It's not so much that he's picking another "loooooser" as The Donald would put it…the real absurdity of it is that even if Cruz were to win every single one of the remaining delegates (which isn't going to happen in a million years), he could still no longer gain the number of delegates required to ensure his nomination. This has become a mathematical impossibility.

Prior to his bid for the nomination, we knew fairly little about Mr. Cruz (we still don't know much – he's not that interesting). We were aware though that he was considered a non-establishment "tea party" guy, a notion people should be thoroughly disabused of in the meantime.

Just to get this out of the way: We are actually on board with what might be described as "bourgeois" values (i.e., values many so-called conservatives are at least giving lip service to) – we are pro free market, against big government (in fact, if it were up to us, there would be no government at all – in our opinion this anachronistic institution is surplus to requirements), we believe in personal responsibility, we respect the body of Christian values and ethics (in spite of not being particularly religious ourselves), and so on. We actually like Western civilization and capitalism and think they have vastly improved the world.

But above all, we stand for the non-aggression principle (NAP). If there is one slogan we would fully support, it is "live and let live".  We have for instance no problem whatsoever with other people pursuing lifestyles we personally reject. The notion that the State should prescribe and enforce such things is completely alien to us. We also strenuously oppose war (unless it is joined for what are clearly self-defense purposes).

The foreign policy views formulated by Mr. Cruz can only be described as unbridled belligerence and are in no way different from the usual neo-con pablum that evidently informs establishment politicians of both parties (Ms. Clinton's FP views are essentially indistinguishable from those of Mr. Cruz). This unanimous support for policies that have demonstrably inflicted vast misery and huge losses in terms of lives and treasure means that these politicians are either A) dumber than fence posts, or B) part of a giant racket.

We actually think it's a mixture of both and Mr. Cruz should be firmly rejected on these grounds alone.  As we have repeatedly stressed, whatever one thinks about The Donald and his undoubtedly quite numerous faults, his non-interventionist foreign policy views are extremely refreshing and are the one thing that truly makes him stand out from all other contenders for the presidency. When was the last time a front-runner for the nomination dared to defy the military-industrial complex?

This brings us back to Mr. Cruz and his strange appointment of Ms. Fiorina. What does this absurd gimmick tell us about him, given that he cannot possibly win the required number of delegates any longer? A sign of mental illness perhaps?

Probably not. We think it is telling us that he is desperately trying to ingratiate himself with the Republican establishment – which is firmly anti-Trump for the simple reason that Trump is a genuine threat to its cozy cronyism. The only purpose of Mr. Cruz' continued participation in the primaries is an attempt to deny The Donald the majority of delegates in order to bring about a brokered convention.

Obviously, the idea that Mr. Cruz is some kind of "anti establishment Tea Party guy" is a load of cow manure.

Fall Girl

As to Ms. Fiorina, here is a brief assessment of her reign at Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), which ended rather ignominiously with her forced resignation (via Wikipedia):

"Following her forced resignation from HP, several commentators ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time. In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas that flopped, declaring that her tenure as CEO of HP was the sixth worst tech flop of all time, and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of "geeks" and alienating existing customers.