The Final Ethics Verdict On Ted Cruz

Check enclosed

See that official-looking envelope above? That’s from Ted Cruz’s campaign: it’s been arriving in mailboxes all over the country. See what it says in the lower right corner? “CHECK ENCLOSED.” This is to entice you to open it. But here is the “check” enclosed:

Cruz check

It’s not a check. It looks like a check, but it isn’t one, because checks can be cashed. It’s a fake check not made out to the recipient of the envelope, but to the Cruz campaign. This is a fundraising appeal, you see, but it has employed two lies:

Lie one: the label on the envelope is designed to make someone think that there is money inside. “Oh, no, the label is completely true!” a typical scumbag direct mail marketing hack will tell you. “There is a check inside!” It’s still a lie, the particular variety called deceit: saying or writing something that is literally true, but intended to deceive a reader or listener for the gain of the deceit-monger. A deceit is still a lie, it’s just a sneaky kind of lie that gives liars a way to feign innocence and insist that the confusion is not their fault, but their victim’s. Ted Cruz knows that deceits are lies better than most. He’s a lawyer, a very good lawyer. Lawyers are forbidden by their ethics rules from engaging in  in conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”  The mailer involves everything but fraud.

Lie two: there isn’t a check enclosed. It’s a check facsimile. If you think it’s a check, try cashing it or depositing it. If you think a check facsimile is honestly called a check, then you think it is honest to say a baby doll is a baby.

You can examine the rest of the mailer here, but it doesn’t matter: I wouldn’t waste my time. I would tear up any material from a person or group who would have so little respect for me to lie to me twice to get me to read it, and then have the gall to think I am stupid enough to support them. I am not that stupid or unprincipled. Are you?

Let me very clear about this, because there are no legitimate alternative views that are consistent with the facts, common sense and ethics:

1. This is a dishonest and unethical mailer and fundraising device.

2. The fact that many groups and candidates use such dishonest devices is no excuse or defense at all.

3. Any candidate or official who would approve such a slimy tactic is untrustworthy, dishonest and unfit to hold office.

4. Ted Cruz is such an official and candidate, because he used a similarly dishonest device in Iowa and refused to apologize or acknowledge its wrongfulness.

5. No one should excuse this or tolerate it. Any Cruz supporters who do are announcing their own lack of values and character.

6. That a candidate purporting to stand for restoring American values would use a mailer like this is irrefutable proof of his obsession with power above all.

7. One cannot trample on values like honesty, integrity, respect and fairness while claiming to seek power in order to protect them.

You have a bad, unethical, untrustworthy candidate, Ted Cruz supporters.

Have some respect for yourself and your country, and find someone else.


Pointer: Fred

Sources: Huffington Post


26 thoughts on “The Final Ethics Verdict On Ted Cruz

  1. In a previous post I reluctantly said Cruz was the least worst after Rubio did everything in his power to crash and burn… and now this. I’m putting my marbles on Fiorina now, or Kasich maybe… You know what? Just open a phonebook and pick a name: I’ll support whoever comes up.

  2. “Dude, your letter lied to me before I even opened it! Why in God’s name would I trust you with anything?”

    Serious mail comes in plain envelopes for security. If the envelope says “Urgent” or “Time Sensitive Materials” or “Check” or “Personal and Confidential”…it’s not any of those things.

  3. Perhaps, I have what amounts to an ethics “stick” rather than what is regularly evidenced on this blog that I would describe as more like a “scalpel”. Curiosity gets me as to what’s inside, and things like this mailer bring out laughter rather than dismissal of a candidate. After all, I’m not looking to vote for Jesus. Of the presidents who could be considered great, did they use tricks to get votes? Do we have at least one disappointingly unethical(Cruz level of unethical) president who we would both reject in vote and stand firm in principle to reject regardless of national outcome, but who proved to be invaluable to our prosperity and security when in office?

    • Those are two rationalizations, at least.
      In answer to your second question, I have no problem saying “No.” The closest would be Nixon, and you know where he ended up. Kennedy and Johnson, especially Kennedy, had abysmal ethics in many areas, and neither were essential to the office or the union. FDR, maybe—but that was also moral luck. Yes, corrupt individuals may surprise and be exemplary Presidents. It is still a better bet to have non-corrupt leaders than corrupt ones.

  4. Trump has shown us that the general lack of ethics seems to be rewarded in the GOP these days. I have no proof that the Cruz campaign wouldn’t have stooped this low without the presence and popularity of the blatantly unethical Trump in the campaign, but I’d like to think he wouldn’t have stooped so low.

    Trump is counting the basic human nature of other GOP candidates to react to everything he says and does, Trump is currently in control of the GOP. Every word Trump speaks, every irritated piece of body language that Trump exhibits and the reactions of fellow candidates is dragging the GOP into the gutter and that is exactly where Trump wants it to end up. When the GOP follows Trump into the gutter one little piece at a time, Trump reaches his goal; all the Democratic Party has to do is to sit back, watch the fireworks, and laugh their collective asses off as the GOP implodes and the Democratic Party wins by default. For the Democratic Party, it’s got nothing to do with ideology anymore, it’s going to come down to the last one standing.

    I really do respect opinions that say Trump is not purposely trying to destroy the GOP and in my heart I want to believe that but I can’t put aside the signs that lead me to the conclusion that I simply think you’re wrong. It’s a bit like proving gravity, the signs are all there to prove it’s existence.

    At one point in our history, the human race thought the Sun orbited around the Earth; intelligent observation proved that wrong too.

    Are you ready for the equivalent to a one party system?

      • There is certainly that possibility; however, on the outside chance that Sanders were to actually win the nomination and the Presidency doesn’t that show a clear trend that the Democratic Party has essentially turned itself into a Democratic Socialist Party – that would still be a one party system?

            • The Democrats would vote for Sanders, but thank God that the alternative is Trump and not Cruz.

              For the record, I do know MANY sane Democrats who are pulling for Sanders. I can’t explain it though.

            • The stupid Democrats will vote in some numbers for Trump. The deluded Democrats will vote for Sanders.
              This is Bllomberg’s sceanrio, of course. Given that choice, I’d vote for Bloomberg.

              • At least among the Democrats I know, the single issue they care most about is SCOTUS nominations, above economic and foreign policy. (Admittedly, my sampling might be a bit skewed since the majority of my friends are attorneys.) Because of that, they will vote for Sanders — especially since Sanders’ domestic policies cannot be achieved in a divided Congress, or even a Democrat-controlled Congress. There is no way that they will risk splitting the vote with Bloomberg causing a Republican to get elected. They learned that lesson with Nader.

                There will be stupid people in both parties who vote for Trump just because he is a TV personality. Presumably, those same people would vote for Paris Hilton or the Kardashian de jour. I imagine it’s pretty hard to trace the stupid-politically-unaligned-but-will-still-vote-for-TV-stars-demographic.

  5. I’ve said (or Jack has said and I agreed) that I’ll vote for a lawnchair before I vote for Hillary. That noted, I am furious with the fund raising tactics of the Republicans. I am not a member of the Republican party, but gave them a donation once years ago. Since then I have been inundated with e-mail solicitations, but the worst: At least six letters from the Republican National Committee, with big red letters on the front of the envelope which says “PAST DUE!” Looks like an embarrassing overdue bill, but inside is a “reminder” that I have not “re-upped” as a Republican. I am an independent; I have mentioned this when I’ve have had the unfortunate bad judgment to answer a phone call; I have scrawled “Return to Sender” on the envelope. They keep on coming.

    When there is a Republican candidate I choose to support monetarily, I will do so. Meantime, it is clear that Cruz is taking his lead from his party: and it makes them all look like slimebags, which they are not. At least not as much as the ultimate one — Hillary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.