Ted Cruz Defends Dildos on CNN, Calls Himself 'One of the Most Libertarian Members of the Senate'
Cruz is walking back earlier support for sex-toy sales bans after his account liked a porn tweet on Twitter Tuesday.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is walking back earlier support for sex-toy sales bans after a "staffer" liked a porn tweet on Twitter Tuesday morning.
Cruz's account liking the porn-clip, from the account @SexuallPosts, was quickly picked up by folks on Twitter. On Wednesday, Cruz went on CNN to talk about the faux-pas, which he attributed to an unnamed communications staffer who made a mistake.
When Bash asked about his earlier support for a Texas law banning the sale of sex toys, Cruz called the law "stupid" and said he was just doing his duty.
"I worked for the attorney general," said Cruz. "The attorney general's job is to defend the laws passed by the Texas legislature. One of those laws was a law restricting the sale of sex toys, which is a stupid law."
"Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in their bedrooms," Cruz continued, going so far as to suggest he is "one of the most libertarian members of the Senate."
This is—just in case anyone needs a reminder—patently false; Cruz's "libertarianism" is opportunistic, and he turns it on and off as it suits him. But for now, at least, we can all enjoy watching Cruz squirm.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
Dildos. Ted Cruz. Squirm.
That's not how SEO works dude.
It's Crusty's "to do" list.
Consenting
It's "attorney's general job."
Yuck
Yuck
Yuck
Yuck
Yuck
Yuck
Yuck
"I worked for the attorney general," said Cruz. "The attorney general's job is to defend the laws passed by the Texas legislature. One of those laws was a law restricting the sale of sex toys, which is a stupid law."
"Attorneys general have no discretion in which laws they defend and to what extent. The infinite time and resources at their disposal are more a prison than a blessing."
He wasn't the attorney general. He didn't get to set AG policy.
Unfortunately, what Cruz says is 100% true.
*walks away quietly sobbing*
Damn you and your conciseness!
Yeah ol' Lyin' Ted still ranks about 4th, at worst. He's well ahead of reason's fave authoritarian Mormon Deep State centrist Jeff Flake.
Flake also voted to table the discussion of repealing the AUMF, so yes he is another example of a fraud right alongside Cruz.
Also, just to point it out, there were Democrats who voted against tabling the discussion. Just want to point out that there are Democrats who are apparently on board with at least having that talk which is heartening to some degree.
Yeah. This amuses me. If this is how we treat our "friends" who is going to join us?
Come on, you need a few initiation rituals (aka hazing) to see who's worthy of being in the club.
/sarc
"Oh yeah, noob? Well, if you're so libertarian, let's see you inject these syringes of heroin! What, you scared of needles, BOY?"
I only smoke drugs. What kind of pussy are you that's afraid of smoke?
What do you think we're injecting? Real men only use aerosolized heroin- the risk of an embolism gives the high that extra "oomph" of testosterone.
And by "drugs", BUCS means his wife's pubic hair.
Well, that explains why he's used to pussies that aren't afraid of smoke.
"I am one of the least dangerous parasites, " said the e. coli.
These;
Cruz continued, going so far as to suggest he is "one of the most libertarian members of the Senate."
...
Cruz's "libertarianism" is opportunistic, and he turns it on and off as it suits him.
Don't justify:
This is?just in case anyone needs a reminder?patently false;
He's certainly no Rand Paul. He's certainly both more libertarian (and actually in the Senate) when compared to John McCain, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, etc., etc.
His statement is, at best, conditionally false.
Indeed. Give me an opportunistic libertarian over a principled socialist any day of the week.
I've come to realize that 'duty' truly is a bad word.
Think of how much evil throughout history has been facilitated by people 'just doing their duty'.
For that matter, consider the crimes committed in the name of "justice" or "liberty." It's criminals abusing words. But the words themselves describe good things.
They're not abusing anything - what is 'justice' except what the powerful say it is? What is liberty except what the powerful say it is?
You're *told* if you'll get justice, you're *told* what that justice will be, you're *told* that if you aren't satisfied to just suck it up, and you're told that if you don't get it at all then too bad.
OK, but if you're still capable of being indignant at injustice, maybe justice is a real concept even if unjust people try to distort it.
...Cruz's "libertarianism" is opportunistic, and he turns it on and off as it suits him.
EVERYONE'S LIBERTARIANISM IS OPPORTUNISTIC.
Sadly, he is actually one of the most libertarian members of the Senate. Top 5, at least.
It might be more fair to say that he is tied for 5th with 95 other senators.
Name 2, 3 and 4
Even putting Mike Lee at #2 (he's in the top 4 anyways) is questionable.
FreedomWorks ranks Cruz in the top 20 with a score of 90-not sure what other metric to use but he is easily better than most members of the Senate.
http://congress.freedomworks.o.....enate/2017
I was too lazy to look but I recall lyin' Ted being one of only 3 or 4 votes against some bipartisan tyranny.
"Lyin' Ted"? Do you REALLY want to channel Donald Trump, or do you too think Ted's lying about his father's involvement in the JFK assassination?
It's like saying I'm the nicest nazi.
That reminds me of a story. One of our family friends lived through WW2 and personally witnessed some horrendous shit which I will not get into. Let's just say he was not fond of nazis. When he first came to the US, he worked the night shift in a 7-11 in California and was robbed several times. So he was not fond of the 7-11 clientele. He said that one time there was some kind of nazi convention in town and a big group of nazis walked into the 7-11, all decked out in uniforms with swastikas on their arm. At first he was terrified, but he said they turned out to be some of the nicest and most polite people he's ever met. How the times have changed, huh?
One thing missing is his vote on tabling debate on Rand's move to get a vote on the AUMF.
"I believe executive branch officials have a duty to enforce all laws, no matter how stupid or liberty destroying. Please vote for me to be President."
If the legislature adopts an unconstitutional law, I don't think the executive should automatically defend it. The state AG, for example, could say the law is unconstitutional and submit himself to being sued or impeached, as the case may be.
If the legislature isn't able to successfully impeach the AG in these circumstances, maybe that's a sign the law isn't all that constitutional.
But let's say the voters themselves, the same people who elected the AG, approve a law - then if there's an ethical way to defend that law in court the AG owes it to the people to do exactly that.
The AG doesn't owe it to anyone to make the effort to enslave others for their benefit.
"[...] the AG owes it to the people to do exactly that."
Is it better to dishonestly defend a law you think is bad, or to stand aside and let someone who believes the law is good to honestly defend it?
And it's not like laws are people. People are entitled to a lawyer in criminal cases. Laws aren't.
Oh, is that what they swear to do when they take the job?
Ted wasn't the AG. He worked for the AG.
Ted wouldn't be the one to get impeached, so the AG would have to review his work to make sure it's legit.
Or maybe they'd both have been impeached, or maybe the legislature would have ignored the whole thing, I don't know how Texas politics works.
You lost me at claiming Cruz isn't libertarian because he doesn't conflate it with open borders.
NO TRUE MEXICAN
There are two other legs on Reason's three-legged stool...I don't think Cruz looks good on those things either.
He's not Mexican. He's Canadian.
When I woke up this morning, I never imagined that I would see a graphic of a dildo wearing a cape.
Today has been seized.
I woke up this morning, had a bit of the grape
I said I woke up this morning, and had a bit of a grape
I must have got the DTs, because I saw a dildo wearing a cape.
ALTERNATE VERSION: got in a bit of a scrape...I must have had the DTs because etc.
STEVE SMITH VERSION:
Woke up this morning, looking for something to rape
I said I woke up this morning, mama, looking for something to rape
But I felt inadequate after I saw a dildo wearing a cape
So, according to Ms. Brown, who ARE the most libertarian members of the Senate, after Rand Paul that is?
Nancy Pelosi?
Jeff Flake. Obviously.
It's not like he cared or anything.
Denver nurses suspended for opening body bag to admire man's genitals
Looks like we've spotted a Crusty sock puppet!
My first instinct is that's disgusting, my second instinct is that his junk must have been magnificent if being a corpse barely diminished them.
My third instinct was that it reminds me of that Sexy Losers arc about a necrophiliac working at a morgue.
I think if they'd had sex with the body they'd have received more than a suspension.
Unzipping a body bag to ogle a guy's junk is bad enough, but unzipping themselves in order to commit the act of necrophilia could have gotten them arrested or out of the nursing biz.
But at least they'd have been able to star in Rigor Mortis II: The Dick and the Dead.
If I were really tasteless I'd link to the Rolling Stones' *Start Me Up* at this point.
Back when the campaign started, Cruz was about third on my list of preferred candidates due to his TEA Party connection, but when he broke out the Bible and went hard after the evangelical votes that was it. He says it's a stupid law now, he wasn't talking that shit during the campaign.
So reason wants him to stand fast on his opposition to sex toys?
By the way he didn't "walk back his earlier support", he outright repudiated it, calling the law stupid.
And while I don't think he was obliged to defend every act of the Texas legislature, if he thought this particular statute, no matter how dumb, was constitutional, his job was to defend it against people who wanted it struck down as unconstitutional.
That's what I don't get about this outrage. Does anybody assume lawyers agree with everything a client does? A law being dumb shouldn't be enough to qualify it as "unconstitutional"
You're aware the AG job is to defend laws passed by the government, right? Doesn't mean, outside of our last two terrible two AG, that the AG agrees.
Are you aware that has never been an iron-clad rule, that AGs have always had the discretion to pass on cases, have never been obligated to seek appeal after appeal up to the Supreme Court (state or fed), and have always had the option of stepping aside and letting a group that actually thinks a law is legit to defend it?
Pretending this is a modern liberal/whatever invention is to ignore history in favor of a partisan bias.
Are you aware that has never been an iron-clad rule, that AGs have always had the discretion to pass on cases, have never been obligated to seek appeal after appeal up to the Supreme Court (state or fed), and have always had the option of stepping aside and letting a group that actually thinks a law is legit to defend it?
Pretending this is a modern liberal/whatever invention is to ignore history in favor of a partisan bias.
Never been an iron-clad rule that they couldn't hold their dick in their office the entire time they're there --- yet they do not.
AG regularly defend laws they might not like or agree with because that is the job of the AG. To pretend that this is some new thing is just a case of sheer historical ignorance.
OK, on my way home, NPR had a decent piece about how, in the tax reform debate, Ted Cruz put forth three axioms (according to NPR);
1. Lowering both the corporate and the individual rate. - Libertarian win.
2. Simplifying the code to fit on a postcard. - Libertarian win.
3. Immediate Expensing (paying capital taxes up front). - Libertarian tie.
*NPR* did a great breakdown of how Immediate Expensing will help companies and industries tied to capital and production but is a moot point for companies that aren't necessarily making heavy investments like that. No word on any twitter or porn/dildo 'scandal'. It was neutral, it highlighted and clarified libertarian propositions from a right-wing opportunistic libertarian and did so without being idiotically scandalous. Fucking Reason.
So basically NPR focused on substantive issues while Reason is focusing on nonsense.
Another example of Reason afraid of offending the "cool kids" by not shunning a republican.
As long as we're ragging on Cruz, when he was Solicitor General in Texas back in 2003, his office argued in favor of sodomy laws in front of the SCOTUS.
So sure, he didn't personally make the argument like he did with dildos. But "the buck stops here" and all that jazz. His office argued that Texas should totally be allowed to jail people because gay sex is icky.
As long as we're ragging on Cruz, when he was Solicitor General in Texas back in 2003, his office argued in favor of sodomy laws in front of the SCOTUS.
So sure, he didn't personally make the argument like he did with dildos. But "the buck stops here" and all that jazz. His office argued that Texas should totally be allowed to jail people because gay sex is icky.
He was the STATE'S attorney. Not an individual party, but the state. His client was the state. So, he argued the state's case in front of a court, as was his job.
His OPINION meant jack shit. He wasn't there to provide input on the law.
Even if you want to make the (wrong) argument that an AG is obligated to defend a law, there is no requirement for them to appeal all the way to the SCOTUS. They are fully complying with their obligations to say "we tried, we lost, we accept the Court's verdict".
"This is?just in case anyone needs a reminder?patently false; Cruz's "libertarianism" is opportunistic, and he turns it on and off as it suits him. But for now, at least, we can all enjoy watching Cruz squirm."
I know there's a whole website that claims "libertarianism".
"The attorney general's job is to defend the laws passed by the Texas legislature. One of those laws was a law restricting the sale of sex toys, which is a stupid law."
Cruz is no libertarian (ref. above jokes about how Reason is bad at being libertarian, because hilarious).
But he's dead right about the AG's job.
Defending stupid laws is their job; removing stupid laws is the Legislature's.