Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Smokin' Joe; All

Right the PAC was not Cruz’s.

But it is more a pro Cruz PAC than it is a anti Trump PAC.

But it is always referred to as the latter.

Anyone that thinks campaigns don’t watch closely all PAC’s and what they are doing in real time is fooling themselves.

I’m sure Cruz’s advisors suggested letting the Trump smear sink in before denouncing it much later.

Which is tactic approval.


185 posted on 03/25/2016 10:49:23 AM PDT by Syncro (Benghazi-LIES/Coverup Treason ARREST the traitors! Hillary-Obama-Rice-Holder-Learner-Lynch et al)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]


To: Syncro
Which is tactic approval.

I think you meant "tacit", but no, it isn't.

As I have asked on other threads, how much disavowing would be enough?

Apparently, 'That isn't one of ours', isn't enough disavowing. [disavow: to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown...]

No, instead,

What we have here is an apparent "failure to repudiate" in a timely fashion.

But that raises another question:

What would be considered "timely"?

If he had repudiated the ad immediately, then Trump supporters would say that is a sure sign he knew about it and was just itching to distance himself from it.

If he takes his time about it, other than disavowing the ad (saying it wasn't one of his), then he is excoriated for taking too long.

In the interest of fair campaigning, then, how about someone establish a specific time frame to disavow and repudiate other people's stuff that reflects badly on your campaign?

What would you consider appropriate? One hour? (or would that be too soon?) Six hours? Over night? 24 hours (time to find out what in the heck was going on and where that came from)?

I mean, does any specific time interval satisfy?

No, in the case of those eager to pounce, I think not.

Anyone who read the line at the bottom of the ad: "Paid for by Make America Awesome. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee" would know there could be no legal connection (or otherwise) to the Cruz campaign.

Or maybe some people just got distracted and didn't see that part?

Why would risk even a longshot at the nomination over an election law violation? or an ad that had tremendous downside potential for Cruz, and very little (if any) upside potential.

He was polling well in Utah and had tremendous support already.

202 posted on 03/25/2016 11:17:10 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson