I don't understand why public serial adultery (divorce and remarriage) should be considered less evil than maybe using birth control, something that, unless you have evidence for, is merely rash judgment and calumny. As noted recently in another topic, a husband and wife having only two kids is not even close to evidence that birth control is being used.
Is he living a traditional Catholic lifestyle? No. But neither is any other candidate, including Trump.
It seems wrong to judge candidates by different standards and it seems wrong to judge any candidate harshly for possible violations of morality that one doesn't have any evidence for yet pass other candidates whose violations of morality are public knowledge.
It seems to me that we judge politicians more harshly when they don't actively call for moral evils and don't live a clearly perfect life than when they actively call for moral evils and act upon those evils.
Ted Cruz would probably be an OK president. But, like Donald Trump and every other candidate, we won't really know what he would do until he's in the office. In Indiana, we elected a "pro-family" governor and State legislature; yet, now that they are in power, the homosexual lobby is having their way with them. I don't think (at the moment) that the homosexual agenda would abate under a Cruz presidency, I'm not so sure about a presidency under most other candidates, and there are certain candidates who would place the homosexual agenda at the top of their list of things to do.