ward way of all Texas politi­cians, was hold­ing court on Kant’s cat­egor­ic­al im­per­at­ive — his mor­al ab­so­lut­ism ap­par­ently already fully formed.

THE CHAL­LENGE FOR Cruz — which The New York Times high­lighted sev­er­al months ago in a piece about his de­bat­ing ca­reer — was that he wasn’t ne­ces­sar­ily likable. “I re­mem­ber him as a scary, driv­en ma­chine who fought a pro­trac­ted, bloody land war for total vic­tory,” says Ted Nib­lock, a Johns Hop­kins Uni­versity de­bater in Cruz’s year who is now gen­er­al coun­sel for a clean-en­ergy star­tup.

Which makes it all the more im­port­ant to bring up Cruz’s best friend and col­lege de­bate part­ner, Dav­id Pan­ton. Pan­ton, a Ja­maic­an stu­dent whom every­one re­mem­bers fondly, was the friendly George W. Bush to Cruz’s Dick Cheney.

“I re­mem­ber him as a scary, driv­en ma­chine who fought a pro­trac­ted, bloody land war for total vic­tory.”

“Pan­ton was the foil,” says Vin­nakota. “He was an equal mem­ber of the duo. But Dave was raised around need­ing to un­der­stand so­cial graces; he could pull off any­thing. It had the com­ple­ment­ary ef­fect of them work­ing really well to­geth­er.”

“No re­col­lec­tion of Cruz is com­plete without re­mem­ber­ing Dave Pan­ton,” agrees Nib­lock. “He was su­per-smart, funny, and even some­what self-ef­fa­cing. I have al­ways sus­pec­ted — al­though of course he could nev­er ad­mit it — that Pan­ton real­ized early on that the way to seem even more likable was to stand next to Cruz.”

(RE­LATED: The 10 Worst Mo­ments in Pres­id­en­tial De­bates)

Pan­ton, now the chair­man of his own private-equity firm, has re­mained a loy­al friend as Cruz’s polit­ic­al star­dom has taken off. (He did not re­spond to re­quests for com­ment.) Cruz and Pan­ton were both de­bate part­ners and room­mates. And the evid­ence for how well their part­ner­ship worked could be found in their suite at Prin­ceton, which was brim­ming over with “hard­ware” — the trophies, plaques, gavels (yes, really, hon­or­if­ic gavels), and oth­er awards garnered at de­bate tour­na­ments. The room was pos­it­ively drip­ping with si­lent ap­plause.

I once watched Cruz and Pan­ton slay a team from the Uni­versity of Pennsylvania in a fi­nal round. Penn ran what we called a “hy­po­thet­ic­al syl­lo­gism.” It went something like this: You’ve just gradu­ated, and be­fore you can even find a job, your col­lege alumni as­so­ci­ation asks you for money — don’t give them any. Ad­mit­tedly, it’s a silly case. Pan­ton gave the ex­pec­ted ar­gu­ments about how for­tu­nate we all were to have ac­cess to renowned in­sti­tu­tions and how we should not be in­grate elit­ists. But Cruz crushed it. He looked mean­ing­fully at the audi­ence. I don’t re­call his pre­cise words, but here’s how I re­mem­ber what he said: Even if — he paused and shook his head with a dis­be­liev­ing chuckle. Even if you think your col­lege did noth­ing for you, or in­sul­ted you — he paused again and then spit out: Leave a penny. He poin­ted down and to the side, as though he were point­ing at a lone, nasty penny. Tape a penny to the form and send it back. If you really hate them, then send a mes­sage.

The ques­tion is: After Cruz brings the pain, can he also chan­nel Pan­ton’s charm?

BACK IN 1991, a small war was waged in a crowded aud­it­or­i­um at Yale. The war came dis­guised as an elec­tion. At stake was the pres­id­ency of the Amer­ic­an Par­lia­ment­ary De­bate As­so­ci­ation. The con­tenders were Ted Cruz, Dae Lev­ine, and Ted Nib­lock.

They couldn’t have been more dif­fer­ent. Cruz was the straight-laced cham­pi­on look­ing for an­oth­er win. Lev­ine was the clev­er, al­tern­at­ive chick who oozed New York City cool — and who was los­ing to Cruz. Cue the wild card: Nib­lock entered the race as a Cruz protest can­did­ate — rep­res­ent­ing what he calls “an ir­rev­er­ent, coun­ter­cul­ture” style of de­bate that was frank but very ef­fect­ive.

“I was not as smart, com­mit­ted, or skilled as Ted was,” says Nib­lock. “I was com­pletely ran­dom and un­pre­dict­able. You can’t out­smart a truly crazy per­son.” That’s why a group of anti-Cruzniks draf­ted Nib­lock in­to the race. Sure it would be funny, but these folks also really did not like Cruz.

“He seemed to be the pre­sumptive win­ner,” says Nib­lock. “This was on top of his fre­quent tour­na­ment vic­tor­ies, which were earned in the most grind­ing, meth­od­ic­al, joy­less way pos­sible. This might be my biggest prob­lem with him: He took all the fun out of it. He pre­pared and pre­pared, came to the tour­na­ment on the week­end, ex­ecuted his plan, and then went back to Prin­ceton to take the fun out of something else.”

It was a crazy day — Nib­lock’s bizarre, plat­form­less entry seemed some­how ex­hil­ar­at­ing. Vot­ing for him was like break­ing the rules, free-fall­ing through an elec­tion that was dazzlingly un­im­port­ant to just about every­one but Cruz. The Columbia team stood be­hind our own and backed Lev­ine, but Nib­lock had de­livered a shot of mad­ness to Cruz’s meth­od. “My only elect­able qual­ity was that I was not Ted Cruz,” says Nib­lock.

Ul­ti­mately, gid­di­ness and Nib­lock pre­vailed. Lev­ine and Cruz were co-vice-pres­id­ents. It is, to the best of our col­lect­ive know­ledge, the last elec­tion Cruz ever lost. “I think he’s spent his whole life try­ing to make sure he doesn’t lose an­oth­er elec­tion,” says Lev­ine. Nib­lock agrees. “Every mo­ment of his pub­lic life has been care­fully cal­cu­lated to bring him to this,” he says. “And if Sen­at­or Cruz has de­cided he wants to be pres­id­ent, he has a plan.”

He has a plan: Every­one I in­ter­viewed for this art­icle is sol­id on this point. We de­baters un­der­stand how he thinks — how he sees a mul­ti­tude of situ­ations and con­sequences un­fold­ing in his mind’s eye. He’s a politi­cian: It is all stage time now. And start­ing to­night, a lot will de­pend on just how well he de­bates.

What We're Following See More »
TRUMP’S ATTORNEY WAS SET TO TESTIFY ON WEDNESDAY
Senate Intel Postpones Testimony by Cohen
16 hours ago
THE LATEST
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONSIDERATION
Senate Rejects Effort to Nix SALT Tax Changes
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Democrats on Thursday failed in their first attempt to save the state and local tax deduction, which helps many residents of California and other high-cost states reduce their federal income tax bills. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47 to reject an amendment that would have prevented the Senate from considering any bill that repeals or limits the deduction as part of a planned tax overhaul."

Source:
INTERVIEWED BY COMMITTEE STAFF
Lewandowski Meets with Senate Intelligence Committee
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview with the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday, according to a source familiar with the matter. Lewandowski is the latest senior official in Trump's orbit who has met with the committee as part of its investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign."

Source:
FISHING EXPEDITION
Some Members Seek to Wrap Up Russia Investigations by Year’s End
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"A growing number of key Republicans are sending this message to the leaders of the congressional committees investigating potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russians: Wrap it up soon. In the House and Senate, several Republicans who sit on key committees are starting to grumble that the investigations have spanned the better part of the past nine months, contending that the Democratic push to extend the investigation well into next year could amount to a fishing expedition."

Source:
WROTE LAW THAT WEAKENED OPIOID OVERSIGHT
Trump: Marino Withdrawing Nomination for Drug Czar
3 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login