Ted Cruz vs Dianne Feinstein

I am watching the same thing on Maddow's show. Ted Cruz comes across as a punk.

I'm rather conservative myself in my political views, but I've always respected Feinstein's view on things even if I didn't agree with her. Cruz comes across like a maggot on steroids.

Ted Cruz is right. Feinstein is wrong. Any member of Congress advocating chipping away at the Bill of Rights betrays their oath of office and the American people whom they serve. To seriously pursue infringement of any portion of the Bill of Rights deserves the very indignation Feinstein instead expends upon her attempt to do exactly that.

Cruz strikes me as calm, probably kind to kittens and small children. Feinstein doesn't. (Okay. So I exaggerated. A little.)

Cruz is a straight up dick and this - his second attempt at trying to make a name for himself in his brief tenure so far (if you recall, he also stooped to Neo-McCarthyism last month by suggesting that Hagel might have ties to terrorists) - is just more proof.

And he is wrong in this case, of course. As Maddow stated, we "infringe on the First Amendment" everyday by outlawing things like child pornography, libel/slander, and endangering people by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. These are reasonable restrictions taken to protect people. Thus far, our mighty democracy has not fallen because of these so-called infringements.

Likewise, reasonable steps regarding gun ownership can and should be taken to protect the citizenry, especially considering that the majority of the populace supports some restrictions.

I guarantee you that the USA will survive and not turn into a dystopian fascist shit hole. The Constitution should be interpreted both with a respect for its origins but also with respect to contemporary cultural needs. What was deemed good and acceptable for people over 200 years ago and codified in the Constitution at that time is not necessarily good and acceptable for people today.

Ted Cruz v. Diane Feinstein is akin to the famous Marvis Frazier v. Larry Holmes heavyweight championship boxing fight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvis_Frazier

Or like racing your antique Yugo against Jimmie Johnson's NASCAR ride.

Or like Chris Christie trying to outsprint Usain Bolt.

Or like me playing tennis against Novak Djokovic.

Advice to Ted Cruz: Hang around in the U.S. Senate for a couple of terms, then see how you might wield some gravitas. Meantime, try to emulate the quiet, hard-working, studious first term of Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota.

caw

Summonere said:

Ted Cruz is right. Feinstein is wrong. Any member of Congress advocating chipping away at the Bill of Rights betrays their oath of office and the American people whom they serve. To seriously pursue infringement of any portion of the Bill of Rights deserves the very indignation Feinstein instead expends upon her attempt to do exactly that.

Cruz strikes me as calm, probably kind to kittens and small children. Feinstein doesn't. (Okay. So I exaggerated. A little.)

Click to expand...

Cruz strikes me as calm, probably kind to kittens and small children. Right up to the point where he can snatch them up, stuff them into a sack and throw them into a river.

blacbird said:

Advice to Ted Cruz: Hang around in the U.S. Senate for a couple of terms, then see how you might wield some gravitas. Meantime, try to emulate the quiet, hard-working, studious first term of Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota.

caw

Click to expand...

There is a reason why freshman Senators are often treated like children underfoot. They either don't know or don't care what the protocols are of the Senate. Guys like Cruz think they're supposed to say "fuck all that" and start throwing sharp elbows and lustily stomping on toes.

And they don't accomplish dick.

What a snot-nosed, swaggering rookie like Cruz probably doesn't know is while he's trying to score rhetorical points with the Fox and Friends crowd, Feinstein wasn't just blowing smoke when it comes to having first-hand familiarity with gun violence. She could have lectured her caustic colleague of the bloody events that led to her becoming the mayor of San Francisco. Namely, the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Feinstein was on the scene at one of the biggest American political assassinations of the post-60s era — the murder of George Moscone and Harvey Milk in San Francisco in November 1978. Feinstein was actually the first into Milk’s office and made a momentary and vain effort to revive Milk who was clearly already dead.


The other part of this story was that Feinstein was then head of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. So Mayor Moscone’s death meant she was the new mayor.

Click to expand...

Feinstein was entirely right to go on CNN and explain her reaction to Cruz's condescending remarks.

"Well, I just felt patronized," Feinstein told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it. When you come from where I've come from and what you've seen, when you found a dead body and put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons, and they become more sophisticated, and more the product of a battlefield, and you've got these huge clips, or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy, when you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers, people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And so it's based on my experience."

Click to expand...

There's no chance a nervy punk like Cruz learns anything remotely resembling humility or even simple manners from Feinstein setting him straight. That would take a degree of class Cruz shows no signs of possessing.

That's okay. There have always been terrible Senators like him and they usually find themselves isolated by their own rudeness, offensive ways and arrogant attitudes. Cruz isn't even the biggest asshole from Texas serving in Congress. Not as long as Louie "Terror Babies" Gohmert is gibbering like a drunken hyena in the House.

As a senator, Cruz has six years to make a complete fool of himself. He should pace himself.

My thought is, "Thanks, Texas voters, for replacing one of the best Republican senators we had with one of the worst."

Summonere said:

Ted Cruz is right. Feinstein is wrong. Any member of Congress advocating chipping away at the Bill of Rights betrays their oath of office and the American people whom they serve. To seriously pursue infringement of any portion of the Bill of Rights deserves the very indignation Feinstein instead expends upon her attempt to do exactly that.

Click to expand...

In short? *snerk*

"chipping away at the Bill of Rights" is becoming like that old school politics view of taxes. "The only fair tax is one someone else is paying."

The whole point of The Constitution is to protect the citizens of the country from a government spinning out of control. The fed. gov't is very quickly attaining more power than it was ever meant to have. The last few administrations have ensured that the people grow dependent on it...

The whole point of the constitution was to put in practice theories and ideas that had been floating around between the continents for a hundred years by then, ideas called collectively 'The age of enlightment'. That age resulted in the French 'Declaration of the rights of man' and the constitution of the First French Republic, and it resulted in the US constitution. The reason the US constitution worked better from the start was that the new USA didn't have as much historical baggage as the French did.

These are the ideas put forward by people like Adam Smith, John Locke, Montesqueue, Bastiat, Immanuel Kant, Benjamin Franklin, and so on.

Now that you mention it, I feel that we, the plain old American people, are embarking on another "Age of Enlightenment." If tinkering with the Constitution and its amendments is required to keep its guarantee of our right to pursue happiness then so be it.
Regardless of what the folks on Fux news say, any kid in government class can tel Mr. Cruz that the American Constitution is a "working" document.

In other words, the will of the people will prevail and wannabee demagogues like Cruz had better step aside. The "power" of one small section of the country to inflict its peculiar, cramped, sometimes intolerant, world view on the rest of us is waning.

Popular opinion is in favor of some sort of control on gun ownership. Like it or not, change is coming. Exactly what that change will involve is still up for discussion. People who want to be in on the discussion cannot afford to alienate the majority by disrespecting the discussion.

In words from a simpler time, "Lock up the instigators... We have got to get it together. We have got to get it together now. There is something in the air"-- T. C. Newman

Zivvy said:

The whole point of The Constitution is to protect the citizens of the country from a government spinning out of control. The fed. gov't is very quickly attaining more power than it was ever meant to have. The last few administrations have ensured that the people grow dependent on it...

Click to expand...

No, that is not the point of the Constitution. That's the partial point of most of the Amendments, but the point of the Constitution is to set the parameters of how the government operates. There is no government rulebook that assumes government is bad for people. The founders were not anarchists.

ETA: Also, the point of the Constitution is to be the operational framework of a democratic republic ruled by the people themselves via elected officials. In other words, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. As was pointed out above, the people have spoken on gun control. The people of the USA overwhelmingly support reasonable controls on gun ownership and sales. Those who oppose gun control are the minority. They may wish they were the voice of the majority -- they may even convince themselves they are the voice of the majority -- but they are not. The majority are already balanced in our approach to guns in that we want controls, not total bans. Opponents are going to have to acknowledge that they have lost the argument. They are going to have to accept the inevitability of restrictions on guns. They can do it the easy way by being responsible and sitting down to discuss practical forms of controls that will still conform to the 2nd Amendment. Or they can do it the hard way by stubbornly refusing to cooperate with their fellow citizens and forcing us to go through years and years of legal and political wrangling while more and more people die by gun violence every year. If they choose the second option -- or continue to choose it -- the rest of us are unlikely to appreciate it later on. You know, when the history gets written.

Well, the amendments are a part of the constitution...

In any case, it's pretty clear that the constitution both sets out specific things the government can/must do, and puts specific restraints on its power.

Michael Wolfe said:

Well, the amendments are a part of the constitution...

In any case, it's pretty clear that the constitution both sets out specific things the government can/must do, and puts specific restraints on its power.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said. They still don't make up the whole point of the document.

no--we the people put the limits on the power of the gov through the constitution.
whatever the majority of us decides will become the law of the land. i count myself a liberal but i would hate to see all gun ownership banned. i will comply with whatever is decided and then we need to move on to the next problems--economy, health care, immigration, shrinking middle class --all of these things must be discussed in the next year; politely, respectfully, truthfully, wisely.
i have lived a long time and i must say that these are very exciting times. the majority of us have moved beyond the scare talk, the crazy stereotypes and the blustering of the power addicted. people are taking an interest and opinions are changing. the ranting and the blustering has become the realm of the trolls--elected, broadcast and online--s6

muravyets said:

No, that is not the point of the Constitution. That's the partial point of most of the Amendments, but the point of the Constitution is to set the parameters of how the government operates.

Click to expand...

Michael Wolfe said:

Well, the amendments are a part of the constitution...

Click to expand...

muravyets said:

Yeah, like I said.

Click to expand...

LOL.

They still don't make up the whole point of the document.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Re: the point of the Constitution

Federalist 45 (Madison):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Click to expand...

robeiae said:

Re: the point of the Constitution

Federalist 45 (Madison):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Much like the new Pope's backstory, Article I, Section 8 and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution have been officially flushed down the memory hole. It's no longer proper to mention them in polite company, and if you're not careful you'll be joining Haskins in the reeducation camp.

Fair warning, I hope.

shakeysix said:

no--we the people put the limits on the power of the gov through the constitution.
whatever the majority of us decides will become the law of the land....

Click to expand...

This fact disturbs me greatly.

The majority of people think all kinds of (imo) stupid things.

I'm now wishing that some really brilliant people 240 years ago had written a document to prevent the majority, let alone the powers that be, from deciding what would become the law of land.

I must really be an anarchist. Damnit.

anarchist? no. just another brick in the wall!

shakeysix said:

anarchist? no. just another brick in the wall!

Click to expand...

All in all, yes. You are so right.

*cranks up Pink Floyd*

I had a post written up about this, deleted it, then thought about it the rest of the day. I've decided to go back and write it because I think there is something missing from the discussion.

In Cruz vs Feinstein, the problem isn't gun control, the problem isn't even politics, it's narcissism.

Politicians can be mean and condescending to each other and it won't make the news. At the end of the day, they're all coworkers, they share the same halls, the same bathrooms, and they all order takeout from the same place. What's so problematic about this disagreement isn't that it's about gun control, but that it's narcissism framed as a gun control debate.

Most people are narcissists. Politicians are even more narcissistic. Feinstein is a narcissist, and I believe so because the problem she had with Cruz wasn't that he had a differing opinion, but because he was condescending to her and thus shattered her image of being an experienced politician deserving of respect.

(Narcissism isn't just about getting attention; it's about maintaining an image.)

So what was her response? She went to national news outlets so she could restore her image as a knowledgeable, senior member of congress. Her grievance wasn't that Cruz was wrong, because that wouldn't be news, but that he was arrogant, the subtext being that as a fledgling politician persona wasn't worthy to demean her persona. She did it to save face, to protect her image. Her quote to him is telling:

"Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons."

Those points, weren't really points. If they were, they would be something like - the founders didn't believe in all or nothing rights and responsibilities, being reasonable about solving social issues means admitting that there are exceptions to the rule and that few things are absolute (those are what I believe her words would have been). That would be a point, instead, she talked about herself.

"I've been on this committee for 20 years."

"I was a mayor."

"I saw people shot."

"I've looked at bodies..."

This even extended to the CNN interview:

"Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it. When you come from where I've come from and what you've seen, when you found a dead body and put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons..."

It's all about her experience. Cruz's perspective doesn't matter. She doesn't talk about what Cruz said, but how it made her feel.

"..and then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons, and they become more sophisticated, and more the product of a battlefield, and you've got these huge clips, or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy, when you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers, people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons?..."

This would have been good food for thought, if she hadn't ended it with this:

"...My answer to that is no. And so it's based on my experience."

That's to be expected from a politician, but the way this "story" is portrayed turns discussions of governance into battles of political personas. Talking about the constitution or the ability and effectiveness to control guns is completely obscured by a narcissistic politician on one side and a condescending politician on the other. It's putting the image over ideas. People don't have to like Feinstein, they don't even need to agree with her political views, or even know what they are, they just need to hate Cruz more because the debate is framed through the people rather than the ideas.

I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that Ted Cruz is a know-nothing, disrespectful little punk who failed to educate himself on Feinstein's background, and the reasons behind Feinstein's stance on guns. Which has everything to do with Feinstein being the one who discovered Milk's and Moscone's bodies and guiding San Francisco the crisis. It's not narcissism to be shaped by those kinds of experiences. Gun control has been a top priority for Feinstein ever since that day 35 years ago.

clintl said:

I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that Ted Cruz is a know-nothing, disrespectful little punk who failed to educate himself on Feinstein's background, and the reasons behind Feinstein's stance on guns. Which has everything to do with Feinstein being the one who discovered Milk's and Moscone's bodies and guiding San Francisco the crisis. It's not narcissism to be shaped by those kinds of experiences. Gun control has been a top priority for Feinstein ever since that day 35 years ago.

Click to expand...

Yeah, she even gave up her concealed carry permit a while back, but I suspect she hasn't demanded the same of her bodyguards.