Posted on 12/11/2015 5:40:01 AM PST by VinL
One day after a report that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned Donald Trump's "judgement" in a private event, Trump called out Cruz for criticizing him behind close doors but refraining from negative comments in public.
Looks like @tedcruz is getting ready to attack. I am leading by so much he must. I hope so, he will fall like all others. Will be easy!
.@tedcruz should not make statements behind closed doors to his bosses, he should bring them out into the open - more fun that way!
Cruz has so far refrained from bashing Trump in public. After Trump announced his proposal to ban Muslims from coming to the United States, Cruz disagreed but stopped short of condemning Trump's remarks.
But the Texas senator spoke about Trump and Ben Carson during a Manhattan fundraiser on Wednesday, according to the New York Times.
"Who am I comfortable having their finger on the button? Now that’s a question of strength, but it’s also a question of judgment. And I think that is a question that is a challenging question for both of them," Cruz said of Trump and Carson.
Cruz has started gaining on Trump in the key primary state of Iowa, which may be making Trump uneasy. The real estate mogul has a habit of attacking his Republican rivals when they rise in the polls, as both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal noted this week. Trump may have released his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country in an attempt to boost his support with evangelical voters in Iowa.
Well, good point! It’s a lot like the Don advocating a temporary moratorium on immigration and the media turning it into a Muslim ban. And the response is, England are now thinking about banning HIM.
Good analysis.
‘This type of evasion isn’t going to work...’
I would mention that it didn’t work for Wiener, but I wouldn’t want Cruz supporters to go apoplectic by imagining I was comparing the two.
You might have your judgment biased because you want to think the best of everybody, but objectively, it's clear Cruz was calling them unserious candidates with questionable judgment, and even seemed to be gloating that he was "smothering them with love."
Interesting analysis, especially the female perspective.
You’re right. Cruz should be AG or SCOTUS.
They might. But they might vote for Trump over the communist. It’s a weird year.
Well if that was actually the choice, the people in the middle would go with Cruz.
Nice attempt with the strawman argument however.
“I assumed he was speaking as a general proposition, and not over a particular issue.”
I hope you’re right. Crews is being evasive last I heard. If he directly remarked that good judgment is a challenge to another candidate, he best be ready with the facts. Either that, or he could question ‘presentation’ I suppose or nitpick some particular of an otherwise sound idea. That would help him save face.
I hate nitpicking, but I don’t want Cruz to destroy himself either.
You should be. He delivered TPA to them.
The media is desperate to start a fight between the two, and I suspect that both men are far too smart to be goaded that way.
More so, I suspect that they are both willing to put out feints at each other, figuring that the media will bite, then they can dismiss them as non-issues.
“I dislike his pronunciation of the word ‘tomato’”
“It is not unusual for some people to call them ‘to-mah-toes’”.
NYT headline: “Bitter Vegetable Fight Between Trump And Cruz Highlights The Mean-Spirited Divisiveness of Republican Politics.”
Spin away, everyone that reads the quote knows what Cruz was saying about Trump. Cruz, like the weasel lawyer he is, just will not say it in plain language or apparently in public.
Cruz says he hasn’t attacked Trump, but by my counts Cruz has attacked Trump 3 times recently.
1) He attacked Trump by saying he didn’t agree with Trump’s list and database. (truth is Trump never said anything about a list, he was talking about a wall and as Mark Levin said, there will be lists and databases, info is stored in a database. are there no databases in Washington?)
2) Second time he attacked Trump was by saying he rejected Trump’s policy of banning Muslims as a religious test and unconstitutional. (Mark Levin pointed out that it wasn’t a religious test and wasn’t unconstitutional.)
3) Third time was Cruz criticizing Trump’s judgement behind closed doors.
Cruz can say Trump is a friend, then attack, and then end his attack by saying he won’t attack Trump, but an attack is an attack.
I was just about to say the same thing, but you said it much better.
A good response for Cruz would be along the lines of lighten up Donald, they’re going to question ALL of our judgements.
‘Crews’ — dangit, I mean’t ‘Cruz’. I don’t mean to type out accidental insults. I like the man, honestly.
Did you listen to the tape? No one was attacked.
This type of evasion isn't going to work...
Yep. I'm reminded of Romeny's 47% comment he made "in private". He was RIGHT! He should have owned up to it. Embraced it. Made it a part of his campaign against our Welfare President.
Instead he walked it back. He evaded it. And THAT was the defining moment that signaled Mitt was a wuss and was not going to win.Not saying that Ted just made his own 47% comment. Not al all. But what is said in private does not take long to become public.
That's a great point,LF.
He would be the most awesomest AG we’ve ever had. THEN SCOTUS. Or maybe president. But I don’t think this cycle.
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.