I’m with Gutfeld and Charles Cooke in saying no but I’m also self-aware enough to know that I’m not part of the target demographic Cruz is aiming at in the south.

if @tedcruz has any guts, he should put that video back on line, and praise that young woman for moving in a positive direction in her life.

— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) February 12, 2016

Says Cooke:

As for the idea that she would need to be “vetted”: Again, why? She wasn’t applying for a job at the State Department, or for a position on the board of the Anti-Pornography League. All told, there is only one question that a person who appears in a commercial needs to be asked: “Can you act as we want you to?” Clearly, she could.

Fox reports that, in addition to her adult-film work, she has … “appeared in the TV series ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ and the 1996 film adaptation of Henry James’ novel ‘The Portrait of a Lady.'” Should those episodes be pulled as well? Are they “too hot for TV”? Or is it reasonable for us to draw a distinction between porn per se and TV shows that feature people who happen to have appeared in porn?

Interesting contrast — Gutfeld’s position is “a Christian candidate should welcome the idea of redemption for moral failings” while Cooke’s position is “who cares, it’s acting!” Either could have worked as spin for Cruz, although Gutfeld’s would have given him a stronger defense in case any Christian voters took exception to the casting. As it is, by yanking the clip, Cruz is going to get hit for being a judgmental scold — probably by the actress herself, Amy Lindsay:

Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in… @CNN @Foxnews #moretocome #myvotecounts

— Amy Lindsay (@amylindsayLA) February 12, 2016

Before the ad was pulled, she told BuzzFeed:

Prior to the Cruz campaign pulling the ad, Lindsay told BuzzFeed News in a phone interview on Thursday that she’s a Christian conservative and a Republican. While she emphasized that she did not do hardcore porn and that she also appeared in non-erotic films, Lindsay said she thinks it is “cool” that an actor who has appeared in softcore porn could also appear in Cruz’s ad.

“In a cool way, then hey, then it’s not just some old, white Christian bigot that people want to say, ‘It could be, maybe, a cool kind of open-minded woman like me,’” she said of people supporting Cruz.

Sticking by Lindsay was an opportunity for Cruz to say that none of us is perfect and everyone’s welcome in his tent who shares his vision for America. If Jesus could minister to prostitutes, Cruz can have someone who did a couple of Skinemax movies in his attack ad. Oh well. Incidentally, Lindsay also told BuzzFeed before the ad was taken down that she was on the fence between supporting Cruz and Trump. I wonder which team she’ll end up on!

Needless to say, lots of online hot takes to come about Republicans shaming women who are “unafraid of their sexuality” or whatever. Here’s the question I can’t answer but maybe evangelical readers can: Did Cruz do the right thing here in pulling the ad? I’d assume that even a “values voter” would shrug off something like this, but then I’d also assume that they would shrug off Trump using profanity at his rallies and that may not be the case. Cruz knows his audience a lot better than I do and he thought the prudent move was to pull it. Is he right or wrong?

Exit question: Lindsay’s now guaranteed to end up in a Trump ad, probably talking about how no one likes Cruz, right?