Welcome to the Party How long was she going to sit this out?
Or was she going to be the ornament never discussed?
Either way, the ad has, at the bottom in the fine print
"Paid for by make America Awesome. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee."
Within hours of the story breaking, Cruz had said, simply, that the ad was 'not one of ours'--pretty obvious he had no knowledge of it.
You may debate away (as many have) whether he knew or didn't know, but the fact is that the PAC is not legally part of the Campaign, and coordination between Cruz and a non-affiliated PAC would be a violation of Federal Election law. One ad isn't worth that.
Now do you want a president who will jump up and apologize for everything on the planet, whether we had anything to do with it or not?
Oh wait, we have one of those--he is out doing that as we type this exchange (last seen apologizing to a local of The International Brotherhood of Llama Milkers in the Argentine or someone else, it is hard to keep the list current.).
Now, I have little doubt that few here, for whatever reason, be it eagerness to twit their hatred, or other distractions, never saw or read that statement at the bottom of the ad. Others refuse to believe it, and would continue that way short of Divine Intervention. I can't help that.
All suspicion and innuendo about Mrs. Trump aside, her actions as a model were known, and presumed voluntary (or professional--however you want to look at it--that was her job). The image was not a mischaracterization but a published image, and there were degrees of separation between Cruz and the ad. Cruz disavowed the ad, saying it is 'not one of ours'.
Attribution was right there, on the ad, send the dogs after them.
Again, why should he feel a need to decry someone else' actions?
The funny part, is that here we are again, again. No matter what he said or didn't say, did or did not do, Trump supporters were lined up to play it against him.
However, Trump undeniably attacks Cruz' wife twice, and that's okay because supposedly Cruz started it.
If you become a candidate, your expectations of privacy are over.
America wants to know the people representing them are people they want to be represented by.
As for prospective first ladies, Heidi Cruz has been in this, probed, if you will, by the media since at least October of 2013.
Right, 2013 seen here
Now was the rant you speak of after Trump tweeted his remarks about Mrs. Ted? Because that was an undeniable direct attack by Trump on the wife of another candidate. Not to mention an unflattering picture. There are much better ones out there.
At least the Make America Awesome ad had an image which was, well, complimentary.
People have been attacking Heidi Cruz over writing a paragraph in a CFR NAFTA report, and over working at Goldman Sachs.
Why isn't it fair game to look at Mrs. Trump’s employment history?
If we look at First Ladies, just for a second. I'm not sure where you will start to recall impressions of them, but here is a list, and recollections will admittedly be colored by the civility of the media and the public's expectations of the day: Eleanor Roosevelt, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Jackie Kennedy, Ladybird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama.
In the shuffle back and forth across the political aisle, the argument could be readily made that one side gets higher, the other lower, (and although I think Bill Clinton would make the worst 'first lady' yet, after the current administration he would be free to identify as he chose and use either restroom. I wonder if herself isn't going to have him have a misfortune, cash in, and...well, that's speculation for another time)
"He doesn't "look" the part. Perhaps, maybe, because I don't find Cruz appealing ..."
Recall, Bill Clinton rode the women's vote into office because women found him 'sexier' than GHW 'daddy' Bush and again because he was ‘prettier’ than Bob Dole.
That worked out real well (/s), although I believe we were already seeing the horns of the Uniparty poking out of the swamp, and I believed it then. ('W' was not my first pick.)
At any rate, "The tweet he was unhappy about was not even a super PAC supporting me. It is an independent group. I don’t know them,” Cruz said. "When Donald gets scared, when he gets angry, when he gets threatened ... So last night Donald threatened my wife, he went directly after my wife."source
Even if the first had been a wrong, two wrongs would not make a right.
Protest away, but retaliate and say that is justified by, well, bad data, and lose the high ground.
Our fiction is full of heroes who avert global nuclear war and Mutually Assured Destruction (TEOTWAWKI) because those heroes correctly attributed some heinous attack to someone other than a nation with a full retaliatory strike capability and stopped TPTB from pushing The Button. (A Clear and Present Danger comes to mind, right off.)
I guess it is a question of who you want to run with the football. I would prefer someone with a more level head.
Have a blessed Good Friday, onyx.
A smear requires that an accusation is based on a lie. Mrs. Trump did pose immodestly, and it wasn’t a big secret except to those of us who don’t prowl the web for those kind of pictures. Do the Trump supporters really believe that Hillary wouldn’t use such images against Trump if he becomes the nominee?
