Dear David Brooks,

In college, the biggest insult you can lob at someone is to call them a rapist. But only if they're a white man. The second worst thing is to call them a racist. But only if they're a white man. In high school, insults are slightly more sophisticated in that they revolve around bodily functions or the things used for bodily functions. But in the earlier school years, say around kindergarten, the worst you could say about someone other than "You're a big poo-poo head" is "You're a big meanie." Which is precisely what you said about Ted Cruz in your piece "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz" published in The New York Times.

The case reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz’s behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.

I added the emphasis. The above paragraph is intellectual spin for "HE'S MEAN. HE FOLLOWS RULZ! HE DOESN'T SHOW MERCY, OMG!" Worse, you were inexplicably proud of yourself.

"DAVID BROOKS. I WIN AT NEW YORK TIMING!"

Hey, I get it. Desperate times call for desperately colorful measuring cups to play with in the sandbox. After I write this, I'm going to finger paint bright suns all over my walls, then share a juice box with my mommy your mommy.

Ted Cruz is rising in the polls. Not a meteoric rise, a slow, steady, healthy rise. He's in a prime position to pounce, and everyone is getting a bit nervous. Hence all this resurgence of "OMG, HE WAS BORN IN CANADA!" hype which was pretty much debunked like, this many (holds up three fingers) years ago. Well, actually, this one was solved in the courts in 1898 with United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

But I digress. Back to you, David Brooks. Yeah the rest of your article followed the same vein. You wish speculate Christians won't like Cruz because Teddy isn't giving free cupcakes to the class. Because Ted Cruz believes in the rule of law and thinks Obama's reign has been disastrous for America (duh) people will find him too "polarizing." Here's my favorite paragraph:

But Cruz manufactures an atmosphere of menace in which there is no room for compassion, for moderation, for anything but dismantling and counterattack. And that is what he offers. Cruz’s programmatic agenda, to the extent that it exists in his speeches, is to destroy things: destroy the I.R.S., crush the “jackals” of the E.P.A., end funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Obama’s executive orders, make the desert glow in Syria, destroy the Iran nuclear accord.

You think Ted Cruz is not only a big poo-poo-head meanie, you also say he breaks things. Or at least talks about breaking things. Thanks, Mr. Brooks, for advising us to keep our G.I. Joes and Barbie Dolls close. In a Ted Cruz presidency, doll heads will roll. Then he'll stomp on them for good measure. We've been warned. NOW GIVE ME YOUR LUNCH MONEY.

Okay, let's put the childhood insult analogies in the corner for a bit. Don't worry, I'll end their timeout after I make a super duper adult point.

The exact same reason you're giving for why you hope think Christians will shy away from Ted Cruz is the exact same reason he's popular among them. Where you're trying to convince everyone that Cruz is The Big Bad Wolf, Cruz's supporters (who are widely conservative) see a strong, decisive leader who doesn't give a crap about media popularity (including your approval). It is exactly Ted Cruz's strong stance, strong language, and divisiveness which has won him gold stars. Any time we've posted stories of Ted Cruz annihilating (see, David Brooks, I can use big words, too) leftist ideas and talking points, people feel compelled to hit the re-share buttons and play it on a loop like a morphine drip.

I know I said I'd put the childhood analogies aside. I'm sorry, I couldn't help it, they just kept coming to me.

As far as the points you raised above, here's the thing David-kins: taxpayers hate the IRS and want to see it destroyed. Because they like to keep their own money. Greedy meanies. Also, the IRS hates them back, and illegally and actively targeted conservatives. So there's that.

The EPA has a horrible habit of turning everything to crap, look no further than Obama's EPA Contaminated Colorado's Animas River with Metal Pollutants story. It's an ever-flowing river of feces-water rivaled in length only by your screeds at the NYTimes.

Planned Parenthood butchers unborn babies and tries to sell their parts. I mean, do I seriously have to say more on that subject? You do know where babies come from, right?

Reversing Obama's Executive Orders? Heck to the yes. We're a representative republic, Mr. Brooks, not a dictatorship. We didn't like it when Bush signed orders, we hate it when Obama's done it. As to making Syria glow? My only question is what color. Me likes things that glow in the dark. Keeps the monsters under the bed.

Lastly, Brooks, you try telling us Conservatives what conservatism is all about. It's rich, so I'm glad I had the insulin standing by.

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind.

Lots of big words in there, Mr. Brooks. I must thank you though for bringing up Sparta. We have a meme for that:

See, here's what I love about your piece, David. You say Cruz's style of conservatism teaches to "answer hate with hate," but you never specify what this means. "Hate" is a buzzword leftists lean on because who isn't against hate? But standing up to bullies (leftists) or fighting our enemies (terrorism) isn't answering "hate with hate." It's fighting back. I know conservatives fighting back, as opposed to shrinking away like cowering wimps, isn't big with you intellectual elitists. You'd rather conservatives apologize for "offending" people. You'd rather conservatives "reach across the aisle" to compromise and give Democrats the best crayons. You'd rather conservatives be giant squishes who temper their language and never say anything that hasn't been focused-grouped. You want conservatives to be losers.

Well tough noogies. Cruz is none of those things. The dude is here to play, and the game is about to get serious. Have your mom sign a permission slip. You're going to need it.

~Written by Courtney Kirchoff