[DouglasKC]

I've seen many Ted Cruz supporters take to defending their guy in various ways against this story, including calling the source (NE) into question. That is certainly a legitimate defense. Maybe I've missed it but what I haven't seen from Cruz supporters is a defense of "Impossible! Ted Cruz would NEVER do that!" That's because even Cruz supporters are (subconsciously) afraid that there might some truth to this story since it becomes more obvious every day that he is not quite the guy we were sold.

What we haven't seen yet is Cruz demanding that Enquirer retract this supposedly false story or face a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Gawker just lost one to Hulk Hogan and there was video evidence of that! The longer Cruz doesn't threaten legal action against the Enquirer the more it seems that he thinks the Enquirer has the goods and is holding it back...for now.

[VanDeKoik]

“Maybe I’ve missed it but what I haven’t seen from Cruz supporters is a defense of “Impossible! Ted Cruz would NEVER do that!” That’s because even Cruz supporters are (subconsciously) afraid that there might some truth to this story since it becomes more obvious every day that he is not quite the guy we were sold”

It represents something that has disturbed me since last summer.

That Cruz has major holes in his biography. We only keep hearing stuff like he was a debate champion in college, and that he memorized the constitution at 13 or some loose idea of his life as an adult.

I will admit I had never heard of the guy until 2015, and still don’t know much about him.

The fact that this is met with no real sense that I isn’t possible, shows that many of his supporters hold open the chance that he did.

[utahagen]

Have been reading the National Enquirer for more than forty years, happen to be a lawyer, and understand the Enquirer breaks real stories. So far, the Enquirer has been careful to report on what the rumors are, which is different than reporting on what the Enquirer alleges is news. It is possible that Cruz is waiting to read the Enquirer’s next story. If the Enquirer publishes a straightforward “Ted Cruz has had mistresses” story — meaning reports it as news, as opposed to reports there are rumors — then Cruz must demand a retraction. At this point, however, it would make no sense for Cruz to demand that the Enquirer retract an assertion that there are rumors he’s had affairs, since it seems there are, indeed, rumors of such. (I know this sounds silly, but the legal differences matter. If the next Enquirer story is a real “this-is-going-on-story”, and Cruz doesn’t demand a retraction, I’ll concede the underlying story probably is true.)

[AndyTheBear]

Not a great analogy...the gawker lawsuit was about showing the video not about making false accusations