There is being principled, and then there is being a jerk. Putting down your colleagues to boost your own street cred with the base falls into the latter category....It's the old Mutt and Jeff routine! I like it.
For starters, it’s just not smart to annoy colleagues whose cooperation and support you’ll need in the future. Second, as a conservative he should understand humility and grace are not incompatible with “standing on principle”; the absence of these qualities doesn’t make him more principled or more effective. Third, for a guy who lacks manners (see his condescending questioning of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) he comes across as whiny. They yelled at me! Boo hoo, senator.
There is a deeper problem, I think, with Cruz’s approach to the Senate, which has nothing to do with ideology. The contrast between him and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is telling. Paul is no less conservative than Cruz, but he is polite to a fault, soft spoken and gracious....
३० एप्रिल, २०१३
"Ted Cruz is too often falling into the reflexive habit of voting no on everything and then mocking his colleagues."
Jennifer Rubin is "sorry to say."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
how dare Ted Cruz question the corrupt Dianne Feinstein whose husband won the California Hi Speed Rail contract under shady circumstances.
Republicans are constantly accepting the demand that they play nice. They are afraid to appear mean, and yet they will continually be portrayed as mean, no matter what they do.
Look out! It's a trap!
I think Cruz sees that. I like it.
Look out! It's a trap! I think Cruz sees that. I like it.
So do I. And Beltway RINO's like Jen Rubin can go pound sand, for all I care.
What exactly is Cruz doing affirmatively to aid the country, the conservative movement and the GOP? Yelling at people and voting no don’t qualify.
Read your own article Jennifer moron. Cruz was not doing any yelling and he is polite.
What he's doing is actually being and voting conservative.
Omigod !!! Not that.
Ann Althouse said...
"Republicans are constantly accepting the demand that they play nice. They are afraid to appear mean, and yet they will continually be portrayed as mean, no matter what they do.
Look out! It's a trap!
I think Cruz sees that. I like it."
Yep! Please don't let them tame you, Sen. Cruz.
Cruz is an effective Schumer.
Can't the GOP have a pit bull?
No! whines Jennifer Rubin.
Shorter Cruz: Fuck it.
Great reasons for Cruz to be a jerk:
- Because Democrats don't deserve to be treated like civilized people when they're attacking civilization.
- Because turnabout is fair play
- Because when someone is at war with you, you fight back.
- So every other Republican can be a lot more aggressive than they are now, but still polite and humble compared to Cruz. This will appeal to mushy, weasely GOP moderates like Jennifer Rubin.
- Because Texans didn't elect Cruz to be a whimp
Uncle Saul's Rules, and a lot of the Lefties' tactics, are dependent on the other side always acting like the Bush family when things get nasty.
Cruz refuses to do that.
And I don't doubt they will go after him like they did Miss Sarah.
Ann Althouse said...
Republicans are constantly accepting the demand that they play nice. They are afraid to appear mean, and yet they will continually be portrayed as mean, no matter what they do.
Look out! It's a trap!
I think Cruz sees that. I like it.
Ordinarily, I would raise some note about how Madame always gets concerned when the Republicans go all mean-spirited (as Mr "Ethics" Moyers was wont to say) as they risk losing the female vote, but this time, I'm just glad to agree with her.
Jennifer Rubin isn't sorry at all to say it.
Cruz is not a conservative, he is a radical. His behavior is entirely in keeping with his philosophy.
Troll wants to tell us Conservatives are supposed to be nice people.
Civility rears its ugly head yet again.
Jennifer Rubin lost me a while back at "Romney is a cinch to win!"
Taking advice from people who lose elections is so guaranteed to win you the next election.Jen 's advice is worth that much.Ted beat the RINO machine in Texas and the Dems.Keep it up Ted.Maybe we can actually start holding some people's feet in the coals.Repubs mighr finally learn what being the minority party means.-And it ain't playing nice.
I think Cruz sees that. I like it.
Me too.
Voted for him and so glad I did.
Graham and McCain are the problem...Cruz is the solution.
Besides, he's twice as smart as both of them put together.
Meanwhile, in the Brady Press Breifing room, Preaident Obama is waging drone-on warfare.
Jennifer Rubin was so assured that Harry Reid was not going to bring up gun control because it was problematic for his caucus.
She also was super-duper convinced nobody would vote for it.
Cruz is who we have been waiting for.
AReasonableMan said...
Cruz is not a conservative, he is a radical.
How would you know?
Cruz is not rude. But Cruz is a hierarchical thinker who demands rational analysis replace the best crafted false narratives that corruption hides behind. A very dangerous man indeed!
Texans see his style as an independence move and approve of him. Cruz is the Lone Star Senator.
Democrats have problems with strong Hispanics. They want to keep them in the background.
If they speak up, they're mean.
he comes across as whiny. They yelled at me! Boo hoo, senator.
And of course Rubin misses the point entirely.
He wasn't complaining he was yelled at.
He was pointing out that Repblicans were so emotional pleading for gun control.
Why are these political commentators so stupid.
Now that I think about it, Rubin has basically characterized Ted Cruz as being a real life Ron Swanson.
Cruz is not a conservative, he is a radical.
Because he's a Hispanic who doesn't genuflect at the Democrat altar?
Or good cop, bad cop.
AReasonableMan said...
Cruz is not a conservative, he is a radical. His behavior is entirely in keeping with his philosophy.
How funny is this? Scary radical alert! Reasonable people agree!
Gosh, I've never liked Jennifer Rubin either, her analysis tend to serve her prejudice rather than clarify. Case in point: I can't figure out what exactly she doesn't like about Cruz except that she doesn't like him.
Cruz is not a conservative, he is a radical.
When the other side Alinsky you, issue after issue, you have to decide if getting politically wiped out is preferable to fighting back.
Cruz appears to be willing to at least put up a fight.
Here is Cruz telling constituents how he gets it done.
Rand Paul is conservative? HUH?
Cruz is not a conservative, he is a radical.
One example of how he is a radical, please.
Not going along to get along--as a Republican--is radical. What more do you need?
How is Cruz a radical?
It's kind of radical to agree with late term abortion.
In all seriousness though, how was he rude to DiFi?
I've seen video of their exchange and thought she was much ruder to him than he's been portrayed as being to her. Then again--she's a miserable old bitch and always has been.
Rubin also says she doesn't agree with Rand Paul--but at least he's doing something.
What?
She's supposed to be a "conservative" (he said, laughing). She doesn't agree with Rand and she doesn't like Ted. What else is there? Squishcenter?
She says the people of Texas are being shortchanged. She might do well to ask them about that. I have good friends and relatives in Texas. To a lot of them Cruz is great--but doesn't go far enough.
She really is a stupid ...well, never mind.
Texas took a long time to fully embrace being a conservative state and its senators were a prime example. About time
The only Rubin example of Cruz's misbehavior that I am able to check is his "condescending questioning of Sen. Dianne Feinstein". I rolled the tape on that. I didn't find it condescending at all. He asked her a very apt hypothetical question, which she was unable to answer; worse, she maundered on about her experience of seeing people who had been murdered (not, as I recall, with assault weapons but with a revolver), as though that meant something. Cruz looks good to me, but if Rubin is what passes for a "conservative" at the Washington Post -- well, I'm not surprised.
Jennifer really should take a break, I like her but she is way off on immigration.
Ann Althouse said...
Republicans are constantly accepting the demand that they play nice. They are afraid to appear mean, and yet they will continually be portrayed as mean, no matter what they do.
Look out! It's a trap!
I think Cruz sees that. I like it.
4/30/13, 9:48 AM
If you're going to do the time might as well commit the crime. With Harry Reid as majority leader the concept of decorum is surely a joke.
I've read that Cruz is smart and he is showing that he has backbone too. Jennifer, a lot of women and all liberals were really offended that Cruz showed up Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Rand Paul is conservative? HUH?
With the exception of the new gun issue, the political climate has been controlled by the left since sometime after the midterm 2010.
Right now, Barney Frank could be made to appear conservative.
Don't forget.He looks like Gene McCarthy,er.....Smokin Joe.
The deal with Cruz and Feinstein must be a female thing with Jennifer Rubin for I've watch her debate the liberals and she is very aggressive which I like.
Yeah - I thought princess DiFi was the rude one. Another "How Dare You! moment from the left.
Stay frosty, Ted.
Stay irrelevant outside the beltway, Jen.
Paddy O said...
"Now that I think about it, Rubin has basically characterized Ted Cruz as being a real life Ron Swanson."
Ron Swanson is Hawt. Seriously though, he's the best character on tv right now.
Paul is no less conservative than Cruz, but he is polite to a fault, soft spoken and gracious.......and an Opthalmologist...
...while Cruz is a litigator, and it shows. One person's "rudeness" is another's "doesn't suffer fools".
We need this man, he fights.
Cruz is a radical? Excellent. It is time for some radicalism.It certainly worked out for Bark's mentor.
This episode gives a fascinating glimpse into the workings of party- and issue-politics and how they overlap and conflict.
Basically, you have a lot of pols who want to get credit for being "right" on an issue, and then you have a few who actually want to be right. Cruz appears to be one of the latter.
He seems to have figured out what the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R) figured out: you can be very effective if you work the rules, stay on top of things, pursuing particular issues of concern--and you don't care if you make Senators mad or the media call you names. (Actually, Kennedy and Metzenbaum understood this, too, but they got better media treatment.)
In the short term, the attempt is always made to get the upstart Senator "to be a team player." Cruz is getting that treatment now. Clearly someone persuaded Rubin.
Notice Ms. Rubin's way of thinking: Cruz's job should be to be a representative of the Republican party to the issue constituencies he speaks for. Throw them a bone; explain things to them. Pacify them.
But that terrible Cruz has it "backwards": he thinks his job is to be an advocate for those issues to the Senate--including his own party.
I don't doubt they yelled at him. Sen. Helms told the story about how Senators wouldn't talk to him on the elevator; they'd turn their backs to him, because he wouldn't be a team player. He ended up being much more powerful than any of them, precisely because he wouldn't. Again, same for Metzenbaum on the left.
Jennifer Rubin won't be happy till all Republican senators "represent their constituents" like "Borders? who needs borders?" John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Not a "polite" man, eh? Cuze is getting the same MSM treatment another man who fought back did--Brietbart (whom the NYT now admits was right re the Pigford Affair. Remember how Brietbart was accused of being a racist and falsifying vids? And the nasty yelling!, oh the nasty yelling...)
Here's why Ms. Rubin is so ridiculous. She complains that Sen. Cruz should be focused on "governing" rather than unhelpfully "voting no on everything" and "gestures."
What Sen. Cruz is doing is helping create favorable conditions for more like-minded people to be elected in 2014. Getting a GOP majority in the Senate, and keeping a GOP majority, and perhaps expanding it, in the House.
You do that by putting your opponents on the spot with votes, and by offering voters who are motivated by issues a compelling reason to turn out and vote. Hence Sen. Cruz's advice, "don't be squishes."
With Ms. Rubin's enthusiastic backing, we had a plate of mashed potatoes as the GOP standard-bearer in 2012. How'd that work out?
Of course, the GOP Senators who are in office, and who aren't worried about their next re-election, don't appreciate being put on the spot along with the Democrats.
But forcing clarifying votes is one of the most useful things Sen. Cruz can do; as is stopping bad legislation. He seems to be doing a good job on both these agenda items.
Look, you can ALWAYS tell whom the Donkeys fear by who they savagely attack with character assassination--Palin, Breitbart, now Cruz. And on some it works--look at Rubio now vs when he began..
**Reverse who & whom, lol
If Rubin doesn't like Cruz, I really don't understand why she likes Rand "Filibuster" Paul, either. I like them both. It takes me back to my youthful Bo and Luke Duke poster days. Starsky and Hutch. A.J. and Rick Simon. The Senate is better for having both of them.
I'm with Cruzer the Bruiser!
The lady is no conservative.
"If Rubin doesn't like Cruz, I really don't understand why she likes Rand "Filibuster" Paul"
She doesn't. She's attacking Cruz so it's just convenient, today, that Rand's more soft-spoken. When she's attacking Rand for being long-winded, Cruz will be the convenient counter-example.
I'm sorry to say.
When I was a wee lad... I still remember one Mutt & Jeff comic. Jeff was at with some bureaucrat, had to answer questions for a form:
Bureaucrat: Born?
Jeff: Yes sir!
B: Where?
J: United States.
B: What part?
J: All of me.
B: WHERE do you live?
J: I live with my friend Mutt.
B: Where does your friend MUTT live?
J: He lives with me.
B: Where do you BOTH live?
J: We both live together.
B: (grabs his hat, heads door) I quit!
With Ms. Rubin's enthusiastic backing, we had a plate of mashed potatoes as the GOP standard-bearer in 2012. How'd that work out?
I like Jennifer Rubin. I get that she's too beltway for many here, but outside those conflicts, she has a keen eye and shoots straight.
I agree with Rubin that Romney was the best shot Republicans had last year. Like Rubin and most Republicans, I was surprised Romney came up short in that odd election.
However, does anyone here really believe that Ron Paul, Santorum, Cain, Perry Gingrich or some other true-blue conservative would have done better?
creely23 -
Yes. Somebody—anybody—other than Romney could have credibly hammered on the unpopular Obamacare and the need to replace Obama to repeal it.
I mean, seriously. The only major legislative accomplishment of the President is massively unpopular, and the Republicans nominate the one person who can't rail against it without starting a "didn't you invent it?" conversation?
Everyone who supported Romney's nomination was a goddamned idiot, as I told them at the time. There was, literally, no worse candidate in the Republican field.
Fr. Fox is on to something comparing Cruz and Jesse Helms. As long as Cruz is happy being a Helms, his unpleasant persona will be just fine, but it will be a big problem if he wants to join the I-wanna-be-Pres gang.
I’m one of those who found him rude in his exchange with Feinstein. Oh, yeah, he looked smart and all, but his way too heavy prosecutorial style was very off-putting.
The exchange with Feinstein was revealing. Feinstein pulled the Senate Royalty card and Cruz set it on fire. Which was awesome. These people are Senators. They're supposed to know the facts and the law. They're supposed to know how to debate. Vigorously. Why so fragile and prickly? Because she didn't have an argument and is unused to debate?
Debate is for the little people.
And people from two party states.
Not Princess Dianne of Imaginary Highspeedrailistan.
Feinstein's usual response is emotional blithering: what-about-the-children? and if-we-can-save-just-one-life and shut-up. She's smart so she dresses it up but that's what it is. And the press rushed in to cover for her and call Cruz a "bully" when, in fact, he was doing his job and Feinstein was the bully.
Lydia, as a life long North Carolinian I say this, Jesse may have been unpopular in the beltway, but the people of NC seemed to like him enough to keep sending him back.
Also I have a good friend (dem) who was in congress the same time JH was still in the Senate, I asked him what he thought about JH he said Jessie had never been anything except a perfect southern gentleman to him.
Reflexively voting "no" on wedgislation is a Good Thing.
Also, since it probably won't get it's own post:
http://www.examiner.com/article/lesbian-activist-gay-marriage-fight-a-lie-to-destroy-traditional-marriage
Just say NO! to Government Addiction!
"No" can be a good thing!
I’m one of those who found him rude in his exchange with Feinstein. Oh, yeah, he looked smart and all, but his way too heavy prosecutorial style was very off-putting.
And not putting-off women is the ultimate goal, isn't it?
Amartel said...
Also, since it probably won't get it's own post...
I get what you meant, but a Russian? Another Russian? Russians are not trustworthy this week. Especially them whot's grifter half breed tartars ... :-))
You mean Russians who get caught on tape throwing bombs?
...and then mocking his colleagues.
It's called speaking Truth to Power.
Push back ... twice as hard!
Be polite to your mugger?
Hard to be civil when you're being robbed, rolled over, and raped.
I love politicians who want to be elected based on their proven inability to govern.
Yes. Somebody—anybody—other than Romney could have credibly hammered on the unpopular Obamacare and the need to replace Obama to repeal it.
Everyone who supported Romney's nomination was a goddamned idiot, as I told them at the time. There was, literally, no worse candidate in the Republican field.
Steven: You're welcome to your opinion, but that's more spleen than argument.
It's easy to say, "Anybody," but "anybody" wasn't around. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain were and they had already been dismantled and made to look like bomb throwers and dunces by the media.
As it was, someone as bland and squeaky-clean as Romney became a satanic plutocrat who hated women and Big Bird. It was uphill for any Republican in 2012.
but that's more spleen than argument.
Since you don't seem to understand, here's the argument in more detail:
The economy was improving some under Obama compared to 2007-2009. That means, as an issue, the economy was in the murky realm of counterfactuals. "Well, America would have recovered more strongly if Obama wasn't overspending on stupid things like Cash for Clunkers" is the sort of claim that you can't prove cleanly and neatly. It won't move a swing voter; if he believed it, he'd already be a Republican.
Similarly, there were no major terrorist attacks, or obviously failed military operations, or any other obvious major failure (except maybe Benghazi). Every argument was, "Well, but it would be better if . . ." in a situation that wasn't bad enough to doom the President in advance.
There was one, and only one, major issue on which the President was clearly and unambiguously on the side the American swing voter opposed. The one, and only one place where a Republican candidate could say, "Obama screwed this up, and I will fix it." And that was the PPACA.
That was it. And the Republicans nominated the only candidate in the primaries who couldn't attack Obamacare because he enacted the same damn thing at the state level.
It's easy to say, "Anybody," but "anybody" wasn't around.
Since you don't seem to understand, let me be very, very clear. "Anybody" indeed means any of Santorum, Gingrich, Perry Cain, Huntsman, Bachmann, Paul, Roemer, or Johnson.
Some of them had their own defects, but none of them had the crippling disadvantage of being the inventor of the President's unpopular and only major accomplishment. Any of them could have made the only campaign that could have won.
Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain were and they had already been dismantled and made to look like bomb throwers and dunces by the media.
Hmm, kinda like Reagan in 1976 and 1980?
Anyway, you and the people like you picked the one who hadn't. So, how well did that work?
As it was, someone as bland and squeaky-clean as Romney became a satanic plutocrat who hated women and Big Bird.
Oh, huh. Looks like it failed.
Maybe, just maybe, Republicans shouldn't let the liberal media pick who they run?
It was uphill for any Republican in 2012
Which is why it was important to run someone who could climb, instead of the guy with a self-broken leg.
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.” - Robert A. Heinlein
"I like it"
Same here. We need to be saying No quite a bit more often. Sounds positively ... ... ... Reaganesque, if I may be so bold.
"We need this man, he fights. "
Hey--does he drink? If so, send him a barrel or two of Gen. Grant's favorite!
That's the problem with women, when someone says something that matters, women spend all their time analyzing how it makes them feel. When someone says something that doesn't matter (how many hours per day Rush is on the air), they overanalyze it until all meaning is lost.
I would say letting these illogical, fickle creatures vote was every bit of the mistake that the early detractors of sufferage said it would be- if nothing else women gave us the mob, Roosevelt (great depression #1), Kennedy the adulterer and failure, Carter the fool, Clinton the adulterer and fool, and now Obama (great depression #2), and have created an Oprah society where the guilty get off if they have a good story and the innocent get nailed if they don't gain sympathy.
It's easy to say, "Anybody," but "anybody" wasn't around. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain were and they had already been dismantled and made to look like bomb throwers and dunces by the media.
Exactly what Jennifer Rubin is doing by this hit piece. So fate accompli in Romney being the last man standing not looking like a bomb thrower.
His colleagues deserve a LOT of mocking.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा