You always know the loosing argument because they ignore the opposing side's best talking point.
I'm not trying take Sen. Cruz down a peg, rather, I think he has great potential - but now that your under the spot light, it's time to step up. This isn't a Texas BBQ where you can just spout off on anything you want and pass the the mic to a country rock band.
Both Erick Erickson and Dan McLaughlin have attempted, feebly in my opinion, to defend Sen. Cruz against the "McCarthyist" charge. What is McCarthyist exactly?
Per wikipedia: "McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence."
Now, let's analyze Sen. Ted Cruz's remarks regarding Chuck Hagel. Hagel apprently wouldn't admit to where the precise source of various payments originated, while he did testify that they did not originate from foreign sources. To this Sen. Cruz responded:
“It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea, and I have no evidence to suggest that it is or isn’t, but his statement was that he could not even tell this committee that $200,000 did not come directly from a foreign government.”
If you can't discern the problem here, let me turn it around:
"Hey Erick and Dan, isn't it at a minimum relevant to know that redstate.com's funding came directly from the KKK, came directly from the Aryan Brotherhood, and I have no evidence to suggest that it is or isn't, but ..."
That would be way out-of-bounds, IMO.
Let's look at his comments regarding the Havard Marxists:
“There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.” (emphasis added)
Remember that whole "... accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason..." part of McCarthyism? You can be a Marxist, a communist, and not be traiter to the country (please review the 1st Amendment if you disagree). Sen. Cruz has yet to come up with one scintilla of evidence in support of these twelve treasonous, seditious Harvard faculty members who believe in the Communist overthrow of the US government.
I bring this up because both Erick and Dan failed to acknowledge these facts when defending Sen. Cruz. Erick defended the "Saudi Arabia? North Korea?" remarks without ever referencing the damning quote. It was just a "who cares if Cruz is in DC knocking heads around ... that's why he was elected!" argument. It never defended, or even referenced, the accusations of disloyalty.
Dan McLaughlin defended the "Harvard Marxists" allegations by showing that they're actually were a lot of Marxists and almost no Republican faculty members. Duh. Where are these Marxists, and there are many, advocating for the overthrow of the US government? Sen. Cruz doesn't say. Dan McLaughlin doesn't say ... I'm inclined to believe it's because they don't exist. Hey Dan, it's the second sentence that causes controversy, not the first.
This is what losing an argument looks like. And to Sen. Cruz shouldn't have to resort to baseless hyperbole to make his point.