Sunday Funnies, of Bans and Bannons

Starring Conway as Goebbels

The trouble with documenting the atrocities in TrumpWorld is that if you skip a day, he's already on to the next one.   Same goes for his propagandists.

#BowlingGreenMassacre trended all day and into the night, spawning a "We Are All Bowling Green" vigil for victims and a spoof website, courtesy the ACLU (which had previously shattered donation records).  Bowling Green Massacre survivors are now marking themselves safe on Facebook.  So with all of that snark in full bloom, it's no longer timely -- and maybe a little Godwin-esque -- to point out the disturbing similarities between Kellyanne Conjob and the original Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels ...

... but we may not have to wait long for her next alternate fact.  Tomorrow is Sunday, the a.m. talking heads can't stop putting her on despite her whining about not getting any sleep for months, and even with some big football game happening, she -- or some other needy attention-grabber in the two-week-old administration -- isn't going to be able to tolerate having the spotlight shining elsewhere besides on them.

Hat tip to a fatigued Field Negro, who worked in a mention of Trump's doctor and his reference to President Hair Furor's male baldness pills, and their being implicated in sexual dysfunction and depression, along with Howard Stern's worry that Trump is, you know, appearing mentally unstable.

So if we can get him out of office before Steve Bannon convinces him to start a war with China ...

"Fascism Forever"

This is going to confuse those Republicans who've insisted that fascism is leftist.

Maybe now it's OK to start calling this Fascism? https://t.co/IioG1NjXCE via @MailOnline

— Elliott Lusztig (@ezlusztig) February 2, 2017

Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ at his elite high school, DailyMail.com can reveal.

The club was set up to rally against the ‘left-wing tendencies’ of his professors while attending a Jesuit all-boys preparatory high school near Washington D.C.

Although it's explainable as youthful impetuousness, this may help pull Senate Democrats out of whatever quagmire it is that they've gotten themselves into.

Gorsuch founded the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ during his freshman year at Georgetown Preparatory, a now-$30,000-a-year private Jesuit school that is one of the most selective in the United States.

[...]

The yearbook described the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ as an anti-faculty student group that battled against the 'liberal' views of the school administration.

‘In political circles, our tireless President Gorsuch’s “Fascism Forever Club” happily jerked its knees against the increasingly “left-wing” tendencies of the faculty,’ said the yearbook.

The sort of undergraduate objection long in the running.  Shades of Ted Cruz, in fact.  But it looks the same when you hold it up to a mirror, too.  Why, I'm so old I remember when a wee neoliberal attending Brandeis University couldn't abide living in the Democratic People's Republic of Boston, and had to scurry back home to Texas so that he could wear his cowboy boots to class without being laughed at.  (Cringing duopolists on both sides of the aisle, as we know, are a-skeered uh soshulism.)

Alas, and paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the Democrats you have, not the Democrats you want or might wish to have at a later time.  So the battle to confirm or reject GorsuchaScalia is joined.  Let's see if something interesting happens.

Update: Can the Senate Dems successfully filibuster the fascist club founder?  Magic 8-Ball says "better not tell you now".

These nominees and this process, tho...

-- I blogged about SCOTUS potentials this time last week, and except for Trump's "Apprentice"-like charade, there's nothing new to report.  Except for this.

"The reality is that to the best of my knowledge (Judge Thomas Hardiman) never left the state of Pennsylvania," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Tuesday night after the announcement. "He never was in DC, nor did he ever leave the commonwealth."

The Trump administration was taking extraordinary measures to build suspense and keep the final selection for its Supreme Court nominee under wraps for as close to the announcement as possible. Hardiman and Neil Gorsuch, both federal appellate judges, were the established favorites.

[...]

White House sources acknowledged Tuesday night they left the impression with reporters that he was coming to Washington. Hardiman appeared to play along. One source said Hardiman was given the sense that there could be a spot for him should another vacancy open up.

Sources inside the White House and close to Hardiman said earlier Tuesday that Hardiman was asked to come to Washington. Other news outlets reported before the announcement that Hardiman was going to be at the White House event, though CNN was never told that was the intent.

After he was seen leaving his Pittsburgh home, a CNN producer last saw Hardiman again at a highway gas station more than 100 miles east of Pittsburgh in the direction of Washington.

But earlier in the day, sources told CNN that both finalists were being brought to Washington ahead of Tuesday's White House announcement.

One source said that Gorsuch was told it was likely him. Those close to the process warned that until it was announced, Trump could change his mind.

"He likes a contest," one person close to the process said of Trump.

Two packets of briefing materials were being prepared to give senators Tuesday night: Gorsuch and Hardiman. But one person said the "Gorsuch packet" was full and complete, while Hardiman's was little more than biographical.

One person close to the process said Trump doesn't view runner-up as a bad thing. "There will be other openings on the court, so the person not picked will be runner-up," this person said.

I didn't ride along with the farce by watching the teevee, and Tweeted once just a few minutes prior to the announcement.  Homie ain't gonna play like that in the future, either.

-- I'll just keep looking ahead, now with the latest on the Treasury nominee's foreign money...

Senate Democrats are raising questions about whether Steve Mnuchin, President Donald Trump's treasury secretary nominee, deliberately misled lawmakers at his confirmation hearing. The concerns center on the extent of foreign investment in a series of finance entities Mnuchin helped manage, including one based offshore in the Cayman Islands ...

The focus has trained on a series of finance entities, all offshoots of the hedge fund run by Mnuchin up until he was selected as Trump's pick to be the country's economic point person.

Asked specifically about the investment makeup of the offshore entity during his hearing, Mnuchin repeatedly said it was created to provide opportunities for pension funds and non-profits to invest. There were also "a small number of foreign investors," Mnuchin told lawmakers.

But the offshore entity and a series of other finance vehicles, some of which weren't originally disclosed by Mnuchin during the financial disclosure process, hold gross assets of more than $240 million, according to an SEC filing reviewed by CNN. Significant percentages of each were held by foreign investors, according to the filing, and one was 100 percent owned by foreign investors.

Mnuchin's failure to initially disclose his relationship with the funds, along with his minimizing the scope of foreign investment in them during the hearing, has Democrats questioning whether it was part of a deliberate effort to steer them away.

"Misleading -- and that's the most charitable way you could say it," Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said of Mnuchin's explanation during an interview. "You walked away thinking that almost the only people were churches and pensions (investing in those entities.)"

There's also evidence that Mnuchin has lied to the Senate committee about one of his company's robo-signing on mortgage contracts.  Does perjury count as a crime in Trumpland?  Can Democrats stop -- or God forbid, delay -- this nominee?  How they stand up to Jeff Sessions is probably key.

-- How about Betsy DeVos and her plagiarism?

Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary nominee, appears to have lifted quotes in at least two instances in written answers submitted to the Senate committee tasked with approving her nomination.

After DeVos' confirmation hearing was limited to one round of questions by Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Democrats submitted hundreds of questions to the nominee. In response to a question from Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the committee, on bullying of LGBT students, DeVos almost directly -- and uncited -- quoted Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of Obama's Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department.

Looks like Obama's team was good for something after all.

Trump education adviser Rob Goad described the plagiarism allegations as "character assassination."

"To level an accusation against her about these words included in responses to nearly 1,400 questions -- 139 alone from the ranking member -- is simply a desperate attempt to discredit Betsy DeVos, who will serve the Department of Education and our nation's children with distinction if confirmed," said Goad, who sits on the White House Domestic Policy Council.

Sen. Patty Murray said Tuesday she is reviewing written answers the Michigan billionaire provided to the Senate that may include plagiarized material.

In another instance, DeVos' appears to have lifted language from the Department of Education website.

Do they still discipline kids for copying their homework from someone else?  How about you just report to the assistant principal's office, lady.  Oh wait ...

(DeVos) is also not the first Trump staffing pick to face plagiarism allegations since the President's election.

Conservative author Monica Crowley stepped away from her appointment to a senior communications role in Trump's then-incoming administration after CNN's KFile uncovered multiple instances of plagiarism.

Examples of plagiarism were found in her 2012 book, multiple columns for The Washington Times and her 2000 Ph.D. dissertation for Columbia University. The former Fox New contributor was chosen to be the senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council.

So it looks like somebody in DeVos' family is going to have to write larger checks to more Republican incumbents in order to keep this con going.

Brave new world!  How's everybody adjusting so far?  Got your shelter built and your fire going?  Ready to go scavenge for food?  Or would you rather keep whining about the Russians, James Comey, Bernie Sanders, and/or everybody who voted for Jill Stein?

You gonna march again this weekend?  Sign a petition to John Cornyn and Ted Cruz DEMANDING they vote against Sessions, or DeVos, or Tom Price or Scott Pruitt (here's your chance, Schumer) or any of the rest of these clowns?  Make a few phone calls to full voice mailboxes?

Maybe you could, I don't know, start thinking about how you might assist in organizing your precinct or something.  Just a suggestion.

The Gestapo in Denver

Not so secret a police state any longer.

Protesters at the Denver airport over the weekend were told by police that it was illegal to exercise “free speech without a permit.”

Denverite reported that over 200 people gathered at the Denver International Airport on Friday to protest President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven majority-Muslim countries. In video posted to YouTube, Police Commander Tony Lopez can be seen advising demonstrators that they are in violation of the law.

“Stop doing anything that could be construed as free speech without a permit” ... Lopez warns in the video, which lacks context, that even carrying a copy of the U.S. Constitution was prohibited in the airport.

“I cannot carry the Constitution without a permit?” one protester asks.

“Correct,” the officer replies.

Protestors are being handed these pieces of paper. Organizers tell crowd to take down signs, and not to sing or police will step in #KDVR pic.twitter.com/5HDM9RpmrV

— Emily Allen FOX31 (@EmilyAReports) January 29, 2017

So we can surmise that the Denver police department was just following the orders of the Denver city council.  Fortunately none of the protestors were arrested.  Yet.

Monday Night Massacre

Rock and roll.

Trump went the full Nixon last night, after acting AG Sally Yates had instructed DOJ employees not to enforce his Muslim ban earlier in the afternoon.  The FNG, also an Obama appointee like Yates, promises to compel the executive order.  And then Trump followed up by replacing the ICE director with an underling without explanation.

This may be a moment of clarity for Senate Democrats, but they are already waffling on whether to support or oppose Trump's to-be-named-later-today SCOTUS pick, now widely rumored as his sister's appeals court bench teammate, Tom Hardiman.

But the real news about the Muslim ban may lie elsewhere.

For all the pyrotechnics at the Justice Department today, this may be the bigger story. There's been confusion over the last three days over whether Republicans on Capitol Hill were briefed, consulted or involved in writing President Trump's now infamous immigration executive order. The White House has said they were. Republicans on the Hill said the first they heard of it was in news reports.

Now we have an explanation.

According to this story in Politico, the White House worked with senior staffers on the House Judiciary Committee to draft the order. But those staffers, who work ultimately for Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), didn't tell their bosses. In other words, they secretly collaborated with White House staff without informing the members of Congress they work for. Indeed, the administration went so far as to have them sign non-disclosure agreements swearing them to secrecy!

This is quite simply unheard of.

To be clear, the executive works with Congress all the time to craft legislation. That's the President working with members of Congress, though much of the actual work is delegated to staff. All normal. It's congressional staff working for the executive without telling the members of Congress they work for which is the big deal.

More from Josh Marshall there on What It All Means.  But for sure, this is what shaking up Washington looks like, and House Republicans suddenly need to assess how they are going to react to getting the end-around from President Cheeto Hitler.  I'll bet they won't just lie there and take it the way Democrats do.

If Trump is going to be reined in, it's going to be Team Pachyderm that does the dirty work.  If he keeps piling up constitutional crises this fast ... well, impeachment in six months at least sounds a little more plausible.  And at this pace, who can predict what happens today, tomorrow, the rest of this week, and next?  We're all going to have to do more than pop and eat corn, that much is certain.

Update: Not getting the word about the ban beforehand includes James Mattis, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, and GOP Sen. Bob Corker.  (Who knows, one of these men could possibly be a terrorist sympathizer.)

At least three top national security officials — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department — have told associates they were not aware of details of the directive until around the time Trump signed it. Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials.

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said that despite White House assurances that congressional leaders were consulted, he learned about the order in the media.

[...]

Mattis, who stood next to Trump during Friday’s signing ceremony, is said to be particularly incensed. A senior U.S. official said Mattis, along with Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, was aware of the general concept of Trump’s order but not the details. Tillerson has told the president’s political advisers that he was baffled over not being consulted on the substance of the order.

Hoo boy.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance has a lot of blogging to do if it's going to make any Super Bowl parties this weekend.  Here's the roundup of the best of the lefty blog posts from last week.

Off the Kuff did an interview with Jessica Shortall of Texas Competes, one of the many groups that is fighting against Dan Patrick's anti-LGBT bathroom bill.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos reports that, true to Trumpian fashion, Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz avoid their constituents, going as far as to eject peaceful visitors from offices, locking them out, and calling the police.

SocraticGadfly takes a look at recent discussion about implicit bias, especially implicit racial bias, and believes it is indeed a valid concept, but at the same time has issues with testing for it.

Frustration at the weakness of Democrats -- in particular, Senate Democrats confirming Trump's cabinet appointees -- is spreading and growing stronger, writes PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Neil at All People Have Value sent a letter to each of his Houston and Harris County elected Democrats -- from the school board on up -- asking them what role they will take in opposing Donald Trump.  Neil will be posting the replies at his blog as they are received. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

After a couple of months off, John Coby at Bay Area Houston gets back in the saddle with a couple of postings, one about the HCDP chair race and one about Trump.

Ted at jobsanger takes note of Trump's approval rating having gone underwater already.

The Lewisville Texan Journal would like to point out that a woman's place is in the House and the Senate.

Dos Centavos was at the rally asking Houston officials to overturn the 287(g) immigration policy. 

And Texas Leftist celebrates the return of a Houston radio station dedicated to classical music.

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

More news from across Texas!

Texas Monthly's Daily Post visits the two busiest airports in the state to look at how the immigration ban is going.

Additional 'peaceful protectors' are requested at tomorrow's Muslim Lobby Day at the Capitol, posts the Rag Blog.

UT and NFL football star Ricky Williams was harassed by police in Tyler, and the mayor there responded by offering his guest room the next time Williams visits, though Grits for Breakfast figures that offer would not be extended to other racially profiled black men.

Somervell County Salon begins her most recent Ruminations of the Easily Amused by noting US Judge Sam Sparks striking down the fetal burial law.

The Midland Reporter-Telegram had the story about the mosque in Victoria, a previous target of hate crimes, which burned to the ground over the weekend.

The Texas Observer covered two protests, one in south Austin at the Texas Parks and Wildlife headquarters, against commission member Kelcy Warren (the owner of Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline company) and in San Marcos, where students of Texas State have been repeatedly intimidated by the long history of racial prejudice in that town.

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, former state representative Kent Grusendorf has moved on from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin's most influential conservative thinktank.

The Texas Tribune covered the DNC chair candidates' appearance at the Future Forum, held at Texas Southern University on Saturday.

DBC Green Blog went to hear Code Pink activists Ann Wright and Medea Benjamin as they swung through Texas.

Rice University's Urban Edge blog has the story on the Texas Historical Commission's designation of the Astrodome as a state landmark, providing the defense against those who would rather tear it down than preserve it.

And CultureMap Houston collected some of the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations from this past weekend.

In the aftermath of Trump's Muslim ban

Kevin Drum has missed more often than he's made over the past year or so, but he strikes this one dead solid perfect.  Opening with an excerpt:

Harold Pollack on President Trump's immigration fiasco:

The President’s team had months to prepare this signature immigration initiative. And they produced...an amateurish, politically self-immolating effort that humiliated the country, provoked international retaliation, and failed to withstand the obvious federal court challenge on its very first day.

Given the despicable nature of this effort, I’m happy it has become a political fiasco. It also makes me wonder how the Trump administration will execute the basic functions of government. This astonishing failure reflects our new President’s contempt for the basic craft of government.

This sure seems to be the case. For the barely believable story of just how incompetent the whole exercise was, check out this CNN story. It will leave your jaw on the floor. And yet, there's also one tidbit that makes me wonder if the chaos attending the rollout was quite as unintended as we think:

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

The decision to apply the executive order to green card holders, including those in transit, is almost insane. Whatever else he is, Steve Bannon is a smart guy, and he had to know that this would produce turmoil at airports around the country and widespread condemnation from the press.

Why would he do this?

I'll answer that (first, with respect to Trump): In addition to being a racist, a misogynist, and a sexual fetishist, our new president has now revealed himself to be a sadist.  Update: This is not hyperbole, not exaggeration.  Sadist.

"It’s working out very nicely,” (Trump) said on Saturday afternoon as he signed his latest batch of executive actions. “You see it in the airports.”

Bannon, for his part, is both Neo-Nazi and nihilist.

Not today. #JFKTerminal4 #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/uON20Jod3V

— NYCLU (@NYCLU) January 28, 2017

In cases like this, the smart money is usually on incompetence, not malice. But this looks more like deliberate malice to me. Bannon wanted turmoil and condemnation. He wanted this executive order to get as much publicity as possible. He wanted the ACLU involved. He thinks this will be a PR win.

Liberals think the same thing. All the protests, the court judgments, the press coverage: this is something that will make middle America understand just what Trump is really all about. And once they figure it out, they'll turn on him.

In other words, both sides think that maximum exposure is good for them. Liberals think middle America will be appalled at Trump's callousness. Bannon thinks middle America will be appalled that lefties and the elite media are taking the side of terrorists. After a week of skirmishes, this is finally a hill that both sides are willing to die for. Who's going to win?

This is indeed chaos theory as applied to governance.  While the media's attention was focused on the protests, Bannon was appointed to the National Security Council (along with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and chief of staff Reince Priebus), replacing the Director of National Intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

That is some kind of hubris.  I'd say we're now headed pell-mell toward both a civil war and a nuclear war -- remember, the North Koreans have been bragging about their new missile and restarting their reactor -- and the reaction from the Chinese seems to be "let's get it started".

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!  There may not be many more in our future!

Sunday Alternative Funnies

People growing angrier at Democrats

An update at the end of this post on Trump's SCOTUS nominee, which is reportedly coming early next week, expanded on the frustration in some quarters with how Democrats -- mostly of the upper chamber variety -- have responded to the Trump agenda.   I wrote there I could have made that its own post; now it is.  A summary of reading since then:

-- Nathan Hevenstone, for one, is hyper-ventilating about Elizabeth Warren's tortured defense via Twitter of her vote to confirm Ben Carson as chief of HUD.

-- Angry Bear, for another, in regard to an old e-mail crime/coverup in the W administration that went unprosecuted by Obama's.

-- And Osita Nwanevu at Slate doubles down on irritation at the senators:

As anyone who has been awake for the past eight years should be well aware, the notion that the Republican Party will reward Democrats in the future for their deference now is utterly laughable.

So just what the hell is going on in the Senate?

Her answer: "The broader truth is this: the Democrats, unlike the Republican Party, haven’t a clue how to build and wield power."  And then publishes the names of all the Democrats who have voted 'aye' on Trump's nominees so far.  It is a remarkably disgraceful list, in particular those senators who occupy safe blue seats.  The most appalling of all is Bernie Sanders voting to confirm John Kelly as director of Homeland Security ...

... even though (Kelly) has pledged to go after sanctuary cities and declined to give a clear answer as to how he would deal with DREAMers(.)

Sanders' statement on his votes:

“We must vigorously defend DACA and the young people in that program. We must continue the fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path toward citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. General (James) Mattis (who is now Secretary of Defense) and General Kelly may not be the nominees I would have preferred for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, but in a Trump cabinet likely to be loaded up with right-wing extremists, all of whom I will oppose, I hope General Mattis and General Kelly will have a moderating influence on some of the racist and xenophobic views that President Trump advocated throughout the campaign. ..."

So.  Hope for a moderating influence overcomes the hypocrisy of his votes contradicting his 'vigorous' beliefs.  Wish I could be as hopeful.  Of greater encouragement, though, is the remarkable legal interpretation that Trump's anti-Muslim immigration policy -- poorly disguised as an anti-refugee executive order -- crashes on the rocky shoals of Justice Samuel Alito's vaguely worded anti-abortion decrees, also known as SCOTUS majority opinions.  So there's that.

And according to Al Franken, we should take solace that all Senate Democrats will oppose Betsy DeVos for education secretary, even Joe Lieberman Manchin.  I'll believe it when I see it.

For readers attending or watching the livestream of today's DNC Future Forum, keep all of this in mind as you hear the candidates discuss their views, policies, and plans of action.

Update: What Bill Maher said.

DNC candidates come to H-Town

They probably won't have time for any Super Bowl parties.  As a follow-up to Tuesday's post that had some thoughts on this election, I'm kinda surprised there's not more local news or even blogging about this gathering.

There will be 11 people at a DNC forum in Houston Saturday, including a new batch of lesser-known candidates.

Here's more about the event, from an e-mail by soon-to-be-former HCDP chairman, Lane Lewis.

The DNC Future Forum will be a full-day affair, with a break for lunch. The morning portion will feature opening remarks by DNC Chair Donna Brazile, Reverend Dr. William Barber, II of North Carolina, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa. There will be a polling presentation by Maria Teresa Kumar representing Voto Latino. The candidate forums, moderated by Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune, will take place during the afternoon portion of the day.

The forum will be open to the press and the public and will be livestreamed as well. Click here to access the livestream link. 

Now that the Boston Globe's lede has been exhumed, note that the reporter, James Pindell, is forecasting gloom, and maybe doom, for Dems.

Following GOP victories in the 2016 elections, Democrats have descended to their lowest levels of power in Washington, D.C., and capitals across the country since the Hoover administration. And with the Clintons and Obamas exiting the stage, there is no natural leader to take the party forward.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the race for Democratic National Committee chairman — one of the party’s most powerful open posts in D.C. — is unlikely to give much clarity to their conundrum. The DNC chairman’s race features no clear front-runner and, so far, little debate about the soul and direction of the party.

For the first time in a dozen years, there is an open race to run the party [...]

The DNC chairman’s election will be held in late February in Atlanta, and it’s really anyone’s guess who will win. Party members anticipate several rounds of ballots, during which deals will be made between the candidates until someone wins a majority.

Keith Ellison and Tom Perez, re-litigating the 2016 primary with the same hissing animosity from the Hillbots toward the Sandernistas, yaddayaddayadda.

(W)ith the Clinton/Sanders divide in the race, no candidate has been able to lock up enough votes to win. Both Ellison and Perez have endorsements from unions, governors, mayors, and senators ...

But (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) and other high-profile endorsers are not among the DNC’s 447 voting members — nearly half of whom are state Democratic chairs and vice chairs. The rest are mostly longtime party activists from nearly every state. Not even Bill or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama gets a vote.

“Endorsements don’t mean anything unless they are from voting members,” said Elaine Kamarck, an at-large DNC voting member who is backing Perez. “I don’t think anyone has a really good read on this race right now.”

According to internal counts from three of the campaigns, roughly 150 members have committed to a candidate — and the rest of the votes are up for grabs. 

My state senator Borris Miles is hosting a reception this evening for Ellison at his cigar bar, Our Legends.  (You might need your invite for this; while it opens occasionally for political events, it is private membership only.)  Claude Cummings of the CWA has endorsed Ellison as well.  Update: Bobby Cervantes at the Chron sees Miles' predecessor and now Harris commissioner, Rodney Ellis, former Bayou City Mayor Annise Parker, and a handful of others falling in behind Perez.  This is a good litmus test for real (Dem) progs versus alt-progs.

Once more, you can sign up to attend this forum at the Granville M. Sawyer Auditorium on the campus of Texas Southern University tomorrow -- note as indicated at the top, it lasts all day but the candidates won't be appearing until after lunch -- at this link.  No charge but you must RSVP, and seating is first come, first served.  It'll probably be a full house.

In addition to Ellison and Perez, the field includes Sally Boynton Brown, the executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party; Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind.; Jehmu Greene, a Fox News analyst; Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party; and Jaime Harrison, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

That field is nothing if not diverse. Among the candidates are an African-American man, an African-American woman, an African-American who is Muslim, a white woman, a Hispanic man, and two gay white men.

[...]

“It is important that we don’t try to control the chaos,” Brown said.

Let's hear for it chaos, everybody!

Who do you think El Patron de la Partido Democratico de Tejas is supporting?  Probably has nothing to do with la raza.  I've given ol' Gil a bad time for a long time, and he has honestly earned every bit of it (to say nothing of the ill repute he's dishonestly earned).

As a former Democrat, I have no horse in this race.  But my space is reserved and I'll be live-Tweeting the proceedings.

Trump's Supreme Court nominee

In an alternative universe where Democrats have a spine or at least a Senate majority, they might be able to do what the Republicans did in 2016 and block a nominee, especially since they can't stop any of Trump's appalling cabinet of conservative extremists.  Very, very low odds of that happening in actual reality, so let's take a look at who might get tapped next week.  President Twitler apparently has his selection narrowed down to three white male federal appeals court justices, all of them W. Bush appointees and all millionaires.

L to R: William Pryor, Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman

Those reportedly on Trump’s short list to fill a vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia are all federal appellate judges: Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman, based in Pittsburgh, and 11th U.S. Circuit Court Judge William Pryor, who works in Birmingham, Alabama.

Financial profiles of each appear there.  The favorite seems to be Gorsuch.  Edith Roberts at SCOTUSblog adds some linkage.

At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “the president is a week away from nominating someone who would become a core member of the court’s conservative wing,” and that each of “four appellate judges in contention for the slot, including front-runners Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, would fit neatly into the ideological mold of the man they would succeed, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.” In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that Gorsuch is “no fan of class actions,” having “criticized what he viewed as baseless litigation by shareholder classes,” and that he is “not big on agency deference either.” At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re discusses recent remarks by Gorsuch in which the judge stressed the importance of the federal judicial oath, asserting that whoever “the nominee turns out to be, I hope that the resulting confirmation hearings spend some time exploring what it means to do ‘equal right to the poor and to the rich.’”

The son of Reagan's EPA director Anne Gorsuch Burford receives the early and favorable media vetting.  This excerpt from Ariane de Vogue of CNN digs deeper into his judicial philosophy.

Gorsuch, 49, has been on the radar of some judicial conservatives for some time. He has long been a favorite of legal thinkers at the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Conservatives welcome his opinions on religious liberty. For instance, he has sided with closely held corporations who argued that the so called contraceptive mandate violated their religious beliefs. In another opinion, he challenged the notion that courts should defer to administrative agencies when they interpret the law. It may seem like a dry legal issue but it is central to many conservatives, including Justice Clarence Thomas.

"Judge Gorsuch has been a stern critic of a fixture of the Supreme Court's administrative law jurisprudence -- the idea that, where a federal agency is enforcing an ambiguous statute, courts should defer to how the agency understands the statute even if the courts read it differently," said Stephen I. Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court contributor and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.

"If he were to form part of a majority to scale back that principle, it would be a major sea change in the relationship between the executive branch and the courts, and one that would likely impose significant new constraints on the scope of federal regulatory authority on all topics -- from immigration and criminal law enforcement to environmental protection, consumer product safety, and drug regulation," Vladeck said.

"His position on this is more extreme than Justice Scalia," said Dan Goldberg of the progressive Alliance for Justice. "It would be hard to overstate the damage it would cause this nation and the American people."

Pryor is super-freak right; his hearings for the post he currently holds were contentious.

Pryor, 54, was subject to a years-long fight when Bush appointed him to the 11th Circuit, not least because of statements that Roe v. Wade is "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law," and that it has "led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children." He also purposely rescheduled a family trip to Disney World to avoid attending during "Gay Day", and as attorney general of Alabama wrote an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold laws banning gay sex.

Despite that extensive social conservative pedigree, some conservatives are reportedly pushing against Pryor as a pick because of a pro–transgender rights ruling he made in 2011.

With all of the left and some of the right disapproving of Pryor, Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence may be whispering to Trump that a Senate fight over this guy is one they could easily lose.  There are fuller profiles of all three at this Vox link, and more like that from Politico.  Minority Leader Schumer has promised a hard line on any nominee, but he was with the Senate delegation that met with Trump on Tuesday to discuss his choice, a group which included Charles Grassley and Diane Feinstein, the ranking members of the Judiciary committee.

I'd say the options for Democrats are limited to stalling a confirmation as long as possible.

Updates:  The odds may have moved.

Trump is now focused on another judge with a working-class background: Thomas Hardiman. As a former attorney, Hardiman has been less vocal about his personal views.

“Our role as judges is to interpret the law,” Hardiman said.

Still on the now very short list for the current vacancy is federal appeals judge Neil Gorsuch. But with Justice Anthony Kennedy likely to retire soon, Gorsuch could become a leading favorite for Mr. Trump’s second nomination.

And Trump favors employing the nuclear option to get his pick confirmed, if that's what it takes.

(Trump) would favor Senate Republicans changing voting rules to allow a simple majority of the Senate to approve his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court if Democrats block his choice, he said in an interview airing on Thursday.

“I would. We have obstructionists,” Trump told Fox News, referring to possible use of the so-called nuclear option that would overturn Senate rules requiring 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle, or filibuster, for Supreme Court nominees.

There are currently 52 Republican senators in the 100-seat chamber.

[...]

Assuming all 52 Senate Republicans back Trump's nominee, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would either need to lure eight Democrats to his side or change the rules and ban the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.

Last, in what could have been a blog post all its own, Ryan Cooper at The Week excoriates Senate Democrats for their timidity to this point in opposing Trump's cabinet picks.

Senate Democrats are ... the first target of liberal outrage, since they have to vote on Trump's cabinet nominees. They don't control the chamber, so it mostly doesn't matter in substantive terms how they vote — but it's still a powerful symbolic act. (Though they could have come close to picking off the wretched Mike Pompeo as CIA director, since Rand Paul voted against him.)

But not a single Democratic senator has voted against every nominee, as Paul Blest points out. Only Kirsten Gillibrand and Tom Udall have come close, voting against five of six. Six other caucus members have voted against four of six: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, and Elizabeth Warren. On the other hand, fully 14 Democrats had voted for all six of Trump's nominees — and some of those in safe blue states, like Dianne Feinstein (California), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island), and Chuck Schumer (New York) — who is also the Minority Leader.

[...]

Republicans mounted total procedural obstruction to Democrats and President Obama, and it only worsened as his presidency passed. The goal, as then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in 2010, was to "deny President Obama a second term." They filibustered nearly every bill, even ones that would go through 100-0, simply to gum up the calendar and eat up precious floor time. They filibustered nearly every judicial nominee (until Senate Democrats scaled back the filibuster), to keep liberals out of the courts — and last year, when Antonin Scalia died, Senate Republicans refused to even consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee for an entire year, in hopes that Trump would be able to fill the seat. That has literally never happened before.

This has been a nihilistic, will-to-power struggle for years now, and obviously so. Republicans now control the whole government due to happenstance and the idiotic Electoral College, but they're not moderating their policies to the slightest degree out of some sense of decorum. Instead, they're going to ram through their agenda as fast as possible, and try their utmost to disenfranchise enough liberals and rig the election procedures such that America becomes a permanent one-party state.

Harsher than most anything I've written.

It only takes one party to start a fight, and when you're already in one compromise is a guaranteed way to lose. Ordinary Democrats are finally seeing this truth, as shown by the gigantic marches all over the country during inauguration weekend, and later ones in Philadelphia and New York against Trump's anti-Muslim policies. Not even a week into his presidency and Trump is already facing massive unrest.

Elected Democrats are going to need to ditch their usual cringing, timid, compromising ways if they want to have a chance at a political career in the future. Even fairly milquetoast liberals are crying out for some sort of firebrand to lead a ferocious, determined resistance. If, say, Tom Udall or Kirsten Gillibrand can realize this, their national profile will quickly grow.

But those who vote for Jeff Sessions to become attorney general might face a primary challenge instead.

So let it be done.

Our alt-facts president

Enabled by his alt-facts press secretary.  Bold mine.

Sean Spicer has shed new light on the concept of "alternative facts," a widely-panned concept introduced by his colleague Kellyanne Conway to defend his seemingly inaccurate inauguration attendee numbers.

According to the White House press secretary, his usage of "alternative facts" is much ado about nothing: In fact, he says, its similar to a meteorologist who incorrectly predicts the weather.

"The press was trying to make it seem like we were ignoring the facts," Spicer told Fox News' Sean Hannity during an interview that aired Tuesday night. "The facts are, sometimes when you look at a situation, in the same way that you can look at a weather report. One weather report comes out and says it's going to be cloudy and another says it’s going to be light rain. No one lied to you, it just means you interpreted the data in a way that you felt got you to a conclusion."

Spicer claimed, "We weren’t by any means trying to mislead anyone. We asked for a set of facts, we thought that the group [which provided subway ridership figures] and the facts that we were given at that time were accurate. Like anything else, it's not alternative facts. There’s sometimes you can watch two different stations and get two different weather reports. That doesn’t mean that the station was lying to you. And the press made it look like we were ignoring the facts. " 

Weather reports aren't facts; they're forecasts.  Predictions.  Sort of like polls.  The weather, like the size of a crowd, is a fact afterwards and not before.  Spicer could have said "Trump's inauguration will be the biggest of all time" the day before the event, and some people would have nodded in agreement while others laughed him off as a braggart.  You can't run around telling people it rained yesterday when it didn't without looking like a moron or an asshole.

The trouble with analogies like this is that we'll have to deal with people who say "It rained at my house" next.  But alt-facts are the world we live in now, so make the necessary adjustments.

In our fresh new environment, ill Eagles cost Trump the popular vote.  And we can't have governmental agencies talking about climate change, or releasing data about unemployment or jobs when they contradict the president's strongly-held belief.  This is truthiness taken to its most petulant extreme.  But Democrats in the Senate already understand they're going to have to pick their battles, and if a nominee is just dense and unqualified, that's not as bad as dangerous and malignant.  Lesser of two evils, you see.

If making America Great Again means more jobs for robots that are themselves manufactured in China, then so be it.  It's up to us to figure out an alternatively factual way to understand it.

Here's one: Robots can't build border walls, so there's going to be some number of jobs -- millions! Yuuuge! -- for Americans that Mexicans won't do (or take away from them, or be shipped overseas).  See how easy this is?

Democrats winning and losing

-- First, a few more photos from the weekend, at the Capitol ...

... and here in H-Town:

And more pics at the Observer.

The rallies are powerful and enduring emotionally, but simply do not translate into electoral strength. Big turnouts for protests can be misleading, as Nate Silver reminds, and as Charles has noted, Wendy Davis and her filibuster produced a similarly large crowd of upset people over women's reproductive freedoms, and then Greg Abbott defeated her a year later with more white (but not black or brown) female votes than Davis was able to earn.  So it's fair to ask: where do the Dems go from here?  Bernie Sanders answered this question a few days after Hillary Clinton's upset defeat, but none of the 447 people who will be voting in this election seem to have heard it.

We can hope they don't go back to where they started two years ago, but in a glaring sign of chronic insanity, not a single DNC candidate running to replace DWS/Donna Brazile was willing to admit that the 2016 primary was rigged for Clinton.  Keith Ellison is as close to acceptable as it gets for actual progressives (not the alt-progs that comprise most of the party), and a lot of them are already stepping away from him because.... well, I suppose he just can't help himself.

In trying to woo the DNC delegates he needs to win the election, Ellison has reduced his criticism of Hillary Clinton and increased his smears of the Republican Party. He has endorsed a billionaire donor, Stephen Bittel, to become the Florida Democratic Party chair, and has announced that he will not be attending Trump’s Inauguration, which many commended. But what he failed to mention is that he will be meeting with billionaire donors instead at Clinton propagandist David Brock’s closed-door retreat. Though Ellison initially said he supported re-enacting a ban on lobbyists that former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz lifted in 2015 to help Hillary Clinton, he recently said he won’t unilaterally re-enact the ban but will put it to a vote for DNC members to decide. Many of the DNC members happen to be lobbyists.

Incidentally, only one candidate marched this past weekend.  All the rest huddled with David Brock instead.  I shouldn't have to point this out, but Republicans and Democrats are reduced to fighting over the crumbs from a couple of hundred American billionaire oligarchs, some of which hedge their losses by giving to both parties.  Another 'water is wet'-ism for the Blues: Trump did not get elected because he raised or spent the most money.

-- Kuff has kept tabs on the local D scene with updates to the Harris county chair contest, and the announcement of a bid for Congress by my neighbor, Deb Kerner.

Of the ten folks formally announced (so to speak) for the race, Art Pronin, Dominique Davis, and Lillie Schechter should be the front-runners.  This will again be a blacks vs. gays battle (an old storyline, and note that Keryl Douglas has come back for more of it) for control of the county party, so since Pronin still hasn't decided to run for certain, I would handicap it Davis and Schechter, not necessarily in that order, as early favorites.  DBC has a report on Johnathan Miller's appearance at the Houston Area Progressives meeting this week; he nails it from my perspective.

There are only a few hundred people voting in this election, too.

Kerner (her school trustee page has been updated) is popular with us southwest-siders, and unlike any of the recent challengers to John Culberson, has won an election before.  Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton narrowly carried CD7 over Trump in 2016, while Culberson pasted James Cargas by twelve points, his third consecutive defeat to the incumbent Congress critter.  Anybody that spares us from watching Cargas lose a fourth time is a good thing.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance won't be passing off any alternative facts in this week's roundup from the best blog posts and news stories of last week.

Off the Kuff stays on the bathroom beat.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos attended the women’'s march in Houston yesterday.  Meanwhile, in that spirit, she recalls the old Republican healthcare plan.  Remember the GOP healthcare plan? “Don’t get sick”.

Socratic Gadfly looks at the most recent Back the Blue support tool, and decries its flag desecration hypocrisy.

Neil at All People Have Value visited the segment of the Berlin Wall at Rice University that was defaced by graffiti supporting Donald Trump. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The Irish bookmaker Paddy Power laid odds on Trump's shade of orange at the inauguration, but PDiddie at Brains and Eggs took some of their easier money.

Before leaving on a fishing trip, CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme sees a lot of harrassment and some tough times ahead for people who live on the border.

The Lewisville Texan Journal reports that over one hundred people are suing an emergency care facility there.

Dos Centavos notices that there are no vendidos in Trump's cabinet.

Easter Lemming Liberal News, now on Facebook and Twitter, reports Pat Van Houte is running for mayor of Pasadena, Texas.  She opposed the redistricting that was just ruled illegal.

And jobsanger dissects Trump's promise of 25 million new jobs (hint: it won't happen no matter how much 'alternative math' gets employed).

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

More Texas news!

Robin Paoli and Aimee Mobley Turney explain why they marched on Saturday.

Harris County may have more Latinos voting than previously counted, relays the Urban Edge.

David Collins at DBC Green Blog observes that the Harris County Democratic Party needs more precinct chairpersons (and more progressives, a different problem).

Allen Young traveled from rural Massachusetts to Austin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of The Rag, the iconoclastic underground newspaper that carries on today as The Rag Blog.

A Texas House Republican from Fredericksburg, Kyle Biedermann, sent out a highly questionable survey about Sharia law just prior to convening a 'Homeland Security Summit' in Austin this week.  The Houston Press quotes the head of Houston's Council on American-Islamic Relations as suggesting it's a fishing expedition.

 Protestors at Texas Muslim lobby day, two years ago.

G. W. Schulz at the Texas Observer shares the lessons he has learned from hustling in the new gig economy.

Luis Hestres wonders what Trump's election will mean for digital freedom of speech.

Equality Texas is tracking the pro- and anti-LGBT bills in the Legislature.

The Texas Election Law Blog analyzes the Pasadena redistricting decision.

The Lunch Tray says goodbye to Michelle Obama.

The Bloggess did what she could to help you get through last week.

And conservative Democratic political consultant Colin Strother advises us to hold on tight.

Sunday Funnies

Hell Toupee, But We Shall Overcomb

But...