"If you enjoy daydreaming about Ted Cruz’s sex life, then today is your lucky day." https://t.co/pJ2txSD7L3
— Asawin Suebsaeng (@swin24) March 26, 2016
If you enjoy daydreaming about Ted Cruz’s sex life, then today is your lucky day. The National Enquirer alleged on March 23 that the senator has had five extramarital affairs. And the descriptions it provided of the women—along with barely-pixelated headshots of them—left little to D.C. insiders’ imaginations as to who the Enquirer had accused of being Cruz paramours…. “A HOOKER, A TEACHER & COWORKERS: 5 romps that will destroy Ted Cruz!” the Enquirer piece boldly claims, in an article that includes a wild “sex-in-closet” allegation…. The truth behind the rumor-mongering, however, is a little more complex. A half-dozen GOP operatives and media figures tell The Daily Beast that Cruz’s opponents have been pushing charges of adultery for at least six months now…anti-Cruz operatives have pitched a variety of #CruzSexScandal stories to a host of prominent national publications, according to Republican operatives and media figures. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, Politico, and ABC News— reporters at all those outlets heard some version of the Cruz-is-cheating story. None of them decided to run with rumors.
In the seemingly never-ending effort to find the ways and means to utterly destroy a political candidate, the Holy Grail has always been salaciousness, the revelation of extra-marital or “deviant” other-than-missionary-position-with-their-spouse sexual activity. This interest in the prurient has always been a distressing feature of politics at any level, but to me it says little about what I really want to know: Is the person in question capable of doing the job they’re seeking? When push comes to shove, will they do the right thing for the right reasons? If a politician chooses to park his wiener boat in Tunatown’s harbor, is that really anyone’s business?
In the case of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Mordor), there are few things I’d love more than to see him taken down…and few things I want to know less about then his sex life. He’s a smarmy, holier-than-thou, Machiavellian despot-in-waiting who cares for little save the advancement of his own interests and political prospects. If you look in the dictionary for the definition of “objectionable,” you’ll very likely see a picture of Cruz next to it.
That said, as much as I’d like to hope that this “sex scandal” might destroy his Presidential prospects, no one deserves to be taken down by rumor and innuendo. If the Enquirer has proof, they should present it. That they haven’t would seem to place the premise of their article in question. If there’s evidence of Cruz’ perfidy, why not provide it? Given that the Enquirer isn’t renowned for high journalistic standards, it would be easy to take their accusations of Cruz’s extra-marital dalliances for what they appear to be- a cheap smear job.
As difficult as it is for me to believe I’m defending Texas’ junior Senator, it’s a simple matter of integrity. No one deserves to be taken down by unsubstantiated rumors and cheap, poorly-sourced innuendo. I despise everything Cruz stands for, but even he deserves to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Whether it was Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Vlad the Impaler who peddled this “story,” the simple fact is that no proof has been presented to show that Cruz has done the horizontal mambo with anyone not named Heidi Cruz. All we have are unsubstantiated accusations presented by a tabloid widely known for playing fast and loose with the truth. The Enquirer has accomplished little but to set itself up for a libel suit of epic proportions. Why they’d take such a step with no hard evidence is something only the hopefully-soon-to-be-fired editor could explain.
Cruz could choose to look on the bright side, though:
Look on the bright side Ted, at least no one is talking about you being the Zodiac Killer anymore. .#CruzSexScandal pic.twitter.com/wGsp0ptAJO
— President Trump (@Writeintrump) March 25, 2016
I continue to hope someone on the right side of the fence will somehow find it within themselves to wade through the mud and make a cogent, sensible argument for why they should be President. I have a feeling I’m going to be disappointed, though.
I get that we should be able to hold those who wish to lead to high standards, in some cases perhaps even standards we’d never dream of holding ourselves to. Still, our complicated relationship to all things sexual has a tendency to cloud our vision…not to mention our judgment. Does the private sexual conduct of a Presidential candidate have any relationship to that person’s fitness to hold the office? Should it?
IF the Enquirer is able to substantiate the accusations of serial infidelity they’re leveling against Cruz, let them share it. Until then, we should treat this salaciousness for what it is and assume that Cruz is innocent until proven otherwise.
How about discussing something that actually matters?
