In the recent debate between Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and his Democratic challenger, U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, Cruz told us to pay attention not to Allred’s words but to his actions.

It is generally good advice, and we have heeded it by carefully examining both men’s records in public office, from their votes to their legislation.

But Cruz’s advice can only take us so far. Because words do matter, and they matter especially in the business of leadership.

So we looked not only at their actions but also listened to their words, and, after doing so, we recommend voters cast their ballots for Allred in the coming election.

The three-term congressman from Dallas has demonstrated over time that both the words and action of bipartisanship matter to him.

There are areas where we disagree with Allred, and there are areas where we are more aligned with Cruz. For example, we think Democrats, including Allred, were far too late in recognizing that our porous southern border represents a destabilizing crisis. And Allred’s description of a proposed border wall as “racist” was a serious error in judgment when physical barriers have long been integral to border security, as Allred now acknowledges.

But Cruz had the opportunity to support a step toward a solution with the bipartisan Lankford-Sinema bill that would have provided massive resources for border security. He refused, calling the bill a “steaming pile of crap.” Allred voted in favor of it, recognizing it as an imperfect but necessary step forward.

Similarly, Cruz could have supported the bipartisan CHIPs and Science Act to boost onshore microchip production. Building chips here is vital to American security because Taiwan, where most chips are produced, is vulnerable to Chinese aggression. But on this important matter, Cruz voted no. Allred voted yes.

Cruz, 53, could have supported the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to help rebuild our country. Sixteen Republican senators joined in supporting that act. But Cruz refused. In the House, Allred joined with Republicans and Democrats in voting yes.

Cruz could have supported the peaceful transfer of power in the 2020 presidential election. He instead was the first senator to rise in objection to certifying the electoral vote and one of just six to do so. His actions were a catalyst for what became one of the worst days in our nation’s history.

Yes, you can find examples of Cruz sponsoring bipartisan bills. But these are often peripheral matters. On the items of crucial importance to our country, he digs in in the most partisan mode possible, making no room for common ground.

Meanwhile, the Common Ground Committee has twice named Allred, 41, the most bipartisan member of Congress. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has singled him out for bipartisan work.

Cruz has long embraced a politics of division. His us-against-them rhetoric has defined his political career since at least 2012. Members of his own party, from Lindsey Graham to John Boehner, have been open about their low opinion of him.

Allred, meanwhile, speaks and acts in ways that demonstrate he is willing to treat differences as things we overcome, rather than root in.

And on the most important issues we face, he is willing to compromise in the name of solutions and moving forward together.

For that reason, we think he is the better choice.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com