Ted Cruz puts out a hit on Mitch McConnell

Our junior senator is going to remake things in his own image, and nobody -- but nobody -- is going to stand in his way.

The tea party is teeing off on Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Matt Bevin, who is challenging McConnell in the GOP primary in Kentucky, seized on the senator's vote Wednesday to move ahead on legislation to increase the nation's debt limit, describing it as a blank check for President Barack Obama. The tea party-backed businessman and conservative groups signaled they won't let Senate Republican incumbents forget the vote this election year.

"Kentucky and America can literally no longer afford such financially reckless behavior from the likes of Mitch McConnell," Bevin said in a statement.

Minority Mitch may not survive his primary, let alone November. 

Setting the vote in motion was one of McConnell's Republican colleagues — Texan Ted Cruz, the tea party darling who has caused heartburn for his GOP colleagues in his year in the Senate.

Cruz insisted on a 60-vote threshold for the Senate to proceed to must-pass legislation to allow the government to borrow money to pay its bills. House and Senate Republicans had decided against another round of brinkmanship and let it be known that they were ready to let Democrats deliver the votes on the debt bill after the House had passed it Tuesday.

Not Cruz, who along with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, precipitated the 16-day government shutdown last October over their demands that Obama gut his health care law.

This is Brutus and Cassius at work against Caesar.

Instead of going along with a simple majority vote, Cruz showed no mercy in forcing Republican leaders to cast a tough vote to clear a filibuster hurdle, exposing them to widespread criticism from primary challengers and outside groups.

After what seemed like an eternity, a grim-faced McConnell finally voted yes. An equally grim-faced Sen. John Cornyn, the party's No. 2 leader and Cruz's Texas colleague, changed his vote from no to yes. Sen. John McCain rallied other Republicans to vote yes, providing a show of political support for the leaders. The 67-31 tally advanced the bill to a final vote.

In that vote, no Republican supported lifting the Treasury's borrowing authority. The bill passed on a party-line 55-43 vote, moving on to Obama.

Cornyn, the Senate's likely minority leader after McConnell is disposed of, has to see the writing on the wall.  With a safe primary to skate through and an ever safer fall election, Corndog's biggest problem next year will be "Norovirus" Cruz.

Pressed after the votes about what he made his leaders do, Cruz was unapologetic.

"It should have been a very easy vote," he told reporters. "In my view, every Senate Republican should have stood together." Whether McConnell remains the leader, Cruz said it "is ultimately a decision ... for the voters in Kentucky."

Either the rest of the Senate's Republicans are going to find a way to take him down, or else Poop Cruz is sailing all the way to the top.  Of the dung heap.

He's making far too many enemies to go any higher than that.

Update:  You are what you eat, GOP.

I can't figure out what she's saying, either

Did she fall into a trap?

This week, Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis delighted her detractors and confounded her pro-choice supporters when she appeared to support the very same 20-week ban she spent 11 hours filibustering.

Davis’ remarks to the Dallas Morning News that she would have voted for a ban with a broader health exception than the one in force – i.e., not an actual reversal, though it wasn’t terribly clear – were promptly represented as “flip flopping.” More accurately, they represent Davis falling into a trap set for her by abortion opponents, a place of awkward hairsplitting on unpopular later abortions.

 Is she reinforcing what she has previously stated?

Davis' statement comes as a shock, but perhaps that's because we weren't paying close enough attention. Though Davis' opponents prefer to characterize her filibuster as nothing more than a defense of later-term abortions, in truth the bill she stood against was mostly written to shut down access to safe first-trimester abortions. And her remarks this week are largely consistent with what she said during the filibuster, when she argued that the medical exceptions in the bill for later-term abortions were too narrow, replacing a doctor's judgment with that of nonexperts like judges.

Is she splitting hairs?

Abortion is a complicated issue, and one about which most Texans have complicated feelings. There has never been any real reason to think that Davis is enthusiastic about abortions, despite the fact that she was against a law that would restrict access to the procedure. The fact that she is so often accused of being a "cheerleader" for the procedure, in fact, proves nothing so much as the sanctimony, dishonesty, and occasional misogyny of her critics. [...] Think of Davis as a regular pro-choice person, rather than the abortion advocate her critics have tried to paint her as. From that perspective, the comments offered yesterday are an elaboration of her previously expressed opinions, rather than an attempt to distance herself from them. 

Is what she is saying making sense?

What Davis is saying about the nature of later abortions — the fact that they’re very rare, are typically necessary when serious health issues arise, and require consultation between women and their doctors — is all true. Those realities just aren’t compatible with a ban on the procedure.

From a policy position, Davis’ stance simply doesn’t make sense. If the goal is to “give enough deference” to women who are making complicated decisions about their reproductive health, and allow medical professionals to exercise their own judgment about their patients’ care without being hampered by the legislature, that’s directly undermined by the enactment of a ban. For proof, look no further than any abortion provider who practices in a state with abortion restrictions on the books. Every attempt to separate abortion from the rest of medical care, and use political language to describe the circumstances under which it may be performed, changes the way that doctors would have otherwise chosen to conduct their work. Even attempting to include exceptions for some women doesn’t actually work in practice.

All these translations are as all over the map as the candidate's own statements.  Every time she tries to clarify something, it gets muddier.

This is a campaign in complete disarray, and we've reached the point where that can no longer be blamed on the handlers and consultants.

Alameel, Fjetland, Scherr appear together in Houston next Monday

(Ed. note: Early Voting Ballot Board service to commence in short order, so posts will be lacking some of the usual strident advocacy.  Hopefully not boring.)

Three of the four Democratic candidates for the the US Senate will be in Houston next Monday, February 17, as the Meyerland Democratic Club hosts them for a question-and-answer forum. 

For some reason I'm thinking the fourth candidate is likely to make an uninvited appearance, as she did a few weeks ago in College Station.  I hope club president Art Pronin has a contingency plan in place for that.

As is typically the case, there will be dozens of Harris County Democratic hopefuls working the room, so this is a great opportunity to meet and greet several of the folks -- Congressionals, judicials, countywide offices, Austin representatives -- that will appear on the primary ballot.

-- Agriculture Commission candidate Hugh Fitzsimons is also in town tomorrow night at Hughes Hangar for a fundraiser.  The Chron has endorsed him, and he recently got favorably Politifact-checked with regard to the matriarchal society that is a bison herd.  Seriously.

-- MSNBC's Krystal Ball (a person, not a thing) has implored Hillary Clinton not to run for president.  Egberto Willies with more on that.

Nothing here has really changed in the past year.  If she runs, she wins.  If she picks a Texas Latino to run with, Texas turns blue in 2016 and never goes red again for a long, long time.

-- Ted Cruz is helping Democrats in Texas every time he opens his mouth.

On a conference call with reporters today, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hinted that he may filibuster the House passed debt ceiling suspension in the Senate....

Cruz broke out the same rhetoric that he used before the government shutdown, and hinted at blocking the debt limit bill, “If you get outside Washington, D.C., this issue is practically a no-brainer. President Obama is asking Congress for a blank check. …Under no circumstances will I consent to the debt ceiling being raised with only a 50-vote threshold. I think Senate Republicans should stand united and insist upon a 60-vote threshold. And that is my intention.”

The 'stand united' language was the same point that he made before the government shutdown. 

He also launched the torpedo that sank immigration reform.  God bless that sorry bastard.  Run, Ted, run! (Warning: Breitbart.)

-- One funny thing and one serious thing to finish: Jon Stewart tore both Republicans and Democrats a new one last night on the failure of CIR (comprehensive immigration reform), and Robert Reich helpfully explains why so many people vote against their own economic self-interest: fear.

People are so desperate for jobs they don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want rules and regulations enforced that might cost them their livelihoods. For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.

This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of the South and rural America — so-called “red” states where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion, and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants. 

We see this again with Keystone XL as the unions line up behind it, mumbling "jobs".  There won't be any jobs to speak of, naturally.  After three decades of trickle-down economics, some people just can't wake up and smell the coffee.  The "job creators" aren't going to create any, because increasing demand for employees raises wages, and nobody in charge wants that.  Why do you think Republicans won't raise the minimum wage, for Pete's sake?  Because that would give poor people greater power over the lives.  And the corporatists certainly can't have that.

Update: As if on cue, here's the most recent example of the incrementalism Rall refers to in the lower left panel.

This is the same reason they oppose Obamacare, and try to twist the meaning of its implementation through the media.  Because, in addition to keeping the center of control in the hands of the corporations, these lies help them with the poor, scared rubes on Election Day.

A 30-second ad is the perfect vehicle for a visceral lie. It's a lot easier to scream "job killer" than it is to explain the CBO's carefully hedged nuances. Typically in politics, when you're explaining, you're losing.

And most importantly, the Republican lie is red meat for the ravenous conservative base that delights in hate-feasting on the health law. Those voters are conditioned to believe the worst; passion drives turnout, which means they're likely to dominate midterm balloting in November. They've already swallowed a slew of lies - from "death panels" to "rationed care" - so why would factual reality enlighten them now?

As my friend Neil says often, this stuff is all connected.

No Fags League?

Is that really where Roger Goodell, Jerry Jones, Bob McNair, et. al. want to be standing?

The best defensive player in college football's best conference only a third to fifth round NFL pick? Really? That is shocking, and I guess that other thing is, too.

Michael Sam would be the first openly gay player in the NFL; says he knows there will be problems... and they've already started.

Several NFL officials are telling Sports Illustrated it will hurt him on draft day because a gay player wouldn't be welcome in an NFL locker room. It would be uncomfortable, because that's a man's world.

There's no more prolific whisper network than the college of NFL scouts, coaches, owners, former players, etc.  The Brotherhood of Manly Men.  And the white noise is like a loud ringing in American society's ear right now. 

You beat a woman and drag her down a flight of stairs, pulling her hair out by the roots? You're the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft.

You kill people while driving drunk? That guy's welcome.

Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes? We know they're welcome.

Players accused of rape and pay the woman to go away?  You lie to police trying to cover up a murder? We're comfortable with that.

You love another man? Well, now you've gone too far!

I'll add: you can run a 4.4 forty?  You can shut down your corner?  You got a 'high motor' and you're a 'character guy'?  Congratulations, son.  Welcome to the NFL.  Try to keep your nose clean, but don't worry too much if you can't.  Just don't ever lose that quick first step.

It wasn't that long ago when we were being told that black players couldn't play in "our" games because it would be "uncomfortable." And even when they finally could, it took several more years before a black man played quarterback. Because we weren't "comfortable" with that, either.

So many of the same people who used to make that argument (and the many who still do) are the same people who say government should stay out of our lives. But then want government in our bedrooms.

I've never understood how they feel "comfortable" laying claim to both sides of that argument.

Yeah, those poor Republican conservatives.  Always getting something they don't like "shoved down their throats".  This is going to be some fun to watch, as Michael Sam transforms into Jackie Robinson, and the taboos start crashing to the ground.  Lots of opportunities for satire.

Update: Astros pitcher Jarrod Cosart picked a bad day to Tweet about Justin Bieber.

Update II: Fifteen reasons why Michael Sam matters, and why football is ready for him, even if some in the NFL aren't quite.

In the final minutes of the Cotton Bowl, with Missouri clinging to a three point lead, their opponent, the Oklahoma State Cowboys, were driving deep into Tigers territory. A field goal would have tied it for the Cowboys, a touchdown would probably have won it. On third down, inside the thirty, the Cowboys quarterback dropped back to pass. Sam, in a wondrous combination of power and speed, shot past his blocker on the outside. As the quarterback was flushed from the pocket, Sam sacked him, knocking the ball loose. His teammate scooped it up and returned it for a touchdown. Sam’s play helped seal the victory, and it was obvious to anyone watching just what kind of player he was: a real man’s man.

No matter what happens next, Sam has proven what we already knew: that football, or any sport, isn’t somehow in itself hostile to the breadth of human sexuality. At Outsports, in a great behind-the-scenes explanation of how Sam’s announcement was planned and timed, Cyd Zeigler writes that Sam has no plans to become an activist anytime soon: “His role in the movement toward LGBT equality in sports will be simply playing the sport as an out gay man.” He’s done it before.