That's a bit of a stretch, considering none of us here have the intimate knowledge necessary to declare whether or not Ted Cruz and his wife are "good parents". On the other hand, including kindergarten aged kids with speaking roles in a political ad created by one's political handlers might raise the eyebrows of those with a traditional viewpoint - myself included. But in today's politics all is fair, and I'll bet Cruz and his managers had a gut feeling somebody on the liberal/Democrat side would attack the ad - and they hit the jackpot.Adults who 'use' their offspring in political situations are not good parents - and that goes for those who take them to protests as well.
how do you know it was his "dick" that did the work? have to do a DNA test to find out for sure, lol, just sayin...Attacking a politician's minor kids, instead of the politician, is pretty lame, no matter how involved and visible the kids are in the campaign. Because, like you said, kids can't understand what's going on. If they're 18, then it's a different deal, because they can participate or not.
Politicians have been using their kids in political campaigns since at least John Adams. They do it mainly to show they're a "family man." Or, more recently, a "family woman" (see Palin, Sarah). But every time I see a politician parade his children out on a campaign, all I can think is, "Oh, look, his dick works." Which is probably not the thought and feeling they're attempting to engender.
Far as I know, no politician has ever used his kids in a campaign to praise an opponent. They have always been used to either praise the parent or criticize the opponent. Neither one is crossing the line. Both are routine. Criticizing the children, that's crossing the line.Politicians have always used their kids in campaign photos, true, but Cruz crossed the line when he had his daughters publicly criticize Obama, via their choices in reading material.
All the outrage is correctly focused. Something very close to approaching 100 percent of all politicians feature family members in political ads.All the outrage is from those who believe only the cartoonist is guilty of overstepping the bounds of decency, but Cruz is just as wrong, IMO.
In a parody ad aired during SNL? No. So you may be on to wondering there.Of course all candidates use their families in the campaign - but has anyone ever had one of their kids impugning the POTUS as Cruz did?
Soooo, is it attacking the competition in general that's the problem, or is it attacking Clinton that's the problem? Or is it that using them as props is fine, just don't give them a speaking role? Chelsea Clinton, speaking role. Laura Bush, speaking role. Amy Carter, speaking roles as a second grader in campaign ads. She didn't exactly praise the president or her dad's competition.He went beyond using them as props, to giving them lines to recite, attacking his competition [Clinton], and that is where he crossed the line.
So it's having it on film that's the problem. Got it.If he chooses to teach his kids to parrot his opinions of the candidates [because they can't possibly form a reasoned view of their own, at their age], that's his business, but filming it for his campaign was bad parenting and beyond what's acceptable. It's like dressing a little girl as a hooker: not cricket. Or kosher, or whatever - it's just not done, for good reason.
They're hard to find. The media, being all liberal and stuff, have quietly tucked away most of those, because they can be brought out and pointed to as examples of blatant hypocrisy in the media. There's a book by Erica J. Seifert called The Politics of Authenticity in Presidential Campaigns, 1976-2008. It deals with the "authenticity" mindset of the Baby Boom generation and how 6 presidents (Carter thru Obama) used that in varying degrees in interacting with the media and the public. Part of Carter's included the homey, folksy good ol' boy farmer doing everyday stuff, just like you and me. and it played off the fetishism that America had over the ordinary activities of extraordinary people (that mainly began with the Kennedy's and their kids in Camelot). Part of that was not only Carter's mother, Lillian, but also Amy. To my knowledge, no, Amy didn't publicly attack an opponent of her father's or of POTUS Ford, like Cruz's kids did, so please don't go all Emily Litella, "Oh! Well, that's completely different, then!" because it's exactly the same. Neither had a clue about the validity of what they had to say.I don't recall Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter doing campaign ads, I'll have to look for them.
I think parents should be able to raise their own kids any way they see fit, and without any outside interference.I agree that teaching kids to parrot a parent's beliefs is universal, [it's why nearly everyone 'chooses' the same religion as their parents] but that doesn't make it ok, IMO.
"And everybody recognizes it for what it is. If anyone actually believed that Cruz's kids understood and believed what they were saying, then the outrage would be justified. Otherwise, the outrage is mostly coming from liberals who realized that it was effective."My outrage is precisely because I know Cruz' kids [and everyone else's, too] don't have a clue about the validity of the speech they are 'encouraged' to offer. That's exactly what makes it wrong.