Time not well spent

The wife really wanted to watch the debate (she doesn't follow things as closely as I do and still gets a good laugh out of the batshit crazy things they say) so I endured an overload of Republican smegma last night, and am feeling slightly hung over today as a result.  (No drinking games; I just don't tolerate stupid as well as I used to).

The high point of the evening for me was Ted Cruz doing his best Rick Perry imitation.

Four years ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry famously blew up his presidential campaign when he was unable during a Republican presidential debate to name the three federal departments he wanted to eliminate. In Tuesday’s Republican debate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz set a slightly higher bar for himself, promising to eliminate five federal agencies. He only managed to name four of them.

In answer to a question about his economic plan, Cruz mentioned “five major agencies that I would eliminate: the IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce and HUD.” 

Obviously, Cruz doesn’t like the Department of Commerce, but it hardly seems fair to count it twice. Still, what might have been an epic “Oops” moment passed largely unnoticed. 

Not on Twitter it didn't.

Why can't Texas Republicans count?  Is it because of what they've done for years to our textbooks, with the right-wing freaks elected to the State Board of Education?  The consensus seems to be that this didn't ding him; in fact the chatter again is that he and Marco Rubio helped themselves once more, while Jeb did not.  Trump and Carson, the co-leaders didn't hurt themselves; Carly Fiorina managed to be both victim to Trump's misogyny and Cruella DeVille again, John Kasich got mixed reviews, and Rand Paul was all but invisible again.  Kid's table for him next time, I'm predicting.  The little table was also stiflingly boring, even with Piyush Jundal going for everybody's throat.  The largest target of his rants was Christie, naturally.

It was nice to see that the mods' first question acknowledged the protests outside the Milwaukee venue, about raising the minimum wage.  Nobody on the stage said that it should be, of course, and their reasons for not doing so failed the fact-checking tests.  Trump actually said "wages are too high".

To use the bad-haired bloviator's word against him, I'm tired of these losers constantly preening, pandering, prattling and prevaricating.  (Yes, I know; avoid alliteration always.  Sometimes I just can't help myself.)

Update: Ana Marie Cox's review is best.

It's Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. Period. *Update*

Describes me to a T.

According to CBS News, an alarming percentage of Democrats either won't vote for Hillary Clinton or would only support her nomination to prevent a Republican from winning.

The poll cited there is a month old, which means it was taken before the first Dem debate, and while Joe Biden was still considered a quasi-candidate.  So it's a little salty.

When under half of Democrats would "enthusiastically support" Clinton and 27% would only do so "because she is the nominee," even Democrats planning to vote for the former Secretary of State hold reservations.

Then there are 14% who will not support her in a general election; this figure could easily increase. Also, not only will a sizable percentage of Democrats refuse to vote for Clinton, but 57% of Americans find Clinton "not honest and trustworthy."

In addition, Clinton's negative favorability ratings in 9 out of 10 national polls make her unelectable as a candidate in a general election.

I'm not Ted, who graphs and posts a different poll every single day to reinforce his support of Clinton.  I don't trust the polls generally -- neither should you -- and I certainly don't trust early 'horse race' polling.  It feeds into an inevitability meme, and we saw how Bob Stein of UH essentially spun the momentum that helped Bill King into the Houston mayoral runoff.

That said, and for the sake of being a contrarian to H.A. Goodman's and my own POV, fresher polling indicates Clinton strengthened her favorability ratings following the first debate.  Goodman's (the author of the HuffPo piece linked) general premise is essentially the same as mine; irrespective of what the polling suggests, I will not be supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in any way, shape, or form in 2016.  If Bernie Sanders isn't the Democratic nominee -- and I laid out the two main reasons why he won't be last summer -- then I'll vote for Jill Stein for president.  Goodman gives ten reasons why he'll only support Sanders and never Clinton; here's a few.

4. One candidate is the Charles Darwin of politics. The other is Bernie Sanders. Clinton always evolves; usually following Bernie's lead on issues. I wouldn't sign a contract with an "evolving" clause, nor would I want a president who continually evolves based upon reasons unknown to the average voter.

5. Presidential powers. On war and foreign policy, I want a Democrat, not a Republican. I explain this viewpoint in a recent article. Sanders is the Democrat on foreign policy, while Clinton is another Republican in 2016.

6. The TPP. Sanders has always been against the TPP. Clinton supported it 45 times, but now says she's against it. As POLITIFACT states, "It's up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton's reversal as a Full Flop."

[...]

8. I want a Democrat in the White House. I don't want a moderate Republican on Wall Street, or a neocon pertaining to war.

9. The DNC needs to end its fear of being too progressive. I'll only vote for Sanders because progressive politics are mainstream. This isn't 1972 and Nixon is no longer with us, unless you equate Clinton to Richard Nixon.

10. Bernie Sanders is a "once in a lifetime candidate." Clinton represents establishment politics. If you're not voting for Sanders in 2016, don't ever again complain about Wall Street, perpetual wars, or money in politics.

Americans need a choice in our democracy. 43% of American voters are independent, so allegiance towards political party is quickly becoming a thing of the past. I want an honest progressive, not a Republican...  [...]  Bernie Sanders will win the presidency in 2016 because there are millions of people like me, and I'll no longer be intimidated by the phrase, "You can't let a Republican win!" 

Goodman, with many of the best rationales detailed, overlooks voting for Stein as a protest vote when Sanders is shoved out of contention; IMHO a glaring lack of a 'what if' option and a critical error.  The threat of voting for someone other than no one in 2016 is the only threat the Democratic Party will take seriously.  If Sanders supporters who can't be sheepdogged in behind Clinton go back to sleep, then yes, the 2016 election is over already.

Movements in this century will be built not only when authority figures take protests seriously, but when the threat involves direct action.  That what "Sanders or Stein" is all about: a direct threat to the two-party system.  It needs to happen in order to shake up the system.  That's what Bernie Sanders represents to me, and that's why I sent him another contribution last week.

But I also contributed to Plan B, in the same amount, at the same time.  Because those two options work best for me, and because eventually we're only going to have one of them.  YMMV.

Update: Here's the kind of ad hominem that's being generated in response.  I actually agree with Allen Clifton that H. A. Goodman is a rather bad writer and perhaps even worse at online research, as noted at the very top of this post.  But Clinton supporters just aren't going to be able to insult their way to helping her win the White House.  They should focus on convincing the irregular D voter, independents, and the mass of unregistered to start doing their civic duty rather than drive away those of us who are more likely to help them down the ballot.

Democrats are only capable of winning state and county elections in presidential years; they typically lose them the rest of the time because their base has ebbed away for a variety of reasons, mostly presumptive.  The remaining core of conservative Dems who are trying to drag Hillary across the finish line would do better with their efforts spent elsewhere, politically speaking.  Like Al Gore in 2000, she will win or lose based on her own merits or demerits.

I still believe she can thrash any Republican she's matched against, but only if she inspires people of color and women and young people in the way that Obama did in 2008.  There's both positive and negative evidence to that strategy as we take stock today, so her campaign has lots of work to do.  It would help if they stopped trying to persuade us she's progressive or even liberal.

That's a dead horse for all but the least of critically thinking voters.

Rethugs debate tomorrow, Dems on Saturday

I'm starting to get a little full.  You?

Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo and Neil Cavuto will moderate the network’s primetime GOP debate set for November 10, along with Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker. FBN’s Trish Regan, Sandra Smith, and WSJ’s Washington bureau chief Gerald Seib will moderate the kids’ table debate. The two-hour debate will be presented live, at 9 PM ET, from the Milwaukee Theatre in Milwaukee, WI.

FBN announced, on the eve of tomorrow night’s CNBC GOP debate, that its Q&A will focus on jobs, taxes, the economy, and domestic and international policy issues.

As you may have already heard, Huckster and Fat Bastard move down, and Pataki and Miz Lindsey move out.  I think I'll just watch the Twitter feed.  Speaking of...

Twitter is looking to capitalize on the traction that presidential debates are having on TV, partnering with CBS News for coverage of the Nov. 14 Democratic face-off in Des Moines, Iowa.

Twitter will serve up data, reactions and voter questions to CBS News in real-time during the debate, to be held at Drake University and moderated by “Face the Nation” anchor John Dickerson. CBS News’ CBSN streaming service will incorporate Twitter data and reactions into its live coverage.

“Our people have worked with Twitter’s unique curator tools to measure changing responses to what viewers will see on the screen. Twitter integration will inform our coverage and integrate seamlessly with CBSN, our always-on digital network,” said CBS News president David Rhodes.

'Curating' and 'integrating'. Sure sounds corporately important.

Twitter is most certainly more fun for the play-by-play on the designated hashtag; Facebook is pathetic in this regard.  Anyway, I expect to have better things to do on Saturday evening than either watching or Tweeting this debate.  I certainly did not watch Trump on SNL, which seems to have gotten lackluster reviews but high ratings.  The late night comedy show spoofed the Democratic forum from the night before, hosted by Rachel Maddow, which was a big hit among blue partisans (but you probably knew that already).

I'll have something the morning after if anything happens to generate buzz, but I'm ready now for the voting, and Iowa is still about 90 days away.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance hates seeing Christmas decorations for sale in stores already as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff gives his advice for how to re-approach the Houston equal rights ordinance.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos wishes to thank Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, former Harris Co. Republican Party Chair Jared Woodfill, eminent homophobe Dr. Steven Hotze, Republican smear artist Jeff Norwood and the Houston area's prominent minister, the Rev. Dr. Ed Young, for bringing out the absolute worst of Houston. How the good ol' boy Republicans, bigots, and preachers sold hate in Houston.

Stace at Dos Centavos has his take on last Tuesday posted.

SocraticGadfly takes a look at recently-revealed Chinese cheating on carbon emissions claims ahead of Paris climate talks.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is sick of Republicans making life miserable for everyone but their rich friends. Destroying sanctuary cities and the war on public education just to name two idiocies.

Egberto Willies caught Dr. Dean Baker's lecture at Lone Star College on economic inequality, and how it was aided by governmental policy.  Video of his speech at the link.

TXSharon at Bluedaze has the bottom line on PBS Newshour's methane segment.

The Travis County judge who was threatened by Rick Perry was shot in her driveway late Friday evening. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs believes the former governor should be considered a suspect in the attempted assassination.

Neil at All People Have Value said that everyday kindness and right behavior can be a revolutionary course of action. APHV is part of NeilAquinio.com.

=================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

TrailBlazers had the softball interview of Dubya with his father's biographer, and while Cheney and Rumsfled didn't come up, author Jon Meacham suggested that GWB understated his dad's influence on his own presidency... and Dim Son did not disagree.

Lone Star Ma supports Sustainable Development Goals.

The San Antonio Current highlights Rep. Diego Bernal's ability to deal with bullies.

jobsanger graphs a poll that shows 93% of Americans support closing background check loopholes for potential gun owners.

David Ortez recaps the Houston elections, and Moni at Transgriot takes note of the transgender community's efforts to start pushing back against the rejection of HERO.

Blues for Food, the annual drive to target hunger in H-Town, happened yesterday and Chris Gray at the HP had the advance.

Carson Lucarelli explains how he lives carless in Houston, and Pedestrian Pete (aka former city councilman Peter Brown -- joins FPH to report on a more walkable Bayou City.

Randy Harvey remembers his sportswriting colleague, transgender pioneer Christine Daniels.

Maybe it was just Halloween, but Fascist Dyke Motors feels empowered to be a Grim Reaper.

Judge that Rick Perry threatened found shot in her driveway

Not hyperbole. (Some links below via Reverb Press.)

A manhunt is underway after a Travis County judge was shot outside her home. Austin police say someone opened fire on District Judge Julie Kocurek in the driveway of her Tarrytown home around 10:30 p.m. Friday.

Kocurek had just pulled up to her home in West Austin with some other people when the shooting happened, according to police.

She was taken to University Medical Center Brackenridge where she is currently in stable condition. Sources tell KXAN she was admitted into ICU for observation. Sources also say that the judge received injuries to the upper body–left shoulder and face area–but that it was not a direct hit.

Police are searching for the shooter and interviewing witnesses.

By the way...

Kocurek, a former prosecutor, was appointed to the 390th District court in Travis County, which includes Austin, by then-Gov. George W. Bush in 1999. Later, she became the only Republican elected to a state district judgeship in the left-leaning county, but switched parties and became a Democrat in 2006.

[...]

She is perhaps best known for her statements after former Gov. Rick Perry was indicted on felony coercion and abuse-of-power charges by an Austin grand jury in August 2014.

Perry held a news conference where he vowed: "This farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is" adding that "those responsible will be held to account." Kocurek responded that that could be interpreted as a threat against members of the grand jury, and that they would be protected from Perry or anyone else since "no one is above the law."

Yes, that is a threat that the former governor let slip from his loose lips, and it's possible some right-wing freak with too many guns and ammo took his protest against justice literally.

Kocurek was in serious condition on admission to the hospital but has stabilized; her wounds are not considered life-threatening at this time.  Judges and prosecutors in Texas have often been targeted for reprisals from deranged people who believed they needed to settle an old score with a gun.  I'd like to think that's not the case here, but the fact is that when an assassination attempt is conducted -- and Rick Perry and Texas Republicans and threatening language are mentioned in the same breath -- you just can't rule anything out.  Because Rick Perry likes to kill people.  He especially likes to kill innocent people, sometimes letting them die slowly. 

Let's be fair: as massively stupid as he is, the former governor probably isn't so stupid that he pulled the trigger of the gun that fired the bullets that hit Judge Kocurek.  But he may have, unwittingly or otherwise, encouraged someone to do so.  And until we know differently -- once the gunman is apprehended and questioned -- he should remain a suspect.

That's. Not. Exaggeration.

Sunday Funnies

An update to "Clinton will win because of the Latino vote"

I still stand on this premise, but a couple of things require me to revise and extend my remarks.

-- Adrian Garcia ran such a laughably awful campaign that he probably set back the caucus of Tejano Democrats a cycle or two.  This from his campaign manager, who sounds like la gabacha estupida (though I have no idea as to her nationality):

"There was no way to anticipate the dramatic influx of voters in this election," Garcia campaign manager Mary Bell said.

Riiiight.  No one could have predicted that terrrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings despite a PDF saying exactly that two weeks previous after the Texas Supreme Court ordered the City of Houston to vote on people's civil rights, it would turn 2015 into a bathroom election.  Except for everybody.  That is as powerfully stupid as you can find in the free range.

Despite the dire straits in which Latinos and Democrats find themselves, in Houston and throughout much of Texas outside of the RGV, Clinton will still do far more to mobilize the Latino/Hispanic bloc than anyone else running for president, and by a long measure.

-- As a gabacho with a lot of learning to do myself, I finally get the difference between 'Hispanic' and 'Latino'.

The words "Hispanic," "Latino" and "Spanish" all have different meanings, and Kat Lazo is here to clear it up.

In a video from Bustle, the YouTube personality, who frequently discusses feminism and social norms in her videos, took to the streets of New York to ask people if they knew the difference before giving her explanation. Spoiler: not many people did.

Luckily, Lazo explained how the terms differ. In short, "Hispanic" focuses on Spanish-speaking origin. This means Spain is included, but Brazil is not because Brazilians speak Portuguese. "Latino" refers to people of Latin American origin. This includes Brazil and excludes Spain.

"Hispanic is ... based on whether you or your family speak the language of Spanish whereas Latino is focusing more on geographic location, that being Latin America," Lazo said in the video.

One man on the streets of New York helped Lazo with her explanation when he talked about his experience with the term "Spanish." "I hate when people call me Spanish because I’m not," he said. "If you’re Spanish it’s because you’re from Spain."

Portugal is neither Hispanic nor Latino, and Hispaniola (thanks again to the Italian Scallion, Cristoforo Columbo, although Peter Martyr might be most directly fingered for the name being Anglicized) is very precariously Latino despite being more Caribbean than Latin American, and because the languages spoken in the two countries of the island, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, are mashups (Haitian Creole and Dominican) AND despite the French influences as well.  If you think that's confusing, Google Malta.  (I've been, and it's cool.  But pretty much every European and African power through the centuries has taken a piece of Maltese ass and called it their own.)

NOW I get it.  I'm slow but I'm thorough.