Will Cruz's strategy of suggesting that Hannity is a "hard-core Trump supporter" who was "distract[ing] from the real issues," boomerang?
Perhaps Donald Trump's tremendous New York Republican presidential primary victory was not the best thing that happened to him on April 19.
That day Ted Cruz was interviewed on radio by Sean Hannity and Hannity shocked the world by erupting at Cruz for ducking Hannity's straightforward question about Cruz's strategic use of the Republican delegate system and implying that Hannity is a "hard-core Trump supporter."
Hannity was asking, not attacking, and asking about something that Cruz did not want to discuss.
Hannity even acknowledged that what Cruz has been doing is well within party rules as he asked Cruz to explain what he's been doing to win delegates.
Hannity to Cruz: "So youíre in a process of talking to delegates, and it seems to be very extensive. Could you explain to people whatís going on?"
Cruz replied: "Sean, with all respect, thatís not what people care about. People are concerned about bringing jobs back to America."
That was a BIG MISTAKE by Cruz, because Hannity wanted an answer!
Hannity neither erupted nor dropped the question.
Instead Hannity politely explained that many of his listeners had asked him about Cruz's delegate strategy.
Cruz responded: "Sean, the only people asking this question are the hard-core Donald Trump supporter."
THEN Hannity erupted.
(Hannity is NOT a "hard-core Donald Trump supporter" and understandably resented Cruz trying to brand his as one in a futile attempt to avoid answering Hannity's question.
Hannity: "You gotta stop! Every time I have you on the air, and I ask a legitimate question, you try to throw this in my face."
Hannity continued: "Iím getting sick of it. Iíve had you on more than any other candidate on radio and TV. So if I ask you, Senator, a legitimate question to explain to the audience, why donít you just answer it?"
Realizing that he had made a big mistake, Cruz finally answered:
The gist of his answer was that "there is a second component beyond the elections, which is the individual delegates are elected by the people," "Donald Trumpís campaign does not know how to organize on the grass roots," so Cruz wins delegates "over and over and over again" and "the Donald Trump campaign does not seem capable of running a lemonade stand" and seems like ďa Kim Kardashian reality show."
Hannity did not try to rebut any part of Cruz's diatribe. Instead he followed up with a reasonable question: "What if the delegate selection doesnít represent the will of the people in that particular district or area?"
Cruz dodged the question and attacked Trump.
"The Trump campaign wants to distract from the real issues," Cruz said.
That attack was not aimed at Hannity and Hannity is not a Trump spokesperson, so Hannity did not respond to it.
Nevertheless, it is fair to ask this: Will Cruz's strategy of suggesting that Hannity is a "hard-core Trump supporter" who was "distract[ing] from the real issues," boomerang?
It should, and all Hannity needs to do is examine the presidential eligibility of the three remaining Republican presidential hopefuls, which is something he should have done already.
The first "real issue" every presidential aspirant needs to address is whether he or she is eligible to be President.
There's no question that Trump and John Kasich are eligible, but that's not so with Cruz.
Hannity's favorite lawyers are Mark Levin, his fellow radio star whom he calls "the Great One," and David Limbaugh, Hannity's personal attorney, They are ardent Cruz supporters, so perhaps Hannity hasn't realized that the challenges to Cruz's eligibility are not baseless, as Cruz insists.
Will Hannity have Cruz on one of his shows again to discuss his presidential eligibility problem with him?
Or will Hannity interview legal experts to discuss the issue?
Even the New Jersey hearing officer who thinks Cruz is both a natural born Canadian and a natural born United States citizen acknowledges that "there can be no certainty as to what the founders meant by 'natural born citizen'" and "the arguments against finding a child born outside the United States to a non-diplomat or non-military citizen of the United States are not facetious and the issue can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling of the United States Supreme Court."
Hannity's listeners need to know about Cruz's eligibility problem at least as much as his delegate strategy.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.