Tuesday, July 05, 2016

James Comey saves Hillary's bacon

Takes the heat off Loretta Lynch and any federal grand jurors in the process.  It was a pretty harsh scolding the FBI director gave the former Secretary of State in his public statement moments ago, but that's all it was.

I don't think the fire has been extinguished, but the bad weather is blowing over.

In chronological order:










So it was necessary, as referenced here, for there to be malfeasant intent, not just sloppiness or incompetence.  That's the part I got wrong; she didn't mean to, and that's okay.

I suppose there would have had to have been evidence that somebody died as a result of her mishandling of classified information.  But perhaps not even then.  Killing your own credibility and trustworthiness is no crime, after all.

Especially when it was already dead.

Update: It seems the law is quite clear about intent.

Scattershooting President Clinton's first hundred days

-- This, via here, only succeeds in making me nauseous.  They left out 'start a war on Iran' for openers.  At least she might accomplish what Obama has failed to do on Guantanamo.  But she'd negotiate away an unfettered right for a woman to choose if she is left to drink alone with the GOP at White House happy hours.  (Yes, her call to abolish Hyde is a very good move.)


-- No, she won't. Because she understands what would happen if she did.

Texas Republicans, of all groups, are perhaps the most enthused over the idea that the state could be in play in the fall.

Republicans say they would love to see Democrats drawn into what they view as a hopeless money pit. But also, within a state GOP torn over its own nominee, a Clinton offensive could be just what it takes to rally an otherwise morose group.

“The quickest way to activate disenfranchised GOP donors who won’t give to Trump would be an aggressive effort by Democrats to win the state,” said Brian Haley, a Texan who was a top fundraiser in two previous GOP presidential campaigns.

Abbott is one of multiple Republicans who have already sent fundraising emails on the notion.

“She has already made it known that winning Texas will be a focus of her campaign,” Abbott campaign director John Jackson wrote in a recent missive, referring to Clinton. “It’s clear that Hillary will not only continue Obama’s liberal leadership—she will be even worse!”

Stay out of Texas, #HRod.  Democrats here have it bad enough as it is, and they might make up a little bit of ground  (scroll down to Mark Jones' assessment at the end) if you could just, you know, keep using the state as an ATM like always.

-- Some people are really mad about white privilege, brute-force capitalism, and Independence Day.

Call it the land you love, but make sure the drones are loaded, the poisons shipped off in container ships potent, the pestilence of capitalism fully armed with the parasitic power of one global power, my country tis of thee.

I could hammer and hammer the prison industrial complex eating the American Black Male. I could rattle on and on about the United States of Debts, all the trillions homeowners “owe” the financial loan sharks, thugs, or the trillion plus students owe for virtually worthless degrees in this precarious, at-will, dead-end job America.

I could rattle on how insipid and violent forgetting is, and knowing just enough of the foundations of the lies of history to get a young and old person steaming. Imagine, the state of the world with Hollywood, Big Sports, Bubble-head Big Media, Vapid Mainstream Academia weighing in on the vast sucking sound that is America’s presidential-congressional-gubernatorial set of mistakes called elections (sic).

Bombs bursting in air, as I cruised down from a pretty cool spot in the mountains, supposedly away from the ghastly 7-11-Walmart-Texaco-McDonald’s dervish of hyper-stupidity, also called mainstreaming, mainlining consumerism.

I certainly think that any of the morons advocating for #Texit -- even Greg Abbott knows better, for fuck's sake -- should have been compelled to go into the office or the plant for the entire three-day weekend, but this is simply too much hyperbolic exaggeration (two "trillions" is two too many) and way too angry.  Right message but absolutely the wrong messenger.

Dude: drink more America this Labor Day, mkay?

-- None of the above, thanks, but absolutely not Ron Green.

Monday, July 04, 2016

"Battleground bloodbath"

Put down that hotdog and take a look at this.  Via Politico, Ballotpedia's most recent state polling shows Hillary beating Trump ...

  • in Florida by 14 percentage points, 51-37
  • in Iowa by 4, 45-41
  • in Michigan by 17, 50-33
  • in North Carolina by 10, 48-38
  • in Ohio by 9, 46-37
  • in Pennsylvania by 14, 49-35
  • and in Virginia by 7, 45-38

Landslide territory -- which is to say that she has no place to go but down from here.  Look at all the states in which she registers 50% or nearly; that tells you they surveyed just two horses in the race.  Hilariously, Ballotpedia also polled John Kasich and Paul Ryan against Clinton, and did include Gary Johnson in a separate three-way (but not Jill Stein).  Here's how that more realistic view of the landscape appears:

  • Clinton 47, Trump 34, Johnson 12, neither/refused 7, MOE +/- 4% in Florida
  • Clinton 38, Trump 36, Johnson 16, neither/refused 9 in Iowa
  • Clinton 47, Trump 30, Johnson 14, neither/refused 9 in Michigan
  • Clinton 44, Trump 37, Johnson 10, neither/refused 10 in North Carolina
  • Clinton 41, Trump 34, Johnson 15, neither/refused 10, MOE 3.9% in Ohio
  • Clinton 46, Trump 32, Johnson 13, neither refused 9, MOE 4% in Pennsylvania
  • Clinton 43, Trump 35, Johnson 11, neither/refused 11, MOE 3.9 in Virginia 

Update: If you feel like sanity-checking one state, look at RCP for the Tarheels.  Two late-June polls gave Hillary just a two-point lead there ... and one had Trump ahead by 2.

I've been reading some things that say Johnson pulls votes from Clinton in similar numbers as he does Trump, but Ballotpedia's results here suggest that's not enough to keep her from a very large Electoral College victory in November.  If you're one of those people who likes to parrot that "polls this early don't mean anything", then you might be a junior political consultant or a Trump voter.

As for surveying Kasich and Ryan as the GOP nominee, maybe Ballotpedia should just go ahead and do a Mitt Romney versus Joe Biden head-to-head, no third party candidates.   Because we wouldn't want reality to intrude in any way.

Update II: NPR's magic tool lets you  manipulate data like voter demographics and turnout to predict the winner.  Nutgraf:

"I will win New York against Hillary Clinton," Trump promised at a campaign stop this spring. It's a claim he's fond of reiterating, and since he has articulated a specific desire to win New York, we wanted to see what it would take for him to turn his home state red. Assuming all other demographic groups vote exactly as they did in 2012, and assuming turnout also remains constant, Trump would need to win 97 percent of white men in New York. 97 percent.

Here's your takeaway:

If Clinton somehow loses this election, it would qualify as the most stunning collapse in political history.  And that shame would be all on her.  No more Green excuses, Hillbots.  Look above at how the party and its nominee are still being ignored, after all.

The Weekly Fourth Wrangle

As the Texas Progressive Alliance brings you the Independence Day blog post roundup, we ask you to be cautious about your planned explosions today.


Off the Kuff credits Wendy Davis for getting it right on HB2.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos is hardly shocked to learn that our state is run by a group of misogynist swine. Will the Texas GOP Apologize for its Unconstitutional Anti-Abortion Bill and its Sexist Piggery?

Socratic Gadfly notes how chunks of the mainstream media tried to create Scalia-connected false drama on the Supreme Court's abortion ruling.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme warns Texans that a far right group wants to purge Starr County voter rolls so that you don't get a vote.

Neil at All People Have Value supports Ann Harris Bennett for Harris County Tax Assessor/Voter Registrar. She will do a very good job in that important office. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The Lewisville Texan Journal reports on a community loan center as an alternative to the predatory auto title/payday lenders.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston translates Trump's Social Security plan.

Dos Centavos reviews the first Intocable album in three years.

Upon suggesting that Hillary Clinton modify some of her positions to attract Bernie Sanders supporters, Egberto Willies got the predictable response.

And Cheeto Jesus (Donald Trump) begged Saul Relative (PDiddie at Brains and Eggs) for a campaign donation.

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

More posts from other great Texas progressive blogs!

Better Texas Blog reminds us that the Zika virus is fast approaching and outlines some preventative measures.

Lawflog takes note of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement's investigation into the head of the TABC and her husband.

Prairie Weather reads the NYT's review of George W. Bush's forthcoming biography as a scathing indictment.

Steve Bates at Yellow Doggerel Democrat marks today's holiday with a song from the soon-to-be-retired Paul Simon.

The Houston Press peeks behind the scenes at Houston's thirty-year-old Freedom Over Texas, the city's fireworks on the Fourth celebration.

Carol Morgan has a point of view regarding the rendezvous on the Phoenix airport tarmac.

Ashton Woods at Safety in Numbers says, "Pride Houston, we have a problem".

Andrea Ferrigno celebrates the SCOTUS decision striking down HB2.

Keep Austin Wonky criticizes that city's road bond proposal.

The TSTA Blog takes exception to Texas exceptionalism.

The Makeshift Academic explains why Medicaid expansion was such a key component of the Affordable Care Act.

Drew Blackburn wonders why Austin is having such a hard time with regulations on sharing economy companies.

Paradise in Hell looks at the sinkholes of West Texas.

idiotprogrammer tells a tall tale about zombies.

Saturday, July 02, 2016

Clinton email investigation in its last throes

After 3.5 hours answering questions posed by FBI investigators, Hillary Clinton has just about finished skating over the thin ice.

Given what we know now, an indictment doesn’t seem likely. As Vox’s Dylan Matthews noted, prosecutors would need evidence not just that Clinton sent classified information outside secure government networks, but that she did so knowing that it was supposed to be classified.

Clinton has denied this, insisting any classified material in the emails was either classified after the fact or she did not realize it had been classified — a position she likely reiterated today to the FBI.

This would contradict my 'murder/manslaughter' post, and doesn't really explain exactly why she'd be in the clear if some of those emails were "born classified".  But hey, they're probably lawyers and know more than I do.

Despite the right wing media's obsession with false accounts regarding the Clinton email server, most credible accounts state the chances of the former Secretary of State facing any legal action or an indictment are miniscule.

Others are saying the same thing.  With the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton chat on the Phoenix tarmac earlier this past week, the matter got unnecessarily murkier.  One person has the power to clear it all up.

FBI Director James Comey is now firmly in the driver’s seat of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, after Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged she would accept whatever course of action his bureau and career prosecutors recommend.

[...]

“Comey is the center of gravity on this thing,” said Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director and president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.

“There is a growing expectation that we the public need to hear the FBI, Jim Comey version of whether or not charges will be brought,” he added. “There has probably been increasing recognition by her that that’s true, that she is viewed as — regardless of her prior reputation as an effective prosecutor — she’s now the head of Obama’s DOJ, a political position in a Democratic administration that is deciding on the prosecution or not of the leading Democratic candidate.”

[...]

The decision (by Lynch to accept the recommendations of investigators) puts the spotlight squarely on Comey, a Republican who is widely respected by GOP lawmakers and known for a streak of independence.

“He is a pro’s pro,” said Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney and head of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a watchdog group. “And I think this takes the pressure off of him that whatever the FBI recommends will be followed, where before I am certain he would be concerned that there will be political interference from the attorney general.”

There’s still a chance that FBI investigators and Justice Department lawyers, who are working on the case together, arrive at different conclusions on how to proceed.

The FBI has a tendency to be more aggressive with cases, whereas prosecutors might be more reluctant to push a charge they are not absolutely certain will stick — especially if the next presidency might be at stake.

“I could easily envision a scenario in which the FBI concludes there is enough evidence to make a case, but the DOJ prosecutors decide that the case is too weak to risk the legal precedent,” Bradley Moss, a lawyer who handles national security and secrecy issues, wrote in an email to The Hill.
“The DOJ career prosecutors are truly the ones who are under the microscope at this point.”

In the federal case against former CIA Director David Petraeus last year, FBI officials reportedly pushed for him to be indicted on felony charges, but then-Attorney General Eric Holder downgraded them to misdemeanors.

Yet Comey is no shrinking violet. If he is ultimately overruled by officials within the Justice Department, that is unlikely to remain a secret.

Potentially incriminating news has “a way of getting out,” said Whitaker.

“I would imagine ultimately we will know how the investigation was conducted or whether there was interference from the political folks at the Department of Justice,” he added.

“But I don’t know whether it will be in time to have an impact in an election year.”

She's almost out of the briar patch.

Green is the New Blue Funnies


The old Blue is just too Red for me.  (And don't call it purple, please.)




This one's for my pal, Erik Vidor...

Friday, July 01, 2016

Starring Loretta Lynch as Pontius Pilate

So she and Bill Clinton talked about more than just grandchildren the other day at the airport.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said. Her decision removes the possibility that a political appointee will overrule investigators in the case.
The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.
Republicans said the meeting, which took place at the Phoenix airport, had compromised the independence of the investigation as the F.B.I. was winding it down. Some called for Ms. Lynch to recuse herself, but she did not take herself off the case — one that could influence a presidential election.
Ms. Lynch plans to discuss the matter at a conference in Aspen, Colo., on Friday. The Justice Department declined to comment. The official who confirmed the discussion did so on the condition of anonymity because the internal decision-making process is normally kept confidential.

Washing her hands of the matter is... well, maaybe it's telling.  We'll see how the presser later today goes.  Back here I posted and linked to the fact that investigators on the cases of Sandy Berger and David Petreaus were something akin to pissed over the slaps on the wrist both of those men got for mishandling classified information.

Maybe the water just got hotter.  Hard to tell.  Clinton's fate ultimately rests in the hands of a federal grand jury whose names, political affiliations, etc. we'll never know.  She's still got some bumpy roads to travel over, which is undoubtedly the reason why Bernie Sanders has not suspended his campaign.  If I were a Hillbot, I suppose I'd be nervous and irritable too.

Astrodome parking

I hate to say I told you so (not really) but I told you so.


Harris County commissioners on Tuesday were presented with a $105 million plan to add two levels of parking to the Astrodome to prepare it for future use.
The plan would raise the ground level of the dome two floors and convert those two floors into 1,400 parking spaces, paving the way for the new ground level to be used for events or for an indoor park.

I missed it by about 150 parking spaces, so there's that.  Start the annual revenue estimate with 1400 spaces x $75 per x 10 home NFL games, 20 or so Rodeo concert/barbecue cookoff nights, and whatever number you like for NCAA March Madness weekends, soccer games such as the Copa America tournament going on this month, the OTC, and single-day events (Beyonce' concerts, Free Press Summer Fest, and so on like that) that are capable of consuming most of the parking capacity.  People are already complaining about no air conditioning in the garage, but the selling point is having your car in the shade instead of in the sun.  My calculator grinds out a conservative -- using '10' as the third multiplier -- $4.2 million.  If you think $75 is too much to park -- that's how much Jerry Jones gets for close-in spaces at AT&T Stadium on Cowboys game days -- then cut it by a third to $50 and it's still a tidy $2.8 mil a year.

The fate of the above-ground part of the Dome is still to be determined.  Judge Emmett is stuck on a convention hall, but a park really seems like its most likely fate to me.  It's all about who pays, as always, and the taxpayer isn't going to be paying anything no matter what.

The takeaway here is that I might know what I'm blogging about.  Most of the time.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Replacing Rodney Ellis in the state Senate

Kuff's on it, so is the Chron.  The contestants -- Borris Miles, Senfronia ("Mr. Tesla") Thompson, Ron Green and maybe Garnet Coleman and CO Bradford -- square off for preening before the SD-13 precinct chairs (my precinct chair gets a ballot) and early predictions are limited to 1) the vote will be closer than it was for county commissioner, and 2) we'll probably have a statehouse seat to do this all over again with.


Tonight's county executive meeting (all Harris D precinct chairs) to select a couple of vacant judicial bench nominees is prelude to the exclusive 94 who will select the person to replace Rodney Ellis in the Texas Senate.  In three weeks.

Update (7/1): the above sentence has been edited to explain the purpose of last night's meeting.

"Many of the candidates have complex political histories that could result in a high level of discord," Texas Southern University political scientist Michael Adams said. "I don't think these people are going to be playing nice."

Fun.  Appallingly, Mark Jones is correct again.

Rice University political scientist Mark Jones lamented what he described as a "less than democratic and less than transparent process."
"It's an unfortunate artifact of Texas election law that state legislators should look into next session," Jones said. "We have a special election process in place for officeholders who die or resign while in office. It would not be a bad idea to consider a similar method for parties to replace nominees."

Jones is not just acting like the Republican he is here.  Oligarchy is indeed a lousy way to run a democracy, and if any local Democrat also says so publicly, point me to it.  It's the kind of sorry crap they'd be the first ones to criticize the Harris County GOP over.  NOW you do understand why people say both parties are alike?

Update (7/2):  Chuck -- with no apparent clue that there might be something wrong with the process -- has the Chron's news that the 'special' election lost its two 'maybe' combatants, Coleman and Bradford, and is set for two Saturday mornings hence, July 16.

Cheeto Jesus begs me for money

Previously I indicated my experience as a Republican donor named Saul Relative, so these random fundraising letters always give me a good laugh.


Sorry about you having to read it sideways; click to enlarge.  Four pages, two front and back.  Big D didn't get the memo from the Seventies about using just the one page.  Oh well, his support network is surely intelligent enough to act on it, even if they can't read it.

I'll watch for a news account -- or a post from some blogger who spends lots of time compiling campaign finance reports -- mentioning the money haul in a few weeks, see how the shill is going.  My guess is it'll be good.  Meanwhile note that he's doing it wrong, in an illegal kinda way.

As the scrutiny on the Orange-utan comes into tighter focus, we learn that Drumpf really isn't smarter than a fifth-grader.  Also that his rallies tend to leave behind large tabs that municipal taxpayers have to foot.

(T)he city of Costa Mesa, California, spent $30,000 on security for an April Trump rally at which violent protests resulted in several arrests and damaged police cars. The city asked the Trump campaign to pay $15,000, but the campaign has not offered to help and they are not obligated to do so, according to Bloomberg News.
"It’s a venue where politicians typically come, and it’s literally never been an issue, Costa Mesa city spokesman Tony Dodero told Bloomberg.
Law enforcement officials told Bloomberg News that the Trump campaign's tendency to sell more tickets than there are seats available results in large crowds outside of venues, sometimes ending in clashes with protesters.
Matt Rokus, the deputy police chief in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, said that for a rally in the city, the Trump campaign sold 6,000 tickets for a venue that seats 1,800.
"Duh, there’s going to be a problem," Rokus told Bloomberg News. "You got a bunch of people who drove hours to get there thinking they had a seat."

That explains some of the extra anger, anyway.  This isn't going to be your father's Republican election cycle.  It's not even going to be a GOP scampaign that you'll be able to recognize from the more recent ones.  Another 'no-precedent' occurrence in a long line of 'em, and more certainly to look out for.  Fun!

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Scattershooting Trump, Abbott, abortion lawsuits, and the Democratic Party

Not in quite the same way your generic Democrat might (scattershoot them).

-- After the Hillbots on the DNC platform committee nullified the Berners by refusing to disavow the TPP (and several other things, as you might already know), Sanders broke some balls with this NYT op-ed entitled "Democrats Need to Wake Up".

But it was Donald Trump who seized the reins by going to Rust Belt, Pennsylvania and blasting NAFTA specifically and free trade generally.

"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech [...] devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again" ...

Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" — including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

Drumpf is doing a fairly masterful job of catapulting the Brexit propaganda here, and like my friend David Courtney, I believe this will be a very effective line of attack against Hillary Clinton.  It's a pure populist economic message that will resonate with lots and lots of independents, provided Trump can be convincingly sincere about it.  He'll never meet my threshold for candor, but I'm not your average disgusted-with-both-parties voter.

-- Take note of who is actually doing the knife-twisting here.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott appears to be deeply dissatisfied with how Land Commissioner George P. Bush's office handled a recent lawsuit over historical items at the Alamo, according to an internal memo obtained by the Houston Chronicle.
The June 20 memo, which was written by Abbott chief of staff Daniel Hodge as part of the process of approving the settlement, called the deal "regrettable" and "avoidable."
"Had the General Land Office more vigorously defended the State's interests in this matter, the agency would not have found itself in a position in which the (Daughters of the Republic of Texas) can demand this settlement," Hodge wrote.
"The Governor approves this settlement to take place solely out of deference to the independent constitutional officeholder requesting it," he added.
Abbott's blessing came as the settlement received final approval last week.
The General Land Office agreed in the settlement to relinquish its claim on thousands of artifacts in the Alamo's collection and pay $200,000 to cover the legal fees of the rightful owners, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas.

Pee Bush has been a disaster in in his first real job, and if Abbott is delegating his top stooge to do the screwing ... well, I'd say it's only a matter of time before someone finds himself challenged in a Republican primary.  A Bush Family vs. Abbott war for the soul of the RPTX might be in the offing, and wouldn't that be fun to watch.  (Sidebar: Did you ever think that the Bushes would be mentioned with the less insane, moderate/liberal/RINO wing of the the GOP?  Nobody could have predicted that.)  But it's Hodge you should take note of here; he's been one of Abbott's Knights Templar from the get-go, the power behind the wheelchair.  Watch for his name to eventually pop up on a ballot near you.

-- The landmark SCOTUS ruling on Monday striking down Texas' onerous restrictions on women's health should birth a passel of new litigation aimed at the anti-choice effort.

Since the Supreme Court has long held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, anti-abortion groups over the past decade have turned to the states to pass hundreds of laws designed to discourage abortions, such as waiting periods, mandated fetal sonograms and parental consent requirements.

Bring on the lawsuits, ladies and gentlemen, and let's start with that goddamned sonogram law.  In your not-The-Onion update, Greg Abbott got served with a class-action vagina eviction notice.

The Governor of Texas has been served with a 30 day eviction notice, and by court order he must be vacated from all Texan vaginae before that time. The writ of eviction comes just a day after the Supreme Court batted down his state’s law that would have shuttered nearly every abortion clinic in the Lone Star State had it withstood judicial review.

“I have been given this notice,” Gov. Greg Abbott told reporters as he was seen moving a large U-Haul box out of a woman’s uterus on 4th and Stubb’s Ave in Austin this morning, “and I will comply. I will be out of every vagina in the state by the end of the month.” Abbott said it would “take awhile” but that he heard the message from the Supreme Court “loud and clear.”

What a pussy.  And some people said he was a fighter.

-- So you still think you can reform the Democratic Party?  Don't be a sucker.

The latest Gallup poll on the subject showed that 60 percent of Americans believed that a third party was needed nationally in order to “do an adequate job of representing the American people”. Lest you think that this is some surge due to the current election cycle, a majority of Americans have stated the need for a third party in almost every Gallup poll since 2007. This system is crumbling because Americans look around and see two political parties that are enthralled with Wall Street and diffident (at best) to the concerns of the working class and the marginalized.
Meanwhile, wage growth is stagnant, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced by low-wage, low-stability service jobs, police brutality continues with an official imprimatur from local officials, and mass acts of violence directed at the bodily autonomy of women and the human rights of LGBTQ people go off with only the most cursory of responses (for prayers and reflection, of course) from the leaders of the major parties. That is, when they cannot pin this on the brown people who will inevitably be the targets of an ever-increasing police state.

Instead of spending the next 10, 20, 30, or 60 years trying to take over a party that has demonstrated its rank hostility to leftists and their vision for a new world, why not begin the process of building a party organization from the ground up? A party organization that works alongside movements for change rather than co-opting them. A party organization that recognizes that fundamental humanity of people both domestic and abroad. Why place such a revolutionary vision of society and economy within the tight constraints of two-party politics? Because if the Bernie campaign has taught the American Left anything, it is that Democratic partisans and their allies in the media will work hand-in-hand to snuff out any challenge that could threaten the dominance of neoliberalism within the party.

We can do better. We should do better. And if we trust in the collective efforts of those committed to political, social, and economic liberation, we will do better.

If you're buying in, there's lots of work to be done.  You can ask me how if you want some directions on where to get started.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

No #DumpingTrump

No pasaran.  He's going to be the nominee.  What now, #NeverTrumpets?


Your New Republican Party.

Republicans looking to dump Donald Trump at next month’s convention have passion, energy and a fierce sense that their party will suffer unless Trump is unseated. What they appear to lack, however, are the votes to make it happen.
POLITICO reached out to all 112 members of the committee that will write the rules of the national GOP convention. This is the panel that anti-Trump activists hope to jam a proposal through to free convention delegates to spurn Trump and select another candidate instead.
What emerged from the survey, though, is a portrait of a committee with little interest in the dump Trump crowd. In fact, most members may be eager to stop them.
“I support DJT 100%,” said Alabama rules committee member Laura Payne in an email. “I ran to support … Trump & to represent the voters of Alabama. It may or may not be an attempt, but the voters will prevail.”
"Trying to change the rules in mid-game because you don't like the outcome is tantamount to saying you are going to take your ball and go home because you are losing," said Christine Serrano-Glassner, a Rules Committee delegate from New Jersey. "I will be supporting our Nominee, Donald J. Trump."
It was a common sentiment. Among the 32 committee members who responded, 25 said they would fight efforts to stop Trump’s nomination. Another 33 members of the panel have been previously on record as endorsing Trump or rejecting efforts to rip the nomination away from him at the convention.

The NYT piles on.  It's such a fascinating thing to me in this cycle that so many binary thinkers are going to be suffering so much cognitive dissonance.  Those that were once psychologically shackled inside the two-party box are suddenly forced to think outside it.

-- The media will be compelled to include the Green and the Libertarian in the horse-race polling, or else show themselves as duopoly frauds.  Polls without them won't reflect reality; just another attempt to silence their voices.  Manipulating the data by removing third party votes altogether and then presenting the D and Rs as the full universe of the electorate is one of the transgressions I would imagine I'll be forced to point out.  More times than I would wish.

-- There will be an ever-louder cry to include the two minor-party candidates in the presidential debates, which are currently micromanaged by the CPD aka Ds and Rs to the exclusion of voices outside the two main lanes.

-- Most importantly, people who never would have considered the most proper protest vote will now be casting one.  Whether it turns out to be an extra couple of percent above their usual one or two, or whether it's more than that -- or much more than that -- is basically the most interesting conversation that's going to be happening this cycle.  Trump and Clinton's gaffes, legal problems, and assorted other he said/she said bullshit and negativity -- as fascinating as the corporate media will keep telling us it is -- just aren't going to do anything except suppress voter interest and correspondingly turnout, as polling traditionally demonstrates.

There remain far too may people who will insist that you only have two options, and a vote for one helps elect the other.  Stop falling for that crap.  Stop, also, listening to people who say that your vote is wasted, thrown away, or otherwise cancelled out unless you pick Coke or Pepsi.  Frick or Frack.  Ford or Chevy.  In a world full of multiple choices of everything, why should anyone settle for evil or less evil?

My teevee just isn't going to tell me anything about this election.  My recommendation is to not let yours tell you much either.  The Fox/sheep effect is nothing for so-called liberals to emulate.

Let's show that we're smarter than they think we are.  That's not too difficult a task, is it?  Not too much to ask?  It would be easy to be cynical, I know.  I still have hope for something more than incremental progress.  Call me naive'...

Monday, June 27, 2016

UT/TexTrib polling has some surprises

Let's get Trail Blazers' take, since they were first (after the actual sponsor, that is):

Texas supporters of Bernie Sanders are more reluctant to support Hillary Clinton than Ted Cruz supporters are to support Donald Trump, according to a new poll released Monday morning.

The University of Texas / Texas Politics Project Poll found Texas voters who supported Cruz's presidential campaign are more likely to support Trump than Sanders supporters are to support Clinton. Nearly 70 percent of Cruz voters are ready to vote for Trump, but just 40 percent of Sanders supporters are ready to vote for the former secretary of state.

WaPo's poll from just this past weekend begs to differ on the rapidity with which Sandernistas are boarding the Clinton bandwagon.  So Jim Henson may just be spinning here.

"Sanders has been reluctant to throw in the towel and endorse Clinton. That's showing in these numbers," said James Henson, a UT-Austin professor and the director of the Texas Politics Project. "Clinton has plenty of time to work with Sanders and his supporters. But I think the ball is very much in Sanders' court right now. The Sanders' voters are likely in large numbers to follow the lead of their candidate. But he's gotta lead them to that place." 

Whether that happens or doesn't, what I'm gathering from social media is that Berners aren't waiting to be led anywhere.  I believe Henson's supposition is false, but time (and more data) will tell.  Here's the counterpoint.
 
Since Clinton became the presumptive nominee, Sanders has refused to concede. While acknowledging that he's not going to be the nominee and that he'll likely vote for Clinton in November, the Vermont senator hasn't dropped out yet. He has also not formally endorsed Clinton.

Accurate, and it doesn't reference the platform arguments that Sanders' people lost over the weekend, and some seething I'm seeing about that.  So is WaPo's poll wrong about Berners jumping on with Clinton and TexTrib's right here?

And there's the usual caveats about polling methodology.

The poll was conducted online from June 10 to June 19 and surveyed 1,200 voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.83 percent meaning that results can vary by that much in either direction. Some public opinion experts question the effectiveness of online polling, because it relies on "sample matching." 
This statistical tool draws samples from online groups of pre-selected respondents and weighs them to represent demographic groups.
Typically, the best polls are conducted over telephone. Still, the University of Texas / Texas Politics Project Poll provides interesting insight into the upcoming general election. 

And the DMN's political blog buried the lede ...

Trump leads over Clinton 41 to 33 percent, according to the poll.  

That's going to excite all those Democrats who believe Hillary when she says "I can win Texas".  But hey, if you were ignorant enough to have swallowed all her lies up to this point... why would you suddenly stop now?

The head-to-head matchup is presenting itself as a very skewed and blinkered way to look at this election cycle.  In a three-horse race (with Lib Gary Johnson), it's 39-32-7, with 14% saying 'someone else'.  And this poll neglects mentioning Jill Stein or the Green Party completely, which I think is flawed methodology especially when you consider the wildest of UT/TexTrib/YouGov polling results over their relatively long history of comical errors.  Even if you're a Democrat who is hostile to Greens, it's a dumb thing to do to simply ignore them (or hide their support in other ways).  And we'll probably see more of that.

More from the Austin Statesman.

*Disclosure: I was surveyed for this poll by YouGov.

The burden is undue.

Pretty straightforward.


In the other pending Supreme Court decisions remaining for the last term we'll ever have to be #WaitingForLyle, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will not go to jail, payday lenders will be subject to interest rate caps ...

Rejecting calls from across the financial-services industry, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ruling that gives borrowers more power to enforce state limits on interest rates.
The justices turned away a company’s effort to avoid a class-action lawsuit over its efforts to collect credit-card debt from New York consumers.
The rebuff leaves intact a federal appeals court ruling that lenders say is already having far-reaching effects by undercutting the burgeoning internet lending business and raising questions about debt-backed securities that contain high-interest loans.
The practical effects "are difficult to overstate," the debt collector, Encore Capital Group Inc.’s Midland unit, argued in the appeal.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said borrowers in some circumstances can invoke their state’s usury laws, as the interest-rate caps are known, even if the loan originates elsewhere.

... and domestic abusers will lose their guns.

The U.S. Supreme Court backed the broad application of a federal law barring firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, ruling it could be used against two men convicted under a Maine law.
The justices voted 6-2 in the case, which drew attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions during arguments for the first time in a decade. Thomas dissented from the ruling.

A great day for justice overall.

The Weekly Wrangle

With this week's blog post roundup, the Texas Progressive Alliance cautiously awaits the Supreme Court's imminent ruling on the reproductive freedoms of women in Texas... and the United States.


Off the Kuff takes a look at the first general election poll of Texas, which has some encouraging bits for Democrats.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos explains, with the help of two award-winning political writers, how the Republican Party has become like a religious cult. The cult called the Republican Party.

Socratic Gadfly notes how the Supreme Court's recent anti-Fourth Amendment ruling was decided by the fifth vote of a Democrat-appointed justice, notes it's not the first time this has happened, and uses this to undercut one argument against third-party voting.

Texas Leftist took note of the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. 

As Bernie Sanders climbs on the Clinton bandwagon, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs steps away from the Democratic Party.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders why Mark Scott is so anti-wind farm for Corpus Christi. One smells a large rat.

Chris Faulkner of Breitling Energy is being prosecuted by the SEC for fraud, reports TXsharon's Bluedaze.

Egberto Willies posted the thought-provoking racial justice speech given by Jesse Williams at the BET awards.

The Lewisville Texan Journal highlights the call from the DFW regional pet control authority to "clear the shelters" next month.

Neil at All People Have Value kept an eye open for the value of everyday life. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

As we anticipate a ruling from the Supreme Court today on the abortion restrictions imposed by the Texas Lege, Teddy Wilson at Rewire has numbers that show a surge in Texas women leaving the state to have an abortion.

Zachery Taylor observed the political kabuki that is the House sit-in protest on a gun vote.

Grits for Breakfast also noticed the body blows suffered by the Fourth Amendment.

The Houston Press says it's raining dogs and dogs at BARC.

On the first anniversary of #LoveWins, TFN lists five predictions of the Right-Wing Fear Machine that never came true.

TransGriot congratulates Lou Weaver for being the first-ever out trans masculine Texan to serve as a national Democratic delegate.

BOR observes the difference between "thoughts and prayers" and actions.

Scott Braddock reports on worker misclassification and how it may affect the upcoming Uber/Lyft legislative debate.

Juanita Jean has had it with Paul Ryan.

Prairie Weather points out how far the GOP is ahead of the Democrats when it comes to gerrymandering.

Save Buffalo Bayou flew a camera-equipped drone down the length of the Bayou's City's most prominent body of water.

And Pages of Victory comes out in support of Jill Stein.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Bernie climbs on the bandwagon

If you weren't asleep or kidding yourself, you saw it coming a long, long, time ago.

We can count on some Hillbots acting the predictable part of being assholes who can't be satisfied, some who are still parsing his words, and as best I can tell there's a not-insignificant number of Berners who aren't climbing on with him.

I'm #FineWithStein, have been for a long time now and not because Bernie's really done anything to lose me.  I don't object to his not-quite liberal gun stances (he's from a very rural state, after all, and he isn't a gun nut, despite what my pal Gadfly thinks) and only have had some mild objections -- call them sad realizations -- to his advocating for the military/industrial complex in Vermont.  It was the objective of the Defense Department long, long ago to tie military bases, production facilities, etc. firmly to the US economy in towns small and large (just look at the local angst and fury every time the military has closed a base) from sea to shining sea, gathering up all of the procurement votes of Republicans, Democrats, and yes, independent Democratic Socialists in executing that task.  Mission accomplished.

I'd like to have lived the past 58 years in a different world, but you get what you get and that's all that you get.  If we can thwart President Hillary Clinton's desperate urge to start a fresh war in Iran or somewhere else in the world... I can be okay with that alone over the course of the next four years.  Happiness = low expectations, you know.  That was my problem ultimately with Barack Obama: high hopes.  Far too high for the amount of change delivered that he promised (or that I mistakenly inferred he promised).

As for Bernie, he's put the right people in the right places to effect change in the Democratic Party platform and its other procedures that is his revised-downward goal.  The establishment Democrats -- more corporate, more hawkish, more conservative than him -- will probably succeed in making only the smallest revisions to their system.  If Clinton and her minions have spoken -- and acted -- truthfully about anything at all, it's that.  She's simply not going to do anything more than tinker around the margins of progress.

That's why my vote, unlike Bernie's, is #NeverHillary.

His greatest transgression in my view is swallowing all of the same mythology that has kept Democrats scared and inside the pen for a few generations now.  We used to have active Socialist, Progressive, and other political parties in this country that thrived before there was a mass media to ignore them, so it's partly the fault of our dumbed-down electorate.  And Democrats did make strides during the past decade or so to create their own media, like the GOP; Al Franken and Janeane Garafalo were the first on the radio to left-counter punch the Limbaugh-esque brain food, MSNBC early on had Phil Donahue opposing the Iraq war before they canned him due to corporate and "Merrcan patriot" objections, and then there was the rise of the progressive blogosphere in the new century -- when 'progressive' stood in for Democrat and 'liberal', a word made dirty by the conservatives going back to Reagan.

But this is about Bernie Sanders and his 'not wanting to be a spoiler' mentality from as far back as 2011 (thanks Blue Nation Review; this is the only time I will write that), a stubborn urban legend most recently perpetuated by the execrable Jonathan Chait.

I have grown weary of correcting people on social media that still believe and regurgitate the Gore/Nader/Bush/2000 lies.  Repeating them has become grounds for immediate friend/follow termination at this point.  If Jim Hightower and others figured it out in November of 2000, which was a couple of weeks before Gore conceded after his 5-4 loss at the Supreme Court, then it's a marvel of modern ignorance that so many Democrats still don't get it.

(For a treat, read this PBS transcript of the debate between Hightower and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone from October of 2000 and realize how long we have been having this conversation.  Two things worth noting: Wellstone advocated the 'safe states' premise, which Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb ran on in 2004, and underperformed badly.  And Al Franken, as we know, eventually took Wellstone's Senate seat back from the GOP... and endorsed Hillary.  In 2014.

So as this article carefully details, it's always been an illusion that progressives -- the modern definition, not to suggest those social but corporate and and 'foreign policy'-weighted liberals who have come to be known as neoliberals in their tack to the center-right over the past few years --  could reform the Democratic Party from within.  Nobody has written more cogently about the self-defeating mentality; indeed the Democratic delusions -- 'safe  states', 'inside-outside', 'party within the party', voting LOTE, and the Berners' cry of writing his name in -- than Howie Hawkins.  Here's just one must-read pull-quote.

When I wrote a critique of [the 'inside-outside' tactic] in the Summer 1989 issue of New Politics, I was addressing the left wing of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, which proposed an inside-outside strategy of supporting progressives inside the Democratic Party and running progressive independents against corporate Democrats. By the time the next iteration of the inside-outside strategy was promulgated by the Progressive Democrats of America, which grew out of the Kucinich campaign in 2004, outside was now reduced to lobbying the Democrats for progressive reforms. Running independent progressives against corporate Democrats was not part of the outside strategy anymore.
The inside-outside proponents from the Rainbow Coalition believed their strategy would heighten the contradictions between progressive and corporate Democrats, leading to a split where either the progressives took over the Democrats or the progressives broke away to form a viable left third party with a mass base among labor, minorities, environmentalists, and the peace movement. But the logic of working inside meant forswearing any outside options in order to be allowed to inside Democratic committees, campaigns, primary ballots, and debates. Many of the Rainbow veterans became Democratic Party operatives and politicians whose careers depend on Democratic loyalty. Meanwhile, the corporate New Democrats consolidated their control of the policy agenda. And today the “outside” of the inside-outside strategy has been scaled down to pathetic attempts at political ventriloquism – clicking, lobbying, and demonstrating to try to get corporate Democrats to utter messages and enact polices that are progressive.

So it's very frustrating for this observer to have to watch leftish Democrats and even avowed and elected socialists like Kshama Sawant (who absolutely ought to know better)  perform this quadrennial insanity definition ritual again.  Running as an independent for president is now something to do in 2020, because it's too late to do so in 2016.  Sanders hasn't figured out something many of his smartest supporters have: it's time to Go Green.

Make your own choice about whether to accept the blame for Clinton's defeat in November after a close swing state loss, like Ohio maybe.  As Matt Taibbi points out, lesser evilism means Democrats can be lazier than ever this year.  Know that the blame will be applied irrespective of how shitty a campaign Clinton runs to lose the election at this point.  I don't think she'll lose, close or otherwise, but there's plenty of time and lots of unpredictable developments that could occur over the course of these remaining 120 days (remember we'll be voting early in late October).  Essentially the one thing that can upset her applecart is a federal grand jury indictment for mishandling classified information, and I'm on record as doubtful of that happening despite the evidence for it.

If you're a leftist who wants peace and not war, to start the process of healing the Earth (it might be too late already), to remove the corporate money from our political system and a whole lot of other democratic principles, then it's time to abandon the so-called Democratic Party as your default voting option.  Don't be an enabler of bad behavior.  They're still the only leftish choice locally you'll have in too many races on your ballot as it is, and some of those aren't really all that left, so you'll have to decide if ethical pillars of the community like Ron Reynolds, an "environmental rock star" who loves fracking like James Cargas, Dems who are terribly confused or determinedly misleading when they call themselves 'progressive' like Chris Bell, and all but invisible flakes with semi-famous names are worthy of your vote.

My own choices have gotten a lot clearer over the years.  As Eugene Debs observed, I'd rather vote for something I want, and not get it, than vote for something I don't and get that.

'Chaos' predicted in wake of Supremes' immigration tie

Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, writing for The Hill:

The 4-4 split affirms the Fifth Circuit’s decision to maintain Judge (Andrew) Hanen’s injunction establishing a binding precedent in that circuit only. But one key, closely related-question arises: will the underlying injunction apply across the country as Judge Hanen intended or will it be likewise limited to the Fifth Circuit by the Supreme Court. If the former, the Justice Department, pro-amnesty attorneys-general, and open-borders groups will be using all their firepower to challenge it in states where they’ll argue the precedent doesn’t apply leading to conflicting rulings around the country. If the latter, DAPA will basically go into effect nationwide because a ‘confined injunction’ against freely moveable people is absolutely meaningless. In other words, chaos is inevitable.

Click here, and make sure you understand which side of the discussion the IRLI, legal arm of the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) is on.

So it isn't the chaos of muddying the waters for the lives of the millions of men, women, and children who have come to America seeking a better life, or the abomination of treating economic refugees humanely, it's the travesty of the laws (invalidated presidential executive orders in this case) not being applied evenly and fairly across the land.  Wilcox at IRLI excoriates the Obama administration in advance for a predicted 'end-around' the Hanen/Fifth Circuit judgment might produce in other states and circuits, and bemoans the fate of "minorities, single-mothers, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, teenagers, recent legal immigrants, etc." who have "traditionally worked these jobs".  In other words, the mostly white and legal poor and not the brown and Ill Eagle really poor.  Gotta keep our class distinctions carefully delineated, even if racists like Wilcox intentionally conflate and obfuscate them.

Immigrants and the nativist backlash to them has now become, in the immediate wake of BREXIT, a global political concern.  A British MP has already paid for her activism for a humane resolution with her life, at the hands of a modern-day Bill the Butcher.  And a right-wing British politician has already made a wildly inappropriate statement about it.

The coming fall election for a new prime minister in the UK is going to mirror in many aspects the choice we have in the United States between Trump and Clinton.  It doesn't change anything about the predictable Electoral College result -- except in the small number of swing states, like always -- but it is going to be a loud, shrill national discussion during the two nations' political football seasons.

Update: Starring Raw Story as Captain Obvious.

Republicans cheered after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday thwarted President Barack Obama’s plan to offer millions of undocumented immigrants relief from deportation, but any sense of triumph might last only until the November presidential election.
If recent history is a guide, the stalled cause of immigration reform could energize Hispanic voters in support of likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, hurting Republican Donald Trump’s chances of reaching the White House.

Unless, you know, a global recession takes precedence.  Not to worry: the bottom-feeding capitalists already have advice for those who are waking up this morning scared about their stock portfolios.  As long as the wealthy don't suffer too badly, allegedly the rest of us will get more trickle-down instead of devastation.  If we're lucky.

Update: Charles' take is somewhat thin and antiseptic, but he does have some good links to the immediate reactions from the usual Democratic/liberal-but-not-so-much-progressive sources.