Posted on 02/13/2016 4:04:07 AM PST by Helicondelta
What gets me is that they used actors that appear to support Ted Cruz instead of actual people who do support Ted Cruz.
He was too busy thinking of was to see what dirty tricks the Christian can try in South Carolina.
A quick glance at imdb.com would have given the Cruz staffer the whole list of movies she was in. Somebody wasn’t paying attention to detail.
Then again, most of the people talking up this aspect are likely Dems who get a laugh out of making Repubs look bad. Do I care if an actress has gotten naked in a movie in her younger days? No.
Not a big deal
Not only is she not called a "Television Actress", but the "soft" has been dropped from "soft porn", which is about as steamy as most of what is on cable late at night that isn't either infomercials or cartoons.
Sensationalism prevails.
Actors aren’t actual people? Actors can’t support Ted Cruz, too? She has said she does.
Puszy
Hey I’ve seen her on regular tv before. She played the Doctors future wife in the last episode of Star Trek Voyager.
Are you that dense to think any of them do? Are you that clueless to think they don’t hire a production company to vet those coming to casting call? Let me guess he should have sat in on every interview during casting call during the selection process and forwent the whole hiring the production company.
This whole thing including those running this as an issue are either totally clueless about the management of anything, ignorant or helplessly pathetic...or all 3
“her acting career has included appearances in episodes of some 29 TV series episodes, including Star Trek Voyager.”
Damn. Now I know why I preferred Next Generation to Voyager so much . . .
This is another example of the pointless mud-slinging that distracts everyone from the actual policy positions and ideological foundations of the candidates. Hey, let’s ignore what the candidates actually BELIEVE and WILL DO, and just focus on some utterly trivial third-rate side issue that is five rungs down the ladder.
You’re being played, folks.
Time for this staffer’s head to role.
2. Cruz doesn't fully vet who is chosen and ends up with a mild embarrassment.
3. Then Cruz, who's moved his campaign to a strong emphasis of Christian values, yanks the ad. Aren't Christians about redemption?
4. The incident is one of the most mentioned factoids on this morning's TV news.
Something to offend just about everyone, except the most enthusiastic Cruzers. It's not a huge snafu, of course. It's another situation that has a lot of folks scratching their heads about his "do what it takes" campaign, and how good his judgement is.
Pretty much. I guess "The ends justify the means" is OK as long as it's our side that's doing it, eh? ;-)
Porn stars for Jesus.
It’s just a commercial. Cruz approved the idea, not the means of production. Non issue for those who can reason.
So this is what interests the Mighty NY Times?
How about doing some investigating reporting to radical mosques in NYC?
Oh, too difficult? No interest?
Poor Teddy , doesn’t even vet his commercial not ready for prime time
I sincerely doubt that Ted Cruz is interviewing the people that are used in his commercials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.