I like this Dave Weigel post on how entirely ineffective Ted Cruz has been in the Senate. OK, I would have liked it better if he had linked to my Post item on how Cruz got Cordray confirmed, but I like it anyway.*
One point to add. Cruz is campaigning in Iowa and, as Robert Costa reports (via Weigel), saying that his price for getting a CR (and therefore not shutting down the government) is fully defunding the ACA. Which is, you know, charming. I mean -- never mind either the ethics or the efficacy of holding the normal functioning of the government hostage to one's preferences, but who in their right mind thinks that Ted Cruz is going to vote for any CR? And if he's definitely a no vote, then why exactly should anyone listen to anything he has to say?
That's mostly directed to the press. I assume Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats know that Cruz should be ignored; Cruz's rhetoric, indeed, isn't targeted towards the Senate, but towards Iowa conservatives and others whose support he needs in his White House bid. Hey, reporters -- don't be fooled. Republicans will presumably make budget demands, but the ones who count are the ones who might actually vote for the result -- or at least those who the ones who might vote yes might be listening to.
At any rate: nice catch!
*This is like the third time that one of these has happened to me this week. Hey, that's how it goes; even when I'm over at WaPo or Salon or whatever, I can't expect everyone to see everything. Seriously; I'm sure I've done it to plenty of people, too. It's not like academic work; blogging and punditry do not require, nor should they require, lit reviews as part of clearing one's throat. It does leave me cranky, though, and not only that but it leaves me doubly cranky because I realize I shouldn't be. So I'll whine about it down here a bit, but you should really disregard it.