I notice a lot of sympathy for Ted Cruz from Beltway pundits in his latest fights with Donald Trump and funny enough, I feel no sympathy for Cruz whatsoever. Just review his own body of work and whatever he gets now is pure Karma.
Cruz did start it off in the gutter with that picture of Trump's wife. Now, ok, it was a super PAC but we know that's often a distinction with little difference. It's not as if Ted Cruz has disavowed the super PAC in question.
Now we have the National Enquirer story about Cruz's alleged affairs and there are all these pundits trying to defend him. I'm certainly not interested in defending Ted Cruz. How do I know whether he has or has not been faithful to his wife?
The media defense of Cruz also irritates me as they all took Trump's side when he went after Bill's past infidelities. Why is that relevant to Hillary's campaign in 2016 what Bill did in 1996?
It seems that the 'penchant for sexism' is not just Donald Trump's the Beltway press which was delighted to have the issue of Monica Lewinsky reopened.
"How Much Should We Care About Ted Cruz’s Alleged Affairs?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-press-coverage-213769#ixzz440tZjTtF
With Hillary the infidelities that she was a victim of 20 years ago, the media has decided remain 'fair game.' With Ted Cruz they have a different standard. Now are these stories true? Again, I have no idea.
"To be sure, with the Evangelical voters, it may not matter whether it's true or not. The accusation could be enough:
"How much damage will the National Enquirer allegations do to the Cruz campaign? According to Gawker, which has read the story, none of the alleged paramours are named, and their photos reproduced in the piece are pixilated, presumably to deter speedy identification. How can we convict on such sketchy evidence, even if that sketchy evidence appears to be more substantial than Lessard’s case against Kennedy? On the other hand, the publication has a pretty good track record catching cheating notables (Hart, Edwards, Tiger Woods, Jesse Jackson). Maybe it has temporarily vagued-out the specifics of Cruz’s alleged affairs because it plans to drip-drip-drip the details into the public over the course of several issues to sell more copies."
"If true, the story will be damaging. But even if false, which is entirely possible, the charges will be almost as damaging to Cruz, because he can’t afford to spend scarce time and political capital on the controversy to refute and erase the stain. He’s too busy fighting Trump for the nomination!"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-press-coverage-213769#ixzz440uhJ3nu
Cruz did start it off in the gutter with that picture of Trump's wife. Now, ok, it was a super PAC but we know that's often a distinction with little difference. It's not as if Ted Cruz has disavowed the super PAC in question.
Now we have the National Enquirer story about Cruz's alleged affairs and there are all these pundits trying to defend him. I'm certainly not interested in defending Ted Cruz. How do I know whether he has or has not been faithful to his wife?
The media defense of Cruz also irritates me as they all took Trump's side when he went after Bill's past infidelities. Why is that relevant to Hillary's campaign in 2016 what Bill did in 1996?
It seems that the 'penchant for sexism' is not just Donald Trump's the Beltway press which was delighted to have the issue of Monica Lewinsky reopened.
"How Much Should We Care About Ted Cruz’s Alleged Affairs?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-press-coverage-213769#ixzz440tZjTtF
With Hillary the infidelities that she was a victim of 20 years ago, the media has decided remain 'fair game.' With Ted Cruz they have a different standard. Now are these stories true? Again, I have no idea.
"To be sure, with the Evangelical voters, it may not matter whether it's true or not. The accusation could be enough:
"How much damage will the National Enquirer allegations do to the Cruz campaign? According to Gawker, which has read the story, none of the alleged paramours are named, and their photos reproduced in the piece are pixilated, presumably to deter speedy identification. How can we convict on such sketchy evidence, even if that sketchy evidence appears to be more substantial than Lessard’s case against Kennedy? On the other hand, the publication has a pretty good track record catching cheating notables (Hart, Edwards, Tiger Woods, Jesse Jackson). Maybe it has temporarily vagued-out the specifics of Cruz’s alleged affairs because it plans to drip-drip-drip the details into the public over the course of several issues to sell more copies."
"If true, the story will be damaging. But even if false, which is entirely possible, the charges will be almost as damaging to Cruz, because he can’t afford to spend scarce time and political capital on the controversy to refute and erase the stain. He’s too busy fighting Trump for the nomination!"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-press-coverage-213769#ixzz440uhJ3nu
No comments:
Post a Comment