The Ted Cruz And Kids Cartoon.

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
IMHO kids should be off limits, they did it to bush's kids, Clintons, O's. Even if the person uses them in their campaign I just think targeting them is wrong. Kinda like a kid saying well he started it when they get in trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman and muttly

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
Adults who 'use' their offspring in political situations are not good parents - and that goes for those who take them to protests as well.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
Adults who 'use' their offspring in political situations are not good parents - and that goes for those who take them to protests as well.
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.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
Might have been a calculated move on Cruz's part, but ethical journalism should have kept the WP from running the type of cartoon that they did regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

BigCheese

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
It all sounds like professional politics and free Air-Time to me. Cruz and his team new exactly what they were doing.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
Any parent who uses a minor to advance their political agenda is, by definition, projecting beliefs a child is incapable of choosing. Politics, like sex, is best reserved for adults who can understand the ramifications of various positions. So to speak. And I totally disagree that "in today's politics, all is fair", because it isn't, and shouldn't be. Kids have no more business being involved in politics than I have in designing advanced astrophysical experiments, or Pilgrim campaigning for Bernie Sanders.
People who drag their offspring to protests and have them carrying signage really irk me.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
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.
 

jjtdrv4u

Expert Expediter
Offline
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.
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...
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
I really don't know that it is. It is, nevertheless, the thought I have.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
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. The cartoonist ought to have framed a response that didn't involve the girls, which was just as wrong as the original offense. 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.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
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.
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.

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.
All the outrage is correctly focused. Something very close to approaching 100 percent of all politicians feature family members in political ads.

The same Washington Post ran a story in 2012 talking about politicians using their families in campaigns. They noted Michelle Obama's comments that Malia and Sasha enjoy campaigning. Also of particular note is the comment about Obama using his family, and his children in particular, as a political asset. "The value of the family is enormous. The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms [as a family man], the harder it is to vilify him."

But let someone they don't like do the same thing, and they go out of their way to vilify them. After the Cruz parody ad ran on SNL, and before the cartoon was even published, the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes Tweeted her preemptive defense, "Ted Cruz has put his children in a political ad- don’t start screaming when editorial cartoonists draw them as well." She did that because she knew people would start screaming. And they did, right on her Twitter account, even before the cartoon was published. Then she later admitted she did it because the Cruz kids were depicted as "cute, funny and likable" and that's just unacceptable (for any candidate she doesn't like).

No, Cruz didn't cross a line. He did what every other politician has done, which is use his kids as human shields, and proxies, for political gain. But regardless of how much or how blatantly children are used in political campaigns, they are still off limits, no matter what their parents' politics. Ted Cruz shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House, even on the public tour, but that doesn't mean he crossed a line that can't be crossed since others, including Obama, have done the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
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? 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.
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.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
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?
In a parody ad aired during SNL? No. So you may be on to wondering there.

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.
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.

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.
So it's having it on film that's the problem. Got it.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
The problem, as I see it, is putting words in kids' mouths, that they are too young to understand, much less endorse. That applies to all parents, whether campaigning, protesting, or whatever. Parading them in front of cameras is one thing, but giving them a 'voice' when they're incapable of making a choice is not smart at all.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Ted Cruz didn't cross a line, though, he did the same thing every parent does routinely. Some parents teach their kids to parrot politispeak, others teach their kids to parrot Bible versus and "because the Bible tells me so," while other parents teach their kids to parrot atheism. or that gay is normal, or that blacks are scum, or that Muslims are evil, or that the kid is somehow special and brilliant and deserving. Or any other of a thousand personal political issues the parents are on about. They all do it, every day. 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. There was zero outrage from the left when Chelsea Clinton did her thing in TV ads, nor when Amy Carter did hers when she was a second grader. Everyone simply wrote it off as being both "cute" and as she they really didn't understand what they were saying, anyway. Didja know Teddy Roosevelt actually had his 5 very young children read speeches on the campaign stops? (the 6th was much older but did them, too)

But no matter how icky politicians are for using their kids in campaign ads, the kids are still off limits from attack and ridicule. Period.

Ever notice how when conservatives attack the children of liberals, they all end up getting fired or forced to resign, but when liberals attach the children of conservatives, they all get to keep their jobs? I find that fascinating.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
I don't recall Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter doing campaign ads, I'll have to look for them.
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.
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. It's particularly egregious when a candidate does it, because they are portraying themselves as leadership material, whereas the average protester whose kids are holding signs is not. We hope.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
I don't recall Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter doing campaign ads, I'll have to look for them.
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.

amy-carter-with-grandmother-lillian-on-june-101976-in-plains-georgia-picture-id188011803

This was taken in June, 1976 in Plains, GA during a break while still 8-years old Amy was filming a television campaign ad, and before she took the podium to deliver a speech about why people needed to vote for her dad.

81359-d.jpg

This was taken at the Fort Worth Convention Center in Texas on Sunday, Nov. 1, 1976 right after 9-year old Amy gave a rousing speech just days before the election.

Chelsea didn't do nearly as much. She had a couple of speeches at campaign events, then kept out of the spotlight (thanks mainly to SNL's Mike Meyers taking a shot at her during Wayne's World ("If [the Gore girls] were a president, they’d be Babe-raham Lincoln … Chelsea — well, she’s a babe in development."), and John McCain commenting that the reason Chelsea is so ugly is because her father is Janet Reno, and after Ruch Limbaugh caller her a dog) until she spoke at length at Bill's farewell event 8 years later. There's one semi-famous picture snapped of Chelsea, Hillary and Bill about 15 minutes before Chelsea took the podium to give a short speech and introduce her dad. She looks just thrilled beyond belief to be there.

article-2262595-16F2FADC000005DC-781_634x563.jpg

January 1992, a year before Bill's inauguration, at a campaign event in Columbia, SC.

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.
I think parents should be able to raise their own kids any way they see fit, and without any outside interference.

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.
"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."
 
Top