February 22, 2016

Cruz fires his chief spokesman who put up a video lying about something Marco Rubio said about the Bible.

"Rick Tyler, a longtime Republican operative and communications director to the Cruz campaign, shared on social media a video this week that... showed Mr. Rubio walking through a hotel lobby and stopping briefly to talk to a Cruz campaign staffer who was reading the Bible. The story Mr. Tyler shared had subtitles showing Mr. Rubio saying 'Got a good book there, not many answers in it.' In fact, Mr. Rubio actually said, 'Got a good book there, all the answers are in there.'"

Okay, you fired him. Good. But I just don't get the Cruz brand. Isn't it supposed to be: principled and not pragmatic?

By the way, the revised quote isn't very inspiring, though it's okay small talk. Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in the Bible.

71 comments:

Freder Frederson said...

Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in the Bible.

When I did, I imagined President Cruz.

Sebastian said...

"Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in the Bible."

Imagine a law professor taking comments made in passing by a presidential candidate literally.

Drago said...

Althouse: "Good. But I just don't get the Cruz brand. Isn't it supposed to be principled and not pragmatic?"

What, specifically, was unprincipled about this action?

If the action was principled, does pragmatism enter into it?

Meade said...

"Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in the Bible."

Or Koran.

Ann Althouse said...

"Imagine a law professor taking comments made in passing by a presidential candidate literally."

Read the post. That's not what I did. I said it's okay small talk. So why would you take that shot at me?

Fernandinande said...

Didn't Rick Tyler write "Janie's Got a Gun"?

Mr. Rubio actually said, 'Got a good book there, all the answers are in there.'"

"Beware the man of one book."

Ann Althouse said...

@Drago

I'm looking at the whole pattern of things his campaign has done, establishing a brand. He sets the standards and the tone. This firing is fine as far as it goes, but when does he establish something positive. Just eliminating the worst of the negative isn't enough. Imagine a President like that! He's responsible for populating the executive branch. I don't trust his judgment and control, and I'm not sure his people aren't doing what they think he wants. Tyler got caught, and then he got sacked. That's not enough to give me any confidence.

Cruz didn't make it in SC. Where is he going to make it? If you think Trump should be stopped, then you might want to advise Cruz to drop out now and throw his support to Rubio while Rubio is still able to mount a challenge.

SteveR said...

Even the great leader, Obama, had to rely on mortals who could not do the job. Ted's readiness to fill the hearts of conservatives with hope has to run this dreaded race.

Char Char Binks said...

Politics is the art of the pragmatic.

Bay Area Guy said...

Trivial Bullshit Tag.

But, it kinda sorta helps Rubio in the primary in an infinitesimally small way, so I guess I'm for it.

Sebastian said...

"Read the post. That's not what I did. I said it's okay small talk. So why would you take that shot at me?"

I take it back. But the response was no more intended as a shot at you than your imagination-a-president suggestion was a shot at Rubio.

BDNYC said...

Honestly it sort of creeps me out that a campaign operative has a Bible on hand like that. Yes, I know Rafael Cruz is a preacher. It still seems weird to me.

If I read the Bible as much as some of these people, I would probably have it memorized and would have no need to lug it around. Or I could just download it to my kindle. The Bible itself is not sacred. It is only paper and ink and binding.

I guess displaying it like that tells the world what a God-fearing Christian you really are.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

The delightfully dupping facial smile of the amazing Mr Cruz included his being More Godly than anybody ever but at the same time being able to tell whatever lies helped destroy other men with a straight face.

Until Upcountry South Carolina rejected Cruz's con Saturday, he and his consiglieri did it more and more. Now the Campaign is retooling, but too late to get it's mojo back.

The man who needs to deal with this is Rush Limbaugh. El Rushbo has been protecting the Amazing Mr Cruz for over a month when I know Rush knew exactly what was going on... with one hand tied behind his back.

traditionalguy said...

Bibles, the bigger the better, are ways to scare away people. That and asking strangers if they are saved.

robother said...

In the words of Big Dan Teague,"Ever'body's looking for answers, and this is the only book that's got 'em."

Char Char Binks said...

robother, you don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it.

Beldar said...

"Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in the Bible."

Oh, I'm sure I can find you video from pretty much every president, Republican or Democrat, going back to Edison which says pretty much exactly that.

You're being too literal.

Beldar said...

"I just don't get the Cruz brand. Isn't it supposed to be: principled and not pragmatic?"

I don't understand this question in this situation. If Cruz valued pragmatism over principle, and if the pragmatic thing which would get him elected were to engage in false attacks that nevertheless stick and do damage, then he'd have kept this PR guy.

He doesn't; it probably isn't; and he didn't. What don't you get?

"Cruz didn't make it in SC. Where is he going to make it?"

Um, Texas maybe? On March 1st, maybe? Which awards more delegates than everywhere else that's voted yet combined, maybe?

Steve Uhr said...

I don't recall that Cruz fired the person who came up with the misleading (to be charitable) "election violation" mailing in Iowa. I guess you can't fire yourself.

Beldar said...

Have you read Ted Cruz' book yet, Prof. Althouse? You should. And he actually wrote it himself, which ought make it worth your while. It's fairly short and eminently readable, which I commend to you because I suspect you find his appearance and speaking manner offputting and therefore haven't spent much time on the specifics of his life, policies, or campaign.

tim in vermont said...

Cruz's supporters are his worst enemy.

tim in vermont said...

, then you might want to advise Cruz to drop out now and throw his support to Rubio while Rubio is still able to mount a challenge.

Cruz is too busy trying to bash Rubio to the point he couldn't get elected dog warden.

Beldar said...

@ Steve Uhr: If you think presidential candidates write their own direct mail ads, you're nuts. In all likelihood, the guy Cruz just fired is exactly the guy who decided to send the "violation" mailers. If so, I agree that he ought to have been fired sooner; but if he was warned then, without sufficient effect, that's exactly the kind of internal detail that Cruz likely wouldn't discuss in the national press.

Ultimately, as the guy at its top, Cruz is responsible for the entire campaign; he'd be the first to tell you that, and said it, for example, when apologizing to Ben Carson for a mistake caused not by Cruz, or by the Cruz campaign, but by CNN's erroneous TV reporting. But your wisecrack's premise -- that Ted Cruz wrote, or even personally vetted, the one piece of direct mail out of hundreds and thousands sent out in a presidential campaign is really, really silly.

n.n said...

The bible not only records a moral code, but documents the historical consequences of its recurring violation.

Living in a state with an established pro-choice doctrine, it is difficult, even impossible, to believe that a finite set of principles could ever be internally, externally, and mutually consistent, and therefore intersect with pragmatic.

tim in vermont said...

OK Beldar, I will read his book.

Char Char Binks said...

The Bible may not be able to teach me 8 times 8, but it did teach me 70 times 7.

tim in vermont said...

I think maybe a lot of the venom from Cruz supporters is coming from Mark Levin's show.

I just heard Levin tearing into the boy child wonder anchor baby. Say what you want about Levin, he doesn´t lie. If he says the boy child lied, the boy child lied.


If he thinks this is helping anybody but Hillary, Levin is the fool he appears to be.

rcocean said...

Good damage control on the part of Cruz but really what makes Republicans so crazy when they seek the presidency?

If only they were 1/2 as vicious when fighting the Democrats.

rcocean said...

We need to appeal to evangelicals by lying about our fucking opponent. Goddamn it.

Amen.

robinintn said...

Thank goodness. Hopefully this puts a stop to the hundreds of "personal" emails this guy sends me. My fault. In a weak moment I sent 10 bucks to his senate campaign.

Richard Dolan said...

"This firing is fine as far as it goes, but when does he establish something positive."

Yes, that's the problem for Cruz after SC. It has to be positive while also positively not being Trumpian, since Trump does that better and more effectively. And he has to do it solo, since he's made a virtue out of alienating almost every Rep player in national government. He thought that the race would come down to him vs. Jeb!, and he had a plan for that. Might have worked, too. Alas, it's taken a decidedly different turn.

whitney said...

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

steve uhr said...

Beldar -- You are missing the point. Whether he was aware of the mailing before hand or not till after the fact, he didn't do anything about it. He didn't sack anyone. He didn't say it was misleading or an invasion of privacy. He is perfectly okay with sleazy campaign tactics.

Fabi said...

Of the 621 delegates available on Super Tuesday, Texas accounts for 155. Their take-all threshold is 50% and Cruz has no chance to hit that mark. None. He's also trailing in eight of the twelve states awarding delegates that day. Even worse for him is that he's not even in second place in several of those states.

David Carlson said...

We did have a president who thought all the answers were in the bible. His name was jimmy carter

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Yes, just imagine it. Far better to have a relative morality where we set ourselves up as the judges of right and wrong. That always works out so well.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Rubio desperately needs Cruz to win Texas on March 1. Cruz desperately needs Rubio to win Florida on March 15. If Trump wins both Texas and Florida ...

YoungHegelian said...

In fact, Mr. Rubio actually said, 'Got a good book there, all the answers are in there.'"

Well that's just crazy talk for a good Catholic boy like Marco Rubio!

He knows damn well that all the answers are in the Summa Theologica!

Titus said...

You all need to live with the fact that Trump will be your nominee. Rubio can't win a state, but thinks he is winning, even when he isn't, and Cruz lost SC with 74% evangelicals rednecks, who hate homos as much as Cruz does.

I could see Trump winning the primaries in Texas, New York, California, Illinois, and all of the northeast and south.

I think it would be fun if Trump is pres-I am all about fun!



Titus said...

My 19 year old Harvard Spanish/Indian from London is begging me to meet him tonight.

I said no. There is only so much of me to go around and I did the LA/Iranian Harvard Med Student-pic to the right, last night and my dick is tired-normally it is hard constantly, but we went at it for like 4 hours last night an my dick needs a resting period.

I need a break every now and then.

Beldar said...

@ Steve Uhr: No, sir, with respect, it's YOU who are missing the point. You don't know of anything that Cruz did in response specifically to the Iowa campaign direct mail ad.

That is not the same thing as proving that Cruz did nothing.

You speculate that he did nothing, but we know today that he fired the campaign communications director -- and I submit to you that in reasonable probability (although neither you nor I have inside first information to know for sure), it was the campaign communications director whose job it is to read and approve the campaign's direct mail.

You're just making stuff up. This ends our conversation.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

"Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in the Bible."

That's not difficult to do. Many, probably most, of our greatest Presidents thought that all the answers could be found in the Bible, at some level. It's pretty standard stuff. Of course to people who have a child's view of Christianity, it may sound far-fetched.

Lydia said...

"You don't know of anything that Cruz did in response specifically to the Iowa campaign direct mail ad."

True, we don't know what he actually did, if anything, within his campaign operation, but we do know he refused to apologize for the mailing:

"I will apologize to nobody for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote … Iowa, as first in the nation, has an incredibly important role in deciding who the next commander-in-chief of this country will be. We are going to continue to use every tool we can to encourage the men and woman of Iowa to come out, to caucus on Monday night and to stand together as one," Cruz said in Sioux City.

Mark said...

Meanwhile soon we will have plenty of daily footage of Ted Cruz acting like a jerk to whomever is Obamas nominee in the Judiciary Committee, reinforcing the electorates negative impression of him.

Where is any positive message from Cruz? Negativity only goes so far, anyone who has spent time with holier than thou graduate students can tell you how tedious that gets if that's all there is (Ted acts much like said graduate student in Congress

mccullough said...

Cruz should fire himself. He's a terrible candidate. Mistakes are going to happen but he is actually getting worse at this campaign stuff as he goes along. I have no idea why he's running for President. He doesn't seem to actually like anyone.

Birkel said...

That George Washington sure didn't take much countenance of The Bible. Right, Althouse?

tim in vermont said...

One thing is for sure, this Halloween is going to be epic!

Birkel said...

Question for the conservatives:

How will a Republican president win policy achievements with a federal bureaucracy set on resisting until the next Democrat takes office? The federal Leviathan will strangle us all.

Can anybody imagine that scenario?

Beldar said...

@ Birkel: If it's Ted Cruz, it's by (a) winning a mandate election and (b) following through on his promise to abolish the IRS.

People say, "Oh, that's silly."

That's what they said when Reagan threatened to fire the PATCO strikers too.

Obviously, it will take both congressional and executive action in combination to make that kind of big structural change in the IRS, and people say, "Oh, Ted Cruz has few friends in Congress and can never get cooperation there." But that was said, too, about Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he and George H.W. Bush were competing in the Republican primary at this same point in the election cycle.

When Reagan got the nomination, though, he found himself with a lot of new Republican friends on Capitol Hill. When he carried 40 states, he had even more. When the Iranians released the hostages within moments of his inauguration, he was very popular with Republicans indeed.

Mandate election --> consequential presidency.

Birkel said...

Beldar:

Agree that a Cruz victory allows some hope. A strengthening of the APA, perhaps. Civil servant law reforms. Union reform. IRS reform.

Can anybody commenting herd imagine any other candidate trying? And how can America win again if not?

Steve Uhr said...

Ted Cruz is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan was likable and made friends wherever he went. Cruz makes enemies wherever he goes. As Trump says, he is a nasty guy. He will win a mandate only if his dad passes around the koolaid the day before the election.

David said...

Knowing where all the answers are is not helpful unless you also know what the questions are.

As to the firing:

1. I don't feel Taylor has been betrayed. If he was worried about friendship, he should have gotten a dog.
2. Cruz should now worry about betrayal. Tyler knows stuff. Will he tell? And to whom?
3. Cruz has at least one good Presidential trait. He's ruthless and can fire people.
4. Consistent conservatism is all fine and dandy but charm helps too. Cruz isn't charming.
5. Holy Hope and Change, Batman. Apart from Trump, the Republicans have two first term U.S. Senators to offer. How has that worked out with the current President?

walter said...

Trad guy,
You don't think Rush hasn't been turning a blind eye to Trump's share of absolute BS, being his golf buddy and all? Really? Rush has pretty much polished every turd Trump has deposited.

Static Ping said...

Imagine a President who actually thought all the answers can be found in a science book.

Hmm. Sounds worse than I originally imagined.

cyrus83 said...

I don't think I'd mind a President who thought that the answers to moral problems could be found in a religious text. I'd be much more concerned if they thought the answers concerning trade policy with Canada or war strategy could be found in a religious text.

dwick said...

"Imagine a President like that! He's responsible for populating the executive branch. I don't trust his judgment and control..."

We've got it, Althouse...
Women aged 60+ with post-graduate degrees making over $100K prefer Rubio.

walter said...

"I just don't get the Cruz brand. "
All about the branding..

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Birkel

I've seen plenty of conservatives making that argument too. That there is a limit to what can be done policy wise because the federal bureaucracy will conspire to resist any changes they disagree with. Its the old, "politicians come and go, but the bureaucracy is forever" saying.

My response to that is, if that is the case, that elected representatives can only pursue policies that federal bureaucrats approve of, then we no longer live in a republic. At best, our polity, is akin to Chinese Mandarinism. And if that is the case, then why should the American people have any loyalty to the government whatsoever?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@cryus83

Actually, there is a lot of useful knowledge concerning military strategy and politics in 1st and 2nd Samuel and Kings if you have the wit to discern it.

Brando said...

"Cruz didn't make it in SC. Where is he going to make it? If you think Trump should be stopped, then you might want to advise Cruz to drop out now and throw his support to Rubio while Rubio is still able to mount a challenge."

What on earth gave you the idea Cruz is the sort of team player who would do anything to help anyone who is not Ted Cruz? Trump is more likely to drop out to help Rubio.

Brando said...

"Ted Cruz is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan was likable and made friends wherever he went. Cruz makes enemies wherever he goes. As Trump says, he is a nasty guy. He will win a mandate only if his dad passes around the koolaid the day before the election."

The Cruz/Reagan analogy is flawed, and Cruz's fans try to play on it believing eventually everyone will come around to Cruz. But Reagan, while he certainly had bitter opponents, was clever in not making unnecessary enemies, and getting results sometimes in a pragmatic way--you can't govern California for two terms without doing that. He also had an uncommon amount of charisma, and knew how to expand his appeal beyond a narrow conservative base. I'm not seeing Cruz even attempt to appeal beyond a narrow core.

Perhaps he has some longer-term strategy, or perhaps this is more about capitalizing on his existing fan base to improve his stock. But he seems shrewd and I can't picture him thinking he'll actually become president.

tim in vermont said...

Neither Reagan nor Bill Clinton really seemed to hate their opponents. Not the way Nixon, Obama, probably Gore, and Hillary do. Those guys have "enemies." I don't believe that W hated his opponents either, hard as they tried, he tried to be president of all Americans. Obama doesn't try to do that, and that is not Hillary's plan either.

Jeff said...

Far better to have a relative morality where we set ourselves up as the judges of right and wrong. That always works out so well.

But you're doing that anyway. You don't escape the responsibility for making your own decisions about right and wrong by outsourcing them to someone else. By choosing one set of beliefs (Christianity, I suppose, in your case) over some other set of beliefs (e.g., Buddhism) you are setting yourself up as the judge of right and wrong, just at one level removed. You can't avoid it.

amielalune said...


When Christians say that all of the answers are in the Bible, they mean philosophically, in terms of how to live their lives, how to deal with adversity, how to accept things that happen. I sincerely doubt that any Christian president consults the Bible on how to deal with China, terrorism, etc.

amielalune said...


Dwick: Actually, I think you've just described Hillary's constituency perfectly.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You don't escape the responsibility for making your own decisions about right and wrong by outsourcing them to someone else

It has nothing to do with escaping responsibility.

If there is no objective morality then what basis do you have to prefer any mode of behavior over another beside what is, essentially, personal preference as influenced by heredity and cultural influence?

And if it is just personal preference, why should anyone else care?

If you entertain any kind of morality, you have to base it on some values. Individual autonomy? Collective good? Do unto others has you would have done to you?

It is all just a narrative designed to allow you to exercise power over others in order to better position yourself for mating opportunities while making you feel better about your actions.

I don't get where this "avoiding responsibility" meme comes from, but you see it all the time. I suppose it goes with the "I'm a better person than you because I choose to be moral (but really just nice) with no benefit to myself while religious people act morally because they are afraid of punishment by a beardy guy in the sky" thing.

Actually, no you are not better because:

1) Your chosen morality is going to conform to your preferences and strangely enough is unlikely to deviate from that of your preferred social set while a Christian's might cost him ostracism or, in some countries, torture and death.

2) If there are no objective sources for morality, who cares how "nice" you are. Its all just social signaling as an attempt to get laid.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

People who don't believe in God should stop talking about right and wrong. Absent God there is no right or wrong, just actions I approve of and actions I don't approve of.

Nor, for that matter, is free will an actual thing.

Birkel said...

Ron Winkleheimer:

Unless the bureaucracy, the Leviathan State, is restored to its proper place in the Constitutional structure I am afraid we will get the same results we have seen of late. Congress must assert its powers over the law. This can be done by reducing "omnibus" bills to their individual parts and restricting the interpretive powers of the federal agencies under the Executive Branch. But that will mean congresspeople are held to account -- and their respective incentives run counter to such a move.

A president, if properly constrained by respect for the Constitution, might be able to force the Congress to assert itself.

This would give the Court a chance to reconsider its dreadful APA decisions.

Until then, it won't matter because the bureaucracy will insinuate itself in power over the American people.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Birkel

I think it is going to be a long term project to reclaim the country from the bureaucracy. Time will tell if the project will succeed.

Jeff said...

Ron, do you really think there is no objective morality without believing in God? So all of the Asians who never heard of Christ before a couple of hundred years ago were immoral, as were the Roman before Christ, and the Greeks before them? And you wonder why some of us laugh at the arrogance of people like you.

I am guessing you are a Protestant, as I was a cradle Catholic, and I know that Catholicism does not agree with you at all. Many a treatise on Natural Law, which does not require Christianity as a prerequisite, has been written by Catholic scholars. I am not a philosopher or a lawyer, but even I can see that most non-believers think in terms that are very much like Natural Law. The idea that men require freedom to develop to their full potential is one of the precepts, for example, of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. But it was in Natural Law centuries earlier, and in J.S. Mill as well. And ideas very much like it date back millenia.

When you say "Absent God there is no right or wrong, just actions I approve of and actions I don't approve of" you're just restating the same bad argument. Either the overwhelming majority of the world's inhabitants who don't share your particular beliefs are incredibly stupid, or maybe, just maybe, there is not much convincing evidence that those beliefs are correct. If there was, almost everyone would share your beliefs, wouldn't they?

Your belief is based not on incontrovertible evidence but faith. One might say that actually, you believe in God because such belief is something you approve of, and you're not an atheist because that's something you don't approve of. But then your original statement becomes vacuous.

This blog is not the place to argue this stuff, and I probably should not have responded to you at all. But really, when you think you have a killer argument that proves that huge numbers of people are either really stupid or evil, maybe you should investigate a little further. You can't possibly be so arrogant as to think these arguments you are parroting haven't been heard before, can you?