Posted on 03/26/2016 12:00:39 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Last week an anti-Trump political action committee not tied to any candidate issued a Facebook ad it said was targeted at Mormon voters in Utah. The ad used one of Melania Trump’s many professional nude modeling pictures, over which was written “Meet Melania Trump. Your next First Lady. Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” Trump was a model in her career prior to marrying businessman Donald Trump. She is his third wife thus far.
This independent group is called “Make America Awesome” and is led by consultant Liz Mair. Ted Cruz was on track to win Utah by huge margins before the ad ran. The extremely low-budget ad made a splash, as ads featuring naked women tend to. As a result of the splash, some criticized it for crossing the boundary that typically prohibits political groups from going after a candidate’s family. But such lines have been obliterated by the Donald Trump campaign this year. Trump had previously disparaged Jeb Bush’s wife, among other women.
Trump’s response to the ad was to threaten Heidi Cruz, Ted Cruz’s wife. He has continued to threaten to reveal negative information about her and has disparaged her looks. Cruz had nothing whatsoever to do with the ad — if he did, it would be a serious violation of federal law — and yet has spoken against it. In response, to Trump’s threats, Cruz has repeatedly told Trump to knock it off, while also defending and praising his wife, Heidi, and speaking well of Melania. Here’s an example of that:
And, for example:
.@TedCruz on the Melania Trump ad: "That ad was completely inappropriate. I had nothing to do with it." - Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) March 23, 2016
So to review. An anti-Trump group unaffiliated with any campaign hit Melania Trump. Cruz denounced that attack ad that he had nothing to do with. He defended his own wife and he spoke well of of Trump’s wife.
Here are three completely dishonest ways the media are responding to this turn of events.
Ye Olde ‘Both Sides’ Template
So here’s how National Journal‘s Ron Fournier is characterizing these events:
The GOP can't get any lower, you say? Its top two presidential candidates are abusing each other's wives. - Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) March 24, 2016
This is simply not true. Trump has abused Cruz’s wife. But Cruz has praised Trump’s wife. There is not any reason to believe that Cruz has done anything that Fournier accuses him of. I asked Fournier for evidence of his incendiary claim. He didn’t provide any.
Howard Fineman offered his own tortured construction for the “both sides” canard, in which he seems to attack Cruz for simply defending his wife.
Stupidly crude, #Trump threatens to discuss #Cruz's wife's mental health. Brutally cynical, Cruz showcases outrage & focus on her even more. - Howard Fineman (@howardfineman) March 25, 2016
ThinkProgress characterized these events passively and generally: “Republican presidential race devolves into sexist competition over whose wife is hotter.”
CNN also used a misleading “both sides” approach, as is seen in this chyron that ran last night:
Donald Trump gets the media to dance to his tune every single time he says anything and this was yet another great example of the complete control he has over them.
Pretending Not To Know Anything About Campaign Finance Law
Fournier did put forth the rather shocking claim that Cruz was actually behind the ad. This is a claim also made by Donald Trump:
Over at the Washington Examiner, T. Becket Adams wrote an entire story on the phenomenon: “Some Fox News staff claiming incorrectly Cruz affiliated with anti-Melania Trump ad.”
Greta Van Susteren falsely accused the political action committee and Ted Cruz of having ties (This is somewhat funny, if you know who all the people behind the PAC are).
No matter how often Mair and her team explained that they did the ad, various journalists tried to confuse the issue.
To his credit, one FOX host admitted his error — on Twitter, at least:
Earlier I said a pro-Cruz PAC pushed the Melania ad. Incorrect, the group has no affiliation with Cruz & as I said, Cruz condemned it - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) March 24, 2016
Back to Fournier:
That’s some goalpost moving there, hoss! We’ve gone from accusing Cruz of abusing Trump’s wife to then claiming he was tied to an independent PAC in violation of federal law, to, now, this. This is so mind-numbingly hackish it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s set aside Fournier’s goalpost moving (I’ve perhaps never seen goalposts moved this far). Let’s set aside the falsehood he perpetuates regarding whether Cruz had denounced the ad (he’s denounced it repeatedly). The idea that if he hadn’t done these things he did he would “own” the PAC is just illogical horsepuckey. There are thousands of PACs doing who knows what at any minute. Candidates are forbidden by law from coordinating with them. And the idea that it would be prudent of Cruz to waste time “telling donors not to donate” to this one? That’s just stupid. I can’t roll my eyes enough at this. Talk about false equivalency.
Media Demands That Cruz Not Support Trump If Nominee
Ted Cruz went to town on Donald Trump, calling him a sniveling coward for going after Heidi. You can watch it here.
NBC reporter Hallie Jackson excited many folks in the media by then asking Cruz to say he wouldn’t back Trump if he’s the nominee. Cruz responded that he’s going to handle the issue by beating him. You can watch that here:
One interesting thing about social media is to see how it creates something of an echo chamber. It is this precise issue of the pledge to back the GOP nominee that gives us a great example of that echo chamber in action. People on social media who oppose Trump hate the fact that Rubio, Kasich, Cruz and others had pledged to support Trump if he were the nominee. But off Twitter, my reporting indicates that average GOP voters are more than fine with such a pledge. In fact, before the Michigan primary, many non-Trump voters there specifically said how much they appreciated the pledge of unity. Even some non-Trump voters who said that they would never even consider voting for Trump said they were fine with the pledge. Some said it had given them comfort about the steadiness of the candidates. Others said they thought some anti-Trump activists were getting too extreme. Others said it was just a stupid distraction from the actual campaign.
I get that the media have decided that pressing candidates on whether they will continue to support Trump is their favorite thing to do, and that’s fine, but let’s spend some of that energy persistently asking Trump allies to denounce his statements against Heidi Cruz. Or let’s get some persistent questioning of the scandal-deluged Democratic front-runner, who has been avoiding press conferences for months. Or let’s just consider the fact that every campaign has declined the opportunity to back out of the nominee pledge and that this probably indicates that there is little to be gained politically by jumping to this media request. The voters that they seek to secure are different from the voters in newsrooms, after all.
Well Andrea McWilliams is not a random Cruz supporter at a rally shouting something rude. She is a well connected wealthy Texas Lobbyist and strong ally of the Cruz campaign that was pretty much representing them when she made the slut shaming remarks way back on March 8th.
Just in case she really did not represent him accurately, and to try to be fair to Cruz, I am prepared to give Cruz a break if he disavowed her attack. But I could not find any evidence that he did. So I have to take what she said as being more or less a shot from camp Cruz.
I like keeping an open mind...but not an empty one.
Its not like I am blaming Cruz for a story from a Tabloid. What kind of idiot would do that?...oh uhm...yeah....
yes, uncertainty because I’ve only seen it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3413941/posts
and on a NYC for Trump site that named the sales person as Ben Shales who sold the photo to Roe (which I can’t find again at the moment)
Notice how Neil was saying "you guys" referencing how the Cruz campaign handled the Rubio quiting rumors and she accepted that designation and responded pretty much as a spokesperson.
Certainly if she was not really part of the Cruz campaign and misrepresenting herself, they would have jumped on it.
I am not happy with the way Trump finally struck back. But the narrative that it wasn't Cruz that struck first and it was just a super PAC ad he had no control over is nonsense.
found the ad that names Ben Shales here:
https://twitter.com/Campaign_Trump/status/713142215078334464
Smoking,
It has come out now the entire wives issue was fabricated from the Cruz camp as a way to confuse the issue of the incoming adultery claims against Cruz.
When the picture used in the Ad was bought by the Cruz campaign it shows that there was a direct connection between the Cruz camp and the PAC.
We also know Trump warned Cruz to back off and threatened to produce evidence of Cruz’s wife’s anti-American agenda - to show Cruz was a fake conservative. This did happen.
So when you keep attacking Trump over this and incorrectly claiming it was Trump’s fault for any of it, you are only being used a gullible tool by the slimy campaign whose goal is to confuse the issues.
This entire thing other then the Adultery was orchestrated by the people with Cruz to muddy the water and do damage control for Cruz.
Cruz opened a can of worms for sure. He let his alligator mouth over tip his hummingbird arse!
So Trump points out that Cruz’s wife is ugly and everybody thinks Trump is the ass????
Cruz’s wife is a government shill which makes her attack fodder. She helped sell out this country, and wants to continue to do so...and Trump is the A-hole for it?
wow...
What....a couple three thousand words here that dance around the concise statement that is needed:
“The claims are UNTRUE, I did not have sex with those 2,3, 5 women”.
Instead, we are treated to a triple litany of how “coverage” of this is wrong, bad (or just too damaging).
It is the MESSAGE, not the messenger.
...”Political theater at its finest or maybe at its worse. Take your pick.”...
This is media fascism at work. The people are supposed to own the political process when it comes to elections..However, it looks like the media and the government are controlling and will control it. How very stupid all of the wife attacks, back and forth, are. The wives are simply supporting their husbands which should be what any wife would do. It looks like the Cruz campaign started this through an attack against Mrs. Trump, who, as far as I can see, is a beautiful and gracious lady, who married Trump when he was totally free to marry. The issues are how our country is going to survive a massive debt, a massive welfare state, a dysfunctional healthcare system no one can afford, terrorism threats, open borders, widespread drug addiction, anarchy and an educational system which is teaching socialism and communism to our kids. I believe this is political theater at it’s worse.
Wrong. Greta got it right. See what she said directly to Cruz.
Exactly. My wife said the same.
(Cruz)had nothing whatsoever to do with the ad — if he did, it would be a serious violation of federal law — and yet has spoken against it. >>>>>>>>>
Thats the lie.
Cruz did not speak out against the MAA ad. That’s YUGE!
So if Trump is elected, will someone ‘leak’ more Melania pix?
I’d like to see more Melania pix. Put her on the front page. One more reason to vote for Trump, i.e. to exorcise the WH after the ABL with the ass the size of a truck has been there for what seems like forever.
Funny that the same ‘unattributed’ media can day David Duke endorsed Trump, he donounves it immediately, yet he is still asked over and over again to denounce it an is still referred to as a racist. The media is an echo chamber. Even to the point of bringing the same question up in the role of a debate moderator, while other candidates are more than happy to let them do it.
No, they don’t.
This is a rumor put out by someone on FR unaffiliated with the any campaign and blasted over Twitter: https://twitter.com/Campaign_Trump/status/713142215078334464/photo/1
That appears to be the primary source of this “news” that keeps getting repeated endlessly around FR as if it’s true. As far as I can tell, there isn’t anyone at GQ even named “Ben Shales.”
I realize that I’m preaching to the choir, but this needs to get distributed here by someone with a massive ping list. And hopefully it makes it’s way to a larger audience on the general web:
What every voter needs to know about Ted Cruz. (and Heidi)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXcYCwaBKnQ&app=desktop
How long before we find out Heidi is the one who paid off Carly’s campaign to shut down the bimbo eruption?
Heidi Cruz = Hillary (TWO FOR ONE, and the spouse controls)
Cruz = Romney/Obama Liar, Liar, Liar, unrepentant
That said, when will the MSM focus on
Hillary and Huma?
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.