Washington Posts Satire Cartoon: Cruz Children Are Fair Game.

Politicians have used their spouses, children, and even grandchildren in their political ads for decades. That shouldn't mean their family members are open for ridicule, even if "peripherally". They aren't running for office, merely supporting their spouse/parent.

nighttimer said:

I think we're all savvy enough to know depicting two Black children as monkeys would be an entirely different level of offensiveness. There's a difference between classless and being classless and racist.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I only noted such in reference to the idea that the cartoon was somehow not portraying Cruz's kids as monkeys.

All b.s. aside, Ted Cruz is a flaming asshole, but that doesn't mean his daughters are fair game to be cruelly mocked and satirized. The WaPo screwed up big time and they own the Cruz family both a public retraction and an apology.

Click to expand...

And absolutely.

regdog said:

All minor children of public people should be left alone by the media. Their parents decided a public life, they didn't.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Even if certain politicians use their families to further their goals, decent people remember that this is not the children's choice, and attacking minors is simply scummy.

cornflake said:

This strikes me as similar to when Letterman took flack for making a joke about Alex Rodriguez and the pregnant Palin kid who was, at the time, an adult who had placed herself in the media. You can't use your kids as props and then get upset when someone notices and/or comments that you used your kids as props. The cartoon was about Cruz, not the girls. I don't recall Obama putting out ads featuring his children.

From Gawker -

Click to expand...

This. Hypocrisy at its finest. Cruz: "Let me expl...um...err...use my kids in an ad to run on the liberal media." Then after someone makes a comment about Cruz using his kids: "That DAMN liberal media! How dare they exploit my kids!"

I agree that kids shouldn't be used in political ads beyond maybe the happy family shot at the end of an ad. But Cruz had his kids making commentary on his opponents. He injected them into the political discourse by having them read faked up children's books with politically charged themes. Cruz opened the door. He needs to deal with the consequences.

For me, there is no "but". (Insert your joke here.)

Leave kids out of it. Cruz is an ass who put his kids in the middle of the race. Yes, HE needs to deal with the consequences, not his kids. The kids don't deserve further exposure, ridicule or collateral abuse from anyone just because their dad is an ass.

Vince524 said:

No. This:



If you want to take issue with the add, you can certainly write a commentary taking a swipe at him. A political cartoon that makes fun of his kids is going too far.

Click to expand...

It was a misguided choice on Cruz's part in the first place. He made the choice to bring his kids into the conversation. I agree that it's unfortunate that there is commentary about his kids, but there would be no commentary about them at all if Cruz had not first thought it was a good idea to put them into the limelight. HE made his kids public figures. You don't have them make politically charged commentary then expect everyone to remain hands off. That's just naive on Cruz's part.

I doubt this would even be an issue if it was simply Cruz reading silly fake books to his kids sitting quietly and listening. But no, he had to have them make commentary.

I will add that I do feel sorry that his kids have to go through this kind of media exposure. But for Cruz, I have no sympathy.

I feel sorry for the kids, but by placing them in a political ad, Cruz put them in that position. Cruz benefitted on the front end with the ad and on the back end with the fundraising. I blame Ted Cruz more than WaPo.

The WaPo article will be forgotten rather soon, but girls are stuck with a jerk for a father for how long?

I think this cartoon was attempting to lambaste Cruz's alleged relationship with his kids, rather than the poor kids itself (it simply makes me feel rather sorry for them). But it's still unpleasant, and no kid wants to be portrayed as a monkey. So they pulled the cartoon, which seems like the right thing to do.

It's hard, though, because in addition to putting their families in ads, some politicians these days (mostly Republican ones, but it can cut the other way too), often push a "Good old fashioned, family values will solve all ills" agenda, yet their own dysfunctional families expose them as screaming hypocrites. How can the media satirize their advertisements or expose their hypocrisy re family values without dragging the politicians' families into it?

JLCarver said:

This. Hypocrisy at its finest. Cruz: "Let me expl...um...err...use my kids in an ad to run on the liberal media." Then after someone makes a comment about Cruz using his kids: "That DAMN liberal media! How dare they exploit my kids!"

I agree that kids shouldn't be used in political ads beyond maybe the happy family shot at the end of an ad. But Cruz had his kids making commentary on his opponents. He injected them into the political discourse by having them read faked up children's books with politically charged themes. Cruz opened the door. He needs to deal with the consequences.

Click to expand...

But attacking the children is making *them* deal with the consequences.

If if you have no other way of attacking a politician than mocking his children, you cannot have much to say about him.

Twick said:

But attacking the children is making *them* deal with the consequences.

If if you have no other way of attacking a politician than mocking his children, you cannot have much to say about him.

Click to expand...

Well, consider the following scenario: prominent pro family values politician who insists that if everyone was just forced to pray in the same way and as hard as he or she does, teen pregnancy, abortion, underage drinking, drug abuse crime and so on would go away.

Then this politician's kid turns up pregnant, or gets busted for underage drinking, or drug abuse, or commits a crime.

It's hard not to point out both the inaccuracy of their assertions and their hypocrisy for making them, and I think it's reasonable to do so if it's done in a way that doesn't focus extensively on the kid themselves.

This is not the same as portraying kids as monkeys in cartoons, however, nor the same as going after the kids for simply being kids (I was pretty disgusted by all those internet memes that were circulating about the "classless" Obama girls who did nothing worse than use their phones to take selfies at their dad's inauguration. And all those comedians making jokes about how "ugly" Chelsea Clinton was back in the 90s, or wanting to "bang" the Bush daughters in the early 2000s were beyond cruel.

Twick said:

But attacking the children is making *them* deal with the consequences.

If if you have no other way of attacking a politician than mocking his children, you cannot have much to say about him.

Click to expand...

As I said above in my next post, I do feel sorry for his children for the careless actions of their father who thrust them into the political limelight. But the basic fact remains that it was his choice to put them into the limelight. They were simply following daddy's orders, and daddy is, unfortunately, not very bright when it comes to protecting his children from media attention. And honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he did it for this very reason, that he wanted to create a media "gotcha," as many of the candidates are fond of crying about, and garner sympathy for his campaign.

Did no one look at William's link?

Again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-campaign-ad/2012/02/17/gIQAkH70PR_story.html

So if I'm following the logic here, any flak the Obama girls caught is the fault of Obama for "thrusting them in to the political limelight." Is that right?

robeiae said:

Did no one look at William's link?

Again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-campaign-ad/2012/02/17/gIQAkH70PR_story.html

So if I'm following the logic here, any flak the Obama girls caught is the fault of Obama for "thrusting them in to the political limelight." Is that right?

Click to expand...

Youre only following half of the logic. Any politician, if they want to show that they have a strong value for their family, is bound to show the smiling kids and the doting spouse. But what Ted Cruz did separates from this norm by having his kids make political commentary, even if it's in the form of made-up children's books.

JLCarver said:

Youre only following half of the logic. Any politician, if they want to show that they have a strong value for their family, is bound to show the smiling kids and the doting spouse. But what Ted Cruz did separates from this norm by having his kids make political commentary, even if it's in the form of made-up children's books.

Click to expand...

I agree. He made them, not window dressing, but campaigners, message carriers.

That doesn't justify shining a public or political light on them in response. They are little children. They should be off limits, regardless of who their parent is or whatever craven, opportunistic actions that parent engages in.

imo, the "grown up" response should be felt in the coffer and seen at the polls. (And public shunning, if we could ever get back to that.)

An individual who would use his own small children for personal or professional fodder would (logic follows) think little to nothing of doing the same to strangers and friends.

JLCarver said:

Youre only following half of the logic. Any politician, if they want to show that they have a strong value for their family, is bound to show the smiling kids and the doting spouse. But what Ted Cruz did separates from this norm by having his kids make political commentary, even if it's in the form of made-up children's books.

Click to expand...

I bow to no one in my utter and total contempt for Ted Cruz (with the notable exception of BoF who suffers with Cruz as one of his U.S. senators), but if we're going to go scorched earth on the children of every politician who thrusts them in the spotlight, we can eviscerate JFK and Jackie for shamelessly exploiting Carolyn and John Jr. and just work the list from there. That's a pretty wide swath we're cutting there.

Now if you're actively engaging the press or promoting mommy or daddy's politician aspirations the way Bristol Palin or Dante Di Blasio have, then they are opening themselves up to media scrutiny and satire as well. Such is not the case with the Cruz girls.

Children usually have no say how they are presented to the public by a politician who wants to show how much he or she is a family guy/gal. The press should not thrust microphones and cameras in their faces, ask them for their opinion on policy or controversial issues, dig through their background looking for dirt or follow them around peppering them with questions.

Kids are off-limits. Even Ted Cruz deserves that much.

I absolutely don't think they should go scorched earth on the children. I think the children are unfortunate victims who don't know any better. But I think we're all--at least the three of us posting above this post--are in agreement that Ted Cruz is the one to blame, and he's the ignorant mouthbreather who made the choice to exploit his children. The content of what was said is fair game. The children, however, are not. And I do think that the Washington Post cartoon took it too far. If they had commissioned a cartoon that spoke to the content of the message spoken by the children, this thread wouldn't exist. I hope that voters will respond as Williebee suggests, by responding with their feet to walk away from Ted Cruz and his messed up politics and poor choices for his family.

nighttimer said:

I bow to no one in my utter and total contempt for Ted Cruz (with the notable exception of BoF who suffers with Cruz as one of his U.S. senators), but if we're going to go scorched earth on the children of every politician who thrusts them in the spotlight, we can eviscerate JFK and Jackie for shamelessly exploiting Carolyn and John Jr. and just work the list from there. That's a pretty wide swath we're cutting there.

Now if you're actively engaging the press or promoting mommy or daddy's politician aspirations the way Bristol Palin or Dante Di Blasio have, then they are opening themselves up to media scrutiny and satire as well. Such is not the case with the Cruz girls.

Children usually have no say how they are presented to the public by a politician who wants to show how much he or she is a family guy/gal. The press should not thrust microphones and cameras in their faces, ask them for their opinion on policy or controversial issues, dig through their background looking for dirt or follow them around peppering them with questions.

Kids are off-limits. Even Ted Cruz deserves that much.

Click to expand...

Carolyn and John weren't, I don't think, used in the same way. They were quite small. I agree he used them w/re pics of the family and stuff but I don't think they were in campaign ads or the like. However, even if they were, it was a distinctly different time. Were JFK president now, I'm pretty sure the extent of his dalliances wouldn't go as uncommented-on as they did by the media of the period.

I also think there's a difference between posing for a photo, or having family at the convention, and putting the kids in actual ads in speaking roles in ads.

Chelsea Clinton existed, was on stage at the convention I think, but the public didn't hear her voice until she was an adult or near adult. I remember that being a thing, when she first spoke to the media, on, I think, a trip with her mother regarding women's rights someplace.

I don't know about comics calling her names. I know Rush Limbaugh was horrid and called her the WH dog or something idiotic, and was called out for it.

The Obama girls I've seen chided in right-wing media for things like wearing short skirts to the turkey pardoning or what have you. Some people are bananas. I think I've also seen legit comics using their appearances for gags, but directed at their father, like he's so boring they look at their phones.

Williebee said:

I agree. He made them, not window dressing, but campaigners, message carriers.

That doesn't justify shining a public or political light on them in response. They are little children. They should be off limits, regardless of who their parent is or whatever craven, opportunistic actions that parent engages in.

imo, the "grown up" response should be felt in the coffer and seen at the polls. (And public shunning, if we could ever get back to that.)

An individual who would use his own small children for personal or professional fodder would (logic follows) think little to nothing of doing the same to strangers and friends.

Click to expand...

So we're free to hurt the kids because Dad is a jerk. Got it.

Twick said:

So we're free to hurt the kids because Dad is a jerk. Got it.

Click to expand...

That's not what he said at all.

Twick said:

So we're free to hurt the kids because Dad is a jerk. Got it.

Click to expand...

No, you don't "got it".

The exact opposite. Notice the graph beginning with "That doesn't justify".

Twick said:

So we're free to hurt the kids because Dad is a jerk. Got it.

Click to expand...

This is just putting words into Williebee's mouth. Others have told you already, but it's worth repeating. Never once did he suggest the kids needed to be taken to task. In fact, here's the quote from his post above:

That doesn't justify shining a public or political light on them in response. They are little children. They should be off limits, regardless of who their parent is or whatever craven, opportunistic actions that parent engages in.

Click to expand...

Don't try to sensationalize the content of what someone says.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quoted this weekend using her daughters to make a point:

Appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the Florida congresswoman said her daughters ask, "Mom, why is he so rude?"

Click to expand...

[LINK]
I don't have a problem with her doing so, but it does illustrate that Democrats are not immune to bringing children into the political spotlight.