So the National Enquirer accuses Cruz of having affairs. Thus far, this story doesn't seem to have any legs. I think there are several reasons for that:
i) The National Enquirer lacks credibility. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but there's no presumption that it's right. Every week, as you wait in line at the checkout stand, you're subjected to hyperbolic headlines. The print equivalent of clickbait.
ii) I've read that two of the named women in the story have denied the allegations.
iii) Another problem is how the allegations cut against the grain of Cruz's dorky image. These aren't accusations of harassment, but affairs. Sexual harassment involves unwanted overtures, but affairs are consensual. Cruz's dweebish demeanor makes him an implausible ladykiller. I'm not saying it can't be true, yet he seems miscast for the role that the National Inquirer has assigned to him.
iv) But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the charges are true. Let's further assume that Hillary will be the Democrat nominee:
Given a choice, I'd vote for a vicious candidate with virtuous policies over a vicious candidate with vicious policies.
What is more, I'd vote for a vicious candidate with virtuous policies over a virtuous candidate with vicious policies.
When I vote for a candidate, that's not an endorsement of the person. That just means I think they have better policies. The pertinent question is not, in the first instance, is he (or she) a good or bad person, but will he do good things for Americans or bad things to Americans. It's less about his personal morality than the morality of his presidential initiatives.
Ted Cruz was recently on Jimmy Kimmel. On YouTube his interview is split into 4 videos. It's not surprising that most of the videos have more (or vastly more) thumbs down votes than thumbs up, since most viewers are probably democrats and liberal in their views. But it's interesting that one of the videos for a while had many more thumbs up than down. Now, it's about equal. The video I'm referring to shows more of the truly human side of Cruz. He mentions his love of Star Wars, early years of going to concerts etc.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmI6JQz2M10
I suspect Cruz is a geek at heart. A devious and cunning geek but a geek nonetheless. For example, watch him re-enact a scene from the Princess Bride movie, parody Christmas classics such as How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and take a page from the geek cult classic Office Space.
DeleteAh, yes. The interview in which Cruz jokes about running over Trump with his car. I'm still waiting for the ever consistent #NeverTrumpers to denounce him for his "violence-inciting rhetoric."
DeleteI'm sure it'll happen any day now.
It partly depends what you mean by "consistent," but what makes you think one needs to be "consistent" to "denounce" Trump?
DeleteAlso, Trump himself is hardly "consistent." Just witness how Trump has flipped on the recent "punishing" women for abortion.
And Trump has "joked" he'd shoot his own supporters. Among many other problematic statements.
Stop deflecting and address the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a big deal made about Trump's "coarseness," his "vulgarity," and his supposed violence-inciting rhetoric. The #NeverTrump Cruzers have made just as big a deal about this "unacceptable" language as anyone. Cruz himself blamed the Chicago riot at one of Trump's campaign rallies on Trump himself (even though it was the leftist/BLM agitators who initiated the conflict and committed the vast majority of the violence), stating that culpability starts at the top.
And yet here Ted Cruz jokes openly about running over Trump with his car and yet I have yet to hear a single denunciation of this "vulgar" and "violent" rhetoric from the pro-Cruz/#NeverTrump camp, the same camp that would be going ballistic had Trump joked about running over Cruz with his car.
No, you don't have have to be consistent to dislike Trump. But I do find the blatant hypocrisy to be both amusing and quite telling.
"Stop deflecting and address the issue at hand."
DeleteWhat's funny is you're the one who "deflected" by bringing up the consistency issue.
I'm just responding to you based on what you said.
"And yet here Ted Cruz jokes openly about running over Trump with his car and yet I have yet to hear a single denunciation of this "vulgar" and "violent" rhetoric from the pro-Cruz/#NeverTrump camp, the same camp that would be going ballistic had Trump joked about running over Cruz with his car."
I don't have a problem "denouncing" Cruz. In fact, I've said elsewhere there are some serious issues with Cruz. However, I'd still vote Cruz over Trump.
By the way, you're too uptight. The whole "running over Trump" thing was a joke. Just get over it.
At worst, it was a joke in poor taste. If so, then I'd have no problem "denouncing" it. However, we have to consider it's not exactly entirely unjustified. For instance, Trump has made some not so discrete personal attacks against Cruz and his wife. Yet Trump acts as if he didn't intend it. And Trump's supporters make excuses for Trump.
"No, you don't have have to be consistent to dislike Trump."
Thanks for conceding - although I didn't say "dislike." That's your equivocation.
"But I do find the blatant hypocrisy to be both amusing and quite telling."
What's more amusing is you don't seem aware people running for political office can be hypocritical. Perhaps you're too naive.
I, for one, have never cited Trump's vulgarity as my primary reason for opposing him. And Cruz's statement was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Trump, by contrast, has offered to pay the legal bills of supporters who attack protestors. That's hardly comparable.
DeleteI'm not as keen on Cruz as some supporters. For instance, I don't approve of how he publicized the death of his stepsister.