Posted on 04/17/2016 6:08:24 AM PDT by MaxistheBest
When Phyllis Schlafly endorsed Donald Trump, the wheels started to come off her right-wing empire and allies blame the trouble on Ted Cruz. One of the right-wing’s most prominent empires is reeling — and its president says it’s Ted Cruz’s fault.
Eagle Forum, a conglomerate of conservative groups which anti-feminist icon Phyllis Schlafly started in 1972, has been rocked by inner turmoil over the last week that has pit family members against each other. And the group’s head, Ed Martin, says Cruz’s campaign is using its much-discussed “dirty tricks” to sow conflict in the organization as revenge for Schlafly’s endorsement of Donald Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Saying my position is, in your eyes, hypocritical, is vastly different from labeling me a hypocrite. I accept that my position appears hypocritical to you. Only God, however, knows my heart sufficiently to label me as an across the board hypocrite—or to clear me of the charge.
First of all, outside of a legal fiduciary relationship where privacy of communications is legally enforced, if you send something to someone in an email, they have every right to make it public if they so choose. If you don't want the things you say to be public, then don't send them to other people. That's exactly what happens with people whose nude pictures get put on the internet. If you don't want them on the internet, don't send them.
Second, this isn't just two private people. These are people on an elected board of directors of a non-profit that owes a duty to its members and donors. So emails relating to the business of that entity are much more a matter of public interest than a private email between two friends. Someone who was a board member of the organization has every right to disseminate that email if they believe it to have been inappropriate.
I've served on boards of non-profits, and would never send a "very ugly" email about other people to other board members. I wouldn't write-it unless I would be willing to defend it to the people who are the subjects of it. And if a fellow board member or officer drafted a "very ugly" email that would bring the organization into disrepute, then that is a negative comment on that person's fitness to be involved in the organization.
But the final point I'd make is this -- don't you wonder what it was that was said in that email that caused all of this? Imagine what whomever it was must have said for it to have this kind of repercussions. Apparently, it was bad enough that it has resulted in a changing control over the organization. So, I'd suggest that if someone is going to complain about a board member sending it to the Cruz campaign, perhaps they should just make it public so we can all judge who the real bad guy is here.
You’re right about Franklin Graham. I may have confused him with Jerry Falwell Jr. I’m mildly dyslexic. Yesterday I referred to Paul LePage as LePaul. Well, it made sense at the time. :)
That would be the establishment.
" BTW, if Trump wins the nomination, I will be voting for him as well, can you say the same thing about Cruz ?"
Yep.
lets not get carried away post 44
in public or private
Winning the presidency requires one to win states in a real election with actual voters, something which Cruz is not very good at.
This is the logic of a Stalinist Cruzer who thinks that just because the rules permit something, that it is okay. Most normal people would be very upset if their private communications are spread, and rightly so. Even more bizarre is that these private communications were being shared with a political campaign, and then that campaign reacted by attempting to punish these individuals through their minions on the board. This is the realm of big brother and massive political thuggery.
and would never send a "very ugly" email
More than likely, since you are a very ugly Cruzer, you have probably made some very ugly posts on FR. Mind telling me where you work at, what charitable organizations you work with, so I can catalog and start sending all your online statements to them?
“...the repercussions of that email are what caused the problem.”
The email was private. We all say things in private we don’t want made public.
The one who leaked it is the problem. The email was nobody’s business except the one who mailed it and the one to whom it was mailed, least of all the Cruz campaign.
Lyin’ Ted Quote: “If I can find a way to cheat, I’ll win! In Jesus’ name, Amen!”
Good point, and a reminder for all :)
thanks :) i needed to read those today.
Unfortunate but quite true
I call it as I see it.
You? Please, feel free to “not get carried away, public or private”. I’ll not be your Thought Police.
‘That’s trash about how sharp Ted was in law school is just a signal to the big donors that they don’t have to worry about Ted, not any real indication of what a good student he was no matter whether he was or not. Look at Roberts, that’s what Ted would fill the court with. Two faced SOBs just like Ted.’
This is a great point that I have not seen made elsewhere. Yes, it IS amazing that the brilliant conservatives Bork, Thomas and Scalia garner no hard-leftist praise...but Cruz does. Agree with you about why this is the case, and agree even more with your conclusion that we already have enough lawyers entrenched in the DC Cartel. The lawyers are making matters exponentially worse; time to give a businessman a chance.
I can’t wait til Cruz goes down. If he comes in behind kasich in the northeastern states where people actually vote, he should get the hell out.
It sure seems that way, doesn’t it? Or as Trump put it, “I’m trying to win with the voters; Cruz is trying to win despite them.”
“It sure seems that way, doesn’t it? Or as Trump put it, “I’m trying to win with the voters; Cruz is trying to win despite them.””
Kinda like Jesus aganist Lucifer! One will teach, the other will tell! But I am surprised at all thse supposedly BACs who don’t see this. Being led by the Devil seems so out of character for them.
Totally agree! For a while I thought that when Cruz’ lies hit critical mass, he’d lose some of his more religious FR supporters. That never happened, and like you I am surprised.
Demonstrably false. GQ did no such thing. The photographer, Antoine Verglas, still owns the rights to the photos.
Jeff Roe is so well known for cheating it could have been anybody's assumption...IF not true!
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.