Cruz has a role to play in this primary, and has played it well. His role was not as a legitimate contender, but rather as a vote/delegate splitter. The original "splitter" plan was designed to result in a Jeb Bush nomination. Once that plan became non-viable, the modified plan was to ensure a brokered convention.
So cool that I get to use this phrase 2 days in a row, but I think that's some retconning. If Cruz was intended to "play a role" as vote splitter, I don't think he knew that.
So, either way, Ted Cruz winning states/primaries helps the GOPe, because it hinders Trump.
If that's the case, then Carson had the same "role"?
I will absolutely agree that Trump is the antithesis of the GOPe. The last few election cycles - and debate stages chock full of candidates of arguable legitimacy - reveal divisions within the larger GOP and even the GOPe.
Cruz's candidacy was born from one part of the GOP. As the campaign played out, he has expanded that base - part by his actions/positions, and part by attrition. That doesn't make him necessarily a GOPe guy.
Going back to something I brought up earlier - and I apologize if I missed your response - do you automatically assume that every long-time Republican politician is beholden to the entirety of the GOPe? It just seems like you view the GOPe as monolithic, demanding oaths of fealty from every Republican politician. I think that misses significant differences, and nuances.