Assuming Ted Cruz doesn’t “unsuspend” his campaign after tonight’s caucus results are in, he won’t be going to the convention in Cleveland as a potential candidate to be nominated from the floor. But he’s still holding on to a significant number of delegates and they will have a say in all votes which are taken, including settling on the party platform for the general election battle. So what do they want to focus on? For one thing, making sure that movement conservative principles are well represented and that fundamental beliefs aren’t traded off in exchange for any of the more, shall we say… exotic ideas which the presumptive nominee has espoused at various points during the campaign.

But should one of those be a new plank in the party platform dealing with bathroom privacy and the response to transgender initiatives put forth by the SJW? At least according to Cruz delegate and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the answer is yes. (New York Times)

“It’s important that this not appear as though we are pulling a stunt at this convention,” he said, adding that the goal is to advocate for policies preferred by the sort of hard-line conservatives who backed Mr. Cruz’s campaign.

“This is about protecting movement conservatism,” he said, pointing to party planks on abortion and saying the delegates should consider language regarding transgender bathroom access.

“We want to have girls go in girls’ bathrooms,” he said, highlighting an issue on which Mr. Trump has broken with social conservatives by supporting the rights of transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice.

I’ve spent enough time debating this particular battle here that you likely already know that I find the subject of value to conservatives. But there’s a difference between a battle that’s worth fighting and making room to enshrine a specific policy point in the party platform. Rather than some sort of encyclopedic manifesto of everything conservatives should believe in, the platform is more of a general document which is intended to float the high level agenda items which candidates up and down the ticket in all fifty states can take into the fray. From that perspective, this particular issue probably isn’t the best fit.

As Ed previously pointed out, polling on the subject indicates a lot of pushback with the general public and a fairly even split among Republicans as well. It’s not exactly the highest priority item on the agenda. Also, our presumed nominee came out against laws regulating common sense and privacy recently, so it would make for yet another off tune note on the convention floor. The final hours of the nomination aren’t exactly the prime scene to get down in the weeds in this fashion.

That’s not to say that the individual states where liberal Social Justice Warriors attempt to push through initiatives such as we saw in Charlotte shouldn’t be home to these debates. They absolutely should, and like so many other things it’s a question which should be handled at the state level. (Unless and until Loretta Lynch decides to literally make a federal case out of it, that is.) But we should also recognize the places where we need to keep our powder dry and pick our battles wisely. There are obviously some regions where such a plank in the platform would serve as nothing more than fodder for attacks on GOP candidates in marginal seats.

Having the Cruz delegates ready to speak up and provide solid input on the party platform is, without question, a good thing. But on this one topic, I think Cuccinelli would do better to move it to the back burner and focus on the battles which can be won in the short term on the national level.