Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ted Cruz, Weasel
On my first viewing, I was quite moved by this:
Ted Cruz: "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father." https://t.co/LMsN84Z2IT
— CNN (@CNN) July 21, 2016
On my second, I realized a very serious problem with it: By implication, Ted Cruz was fine — absolutely fine — with Trump mocking Ben Carson’s faith, a reporter’s physical handicap, and John McCain’s torture. And that’s just the stuff off the top of my head.
If Cruz had said “Trump’s attacks on my family opened my eyes to his abuses and I repent that I didn’t take a stand against them when others were similarly attacked” then I’d be really moved. As it is… Look, I’m glad to see someone show some spine, but I really wish it wasn’t so nakedly self-interested.
Published in General
That’s well put, I think.
And we all should have objected to the verbal abuse Trump heaped on his opponents and their families. Its unseemly and unbecoming a true leader.
This is the stuff of school-yard bullies.
Ummm. Don’t agree. He said when it got personal. He didn’t say everything else didn’t matter. I don’t think you can infer that the other stuff wasn’t important. For me, that’s a step too far. If someone attacked my family, I’d be done. Remember, not a Cruz or Trump fan.
I was a huge fan of Ted Cruz until last night. It was obvious to me that the anger he just expressed was the motivation for his non-endorsement speech last night. Nothing good ever results from allowing yourself to be moved by anger. In being moved by that anger, Cruz blew an opportunity which could have helped us all. He could have acknowledged the slanders and the bad blood and he then could have conditionally endorsed Trump: “if you (Trump) delegate to us (the Conservative Caucus) on questions of Constitutionality, then we endorse you.”
Some people worry that Trump needs to be reigned in, and perhaps they are right. Last night, Cruz blew our best chance for that to happen… because he was angry.
Is that really what his position was, or was he simply leaving others to their own fights with Trump? I’m sure he was asked about those statements, but I can’t recall what he answered.
…
Disagree. Cruz doesn’t need to defend Carson or others. He was personally offended by the attacks on his wife and father. I would be also. His suggestion to “Vote your conscience.” was as supportive as anyone needs or deserves.
Bunch of cry-babies.
Hence, Trump.
This is a good point, but I think we’re asking more of Ted Cruz than we would ask of anyone else in this situation.
But Trump’s behavior toward McCain, Carson, and that reporter was just as personal and undignified as making fun of Heidi’s looks and making up stuff about Raphael.
I’m unimpressed when people who had been idly standing suddenly invoke principle the moment it works in their self-interest.
Let me put this another way:
My take is that this is a clever way to not endorse Trump, but without putting undue pressure on others to not endorse Trump. Cruz said his reason for not endorsing Trump is “personal,” and personal reasons are only binding on the individual person. Thus, one may speculate that as a matter of politics, Cruz would endorse Trump, and is only doing so for personal reasons. I imagine Cruz also opposes Trump politically, but by citing personal reasons for the non-endorsement, one can only speculate whether Cruz prefers Trump over the other candidates or not.
I think it is possible that when the argument about conscience and principles failed, he decided to also back it up with a personal argument. Frankly, I’ll take what I can get at this point.
When I think about voting for Trump, I feel like I’m failing morally. When I think about not voting for Trump and facilitating Hillary’s election, I feel like I’m failing morally. I have to remember that I’m not the problem here, and neither is Ted Cruz.
If you jump from the flames of a burning building to fall to your death, that isn’t suicide.
You’re right that he didn’t say the other stuff didn’t matter. He just acted like they didn’t matter. Actions speak louder than words. Cruz was fine with Trump when Trump was going after everyone else.
I give credit to Cruz for what he did last night. That doesn’t mean I’ll forgive his shameless toadying of the first six months of the campaign.
That’s dark. And sadly true…
I would like to say that I don’t agree with your calling Cruz a weasel, though. I believe he did the right thing, but in a self-interested way. Calling him a weasel puts you in Trump territory. If I were you, I’d get the heck outta there!
Then again, those other people had public political forums to speak out. Heidi and his father did not. And you can characterize what Trump said any way that you wish, but it doesn’t change my mind.
I agree that my biggest problem with Cruz is that he didn’t attack Trump earlier when others were. I infer that this was a cynical political calculation to not alienate Trump supporters, and it’s not to Cruz’s credit.
I don’t agree at all that this implies Cruz was fine with Trump attacking Carson, et al. We don’t know what Cruz would have done if Trump had not called Heidi ugly and accused Raul of murdering JFK. What we know is that Trump did, and Cruz is not willing too reward him for it.
Cruz this morning: “This is not a game, it is not politics. Right and wrong matters; we have not abandoned who we are in this country.”
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2414095
If he corrects the statement — again, just says that he should have stood up for the others, too — I’ll revise my comments. That would show serious character.
Hm.m.m. Say, doesn’t calling him a w….l that violate the CoC?
And — based on his words and actions — right and wrong only seem to matter when it’s your family being personally attacked and belittled.
Tom, I see your point, but it’s too big a leap for me.
After watching the Cruz clips, I found this on youtube. I am not a Trekkie, but the lines from this scene are part of our family culture. I won’t be naive and say that politics shouldn’t be dirty, that’s delusional. But Cruz had a decision to make, and for him the attacks were personal. To not stand up and criticize the other attacks doesn’t mean he concurs or they don’t warrant a response. To me this said, “I get politics, and I can play the game, but I won’t sacrifice these pieces.”
Let’s remember, these attacks by Trump and part and parcel of his character. They will not change. Cruz explained his pledge, which is the part he needs to explain. Then, he’s done. no problem there.
But I may be short-tempered about this, as I spent last night getting an earful from relatives about my moral and spiritual responsibilities to vote for Trump because I live in a swing state. So, in my impertinent state, this just makes me actually like Cruz, which is a step in the positive direction for me.
I don’t think Cruz should have spoken at the convention because it was bound to go badly. The people opted out of speaking this year took the wiser course of action. If Cruz wanted to speak to his supporters, he could rounded them up in smaller groups and made a YouTube speech. That would have made a lot more sense.
I agree with this. Implication by omission isn’t a very good assumption to make. It’s kind of like all the “well, Jesus never said a word about…” arguments that get thrown around by people. That Cruz didn’t mention every grievance in a tweet (or even if it was an interview) doesn’t really mean anything except that he didn’t mention those things. Perhaps he didn’t have space, perhaps he didn’t want to overstep and appear to be really attacking Trump out of sour apples. I think there are a lot of explanations for this without necessarily assuming that he was absolutely fine with Trumps other inappropriate rhetoric.
All those other people willingly stepped into public life, so though Trump’s treatment of them was shameful, they are in the ring. Cruz can be forgiven for drawing a line between those in the ring and those who are related to those in the ring. He wasn’t appointed Donald’s conscience. That’s probably a lost cause anyway.
That he is angry also doesn’t detract from the sincerity of his principles. I get angry. I have principles. Sometimes my anger and my principles amplify one another (and then my kids go quietly to their rooms.)
I think Ted Cruz is a pretty authentic character, warts and all. He wasn’t my choice when we thought this was a regular race and I don’t know if he’ll ever be my choice for the presidency. I am very glad his voice is out there and glad he’s not slinking away. Roll up the sleeves, because we have work to do and need all hands on deck.
Agreed, Susan. “Every man is, no doubt, by nature, first and principally recommended to his own care; and as he is fitter to take care of himself than of any other person,” and, by extension, each of us is more fit to take care of our own, whether “our own” are family members, close friends – those people whom we know well enough for it to be reasonable that we, not others, can best serve as their allies and guardians.
Among some men, not allowing a man to take care of his own bullies is even seen as a sign of disrespect, of communicating suspicion that the other man is not manly enough to handle bullies on his own. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a man to act as if defending his family members while not mentioning other men similarly attacked is the proper manly thing to do.
Okay, this is an extreme example, but how would you feel if I said “I’m sorry, but I can no longer recommend Hannibal Lecter after he ate my family. That was a bridge too far.”
Assuming that I knew Lecter was already a serial killer and cannibal, doesn’t this imply that I did recommend him up to the point that my loved ones became his dinner?
Cruz’ upset over the slurs on his family are entirely valid.
However.
He did much the same, if less personally insulting, with the behaviors you cited in OP. Neither excuses the other; both were reprehensible actions. Nevertheless, Cruz gave his wholly uncaveated commitment, his later claims of caveats notwithstanding, as he acknowledged in so many words last March.
“Senator Cruz, yes or no – you will support Donald Trump if he is the nominee,” asked moderate Bret Baier.
“Yes, because I gave my word that I would,” Cruz replied.
Cruz showed no spine here. On the contrary, Cruz, with this welching on his commitment, has demonstrated that he cannot ever be trusted: he might break his next commitment; or the one after that; or a later one, still; or all of them when it becomes inconvenient to him to honor it or them. Integrity isn’t measured by the easy commitments one keeps. It’s measured by the difficult ones.
Eric Hines
(Aside: OK, I am done trying to “quote post” and “quote comment,” neither of which seems to be working properly at the moment.)
Tom, I love you, but you can’t be equating Ben Carson and John McCain with the unfortunate and helpless victims of the Nazi purges, and ultimately, the Holocaust. Either of these men is quite capable of speaking for himself, and in fact, they both have, endorsing, or supporting, Trump with more, or fewer, degrees of enthusiasm.
Cruz feels differently. And if my opponent had gone off the rails with respect to me and my family, as Trump did with respect to Cruz and his family, I might have done exactly what he did: speak softly, but clearly, and leave the decision to the voters.
Those who think Cruz was ungracious have a choice. Answer “ungraciousness” with graciousness, and move on. Or, answer “ungraciousness” by piling on and, yet again, making the family of the offender the issue.
It’s pretty clear which route the Trump supporters have chosen. Shame on them.
Trump is the nominee. He’s sure he can win without the conservative wing of the Republican party.
Let’s see if the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Can we please move on?