The conservaDem effort to co-opt 'progressive'

For some reason I have seen just too much of this lately.  It started some time ago, with my friend Ted, who has simply gone off the rails at this point with his "Hillary is a progressive if you liberals would only see it" posts.

Since Hillary Clinton's declaration that she is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, a small segment of Democrats (and other leftists) seem to be going out of their way to find some reason to dislike her. That is their right, but I disagree with them.

It seems that most liberals in the party (including me) just don't buy the argument that Clinton is not liberal enough and someone else is needed. They know that Clinton is more liberal than either of the last two Democratic presidents (Barack Obama and Bill Clinton), and they know she is the best chance Democrats have to keep an extremist Republican out of the White House.

I think some on the left thought Hillary Clinton would refuse to debate since she is so far ahead, or that she might be afraid to debate a progressive like Bernie Sanders. Her quick agreement to the six debates shows that neither of those things is true.   [...] and I think many on the left will be surprised at just how progressive Hillary Clinton really is.

Nope.  Not going out of our way, not thinking those things.  Nobody is going to 'be surprised at just how progressive Hillary Clinton is', either.  A couple dozen more sad shills like this curated here, if you like.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, has worked harder on this angle than Ted.  But then local activist Kris Banks posted about "progressive champion" Sylvester Turner, and the Houston-area state representatives -- Armando Walle, Hubert Vo, Ana Hernandez Luna -- supporting him.  (Kris also had a "deal with it" FB post about Hillary's inevitability.  Trust us; we're dealing.)

And then this past week, after Ted paused from trying to sell a used car that won't start pimping Hillary as progressive, he started attacking Bernie Sanders.  With toons even.  This is a guy who's been all in on Bernie until recently.

I like both Ted and Kris a lot, and I hope they don't unfriend me on Facebook or anything... but it's time to call bullshit on all this.

Sylvester Turner gets to go first.  All four of those people named above voted to overturn the municipalities' bans on fracking in the Lege a few weeks ago (Turner, to his credit, switched his vote at the third reading, after our loud complaining).  It wasn't that long ago when he was being castigated as a Craddick D.  Remember that?  In his long legislative career, he has always played footsie with the GOP.  It's also accurate to say that this has enabled him to get a lot done.  I am repeatedly awed by his parliamentary prowess.  If elected mayor, he'll wield even more power than Annise Parker or Bob Lanier or any of the other solidly pro-business conservaDems that have run the show at 901 Bagby in recent years.

But a progressive he ain't.  He'll kowtow to the developers and the oil companies and the Mostyns and every other one-tenth of one-percenter in this town.

As for Secretary Clinton: if you are a Democrat supporting her, I say good on ya.  It's about as difficult a proposition as picking American Pharoah to win the Kentucky Derby last week or the New England Patriots as Super Bowl champs last January, but hey, everybody loves a winner.  Jump on the bandwagon!  Furthermore, I have no problem whatsoever if people want to say she's the most experienced or best qualified for the job.  I'll even accept that, as a woman or as having been first runner-up eight years ago, it's her turn.  Ted's repetitive "best chance for keeping a Republican extremist out of the White House" rationale, stated perhaps a dozen times in different posts at his blog and on FB, is still a suitable enough reason for someone to vote for Hillary Clinton.  I sincerely have no objection to anyone who uses one of those rationalizations for supporting her for president.

(Update:  Ted's just scared.  Almost to death.  I get it, buddy, and I feel for ya.  We already know that fear is a powerful motivator of human behavior.)

I believe those reasons are all much better than parroting "Supreme Court", for example.  I've heard that one since Barbra Streisand said it in 2000 endorsing Al Gore, and I feel certain it's been used frequently long before that by both major parties.  It is bullshit, for the record.  One: the threat didn't work on the 300,000+ registered Democrats in Florida who voted in 2000 for George W. Bush.  That's strong enough evidence to me that it's a hollow threat.  The electorate, never deep thinkers, doesn't seem to actually respond to it.  Two: it doesn't take into account that sometimes one thinks -- like John Sununu did -- that you're getting a slam dunk when you're really getting a David Souter.  Or an Anthony Kennedy (Reagan).  Or even a John Roberts, who's been a bit of a swinger in the important cases (and likely will be again in the pending marriage equality decision).

This is weak tea and lousy justification for voting Republican, just as it is for voting Democratic.  And it's certainly no reason to vote for the "most inevitable" candidate in the primary.  Inevitability is itself conjecture, because the future is uncertain.

But with regard to who is a progressive and who isn't: let's not redefine the terms, and let's especially not co-opt any more words you just like the sound of (such as 'green', for another example) to try to persuade me of something that simply isn't true.  That's not spin or even Shinola.

Hillary Clinton is not from the Howard Dean/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.  On her best day she is a centrist.  I know -- not think, know -- she's a war-hawking, Wall Street-SuperPAC-ing, warrantless-wiretapping conservative kinda gal.  It depends on what the meaning of the word 'trustworthy' is.  Your mileage may vary, of course.  (Notice I didn't mention her e-mail server lies -- about which Ted is correct; they made no impact at all.)

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.  Hillary Clinton is not, will not, cannot, and won't ever be a progressive.  She's really not all that liberal.  What she is, is a Democrat.  And that, all by itself, may be good enough for an Electoral College majority in 2016.  So stop trying to sell her as something she isn't to people who know better.

She is what she is.  Sell that.  Don't spend your time and effort trying to tear down the old dude pulling 5% in the polls who's the only one brave enough to stand against her.  That also makes you look like an ass, and won't help with any fence-mending once she claims the nomination.  The corporate media is going to do its own number on Sanders, so you don't have to.  Build up your choice with arguments in favor, and don't steal or invent ones that don't fit and aren't true.  And for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop calling yourself a progressive if you're supporting Clinton.  Now or later.

You're not.  You're only lying to yourself if you think you are, because actual progressives are smart enough to see right through that act.  If you want to support a progressive woman for president in 2016 -- one who is actually running, that is -- then your choice is also clear.  Don't be fooled by knock-offs, imitations, or the disingenuous claims of snake oil salesmen.  You won't be damaging Hillary's electoral prospects even slightly by voting for Jill Stein, either, because we live in Texas and not a swing state.  But 'I live in a swing state' is also a crappy rationale for voting for Clinton.  If you're a progressive, then vote for one.  And do so despite the whining of Democrats who lost an election 15 years ago and still would rather blame Ralph Nader for their candidate's own miserable shortcomings.

This isn't a purity test.  It's voting your principles and your conscience over some perceived pragmatic winnowing-down of what might be most palatable to voters who won't be paying attention until October of 2016.  And perhaps not even then.

I'm not willing to let the picking of the President of the United States fall to a group of detached morons who will be "undecided" all the way to the very end.

O'Keefe crony gives Lege tapes to Breitbart *update*

Texas Republicans, always in regression, are about to embark on yet another "RINO hunt".

A copy of more than 800 hours of video footage shot of Texas lawmakers by a nonprofit group tied to conservative causes has been turned over to Breitbart Texas, the news organization’s managing director, Brandon Darby, confirmed to The Texas Tribune late Sunday.

“Some of it is very newsworthy,” Darby said in a telephone interview.

Darby said the conservative news outlet has no plans to release the video made by staffers with the American Phoenix Foundation, an Austin activist group, until after the legislative session ends June 1 because he, his fellow Breitbart Texas staffers and their legal team have to go through all of it first.

“I don’t really think that something like this coming out during the ending of the legislative session is helpful to the state at all,” Darby said.

Ain't that the truth.  One thing you can surmise: if they have any video of Democrats acting like Republicans, then they probably don't think they have anything "newsworthy".  Despite bipartisan contentions, these clandestine videos -- I will predict -- will be of Texas House Republicans of the Joe Straus variety.  And they will be used in GOP primary elections by the TeaBagger/Operation Jade Helm faction to get a more conservative caucus elected in 2016.

But hey, I could be wrong.

Last week, it was revealed that people working for the American Phoenix Foundation had followed and recorded Texas legislators. The American Phoenix videographers would often stop lawmakers, asking them questions about their positions on policy and votes, all the while videoing them using secret cameras.

The group is led by Joseph Basel, who told the Tribune in email on Sunday that the group had turned over a copy of the video to Breitbart Texas.

“Darby has a copy of what's been collected to date,” wrote Basel, who is listed as American Phoenix Foundation’s president on his group’s tax returns. “We want to give entire copies of archives to other trusted media outlets in the future after the project comes to completion.”

Basel said Breitbart has not been an “advisor, backer or investor” in the group’s project.

Where have we heard Basel's name mentioned previously?  Ohhhh yeah.  More...

Basel said the group’s filming of Texas lawmakers began in December to expose what he says is the hypocrisy of both Republicans and Democratic politicians in Austin who fail to live up to their campaign rhetoric, both on and off the floor.

Although several lawmakers have reported that they were asked by American Phoenix undercover videographers about their support of House Speaker Joe Straus, the group insists it is not focused on Straus’ leadership, but instead on members in the House and Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, who have reneged on their campaign stances or moral pronouncements.

Was there something... sexual?

It has been alleged by the Basel’s group that they have captured evidence of personal indiscretions by lawmakers — something Darby alluded to on Sunday.

“Just to speak in general terms, I do think that if somebody sells themselves to the people as being a big family values guy and a family guy, I think there is a problem coming to Austin and having sex with people who are not their wives and sometimes in public places and I think that’s a bit of a problem,” Darby said.

Now that could be a bipartisan development.  Naturally it fell to the real security forces in the state Capitol building -- lobbyists -- to enforce the 'law', or something.

A young man, who identified himself as John Liam, spoke to a few lobbyists and a journalist or two on Friday about the recent news relating to a nonprofit that claims to have 800 hours of secretly recorded footage of Capitol antics. The conversations were not always civil.

Outside of the Texas House chamber, several people demanded answers from Liam. They wanted to know if he worked for the American Phoenix Foundation, which was revealed earlier this week as an organization that has been collecting footage of political action (from inside and outside of the Capitol) that would, as a group spokesman said, show hypocrisy and nefarious behavior of lawmakers and lobbyists. Liam didn’t give specific answers.

Read the original Statesman story here.

Liam remained calm and seemingly unfazed by the questioning from Capitol insiders, which grew heated at times. He never revealed any specific information.

Lobbyist Steve Bresnen confronted Liam outside and wanted to know if he was secretly recording conversations in the lobby. Sticking with the theme, Liam wouldn’t answer.

Bresnen then asked who paid him. No answer.

Growing more irritated Bresnen said he, as a lobbyist, reports his clients to the state. He then again challenged Liam to divulge his employer.

“Be a man, man,” Bresnen said.

Liam clearly had been studying the players in the Texas Capitol. He knew the names and faces of lawmakers and lobbyists; he even knew that Bresnen’s wife was about to graduate from law school.

Liam also knew lobbyist Snapper Carr, who showed up on the scene with his camera phone in his hand as Bresnen was demanding answers. Liam explained that Carr’s photo was in a lobbyist directory. He also told Carr the he knew his wife’s name. The lobbyist responded by practically daring Liam to say her name again. Liam didn’t.

This is only beginning to get good.  Don't touch that dial.

Update:  Dan Patrick had to be involved somewhere.

A senior staffer in Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's office knew lawmakers were being secretly videotaped by a conservative nonprofit, but did not make senators aware because it did not involve anyone in the upper chamber.

The Texas Department of Public Safety briefed Patrick Chief of Staff Logan Spence on the videotaping previous to the story breaking last week, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia confirmed Monday. Spence did not ask DPS to brief the full Senate, however, because no senators were believed to have been targeted by the group.

Yep, those are Patrick's fingerprints.  He's going after Straus, and the speaker's teammates.  And you know what how the saying goes (long before there was a Game of Thrones): "if you strike at the king, you must kill him."

We don't know yet whether Patrick swung and missed, but we ought to soon.