[VanDeKoik]

Think back to when Cruz last year said he would not make Bill Clinton an issue in the election, and we were all wondering why the hell would he say that?

Well duh! Cruz knew that this was out there, and the Dems would play those cards hard the minute Cruz even mentioned Bill, so he wanted to make it clear to them that he would not go there in, I suppose, some attempt to stave off retaliation by the Dems with the one thing that will easily blow him right out of the water.

[Tucker39]

This right here, to my mind, is the real nugget! No pyrite here. WHY would Cruz blurt THAT out at the very beginning of the campaign. An attempt to make an unofficial deal to keep extra-marital affairs off limits.

[poconopundit]

Makes you wonder how the Golden Sacks and other donors select their Presidential hopefuls to back.

Clearly they try to hedge their bets, not knowing which will be successful. Perhaps they use the following criteria in selecting the perfect candidates to support:

1. A good public speaker
2. Someone who appeals to a certain demographic -- Cruz was supposedly Evangelical and Tea Party. Rubio was the young Jack Kennedy -- attractive to Hispanics and GOPe.
3. Someone who can be controlled and proven to carry the water for key issues like -- Cheap Labor Express and TPP.
4. Past history flaws that are useful to exploit in the general election. For instance, if Cruz got the nomination he would have fulfilled the donor's mission of taking out a guy like Trump, but then sacrificed to make way for the more controllable Clinton.

[Arthur McGowan]

When Cruz said that, I thought, “Oh, no. Another candidate who is more interested in moral preening than in winning.”

Besides, HILLARY’S terrorizing of Bill’s victims is a legitimate issue. The Clintons ALREADY had eight years of terrorizing their enemies with the IRS, etc.

When a candidate engages in pre-emptive surrender, he’s an insider.