Posted on 03/22/2016 7:26:50 PM PDT by Mariner
Sheesh. It wouldn't take long for that to amount to a denial of service attack. Anyone could hang Cruz' name on an ad somewhere and he'd be stuck having to renounce it.
If the message that the ad was approved by Cruz was not present, it wasn't approved. I thought that was why those messages were put on ads in the first place.
How can he pull an ad he didn't put out?
OK
Are you playing clean-up, Joe?
This has been adequately discussed in dozens of previous posts on this thread.
Cruz said a candidate is responsible for the tone of the campaign. Someone acting on behalf of HIS campaign brought the wives into the fray.
So, what's Cruz going to do about it?
He could disavow the actions of the PAC acting on his behalf--he cannot direct them, but he can criticize them.
Since he has not, he must agree with them.
Thus, Lyin' Ted, the embodiment of the Mormon White Horse Prophecy, is appropriately named.
He is not obligated to refute every thing some bonehead NOT connected with his campaign does.
For all we know, (considering the incredible downside to such an ad) the ad wasn't even put out by someone who 'supports' Cruz, but someone out to scuttle him. Dirty Tricks!
If he had nothing to do with the ad, something which is obvious from the article, he should not have to disavow it.
Otherwise anyone with a YouTube account could be out there making Trump ads which really curl your hair and Trump would have to spend all his time disavowing them.
Joe, can we at least have a shred of honesty on the Cruz side?
Cruz has nailed Trump on Chicago, and on the one old man that elbowed a protester in the face. Lying about what Trump said, in order to reinforce the theme that Trump has set a terrible tone for his campaign.
So what is good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t Joe?
Here’s another saying that works equally well: Silence is consent.
Onus is on your candidate for the next move. Hopefully he can say something that hasn’t already been said in a Hollywood movie.
Don’t forget: a PAC,not Cruz, did a crummy thing. Then Trump, NOT A PAC, did a worse thing by threatening Mrs Cruz.
Cruz is Satan. Right?
As others have posted, silence is consent.
And, as (supposed protector of the Constitution) Ted Cruz said earlier, "A candidate bears responsibility for the culture of a campaign."
Hey Joy!
....yes, you are right.
It would appear Cruz had some level of responsibility in smearing Melania....
Trump will never ‘overlook’ that, and I don’t blame him.
Cruz keeps stepping in it!
"An accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."
Always nice to hear from a Hillary Voter.
Nice try, but far more accurate and extensive definition from Wikipedia:
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing or other business areas.
Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. “Plant” and “stooge” more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician’s audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).
I am not a shill—don’t slander—its not nice.
I never, ever cite Wikipedia as a source. You need to find a source that is more authoritative.
Oh, I see, your 2 sentences are more authoritative... Whatever...Not worth the bandwidth to debate it, Fiji. Really don’t care what you think...Seriously, I don’t. Sheesh!
Regardless of what you say, I am not a shill. However, even a shill is better than a troll voting for Hillary like you stated you are going to do if Cruz is not elected.
So you think running an ad showing Mrs.Trump nude, but strategically covered — was flattering to Mrs.Cruz?
That it wasn’t taking advantage of her and exploiting a previous career, to target Mormons who would be so offended they’d vote for Cruz instead of Trump?
You think Trump should have accepted that it wasn’t personal and they weren’t exploiting his wife by dragging her into a negative ad that benefited Cruz? And when Trump challenged Cruz, his only response was (typically) to keep insisting it wasn’t related to him? When he was directly benefiting from the ad?
Seriously?
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.