Is Jeb Bush's candidacy dying in the crib?

As I am weary of fulminating against Hillary Clinton and other flailing, failing Democrats, let's check in with the alleged GOP inevitable one.  He's been having a bad month, so much so that it's not too early to question his inevitability.

1.  He's losing Iowa so badly that he's just not going to show up for any corndogs.

2.  There's some good news, however: he's leading in New Hampshire.  No one save Bill Clinton in the modern era has lost both Iowa and NH and gone on to the White House.  And recent polling suggests that the Granite State might even be pink.  (I questioned that back here.)

3.  But he's fading in South Carolina behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and possibly other arch-conservatives, though as the macro-view US News article notes, SC polls tend to reshuffle after IA and NH vote.  Those Low Country folk like to jump on and off the various bandwagons.  The Palmetto State has grand family history as comeback territory for Bushes; remember John McCain's illegitimate black child?  But it might be Jeb's Combahee River this time.

What state comes after South Carolina?  Does it matter if he loses all three of those?  Will his hundred million bucks still be able pull his fat out of the fire if he loses two out of three?  He revealed himself this week as possibly being the dumber of the two Bush brothers, a truly remarkable achievement.

Jeb Bush on Tuesday sought to arrest a chorus of criticism from Democrats and some conservatives after he told an interviewer that, knowing what history has since shown about intelligence failures, he still would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Calling in to Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Bush said he had misunderstood a question that one of Hannity’s Fox News colleagues, Megyn Kelly, had asked him in an interview shown on Sunday and Monday nights.

“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess,” Bush said. “I was talking about, given what people knew then.”

The attempt at mopping-up was quick, but it did not bring the controversy to an immediate end: When Hannity asked about the 2003 Iraq invasion again, in yes-or-no fashion, Bush said he did not know what the answer would have been, saying, “That’s a hypothetical.” Then, he seemed to go out of his way to absolve his brother, former President George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion: “Mistakes were made, as they always are in life,” Bush said.

Indeed they are.  And it looks as if rank-and-file Republicans and their kooky cousins aren't going to repeat the mistakes they have made in the past by voting for another Bush.  That might be the most exciting thing that could develop in 2015 for 2016.

Update: And now Jeb's porn problem surfaces.  No way the GOP nominates this guy.

A day after filibuster on TPP, Senate Dems fold like a cheap card table *Updated*

That post I wrote this morning?  Yeah, nemmind about that.

Less than a day after blocking the Obama administration's path to a secretive trade deal, Senate Democrats have accepted an offer put forth by Republicans. The Democrats, led by Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, came to accept the deal after personal lobbying from President Obama.

Some Democrats believed that a package of four trade bills would move along together, thus ensuring that Obama couldn't obtain fast-track authority without enforcement measures, but they ended up backing down on this as well. A Huffington Post story quotes Senator Sherrod Brown justifying the decision: "I understand that all four aren't going to be together exactly the way I want it, I understand that, but I can read votes. I also think that nobody saw us being successful yesterday three days out. And people have strong feelings about the customs enforcement and people have strong feelings about taking care of workers."

The new deal would allow the administration to begin negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which has been criticized by labor unions and environmental activists. The economist Joseph Stiglitz recently wrote that, "These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions."

Gadfly also takes them apart over it.  Looks like we're back to being "sanctimonious purists".  I'm more convinced every day that we don't have the best government money can buy, we have the absolute worst.  And I would simply ask, since somebody else already mentioned that TPP is about the next president and not just this one: how is Hillary Clinton going to be any better on it for anybody on the left side of the Democratic party?

Update:  This.

The way Clinton and her advisers are thinking about this, apparently, is that there’s nothing forcing her to take a controversial stand, on trade or anything else. As long as no one who appears to be an overly serious threat is competing for support among the party’s various factions, then there’s no percentage in volunteering opinions that will inevitably create some ill will and give the media some conflict to write about. 

So instead, she goes around telling Democratic audiences that she’d do even more for immigrants than Obama has, or that she supports alternative sentencing for drug crimes. This is like telling Republicans you believe in God. 

But in fact, the Clinton people have the whole thing backward. This glide path toward the nomination that they assume they’re on isn’t an opportunity to hide from controversy; it’s an opportunity to show you can lead, clearly and thoughtfully. And that’s because, even if you get through the primaries unscathed, you’re going to have to confront your biggest vulnerability among general-election voters, which is this idea that Clinton does only what’s expedient.  

[...]

Clinton’s patronizing evasion on the trade deal, on the other hand, reinforces that impression. And if she waits until the summer of 2016 to actually choose sides on anything contentious, it may well be too late to turn that perception around. Remember that Clinton is trying to win a third term for her party, which is an exceptionally difficult task under any circumstances. 

There was an irony this week in watching Obama and Clinton, once again the two-headed hydra of Democratic politics, navigating their way through a decision point for their party. When it came to trade, he was direct, genuine and competitive. She was cautious, noncommittal, playing not to lose. 

That was precisely the contrast between them in 2008, and it didn’t work out for Clinton then. That Obama isn’t running against her doesn’t mean it will ultimately work out better this time.

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.