Silly Steve M., we don’t need no stinking reprimands. We have precedent for this. If we want to make Sen. Ted Cruz behave himself, we just need to send Sander Levin over to the upper chamber to do a little Preston Brooks number on him. You know, learn him some respect, as they say down there.
Then Sander can pay a $300 fine, and we’ll be even.
I’m kidding, but there is something to be said for the old ways of protecting your honor. If you want to talk smack, you best be prepared to get smacked.
I’m sure that Alan Grayson would volunteer to serve as Sanders’ second…
Before Sumner delivered the speech, he let Seward’s wife read it, and she told him to tone it down. During the speech, Sen. Stephen Douglas remarked that “that fool is going to get himself shot by some other fool.”
It’s not like you couldn’t predict that he was going to get punished for his disrespect.
As to your point, I once told Matt Stoller that his boss reminded me of Sumner. He took it as a compliment, but I didn’t mean it that way.
Lol, I’d have taken it as a compliment 😛
Rep view his technique as crude but hey, in the larger lay of the land he didn’t do the really hateful & unpardonable thing of criticizing Bush or breaking with the Rep gaggle’s views on Iraq.
Not sure which is worse, Cruz’s McCarthy attack just for the sake of the attack itself or the McCain, Graham attacks based on petty vindictiveness? I’m not sure that Cruz’s attack is any worse just because he doesn’t have a personal grudge to attach to his reasoning.
Only one senator insinuated that Hagel might be a traitor.
Indeed, but bending the talk a bit, is Hagel being attacked because he accused Bush of being a traitor?
“insinuate” is too weak a word; he asked in the Senate, a question equivalent to “is Hagel a traitor?”
no, I’m wrong and I can’t figure out how to phrase it; he essentially said, “we don’t know if Chuck Hagel is a traitor, but the fact that he won’t give us evidence to the contrary implies that he is”
That’s referred to as McCarthy questioning.
I know it’s McCarthy, but it’s not really a question, it’s a statement – paraphrase: X may be a traitor, evidence would be the documents, but since he/ they won’t release the documents, their “hiding something” functions as evidence.
How about a duel?
Woody Allen’s version, circa 1975:
Anton Inbedkov: Shall we say pistols at dawn?
Boris Grushenko: Well, we can say it. I don’t know what it means, but we can say it.
As precedent, a duel in counterindicated:
Interesting stuff.
I understand that the New York method of restoring honor is to go to New Jersey with a set of pistols.
But Cruz is from (Canada) Texas and Hagel is from Nebraska.
I think that Hagel taking Cruz behind a barn and horsewhipping would be the traditional way of restoring honor there.
Preston Brooks, wannabe aristocrat that he was, used the more refined method of horsewhipping.
Well, technically, it is not supposed to be Hagel who takes care of this, but a member of the House, preferably one related to him. But, since this spectacle took place under the supervision of Carl Levin, I believe his brother should take responsibility for restoring the honor of the Armed Services Committee. A horsewhip might not be a match for Michigan. Perhaps a hockey stick.
*this is in jest.
Let Cruz be. He’s a Canadian who will never be president or VP. Every time he throws a bomb and insults his fellow legislators or the president, he opens the door for a Dem. His mouth alone could turn TX blue.
Yup, we’re just humble rope salesmen with this one. (But he’ll drop a long way, so stock up.)