Ted Cruz vs Dianne Feinstein

Dave of Mars

a subterranean Martian caveman.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
161
Reaction score
13
Location
Denver, CO
Website
cydoniansignal.com
But why is Cruz a know-nothing, disrespectful little punk, but more importantly, who has decided this?

I'm not saying that Feinstein's views are wrong or that her tenure isn't justified. It just seems to me as if the behavior of going to a media outlet, one that grants her the attention of millions, after she had already put Cruz in his place, shows a defense of her personal image. Note that Cruz's points were not brought up when she went to CNN, only his image, which was shown as a know-nothing etc etc. It looks to me as if the media is reinforcing tribal politics at the most superficial level.

Though, that's just my take on it.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
But why is Cruz a know-nothing, disrespectful little punk, but more importantly, who has decided this?
Well, since I was the OP, I guess I did.

Though I noted that others might disagree.

If I'd been in Feinstein's place I would have been a lot less civil in my response. Which is one of the hundred reasons I'd never make it as a politician.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
But why is Cruz a know-nothing, disrespectful little punk, but more importantly, who has decided this?

Unofficial protocol, mostly. Ted Cruz isn't the first bomb-thrower with sharp elbows to kick open the doors of the Senate jump on the furniture, pull down his pants and show his ass. It's kind of entertaining in a way.

But let's not confuse it with being effective. Deciding from the get-go you're going to make instant adversaries of those who could be helpful in the achievement of your goals is not a smart strategy. As the saying goes, people will forget what you said, but not how you made them feel.

There won't be blood, but there will be payback. Bet on that.

Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting may be remembered as this year’s high-water mark for those promoting the most ambitious aspects of the Obama gun control package. It will also be remembered as a milestone in the education of an unrepentant Ted Cruz.

During his first 10 weeks as the junior senator from Texas, Cruz has leveraged almost every available opportunity to burnish his reputation as the most intellectually rigorous and rhetorically forceful of this year’s tea party congressional newcomers. So far, his strategy for achieving quick and approving prominence on the right seems to be working; Cruz has been selected to deliver the keynote speech on Saturday night at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

At the same time, his confrontational style has rattled many of the more senior Republicans in the Senate. They worry that his reliance on pedantic questioning and unsubstantiated claims — both on full display during his battle against Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense — will not only harm his effectiveness as a policymaker but also drag the bar for senatorial comity to a new low.

Democrats are eager for that first GOP concern to be proved true. And they share the other anxiety about the coarsening of Capitol discourse. So they are becoming ever-more openly scornful toward the 42-year-old former Texas solicitor general. Twice in as many days, two of the best-respected and longest-serving Senate Democrats made it plain to Cruz that, after less than three months, they were losing patience with his impertinence.

Cruz’s response to both California’s Dianne Feinstein and Maryland’s Barbara A. Mikulski was, in effect, too bad for you.
Cruz isn't the first Tea Partier in the upper chamber to spit on the idea of comity and collegiality. Ron Johnson and Mike Lee beat him to the Senate. He just goes to extremes and blows off any suggestion from either side of the aisle that his shit not sugar approach might not be the best one.

Dave of Mars said:
I'm not saying that Feinstein's views are wrong or that her tenure isn't justified. It just seems to me as if the behavior of going to a media outlet, one that grants her the attention of millions, after she had already put Cruz in his place, shows a defense of her personal image. Note that Cruz's points were not brought up when she went to CNN, only his image, which was shown as a know-nothing etc etc. It looks to me as if the media is reinforcing tribal politics at the most superficial level.

Oh, you mean the way Cruz ran to Fox News to do the same thing? Bad thing tribal politics. Lot of it about.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
If I'd been in Feinstein's place I would have been a lot less civil in my response.

I thought she was fine in terms of civility, but she came across to me as somewhat shrill and overly defensive. And though she might be well-informed about guns, she didn't come across that way with her claim of having seen imploding bullets.

FWIW, Cruz's question was pretty dumb, imo.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I thought she was fine in terms of civility, but she came across to me as somewhat shrill and overly defensive.
You might want to be aware that the use of the adjective "shrill" when criticizing a woman's demeanor, esp a woman in power, is seen by many as sexist.

Sometimes deliberate, sometimes, as I assume in your case, unknowingly.

Was her response high-pitched? Did it go way up the scale in tone? Have you ever heard a male politician referred to as "shrill?"
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I thought she was fine in terms of civility, but she came across to me as somewhat shrill and overly defensive. And though she might be well-informed about guns, she didn't come across that way with her claim of having seen imploding bullets.

FWIW, Cruz's question was pretty dumb, imo.
Agree.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
But let's not confuse it with being effective. Deciding from the get-go you're going to make instant adversaries of those who could be helpful in the achievement of your goals is not a smart strategy. As the saying goes, people will forget what you said, but not how you made them feel.

Exactly. Especially since Feinstein is one of the senators who is consistently most willing to work with colleagues on the other side of the aisle on legislation.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
You might want to be aware that the use of the adjective "shrill" when criticizing a woman's demeanor, esp a woman in power, is seen by many as sexist.

Sometimes deliberate, sometimes, as I assume in your case, unknowingly.

Was her response high-pitched? Did it go way up the scale in tone? Have you ever heard a male politician referred to as "shrill?"

Just trying to offer the critique that seems most fair to me. Nothing sexist intended.
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
George Moscone and Harvey Milk were killed with hollow pointed bullets. Diane Feinstein was in the building that day. I don't know much about bullets but my guess is she knows what she is talking about. Even if she is a female--s6
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
George Moscone and Harvey Milk were killed with hollow pointed bullets. Diane Feinstein was in the building that day. I don't know much about bullets but my guess is she knows what she is talking about. Even if she is a female--s6

She was not only in the building, Dan White ran by her out of his office where he had shot Milk. She was the one who discovered the bodies. She inadvertently put her finger into a bullet hole in Milk's wrist trying to feel for a pulse.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
George Moscone and Harvey Milk were killed with hollow pointed bullets. Diane Feinstein was in the building that day. I don't know much about bullets but my guess is she knows what she is talking about. Even if she is a female--s6
Well, that's true. Hollow points were used. But they were fired from a revolver, a "six-shooter" as it were. The assassin had to reload to kill Milk after killing Moscone.

The bill this dust-up revolved around was one that would ban assault weapons and limit magazine size to 10 rounds, neither of which would have had any impact on the assassinations Feinstein was so close to.

That said, Cruz's question was indeed stupid and intended to be provocative.

And that said, it is also true that Feinstein did not at first deign to directly answer that question, opting instead for indignation and braggadocio.

And that said, Leahy also played the fool with his interjection.

In the end, Feinstein did answer the question with the obvious answer (that Cruz knew all along, imo): different tests for different amendments. Duh.

So on my scorecard, Cruz is the biggest loser; there were no winners. Just a bunch of politicos posturing, because everyone knows the bill is not going anywhere right now.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I didn't say it had anything to do with the assault weapon ban. What I said was that the shrill, histrionic woman clearly knew about bullet wounds. --s6
Which has nothing to do with the bill being discussed. That's my point. So what of she knows about bullet wounds?
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
Post #30--M. Wolfe spoke of doubting her "claim" to have seen the effects of imploding bullets. He also spoke of her as being shrill and defensive. It pissed me off. So shoot me--s6
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
In the end, Feinstein did answer the question with the obvious answer (that Cruz knew all along, imo): different tests for dCfferent amendments. Duh.
You really think so? I'm not so sure. Cruz strikes me as one who believes that the 2nd amendment is absolute and that there should be no limits whatsoever on guns. A lot of people agree with that. I honestly believe he thought he was being clever about drawing an analogy with free speech and didn't think the whole thing through.

Which has nothing to do with the bill being discussed. That's my point. So what of she knows about bullet wounds?
My original point was not whether Cruz is right ot wrong, but that he's a douchebag. When you've been working on controlling gun violence for decades and a new new guy who thinks he's hot stuff tries to lead you along a line of flawed reasoning, intimating that you're just not aware of constitutional issues, I would imagine it might piss one off.

If further, someone starts talking about theoretical sacred gun rights, and you've knelt down beside friends and colleagues whose bodies have been torn up by bullets, you also might tend to get a bit emotional. Not shrill, of course, but at least angry.

If Ted Cruz is in any way the future of the Tea Party wing of the GOP, either they or we are in big trouble.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
You really think so? I'm not so sure. Cruz strikes me as one who believes that the 2nd amendment is absolute and that there should be no limits whatsoever on guns. A lot of people agree with that. I honestly believe he thought he was being clever about drawing an analogy with free speech and didn't think the whole thing through.
Oh, I'm sure he thought he was being clever, that he thought he was going to trip Feinstein up. Still, I also think he knew his question was ultimately BS. He was looking for a sound bite. Low class, imo.

My original point was not whether Cruz is right ot wrong, but that he's a douchebag. When you've been working on controlling gun violence for decades and a new new guy who thinks he's hot stuff tries to lead you along a line of flawed reasoning, intimating that you're just not aware of constitutional issues, I would imagine it might piss one off.
Well, by the same token, someone who has been in politics for as long as Feinstein should be able to easily dismiss such flawed reasoning without getting testy by simply noting why it's flawed.

If further, someone starts talking about theoretical sacred gun rights, and you've knelt down beside friends and colleagues whose bodies have been torn up by bullets, you also might tend to get a bit emotional. Not shrill, of course, but at least angry.
Sorry, she gets no special dispensation for that in my book, anymore than people like McCain or other veterans of armed conflicts--who have seen as much or worse--do. Because this would mean that anytime someone challenged her position, she would be entitled to get upset, since it was "personal." Which of course is funny, given her own past concealed carry permit.
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
There is one hell of a big difference between a concealed weapon carried with a permit gained through a background check and an assault weapon carried by someone who believes he is the Joker and has been building up a mail order arsenal since he stepped off the edge of lunacy. When are you gun nuts going to give up arguing apples for oranges?
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Well, by the same token, someone who has been in politics for as long as Feinstein should be able to easily dismiss such flawed reasoning without getting testy by simply noting why it's flawed.
I know this runs counter to what many believe, but politicians are human.

I think she was reacting more to him being a condescending ass than to anything he was saying. Perhaps. ideally, personal attributes should have no impact on political or ideological questions, but in the real world, populated by real people, they do.

There's a certain level of smug nastiness that can push almost anyone's buttons. Ted Cruz, has that, whereas, say, Marco Rubio, whose policy positions I also don't care for one bit, does not.

(There's also a perpetual miasma of smarminess that surrounds some politicians. Mitch McConnell. Lindsey Graham. On the other side, Chuck Shumer.)
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
There is one hell of a big difference between a concealed weapon carried with a permit gained through a background check and an assault weapon carried by someone who believes he is the Joker and has been building up a mail order arsenal since he stepped off the edge of lunacy. When are you gun nuts going to give up arguing apples for oranges?
Well again, Feinstein's experience was not with someone using an assault weapon, so when one notes the incident with respect to gun rights in general...


arbiter/

Also, the "you gun nuts" is a bit over the line.

/arbiter

FWIW, as I have noted before, I'm fine with getting rid of concealed carry altogether. Handguns, too. Does that make me a "gun nut"?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I think she was reacting more to him being a condescending ass than to anything he was saying. Perhaps. ideally, personal attributes should have no impact on political or ideological questions, but in the real world, populated by real people, they do.
Perhaps. But that doesn't justify her response imo, only explain it.

So again, I would say Cruz is the biggest loser here, but Feinstein didn't come off well, either.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
arbiter/

Also, the "you gun nuts" is a bit over the line.

/arbiter
Yes, I would reserve that term for Ted Nugent.

Or the Utah House, who just passed a law doing away with concealed weapons permits.

What's that you say? No more CC permits? What's wrong with that?

Well, the new law would make it legal for anyone, anytime, to carry a concealed weapon. Permits will no longer be required, freeing upstanding citizens from undergoing onerous safety training or intrusive background checks.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...carry-gun-bill-passes-House-after-change.html
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Personally, I might be a little less irritated by the complaints about Feinstein's response to Cruz if they were less one-sided. Feinstein was shrill? What about Cruz being condescending, ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to his senior colleague? Feinstein was defensive? What about Cruz's she-was-mean-to-me media reactions?

Cruz was the one who stepped out of line. His question and comments were ignorant of both facts on the issue and the history of the person he was talking to. He was rude and unprofessional. He arrogantly attempted to redirect the focus of the hearing. He presumed to condescend to a Senator with far greater political experience than he, higher standing in the Senate than he, and far more personal experience with gun violence than he. He deserved to get slammed, and he did. I hope others will learn from it, because I doubt he is able to. If Feinstein's voice rose a little in the act of putting this upstart back in his place, that is only to be expected because of the trauma of her past experience, but to be honest, I thought she handled the reality-smack properly.

Funny, I was youtube surfing the other day and clicked a random scene snippet from one of those BBC mysteries and I heard a line of dialogue that I immediately thought would have been the even more proper response to Cruz in that situation. Some irritating snot of a character says something irritating and snotty and the main character in the scene responds with, "Shut your bum and give your face a chance." He then carries on with the important conversation he was otherwise having. Every time Cruz starts talking, I think I'll hear that line in my head now.

But this much I say in total confidence: The problem with this conflict between Feinstein and Cruz is not that Feinstein is being uppity, shrill, or emotional.

ETA: Also, yes, I would say the Utah House may now stand for the benchmark by which to measure relative degrees of gun-nuttery. What idiots.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Yes, I would reserve that term for Ted Nugent.

Or the Utah House, who just passed a law doing away with concealed weapons permits.

What's that you say? No more CC permits? What's wrong with that?

Well, the new law would make it legal for anyone, anytime, to carry a concealed weapon. Permits will no longer be required, freeing upstanding citizens from undergoing onerous safety training or intrusive background checks.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...carry-gun-bill-passes-House-after-change.html
OMG! Well, not really. That would mean 10% of the states would exist in this state of lawlessness.
Among U.S. states, Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. These states also allow the open carry of a handgun without a permit.
I'm not aware that any of those states are major sources of gun violence, or gun stupidity, for that matter.