You work with what you've got. Cruz isn't capable of appearing compassionate or playing the "happy warrior" cliche. Have you seen this guy try to laugh? He looks like he's in pain. He's a miserable little dude (or has the permanent look of one) and he's going to play to that angry/depressed/scared segment of the population.
umm...no. It was a margin loan at the going rate for someone of his net worth based (and secured) on the value of his portfolio. If you really want to speculate...maybe some wealthy supporter assured him they'd pay off the loan later if he couldn't ante up....or you could go on about how reckless he was about his finances...but there are so many genuine criticisms of Cruz beyond messing up a form.
wake me up when an American politician runs an ad with a hedonistic pansexual orgy with Satan worship. *trigger warning lol*
True I would agree in the big picture this probably won'tt hurt him and there are many other issues to criticize Cruz on. That said I was just pointing out that the idea that Cruz really is a populace is false when he's benefited quite a bit from Wall Street Big Wigs as much as any of those he rails against. That he hid it to burnish his populace standing furthers his hypocrisy.
In the final analysis, this is what it may well come down to in order to determine the nominee, as other candidates drop out and reduced to two. Because in the end, there can be only one.
Yet another corrupt politician: Ted Cruz Didn’t Report Goldman Sachs Loan in a Senate Race As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple. “Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed. But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports. Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago. A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose. Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans. A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used. The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything. “These transactions have been reported in one way or another on his many public financial disclosures and the Senate campaign’s F.E.C. filings,” she said. Kenneth A. Gross, a former election commission lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law, said that listing a bank loan in an annual Senate ethics report — which deals only with personal finances — would not satisfy the requirement that it be promptly disclosed to election officials during a campaign. “They’re two different reporting regimes,” he said. “The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.” There would have been nothing improper about Mr. Cruz obtaining bank loans for his campaign, as long as they were disclosed. But such a disclosure might have conveyed the wrong impression for his candidacy. Mr. Cruz, a conservative former Texas solicitor general, was campaigning as a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. It is a theme he has carried into his bid for the Republican nomination for president. Earlier this year, when asked about the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular, he replied, “Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.” In recounting the decision to put all of their savings into the campaign, Mr. Cruz said in the 2013 Times interview that Mrs. Cruz immediately agreed to his proposal, even though he was trailing in the polls and still viewed as a long shot against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who spent $24 million of his own money on the race. “What astonished me, then and now, was Heidi within 60 seconds said, ‘Absolutely,’ with no hesitation,” Mr. Cruz said. Mrs. Cruz, who is on leave as a managing director at Goldman Sachs, later suggested that the reality was more complicated. She told Politico in 2014 that she thought they should apply “common investment sense” and not use their own money for the campaign “unless it made the difference” in winning. The article did not mention anything about loans from banks. The money from the Cruzes allowed his campaign to keep running television ads in the period preceding the primary election, including a $300,000 ad buy that highlighted the story of Mr. Cruz’s father’s flight from Cuba in the 1950s after opposing the Batista regime. Mr. Cruz earned enough votes in the primary to qualify for a runoff, where he defeated Mr. Dewhurst and went on to win the general election. The ethics reports that candidates file with the Senate require them to list all assets they held at the close of the year or that generated income during the year. Assets are reported in broad categories of value, such as $1,001 to $15,000 and $100,001 to $250,000. Mr. Cruz’s filings show that at the close of 2011, he and his wife had cash and securities in bank, brokerage and retirement accounts worth $1.3 million to $3.4 million. They also had mortgages and a loan against Mr. Cruz’s partnership equity in his law firm. During 2012, they sold securities worth $82,000 to $355,000, and the value of other holdings was reduced by, at most, $155,000. However, they also added a money-market account with $250,000 to $500,000 in it, and the value of other holdings increased by as much as $435,000. All told, the value of their cash and securities in 2012 saw a net increase of as much as $400,000 — even as the Cruzes were supposedly liquidating everything to finance Mr. Cruz’s Senate campaign. The biggest change in the Cruzes’ finances in 2012 was the addition of the two bank loans, each valued at $250,000 to $500,000, during the first half of the year. One was a margin loan from Goldman Sachs. Margin loans, which are secured by holdings in a brokerage account, are often used to buy more stocks, but can be obtained for almost any purpose. The other loan was a line of credit from Citibank. Even if the Citibank loan did not go directly into the Senate campaign, it could have freed up other assets for that purpose. While the Cruzes were well paid — he made more than $1 million a year as a law partner, and she earned a six-figure income as an executive in Goldman Sachs’s Houston office — they also had big bills, including mortgage payments and full-time child care. Both loans had floating interest rates around 3 percent, according to Mr. Cruz’s Senate disclosures, which appear to be generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time. During the remainder of 2012, the Cruz campaign repaid Mr. Cruz for about half of the money he lent. His Senate disclosures show that he and his wife paid off the Citibank loan that same year. As for the Goldman Sachs loan, it remains outstanding, though the balance has been reduced to between $50,000 and $100,000. The federal guide to campaign finance reporting for congressional candidates makes it clear that if the original source of money for a candidate’s personal loan was a margin loan or a line of credit, it must be disclosed. “Bank loans to candidates and loans derived from advances on a candidate’s brokerage accounts, credit cards, home equity line of credit, or other lines of credit obtained for use in connection with his or her campaign must be reported by the committee,” according to the guide. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html?_r=1
Oops. Cruz is a corrupt bum who's playing been playing Texans for a while now. I still crack up when I think of Cruz' talking about how Iran was going to kill millions of people by shooting a nuke into the air off of the coast and send out magnetic impulses that would be disastrous. But his corruption and covering up of that, isn't a laughing matter.
As a persuadable Republican voter (who frankly isn't the biggest Cruz fan), I can safely say this is a complete non issue to me. It's just another NYT hit piece desperately looking for dirt on Cruz. Meanwhile, the irony of Dems not caring about dead Americans in Benghazi or National Security documents left unsecured on a candidates personal server YET somehow outraged because Cruz didn't file the right document on his campaign financing sounds pretty flipping hollow. Just saying.
Anyone that brings up Benghazi, one of the single most blatant attempts to politicize an American tragedy, needs to have their head examined. Please don't tell me you seriously believe that Benghazi was somehow more important than the numerous attacks on embassies during the Bush years- or more important than 9-11, b/c as of today, more time has been spent investigating this incident than all the others combined- and more time spent than on 9-11. It's an unmitigated disaster on the Republican party's part- and completely shameful to boot.
Nice attempt at deflection. Unfortunately, no amount of deflection can change those stubborn facts about Hillary and Benghazi. I notice it doesn't seem to bother you that the Secretary of State (among others in this corrupt administration) and others lied directly to the face of the grieving families. I watched 3 of these grieving family members she lied to on television just last night. One of them was SCREAMING she was a liar. By the way, she also lied to you. And you're accusing others of politicization of this issue? That's rich.
That's really not the biggest scandal she has going on though. She has the mishandling of classified information, ordering others to mishandle classified information, and possible corruption charges where she might have sold favors for donations to her charity which funneled money to her family. Did she lie about Benghazi? Of course, but that takes a back seat to other things she did during her tragic time as Secretary of State.
Heh, I guess I just missed that. Either way, it's a pretty terrible presidential election cycle, much like you said, I'm not in any way a big fan of Cruz and Trump is the worst possible option on either side and the odds are one of those two are going to be running either against a self described Socialist, or Hillary who has already proven that she can't be trusted to hold public office.
Did Cruz really insult the state of New York? Isn't he one of those that was mad at Obama for "dividing America"?
Ted Cruz is making an argument as part of what will be a "long-game" political attack theme against Donald Trump. He is saying that Trump is 'not one of us'. And that will resonate with a lot of people. When Cruz had a chance to explain what he meant by New York City values, even most New Yorkers will recognize some legitimacy to that. Everyone knows that New York City is more liberal and is the financial center of the world, and that the culture is all about the media and the money. Expect to see a series of ads and campaign trail attacks about this as Cruz and his campaign work to define Donald Trump in the people's minds over the next couple of months. This has a good chance of being a pretty effective line of attack. Watch and see.
Cruz is trying to detach himself. He knows that when Iran launches the nuclear missile straight into the air and the magnetic impulses will be sent out killing millions on the east coast, NY will be lost to us. Cruz is just making it easier on himself now, by detaching. Here's Cruz' incredible belief about what will happen. I can't believe anyone with such a hair brain concept about this could be taken seriously as a candidate. http://www.nationaljournal.com/twen...deal-could-lead-tens-millions-americans-dying I laugh every time I read it, or see a clip of it. What a knucklehead. Watch out for those Electro Magnetic Impulses that Iran will cause when it launches its nuclear missile straight into the air in the Atlantic Ocean.
As someone who really hates Cruz and goes around telling people he's a sociopath, I also don't really care about this. Not in comparison to the enormous crime that is campaign financing, in general. Billions are spent on 'free speech' in which the speakers are completely anonymous, and I should care about a $1m loan from companies we already know would be ideologically aligned with Cruz anyway? What I think is sad is that it can be worthwhile for a politician to liquidate their assets, mortgage their property, and take out million dollar loans for a chance at an elected position. That serving as Senator can be so profitable to make that kind of personal financial risk-taking a positive-NPV project is a testament to the state of American democracy.
#1 I agree with you that it is a non issue. #2 "Dems not caring about dead Americans in Benghazi"?... You mean Republicans exploiting dead Americans in Benghazi I assume?
