Obama rebuked by Senate Democrats on TPP fast-track

It would be cool if all of those petitions we signed had actually tipped the scales on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but the fact is President Obama's criticism of Elizabeth Warren, dismissing her as "a politician like everybody else", turned out to be the most serious political miscalculation the man has made in his six-plus years in office.  And yesterday afternoon, he paid for that mistake.

Senate Democrats dealt President Barack Obama a stinging setback on trade Tuesday, blocking efforts to begin a full-blown debate on a top priority of his second term.

The president's supporters said they will try again, and Obama summoned key Democrats to the White House to discuss possible strategies. One possibility was to drop a contentious issue dealing with countries that manipulate their currency, but it was unclear whether that would resolve the impasse.

What was clear, however, was that Obama suffered a rebuke from his own party, led by some who served with him in the Senate.

Only one Senate Democrat, Tom Carper of Delaware, voted for a GOP-crafted motion to start considering Obama's request for "fast track" trade authority. Fast track would let the president present trade agreements that Congress can ratify or reject, but not amend.

That's the part progressives have a problem with, along with the fact that almost nobody knows what's in it, and even US Senators  are barely allowed to learn the details.  If you want to know what kind of things they're trying to keep a secret... continuing Chinese child labor is one.  Tom Tomorrow, in his cartoon on Monday (before anyone anticipated Tuesday's meltdown) establishes the premise as well as the objectionable items.

Back to yesterday's vote.

Tuesday's vote highlighted the deep divide between Obama and the many congressional Democrats who say such trade deals hurt U.S. jobs. Leading the fight against fast track are labor unions and liberal groups, which are crucial to many Democrats' elections.

[...]

Several Democrats said Obama erred last weekend by pointedly criticizing a leading Democratic foe on trade, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, in an interview with Yahoo News. He suggested Warren was poorly informed and politically motivated.

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another strong opponent on trade, told reporters that Obama "was disrespectful to her by the way he did that," and "made this more personal than he needed to." Brown said he suspects Obama regrets the remarks.

The administration had planned to invite Senate Democrats to the White House on Monday to discuss trade, but it canceled the event, citing conflicts with a Senate vote on another matter.

Shortly before the Senate roll call began, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said some Democrats would vote against Tuesday's procedural motion but ultimately support fast track for the president.

Oops.  Your takeaway here is that the matter is far from over.

Numerous Senate Democrats said they would back fast track only if Republican leaders cleared a path for three other trade measures.

Blahblahblah TL;DR for me from there.  Too wonky, and besides, what we do here is discuss the political implications.  Besides the obvious, Hillary Clinton has been straddling the fence on TPP of late.  But not early on.

Clinton, meanwhile, has provided almost no cover for Obama on the trade issue even though she played a role in the early talks on the TPP and has long claimed the “pivot to Asia” as one of her most important accomplishments as Obama’s first secretary of state.

She's been mum on it for awhile as the schism opened between Obama and progressives on the trade deal.  She's been mute, in fact, on pretty much anything and everything for the past three weeks.  Still not surprising me, Ted, on how progressive she is.

The implosion of the president's signature second-term issue drowned out a very important conversation being had at the White House on poverty in America.  Obama was more candid than his usual in his remarks about that also.  But that topic could be a separate post (which probably won't get written now, what with the Texas Lege wrapping up with a whole host of shitty legislation, the Houston mayor's race and the presidential campaigns warming up, and FSM only knows what else might break).

So as the repercussions of the Senate Democrats' payback continue to ripple outward, there's an emboldening of progressives that could grow into something more meaningful down the line, particularly if the president is forced to beat a full retreat on TPP.  That seems unlikely, but there are many more deals to be cut now in exchange for getting fast-track back on track.

Update: See -- and listen to -- more at Bradblog.  Matt Yglesias at Vox says Obama's got bigger free trade problems than just his disrespecting of Warren.  And Politico employs their typical histrionics in revealing some additional fissures in the Democratic caucus.

Update II: And just like that, the deal is back on again.

New sheriff in town

No, his name isn't Reggie Hammond (or even Allen Fletcher).

Pledging changes in the culture of the jail and greater transparency in the department, Precinct 4 Constable Ron Hickman was chosen Tuesday by Commissioners Court to take over as Harris County Sheriff.

Hickman, a 44-year veteran in law enforcement, replaces Adrian Garcia, who announced his resignation as Sheriff last week to run for mayor of Houston.

"The inmates, they're there to be detained while courts decide their ultimate fate," Hickman said after his swearing in. "I think we can do a little better job on how we treat people. We're going to be looking very strongly at what the culture is like."

He's moving fast on a few things.

Hickman also said that he will immediately launch an audit of the Sheriff's operations to see where changes need to be made.

One immediate change: A $1,000-per-day jail consulting firm hired by Garcia in a no-bid contract criticized as too pricey and for showcasing few results will likely be shown the door.

"I think there's so much controversy associated with that," Hickman said. "It's doubtful I'd want to pick up and continue that level of controversy."

The firm, Griffith Moseley Johnson & Associates, headed by former Jefferson County Sheriff and County Judge Carl Griffith, did not respond for comment Tuesday.

But some are already objecting to Hickman's appointment, and it's not the Republican-replacing-an-elected-Democrat part.

The family of Deputy Constable Frank Claborn, who was killed by a drunk driver while working an extra job in February 2004, said the commissioners should have picked someone else.

"Constable Hickman, on county letterhead, wrote a letter to the parole board asking he [the drunk driver] be released but said he'd keep an eye out on him because he's a good family friend. Served 17 months for killing my father. That's ridiculous in my opinion," Claborn's son Tim said.

Hickman responded saying he worked hard to have Claborn declared "killed in the line of duty” so his family would receive benefits.

"A lot of their stuff is distorted," Hickman said. "They're emotionally charged and I understand that. I don't take anything away from the fact they lost a loved one."

Hours after Hickman was announced as the interim sheriff, KPRC 2 News confirmed that he has already made changes, firing two high-ranking members of the sheriff's office.

Hickman tells KPRC 2 that he plans to run for sheriff in the March 2016 election.

Harris County Commissioners Court will next have to fill the now-vacant constable’s position in Precinct 4.

The vote was unanimous, and the lone Democrat went a little farther to stamp his approval..

Commissioner El Franco Lee said he considers Hickman "a proven commodity" who will respond and work well with Commissioners Court.

So we'll see how the FNG does, but he's already drawn Fletcher as a challenger in a 2016 GOP primary next spring.  And perhaps there's a Democrat waiting out there to give it a shot.

Update: Kuffner hears that maybe outgoing CM Ed Gonzalez will be enticed to run.

The conservaDem effort to co-opt 'progressive'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But hey, I could be wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was there something... sexual?

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original Statesman story here.

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

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

Bresnen then asked who paid him. No answer.

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

“Be a man, man,” Bresnen said.

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

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

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

Update:  Dan Patrick had to be involved somewhere.

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

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

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

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

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is busy designing its own TexMoji -- and it involves tinfoil -- as it brings you this week's roundup of the best lefty blog posts from last week.

Off the Kuff is busy popping popcorn so as to fully enjoy the Jonathan Stickland soap opera.

Letters from Texas guest blogger Russ Tidwell explains what the SCOTUS ruling that invalidated Alabama's Congressional redistricting means for Texas.

Lightseeker at Texas Kaos examines the Texas founders' vision for public education. As a teacher and scholar, Lightseeker laments how far we have strayed from this noble goal. Why Texas Puts the Stupid into Educational Reform.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it's impossible to lower taxes in a way most Texans will actually notice without raising taxes on the wealthy and big business. That is the Texas GOP's tax trap.

There's a message from the last socialist mayor of a major American city to the various Republican and Democratic socialists running (in a so-called non-partisan race) for mayor of Houston. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs wants everybody to understand that we are all socialists of a form or fashion. And that's not a bad thing.

Socratic Gadfly talks about how the New Democratic Party win in Alberta might have lessons for American Democrats, even in Texas.

Texas Leftist attended the first ever Houston Artist Town Hall, a meeting of nearly 200 artists from across the region. As the city council prepares a new cultural plan for the Bayou City, artists came together to make sure they contribute to those plans.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is appalled that Texas Republicans are using our taxpayer dollars to publicly bash gay people.

Neil at All People Have Value monitored Operation Jade Helm 15 operations in Houston. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

Fracking earthquakes are the new normal in North Texas, according to TXSharon at Bluedaze.

Egberto Willies writes about the developing spat between President Obama and Elizabeth Warren over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.

And jobsanger has the numbers disclosing that the United States is a paltry 27th among developed nations in terms of median income.

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

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

Better Texas Blog reads a headline from the future about the short-sighted tax cuts of today.

Texas Vox mourns the passing of the anti-fracking ban bill, and Texas Watch, about HB 3787, notes that proposed legislation severely limits the filing deadlines for home and commercial insurance policies.

Newsdesk puts on its tinfoil hat for a look at Operation Jade Helm 15.

Paradise in Hell is amused by the effort to video-stalk members of the Legislature.

The San Antonio Current reports on Scouting for Equality and their crowdfunded work to get the Boy Scouts of America to repeal its ban on gay parents and adults.

David Ortez complains about Harris County's role in killing the online voter registration bill.

The Texas Observer reports on the San Antonio mayor's race, which saw former state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte and incumbent Ivy Taylor advance to a June runoff, while  Robert Rivard recalls the legacy of William Velasquez and wonders what he'd make of today's voter turnout rates.

Lawflog wants to know if Texas DPS director Steven McCraw has a persecution complex.

Prairie Weather took note of the plethora of  "Carson '16" bumper stickers that are suddenly popping up on Texas pickups and cars.

Trail Blazers caught up with freshman state Sen. Don Huffines, busily jabbing back at Dallas-area mayors who dared questions his efforts to erode local control.

Not of It compares and contrasts Houston mayoral candidates and their campaign website photography of the Bayou City.

And Bayou City History's 'This Forgotten Day' features the re-opening of the oldest pharmacy in Texas, Star Drug Store in Galveston.

Sunday Funnies, Loon Star State edition

Please note that the conservative weirdos are not limited to Texas. And click it to big it (not bigot).

Free speech or hate speech?

I'm still kinda sorting all this out, so I'll ask you the questions I'm asking myself.

Maybe you haven't been following the latest in the Charlie Hebdo matter, what with the elections in Canada and the UK and all.  Here's an excerpt to catch you up.

Critics argue that Charlie Hebdo routinely engages in Islamophobia, and many Muslims take issue with its depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous.

Defenders counter that Charlie Hebdo, a provocative left-wing publication, lampoons religious leaders and politicians of all stripes and has devoted more time to attacking conservative politicians who favor anti-immigration laws — such as the National Front — than Islam.

First question: are we all still "je suis Charlie"?

Closer to home: was Pam Geller yelling fire in a crowded theater when she sponsored her Muhammed cartoon contest?  (Let's look past her ridiculous and Orwellian "I'm saving lives" justification for what she says and does for the moment.)  Is it a good thing that she hires her own heavily armed security for these events -- you know, Second Amendment remedies for First Amendment provocations?  Less important question: Were the two single cells in the Garland, TX "terrist network" ready for jihad... or just martyrdom?

Update: Ted Cruz blames Obama, of course.

Most important question: do you really and truly feel like defending to your death the right for Geller, or Charlie Hebdo, or anybody else to keep on like this, under the current global socio-political circumstances?

Report.  Decide.  Ted Rall's opinion.

When exactly does free speech cross over the line to hate speech?  What is the proper reaction when it does?   (Obviously not shootings and bombings... but what?)  Certainly it's got to be okay to tell people to shut up.  That's free speech also, yes?  Or is that censorship?  If it's not OK to tell them to shut up, is it acceptable to ask them to tone it down a little?

Is this just an endless loop of point/counterpoint, as Nick Anderson shows?  (Don't skip the petulant complaints and baiting taunts from the very worst of Houston's conservatives in the comments.)

If you have the right to insult people to the point that they become so angrily deranged that they kill you -- religious excuses aside -- why is it wrong for others who don't want to be caught in the crossfire or maimed by the blast or the shrapnel to tell you to pipe down?

No answers here yet.  Still just asking the questions.  But a few more toons posted here on Sunday will further illustrate the quandary in which we we all find ourselves.

How much intolerance is tolerable?

Imagine a Green elected Texas governor

And you'll be able to relate to what happened in Alberta -- the Texas of Canada -- this week.

On Tuesday night, the near-unthinkable happened here in Canada when the New Democratic Party (NDP) stormed to a commanding majority in Alberta's provincial elections. To explain this in American terms: Imagine that Texas just overwhelmingly elected a legislature dominated by a left-wing party that opposes major oil pipeline projects; promises a core review of the obligations that oil and gas companies have to their communities; and favors fundamentally rethinking the tax structure toward large-scale redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Oh, and it's going to insist that climate change is real, man-made, and should bear on any policy that involves burning more hydrocarbons.

Even this comparison is tough, because Americans don't support a mainstream party as unabashedly left-wing as the NDP. (The Greens would be a decent analog. Or a breakaway party of Bernie Sanders acolytes.) Publicly NDP members say they're “social democrats,” but most of its members, like Canadians at large, use that term interchangeably with “socialist.” Alberta has traditionally been unyielding soil for the NDP. The province is defined by its vast fossil fuel reserves, comparable to Saudi Arabia in its oil underfoot. Once oil was discovered there in the 1940s, actual Texans rushed up to establish companies and, concomitantly, a pro-capital, pro-religion, pro-firearm style of politics that the rest of Canada regards as distinctly American. For 44 years before Tuesday night, a span of twelve straight elections, Alberta has been run by the Conservative Party, a decent analogue to the Republican Party. Before that was nearly 40 years of even more conservative rule under the Social Credit Party.

Kaboom (and that's not the sound of an exploding tar sands oil train, either).  This is what revolution at the ballot box looks like.

Still, to put what just happened Canada in context for you Yanks, imagine Bernie Sanders becoming Texas governor by a big majority.

— Doug Saunders (@DougSaunders) May 6, 2015

Honestly, I'd rather see Sanders in Washington as opposed to Austin; after all, he wouldn't be able to deal with the Lege that would still have too many Republicans in it (unless they shock us all and manage to let Texans get stoned legally, but that's another story).

It’s a game-changer for a number of reasons, one of which should have been immediately obvious: Alberta is home to the massive tar sands deposits that the oil industry wants to tap and ship south via the Keystone XL pipeline. And with the changing of the guard, the industry’s just lost a top Washington lobbyist – and is now facing leadership that opposes the pipeline and is committed to reducing the climate impact of oil development.

Can it happen here? Can something sort of like it happen here? Please?!

Garcia announces... something today *Updates: He's in

What he's announcing does not seem to be clear from the Chron story.

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia will address his expected bid for Houston mayor on Wednesday afternoon, according to sources close to his campaign.

Garcia's expected announcement would end months of speculation about whether the longtime lawman and former City Council member would run to replace term-limited Mayor Annise Parker.

Should he run, Garcia would join a crowded field of some half-dozen competitors. He would also be required to resign as sheriff.

Nor the KHOU report.  The assumptions made by the reporters lean toward yes, but they've left enough doubt to cover their asses in case he says he's not.  Rarely does a politician extend this kind of fanfare to an "I'm not running" press conference, after all.  The departed Teddy Schleifer covered all of the 'in' speculation seven weeks ago.

So is he in or is he out?  Anyone want to speculate, offer some scuttlebutt, start a rumor ahead of this afternoon's 'announcement'?

Update: Sure enough... in.

Update II:

County Judge Ed Emmett, who received Garcia's resignation letter Wednesday, has not decided who he wants to replace Garcia, though he prefers someone who wants to run for office in 2016, said Emmett's spokesman Joe Stinebaker.

Noting that it would be beneficial for Garcia's replacement to have a combination of law enforcement and management experience, Stinebaker added that "speed is of some importance here."

In his letter of resignation, Garcia said he hoped the Commissioners Court would appoint an independent or Democrat to serve the remainder of his term.

Those speculated to be interested in the job -- none of whom are Democrats, to be clear -- were also previously named here.

Update III: More on who might be the next sheriff here, with a decision coming in about a week.

Update IV (5/8): State representative Allen Fletcher jockeys himself into the lead for the interim appointment, to be made in short order by Harris County commissioners.

2016: Same as it ever was

A sure sign that voter turnout in 2016 is going to set another record low.

This map feels like déjà vu: It’s effectively the same map we featured for much of the 2012 cycle, and it unmistakably suggests the Democratic nominee should start the election as at least a marginal Electoral College favorite over his or (probably) her Republican rival.

Let's add the qualifying 'but'.

However, at the starting gate it is wiser to argue that the next election is basically a 50-50 proposition.

Florida remains swingy, I would posit, because of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.  Otherwise not so much, despite what portends to be a spirited Republican primary to replace Rubio in the Senate.  Colorado and Iowa elected right-wing freaks for US Senators in 2014 because Democrats stayed home on Election Day.  If John Kasich makes it onto the ballot somewhere, then Ohio is more red than not.  Nevada is bound to have a lively Senate contest because Harry Reid is retiring, so that's an ongoing development that could send its electoral votes either way; the truest of tossups.  Vermont (or is that New Hampshire?), irrespective of Bernie Sanders' ultimate fate, doesn't seem likely to be anything but blue.  I would have to think that Virginia is more red -- despite what Larry Sabato's Crystal Ballers say -- than they are letting on, and North Carolina (not currently considered a swinger) somewhat bluer.  Then there's Wisconsin, which could outright flip with Scott Walker somewhere in the mix, causing Hillary Clinton a multitude of problems.

In other words, this election is going to be as boring as being alive.

Americans still want taxes raised on rich to adjust for inequality

There's a lesson in these 30-year polling results for every single one of the Texas House Democrats who voted to cut state taxes last week (in conjunction with their Republican brothers and sisters).

Despite the growing focus on inequality in recent years, the 63% of Americans who say that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people is almost the same as the 60% who said this in 1984.

Americans' agreement that money and wealth need to be more evenly distributed reached a high point of 68% in April 2008, in the last year of the George W. Bush administration, and just before the full effects of the Great Recession began to take hold. Americans became slightly less likely to agree with the idea later that year and in surveys conducted in 2009, 2011 and 2013. This year's increase to 63% is close to the average of 62% agreement across the 13 times Gallup has asked the question since 1984. The latest data are from Gallup's April 9-12 Economy and Personal Finance survey.

Worth emphasizing: the percentages deviated steadily during the Reagan and Bush the Elder years, narrowed sharply after Bush the Lesser's election selection in 2000, rose to its highest separation levels as the economy slid off a cliff at the close of W's Debacle in 2008.... and then cramped again, as it became apparent to Fox News consumers that Barack Obama was, indeed, a socialist.

Stop the wars, tax the rich.  That's an easy campaign slogan, but the Democrats don't use it because they know they can't follow through on those promises.

"Don't extrapolate a national poll to Texas", you may be thinking, especially since Republicans who quite clearly don't stand with the majority dominate the Lone Star electorate.

Yes, I'm sure that all this has nothing to do with historically low voter turnout in Texas, particularly among former Democratic voters.  You can blame a bit of that on the most restrictive photo ID legislation in the nation, of course.  But at some point Democrats have to take responsibility for their collective fate, and when they decline or refuse to do so when the votes get called in the legislature, or the Congress, then you get what we had here last week: failure to communicate.

Is anyone really surprised?

Update: Thanks to Gadfly for the link to Gallup. And more from Vox.

But in some ways the most interesting demographic sub-sample is the age one. Respondents ages 18 to 34 are supportive of redistributive taxation by a 59-38 margin, while those over 55 are much more skeptical — 47 percent say tax the rich, and 50 percent disagree. In other words, the age stratification of American politics isn't just about gay marriage or marijuana; it cuts to the core economic policy divides in Washington and state capitals around the country.

Now if they would only vote.

Matt Drudge and Martin O'Malley

(What?  You were expecting some Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Mike Huckabee?)

As Cillizza at the WaPo notes, Drudge made his bones on the Clintons twenty years ago.  The problem is that he continues to do so, and the lazy corporate media lets him keep doing it by sniffing his ass like he's a dog in heat.  You may need to click over to catch up on the backstory;  this news is now a week old, which means it was out there before the rumors broke about Bernie Sanders' announcement on Tuesday, and then Sanders' fairly dominant news cycle (from Thursday, the day he declared, to the coverage about his campaign cash haul, and all the way through to the Sunday talk shows).  Because of last week's many other breaking developments -- but particularly due to the Baltimore, Maryland connection -- Drudge's pimping of O'Malley hasn't registered in the plus column yet for the former Terrapin State governor.

As usual you should read it all, but here's the last three grafs.

And it's not just that Drudge is deciding what pieces of content from the biggest media outlets in the country are the ones that get attention/traffic. It's also that he remains extremely influential as a sort of daily booking guide for cable television.  Bookers from every network check Drudge religiously to see what stories he's chosen to feature. Often those stories wind up getting airtime.

So, if Drudge promotes Martin O'Malley, then O'Malley will almost certainly get more attention from the media, which should translate to a higher level of interest — or at least recognition — among average voters.

How long will O'Malley's Drudge honeymoon last? Probably up until (or, really, if) Drudge succeeds in helping to make O'Malley a semi-credible Clinton challenger. At which point, if history is any guide, Drudge will turn on him.

I think the honeymoon is already over, for reasons previously ascribed.  But if it isn't, and you start to see shirtless O'Malley pics on Good Morning America and the like, just know who's behind it.