-- I wish I could write satire like this. (Except it's not, of course.)
Seemingly thinking brushing and flossing is for Socialists, Dr. Ben Carson, on the campaign trail in South Carolina, has lost two teeth while in the state.
Carson was eating breakfast at Tommy’s Country Ham House in Greenville, South Carolina, and according to TMZ:
“The good doc stared into his plate, thought for a second then discreetly placed the errant chomper into his shirt pocket.”
via TMZ
At the South Carolina Freedom Summit, Carson joked about losing a couple of his teeth while in the state. He said:
“They said [South Carolina] was a pretty rough-and-tumble place. But I lost two teeth since I’ve been here… This one went out last night, this one went out — but I also had a chance to see two very fine dentists here in South Carolina, so it’s very good.”
via TMZ Is anyone else concerned that his teeth are falling out at such a high rate? That doesn’t seem normal.
Neither does being a brain surgeon who doesn't believe in climate change.
-- Senatah Huckleberry J. Butchmeup will drone you just for thinkin' about hooking up with ISIS.
"If I'm president of the United States and you're thinking about joining al-Qaida or ISIL—anybody thinking about that? I'm not gonna call a judge. I'm gonna call a drone and we're gonna kill you."
He wasn't kidding around, either. Graham doesn't think the Iraq war was a mistake, does want 10,000 troops there. But with regard to extrajudicial assassinations, perhaps Miss Lindsey inadvertently dropped a state secret: can anyone confirm that Lockheed Martin has been working on one of those Pre-Crime time machine thingies?
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie offered a vigorous defense of post-Sept. 11 surveillance tactics on Monday, backing existing programs and calling for an expansion of intelligence-gathering capabilities even as Congress seeks ways to rein in the programs.
Christie, who spent seven years as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey before he was elected governor, said that he had used provisions of the Patriot Act in pursuing terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks and argued that the country must not weaken its anti-terror and surveillance laws.
"We need to toughen our anti-terror and surveillance laws to give our services the legal mechanisms to do their job," he said in a foreign policy-themed speech.
Last week more than 300 House members voted to end the NSA's bulk phone records collection program and replace it with a system to leave the data with telephone companies and allow the NSA to search the data on a case-by-case basis. The supporters of ending the program include Democrats and Republicans, and even the NSA doesn't object to having private companies store the data.
Independent reviews have found that the bulk collection program did not foil a single terrorist attack.
But Christie slammed those pushing reforms as "intellectual purists" and insisted law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear from the surveillance efforts.
"The vast majority of Americans are not worried about the government listening in on them, because it hasn't happened. They are worried about what happens if we don't catch the bad people who want to harm our country," he said.
Stay tuned for Rick Perry and Donald Trump and Rick Santorum in a couple of weeks, folks. These three clowns were just the warm-up band.
Update: There's always going to be at least one conservative malcontent who doesn't think anybody's got big enough balls to be the commander-in-chief.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under all 44 presidents plus two you don’t know about, told Morning Joe Tuesday morning that the 2016 field so far can suck a foreign policy tailpipe.
“Particularly on the Republican side, most of them have not been in jobs that required them to know anything or be involved in foreign policy,” Gates said. “A couple have been in the Senate two or three years. So my hope is that as the campaigns unfold and as time goes along, they will flush out their views and we’ll see something impressive.”
"Flush out their views". Surely he meant 'flesh'. Otherwise that's so classically Freudian that I wish I had read it at The Onion.
“On the Democratic side, I’m sorry that Secretary Clinton has not come out in favor of the trade agreements,” he added, referring to the Trans-Pacific Partnership currently dividing the Democratic Party.
“And so I -- basically what I’ve said is that I’m not seeing a lot of courage out there and I’m seeing a lot of very simple solutions to very tough problems.”
Still can't believe that Texas Republicans elected a confessed felon the state's top law enforcer.
Ken Paxton earned thousands of dollars by referring his private legal
clients to a financial adviser now accused of “unethical and fraudulent
conduct” by the state, records obtained by The Dallas Morning News show.
Paxton,
now Texas attorney general, did not tell them he was getting paid. He
steered his clients to a financial adviser who had declared bankruptcy
and who now faces losing his state license over questionable business
dealings.
Paxton’s referral agreement with Frederick “Fritz”
Mowery, the head of McKinney-based Mowery Capital Management, has
created a yearlong political and legal headache for the Republican
attorney general. He acknowledged last year, in the middle of his
statewide campaign, that he violated state securities law by failing to
register as an agent for Mowery. He paid a $1,000 administrative fine in
April 2014.
Failing to register can also be a third-degree felony under state
law. Complaints by a watchdog group have led to a Texas Rangers
investigation and appointment of special prosecutors.
Because there's not a Public Integrity Unit in the Travis County DA's office any longer -- because the outside folks in charge will be under enormous political pressure to whitewash it -- Paxton isn't going to be investigated, unless you count the appearance of such as an actual one. This is a similar arrangement to police internal investigations of shootings of unarmed black men. "We investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong."
A Paxton aide said Paxton was unaware of Mowery’s financial trouble and business conduct. Mowery, reached by The News,
deferred to his lawyer, who declined to comment. In court proceedings,
the attorney has acknowledged his client’s mistakes with paperwork and
other matters but said he did not defraud his clients.
Court
transcripts, documents and interviews reveal new details in what started
as a verbal agreement between Paxton and Mowery in 2004. The two
had met serving on a nonprofit board together, and both had offices in a
small building in McKinney. Paxton agreed to send law clients looking
for a financial adviser in Mowery’s direction. If they signed on as
customers, Mowery would split their management fees with Paxton for as
long as they remained clients.
But most of the clients say they
were not told of the fee referral arrangement; nor was the state, as
disclosure regulations require.
Just your basic financial-advisor ripoff.
In a five-day administrative court hearing in early March, the Texas
State Securities Board alleged that Mowery engaged in
misrepresentations, conflicts of interest and breach of fiduciary
duties.
The allegations include that Mowery used a high-cost
brokerage firm for his clients’ equity trades, and also had a separate
business arrangement with that firm that paid him more than $1 million
over seven years. The state contends the arrangement was a conflict of
interest that could have cost his clients thousands of dollars in fees.
The
two judges who heard the case against Mowery are likely to make their
recommendations on sanctions, if any, to the State Securities Board this
summer.
Rick Perry is expected to announce he is running for president of the United States on June 4, less than three weeks from today. Do you think that would be happening if he had any concerns whatsoever about going on trial?
The Texas Progressive Alliance doesn't need hindsight to know that invading Iraq was a tragically stupid decision as it brings you this week's roundupof the best lefty blog posts from last week.
Off the Kuff is pleasantly surprised to hear that the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority and US Rep. John Culberson have reached an accord in their longstanding feud over funding for light rail in Houston.
Letters from Texas provides a step-by-step guide to using your hypocrisy to justify your bigotry.
Libby Shaw, at Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, calls it like she sees it when Congress cuts Amtrak's budget within hours of the deadly train wreck outside of Philadelphia last week: Republican Austerity Kills. Literally.
Julian Castro is Hllary Clinton's pick for running mate, according to Henry Cisneros. That suggests a Latino will also be the vice-presidential nominee of the Republicans. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs thinks that might be the most interesting thing that could liven up an otherwise completely predictable 2016 presidential season.
Egberto Willies (happy birthday, dude!) instructs progressives to make the case to Democratic senators that free trade deals impact American lives more than they do corporate bottom lines.
TXSharon at Bluedaze wants Texas Republicans to understand that while they may not mind living next door to a fracking operation... what if it was a strip club instead?
jobsanger lists the lies Texas Republicans want our children to learn.
Dos Centavos wonders if the discussion surrounding the separation of the Harris County jail administration from the sheriff's office is a prelude to privatization.
And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.
Texas Clean Air Matters examines what Tesla's Powerwall home energy storage battery means for Texas.
Better Texas Blog names the least worst way to under-invest in schools, college access and health care systems.
Stephanie Wittels Wachs documents her efforts to get the Legislature to require insurance companies to cover the cost of hearing aids for children under 18.
The Lunch Tray calls self-regulation of kids' food advertising a "doomed effort".
Paradise in Hell warns us that the anti-gay crowd isn't going anywhere.
Joe the Pleb at BOR had a podcast about Blue Bell, barbecue sauce, and some less savory Texas traditions, while the SA Current also reported its horror at Governor Abbott's professed "most important ingredient" of barbecue. Is he really Texan? Has anyone seen his birth certificate?
In a different vein, Bay Area Houston questions Abbott's intestinal fortitude.
The Quintessential Curmudgeon sees some winds of change that blew through Amarillo city hall in this year's municipal elections.
BEYONDBones explains why you should care about endangered species.
The Texas Election Law Blog tracks what has happened to election law-related legislation so far this session.
Last, Fascist Dyke Motors calls in sick -- err, e-mails in sick when she really isn't.
That's if there is no special session, of course, and the odds are good that one will be called to address the budget if the current Cold War between the House and the Senate prevents a compromise. So with a lot of business remaining and a short time to get it done, this checklist from Progress Texas is a great place to both keep up and take action.
Now that the House has officially passed its deadline to introduce
new legislation, we’re going to start heading over to more Senate
committees as they hear bills that have already moved through the
House. Here’s a recap on how awful these bills are:
HB 3994: the
very harmful bill that attacks abused and neglected teens’ access to
abortion and requires all people seeking abortion to have a government
ID, is set on the major state calendar on Wednesday, May 13. For more
information on why judicial bypass is a safety net for teens, read this blog post from Emily Rooke-Ley, Hotline Coordinator at Jane’s Due Process.
HB 416: Relating
to requiring personnel of abortion facilities and certain other
facilities performing abortions to complete training on human
trafficking. This bill would require abortion providers and all staff
that come in contact with patients to complete a mandatory human
trafficking training. First, abortion providers already provide this
training to staff. This training should be required of other health
providers who are far more likely to encounter trafficking survivors. Here’s more on the true intentions of this bill.
We’ll see you Monday. Don’t forget to wear your orange!
Follow the action on the Twitter hashtag #TrustTX.
Not talking about the White House chances yet. Just the Democratic ticket (and the yard signs, the bumper stickers, and all that swag).
Henry Cisneros, who was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for former President Bill Clinton, adds more fuel to the growing fire that former San Antonio Mayor and current HUD Secretary Julián Castro is at the top of Hillary Clinton's list of potential vice presidential running mates.
"What I am hearing in Washington, including from people in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is that the first person on their lists is Julián Castro," said Cisneros, according to the transcript of an interview taped with Univision's Al Punto.
The public affairs show airs on Sundays at 10 a.m. on Univision 23-WLTV in Miami.
"... They don’t have a second option," said Cisneros, "because he is the superior candidate considering his record, personality, demeanor and Latin heritage."
Who said it first? I know I said it 18 months ago. If you're thinking progressive, though, you'd still be mistaken. Castro is as centrist and cautious as they come. Still, the race in Texas would be exciting, liven things up a lot for Democrats down the ballot, like Pete Gallego for one. Should help the Ds a great deal locally, especially if Ed Gonzales runs for Harris County sheriff, for another.
The GOP would have to match that, so my early money goes on a Walker-Rubio ticket. I'm guessing Ted Cruz is less likely to be involved because he's just too nuts for moderate conservatives (sic). And it's about 18 months until we vote in November of 2016, so remember you heard that Republican pairing here first.
Update: The Hill, via Pensito Review, list the ten Senate races Democrats are mostly likely to flip in 2016. Wisconsin moved to the top of the list with Russ Feingold's announcement last week.
Update II: If you prefer a more cynical take on Clinton-Castro 2016, then read Joe Concha.
-- "Big Tex" Cecil Bell's anti-gay marriage bill died at midnight, but may rise as a zombie if it can find a live one to latch onto.
Bills he has authored this session would do everything from taking the ability to issue marriage licenses away from county clerks to stripping salaries from local or state employees who issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Bell's strongest bid fell short Thursday night when House Bill 4105, a bill that would have forbidden state or local governments from using public funds to issue same-sex marriage licenses, failed to pass the House before midnight — the deadline for House bills.
Enough Republicans had signed on as co-sponsors to guarantee the bill's passage had it reached the floor, and Democrats spent Thursday prolonging debate in an attempt to run down the clock and prevent Bell's legislation from being heard — a practice called "chubbing." They were ultimately successful.
While the bill is now dead, Bell is not out of moves. He could still attempt to attach an amendment to a related Senate bill.
"From my perspective, no bill is dead as long as there are are other bills in front. You just have to find something that's germane," Bell said after passage of the House deadline spawned hope among opponents that the measure is done with for this session. “The session still moves on.”
Marriage equality advocates remain on watch to destroy its brain. More on how it went down last night, and the ramifications moving forward, from RG Ratcliffe at Burkablog.
It was a very dumb bill from the start, and mismanaged by its
supporters even by the low standards of the Texas Legislature. It was filed very late—literally on the last day a bill could be filed,
March 13—and then it sat around. By the time it was eligible to come to
the House floor, it was so far back on the calendar that it became easy
for Democrats to talk and talk and talk—a tactic known as “chubbing,”
for some probably ungodly reason—until the midnight Thursday deadline
for considering yet-unpassed House bills.
Immediately, the posturing began. Democrats celebrated the death of
4105 as a triumph of legislative cunning and tenacity. Conservatives bashed House leadership while simultaneously claiming the bill’s existence was evidence they were “#StillWinning,” even if the bill got hara-kiri’ed. On Friday, the overwhelming majority of the House GOP caucus pledged their undying support of traditional marriage in a flowery letter. They wanted the bill to have passed so bad, they said.
It makes perfect sense for the Democrats to claim total victory here,
especially since they will have few other chances this session. Gay
marriage and gay rights are a huge issue for the party, though it’s hard
to predict the practical consequences of Bell’s bill given that the
Supreme Court soon might effectively sweep away the relevant statutes.
And Democrats certainly were a major reason why the bill died: Chubbing
isn’t as tough as filibustering, but they did smart work over the last
week to slow the process just enough.
But if they hit a home run here, it’s because they got an easy pitch.
Most House GOPers, whatever their other faults, still know a stupid
bill when they see one. There’s a general level of acknowledgement in
many quarters—even among some social conservatives—that the increasingly
Sisyphean struggle against gay marriage is a lost cause, and a
distraction from causes the godly folk really care about, like abortion.
(Importantly, the business lobby, the Legislature’s one true Almighty
Power, is tired of these shenanigans.)
In other words, if House Republicans wanted this to pass, it would have.
(Former UN Ambassador John) Bolton’s decision not to run for President is a good thing for our
country, but it means the loss of a great deal of entertainment. Bolton
would not have been the only Republican extremist to run for President
in 2016, but he might have been the most bizarre one. He has a frumpy
grumpy kind of right wing outrage that makes him fun to watch, and he’s
fond of making categorical statements that are thoroughly unanchored to
reality.
For instance, Bolton recently declared that Hillary Clinton “doesn’t have any problem getting to the left of Elizabeth Warren.”
I know I have ripped on a few people about this already. The point here is that it's not just me.
As a United States senator, Elizabeth Warren has been an opponent of
government surveillance. Hillary Clinton was part of the Obama
Administration that perpetrated it.
Elizabeth Warren opposes fracking. Hillary Clinton supports it.
Elizabeth Warren speaks out strongly in opposition to global warming. Hillary Clinton is mostly silent on the subject.
Elizabeth Warren has been an outspoken critic of Walmart’s systematic
economic exploitation of poverty here in the United States and around
the world. Hillary Clinton was on Walmart’s board of directors.
Elizabeth Warren opposed bankruptcy restrictions that force people to
keep repaying enormous college loans even when they have lost their
jobs and everything they own. Hillary Clinton voted for them.
Elizabeth Warren is a critic of free trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership. Hillary Clinton supports them.
Elizabeth Warren opposed George W. Bush’s rush to invade Iraq in 2003. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it.
No, Hillary Clinton is not to the left of Elizabeth Warren. In fact,
Hillary Clinton is to the right of most Democrats. John Bolton and his
supporters are off so far over on the right wing of American politics,
however, that everything on this side of Rush Limbaugh looks Communist
to them.
Bernie Sanders and Clinton -- Warren is standing in for Sanders in the above, in case you overlooked that -- are also poles apart on the PATRIOT Act, in 2001.
So let's all wave goodbye to Yosemite Sam John Bolton, but his fever dreams of calling Hillary Clinton a socialist will never die. They'll be picked up by the rest of the GOP field and flogged like American Pharoah in the Kentucky Derby. And keep in mind that if rightists call Clinton a leftist, and Democrats call Hillary a progressive, they're both incorrect in essentially the same way. Besides... they're all socialists anyway.
The Lege will wait for the Texas Supreme Court to weigh in on the latest lawsuit, arguments beginning sometime this fall, before scheduling a special session after that to deal with it. So maybe next year.
A $3 billion effort to boost and overhaul how Texas public schools are funded died Thursday when the author of the legislation withdrew it ahead of a key deadline.
The proposal, House Bill 1759, crafted in response to a lawsuit alleging insufficient funding in the system, would simplify and bring more equity to the system, in addition to the extra funding.
It would also reduce the number of districts forced to send property tax revenue back to the state under Texas' "recapture" or "Robin Hood" system that shifts money from property-rich to property-poor districts.
Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, the Killeen Republican and House Education Committee chairman who sponsored the measure, said Thursday it was tantamount to "tearing up and starting over" with the system for funding to educate the state's 5.4 million schoolchildren.
The complex proposal cleared Aycock's committee on a 7-0 vote last month, but it was seen as a long shot in the more conservative state Senate.
It's been death by chub for the past few days, and even as this is posted, in the Capitol.
“We could kill all day with this bill, easily,” he said. “I don’t think it is fair to leave this bill pending and kill everything else when we know already the Senate will probably and almost certainly not even consider the measure if we pass it.”
[...]
A state district judge last year ruled that the Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional duty to adequately and fairly fund education for the state’s five million public school students. The decision came in a lawsuit filed by more than 600 school districts, including Dallas and several others from North Texas.
Aycock and House leaders argued earlier this year that lawmakers should get started on a funding fix now rather than wait for the high court to tell them what to do. So they filed legislation, approved by the House Public Education Committee, to correct the deficiencies highlighted in the court case.
The measure, relying on a $3 billion boost in state funding for public schools, would provide more money for schools that educate about 94 percent of the students in Texas. Most Dallas-area districts would see a significant increase under the bill. The Dallas school district see its funding jump about $32 million a year, an increase of 3.2 percent.
“We wanted to do the most good for the most students,” Aycock said. He pointed out that the plan “gives schools more resources and delivers them in a smarter and more effective way…while presenting a major opportunity to improve public education in Texas.”
One of the major changes is a reduction in the amount of Robin Hood “recapture” in the system, where high property wealth districts are required to share their revenue with other districts to equalize funding. The House bill cuts that amount by $321 million a year.
The biggest resistance to the House plan was in the Senate, where leaders indicated they wanted to wait for the Supreme Court ruling. No hearings on school finance have been held in the Senate in the current legislative session.
Ah yes, the Texas Senate. The crucible of extreme conservative governing has bubbled over several times in recent days, with the dregs in the kettle still simmering in the last days of the session. The next big fight, the state's budget with its accompanying tax cut squabbles, is being held under the big, hairy foot of Dan Patrick. (This is the Mayweather/Pacquiao equivalent in the 84th.) House leader Dennis Bonnen is chafing under the lieutenant governor's yoke, and shows no sign of yielding. So we're headed for a showdown. Chris Hooks at the Texas Observer nails it.
Bonnen, a Lege veteran, charged Patrick with making “some errors in his exuberance.” He laughed at the idea that Patrick offered his plan to boost local school districts. He suggested Patrick hadn’t done much “punching the numbers.”
We’re entering the last stages of one of the strangest and most consequential standoffs of the session: The fight over whether the crummy tax plan originating in the Senate or the crummy tax plan originating in the House should pass. The former would reduce property tax growth and cut business taxes, and the latter would cut sales taxes and business taxes.
Bonnen’s talk this week—along with op-eds he wrote for major Texas newspapers—are his way of laying down the law. He’s demonstrating, exhaustively, that property tax cuts will not pass the House this session—if there was any doubt about it before. (There shouldn’t have been, but some on the Senate side have been a bit slow on the uptake lately.)
In committee Tuesday, he emphasized something else: If the tax impasse results in a special session, the Legislature should be ashamed.
“I think there’s absolutely no excuse and we should all be embarrassed if we’re in a special session,” he said. “There’s no reason.”
[...]
So to sum up, the two chambers are having an ego contest over two poorly constructed and faulty tax cut packages. Privately, most reps don’t really care about the House plan, and most senators don’t care about the Senate plan. Neither is enthusiastic about the policy particulars involved. But because neither wants to let the other “win,” we’re headed toward either a pointless special session in which both sides still can’t “win,” or a third option, Bonnen’s proposed compromise, that’s even worse. Take pride, ladies and gentlemen, in your 84th Legislature.
As I am weary of fulminating against Hillary Clinton and other flailing, failing Democrats, let's check in with the alleged GOP inevitable one. He's been having a bad month, so much so that it's not too early to question his inevitability.
3. But he's fading in South Carolina behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and possibly other arch-conservatives, though as the macro-view US News article notes, SC polls tend to reshuffle after IA and NH vote. Those Low Country folk like to jump on and off the various bandwagons. The Palmetto State has grand family history as comeback territory for Bushes; remember John McCain's illegitimate black child? But it might be Jeb's Combahee River this time.
What state comes after South Carolina? Does it matter if he loses all three of those? Will his hundred million bucks still be able pull his fat out of the fire if he loses two out of three? He revealed himself this week as possibly being the dumber of the two Bush brothers, a truly remarkable achievement.
Jeb Bush on Tuesday sought to arrest a chorus of criticism from Democrats and some conservatives after he told an interviewer that, knowing what history has since shown about intelligence failures, he still would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Calling in to Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Bush said he had misunderstood a question that one of Hannity’s Fox News colleagues, Megyn Kelly, had asked him in an interview shown on Sunday and Monday nights.
“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess,” Bush said. “I was talking about, given what people knew then.”
The attempt at mopping-up was quick, but it did not bring the controversy to an immediate end: When Hannity asked about the 2003 Iraq invasion again, in yes-or-no fashion, Bush said he did not know what the answer would have been, saying, “That’s a hypothetical.” Then, he seemed to go out of his way to absolve his brother, former President George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion: “Mistakes were made, as they always are in life,” Bush said.
Indeed they are. And it looks as if rank-and-file Republicans and their kooky cousins aren't going to repeat the mistakes they have made in the past by voting for another Bush. That might be the most exciting thing that could develop in 2015 for 2016.
Update: And now Jeb's porn problem surfaces. No way the GOP nominates this guy.
Less than a day after blocking the Obama administration's path to a
secretive trade deal, Senate Democrats have accepted an offer put forth
by Republicans. The Democrats, led by Senator Ron Wyden and Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York, came to accept the deal after personal
lobbying from President Obama.
Some Democrats believed that a
package of four trade bills would move along together, thus ensuring
that Obama couldn't obtain fast-track authority without enforcement
measures, but they ended up backing down on this as well. A Huffington Post
story quotes Senator Sherrod Brown justifying the decision: "I
understand that all four aren't going to be together exactly the way I
want it, I understand that, but I can read votes. I also think that
nobody saw us being successful yesterday three days out. And people have
strong feelings about the customs enforcement and people have strong
feelings about taking care of workers."
The new deal would allow the administration to begin negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which has been criticized by labor unions and environmental activists. The economist Joseph Stiglitz recently wrote
that, "These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and
intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to
countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions."
Gadfly also takes them apart over it. Looks like we're back to being "sanctimonious purists". I'm more convinced every day that we don't have the best government money can buy, we have the absolute worst. And I would simply ask, since somebody else already mentioned that TPP is about the next president and not just this one: how is Hillary Clinton going to be any better on it for anybody on the left side of the Democratic party?
The way Clinton and her advisers are thinking about this, apparently,
is that there’s nothing forcing her to take a controversial stand, on
trade or anything else. As long as no one who appears to be an overly
serious threat is competing for support among the party’s various
factions, then there’s no percentage in volunteering opinions that will
inevitably create some ill will and give the media some conflict to
write about.
So instead, she goes around telling Democratic audiences that she’d do even more for immigrants
than Obama has, or that she supports alternative sentencing for drug
crimes. This is like telling Republicans you believe in God.
But in fact, the Clinton people have the whole thing backward. This
glide path toward the nomination that they assume they’re on isn’t an
opportunity to hide from controversy; it’s an opportunity to show you
can lead, clearly and thoughtfully. And that’s because, even if you get
through the primaries unscathed, you’re going to have to confront your
biggest vulnerability among general-election voters, which is this idea
that Clinton does only what’s expedient.
[...]
Clinton’s patronizing evasion on the trade deal, on the other hand,
reinforces that impression. And if she waits until the summer of 2016 to
actually choose sides on anything contentious, it may well be too late
to turn that perception around. Remember that Clinton is trying to win a
third term for her party, which is an exceptionally difficult task
under any circumstances.
There was an irony this week in watching Obama and Clinton, once again
the two-headed hydra of Democratic politics, navigating their way
through a decision point for their party. When it came to trade, he was
direct, genuine and competitive. She was cautious, noncommittal, playing
not to lose.
That was precisely the contrast between them in 2008, and it didn’t
work out for Clinton then. That Obama isn’t running against her doesn’t
mean it will ultimately work out better this time.
It would be cool if all of those petitions we signed had actually tipped the scales on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but the fact is President Obama's criticism of Elizabeth Warren, dismissing her as "a politician like everybody else", turned out to be the most serious political miscalculation the man has made in his six-plus years in office. And yesterday afternoon, he paid for that mistake.
Senate Democrats dealt President Barack Obama a stinging setback on trade Tuesday, blocking efforts to begin a full-blown debate on a top priority of his second term.
The president's supporters said they will try again, and Obama summoned key Democrats to the White House to discuss possible strategies. One possibility was to drop a contentious issue dealing with countries that manipulate their currency, but it was unclear whether that would resolve the impasse.
What was clear, however, was that Obama suffered a rebuke from his own party, led by some who served with him in the Senate.
Only one Senate Democrat, Tom Carper of Delaware, voted for a GOP-crafted motion to start considering Obama's request for "fast track" trade authority. Fast track would let the president present trade agreements that Congress can ratify or reject, but not amend.
That's the part progressives have a problem with, along with the fact that almost nobody knows what's in it, and even US Senators are barely allowed to learn the details. If you want to know what kind of things they're trying to keep a secret... continuing Chinese child labor is one. Tom Tomorrow, in his cartoon on Monday (before anyone anticipated Tuesday's meltdown) establishes the premise as well as the objectionable items.
Back to yesterday's vote.
Tuesday's vote highlighted the deep divide between Obama and the many congressional Democrats who say such trade deals hurt U.S. jobs. Leading the fight against fast track are labor unions and liberal groups, which are crucial to many Democrats' elections.
[...]
Several Democrats said Obama erred last weekend by pointedly criticizing a leading Democratic foe on trade, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, in an interview with Yahoo News. He suggested Warren was poorly informed and politically motivated.
Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another strong opponent on trade, told reporters that Obama "was disrespectful to her by the way he did that," and "made this more personal than he needed to." Brown said he suspects Obama regrets the remarks.
The administration had planned to invite Senate Democrats to the White House on Monday to discuss trade, but it canceled the event, citing conflicts with a Senate vote on another matter.
Shortly before the Senate roll call began, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said some Democrats would vote against Tuesday's procedural motion but ultimately support fast track for the president.
Oops. Your takeaway here is that the matter is far from over.
Numerous Senate Democrats said they would back fast track only if Republican leaders cleared a path for three other trade measures.
Blahblahblah TL;DR for me from there. Too wonky, and besides, what we do here is discuss the political implications. Besides the obvious, Hillary Clinton has been straddling the fence on TPP of late. But not early on.
Clinton, meanwhile, has provided almost no cover for Obama on the trade issue even though she played a role in the early talks on the TPP and has long claimed the “pivot to Asia” as one of her most important accomplishments as Obama’s first secretary of state.
She's been mum on it for awhile as the schism opened between Obama and progressives on the trade deal. She's been mute, in fact, on pretty much anything and everything for the past three weeks. Still not surprising me, Ted, on how progressive she is.
The implosion of the president's signature second-term issue drowned out a very important conversation being had at the White House on poverty in America. Obama was more candid than his usual in his remarks about that also. But that topic could be a separate post (which probably won't get written now, what with the Texas Lege wrapping up with a whole host of shitty legislation, the Houston mayor's race and the presidential campaigns warming up, and FSM only knows what else might break).
So as the repercussions of the Senate Democrats' payback continue to ripple outward, there's an emboldening of progressives that could grow into something more meaningful down the line, particularly if the president is forced to beat a full retreat on TPP. That seems unlikely, but there are many more deals to be cut now in exchange for getting fast-track back on track.
Update: See -- and listen to -- more at Bradblog. Matt Yglesias at Vox says Obama's got bigger free trade problems than just his disrespecting of Warren. And Politico employs their typical histrionics in revealing some additional fissures in the Democratic caucus.
Update II: And just like that, the deal is back on again.
