Yep. It might seem like an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance, but the consultant who shepherded Louisiana’s governor from an approval rating near 70 percent through to a kids’ table presidential bid which largely finished him as a political entity, Curt Anderson of the DC consulting firm OnMessage, penned a piece at National Review today requiring there be no more Ted Cruz.

And the logic in it is, well, about the same as that which propelled Jindal into the 2015 presidential race (we can’t call it 2016 when he didn’t actually make it to 2016, can we?)…

This memo is for people who care about replacing Justice Scalia with a constitutional conservative, people who care about stopping abortion and defending unborn babies, people who care about rebuilding America’s defenses, people who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms, people who want to stop this mindless slide toward a culture of dependency on government, people who oppose the increasing secularization of American culture, and people who think free speech and religious liberty are of vital importance.

Notice that nowhere in there is a reference to immigration, the single most important issue in this year’s presidential campaign and the lynchpin of why Anderson is demanding the field be winnowed – since it’s immigration which has driven the rise of the Donald Trump campaign in the first place.

Here’s where it really gets fun…

Consider the following:

• If we fail to elect a conservative to the White House this November, we are toast.
• Ted Cruz is a conservative.
• Marco Rubio is a conservative.
• Donald Trump is a great entertainer, he amuses me, and he’s a wild card who could do just about anything in office.

Okay, so far so good.

Now consider:

• Rubio has an excellent chance of winning in November against either Clinton or Sanders
• Cruz has an excellent chance of losing in November against either Clinton or Sanders.
• We’re not sure whether Trump could win in November, but we have no idea what he would do on any issue, so it really doesn’t matter much.

There isn’t any support given for why Rubio has an excellent chance of winning and Cruz has an excellent chance of losing, when the two poll within a few points of each other against the Democrat, and why Trump’s chances are presented with a “not sure” when he’s clearly the candidate with an electability problem rather than Cruz.

It gets worse…

Stick with me here, if, you are a real conservative who is more dedicated to your principles than you are to any particular candidate.

We have to win. Rubio would likely win. He is a conservative. If you care about the issues listed above, you have to help him win. It is that important. Maybe you like him, most conservatives do. But maybe you don’t for some reason, maybe the Gang of Eight thing sticks in your craw. Okay. You have to decide — are you a conservative? Or just a grudge-holder? Does it matter if we rebuild America and stop the crazy leftward lurch toward moral relativism? I think it does. Get over yourself, and get with the program, before we screw this country up in a fatal manner. Obama and the left-wing crazies have done massive damage. This is not a game. We have to win.

Yes, we have to win. But there isn’t a whole lot of support for the contention that “we have to win” means “we have to have Rubio.” “Get over yourself, and get with the program?” That’s more or less “because I said so” quality of reasoning. You’re either for Rubio or you’re not a conservative? What kind of persuasive analysis is that?

We’re not finished.

• Advertising against Trump and calling him names and exposing his madness is pretty much a waste of time, and will not accomplish much right now.
• As long as we have three, or four, or five candidates running, Trump will win. He will get 30 percent to 40 percent of the votes and will win most states. No amount of ads or rational arguments will do anything to stop this. Nada.
• It would be nice if Kasich and Carson would go away, but their vote share is shrinking, and they will effectively go away soon, whether they know it or not.
• The really important thing now is to get rid of Cruz and send him back to the Senate. Sorry. You may like him, you may not, but if you are a real conservative who actually cares about your principles — it’s time for Cruz to go away.
• There is only one way to get a conservative in the White House, which is what we must do, and that is to eliminate Cruz so we can defeat Trump.
• You cannot get rid of Trump until you reduce the field to two candidates — a Trump, and a conservative. That’s when and how we can be rid of Trump.
• If we can force Trump to have to get 50 percent in a Republican primary, we can beat him. If we wait too long, it won’t happen.
• So it’s time for us to have Cruz involuntarily committed . . . and placed back in the U.S. Senate.

Again, nowhere in here is any attempt made at persuading the reader why it is that Rubio is electable and Cruz is not. Cruz just has to get out of the race because he can’t win and Rubio can.

Now it starts to become obvious why Jindal never got any traction in the presidential race – this guy was the brains behind his presidential operation.

Anderson would have been far wiser to keep his mouth shut and offer his advice to conservatives in private. This nonsense does more to hurt Rubio and make him unacceptable to conservatives than it does to convince any Cruz supporters to abandon him.

There is a growing consensus that either Cruz or Rubio might have to get out in order for the other to take the nomination and the presidency. Anderson would want to offer up some actual analysis for why that has to be Cruz, and he doesn’t. Is that because he can’t use Google to find some support in polling for his contention? Or because he can’t truthfully recite any without doing some obvious cherry-picking?

Or because now that Jindal has endorsed Rubio, Anderson is in position to catch on to the Rubio team and pull some fees out of this cycle as it goes along?

Nobody has a problem with people making a living. But it’s the combination of stupidity and dishonesty – a combination that comes off as pure contempt for the Republican electorate – which seems to so perfectly define the Beltway consultant class.

Anderson might say he’s a conservative, and he might not be lying. But he doesn’t do himself or the movement any favors with garbage like that NRO post.