March 16, 2013

NYT's Gail Collins endeavors to take down Ted Cruz.

This is about Cruz's recent colloquy with Dianne Feinstein. Excerpts:
Later, Feinstein would tell CNN that she felt Cruz was being “somewhat arrogant,” which seemed like an understatement. Even in an age of political polarization, there apparently is still an unwritten rule against calling someone “a stupendously irritating twit” on national TV....

Do you think, people, that this [incessant self-reference] is a key to the stupendous impact the Tea Party continues to have on Congress, even now that it’s proved itself to be a loser when it comes to elections? If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness, you are definitely not working on a recipe for cooperative achievement.
I want to make 5 points, briefly.

1. Somebody get Gail Collins a thesaurus. For "stupendous," try "astonishing." It's got that huffy, aghast tone you seem to be looking for. I know, "stupendous" is tempting because it gives the feeling that you're calling your target stupid, but when you find something "stupendous," you're actually confessing to stupor on your own part, and literally, if you are in a stupor, you are stupid.

2. This woman-defending-woman column ends with a recipe metaphor. Is that good gender politics? It resonates with what I think is Collins's effort to make us see this interplay between 2 U.S. Senators in terms of a man patronizing a woman.

3. Cruz's questions were about the security of our constitutional rights: Why did humor belong in that recipe?

4. Where was this "self-righteousness"? Collins's evidence is that Cruz used the phrases “My... point is," "in my opinion," “I would point out," and "In my view." This phobia about first-person-singular pronouns is silly. It's used against Obama all the time. What does Collins think of all those right-wing bloggers who will inform you about how many times Obama says "I" in a given speech? I'll bet she thinks it's... stupid. I certainly do.

5. Cruz also referred to his role as counsel in Heller (the Supreme Court's biggest 2d Amendment case) — another thing Collins considered self-referential and self-righteous. But Collins began her column building up Dianne Feinstein's stature because of her encounter with the fatally wounded Harvey Milk and George Moscone many years ago. Does personal experience lend weight to political opinion or not? Feinstein said: "I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode." That's at least as self-referential and self-righteous as Cruz's statement that he was not "unfamiliar" with Heller given that he worked on the case.

ADDED: "A recipe for cooperative achievement." Who ordered the cooperative achievement? At the gun control restaurant, Cruz folds the menu and sips his ice water.

180 comments:

The Godfather said...

For information, do bullets "implode"?

rhhardin said...

Collins is a woman writing opinion for women.

Whatever works, on her 40% of women.

Feinstein is using a woman's argument against Cruz's man's argument.

The alternative ought to be noticing that what women are good at doesn't work out in politics. It screws everything up and tears it down.

With real tears.

LYNNDH said...

Collins should have included the fact Feinstein carried a 38, the same type of weapon used on Milk. That would show that Feinstein "knows" what she is talking about.

Bill Harshaw said...

Must be my stupid day--don't follow stupendous. Merriam-Webster says:
" : causing astonishment or wonder : awesome, marvelous
2
: of amazing size or greatness : tremendous "

Nothing about "stupor".

Ann Althouse said...

@Bill Harshaw. From the OED:

stupendous, adj.

Etymology: < Latin stupendus ‘that is to be wondered at, amazing’, gerundive of stupēre to be struck senseless, be amazed at...

Such as to cause stupor or astonishment; amazing, astounding; marvellous, prodigious; amazingly large or great (now freq. in trivial use).

Ambrose said...

The media is testing their modes of attack against Cruz. Is he wacky, scary, a McCarthy; arrogant etc. They have to find the right theme that will stck so they can destroy him.

Michael Ryan said...

I liked the comment I saw the other day (at Ace?) about the Milk / Moscone incident. Does this mean Feinstein has proposed this ban while suffering from PTSD? Should emotionally compromised people really be entrusted with making laws?

rhhardin said...

Old New Yorker cartoon, upper class wife to husband at the dinner table

"Now don't try to reason with me."

Which became a title of a book by Wayne Booth on the decline of political rhetoric.

wyo sis said...

How dare a smart young conservative engage in an argument with the great Feinstein? Old washed up hypocritical liberal women are to be put on a pedestal. Or is it old washed up hypocritical liberal women running against Obama, are to be groped by young smart liberal speech writers? Or is it old washed up hypocritical liberal women are to ram young liberal president's failing health care bills through congress?
It's so hard to keep it straight. But, it's good that there are multiple uses for old washed up hypocritical liberal women.

rhhardin said...

Stupor would be a fine Latin deponent verb.

For which see pdf, the worthwhileness stemming from the glorious use of "fills a much-needed gap."

Astro said...

Frankly, I thought Feinstein was the one being arrogant.
-The 'look, kiddo, I've been here 20 years so don't lecture me' attitude.
-Her attitude that 2700 (or so) weapons 'ought to be enough' for those who want guns; that somehow she is smart enough to know what's good for us (*dammit*) and we ought to be thanking her.
The cavalier lack of precision about what qualifies as a 'gun of war', like she needn't be bothered with vulgar things like accuracy.
And that condescending 'of course' when finally pinned down to actually have to answer Cruz's question.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, was being assertive.

pm317 said...

Do these liberal journolisters have college degrees? May be not.

bpm4532 said...

I don't think that any independent observer would have felt that Cruz was being self-righteious. Feinstein certainly didn't answer the question (a popular Democrat trait these days). The self-righteousness was clearly evidenced by Feinstein.

Also, Dan White used a revolver to kill Harvey Milk and George Moscone, weapons that the pompous Feinstein's bill wouldn't ban. So her personal experience is completely irrelevant.

Lem said...

Nice.

DADvocate said...

do bullets "implode"?

None that I know of. Searching Yahooo Feinstein seems to be the only person with knowledge of imploding bullets.

You'd think with her so many years in Washington and in politics she'd have thicker skin. How easily she falls into the poor little girl being picked on by a big, bad boy role. Cry baby.

One harridan defends another harridan.

jacksonjay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

it's good that there are multiple uses for old washed up hypocritical liberal women

Bit harsh?

Feinstein may be not your favorite on the gun issue, but she has a very good record on defense and border security.

And does anyone here remember that she actually went public with some questions about Benghazi way back in the fall of 2012?

bpm4532 said...

Dan White crawled in a window with his .38 revolver and 10 rounds. Shot Mayor Moscone (emptying his 5-shot revolver) walked to the other side of city hall entered Harvey Milk's office, reloaded his revolver and then shot Harvey five times.

So, semi-automatic weapon? hi-capacity clip? Menacing military appearance? Yep get rid of those from the hands of law abiding citizens and we'll be perfectly safe.

Pogo said...

I thought little of the exchange at first, but the over-reaction on the left shows that Cruz cut deep, and they were embarrassed by Feinstein's performance.

Or for Gail Collins' women: Someone left the cake out in the rain.

bpm4532 said...

Feinstein has a "reputation" of being good on defense, but that really remains to be seen. Certainly she's been on those committees a long time, but I'm not sure of any impact except to inflate her sense of importance and indignation that anyone would dare question her.

Really, if the video clip that has been broadcast is the best they can to do show the alleged impudence of Sen Cruz, the rest of the hearing must have been pretty embarrassing for the Democrats.

jacksonjay said...



I was "astonished" at Andrea Mitchell's take on the matter.

“This is not a fair fight because Ted Cruz is not going to beat Dianne Feinstein on a question of constitutionality.” Andrea then said that Feinstein's personal experience "informs this." Since when does a Senator's personal experience have any bearing on constitutionality?

Doesn't Cruz have a very prestigious legal background and career behind him? Harvard Law, clerked for Rehnquist, argued before SCOTUS, wrote amicus in Heller case, not to mention his debate success while at Princeton!

Saint Croix said...

I wonder if liberals would be so hostile if Cruz was an anglo?

Joe Scarborough asks, "Did they teach Ted Cruz to read...?"

Do you actually know any Hispanics, Joe?

"Is he playing for people who can’t read or are illiterate?”

Racist! Racist!

Paco Wové said...

"If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness" ... then you might be a NYT columnist, or a superannuated senator.

bpm4532 said...

Now for something really harsh on Feinstein, and please excuse the pun, but she's been milking her association with that tragedy for way too long for her personal political gain.

I don't care if she walked in and saw a dead body and blood. I've seen lots of bodies and blood and way too much life leaking out for which I could do nothing. I certainly don't use this to get ahead.

Still she has a way to go to catch up with Jesse Jackson.

Big Mike said...

You know, we got this with Hillary and now we're getting it with Feinstein. They can't cut it with logic so they resort to tears.

Big Mike said...

As regards Feinstein, don't you think she looks tired?

J2 said...

Ted Cruz does not cry.
Ted Cruz does not blink.

tiger said...

Professor I'm surprised you don't dissect Feinstein's attitude that the Congress can pass any law it wants and then leave it up to the USSC to decide whether it is a Constitutionally sound law.

Are Congressional representatives sworn to uphold the Constitution and pass laws that meet Constitutional muster?

Additionally Collins' and Feinstein miss the point Cruz was making.

Anyone/everyone biatching about what Cruz said is/are either/or/and being willfully ignorant of the Constitution/what Cruz actually said and attacking a strawman made up of distortions and lies.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Let's start with a cold hard fact. Men and women are wired differently.

Man,y many women have a problem with strongly expressed opinions, and confrontation in general.

Men can get in each others face big time, then all go out for a beer afterwards (after-words).

Women in the same situation, tend to never forget it, and in fact become more angry and uncomfortable, as time passes and they reflect on it. Even to the point of feeling violated, and its associated emotions.

Perhaps many of them, then, shouldn't be in positions of leadership in the first place.

And how's this for condescension?

"If you can't stand the heat, honey, I suggest you get out of the kitchen."

Bob Ellison said...

It's binary. You're either with Cruz or with Feinstein. See here, for example.

Cruz engaged in debate, and Feinstein beclowned herself. But most people, at least the kinds of people who comment online (that's a weird group, I guess...gotta think about that), judge the interaction not on the merits, but on their own political preferences.

Michael K said...

" Certainly she's been on those committees a long time, but I'm not sure of any impact except to inflate her sense of importance and indignation that anyone would dare question her."

It's helped her husband's foreign investments. It's similar to Maxine Waters' service on financial services in the House. She did a lot for her husband's bank. For her constituents; not so much.

sydney said...

Gail Collins likes to use the word "people" to give emphasis to her sentences an awful lot. It's something I dislike intensely in her writing. As in: "Do you think, people, that this [incessant self-reference] is a key to the stupendous impact...etc.etc." It is kind of condescending, though not as condescending as Feinstein was to the junior Senator.

Sam Hall said...

Feinstein serves on Defense so she can steer business to her husband.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Blum

Synova said...

Well "implode" is slightly less stupid than saying "explode". The bullets "expand" or "mushroom" or some such... if she's talking about hollow points and other "self defense" rounds.

And while what they do to a body they hit is nasty, the other sort are far more likely to simply pass through a body (or wall or several walls) and hit other people. "Self defense" rounds are not the "bad bullets", they're the safer, more responsible bullets.

Chase said...

Gail Collins is a fuck nut, the same as Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni. Fire them and see what kind of readership they can drum up apart from the tit suckers supplied by the New York Times.

My guess - fantastic fail for all 3.

Chase said...

Gail Collins is a fuck nut, the same as Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni. Fire them and see what kind of readership they can drum up apart from the tit suckers supplied by the New York Times.

My guess - fantastic fail for all 3.

tim in vermont said...

I can't figure out how she holds her job. I really can't. At least Dowd has some imagination.

Bob Ellison said...

I've been wondering about longevity in office lately. Some people seem only to get worse: McCain, Feinstein, Gingrich (even out of office), etc. Some people seem to stay pretty good and focused on their jobs (Steve Jobs, um...let's see...maybe Alan Simpson?).

Term limits are blunt instruments, but I think they would work well to control people who come to think they "serve" in DC. DiFi is a good example. She's a rich person who serves no useful porpoise in our national government.

DavidD said...

Sen. Feinstein never answered Sen. Cruz's question. And the libmedia gives her a pass on it.

Lem said...

The most you could say about Cruz is he is a little pedantic at times.

But that hardly qualifies as a crusifiable offence.

Bob Ellison said...

Binary example: Democratic Underground commenter.

This is a hot mess of prose. The person writing seems not to understand argument. I don't mean to hold up argument as the greatest form of intelligence, but gawd, this is just plain stupid.

Steven said...

Well "implode" is slightly less stupid than saying "explode". The bullets "expand" or "mushroom" or some such...

No, it's definitely more stupid than "explode", for that reason. Explosions are an extreme form of expansion and fragmentation; using "explode" for the action of a (solid) bullet in a body is hyperbole rather than outright untruth. And there are some bullets that genuinely do contain explosive (usually only in .50 BMG or larger shells, but there are known examples of explosive .30-06, and probably others).

"Implode" is, on the other hand, entirely wrong. No bullet ever made has an effect that could be described as imploding, even in exaggeration.

Lydia said...

Feinstein was one of the few (or the only?) Democrat who did not turn into a Bush-basher once the initial scary post-9/11 days were over. And the lefties hate her for that.

But don't take my word for it, read Glenn Greenwald expounding on the "Bush-enabling and base-hating behavior of the 'liberal' California Democrat".

Synova said...

You're right, Lydia. Feinstein is good on a lot of things. Consistent.

And she's consistent on her gun control crusade, too, even though she felt that she needed to have a gun to protect herself and got a carry permit to carry a personal weapon in San Francisco where citizens are outright denied that right.

In other words, when it comes to anyone other than herself owning a gun for protection, she's against it.

Skyler said...

Cooperative achievement?

There is no cooperation with those that would take our rights away.

Cooperation means, "Agree with us or you're arrogant."

I didn't think Cruz looked at all arrogant. I thought he looked effective. We need more effectiveness.

Rick Caird said...

Feinstein never got around to answering the question, either. That is probably because there is no answer to the question.

Unknown said...

Ann, to your 5 points (plus "Added"), i would add:

6. Collins is Rewriting history: "Tea Party ...proved itself to be a loser when it comes to elections"

Actually they helped win a bunch in 2010 & some in 2012, thank you. Did better than most Republican establishment types. I'll take that any day.

Chuck said...

Okay enough debate.

Now let's have that cloture vote.

The Democrats, winning vote after vote along party-lines in committee, all looked and sounded defeated. Because they know that their "assault weapons" ban is going nowhere. They are all playing to the peanut gallery at this point.

So what's the next item of business?

TMink said...

Her PTSD is irrelevent and revelatory at the same time.

Trey

Jay said...

Feinstein said: "I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I

Uh, "those weapons" consisted of a .38 special which killed Milk.

She isn't talking about banning those, is she?

What a moron this woman is...

Jay said...

“This is not a fair fight because Ted Cruz is not going to beat Dianne Feinstein on a question of constitutionality.”

That is a perfect example of projection.

Chip Ahoy said...

My favorite part of that whole thing was where Cruz was going, "Do you think congress should be in the business off ... this and that ... and Feinstein goes, "THANKS FOR THE LESSON BUT I'M NOT IN TH SIXTH GRADE!" and then Cruz calmly rose and leaning forward on the chamber table he looked directly into her eyes and lowered his voice and addressed her, "then why you bust'n a move on our Constitutional rights like a ... pause ... seventh grader?" Then he hung his whole body a dramatic gangster pose.

edutcher said...

Simply put, it's a feminazi whine list.

And the idea Mizzzzz Colins accuses the Tea Partiers of being humorless is rich.

Even when they're doing their Hahahahahahaha act, the Lefties are the most humorless people on the planet and have been since the 60s.

Maguro said...

I thought the authorities determined that the Harvey Milk murder was due to Twinkies, not assault weapons.

Now that Hostess is bankrupt, we should be safe.

Mark O said...

The career of the shallow Diane was made on those dead bodies.

wyo sis said...

Chip I'd pay a lot of money to see that!

CWJ said...

Regarding Collins second paragraph in the embedded quote:

The abolitionists where always losers at the polls prior to to civil war deciding the issue by force. Do I really think that she would have told them to fold their tents and go home? Of course not.

All sides have always tried to play the inevitable card to send their opponents home. The argument is null, and intellectually empty. She should be embarrassed to deploy it but of course she is not. Ignore her, or mock her if you must.

FWBuff said...

I am thankful every day that Ted Cruz is representing us Texans in the Senate, rather than David Dewhurst!

Writ Small said...

Cruz was pretty impressive. His point about liberals wanting to impose restrictions on the 2nd amendment they would never tolerate anywhere else in the Bill of Rights has been made on this blog many times.

Feinstein chose to take his sharp question as a personal insult with an "I'm not a sixth grader" rejoinder. Only a person committed to Feinstein's view could have thought she got the better of that exchange, and so Collins is shown to be a hack.

Watching Cruz, I see a parallel with the gun debate and the drone debate. One side wants to make "common sense" restrictions on certain types particularly scary weapons. The other side wonders how far those restrictions will go.

dbp said...

"At the gun control restaurant, Cruz folds the menu and sips his ice water."

Brava Professor! That's going to leave a mark.

Douglas said...

The flip side of the Hoagy Carmichael 78 for "Stardust" was a song called "Hong Kong Blues." It's about a man in Hong Kong who received a 20-year sentence after he "kicked old Buddha's gong." That was, apparently, 30s slang for smoking opium.

For those who don't remember, Hoagy Carmichael was the piano player in "Casablanca."

AJ Lynch said...

Does Gail Collins think she herself has a sense of humor?

Michael said...

Douglas. Hoagy Carmichael was a white guy, not the piano player in Casablanca.

Michael said...

Douglas. Hoagy Carmichael was a white guy, not the piano player in Casablanca.

Charles said...

Douglas-

Hoagy Carmichael was the piano player in Best Years of Our Lives.

Dooley Wilson was the player in Casablanca.

...shakes head in sadness

phx said...

If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness...

That's an accurate recipe for the loudest part of the right wing.

CWJ said...

Wow, phx! That would apply to any extreme. Right left front back. Why you comment escapes me. You are almost into "machine" territory here.

zefal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zefal said...

Big difference in using "I" in the context of stating something as your subjective opinion and the narcistic way obama uses it. Liberals believe their opinion is an objective truth.

Synova said...

Obama uses "I" in situations where other politicians use "we" or else use passive forms to imply that the credit is widely shared among people.

Passive forms are a bit out of fashion, but they do have their uses.

Fr Martin Fox said...

No one else seems to have noticed something about this.

Sen. Cruz is doing something that liberals consider their prerogative: claiming the moral high ground and then asking, in so many words, so how do you feel about being immoral?

That is why Sen. Feinstein was so infuriated. Cruz was doing to her what she and her side usually do.

phx said...

Wow, phx! That would apply to any extreme.

You are right, that applies to extremists on all sides. But the GOP is the one whose extremists are the most notable and the loudest in this time. The Dems have theirs more or less under control at the moment. Extremism is tearing the GOP and conservative movement into pieces.

CWJ said...

Father Fox: Bingo.

CWJ said...

phx, riiiight. That was funny.
Whatever you need to get you through the night.

phx said...

Ahh. Another winger in denial.

phx said...

They were a dime a dozen in November, and they're still a dime a dozen.

Synova said...

What it seems to me phx is, what is happening is that conservative (or even sort-of conservative) politicians are portrayed (spun) as extreme when they're not. Everyone on the right is evil, no?

Are those people who are "extreme" actually extreme? Or is it just useful to say so?

But the "tearing apart" part is reasonably true. Some people think that it's possible for conservatives to win approval, to be good enough and mild enough... other people realize that you can't be good enough or mild enough to avoid being spun as extreme. So some people are all about how conservatives need to moderate and self-regulate and get their extremists under control and other people are like... stuff it.

I mean... take Cruz. Is Cruz extreme? He seems to be firmly conservative, but is firmly conservative the same thing as extreme? Is Rand Paul extreme? Or is he just a relatively moderate libertarian? That's not extreme.

Romeny and McCain are the polar opposite of extreme anything but we were still told non-stop how Romney hated women and poor people.

The Democrats have their nut-jobs "under control" by simply ignoring them. Obviously this doesn't work for Republicans.

phx said...

Everyone on the right is evil, no?

Who said that? That's why there's a distinction between those who are extreme, and those who are not.

If you think Dems aren't going to tie the extremists like Limbaugh and others to the moderates like Romney, you'd be dreaming. Of course they're going to paint the moderates with that brush. That's not the Dems' fault - that's what they do.

That's the GOPs fault because they can't get their house in order.

Synova said...

Because really, honestly, if you try to be objective, phx... at what point were McCain or Romney (or Bush for that matter) anything but moderate?

What policy did any of them advance that was anything other than ever so *slightly* to the right of center? Be specific.

Dangerous radical Paul Ryan proposes a budget that has zero real cuts of any sort but increases spending a bit less than if we just let government grow at current rates... is that something other than just *slightly* to the right of center?

Where do you think the center is?

phx said...

Because really, honestly, if you try to be objective, phx... at what point were McCain or Romney (or Bush for that matter) anything but moderate?

Sure, you just identified the moderates. Your problem is you can't identify the extremists.

Synova said...

"Of course they're going to paint the moderates with that brush. That's not the Dems' fault - that's what they do.

That's the GOPs fault because they can't get their house in order.
"

Lying is what Dems do?

What do you propose as a good way to keep people from having their own opinions or any sort of diversity of political thought?

Since it's not the Dems fault if they lie, it's the Republicans fault if they can't shut everyone up and make it impossible for the Dems to lie. (Frankly, I can't see a scenario where the Republicans can control what the Democrats do, but I'll admit I might be short sighted.)

CWJ said...

PhD. Funny, Obama had no trouble identifying McCain and Romney as extremists, and Bush as the cause of all things bad in America.

edutcher said...

phx said...

Because really, honestly, if you try to be objective, phx... at what point were McCain or Romney (or Bush for that matter) anything but moderate?

Sure, you just identified the moderates. Your problem is you can't identify the extremists.


Of course we can, Choom, Holder, Sibelius, Big Sis...

phx said...

If you think opportunistically painting the opponents with the same broad brush is a moral failing even worth mentioning in terms of opprobrium than you're a little bit delicate for these times, for this blog.

But I think you're jes' frontin'.

phx said...

Funny, Obama had no trouble identifying McCain and Romney as extremists, and Bush as the cause of all things bad in America.

I don't answer for anyone other than myself.

CWJ said...

Laughing, blogger just gave you a doctoral degree, phx. My apologies if you actually have one.

phx said...

Don't you wish you were the same.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

Good for you. It's an accomplishment.

CWJ said...

At this point, I'm sorry I even mentioned it.

Synova said...

"If you think opportunistically painting the opponents with the same broad brush is a moral failing even worth mentioning in terms of opprobrium than you're a little bit delicate for these times, for this blog."

Pointing out moral failings in terms of opprobrium is... part of the process.

And it doesn't even require me to lie about what any given politician stands for.

Am I *not* supposed to point out that deliberately lying about McCain's views of gays or abortion is what it is, which is lying?

Or deliberately lying about the "war on women" is... lying?

Who is being delicate here? Just because making up the evil your opponent is supposedly guilty of out of whole cloth or on the basis of a single poorly stated or simply wrong statement by some state level politician in the boondocks is the status quo doesn't mean that's not what is happening.

And it can't be stopped by bowing to the tactic and taking on responsibility for every old dude in the boondocks... or for Rush Limbaugh.

At what point was it all SUPPOSED to be about doctrinal purity and kicking out anyone who doesn't measure up? Then it would be about how intolerant of diversity everyone is.

I DO understand how it works. Which is why I'm on the side of it that isn't demanding that everyone I don't agree with shut up.

phx said...

LOL well let's move on to arguing the positions then. Screw arguing to the man.

phx said...

Am I *not* supposed to point out that deliberately lying about McCain's views of gays or abortion is what it is, which is lying?


Here, I have no idea what you are talking about. And as I said, I only answer for myself.

phx said...

Just because making up the evil your opponent is supposedly guilty of out of whole cloth or on the basis of a single poorly stated or simply wrong statement by some state level politician in the boondocks is the status quo doesn't mean that's not what is happening.

Good luck selling that line.

Synova said...

"I don't answer for anyone other than myself."

And neither does Limbaugh.

And neither does Akins (or whatever his name is).

And neither does anyone else.

But you're insisting that they do, that all those people speaking only for themselves have to be brought under control. You realize you're doing this, right?

Why shouldn't you be held responsible for all liberal idiots everywhere? That would be fair.

CWJ said...

Look phx, you can say you speak for yourself all you want. You can acknowledge that Bush, McCain, Romney weren't/aren't radicals all you want. But until you say that you wished others hadn't portrayed them as radicals, which I have never seen you do, then it is hard hard to take you seriously.

Synova said...

phx... Obama sent out mailers that said that McCain stood for a number of things, which may have been on a Republican platform somewhere or other, but that McCain himself said differently.

So they could lie by not quite telling the truth, but not in a way that they could be charged for. But the intention was to tell people that McCain believed and supported what he specifically said he did not.

Skillful weaseling, but weaseling none the less. In other words, lying without lying.

Yes, politicians do this, but it is what it is. Opprobrium *ought* to be attached.

phx said...

"I don't answer for anyone other than myself."

And neither does Limbaugh.

And neither does Akins (or whatever his name is).

And neither does anyone else.

But you're insisting that they do


I know the difference between moderate and extremists Republicans. The American public rejected the extremists in 2012, and in the process the moderates got hammered.

Limbaugh speaks for many on the right. They will tell you that he does. That's why he's so popular.

I speak for no one but myself. But if you want to hang the Dems failures on me that's okay.

phx said...

Party of Stupid. Your table is ready.

phx said...

phx... Obama sent out mailers that said that McCain stood for a number of things, which may have been on a Republican platform somewhere or other, but that McCain himself said differently.

If you're going to make an argument to a critical thinker, don't start with "Obama sent out mailers that said..."

He sat in the Oval Office stuffing envelopes and mailing out fliers?

phx said...

Yes, politicians do this, but it is what it is. Opprobrium *ought* to be attached.

When you are serious about equal application you'll find me a willing partner.

phx said...

I'm already there.

Synova said...

"When you are serious about equal application you'll find me a willing partner."

At what point does "you first" work for you?

phx said...

Sure right now if you want to have a snark-free absolutely real discussion about the failings of both parties, let's do it.

From Inwood said...

Fr Fox

Boy you're good. Why didn't I think of that? Suddenly I realize why the fuss.

I had made the comment below on Sen Cruz's voice mail, but you made me wish that I'd waited.

I have your battle with some Conservative/Libertarians who always want to cede the High Moral ground to Dems/Libs/Progressives/Social Justice people.

Still, Cruz has to play to the low-info voter better, methinks.

Inwood

PS I had written the comment out since I knew that I would get only a limited time & in the end, running out of time, I left out the bracketed part.

*********

Voicemail message:

Perhaps Sen Cruz might consider rethinking his TV approach in view of the reaction of the low-info voter.

I mean, he wound up absolutely besting Sen. F on an intellectual basis as well as a commonsense one.

Sen. Cruz’s question was a wonder to behold & he’d get 1st prize in the Moot Court competition, or look great in a real appellate court — I served a clerkship on one. I thought that he was being assertive & DiFi arrogant & condescending. Cruz engaged in debate, and DiFi was befuddled. He has Rush & Mark L ecstatic.

And the overreaction on the Left, shows that Sen. Cruz won the battle on substance & that they were embarrassed by DiFi’s inability to make any substantive points.

But, to the low info voter — not paying attention & subject to the unthought of the lamestream media — The Good Sen. came off, IMHO, looking like a not-so-nice Law School Prof who seems primarily out to trip up a poor benighted student & intimidate & embarrass him/her. So, to some of them, he let DiFi [— another of those not-so-bright SF limo-Lib hacks whose shelf-life has expired except in Left-Coast voting booths, a hack, that is, with no understanding of History, Law, Science, or criminals, & who uses identity politics to bond with the voters she exploits — Sen. Cruz let her] play the victim card & simultaneously look like she was rightfully putting him in his place.


Synova said...

You've agreed that Bush, McCain, and Romney are moderates. You could start by admitting it was wrong to transform them into dangerous fanatics and to convince half the electorate that they are dangerous fanatics just to win an election.

And I'll admit that Obama isn't much of a socialist after all.

To sort of keep it within the scope of this thread I'll admit (as I did upstream) that Feinstein is good in a number of areas despite being wrong about "assault" weapons and her own hypocrisy about carrying a weapon for her own protection, and you can admit that Gail Collins trying to portray Cruz as somehow out of line for prioritizing the Constitution is blatantly carrying political water.

Synova said...

It seems I'm not capable of "snark free". Oh well. I'm made of snark, what can I say.

Synova said...

"He sat in the Oval Office stuffing envelopes and mailing out fliers?"

In 2008 would have been a trick for Obama to sit in the Oval Office doing anything.

phx said...

You could start by admitting it was wrong to transform them into dangerous fanatics and to convince half the electorate that they are dangerous fanatics just to win an election.

I can't say about any specific incident or statement you are referring to here, so I'm not going to make a sweeping defense. I will say generally that kind of campaign tactic or goal - paint my opponent to be more radical than he is - is not unfair use IMO. Extreme statements, "Obama is a socialist" or "Bush is a fascist" I don't truck with or defend. Those kinds of attacks are merely appealing to the dumbest people in either party - or the dumbest undecideds.

You might have said Obama was a socialist but I never said Obama, McCain or Romney were dangerous fanatics. I have nothing to back away from.

There are a lot of very, very talented Republicans, as you say Feinstein is "good in a number of areas" (I'll have to take your word on that, I don't follow her very closely). Republicans who are talented and likeable. Even the most wrong or extreme Republicans I find myself personally liking.

I actually believe we are being deceived by both Republicans and Democrats. I don't think Democrats have any special corner on morality or honesty with their own constituencies let alone the general public, but that's an argument I'm not as eager to make on this particular web site.

phx said...

It seems I'm not capable of "snark free". Oh well. I'm made of snark, what can I say.

My policy is just show me something real from time to time and I'll forgive a great deal.

Quaestor said...

Lydia wrote:
Feinstein may be not your favorite on the gun issue, but she has a very good record on defense and border security.

As long as Lockheed-Martin is in Burbank, Feinstein is a hawk.

phx said...

but I never said Obama, McCain or Romney were dangerous fanatics.

Should be BUSH, McCain or Romney. But Obama, too.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If the fact that Romney isn't an extremist isn't sufficient to stop the Democrats from calling him one, how is (somehow) silencing Limbaugh supposed to help?

Unknown said...

Shortly after prosecutors announced they closed the John Doe investigation of Gov. Scott Walker's aides, Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski took to Twitter to begin ripping the first-term Republican governor.

It wasn't long before he posted three tweets drawing comparisons between Walker and Dahmer, who gained international notoriety for saving and eating his victims' body parts.

"@GovWalker had better lawyers than Jeffrey Dahmer in beating the rap. Clear that he committed crimes," Zielinski wrote in one of his tweets.


http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=5246778331973362810

Using graphic language in an opinion piece about “conflict minerals,” potential U.S. Senate candidate Ashley Judd in 2010 accused those who buy Apple products of “financing mass rape.”

“Apple is known for the clean lines of their products, the alluring simplicity of their designs,” Judd wrote in the article. “Dare I….go so far….as to suggest…this signature cleanness is stained by the shit and urine of raped women’s leaking fistulas?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/11/in-2010-ashley-judd-accused-apple-customers-of-financing-mass-rape/#ixzz2NlCcbxVX

Hey PHIX! A couple of yours are on the loose!!!!

Civility!! (Mental Health!!!)

phx said...

If the fact that Romney isn't an extremist isn't sufficient to stop the Democrats from calling him one, how is (somehow) silencing Limbaugh supposed to help?

Let's be clear - Romney wasn't an extremist but he took some extremist positions, including the idea that 47% are "takers".

JAL said...

White used a service revolver from his time as a police officer.

wikipedia: White packed his loaded service revolver from his work as a police officer and ten extra rounds of ammunition into his coat pocket....

So ... a legally obtained service revolver, not even one of those semi-automatics.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's not that often that you get to see someone walk back a walkback.

Might "you didn't build that" also count as an extremist position taken by a moderate?

JAL said...

If Democrat women can't stand the heat they need to get out of the kitchen.

And take their recipes with them.

phx said...

It's not that often that you get to see someone walk back a walkback.

You're thinking is a little convoluted here. Where was my original "walkback" supposed to be?

Synova said...

"Let's be clear - Romney wasn't an extremist but he took some extremist positions, including the idea that 47% are "takers"."

Let's be clear... and honest... Romney's "extremist" view was that 47% of people do not pay taxes and so they could not be reached by a promise to cut their taxes.

How is the plain fact that 47% of people do not pay *into* the system through income taxes an "extremist" view?

And since "lets stick it to the 1%" went over so well, it's hard to say that people are not interested more in being takers than not.

It's just not nice to SAY so.

phx said...

it's hard to say that people are not interested more in being takers than not.

Well here's an area where you and I just disagree and probably won't be reconciled.

I think it IS extremist to call 47% of voters "takers".

Shrug.

Danno said...

Why is anyone paying attention to this legislation yet? It may have gotten out of committee in the Senate, but it doesn't appear to have enough Democrat votes to pass, much less anyone from the other side of the aisle.

Synova said...

On the other hand I don't think it's extremist to say: "And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It's insulting, but it's not extreme.

Obama can insult people when he's trying to explain away how they get to be so stupid without it making him an "extremist".

"Extremist" isn't the only adjective out there.

When people pointed to things that Obama said that revealed that he was a socialist at heart, they didn't point to "bitter clingers" they pointed to things he clearly said about taking money from some people and spreading it around, or how, at some point you've made enough money. "You didn't build that" is a good one, too.

All of those things speak to political philosophy. Are they extreme? Possibly not. They're just pretty far left.

Did Romney have extreme political philosophies or policy plans? Was he actually interested in doing any of the extreme things that Republicans were accused of such as taking away birth control?

Ron Paul is an extremist in a number of areas. Rand Paul less so. Paul Ryan's budget proposals are milk and white bread.


Synova said...

It's like saying that Ted Cruz is an "extremist" because he insulted Dianne Feinstein.

That doesn't mean he's an extremist, it just means that he insulted Dianne Feinstein.

Methadras said...

The Godfather said...

For information, do bullets "implode"?


Only if a mini black hole is somehow embedded within one I guess.

Synova said...

Other adjectives: rude, insulting, radical, revolutionary, dismissive, alarmist, pollyannaish...

Big Mike said...

I think it IS extremist to call 47% of voters "takers".

Well, if that was what he really said, as opposed to what the Democrats and their boot-licking lackeys in the press say he said, then that would not be extreme, but certainly incorrect.

What he really said -- and I listened to the unedited tape -- was that 47% of the population don't pay taxes so don't care how tax money is spent. If one regards the truth as extreme, then ... [shrug]

As a matter of fact, if you were a thinking person, I'd ask a simple question such as how many people have to pay taxes to pay for one person on AFDC, one person on Social Security, one person's Medicare, one person's Medicaid, and all the other money that the government disburses as part of the safety net.

Some of those taxes come from people who work for the government, but their salaries must come from taxpayers too, right?

So in the end we are going to have to start taxing people and other taxable entities who don't currently pay taxes. General Electric Corporation might be first on that list.

Big Mike said...

Getting back to Feinstein, I happened to read the article she wrote about a week ago defending her foolish bill (foolish as in written by a fool and voted affirmatively for by fools).

I've seldom seen so much misinformation in one place.

To take one example, she is opposed to semiautomatic rifles that have barrel shrouds or front handles because that's how people avoid burning their hands on hot barrels. Yup. Of course the wooden stock on Renaissance matchlock muskets, Revolutionary War muskets, Civil War rifled muskets, the Winchester rifles that "won the West," the military rifles of World Wars I and II, and hunting rifles since the 17th century. The move to plastic barrel shrouds has nothing to do with lethality. Apparently, given that she lists the model of the Ruger Mini 14 that looks vaguely like an M16 military assault rifle among the weapons to be banned, but not the "ranch" version of the same Mini 14 that has a wooden stock, the only reasonable conclusion is that Feinstein conflates resemblance to modern military weapons with lethality. She has clearly gone senile.

Synova said...

Big Mike, I can only conclude that black plastic guns have psycho-compulsory abilities that wood guns do not have. It might be something in the plastic that vibrates at particular frequencies on the molecular level.

Just, you know, saying.

wyo sis said...

Synova You are one of my heroes on this blog.

Erika said...

It might be something in the plastic that vibrates at particular frequencies on the molecular level.

It's the hot box of the gun world.

From Inwood said...

Big Mike

"Barrel Shrouds keep rifles from heating to 170 million degrees."

Oh wait, that another Californian – Maxine W.

Hey, didn’t Maxine play that same refrain against NY’s Peter King: “Men and women, the day is over when men can badger and intimidate women.”?

EMD said...

You are right, that applies to extremists on all sides. But the GOP is the one whose extremists are the most notable and the loudest in this time. The Dems have theirs more or less under control at the moment. Extremism is tearing the GOP and conservative movement into pieces.

Your bias is astounding. I'm neither an R nor a D, yet I can see how the media frames stories to paint the GOP as a bunch of fringe characters.

avwh said...

"Sen. Cruz is doing something that liberals consider their prerogative: claiming the moral high ground and then asking, in so many words, so how do you feel about being immoral?

That is why Sen. Feinstein was so infuriated. Cruz was doing to her what she and her side usually do."

Great point, Father Fox. Sounds like Cruz out-Alinskyed them. Which explains all the vitriol directed his way by the Dems and its media lapdogs.

Kirk Parker said...

Funny is phx thinking Limbaugh is an extremist.



Hint: he's a center-right guy in a center-right country. That's how he got such a huge audience: he resonates with the country.

The only thing extreme about Limbaugh is his tenacity in going after the left with over-the-top rhetoric. His actual positions on issues is center-right. Pretty darn close to the actual mainstream.

Kirk Parker said...

Danno,

Why pay attention? Because it follows in a tradition of vile, anti-freedom acts by some of the D's (and a sadly non-zero number of R's, too.) It's the sibling of the ghastly bill just passed in New York, and the bigger and worse brother of the now-expired 1994 federal AWB.

It's important to fight back, loudly, now and always, so they know we're watching and we care.

AlanKH said...

If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness

Dang, she stole my characterization of DiFi. Where's my lawyer?

phx said...

The only thing extreme about Limbaugh is his tenacity in going after the left with over-the-top rhetoric.

That's about 75% of your problem right there.

phx said...

Your bias is astounding. I'm neither an R nor a D, yet I can see how the media frames stories to paint the GOP as a bunch of fringe characters.

I know. It's all the media's fault.

Matthew Sablan said...

"LOL well let's move on to arguing the positions then. Screw arguing to the man."

-- I notice this happens a lot after people on the left have torn down people on the right in dirty, nasty, personal ways ("Romney killed my wife with cancer!") just before or immediately after the right makes a cogent counter punch about the moral failings of someone on the left ("Romney did no such thing; but Ted Kennedy actually killed a woman!")

Matthew Sablan said...

"He sat in the Oval Office stuffing envelopes and mailing out fliers?"

-- This is rank idiocy; the person in charge of a campaign being credited with the actions of the campaign is perfectly accurate. When a journalist says "The White House says" no one believes there is a magic mouth on the White House speaking to the reporter.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The American public rejected the extremists in 2012, and in the process the moderates got hammered."

-- Speaker Bohener says hello; in 2012 it was a bit of a split decision. Moderate Romney got hammered, but several conservatives won in the Senate and House. Recent history shouldn't be this confusing for someone paying attention.

phx said...

I notice this happens a lot after people on the left have torn down people on the right in dirty, nasty, personal ways ("Romney killed my wife with cancer!") just before or immediately after the right makes a cogent counter punch about the moral failings of someone on the left ("Romney did no such thing; but Ted Kennedy actually killed a woman!")

I know. That's just what I did. You poor, poor Republicans. Treated so vilely by ME. SHM.

phx said...

Speaker Bohener says hello; in 2012 it was a bit of a split decision.

Fine. 2012 was a split decision. See? No worries for the GOP at all.

jejones3141 said...

Back in the early days of personal computing, the Southern California Computer Society published a magazine. I, an undergraduate in Oklahoma, snapped up an issue eagerly. The only thing I remember reading from it was someone's claim that Feinstein wouldn't know which button to push on an Apple mouse. At the time I didn't know who the writer was talking about. Alas, now I do.

Paco Wové said...

Morning thread recap:

"right now if you want to have a snark-free absolutely real discussion about the failings of both parties, let's do it." says phx.

Synova and Big Mike proceed to do it.

phx vanishes.




Matthew Sablan said...

"I know. That's just what I did. You poor, poor Republicans. Treated so vilely by ME. SHM."

-- It is exactly what you did. You disingeniusly tried to argue that the right's moderates aren't really moderates ("walking back the walkaback"), deliberately misinterpreted Romney's comments and bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging they weren't as extreme as they were portrayed. Then, when beaten into a corner cried uncle to change the topic.

It was weasling, but expert weasling.

phx said...

Synova and Big Mike proceed to do it.

phx vanishes.


I should stay here all night to watch them lick each other's backs.

phx said...

-- It is exactly what you did. You disingeniusly tried to argue that the right's moderates aren't really moderates ("walking back the walkaback")

Where? I said clearly Bush, McCain and Romney were moderates. I said Romney took some extreme positions but I still characterize him as a moderate.

How is that "walking back the walkback"?

phunktor said...

@Big Mike, Synova

While pondering the seemingly irrational black plastic fetishism of the gun grabbers, I experienced a spontaneous transformation of my point of view.

Let's assume the Gramscian transformatives are not stupid, but quite smart. They are in the middle of a long term strategy. Their campaign to destroy K-12 has been stupendously (h/t OED, via AA) successful. Pavlovian association, not logical thinking, rules the masses. In this frame, "superficial similarity" is not a fault to their "argument", it's a feature.

The idea of armed resistance to the State is facilitated by possession of rifles similar in appearance to military models. This is why they attack. This is what they attack.

Big Mike said...

I know. It's all the media's fault.

No, it's your fault. You refuse to think for yourself, to weigh the all the evidence, pro and con, and to reach a rational conclusion.

phx said...

No, it's your fault. You refuse to think for yourself, to weigh the all the evidence, pro and con, and to reach a rational conclusion.

Yup, you are right. It's my fault. It's the media's fault. It's Obama's fault. It's Pelosi's fault. It's the low-information voter's fault. It's the fault of all those statists.

It's not the GOP's fault at all ever. They're the VICTIMS.

sinz52 said...

Gail Collins is actually improving.

She has now written an entire column that didn't once mention Romney's dog.

Rich Vail said...

Ms. Collins in particular and the MSM in general are preparing the battlefield for the tactics of personal destruction to use on Mr. Cruz. If they can marginalize him now, since as a Hispanic Conservative, he (like Sarah Palin before him) is a threat to the whole Liberal meme (they support minorities and women).

If the MSM can successfully marginalize Cruz NOW, he won't be a threat to either Biden, Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama (yes, she's already being touted as presidential material on the left) in 2016.

We, in the grass roots blogging community need to begin our pushback NOW, BEFORE the narrative is set in concrete. I would urge everyone who has a blog to start publishing pushback against articles on Cruz, so that even Google searches won't be able to hide positive mentions of any minority of conservative.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland
http://thevasilspot.blogspot.com

Beto_Ochoa said...

Let's put this Cruz / DiFi / Leahy exchange in perspective...
T.C.: "Grandpa, you're not wearing any pants!"
DiFi: "Boy! I was wearing pants when you were still pooping green!"
P.L.: "Your kind don't even let school kids have colorful pants! You burn them!"

Jonathan Silber said...

How does the fact that Feinstein once saw bodies with bullets in them make her an authority on Constitutional law, or earn her any deference on the matter?

This is what passes now among leftists like her for dialogue and debate: they lecture, take offense at disagreement, and refuse to engage except by ad hominem retorts.

And persons of this ilk--the so-called elite of our society--are many of them graduates of prestigious schools.

Their existence makes for a good argument against the value of higher education.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Given that Feinstein incorrectly answered Cruz's question--she seems to be of the belief that Congress just tosses laws out there, and the Supreme Court decides if they're constitutional or not--I'd say Cruz was entirely justified in whatever tone he wanted to take.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Given that Feinstein incorrectly answered Cruz's question--she seems to be of the belief that Congress just tosses laws out there, and the Supreme Court decides if they're constitutional or not--I'd say Cruz was entirely justified in whatever tone he wanted to take.

Haiku Guy said...

Feinstein said: "I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode."

The weapon Dianne Feinstein is talking about is a .38 S&W revolver. Not a .38 Special, mind you, but a .38 S&W. This is one of the must underpowered handguns there is. A .22 LR target pistol might have less stopping power, but that is about the only one you will find.

But Dianne Feinstein continues to go on about these awsomely powerful weapons, and then goes on to attept to ban Assault Rifles. If she were to be successful in banning all firearms more powerful than the gun used to kill Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk, she would have to ban almost all guns of any type.

Big Mike said...

@phx, you were on the right track until you got to the last sentence. If the GOP tells the truth, but the media lie and Pelosi lies and Feinstein lies and Obama lies, and you are too lazy or too foolish to attempt to verify what the media and Pelosi and Feinstein and Obama are saying, then in my opinion you are the victim. A willing victim of course, but a sad and sorry-assed victim nonetheless.

Big Mike said...

@Haiku, that can't be right. When was the last time S&W made a revolver that chambers the .38 S&W? Has to be pre-1900 "Double-Action Perfected" top break, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't long after the .38 Special cartridge was developed that it pretty much took over the sub-40 caliber market.

Rick Caird said...

The contrast between Obama refusing to defend DOMA because he thinks it is unconstitutional and Diane Feinstein refusing to consider the Constitutionality of her so called "assault weapons" ban, is striking. Is Feinstein claiming Constitutionality should not be a consideratin when legislating?

mdgiles said...

Does the fact that DiFi saw some bodies, mean that we can now expect extreme difference from Dems to all combat veterans on the subject of gun control? Not to mention emergency room trauma personnel, law enforcement officers, fire fighters and morticians?

Bruce Hayden said...

Why is anyone paying attention to this legislation yet? It may have gotten out of committee in the Senate, but it doesn't appear to have enough Democrat votes to pass, much less anyone from the other side of the aisle.

A number of reaons. One is that if you wait until it hits the Senate floor, it is way too late to do anything about it. It won't get there until most of the votes are already counted. A lot of legislation has a life and timing all its own. Watched patent "reform" pass almost exactly a year and a half ago, and fully come into effect Fri/Sat at midnight. After languishing for maybe 5 years, it all of a sudden got hot, the two Judiciary committees had stacked hearings, voted it to the floor, passed in one house, the other a bit differently, then back the first. I remember April or so of 2011 meeting with WI Congressman Sensennbrenner, who told us that if we didn't get a grass roots avalanche in the next two weeks or so, the bill would be law by the end of summer. It was signed into law mid September, after being slowed down for a week by the Tea Party. We had worked against this legislation for 5 years of so, and ultimately, there was only a couple of weeks window when we could have killed it. By the time it came out of the two committees, it was going to pass big. The NRA knows this. The gun rights people know this. And, they are trying to scare the Senators from Romney and purple/red states out of supporting it long before it gets to the floor.

Another thing is that the House leadership seems a bit wobbly right now. We have Boehner eating with the President a lot, Cantor being his usual politically conniving self, and the whip making all sorts of conciliatory things about the debt. There are rumblings that they might sell out just a little on gun control to get something, unnamed, in the future. Like they have repeatedly traded promises of spending cuts in the future for tax increases now. Gun control shouldn't get through the House, and if it does, there is going to be blood on the carpet on the Republican side of the isle, but the leadership has made some conciliatary gestures. They wouldn't be doing this if they were listening to their constituents, instead of the beltway and mainstream media.

Everyone is walking a tightrope on this. The Republicans would dearly love to see a lot of Romney/red/purple state Senators vote for any sort of legislation, and esp. those running for reelection in 2014. But, they really don't want to see it pass the Senate because there is always the chance that the House leadership would sell out their base. But, the Dems are the ones really at risk here - if it comes to the Senate floor, and their leadership forces a vote, and seriously works to pass it, they are likely to lose the Senate in either 2014 or 2016 at the latest. But, this puts Sen. Reid in a bad position - his caucus wants this legislation badly, but it might cost him his seat to allow it to pass the Senate. Can anyone here say "Majority Leader Schuemer"?

Bruce Hayden said...

Sen. Cruz is doing something that liberals consider their prerogative: claiming the moral high ground and then asking, in so many words, so how do you feel about being immoral?

I think that the good father is exactly correct here. And, I think that we need a lot more of this. Think of the women and children that would be more vulnerable to attack if DiFi's legislation passed. More rapes, etc. Or, how backing the teachers and taking their money hurts the kids that they are supposed to be helping. Support the children, and oppose the teachers. Or, that Obamacare is taking money from young adults and giving it to middle aged people who have real jobs. Or, that borrowing a trillion dollars a year to buy votes is indenturing the young, and generations to come for the temporary benefit of the Dem politicians currently in power, along with a lot of "takers". The young, by their votes for Obama and Dems, are facing the tripple whammy of high student debt, no jobs after graduation, and maybe $20 trillion in national debt by the time Obama leaves office. How moral is that?

The reality is that the Dems, the leftists, the progressives, etc. appear to have the moral high ground primarily because they mostly control the media - educational, entertainment, and supposed news. Yes, many of them can claim moral supremecy through their good intentions, but by now, those intentions are pretty hollow, esp. in the face of the abject failure of their programs over the last esp. 50 years. Bigger goverrnment isn't the solution to the problems that they are trying to solve, but rather is the problem. And, it is only through the constant hammering by their captive media (see above) that they are able to constantly portray themselves as the good guys, and conservatives, GOP, etc. as the bad.

So, this is a crack in their armor, highlighted by one of the most junior, newest, Senators. I fully expect to see a lot more of this over the next couple of years by this band of new turks on the right side of the isle in the Senate.

Edward said...

@ Big Mike: phx as victim.

phx as willing accomplice of the
sycophant persuasion, a useful irritant, a vaccine against the
more virulent forms of Progressive
propaganda; It is most effective
when it assumes the tone of a
professor sadly but wisely cor-
recting the errors of students,
and revealed when it resists
successful counter-argument by
descending to personal ad-hominum
attacks.
P.S. @ Althouse: Lots of good
comments hers, but phx is by far
the most instructive; Thank you
for not banning it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Is Feinstein claiming Constitutionality should not be a consideratin when legislating?

I don't think that was her intent, but it was essentially her admission after being out-gunned and out-argued by Cruz in that debate. Guy is good. Real good, and that is why he was rated one of the best Hispanic lawyers nationally and one of the best young lawyers in Texas. This is going to be an interesting two years in the Senate Judiciary Committee between those two.

Stoutcat said...

Douglas / Michael / Charles:

Just to set the record straight, Hoagy Carmichael was the piano player, Cricket, in the first Bogart/Bacall movie, To Have and Have Not.

Bacall's singing voice in that film was supplied by Andy Williams.

Kirk Parker said...

pxh,

"That's about 75% of your problem right there."

Huh?

DRJ said...

I thought Senator Cruz's questions of Senator Feinstein raise important points, but I'm a Cruz supporter so maybe I'm not being objective. I'm curious what Professor Althouse thought of his questions.

phx said...

Huh?

Presentation.

phx said...

it is most effective
when it assumes the tone of a
professor sadly but wisely cor-
recting the errors of students,
and revealed when it resists
successful counter-argument by
descending to personal ad hominem
attacks.


Okay I see. You got your feelings hurt. Break it down for me. What was my personal attack and/or ad hominem? What scintillating right-wing point was I devilishly yet foolishly trying to evade by throwing in my ad hominem?

phx said...

If the GOP tells the truth, but the media lie and Pelosi lies and Feinstein lies and Obama lies, and you are too lazy or too foolish to attempt to verify what the media and Pelosi and Feinstein and Obama are saying, then in my opinion you are the victim. A willing victim of course, but a sad and sorry-assed victim nonetheless.

Fine. We'll put you down as believing "The GOP tells the truth and everybody who doesn't believe that is a victim."

Stick with that.

Bruce Hayden said...

Fine. We'll put you down as believing "The GOP tells the truth and everybody who doesn't believe that is a victim."

I will take this as strong indicia that you have very serious reading comprehension problems. May be why you are a leftist troll.

phx said...

I will take this as strong indicia that you have very serious reading comprehension problems. May be why you are a leftist troll.

I suspect you have very original ideas about reading comprehension. Also you're using "indicia" wrong.




"If the GOP tells the truth, but the media lie and Pelosi lies and Feinstein lies and Obama lies, and you are too lazy or too foolish to attempt to verify what the media and Pelosi and Feinstein and Obama are saying, then in my opinion you are the victim."