The Republican Convention ended in an uproar over the failure of Ted Cruz to make an endorsement of Donald Trump.  The Cruz speech has been roundly criticized by nearly all commentators, simply because it did not contain a ringing endorsement of Trump.  The speech itself was not critical of Trump, indeed, it was quite inspiring.   Ted Cruz talked about freedom. “Freedom means free speech, not politically correct safe spaces.  Freedom means religious freedom, whether you’re Christian or Jew, Muslim or atheist. Whether you’re gay or straight, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of all of us to live according to our conscience.  Freedom means the right to keep and bear arms and protect your family.  Freedom means that every human life is precious and must be protected.”  He told the delegates,  “The case we have to make to the American people, the case each person in this room has to make to the American people, is to commit to each of them that we will defend freedom and be faithful to the Constitution.  We will unite the party, we will unite the country, by standing together for shared values by standing for liberty.”  It’s hard to understand how an appeal for freedom, liberty and faithfulness to the Constitution could so anger Republicans, most of whom at least pretend to be in favor of those things at least once every four years.  What really set off the crowd was this, “If you love our country, and love your children as much as I know that you do, stand and speak and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”  Cruz took heat for advising people to vote their consciences without specifically endorsing Trump.  Now, you can’t vote your conscience and vote for Hillary Clinton, since she has no conscience; but that wasn’t good enough.  On one level, you have to wonder exactly what Trump and the crowd of Trumpeteers in the audience expected, and why they apparently think a Cruz endorsement was so important.  After all, the Trumpsters, and the Republican establishment, like to keep telling us that Ted Cruz is the most hated man in the Senate.  If nobody likes him, and his policies are all wrong, then why would Trump want his endorsement?  Cruz had good reason not to endorse Trump.  Trump’s surrogates attacked Cruz’s wife.  Trump himself accused Cruz’s father of complicity in the JFK assassination.  On May 3, Ted Cruz described Trump as “utterly amoral,” a “narcissist,” a “serial philanderer” and a “pathological liar.”  Against that backdrop, had Cruz done a 180, come in and kissed Trump’s ring (or some other body part), what would that endorsement be worth, and what would Ted Cruz’s word be worth?  After all, just a day earlier, Melania Trump (or was it Michele Obama, or IceT?), told us that your word must be your bond.  I guess the Trump crowd doesn’t care if it destroys the value of Cruz’s bond.  Ted Cruz does care, but that’s not to say I think he did himself any good.  Don’t get me wrong.  I admired Ted Cruz before the speech, and I admire him now, but even I have to wonder if he isn’t simply too honest, and too pure for his own good.  I’m not a fan of the “purist” label. A friend of mine once asked why I opposed Obama.  I gave him a list of unconstitutional actions taken by Il Duce.  My friend concluded, “You’re a purist,” as though that was a flaw.  I always considered adherence to the supreme law of the land to be a virtue.  Go figure.  But politics is a dirty business, and I have to wonder whether Ted Cruz may just be too honest to be a successful politician.  Ted Cruz seems to follow Nelson Mandela’s view.  Mandela said, “Success in politics demands that you must take your people into confidence about your views and state them very clearly, very politely, very calmly, but nevertheless, state them openly.”  That’s very noble.  Then again, they threw Mandela in prison for 26 years.  The familiar quote is that “politics is the art of the possible.”  It has been suggested that the “possible” is a code word for what vested interests will permit.  Ain’t that the truth?  Donald Trump seems to come closer to the view of politics set forth by Groucho Marx, who said, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”  I really think that the heart of Ted Cruz’s problem is that he is an honest man.  I don’t think he’s the only honest man in politics, but he is one of the few brave enough (or foolish enough) to speak the truth even when honesty will not benefit him personally.  The word of Ted Cruz is his bond.  The problem is that absolute and brutal honesty doesn’t seem to be the key to success in politics.  Another honest man, Harry Truman, described the traits he thought were necessary for a person to be a success as a President.  Truman said, to be a good President, one had to be a combination Machiavelli, Louis XI of France, Cesare Borgia and Talleyrand, “a liar, double-crosser and unctuous religio, a hero and a whatnot.”  Therefore, he concluded, “I guess I won’t be.”  Ted Cruz is none of the things Harry Truman listed as requirements for a good President.  In the end, being an honest man of sterling moral character, who steadfastly adheres to principle may be an insurmountable obstacle.  If so, it’s a damn shame.