Day-after analysis of Sanders' speech

Despite the media's studious ignorance of the Georgetown event yesterday -- none, not even MSNBC, covered any of it live, and in light of the fact that several outlets televised Hillary Clinton's 'jihadism" trope-athon earlier in the day, which any Republican could have given -- the stemwinder blew up social media.  It's also spinning off a variety of conversations, one being that his young fans have to prove themselves as a voting bloc in order to be taken seriously.

But Vox has the best breakdown in this morning's Sentences, and I'll break in with some thoughts.

• Bernie Sanders delivered his long-anticipated speech explaining what he means when he calls himself a "democratic socialist" today.
  [Bernie Sanders]

That link is the full text of yesterday's remarks. If you haven't already seen the video or if you don't have time to read them at the moment, jump over and give Socratic Gadfly's summary a perusal.

• Spoiler alert: it does not actually involve state ownership of the means of production. Dylan Matthews explains why what Sanders calls socialism can just look like "a hardcore version of the Democratic Party platform."
  [Vox / Dylan Matthews] 

Might be too cerebral for the average Democrat, not to mention anybody to the right of them.  Read it anyway; it's written for fifth-graders.  Let's underscore the fact that when you hear Clintonites say, "we can't elect a socialist because of the batshit Republicans", that they are part of the problem and not the solution.  They don't get, or refuse to acknowledge, that they will be called "soshulist" also, and that if they were just bold enough to reclaim the label -- as Sanders does -- rather than continue to allow conservatives to frame it as a pejorative, then they might win an off-year election somewhere down the ballot.

And that would be something to build on.  But that's a digression.

• The political angle of the speech is that Sanders wants to take ownership of a term often used to criticize him. His speech focused on FDR — a president who, Sanders argued, got called a socialist when he gave the American people good things.
  [Mother Jones / Tim Murphy]

I think I just mentioned that.

• The FDR reference is meaningful. It harks back to the last time in American history when liberals and socialists could actually work hand in hand, before Cold War-era fear of communism drove them apart.
  [Vox / Matt Yglesias]

Maybe the most important history lesson Sanders conveyed.  Again, it's worth your time.  I'll note simply as matter of housekeeping that I have written that the world really turned for the worse in 1944, when a bunch of pro-business Democrats (among them Jesse Jones of Houston) gathered in a room full of smoke and pushed Henry Wallace off the Democratic ticket in favor of a stooge named Harry Truman.  It's all been slippery slope since then.  Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick tell this story better than me in their seminal series Untold History of the United States, and that's also worth binge-watching.  (If you want more along these lines then go here and here.)

The comparisons to today's state of public affairs -- with Islamophobia replacing McCarthyism as just one analogy -- are striking.

• But focusing on FDR also erases a legitimate radical legacy in American politics. Before Sanders' speech, Eric Foner wrote a Nation column that you could read, in retrospect, as the more radical speech Sanders could have given.
  [The Nation / Eric Foner]

And could be -- perhaps needs to be -- more radical still.  IMHO and without much doubt, the political revolution Sanders speaks of is ultimately going to have to take place well beyond the 2016 ballot box.  Look to this recent speech by Bolivian president Evo Morales for the clue: 'To solve climate change we must abolish capitalism'.

That should be scary enough for a few oil patch Houston Democrats, yes?

• As is, Sanders is criticized by some real live leftists for his record in Vermont — where he was allegedly the sort of crony capitalist that would turn up as a villain in a Joni Mitchell song.
  [Al Jazeera America / Malcolm Harris]

Justifiably so.  Greens and actual socialists like Kshama Sawant in Seattle (she pointedly avoided specific criticism of his war hawkishness in that link) think Bernie Sanders sold out by running as a Democrat.  They think he sold out long before, really, with his votes for an F-35 production facility in Vermont and his stance on guns.  I agree with some of this and some I do not; that's another long conversation.  For this post I'll focus on the issue of the day: IS, Syria and its war refugees, and what the appropriate US and Western response should be in light of the Paris attacks.  The most telling pull-quote from Sanders yesterday was this one, from the Q&A after his speech:

"I have a lot of respect for people who may be pacifists, I am not a pacifist" - #BernieAtGU pic.twitter.com/04rok8XU6g

— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) November 19, 2015

Yeah, I'm a pacifist.   In fact, to coin my own oxymoron, I'm a militant pacifist. "There will be peace in our time, and I'll kill any motherfucker that tries to break it."

Something suggests Sanders will cave to the war mongers if he were to somehow be elected.  As with "not wanting to be a spoiler like Nader", this is evidence of Bernie's misguided political calculations.  He is simply not as far left as people would believe.

• Interestingly, Sanders uses Vermont as the reason he could win the presidency. He claims he can build an unusual coalition — a "political revolution" — of both traditionally Democratic voters and traditional nonvoters.
  [Vox / Andrew Prokop]

I'm not buying that.  His coalition is still too Caucasian to win, there's little time left to change that, and he's doomed by the Democratic establishment even if it suddenly did change.

But he's done as much as I ever hoped and expected he would do: change the conversation in this country about real political change.  Pull Hillary left a little.  It's up to those younger ideologues to keep all of it going.

Bernie Sanders to speak on socialism

Democratic socialism, to be precise, although most people (including far too many Clinton Democrats) won't be able to understand what he's saying.  Regardless of Americans' glaring lack of listening comprehension, Sanders has a lot riding on the speech.  PoliticsUSA -- a somewhat unreliable outlet for news, even when it's biased my way -- reports that speech will be today.

The future of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign will be defined by a major speech that he is giving on democratic socialism and defeating ISIS at Georgetown University on Thursday.

According to the Sanders campaign, “Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday will deliver remarks on democratic socialism and his vision for creating an American future based on economic and social justice and environmental sanity. His remarks will also include specific ideas on U.S. foreign policy, how the U.S. can lead the world in defeating ISIS and a long-term strategy to promote a safer and more peaceful world. The speech will take place at The Institute of Politics and Public Service at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Following his address, the Democratic Party presidential candidate will respond to questions from Georgetown University students.”

The section on defeating ISIS was added to speech because the Sanders campaign understands that many people may not be familiar with his foreign policy positions. The speech will be a major moment in the Sanders campaign. The views of Sen. Sanders have been twisted by Republican presidential candidates and misunderstood by much of the media throughout his campaign. In their view, democratic socialist has become socialist. Many in the press don’t see the distinction, so Sen. Sanders needs to educate them.

So we'll apparently learn about how hawkish Sanders is going to present himself.  His support of the F-35 and his views on gun safety have been tells in that regard.

The Paris terrorist attack has pivoted the race for the Democratic nomination away from the strength of the Sanders campaign. Bernie Sanders is at his best on the campaign trail when he is discussing income inequality and the economy, but the biggest hurdle that Sanders still needs to overcome involves name recognition and his democratic socialism.

His aides are comparing (today)’s 2 PM ET speech to President Obama’s speech on race, and the stakes are similar. This is a sink or swim moment for the Sanders campaign. If Bernie Sanders puts the questions about his democratic socialistic beliefs behind him, he could gain a new burst of momentum. If he fails, the current trajectory of the Democratic primary may accelerate towards Hillary Clinton.

No other media outlets are yet reporting the speech will be today (in a perfunctory Google search).  Their stories are all a month old, but still worth reading as they assess the challenge he faces.  Politico has fourteen things he has previously said over the years about socialism.  Here's one.

“I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have health care; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means. And we are living in an increasingly undemocratic society in which decisions are made by people who have huge sums of money. And that’s the goal that we have to achieve.” 

As said previously, I don't expect any Republicans, and certainly not enough partisan Democrats, to get it.  Their reactions to the Paris terrorism, the Syrian refugees, and a lot of other history suggests to me that it's too late for them to get it.  But I'll try to be a little more optimistic.

Update: Livestream the speech here.  And full text of prepared remarks here.  Excerpt:

So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this:

I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.

I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas.

I believe that most Americans can pay lower taxes – if hedge fund managers who make billions manipulating the marketplace finally pay the taxes they should.

I don’t believe in special treatment for the top 1%, but I do believe in equal treatment for African-Americans who are right to proclaim the moral principle that Black Lives Matter.

I despise appeals to nativism and prejudice, and I do believe in immigration reform that gives Hispanics and others a pathway to citizenship and a better life.

I don’t believe in some foreign “ism”, but I believe deeply in American idealism.

I’m not running for president because it’s my turn, but because it’s the turn of all of us to live in a nation of hope and opportunity not for some, not for the few, but for all.

Chris Bell and betrayal

I confess, I fell for it.  The whole "most progressive candidate in the race" thing.  The seemingly unwavering commitment to the HERO, and all the rest.  I know exactly when it began: when he hired the guy who helped Bill DeBlasio win in New York.

Today I feel duped.  Misled.  Gypped (to use a racist term).  The hornswoggling continues with statements like these:

"This runoff election is not about HERO, and it's not on the ballot," Bell said. "To try to paint Bill as some kind of right-wing zealot or hater is absolutely absurd."

That's not just false, it ignores the reality.  It is a deeply disingenuous and cynical remark that insults the intelligence of any Houstonian who's been paying attention.  Here's the infamous anti-HERO ad, reworked and on the air right now:



You see, Bell isn't stupid.  Craven, opportunistic, and for sale to the highest bidder, but not stupid.

As hard as I try not to be swindled, sweet-talked, or manipulated by the apparently insincere entreaties of candidates who seek out my advice and counsel, I am occasionally betrayed by my own naive willingness to find one who stands for something.

This is one of those times.  I drank the Kool-Aid.

This is the kind of thing that ruins politics for everybody.  Ruins friendships, trust, you name it.  These political calculations damage not only sellouts like Bell and King, but brands like "progressive", "liberal", and Democrat".  Enormous and somewhat incalculable damage is done to the body politic when deceptions of this kind are passed off as expediency.  I would go so far as to say that it's a primary reason why Democratic turnout keeps dropping, election cycle to cycle.

Frankly it's the kind of thing I held against Sylvester Turner, with his Craddick-crat business ten years ago, his reaching across the aisle repeatedly to strike deals in the Lege, etc., not to mention his latecomer status to the marriage and equality rights of the LBG and especially T community.  African Americans who voted against HERO comprise some significant portion of the electorate who put him in the runoff, and are being counted on to put him in the mayor's office.  But those who fit that description will, I suppose, have to swallow hard and hold their nose because of Turner's support of the ordinance, however muted I believed it to be during the general election period.  King, on the other hand, is wasting no time working both sides of the street, attempting to swindle HEROes and haters alike.  He's mouthing now about seeing if there's a way forward.

“I think we need some time to heal the bruised feelings on both sides,” King said. “But I absolutely intend to call all the stakeholders together at some point in time and begin a discussion about how do we best go about demonstrating to the rest of the world the kind of city Houston really is.”  

That's to the left of Turner.

Sylvester Turner has supported the equal rights ordinance throughout his campaign. But he sounds less inclined to bring it back — even a modified version — saying the voters have spoken.

“This is a democratic process,” Turner said. “The people voted on Nov. 3, and I think it’s important now to deal with a whole host of issues that are important to every Houstonian.”

Turner's also playing to his base.  'Let's stop talking about this' defines the Houston black Democrat/social conservative voter to a T.  But this post is about betrayal, and Turner's consultant Sue Davis sums it up quite well.

"Houstonians who voted for Bell are unlikely to go to King in the runoff because King's values are not theirs," Davis said in an email. "Bell got their votes because he positioned himself as a progressive. Just because Bell has changed his stripes doesn't mean his voters will."

Bell's only base of support was Meyerland in southwest Houston, my general neighborhood.  It's home to Houston's most prominent and active Democratic club, one filled with Jewish Blue Dogs.

They're not voting for Bill King no matter what Chris Bell says.  And neither am I.

Update: Charles has more (and his commenters are somewhat more than their regular delusional).

Transgender Day of Remembrance in Houston today

This evening, and at two locations on the weekend.

The Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) was started by transgender advocate Gwendolyn Ann Smith as a vigil to honor the memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman who was killed in 1998. The vigil commemorates all the transgender people lost to violence during the year and is an important memorial. TDOR is normally recognized on November 20th; however, vigils and events take place during the entire week.

Here in the Houston-area there are several upcoming TDOR events. We encourage you to support the transgender community by attending one or all of these upcoming TDOR events. TDOR is incredibly powerful to participate in and will give you a deeper understanding of the reality that our transgender brothers and sisters face every day.

TDOR hosted by Trans Women of Color United for Change
Location: Progressive Open Door Christian Center
(Inside St. Luke Episcopal Church - 3530 Wheeler St.)
Date: 11/18/2015
Time: 7pm

TDOR hosted by VA Medical Center
Location: VA Medical Center
(4th Floor Auditorium, 2002 Holcombe Blvd.)
Date: 11/20/15
Time: 10am-11am

TDOR hosted by TFA/HTUC
Location: A.D. Bruce Religion Center
(at U of H - 3841 Cullen Boulevard)
Date: 11/21/2015
Time: 7pm-9:30pm

In order to dispel the hatred engendered by ignorance, there needs to be more than just one day, or one week, to acknowledge the victims of senseless violence.  And those forces of fear and loathing in Houston are, as we know, powerful and prevalent.  So Houston, again, presents itself as ground zero for change needing to be made.

First debate between King, Turner tonight and other Texas political goings-on today

In less revoltin' developments...

-- Here we go.

Representative Senfronia Thompson and The People’s United Summit are partnering with civic clubs, precinct chairs and community leaders to host "Progress Houston: A Mayoral Runoff Forum", this evening at 7 p.m. at Forest Brook Middle School (7525 Tidwell Rd, Houston, TX 77016).

Viewers will be able to watch the forum live-streamed by My Fox Houston (click to watch on November 17 during forum). Social media enthusiasts can follow up-to-the minute updates on candidates’ responses by searching the #HoustonMayorRunoff hashtag on Twitter. 

In light of Bell's endorsement, King's whisper campaign accusations of Turner being homosexual and other negative campaigning already blasting out, this promises to be a lively event.

-- John Nichols of The Nation will also speak tonight in Houston.

The Houston chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State will host The Crumbling Wall: Religion in Today’s Presidential Politics on Tuesday, 11/17, at 7:30 p.m. John will discuss the role of religion in presidential politics today and how we arrived at a point where it's hard to tell the difference between the podium and the pulpit.

Find out more at auhouston.org

-- The Texas Drought Project hosts a presser in San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, and H-Town this afternoon.

Texas groups come together to announce diverse coalition
supporting Climate Resolution

Texas Drought Project will take 220+ organizational signatures
to U.N. Climate Conference

Houston—The Texas Drought Project, a non-profit founded in 2008 to educate Texans on climate change, will announce in Houston November 17th at a press conference at 1PM at the offices of T.E.J.A.S. (Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Service), 6733 Harrisburg Rd, that they have succeeded in obtaining the signatures of over 220 organizations for their resolution on climate change. The resolution calls for climate negotiators at the U.N. Climate Conference in Paris, set to begin November 30th, to heed the recommendations from the world’s top scientists in setting emissions cuts and asks that negotiators quickly move to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Co-founders Jere Locke of Austin and Alyssa Burgin of San Antonio networked through Texas environmental, human rights, educational, religious, labor, civic, student and political groups for over three months to obtain the endorsements. Signers include the League of Women Voters Texas, Lone Star Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility Texas, TEJAS, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Texas State Employees Union, Environment Texas, Texas Farmers Union, Earthworks, Public Citizen Texas, Maryknolls of Houston, Franciscan Action Network, SHAPE Community Center, Air Alliance Houston, Houston Peace and Justice Center, and many, many more. “But we couldn’t have done this without the help of Texans across the state,” Locke emphasizes. “People think of Texas as this conservative, oil-dominated state, but people understand the dire threat we face from climate change unless something is done now.” Burgin agrees, “We were gratified to see the response, and we’re hoping that this resolution will generate a major discussion—proving that citizens in the reddest-of-the-red states care about the future of their children and their grandchildren.”

Speakers at the Houston event include representatives of the following endorsing organizations: League of Women Voters of Texas (Laura Blackburn), Sierra Club Houston(Evelyn Merz), National Nurses United, T.E.J.A.S.(Bryan Parras), Rice University Student Association (Michael Donatti) and the Texas Drought Project(Jere Locke). Each will discuss the concerns which brought their organization to join this effort. The importance of this U.N. Climate Conference will be outlined, providing a preview into events taking place later this month. Lists of signers will be furnished, along with a copy of the resolution.

I plan on being at the the second two events and not the debate, but will reTweet some of the faceoff between Turner and King as it happens.

Update: Let's not overlook the Clinton campaign's Dallas event today.

Tomorrow, November 17th, Hillary Clinton will return to Texas for a grassroots organizing event in Dallas. During the event, she’ll lay out why she’s running, who and what she’ll fight for as President. Clinton’s trip will be her latest effort to build and organize support ahead of the March 1st Texas Primary.

Clinton visited Houston in June for a speech on voting rights, and held a ‘Latinos for Hillary’ grassroots event in San Antonio last month.

Members of the public interested in attending can RSVP here

WHERE: Mountain View College, Gymnasium, 4849 W Illinois Avenue, Dallas, TX 75211

WHEN: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 1:15 PM CDT

DOORS OPEN: 12:00 PM CDT

Bell will endorse King today *updated*

What a revoltin' development.  Jim McGrath, tweeting for the King campaign:

Very proud to announce former mayoral candidate, City Council Member and U.S. Rep @ChrisBell2015 will endorse @BillKingForHou tomorrow.

— Jim McGrath (@jgm41) November 17, 2015

So much for that "most progressive candidate in the race for mayor".  So much for blaring his HERO support in his mailers.  So much, in short, for any remaining political aspirations he may possess.  The only reasonable explanation is that Bell has arranged some quid pro quo for himself in exchange for his support of King.  I personally feel a few measures of disgust, nausea, betrayal, and about ten other emotions, all negative, that I could enunciate but won't until it's official.

Bell will allegedly announce his endorsement late this morning at the Godwin Community Center in Meyerland, according to an embargoed press release from McGrath yesterday.  Nothing has appeared yet anywhere but social media overnight, and I will update here when there's more.  For now, you can mark me as more disillusioned with Democrats than ever.

Update:

.@ChrisBell2015: "In today's episode of Strange Bedfellows, Bill King and Chris Bell will be appearing." #houvote pic.twitter.com/h9LZIdOmJW

— Rebecca Elliott (@rfelliott) November 17, 2015

Chris Bell will no more sheepdog me in behind Bill King than Bernie Sanders will Hillary Clinton.

So @ChrisBell2015 has gone from talking constantly about HERO and choice to saying they aren't issues that face this city #houvote

— Kris Banks (@KrisBanks) November 17, 2015

But the bigotry and intolerance of Bill King and his Tea Party associates is partisan. @ChrisBell2015 is a JOKE. https://t.co/BVzM36jNdp

— Lainey Croucher (@ebalagia) November 17, 2015

Bell's got some deal involving a large amount of city dollars waiting on Bill King's approval as mayor.  I've been more disgusted with Democrats and Republicans lying down together, but I cannot remember when.  This is a real low point for Houston, and Texas, and Texas Democrats.

Peace for Paris Wrangle

As it brings you this week's aggregate of lefty blog posts, the Texas Progressive Alliance stands with Parisians and citizens of the world in condemning the violent attacks of last week.

Off the Kuff took a closer look at how people voted in the Houston mayor's race.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos, and contributing to Daily Kos, wonders if Houston's anti-HERO supporters (those who embrace discrimination on behalf of bathrooms) know the group's head ringleader is defending a male bathroom pervert?

Socratic Gadfly is trying to popularize the term Inside the Mopac media as a parallel to "Inside the Beltway media." (And he's just started reading "A Field Philosopher's Guide to Fracking," which has a number of references to our own TXSharon at BlueDaze!)

Donald Trump asked "How stupid are the people of Iowa?" and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs answered, "stupid enough to vote for you, asshole".

Neil at All People Have Value observed that artist Mark Rothko had an almost Starbucks level of hatred for Jesus. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks it's all kinds of wrong to have private businesses pay for our border patrol.

From main line media reporting, it almost seems like some "shocking development" that the same forces which defeated the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance would now turn their ire upon the city of Dallas. But to Texas Leftist, or anyone that has closely followed the U.S. Pastors Council, this move was just a matter of time. Hold on to your seats North Texas, and get ready for some heinous lies to come your way.

Egberto Willies sees similarities between the message Robert Jeffress preaches and that of the most extreme mullahs of ISIS.

The Lewisville Texan Journal passes on the LISD pleading that Greg Abbott appoint an experienced state commissioner of education.

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

And here's more posts from other Texas blogs.

jobsanger takes note of the fact that Republicans are embarrassingly bad at creating jobs.

The Texas Election Law Blog updates the story about the ongoing challenges that the city of Martindale has had in conducting a local election.

Culturemap Houston goes to acclaimed local filmmaker Trey Edwards Shults for advice on surviving Thanksgiving with family: Make a movie together.

Somervell County Salon posts about Land Commissioner George P. Bush's Alamo overreach.

Prairie Weather has a eulogy of French philosopher Andre Glucksmann.

The Texas Observer was on the scene as the UT Million Student March called for free tuition, cancellation of student debt, and a $15 minimum wage for campus employees.

Grits for Breakfast has the report on the Texas DPS documenting traffic stops of minority drivers as 'white'.

Morgan Guyton decries Houston pastors who bore false witness against their transgender brothers and sisters.

Texas Watch has a petition calling for hospitals to be accountable for their doctors.

Raise Your Hand Texas reviews the education-related interim charges for the Legislature.

Alexa Martin-Storey and Kate Prickett remind us that plenty of laws and policies that undermine same-sex parenting still exist.

And last, Fascist Dyke Motors found some blog seeds while cleaning.

Sunday Funnies

"I am not afraid"

If you don't know what Grindr is, Mom... don't Google it.

"L'Horreur"

French President Francois Hollande vowed a “merciless” response to the deadliest attacks on the country’s soil since World War II as ISIS claimed responsibility Saturday for a coordinated assault on Paris.

A state of emergency was declared and France deployed 1,500 troops after a near-simultaneous series of explosions and shootings brought the city to a horrified standstill overnight. The death (toll was at least 120)...

French police were hunting possible accomplices of eight assailants, who attacked concert-goers, cafe diners and soccer fans in a coordinated assault targeting at least six locations in the French capital. Authorities said that seven attackers blew themselves up, while the eighth was shot by police.

Just Parisians and tourists enjoying a night out.

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Saturday for attacks that killed 127 people in Paris, saying it sent militants strapped with suicide bombing belts and carrying machine guns to various locations in the heart of the capital.

The attacks, described by France's president as an act of war, were designed to show the country would remain in danger as long as it continued its current policies, Islamic State said in a statement.

The French have been at the tip of this spear before, when the offices of cartoon satirists Charlie Hebdo were attacked in similar fashion.  Could this be swift retaliation from the drone assassination of "Jihadi John", aka Mohammed Emwazi, just a day or two ago?

There have been remarkably inappropriate responses from American politicians already.  First, Ted Cruz, who believes that the appropriate response is to kill civilians in the vicinity of IS.

We must immediately recognize that our enemy is not ‘violent extremism.’ It is the radical Islamism that has declared jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life.

Cruz did not specify where these airstrikes should take place or what they should be targeting.

Cruz also called for “a halt to any plans to bring refugees that may have been infiltrated by ISIS” to the United States. Previously, Cruz has misquoted U.S. intelligence officials to make the case against taking in Syrian refugees.

There is no evidence yet that any refugees were involved in the attacks. 

Then there's Republican Congressman Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.  There won't be no ferriners in his district, he's tellin' ya raght now.

If you have looked at your Twitter feed this morning, you'll see the following trending topics: #ParisAttacks, Islamic State, and ISIS, along with Stop The War, #MuslimsAreNotTerrorist, and #MakePeaceIn5Words.  Earlier, #WW3 was also trending.

I don't know what the appropriate response is so soon after this horror, but I don't think Ted Cruz or Jeff Duncan or any other Republican are ever going to have the proper one.  It seems that IS at the very least has managed to export its very radical definition of terrorism well outside the borders of Syria and Iraq, and the West's response is -- sort of like Israel's to the Palestinians -- hit 'em back harder.  We've had a few hundred years, it seems, to learn that this is probably not the best path forward.

The Democratic debate tonight will have some fresh questions.

“American leadership is put to the test,” (CBS' Steve) Capus said. “The entire world is looking to the White House. These people are vying to take over this office.”

 

“This is exactly what the president is going to have to face,” he added.

Mr. Capus said the news team had planned a different debate, but “there is no question that the emphasis changes dramatically.”

“It is the right time to ask all the related questions that come to mind,” he added. “We think we have a game plan to address a lot of the substantive and important topics.”

It will be revealing to me to see where Mr. Capus drives the bus tonight.  My prediction is that we're going to watch as Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley put on their most hawkish facade and talk tough, to avoid being called doves by the thuggish GOP (which will happen, even if Hillary Clinton threatens to turn the western Syrian desert into glass, trust me). 

There's a larger national conversation that it feels like we ought to be having.

Do we bomb or do we talk?  If we talk, do we talk about what influenced and radicalized, from the beginning, the people who carried out the bombings and beheadings and killings?  Or are they just too crazy to talk to and we keep on droning them until they're all dead.  (Except they won't be; there's always a fresh generation provoked by the martyring who wants to 'get some payback', too.)

Update: If you want to better understand this dilemma straight from the horses' mouths -- i.e., every living CIA director -- then start there with the second page of the report on drone assassinations, and then back up and read how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. got it wrong in 2001.  (The documentary will air at the end of this month on Showtime.  Here's the trailer.)

And when does America get hit?  Sooner, or later?  Does the guy/gal sitting in the Oval Office catch the blame if it happens on their watch?  Do we invade some country that had nothing to do with the attack because they're close by?  How about more troops on the ground, which means more flag-draped caskets, more solemn, longer Veterans Day parades, and eventually -- a couple of decades from now -- a granite monument to the fallen in DC, and other towns across the country?  How about some more torture and wiretapping of American citizens?  More VA atrocities, more homeless vets, more suicides of vets?

I've seen this movie before.  Can we rewrite the script?

Texas abortion law heads to SCOTUS

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge to a Texas law that would leave the state with about 10 abortion clinics, down from more than 40. The court has not heard a major abortion case since 2007, and the new case has the potential to affect millions of women and to revise the constitutional principles governing abortion rights.

[...]

The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, No. 15-274, could provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states may not place undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. The court said undue burdens included “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.”

Texas legislators said that the contested provisions were needed to protect women’s health. Abortion providers responded that the regulations were expensive, unnecessary and a ruse intended to put many of them out of business.

The history:

Casey was a huge victory for abortion-rights advocates because it ended up reaffirming the constitutional right to an abortion that the court established in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

In 2007, a divided court upheld a federal law that bans an abortion procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion and opened the door to new limits on abortion.

There should be a decision handed down next spring or summer... just in time to become an issue in the presidential election.

If the Roberts Court rules against abortion providers and their patients, it could leave Texas with only ten clinics, forcing more than 75 percent of the clinics in the state to close. Mississippi will lose its only clinic, and anti-abortion lawmakers in states that have not yet passed similar requirements will no doubt be emboldened to push for them.

Abortion access nationwide quite literally hangs in the balance.

Update: The early line.

The outcome in this case is likely to come down to the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Though Kennedy typically votes with opponents of abortion, he voted to grant a temporary stay preventing Texas’s anti-abortion law from going into effect. So this case might be one of the rare cases where Kennedy determines that an abortion restriction goes too far.

More from Reuters (and many others popping into your timeline and feeds).

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?"

I'll only go so far as to say that they really don't have any business hitting leadoff in our presidential election process and leave it at that (the last two Iowa GOP caucus winners, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, debated at the little table last Tuesday).  Trump, what do you think?

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" declared Trump during a rally at Iowa Central Community College. "How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?" For more than an hour and a half Thursday night, the billionaire real estate mogul harshly criticized not only Carson, but many of his other competitors in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

In his free-wheeling appearance, Trump also said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is rising in the polls, was "weak like a baby, like a baby" and "not a good poker player because every time he's under pressure he starts to just profusely sweat." And he said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush didn't deserve his attention because his campaign is doing so poorly.

This is a full-blown rant.  A wall-eyed, snot-nosed hissy fit, as Juanita Jean likes to say.  Spit flying, white specks at the corner of his mouth, blood pressure humping and pumping.  Strokelandia.

 Let's make him do it again.

Trump accused Democratic front-runner Hilary Rodham Clinton, who is campaigning to be the first female president, of "playing the woman's card, big league."

But his strongest words, by far, were aimed at Carson, whose powerful life story and soft-spoken demeanor have captured the attention of many voters. Trump, once the undisputed poll leader, is now running neck-and-neck with Carson in many opinion surveys.

Trump previewed his attack line in an interview with CNN Thursday in which the businessman pointed to Carson's own descriptions of his "pathological temper" as a young man.

"That's a big problem because you don't cure that," Trump said. "That's like, you know, I could say, they say you don't cure — as an example, child molester. You don't cure these people. You don't cure the child molester." Trump also said that "pathological is a very serious disease."

Ladies and gentlemen, your front-runners for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States.  To be fair and balanced, Trump is just using Carson's own words against him.

In his book "Gifted Hands," Carson described the uncontrollable anger he felt at times while growing up in inner-city Detroit. He wrote that on one occasion he nearly punched his mother and on another he attempted to stab a friend with a knife.

"I had what I only can label a pathological temper — a disease — and this sickness controlled me, making me totally irrational," Carson said, in describing the incident with his mother. He referred to "pathological anger" again in telling about lunging at his friend, a knife blade breaking off when it hit the boy's belt buckle.

Carson's ability to overcome his anger as well as an impoverished childhood to become a world-renowned neurosurgeon has been a central chapter in his personal story. A spokesman for Carson declined to comment on Trump's remarks.

We have simply got to goad Carson into commenting, liberal media. 

During the rally Thursday night in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump said that Carson is "an enigma to me."

He went on to repeat the molestation analogy with his comments about pathological temper, and he questioned aspects of Carson's biography. At one point, Trump acted out the scene of Carson trying to stab his friend, lurching forward dramatically. "He lunged that knife into the stomach of his friend, but, lo and behold, it hit the belt!" Trump declared.

"Give me a break."

In "Gifted Hands," Carson describes racing to the bathroom in his house after the near-stabbing incident — and in time beginning to pray for God's help in dealing with his temper.

"During those hours alone in the bathroom, something happened to me," he wrote. "God heard my deep cries of anguish. A feeling of lightness flowed over me, and I knew a change of heart had taken place. I felt different. I was different."

In questioning Carson's religious awakening, Trump said in Fort Dodge that Carson went into the bathroom and came out, "and now he's religious."

"And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break. Give me a break. It doesn't happen that way," Trump said. "Don't be fools."

Despite what I have said repeatedly about polls, I'm anxious to see what they reveal about a week or two from now.  This feels like a turning point for a couple of candidates.   The conservative Borg has been completely unpredictable to this point, but a settling-out of the real lunacy of Trump and Carson to the regular loons of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is somewhat overdue.

Watching, and waiting.

Update:

Will Donald Trump’s epic meltdown in Iowa — which has been widely ridiculed by the political classes today — have any impact on his long-term chances?

There is a great deal of chatter about how Trump may have fatally damaged himself by calling the voters of Iowa “stupid” for believing Ben Carson’s redemption tales. But as David Kurtz and Brian Beutler point out, this is just more of the same from Trump, who has built his entire candidacy on calling out mass stupidity and vowing to roll over it to get things done. Voters may just acquiesce to this as another part of the show, the way audiences submit to, and even laugh along with, a stand-up comic who is brutally ridiculing them.

But this meltdown represents something much greater than merely a cringeworthy spectacle. In a way Trump’s rambling monologue amounts to an indictment of the fundamental stupidity and arbitrariness of American politics in general. And as such, we may look back at this moment and see it in a different light, as crossing from sheer buffoonery into a semi-poignant glimpse into the foibles of human vanity. That’s because the stupidity and arbitrariness that Trump rages at here are the reasons why Trump himself has held the lead for so long, perhaps persuading him that he has an actual shot at being president. And so, whether he knows this or not, Trump is railing at the same forces that elevated him — and, he seems to sense, may be deserting him. They may not end up deserting him — perhaps Trump will be the nominee, though I highly doubt it — but he seems to sense that they just might.

Stop saying 'Vote for Hillary because of the Supreme Court'

H.A. Goodman is back on the point, this time slaying blinders-wearing Clintonites for their shitty rationales.  And he's taking a lot of incoming.  Because it is pissing them off so much -- and you should know by now how much I'm enjoying that -- I'm going to pile on.

He begins with my biggest beefs against her: inevitability polls and perpetual war.

First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we’ll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we’ll have an honest attempt at breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont’s senator has more than 1 million online donors who’ve funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC.

Once again: I don't place much faith in year-away polling, and the WIU poll is more than little screwy.  Take a look at their electoral map (click it to big it).  Note that the GOPer Sanders is defeating is named Bush, a tenuous proposition as we read and write today.

Would that it could be so: South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and both Dakotas are all blue.  Stranger still, Illinois, Maryland, and Hawaii are red.  This makes Ted look reasonable by comparison.

Now that the crack pipe has been hidden away...

Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren’t concerned with perpetual wars.

According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton’s foreign policy can easily be deemed “neocon”:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton’s foreign policy is “something that might have been called neocon,” it’s safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are “aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”

Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don’t believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton’s book review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order.”

This is all dead solid perfect.  Perpetual war was the topic of my Blog Action Day post, if you recall, and Shadowproof follows up today with "Introducing the Next Cold War".  Hint: Same as the last one, except more expensive.  I don't believe it's going to be all that cold.  The latest headlines, in fact, demonstrate it's pretty hot already.

But the macro-meme is, as you might have guessed, Clinton's trust issues.  Add them up.

With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a “mistake,” voting for the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she “wasn’t raised” to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon “What I know about it, as of today.”

Generally, poor decision-making is addressed as an honest error, then acknowledged wholeheartedly, while supporters find every way to justify the flip-flop. Accountability is a foreign concept to the Clinton campaign and any reasoned critique is met with“You sound like a Republican!” Even accepting $100,000 from Donald Trump is simply part of Washington politics.

Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation, and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be “not honest and trustworthy.”

Finally there's the whole money thing.

Luckily, Clinton has made up for this deficit in trustworthiness by stating she’ll no longer accept money from prison lobbyists.

This is a relief since four of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks and there are questions about foreign donors to her foundation. Nonetheless, in the eyes of supporters, a Democrat is always better than a Republican, even if Politico labels Clinton to be Wall St. Republicans’ dark secret.

We dare not vote based upon principle, since only the political power Hillary Clinton is said to possess protects us from Trump, if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. Granted, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, but we can’t rock the boat for fear of a Trump presidency if Clinton is the nominee.

Republicans are the enemy, says the thought process bolstering the Clinton campaign, therefore accepting money from prison lobbyists and Wall Street is part of the game.

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton waited almost three weeks to address the death of Michael Brown and the Ferguson protests. Sadly, part of this reason could be prison lobbyists.

Goodman's got a lot more, including taking down the tiresome 'SCOTUS' argument.  This one has been easy since November of 2000 -- remember, Gore didn't drop his challenge until December --and was brought to us by none other than Jim Hightower.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. 

And as you've been reminded several times, that was only the third best reason Gore lost.  Why did so many declared Democrats ignore Barbra Streisand's plea and vote Republican (not Green, mind you)?  Can we call them stupid, or is the argument simply too complex for low information and infrequently-voting, semi-sorta Dems to comprehend?  Whatever it is, it's a problem Democrats alone need to solve.

So please finish Goodman's latest, and either nod your head ruefully as the scales fall from your eyes, or grind your teeth and curse the people who fit the definition of the word 'progressive' as your enemy.  Goodman's fail, however and again, is suggesting a write-in for Sanders.  Those votes don't count in Texas unless you're a "qualified write-in candidate", according to the Texas Election Code.

You will have the best progressive option on the Texas ballot listed on the Green line, and by voting for Jill Stein you also send a message that Democrats don't hold the title to your vote.  Getting them to understand that is Job One for this cycle.