Back on April 1st last year, one of the women who has been identified on the internet as one of Cruz's Babes appeared in a Tweeted selfie while showing off a Winston Churchill tattoo placed on the back of her left shoulder. That is not an easy place to self-apply a tattoo and she just happens to be wearing what looks like it might be a man's suit jacket (it's hard to tell - but...)
It's all over the place on the 'net that at the same time on the same day she took that pic, Ted Cruz was appearing on Fox's morning show. There he showed off a Winston Churchill tattoo on his right forearm while batting away a question about where his jacket might be.
This is a seven minute segment, but if you fast forward to about 6:30 you'll get to the part that's most interesting and potentially relevant - the display of the tattoo and question / deflection about the whereabouts of the jacket.
When asked where he got the tat, he said he was on the West Coast - so it would be interesting if someone were to follow that lead. Was Ms. Carpenter also on the West Coast at the time?
These tit bits were put together by several sites across several blogs, but the pictures and video are available off the internet if you just do a search.
There are other little things, too. Like the $500,000 contribution made from the Cruz campaign to Carly Fiorina's PAC - and the fact that another of the Cruz Babes happened to work for Fiorina. The Election Commission is looking into that peculiarity but I wonder if it's hush money for something.
It doesn't matter whether it is or not - that transaction stinks to high Heaven. After all, why would one presidential campaign transfer a cool half-mil to another, competing campaign? I can't think of a logical answer. Wouldn't the Cruz campaign be able to make better hay with that money than hand it off to Carly's account?
Further to this whole thing, several places including Lawnewz.com, have posted articles that raise a really interesting point.
While Ted Cruz has attacked the National Enquirer article that started the rumpus on Friday, he has not denied doing anything wrong.
He's called the article 'garbage' and accused Trump of planting it (which Trump didn't as more than one person has traced it back to the Rubio campaign), but he hasn't declared in no uncertain terms 'I did not boff that woman, or that one, or that one, or...'
It's an interesting point because when we're accused of doing something we didn't - particularly if it's unsavory or embarrassing - don't you or I immediately stand up and say, 'it wasn't me! I didn't do that!'? That reaction is missing between here and last Friday from Mr. Cruz.
There's also the question about the lawsuit. If the article put out by the National Enquirer has no basis in fact, it's defamatory and this is a case where great harm can be easily shown. Just the embarrassment of such allegations against such a pillar of moral society would be enough. Or the emotional harm caused to his wife and children. Those criteria have been met. So why is Cruz not threatening a suit against a defamatory publication? Could it be that he knows there is something there - perhaps not five but maybe four or three?
If he were to take this to court, and if there is evidence that he was doing these women on the side, he'd look like an idiot. Could it be that he doesn't want to look like more of an immoral snake-in-the-grass than he does already?
I will say I don't feel sorry for Heidi Cruz. I've done some digging into her background and she is just as unsavory as her husband. Besides, she's probably known he was getting some on the side for a while. After all, for more than a year he was working on his political career in Texas while she was working with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
No - I feel sorry for the kids. No children should ever have to be faced with stuff like this and hearing these horrible things about a man you look up to and respect? It's a terrible thing for them. Just on that score Ted Cruz should hang his head in shame.
Another piece of moral character that is missing from Mr. Cruz's make-up is the apology to Mrs. Trump and her husband about his PAC going after Mrs. Trump with those billboards.
Art is in the eye of the beholder and those billboards could qualify as art - she made a gorgeous model. Since that picture was shot for a British gentleman's magazine - not quite Playboy - I don't think she's terribly embarrassed by it. Except for how that picture has damaged her husband's campaign in Utah - but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Not with Romney out there stumping for Cruz.
Hmm. I wonder what Romney will think, say or do if these allegations about his new political bestest bud are proven true? Wave it off and give it a pass? Wonder if the moral compass needle in Salt Lake is broken, too.
Art and political bed mates aside, when a political candidate benefits from the actions of a PAC, and that PAC is responsible for doing something reprehensible - like targeting the opposing candidate's wife or children - doesn't that candidate bear a responsibility or obligation to stand up and denounce the PAC? Morally and ethically I think they do. After all, if they're benefiting in some way, they do bear some responsibility for what provides that benefit whether or not they are directly involved in the decision to run with it.
No matter. It's water under the bridge - except for those bobbing beauties still to be identified and named who are caught in the current.
As for the other lying - not related to the babes - it's documented.
PolitiFact has a list readily available.
The little fact that his wife, Heidi, worked for at least five years at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is another.
That association puts a hard and fast exclamation point on the #LyinTed tag. After all, the CFR has quite questionable goals - small, non-intrusive government emphatically not being one of them. You can read all about them and draw your own conclusions, but if Ted's goals are small government and strict adherence to the Constitution, wouldn't he kind of object to his wife being associated with an organization diametrically opposed to Constitutional sovereignty?
In any event, I'm going to sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop from this distasteful (but interesting) millipede. It shouldn't be long...
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment