Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Has Cruz Learned His Lesson? Firing One Staffer is a Start


Has Cruz learned his lesson?

When a Christian runs for office, he has to have a squeaky clean campaign. Sure, people sin or do dumb things. But the leadership must act swiftly. Or, at least, set up expectations within the campaign so that when bad things do happen, those who can will rectify the problem.

Cruz did just that.

With the recent discovery that his campaign spokesman passed an erroneous video of Rubio dissing the Bible, Cruz acted swiftly. He fired the man.

Good for Cruz.

I am sure it was tempting to pass on such a juicy video to the detriment of one’s political opponent. After all, this is politics, right?

Not for Cruz.

He declared at the press conference: “The standards of conduct in this campaign have been made absolutely clear.”

In particular, he explained: It was a “grave error in judgment” and “we are not a campaign that is going to question the faith of another candidate. Even if it was true, our campaign should not have sent it.”

The staffer, Tyler, explained: “I posted in haste, I should not have done it…it was a mistake and I would not knowingly post something I knew to be false.”

Cruz did not accept the explanation.

So why did he accept a similar excuse during the Iowa fiasco? Why did he not fire that staffer?

That was a “grave error in judgment”. That was posted in haste. And that was a mistake. It was a mistake that had larger ramifications.

The erroneous Rubio video was quickly caught and retracted. But the erroneous Carson twitter was not quickly caught nor retracted until the damage was done.

Yes, Cruz did apologize to Carson. But the apology was not followed by appropriate action. Like firing a staffer (as I suggested in my first article).

Somehow he thought now was the time to fire someone for a mistake. Maybe the difference was that this mistake attacked someone’s religious beliefs? Cruz did state that as a reason.

But why would that be different than subverting a person’s campaign—the blood, sweat and tears of a man’s commitment? Remember, as one observant debate moderator noted, Cruz considered Carson a friend. Why would he not treat him as such?

In substance there is no difference between the two incidences as reported in the media.

As I detailed before, both were violations of the Ninth Commandment—a sloppy handling of the truth. Both showed a willingness to quickly pass on bad news. Both showed a corresponding lack of thinking the best of one’s neighbor. Both showed gross culpable negligence.

Both incidences occurred under the leadership of Cruz. True, he personally did not pass on the erroneous facts. But as a leader, he is still responsible for what culture he creates and what he does when things go awry.

That is the way of leadership.

But what kind of leadership has Cruz exercised?

Concerning Carson, he quickly blamed someone else. Concerning Rubio, he quickly fired a staffer.

Only one incident showed strong character.

Cruz can make that two.


The Carson-Cruz fiasco analyzed:

Cruz, Carson and a Chain of Confusion

Resolving the Cruz-Carson Fiasco

[See also: Cruz met with Carson; Sen. King thinks Cruz should not have apologized]


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on

Send this to a friend