Ted Cruz: The Nasty Newcomer

Frank Bruni nails Ted Cruz for what he is....a new asshole Republican. Keep 'em coming. As I've repeatedly said, he's a bombthrower and an asshole. Adding to the Republican legend.

>>>WHEN a Vesuvius like John McCain tells you that you belch too much smoke and spew too much fire, you know you’ve got a problem.


And Ted Cruz, a Republican freshman in the Senate who has been front and center in his party’s effort to squash Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense, has a problem. He’s an ornery, swaggering piece of work. Just six weeks since his arrival on Capitol Hill, he’s already known for his naysaying, his nit-picking and his itch to upbraid lawmakers who are vastly senior to him, who have sacrificed more than he has and who deserve a measure of respect, or at least an iota of courtesy. Courtesy isn’t Cruz’s métier. Grandstanding and browbeating are.




He sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and during its final meeting on Tuesday about Hagel’s nomination, he made such nefarious and hectoring insinuations about Hagel’s possible corruption by foreign influences that McCain, who’d gleefully raked Hagel over the coals himself, more or less told Cruz to cool it. It was an unforgettable moment, and one that Republicans shouldn’t soon forget, because Cruz, 42, isn’t simply the latest overeager beaver to start gnawing his way through the halls of Congress. He’s a prime illustration of what plagues the Republican Party and holds it back.


A fascinating illustration, too. On the surface, he should be part of the solution: young, Latino, with a hardscrabble family story including his father’s imprisonment in Cuba and escape to the United States. But Republicans who look to him and see any kind of savior overlook much of what drags the party down, which isn’t merely or even principally the genealogy of their candidates. It’s the intransigent social conservatism, the whiff of meanness and the showy eruptions. It’s what Cruz, who rode a wave of Tea Party ardor to victory in Texas in November, distills.
I don’t say that to celebrate the Republicans’ struggles. Just as the country benefits from a balance of powers between branches of government, it’s best served by two viable parties in healthy tension, each checking any capacity in the other for ideological indulgence and excess. And right now the Republican Party accommodates too much quackery, belligerence and misplaced moralism to play a fully credible part in a vital, essential debate about the size and scope of government. The party should be a place where voters who are reasonably concerned about government overreach can turn. It shouldn’t be a bastion of regressive social ideas and foul tempers.


The party certainly knows it needs repair. That’s all it talks about lately. Karl Rove wants to raise and disperse money in a way that guards against the elevation of kooky, doomed candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Todd Akin from primaries into general-election contests. Marco Rubio delivered a response to the State of the Union address that took pains to detail the ways in which his biography made him the antonym of a plutocrat, the opposite of Mitt Romney. And a generation of young Republican strategists wring their hands about the party’s tenuous grasp of social media and outmoded mechanisms of outreach in a story by Robert Draper in The New York Times Magazine this weekend.


Read it. Note in particular a Republican pollster’s recent interviews with Ohio voters. When the pollster asks them to play word association with “Republican,” the answers indeed include a few descriptions that the profiles of Rubio and Cruz push back against: “rich,” “white.” But the adjectives “rigid” and “polarizing” also come up, along with a lament about an “all-or-nothing” approach. These descriptions fit Cruz like a glove.


One voter tells the pollster that he’d be more kindly disposed toward Republicans if they could “be more pro-science.” Cruz has expressed skepticism about climate change, a position perhaps in tune with his hyperconservative base and his state’s oil interests but at odds with his apparently keen intellect.
He has an impressive academic résumé: an undergraduate degree from Princeton, followed by law school at Harvard. I’ve talked with his fellow students at Harvard and with his former colleagues from George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. All of them mention how fiercely smart he is.
But the flattery stops there. They remember him as arrogant, sour and self-serving, traits that apply to his brief time in the Senate so far. In questioning Hagel during the nominee’s confirmation hearing, he took a surprisingly, audaciously contemptuous tone.


Separately, in front of an audience of conservatives, he smirked dismissively as he griped that Hagel and John Kerry were “less than ardent fans of the U.S. military.” Those two men fought in Vietnam, and earned Purple Hearts; Cruz never served in the institution he purports to regard so much more highly than they do.
ONLY three senators voted against Kerry’s confirmation as secretary of state. Cruz was among them.


He has an affinity for opposing, a yen for obstructing. He belonged to the minority of 22 senators who voted against the Violence Against Women Act, which passed with 78 votes. He also voted against suspending the debt ceiling for three months and against aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy.


He has already flagged his disagreement with the immigration reform proposal by a bipartisan panel of senators. He has already indicated antipathy to the new push for meaningful gun control. During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” when he was twice asked about the broadly reviled National Rifle Association ad that brought the president’s daughters into the debate on guns, he more or less defended it.
He’s been quick to seize spotlights like the one presented by “Meet the Press,” and while newly minted senators often keep a relatively low profile, he reportedly holds forth in Senate conferences at great and off-putting length. And he’s drawing unusual admonitions from senior Republicans.


“I think he’s got unlimited potential,” Senator Lindsey Graham told Politico. “But the one thing I will say to any new senator — you’re going to be respected if you can throw a punch but you also have to prove you can do a deal.”


Indeed, the challenge for Republicans now — a challenge that, to limited and varying degrees, Rubio and even Eric Cantor are beginning to grasp — is to be seen and to act as a constructive force, as a party that’s for things, that wants to be inclusive and that operates with a generosity of spirit, not an overflow of spite. With his votes and his vitriol, Cruz undermines that. He brings himself plenty of attention. He’ll bring Republicans nothing but grief.

AMEN! Cruz is a loony on every fucking level!

The senate GOP minority will ostracize him before the summer recess.

Book it Dano!

Cruz will ask the tough questions that the mainstream media wont ask because they have their heads up Obama's ass.

Nothing scares a liberal more than a Latino who speaks the truth.

Another opinion;

Posted: 12:28 p.m. Monday, Feb. 18, 2013


Cruz raising eyebrows in Senate

By Editorial Board

What’s the opposite of a charm offensive?

Texas’ newest U.S. senator, Republican Ted Cruz, appears fully committed to finding out. For someone who’s been in office only since Jan. 3, Cruz has captured widespread, frequently negative attention for statements he’s made, votes he’s cast and outlandish performances he’s given during hearings on gun control and former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense.

The actions by the tea party favorite have put off Democrats, which is no surprise, but Cruz also has put off several fellow Republicans, according to reports out of Washington. Elspeth Reeve summed up the reaction on the Atlantic’s website last week by writing that Cruz has “already accomplished the amazing feat of uniting both sides of the aisle. Less than six weeks into his term, a remarkable number of both Republicans and Democrats have come forward to say that they think Cruz is kind of a jerk.”

We assume Cruz wears the criticism as a badge of honor. But if he has hopes of establishing himself as a Senate leader in anything other than obstruction, he needs to court other senators, not alienate them. He might want to tone things down a bit — if he isn’t tone deaf, that is.

“Tone deaf” is one way Cruz has been characterized in recent articles. Also rude. Annoying. Given to lecturing during meetings with other Republican senators.

Posturing. Provocative, if you’re looking for an adjective with some positive spin in it.
We’re not surprised that Cruz has found the media spotlight. We expressed concern after his election that he seemed more interested in appearing on Sunday morning talk shows than in serving the people of Texas as a constructive legislator. We can’t say Cruz hasn’t been engaged thus far, but his engagement might soon set a Senate speed record for planting oneself on the margins.

“Jim DeMint without the charm,” is how an unnamed Republican senator described Cruz to Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus. DeMint, the combative and legislatively ineffective South Carolina Republican who left the Senate in December to run the Heritage Foundation, saw Cruz as a kindred spirit and backed his Senate run against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Marcus also reported that Cruz’s relationship with Texas’ senior senator, John Cornyn, is “frosty.” Perhaps. Publicly, Cornyn has allied himself with Cruz. Granted, that alliance may have more to do with Cornyn looking for some tea party credibility as he prepares for a re-election campaign next year than it does with warm regard for his junior colleague.

Cornyn joined Cruz as two of only three senators to vote against Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s confirmation to be secretary of state. (Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe was the other.) And, according to reports, Cornyn helped win Cruz prized spots on the Armed Services Committee and Judiciary Committee. Without those two powerful platforms, fewer words would have been written recently about Cruz.

Cruz was appropriately blasted for his line-crossing questioning at Hagel’s confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee. Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman from Florida who now hosts MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” called Cruz’s performance a “clown show.”

Cruz isn’t alone in standing against Hagel, of course. Cornyn plans to vote against his former Republican colleague’s confirmation, and Republicans filibustered the nomination last week, though they stretched reason to call their delay anything but a filibuster.

Cruz’s statements about Hagel, however, were seen by many, Republicans included, as attacks on Hagel’s military service and patriotism. Last week Cruz implied that Hagel might have taken money from North Korea, among other nations and groups hostile to the United States. There was no evidence offered, just innuendo.

At times, Republicans have seemed more interested in dinging President Barack Obama than in Hagel’s qualifications. It’s a precarious time to play politics with the Pentagon. Cuts to the defense budget loom, withdrawal from Afghanistan is under way and challenges grow in North Africa and the Middle East.

Some of the murmurs against Cruz simply might reflect petty irritation by senators many years and terms his senior upset that he’s not quietly easing into his role as a new senator. Meanwhile, plenty of conservatives, especially the tea party variety, applaud Cruz’s efforts. They doubtless take negative, anonymous comments by establishment Republicans as well as critical media reports and editorials as a sign Cruz is doing something right.

Cruz went to Washington to build a reputation as a principled conservative. Nothing wrong with that. But so far the reputation Cruz is building is of an arm-waving blusterer. He might soon find that when he opens his mouth to speak, those around him are not thinking principles, but instead are rolling their eyes and muttering, “Here we go again.”

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/o...-senate/nWRxt/

Ted Cruz is pissing off all the right people. He might be a Republican worth supporting.

He's a turd Dali. There are plenty of folks who don't have their heads up Obama's ass who will tell you the same. Read the article. I dunno, maybe you're comfortable with him questioning the cred of Americans who've served and shed blood for the cause....he damn sure didn't....he's a fucking turd. As for him being a "latino"....only in the Republicans dreams. He's a fake latino just like Rubio. You guys get that the latino vote is something you need so you throw fake latino jackwagons like this guy up as fake responses to this need. It's stupid...and you know it.

Cruz will ask the tough questions the mainstream media wont ask because they have their heads up Obama's ass.

Nothing scares a liberal more than a Latino who speaks the truth. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Serving and shedding blood does not absolve one from criticism, nor does it make him/her always the correct choice for any job. It does not make them less susceptible to corruption. Cruz asked good questions. Questions that needed to be asked.

What is this? You just look dumber as the days roll by. Moron.

Ted Cruz is pissing off all the right people. He might be a Republican worth supporting.

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP JACK!!!
FENCE SITTER!

AND HIS POSSE
BIGTURDLITTLEDICK & TIMMY!!!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What is this? You just look dumber as the days roll by. Moron. Originally Posted by timpage

He prefers it that way!

Yeah, especially when you didn't do either, right? Cruz is a clueless turd, just like you.

Serving and shedding blood does not absolve one from criticism, nor does it make him/her always the correct choice for any job. It does not make them less susceptible to corruption. Cruz asked good questions. Questions that needed to be asked. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Cruz will ask the tough questions that the mainstream media wont ask because they have their heads up Obama's ass.

Nothing scares a liberal more than a Latino who speaks the truth. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I scared to eat at Wendy's!

So you think wearing a uniform makes a person immune from any criticism at any time, and not the least bit susceptible to human frailties and temptations, eh, Timmy?

And you think I'm sounding stupider? Methinks not.

And you think I'm sounding stupider? Methinks not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You better think again. After all, your handle is StupidOldLyingFart!

Not unless you or your republican friends are espousing that position. Right? I've missed all your criticisms of the posts on here when somebody threw up something a Navy SEAL said that was critical of Obama. Did you forget then that "wearing a uniform makes a person immune from any criticism at any time" you fucking hypocritical asshole?

So you think wearing a uniform makes a person immune from any criticism at any time, and not the least bit susceptible to human frailties and temptations, eh, Timmy?

And you think I'm sounding stupider? Methinks not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you think wearing a uniform makes a person immune from any criticism at any time Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you mean that StupidOldLyingFart's Cub Scout uniform doesn't count? His Mommie told him it would!