March 28, 2016

"Cruz herself has decided she doesn’t want to talk about what she went through.... She has every right to make that decision for herself..."

"... no one is obligated to be a spokesperson — but it’s still profoundly important for stories like hers to come out, for people to simply know that the wife of a presidential candidate dealt with this sort of challenge, isn’t ashamed of it, and has continued to live a rewarding life — and to see that most other people aren’t reacting with horror or disgust. That anyone would weaponize Heidi Cruz’s mental-health problems suggests we have a long way to go before we defeat the stigmatization of mental illness, and it does very real harm to people who are suffering."

From "Attacking Heidi Cruz for Her Depression Is a Disgraceful Move" in New York Magazine.

41 comments:

Luke Lea said...

I guess what I would like to know is whether the precipitating event was possibly her discovery of her husband's infidelity? If so, then it would not have been a depressive episode in the clinical sense, rather the normal reaction of a faithful spouse. What was the timeline?

Brando said...

My opinion of Ted Cruz went up when this whole thing surfaced. It is incredibly difficult to deal with people you care about when they suffer severe depression, and it shows a lot of character that he has been supportive through all that. Good for him and shame on the scumbags who would try to make hay out of that story--and seriously, how stupid would they be to do this? Do they really think someone is going to hear that story and think "well I definitely don't want to vote for the guy who stood by his wife while she suffers, better to pick the guy who relieves his midlife crisis by trading his wives in for younger models"?

Character aside, what does this say about the Trumpists' smarts? If this is their idea of an effective attack, I don't think Hillary has much to worry about.

madAsHell said...

BuzzFeed? Isn't this a variation of Gawker?

Oso Negro said...

Geez, Luke, do you really need to know the inner psycho-drama of the Cruz family? And do you think it is more interesting than, say, the Clintons?

Birkel said...

This reminds me of a prosecutor repeating something after an objection to keep it in the jurors' respective minds, even though it is otherwise inadmissible.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Luke Lea said...
I guess what I would like to know is whether the precipitating event was possibly her discovery of her husband's infidelity?


Is that really what you'd like to know, Luke? Does that desire, and your willingness to publicly express it, strike you as at all slimy? If not, does THAT make you think you're outside of the norm in some important way?
I mean, we'd all like to know some things, I guess.

David Hampton said...

Cruz loves to hide behind "plausible deniability." They attacked Trump's wife first and now the newborn child. You reap what you sow. Cruz makes a habit out of enjoying the attacks on Trump and his family then tries to claim the high ground as the victim. I'm not buying it. Keep it clean Ted unless your strategy is to "punch" Trump through you PAC then whine when he responds. Don't risk pimping your family for political gain. It doesn't work.

Birkel said...

David Hampton is confused by the arcane campaign finance rules that prohibit coordination.

We should remove those ridiculous John McCain rules so as to help David Hampton, et al, not look like dumb asses.

Hagar said...

This is the MSM attacking Cruz' wife by pretending to defend her from an attack Trump has not made.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

David Hampton said...They attacked Trump's wife first and now the newborn child.

They who?!? Cruz's campaign? No, absolutely not. A pro-Cruz PAC that ran a stupid ad in Utah ("hey, don't vote for Trump, here's a sexy picture of his crazy-hot wife"--that wasn't likely to harm Trump and he was losing Utah badly anyway)?

Are you going to hold Cruz responsible for anything and everything pro-Cruz people say and do? Why is that sort of guilt-by-association not a problem for Trump?! When David Duke supposedly endorsed Trump I agreed it wasn't fair to use that to attack Trump himself as the Media quickly did--Trump himself isn't responsible for what people who may support him might do/say/be. If you're saying that Cruz SHOULD be responsible for his supporters' actions, though, why shouldn't that be the same for Trump?

If "they" means Cruz supporters unaffiliated with his campaign then "they" for Trump includes David Duke & co. Is that actually the standard you want to use?

tim maguire said...

I know a retired police officer who suffers from depression but won't seek help because if he does, they will take away his gun. The NYPD is full of officers with mental health issues that are untreated because of the consequences of seeking treatment. Across the country, the number is almost certainly in the millions.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I mean, you guys know it's illegal for a super PAC to coordinate with a campaign, right? And that if you had any evidence that they'd coordinated in this case it'd be a big deal and could result in criminal penalties against Cruz campaign members? And that the story about that would dominate the news cycle and do big time harm to Cruz?
So, again, is there any evidence for the assertion that Cruz's campaign coordinated with this super PAC to put out a dumb ad in Utah (a state Cruz won by a large margin)? I know Trump said Cruz's campaign "bought the GQ image rights" but has anyone given any actual evidence/proof that that's true?

tim maguire said...

David Hampton, are you seriously holding Cruz responsible for somebody's tweet about Trump's granddaughter?

That's enough to make me depressed. Or it would be if I gave a rat's ass about your opinion.

Charlie said...

We are still living in the sad and uninformed place where mental illness is deemed a sign of personal weakness. Despite all the scientific knowledge of the intricacies of the brain, and so much we yet do not understand about the mind, too many continue to believe that the answer to depression and related mood disorders is as simple as deciding that you will force yourself to feel happy.

David Hampton said...

Tim; You are both naive and wrong. You can be both depressed while not "giving a rat's ass" about my opinion. I submit that you are depressed because of the truth you deny. Did Cruz condemn the attack by the PAC? Does Cruz have a history of people who support him in ways that bring a defensive attack from Trump? Yes. He is complicit either through willful ignorance, phony outrage, or planned tactics with a wink and a nod to the perps. Any of those are not the qualities of a man who wants to be POTUS.

samanthasmom said...

What kind of man with a wife with a serious illness, whether physical or mental, puts her through the stress of a national campaign? Or subjects her life to the trials of being First Lady? And yet so many of them do. Selfish bastards.

JPS said...

samanthasmom,

I'm voting Libertarian this fall. I don't want you to think this is coming from a big Cruz fan. But are you really arguing that if his wife suffered from clinical depression years ago, he is a selfish bastard for running now? Really? What if his wife had had cancer but was in remission now?

JPS said...

Oh, and, Luke Lea, 9:42: What evidence do you have of her husband's infidelity?

I'm just going to point out that if I were running for a nomination, and if I were completely amoral, I might find it useful to accuse an opponent of mine of infidelity on the basis of nothing at all. Because I'm either right, or I'm wrong but he still has to deny it, and every time he does he's losing by increments. See also the possibly apocryphal quote from LBJ, when warned that he couldn't prove his opponent had sexual relations with livestock: "I know, I just want to hear the sonofabitch deny it."

Of course Trump is far too conscientious to use such a ploy.

Robert Fulton said...

Hagar is right when saying: "This is the MSM attacking Cruz' wife by pretending to defend her..."

Brevity is the soul of wit. This is exactly the type of comment that sometimes makes reading comments on this blog rewarding.

Yes, I'm feeling complimented by someone confirming my (astute?) perception. Yes, the comment hits one of my favorite targets hard. But, my point is that it does so without the clutter of referring to the "lesser and included" issues of this story that will quickly and rightfully pass away from our consciousness and sends the arrow directly to the heart of the matter.

Bravo.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

David Hampton said..Did Cruz condemn the attack by the PAC? Yes, he did Does Cruz have a history of people who support him in ways that bring a defensive attack from Trump? Again, do you really want to get into a "whose supporters are worse" contest when your guy is Trump??Yes. He is complicit either through willful ignorance nonsensical--he can't coordinate w/a superPac so he's required to remain "ignorant", phony outrage he's guilty because he's not actually outraged at something he didn't do? Nonsensical, or planned tactics with a wink and a nod to the perps.That's a serious federal crime, David. You and Trump are asserting that Cruz's campaign committed a serious crime w/o any evidence--we usually leave that sort of thing to the Left & their Media supportes Any of those are not the qualities of a man who wants to be POTUS.

My notes in bold.

rhhardin said...

We need a first lady with mental health problems.

rhhardin said...

I assume that's mental health problems beyond just being a woman.

Brando said...

"We need a first lady with mental health problems."

Why not? The GOP is about to nominate a man with a host of his own mental problems. I wish they were as benign as depression.

Chuck said...

Well, the beatdown of David Hampton isn't quite complete yet, in my view. I think a few more kicks are in order.

Yes, David; you should now understand very well that when you accused Cruz of coordinating the nude-Melania ad, you'd be asked for proof. You've got none. Nobody has shown any proof. The SuperPAC, and Cruz himself, clearly and unequivocally denied any coordination.

And yes, David, you might just want to ask yourself about Melanija Trump's own choices in posing that way for money. They weren't sub rosa surveillance shots. It wasn't a stalker shooting pictures through a hole in the wall. It was a model, working for money and posing willingly and of her own volition, on her boyfriend's (and soon to be husband's) airplane. She got paid; if the Trump modeling agency got paid, I presume that in a sense, Donald Trump got paid for Melanija's posing. I have no sympathy for either of them.

And let's be clear, David; while Ted Cruz was uninvolved in the ad featuring a naked Melania Trump, Donald Trump's (digital) fingerprints are absolutely all over the Tweet wherein Trump threatens Heidi Cruz with "spilling the beans." It's in the Tweet. It was the sole purpose of the Tweet.

God, what a beatdown this is. I know that the Trumpkins like powerful, forceful, simple, easy-to-understand beatdowns. That is why I like this one.

CStanley said...

Ugh, Hagar is right. This is New York Magazine patting itself on the back while spreading negative information about a candidate's wife. Plausible deniability by saying, "See, people really shouldn't be invading her privacy by sharing this information, or this, and especially not this."

traditionalguy said...

FTR: Melania's cover shot is intentionally not naked ( no tits and no ass shown)and not that seductive except for female hip curves and some decollitage. You see far more in sports Illustrated.

Heidi is just a good woman under a lot of stress. Being married to a Liar does that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

FTR: Melania's cover shot is of her in a state of nudity--whether the actual picture shows her breasts and butt does not determine whether she's nude or not. One description is "nude but covered." I don't get Sports Illustrated but what one sees in that magazine says exactly nothing about whether a particular photo features a nude woman.

Also FTR I generally enjoy photos of attractive women and do not discourage them from taking and distributing such photos, nude or not.

If being married to a liar puts one under a lot of stress you should really pray for the health of both Clintons...it's a wonder either is still alive at this point.

Birkel said...

Her butt is shown. Don't be daft, traditionalguy.

Alex said...

It does highlight that the President and his wife need to be utterly bullet-proof to win. Ronald & Nancy Reagan had no skeletons in the closet when running in '80.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Normally, in the past, the wife and children of the candidates would be a non issue.

However, since the position of First Lady now seems to be a launching pad for a future Senatorial or Presidential candidate like Hillary and with the rumors that Michelle would be a future candidate, it does seem that the public has more rightful interest in just who the FLOTUS is.

The First Ladies seem to also have more and more political power while their husband's are President. Again with Michelle and her disastrous lunch program which has caused schools much financial harm and irritated the heck out of thousands of school children. Who gives these un-elected women such power?

Not only that, the spousal relationships in any marriage or business can produce all sorts of stresses on the participants. For instance if one spouse, say the wife is mentally ill (I am NOT saying that Mrs. Cruz is) then the stress can adversely affect the husband and his job performance. Since the President's job performance is pretty darned important, it IS important and within our rights to know if such a condition exists.

These people have power over us. We have the right to know just who they are.

damikesc said...

They attacked Trump's wife first

A pro-Rubio group puts up a picture from GQ of Trump's wife and it's Ted's fault. Intriguing.

Cruz makes a habit out of enjoying the attacks on Trump and his family then tries to claim the high ground as the victim.

It's Cruz's job to demand people be nicer to Trump? Jeez, why not cite how McCain didn't let people be mean to poor old Obama while we're at it?

Don't risk pimping your family for political gain. It doesn't work.

How is he "pimping" anything?

Did Cruz condemn the attack by the PAC?

"Treat Trump with kid gloves" seems like a sign of weakness.

damikesc said...

I'm waiting for a remix of the "Leave Britney alone" kid for Trump at this point.

I'd vote for Trump...but man his supporters make it difficult.

Big Mike said...

"She has every right to make that decision for herself ... bu-u-u-ut.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Godfather said...

So if Cruz gets the GOP nomination, we'll have choice between having a First Lady who overcame severe depression or a First Gentleman who is (or at least was -- he may not have the capacity anymore) a sexual predator, possibly a rapist, a chronic liar, and corrupt. Gosh, it's hard to choose.

Eric said...

We need a first lady with mental health problems.

We don't need a first lady at all. It doesn't matter if she has mental health problems.

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

Melania's cover shot is of her in a state of nudity--whether the actual picture shows her breasts and butt does not determine whether she's nude or not. One description is "nude but covered." I don't get Sports Illustrated but what one sees in that magazine says exactly nothing about whether a particular photo features a nude woman.

Scott Brown was elected Senator in MA after he posed nude in Cosmopolitan supposedly showing everything but his dick.

I swear there are paranoid Republican women out there who supported Brown who now get the jealous vapors over Melania.

Grow the fuck up, ladies! (You too, Chuck)

aritai said...

seems the question is what did mr. C. do to drive her around the bend. Since Mr. T. gave him one warning of cage his dogs for embarrassing mom's children for working to support them and herself he Mr. C. should expect the flamethrowers, including "what did you do?" Needless to say the Serial polygamist seems to leave them all smiling. Must be true what his adversaries brought up earlier in the campaign attacking his manliness. Couldn't havee happened to a lousier group wanna be presidents. Mayby primaries do have some redeeming value. Better to know this now that most ladies won't be able to stand the others. And will gravitate to today's Jackie who never had to endure the abuse of her husband, brothers, or father in law who would loudly entertain his driver in the upstairs bedrood boisterously in full earshot of Rose and the kids. A terrible man. An infate a doll of his father. Killed by a communist after he had done great harm. Preserved by Jackie in the interest of and the love she had for her children.

David said...

I not see anything in the article showing that Trump attacked her about depression.

damikesc said...

Since Mr. T. gave him one warning of cage his dogs for embarrassing mom's children for working to support them and herself he Mr. C. should expect the flamethrowers, including "what did you do?"

Can I call ANY children of politicians bad names?

I mean, Obama did parade Malia and Sasha around during his campaign.

You know, those two harlots.

Bill and Hillary had Chelsea around during his campaigns.

You know, that skank.

I'm all for kids being off-limits...but if they're not off-limits, then it's time for some well-deserved payback, don't you think?

The rest of your post was rank idiocy and I feel dumber having looked at it.