<div dir="ltr">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="">May 24, 2013</div>
<h1>The Women Versus the Ted</h1>
<h6 class="">By
<span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/gailcollins/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by GAIL COLLINS"><span>GAIL COLLINS</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Let’s discuss how much better Congress would work if most of the members were women. </p>
<p>
The Senate seems to be a tad less polarized since the female population
rose from 17 to 20 this year. It’s also possible that there’s been more
productivity since women got more power. For instance, the Budget
Committee has a new chair, Patty Murray of Washington, and it has
produced a budget for the first time in four years. </p>
<p>
It’s conceivable that the committee was inspired by a rule that would
have canceled the senators’ salaries if they didn’t deliver. But I’m
hoping for a larger picture. </p>
<p>
“Women tend to listen to what everybody’s needs are, rather than just
saying: ‘I’m the only bright person in the world and you have to listen
to what I say,’ ” suggested Murray in a phone conversation from her home
state, where she was inspecting a spectacular bridge collapse. We will
all stop here to envision the moment in the State of the Union address
when President Obama called for more bridge repair projects and John
Boehner failed to applaud. </p>
<p>
The Senate passed its budget two months ago, after 50 hours of debate
and an all-night series of 70 amendment votes. The next step was to send
members to a House-Senate conference committee, but the Republicans
held that up, arguing that before the conference committee could work on
an agreement, the Senate should decide what the agreement would say.
</p>
<p>
The obstructionists’ great fear — I swear to you this is true — is that
if the House and Senate conferees get together, the Republicans from the
House will be so overwhelmed by the charm and power of the Senate
Democrats that they’ll agree to a grand bargain that includes raising
the debt ceiling. </p>
<p>
“Let me be clear. I don’t trust the Republicans,” said Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican. </p>
<p>
This has been going on for ages. Recently, a couple of the Republican
senators — John McCain and Susan Collins — demanded that their
colleagues stop stalling and follow the rules. This could be a plus for
my argument, since half of that little rebellion is a woman. </p>
<p>
But it also brings up a second possibility, that if the Senate is
inching slightly closer to the middle, it’s because many of the
Republicans are beginning to reject Tea Party extremism due to their
hatred of Ted Cruz. </p>
<p>
“It has been suggested that those of us who are fighting to defend
liberty, fighting to turn around the out-of-control spending and
out-of-control debt in this country, fighting to defend the Constitution
— it has been suggested that we are wacko birds,” Cruz said proudly.
“Well, if that is the case, I will suggest to my friend from Arizona
there may be more wacko birds in the Senate than is suspected.” </p>
<p>
Actually, no student of the Senate has ever suggested a wacko bird shortage. </p>
<p>
Cruz is aligned with other young Tea Party Republicans, including Mike
Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. They’re all very conservative and
very talkative, but senators target Cruz as the one who just goes on
and on and on and on. </p>
<p>
He’s definitely the person responsible for bringing back the maverick
version of John McCain. You will remember McCain the campaign finance
reformer who kept co-sponsoring bills about global warming with Joe
Lieberman. The one John Kerry thought about making his running mate
before Kerry stumbled on the truly exceptional alternative of John
Edwards. </p>
<p>
The maverick McCain evolved into John McCain, terrible presidential
candidate, and then John McCain, terrified right-wing Senate re-election
candidate. The sullen, superpartisan version was bitter about losing
the presidency to a cocky young whippersnapper like Barack Obama. But
now McCain sees an Obama who has become winningly gray-haired and
beleaguered. While in his place there is Ted Cruz, who is younger and
cockier and a trillion times more irritating. </p>
<p>
“When I travel across the state of Texas, men and women stop me all the
time, and say: ‘Enough of the games. Go up there, roll up your sleeves,
work with each other and fix the problem,’ ” Cruz lectured his
colleagues this week, while he was engaged in stopping the budget
process dead in its tracks for the ninth straight time. </p>
<p>
So, people, who do you think has been more helpful in edging the Senate
toward a pinch of progress? The women or Ted Cruz? One strives for
collegiality by holding regular bipartisan dinners. One called his
colleagues “squishes” for opposing a gun control filibuster. </p>
<p>
I’m sticking with the girls. “Women seem to know how to work in a way
that at least moves the process,” said Senator Barbara Mikulski of
Maryland, the new chair of Appropriations. If you can agree on how to
proceed, then maybe someday you get some progress. </p>
<p>
On the other hand, Ted Cruz has memorized the Constitution. </p>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<center>
</center>
<div id="upNextWrapper"><div style id="upNext"><div class=""><br style="clear:both"></div></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>