Ted Cruz campaigned as a staunch conservative, so they're surprised he turned out to be a staunch conservative?
Sen. Ted Cruz’ hometown newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, wishes it could take back its endorsement.
The Chronicle’s editorial board, which endorsed Cruz, R-Texas, in his 2012 race, now says it misses his predecessor, former Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
“When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November’s general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation – that he follow Hutchison’s example in his conduct as a senator,” The Chronicle said. “Obviously, he has not done so.
“Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution,” the board added.
[. . .]
The Houston Chronicle editorial board made clear today that it thinks he should emulate Hutchison’s example and spend more time reaching across the aisle.
“We miss her extraordinary understanding of the importance of reaching across the aisle when necessary,” the board wrote. “One reason we particularly believe that Hutchison would make a difference in these hectic days is that if she had kept her seat, Cruz would not be in the Senate.
Staunch conservatives are not fond of "reaching across the aisle" any more than ardent liberals are, so I can only assume the Chronicle editors fooled themselves into thinking Cruz was some kind of moderate even though they knew deep down he really wasn't, hence those "many reservations." I conclude from that they the Chronicle must have really hated the thought of endorsing his rival.
Of, course they can easily take back the endorsement. All they have to do is write an editorial saying so. I know this because I wrote one of those once. Outvoted by an editorial board not quite as conservative as me and still stung by Bush 41's "Read my lips" renege, I was persuaded to write an editorial endorsing Bill Clinton, which involved some wishful thinking on my part that he might be the moderate he claimed to be (with my own "many reservations"). A few months later, when he showed himself to be the liberal he really was, we ran an editorial that started something like, "Would we have endorsed Bill Clinton if we knew then what we knew now? No, no, a thousand times no," followed simply by the word "no" written 997 more times. Cute, huh?
The Journal Gazette had to retract an endorsement once, too. They were "gang interviewing" candidates that year -- talking to every candidate in the same race at the same time. That enabled them to more easily compare the candidates' positions, but it didn't lend itself to follow-up questions. That made them miss the fact that one of the candidates they endorsed was, well, a little bit out there, if you know what I mean, something we picked up on because we were still intervewing the candidates one at a time. If memory serves, they did their endorsement retraction better than the Chronicle or The News-Sentinel did, publishing it before the election when it still could make a difference. Once the horse is out of the political barn, it doesn't matter much if one of the stable hands confesses to being asleep at his post.