Dewhurst Doubles Down on Misleading Ads Against Cruz

The Dewhurst for Senate campaign has made the decision to double down on the Cruz for Senate campaign with the claims that Cruz is unfit for the job because he was involved with a case, through his employment with a large international law firm, at the appellate level dealing with copyright infringement and foreign companies. One company in particular, a Chinese owned company, is the favored bad guy in the Dewhurst ads. No mention is made of the Dubai company that was also involved. Why is that?

It is particularly offensive that the Dewhurst supporters have taken to referring to Ted Cruz as "Red Ted". That sort of ignorance is even disputed by Dewhurst himself. Do Dewhurst supporters really think that Ted Cruz is a Communist? Or are they so blinded by their support of the candidate that they are willing to appear as intellectually stunted lemmings?

Here is what the Texas Tribune, no friend to conservatives, says in fact checking the negative ads:

But the “Red Ted” label, designed to conjure up negative and shady images of Cruz, is a stretch. While Cruz could have refused to work on the case, the notion that doing so makes him a Communist sympathizer is groundless and inflammatory. Dewhurst himself said questioning Cruz's political allegiance was "ridiculous."

Cruz’s firm was retained by the company, and Cruz was called on to assist in the case, so the Dewhurst campaign’s description of him as a “legal mercenary” is also off base.

The verdict was upheld on appeal, but Cruz was not among the lawyers doing the arguing part of it, and did not appear in court. Dewhurst has referred to Cruz as "lead counsel" in the case. The technical term for Cruz's role is "counsel of record." According to legal definitions listed on the Cornell Law School website and others, lawyers who act as counsel of record are responsible for the representation of the client, regardless of whether they ever appear in a courtroom on behalf of that client. In an interview, Cruz said he has never appeared in any courtroom in regard to this case. They are also required to sign legal documents and typically cannot be removed as counsel of record without court action.

The evidence for calling the case a “China vs. America” affair is not clear cut.

Linglong wasn’t involved in the initial conspiracy to undercut Fishman’s business. Sam Vance, one of Fishman’s most trusted American employees, initiated the damage when he encouraged Fishman’s customers to cut Fishman out of the deal and buy straight from the manufacturer (based out of China), according to the lawsuit.

Vance later went on to mastermind the conspiracy to sell the tire blueprints, court documents indicate. When Fishman found out his designs had been stolen and filed suit, Al-Dobowi, the Dubai-based tire distributor, was the most noted defendant, named 172 times in the court document.

In comparison, Linglong was mentioned 49 times — yet was the only conspirator mentioned in the Dewhurst attacks.

Also, Fishman’s lawyer, August Matteis, said he had no evidence that Linglong was connected to the Chinese government. The Dewhurst campaign said Linglong was tied to Communist-led government before market reforms were introduced in the 1970s, and has used those ties to gain unfair trade advantages.

Cruz didn’t play first chair in the appeal of this lawsuit, but he has taken the lead on other international patent infringement cases, successfully arguing a $5 million intellectual theft case before the Supreme Court against a Chinese company last year.

So, the sitting Lt. Gov of the state of Texas is running a deliberately misleading political ad against his challenger which is chock full of inaccuracies, even by standards of with no dog in the hunt. That speaks to a man's character, doesn't it? Or is blind ambition and a strong sense of entitlement a combination too powerful to resist?