Bloggers all over the country should be rejoicing at the arrival of Ted Cruz to the U.S. Senate.

On the job just a few weeks and he’s already managed to:

* Wonder aloud whether the next defense secretary has been accepting speaking fees from radical groups.

* Question whether said defense boss-designate and the secretary of state – two decorated Vietnam War combat veterans – were “ardent” enough in their support of the military.

* Draw a rebuke from a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, himself a former Vietnam prisoner of war and a one-time Republican nominee for president of the United States, for “impugning” the integrity of the probable new defense secretary.

To be honest, although the grist mill may be clogged with material on which to comment as it spews from Ted Cruz’s mouth, it leaves me chagrined. Why? Cruz represents Texas, which I have called home for nearly 29 years.

I am going to hate listening to others ridicule my state merely because most Texas voters elected this guy to the Senate in November 2012. Late-night comics will have a field day. Liberal commentators will join them. And perhaps even some conservative pundits are going to grow weary over time of the kinds of statements Cruz utters. They’ll become incensed that the Senate’s Republican elders will allow him to pop off as he has done with such regularity in so little time.

Used to be that Senate newcomers were to be seen and seldom heard. In this new age, though, new guys get to be seen and heard at the same time.

It’s good for folks like me who need material with which to work.

But a part of me is holding out that Texas’s senior Republican senator, John Cornyn, takes the new fellow aside and schools him on matters of decorum, which I believe still counts for something in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

I can’t seem to let go of this Chuck Hagel-for-defense-secretary brouhaha. Stop me … but not until I get one more thing off my chest.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, both Republicans of Arizona and South Carolina, respectively, have let the cat out of the bag over their fierce resistance to Hagel’s nomination to lead the Pentagon.

Both men have said they’re angry with their fellow Republican for turning his back on his party – their party.

What? When did national defense become a partisan issue? When did the secretary of defense have to toe some party line in order to lead an institution whose leaders insist that the men and women who wear their nation’s military uniform forgo political considerations? These brave heroes take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution without regard to politics. They are bound by that oath to follow “lawful orders” issued by anyone farther up the chain of command than they are – and that includes the civilian commander in chief.

Now it seems that because Hagel, who served two terms as a GOP senator from Nebraska, is being punished by his fellow Republicans because he changed his mind on whether the Iraq War was a noble effort. The new White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, made a salient point this morning on “Meet the Press.” It is that national security and defense issues belong far beyond the partisan realm.

Another distinguished Republican, U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan once offered sage advice that his political descendants should heed as they discuss national defense in the context of overarching foreign policy. He said: “To me, ‘bipartisan foreign policy’ means a mutual effort, under our indispensable, two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with one voice to those who would divide and conquer us and the free world.”

Are you listening, Republicans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/ted-cruz-the-gops-nasty-newcomer.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Frank Bruni’s column in today’s New York Times is spot on in its critique of Texas’s shiny new U.S. senator, Republican Ted Cruz, who pranced onto the national stage six weeks ago – and promptly embarrassed himself and the state he represents.

My favorite passage from the column is this:

“Separately, in front of an audience of conservatives, he smirked dismissively as he griped that (Defense Secretary-designate Chuck) Hagel and (Secretary of State) 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.”

I’ve always thought it to be senatorial custom for new guys to learn their way around the place before stepping on so many toes all at once. Cruz is emboldened, I suppose, by the big victory he scored in winning the senatorial race this past November in Texas, not that it surprised anyone, given the state’s heavily Republican leanings.

The sheer insult, though, of someone such as Cruz questioning the military credentials of two decorated combat veterans simply goes beyond the pale.

There’s really nothing more I can add to Bruni’s commentary. Well said, Mr. Bruni.

I’ve been trying for several days to process the spectacle that Gov. Rick Perry made of himself when he went recently to California to solicit business for the Lone Star State.

Finally, I think I’ve settled on this conclusion: Perry performed a gratuitous gesture of public relations grandstanding.

Perry ventured to California stating up front that, by gum, he was going to talk business execs into relocating from there to here. We’re just more business-friendly than California, he said, what with all the Golden State’s high taxes, rules and regulations, not to mention all them environmentalists telling business owners what they can do.

Perry’s telegraphing of his mission drew a pithy response from California Gov. Jerry Brown – formerly known as “Gov. Moonbeam.” Brown, who himself isn’t exactly a shrinking public-relations violet, called Perry’s visit, um, “barely a fart.”

My point here is that Texas’s pro-business climate is well-known among every Fortune 500 company on the planet. We have no state income tax; real estate here remains a huge bargain compared to California – even with the real estate crash that hit that state in late 2008; our state’s environmental agencies do not heap huge burdens on those seeking to do business here; our Legislature is filled with pro-business Republicans who vow, along with Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, to do everything they can to maintain that pro-business climate in Texas; and even the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil appellate court, rules routinely in favor of businesses caught up in civil actions brought by others.

All this is part of the public’s vast knowledge of Texas, which by itself should serve as a sufficient magnet to help attract business. And this state has no shortage of top-drawer, high-dollar companies already thriving in this environment.

So, what was Gov. Goodhair’s intent in making this grand “business recruitment” foray way out west? My only conclusion is that he wanted to call attention mainly to himself. Mission accomplished, governor.

Poor Mark Rubio. He’s being ridiculed for the silliest of reasons.

Then again, are they so silly?

The Florida Republican senator was asked to give the GOP’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night. In the middle of his speech, he was hit with a touch of cotton mouth. He looked for the water bottle and had to reach way beyond his grasp to grab it; the then took a quite audible gulp of water on national TV.

Many in the media have taken shots at Rubio, who has been hailed by Time magazine with a cover story that calls him the savior of the Republican Party. His status in that regard will be determined in due course.

But one awkward moment in front of millions of Americans is not a deal-breaker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/15/david-lettermans-top-10-things-going-through-marco-rubios-mind-video/

It is, however, the stuff of lessons to be learned. Rubio’s only been in the national stage since 2011, when he took his Senate seat and became an immediate media star. That’s what makes the Gulpgate moment so funny. Politicians routinely get dry mouths when the lights shine brightly. It’s wise, therefore, to have the water handy, where one can grab it without slipping off the TV screen.

Rubio won’t get caught ever again, I’m quite sure, making that kind of clumsy grab on national television. In this media age, stagecraft does matter. The young senator will have to learn it if he aspires to even higher office.

Sen. Ted Cruz wants to know what about Chuck Hagel? He wants the former Nebraska senator to account for his personal income before becoming the next secretary of defense?

I believe that’s what the Texas Republican – who’s been in the Senate a little more than a month – wants to know. What a disgraceful display of petty petulance. Cruz said something about wondering whether Hagel had received payments from “radicals.” What the … ?

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/02/texmessage-sen-nelson-says-cruz-crossed-the-line-by-questioning-hagels-patriotism/

Cruz made the comments this week just as the Senate Armed Services Committee was voting on whether to send Hagel’s nomination to the full Senate for an up-or-down vote.

What galls me the most is that this kind of cheap theater comes at the expense of a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran from someone who’s never worn the nation’s military uniform. Hagel got roughed up pretty badly as he testified before the committee, which recommended him to the full Senate on a strictly partisan vote. Cruz was one of the roughest on Hagel during the former senator’s hearing.

Hagel, it should be noted, is a Republican – just like the pols who grilled him. That he has been nominated for this key Cabinet post by a dreaded Democratic president hasn’t gone over well with his former colleagues. But leave it Cruz, who never served with Hagel in the Senate, to take these questions to a new low.

And leave it to fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona – the former Vietnam War prisoner and unsuccessful GOP presidential nominee in 2008 – to put Cruz in his place. “Chuck Hagel is an honorable man,” McCain said of his fellow Vietnam vet, “and no one on this committee” should impugn Hagel’s integrity or honesty.

I think Sen. McCain is talking to you, Ted.

Somewhere, my ancient ancestors are spinning in their crypts. The cause of their disruption? It’s the decision by the International Olympic Committee to throw away several centuries of tradition by eliminating wrestling effective with the 2020 Olympics … at a site to be determined.

If ever there was an example of athletic heresy, the IOC has just committed it.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1526129-milo-of-croton-alexander-karelin-and-the-tragic-demise-of-olympic-wrestling?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cnn-sports-bin&hpt=hp_bn15

Wrestling is among the original Olympic sports. And I don’t mean “original” as in the 1896 Games in Athens, which ushered in the modern Olympic era. I refer to the original original Games, the event that began eight centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.

Those first games, which began in 776 B.C. in ancient Olympia, featured a few footraces and then wrestling. The competitors then ran and grappled in the nude. Eventually, the athletes entered the arena wearing clothes, but the point here is that wrestling has been a part of the Olympics since its very beginning.

Rhythmic gymnastics? Synchronized swimming? Cricket? Swimming, for crying out loud? They’re staying, even though they were added to the competition much later than wrestling.

Amarillo, of course, has a bit of a personal stake in the demise of Olympic wrestling. One of our city’s own, Brandon Slay, won a gold medal in the 2000 Sydney Games. And he’s understandably upset with the IOC decision.

But so am I, for entirely different reasons. For me it’s a matter of ethnic pride. My Greek ancestors introduced the Olympics to the world. And wrestling was a big part of that festive event.

Allow me this point of personal privilege. My wife and I visited ancient Olympia in southern Greece in 2001 and walked around the track of the 2,800-year-old stadium. My mind’s eye filled with images of athletes as well as spectators gathered on the gentle slopes surrounding the stadium as we strolled the peaceful site. The 2004 Athens Olympics shot put and discus competitions took place in that very venue – with no bells and whistles or electronic scoreboards. Fans stood on the slopes, just as they did in ancient Greece.

An IOC official said the decision is based on “what’s good for the Games.” What utter baloney. The IOC has just dishonored centuries of tradition which, I believe, is a big part of what comprises the Olympic spirit.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is going to offer the official Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union message tonight.

He’ll be followed by another Republican senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, who’s going to give the tea party response.

Huh? What gives here?

Rubio was elected in 2010 after a bruising campaign in Florida and after which he was ordained as the golden boy of the GOP’s tea party wing. He’s conservative, “telegenic” (which is code for “handsome”), smart and eloquent. Rubio does a fine job, in my view, of representing the Republicans’ new brand, which is a sort of in-your-face conservatism that seems to play well with the party’s hard-core base voters.

Rubio’s response ought to be enough to satisfy the Loyal Opposition, yes? Apparently not.

Now up steps Sen. Paul, who’s considerably less graceful verbally than his colleague, Rubio. It was Paul, you’ll remember, who told then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that had he been president at the time of the Benghazi, Libya attack that killed four people this past September, he would have “relieved you of your post.” To which many millions of Americans, myself included, laughed out loud at the very idea of a President Rand Paul.

All this double-dip Republican response to a Democratic president’s State of the Union speech only illustrates the conflict that’s raging within the once-proud “Party of Lincoln.” Indeed, Honest Abe likely is spinning in his grave.

I find it rather sad.

Those with their heads in the snow, er, sand have begun the chorus of doubt about whether Planet Earth is actually warming.

Amarillo got its usual 6 inches of snow overnight. It’s cold out there, which always is related to the presence of snow on the ground. That big blizzard pounded the NE corner of the United States the other day under about a yard of snow in some places. Local observers here, and there, have declared – as they usually do – that the global warming fears are all a left-wing, enviro-nut, big brother conspiracy to destroy the industries that have created the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

Of course, these denials ignore considerable data that affirm what many of us fear, which is that Earth is warming up. Most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  reported that in 2012, the planet warmed up a full degree year over year from the previous high temperature. That’s significant chiefly because record-setting temperatures usually occur only in fractions of degrees, according to NOAA; that it would warm up by a full degree is unprecedented.

The consequences of this warming? The seas will rise, coastal cities could be swamped, polar ice caps will melt – endangering wildlife that depend on the ice.

I have seen a proverbial blizzard (pun intended) of data that support the global-warming findings.

The remaining dispute centers on what’s causing it. Lefties blame carbon emissions sent into the atmosphere from fossil-fuel-burning industries; righties say the planet’s warming is all part of the planet’s epochal cycle.

Let that debate continue. What shouldn’t be disputed is whether the planet is getting warmer. It is.

President Obama’s re-election this past November came with a bit of a hitch: Turnout for the election was down a bit from when he was elected the first time in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/turnout-in-the-2012-presi_b_2663122.html

I wonder: Why is that such a big deal? It really isn’t, simply because election turnout in this country hardly ever is boast worthy. You see, unlike a lot of “democratic” nations, we don’t require voting. It’s strictly voluntary. Thus, Americans are free to vote or sit elections out, whichever option floats their boat.

The 2008 turnout spiked to more than 61 percent of eligible voters. Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain handily, become the first African-American president in U.S. history. It was a watershed political moment and Americans responded by turning out in record numbers. Four years later, with the economy still struggling and many Americans unhappy with the nation’s direction, the turnout dipped slightly to around 58 percent. The presence of a desultory Republican challenger on the ballot didn’t help.

The 1972 election produced a significant decline in turnout because that election for the first time included voters younger than 21 years of age. The Constitution was amended the previous year to allow 18-year-olds the right to vote and most of that huge pool of new voters responded to that grand news … by not voting.

But the turnout got even worse. By 1996, with Bill Clinton running for re-election against Sen. Bob Dole and Texas businessman Ross Perot, the percentage declined to 49 percent, which is a ghastly statement of voter apathy.

Should the turnout be better in the greatest nation on Earth? Of course it should. However, the beauty of our system is that government doesn’t require us to vote. This exercise strictly is up to us as citizens. I’m betting political scientists always will struggle to find solutions to our national apathy. Better to force them to search for these answersrather than invoking a law forcing many of us to do something we’d rather not do.

Me? I like the pageantry associated with Election Day. And no one has to force me to vote.