The #TPP arrogance, and lies of Obama

The man who has redefined and taken to new heights the phrase Just.Another.Politician.™, President Barack Obama, recently called Sen. Elizabeth Warren, an ardent foe of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, "another politician" for her criticisms of his bromance with TPP.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown then called Obama to task for this.

And now?

He expects Sherrod Brown to apologize for calling him out.

Yes, read that again.

White House press secretary Joshua Earnest said Wednesday he’s confident Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, will “find a way to apologize” once he takes another look at Tuesday remarks he made about President Obama’s criticism of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat.

Brown has nothing for which to apologize.

In fact, he's right about one thing. Calling Warren just by first name might not be something Obama does regularly to male senators; if nothing else, HE needs to apologize. 

But he won't.

Here's what he said, in an interview with the man apparently trying to appoint himself the media high priest of neoliberalism, Matt Bai:

“The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” Mr. Obama had said in a weekend interview with Yahoo News.

Yep, that's at least at the edge of sounding sexist. 

As for Earnest's claim that he does that with male senators, I doubt so, not in a first reference as a third party.

Meanwhile, Bai, doubling down on his apparent self-defined role as neoliberal court jester (I've had a Twitter exchange with him over his new Gary Hart book and related matters, and I stand by this take) talks about Obama and the "professional left."

Remember how, about a year into office, Obama asked progressives to challenge him from the left, then, only weeks later, then-press secretary Robert Gibbs showed this was all a crock?

Of course, Obama flat-out lies elsewhere in that interview, like about "standing up to Wall Street." If  he had, "Elizabeth" would be running the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. Dick Cordray's not bad, but Dear Leader refused to push Warren into the position.

Beyond that, the reality is that a lot more people than Elizabeth Warren — including unions and environmentalists — oppose Dear Leader on this one and rightly so.

And, we need to keep more Dems besides Obama feeling the heat. Even free-trading sellout Ron Wyden voted against Senate cloture on fast track. He knew that the currency-manipulation issue was a no-go, and besides, Congress has had years to address that elsewhere and hasn't. But, he knows he needs fig leaves, and he'll back three to negotiate away one or two. Obama is either clueless or unaccepting of such ideas. See friend Perry for more.

Even Crooked Timber, which should know better, can get Obama wrong:

The result has been a significant shift to the left in the second Obama Administration, reflected in more populist rhetoric, the abandonment of the search for bipartisanship and in some substantive policy shifts, for example on minimum wages. The big exceptions are issues like the TPP and the security state, where Obama was captured by the permanent government almost from day 1, and has never shifted.

Erm, no.

His summer 2008 flip-flop on the telecoms showed that Dear Leader had voluntarily surrendered to the "permanent government" long before his official day 1. 

The arrogance is nothing new, either, certainly not on this issue. Note his appearance in front of an American flag at Nike HQ last week. The company basically makes nothing in the US; what it does make is made largely by international sweatshop labor in physically and environmentally unsafe conditions. And, more of that is supposed to help Americans how?

And, for all he irritates some Republicans, Harry Reid is showing why Dems will miss him as Senate Majority/Minority Leader. In part, for all he irritates some Republicans. Obama should have been taking notes years ago. Dana Milbank notes that a mix of contempt for, and past failure to lobby, Congress, is coming home to roost. Calling yourself, indirectly, "the smartest guy in the room" will piss off other politicians. (The piece is actually good for him; I guess he's done writing stupidity about DC craft brews or whatever.)

The fact that Obama expects Sherrod Brown to apologize is another example of his arrogance. Far beyond this issue, so is the "smartest guy in the room's" use of "folks" so often, so jarringly.

The fact that he doesn't care that he might be perceived as arrogant is itself part of the arrogance too. Let's go meta!

Update: With Sherrod Brown doing a semi-cave just a day after the Senate's initial vote, maybe he DOES owe an apology — to the American public. Having side issues delinked from fast track itself is toothless. And, if those side issues fail to pass the Senate, or even pass cloture, themselves, what are you going to do, Sen. Brown?

I mean, weren't those side agreements on NAFTA unbundled from the main body, so that even though they were passed, that made them easier to not enforce? It's not buying a pig in a poke, if you've looked in a similar poke before and know you were actually buying a skunk, and still bought it.

Sen. Charles Perry ... the jokes write themselves for the #txlege

Alana, from her
Twitter feed

Was he thinking that "Alana," the stripper who has filed the restraining order against him, was on the other side of the Red rather than the Rio Grande, and thus an illegal immigrant?

UPDATE: I have a more serious take on the matter here. "Alana," actually named Cyndi Ortiz, is a serious political operative, with teaparty connections. I don't know what fire is behind the smoke, but some kind if it is.

As I Tweeted her, does "restraining order" have more than a legal meaning?

@TipAStripper Did Sen. Perry ask you about reproductive health? Abstinence-based sex ed? Restraining order? Does he like being restrained?

— SocraticGadfly (@SocraticGadfly) May 13, 2015

Turns out, as she responded:

@SocraticGadfly Hahaha!!

— Alana (@TipAStripper) May 13, 2015

Meanwhile, what is sexual fun without a three-way?

Does this relate to Breitbart alumni secretly taping Texas House members, discussed in more depth by Perry? Even more, does it relate to Lite Guv Dan Patrick knowing about said taping and not telling anybody, because it was only about the House, not the Senate?

Well, what better way to start that conversation than on Twitter, eh? Here we go:

@TipAStripper One more question, re this "investigation." Any idea that @DanPatrick knew about you, @electcharles and "restraints"?

— SocraticGadfly (@SocraticGadfly) May 13, 2015

("ElectCharles" is Perry's Twitter account.)

IF he wasn't researching reproductive health or abstinence-based sex ed?

Well, the Texas Senate wants to lower property taxes before sales taxes — maybe "the other Perry" is checking out Oklahoma vs Texas strip club property tax rates, complete with "personal property" vs. "real property."

And, per Alana's "Tip a Stripper" Twitter handle, did he leave a big one? Take that any way you want. I won't even talk about deep probes or anything else. Honest!

And, yes, I don't get this blatantly snarky for a whole blog post.

But, there are exceptions to every rule.

Especially when you have a hypocritical yahoo posing as a champion of Christian values.

On the other hand, given Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, maybe he IS a champion of Christian values.

Meanwhile, there's a serious side to this. In response to my Tweet mentioning Dan Patrick, Alana said:

@SocraticGadfly Patrick kept tweet bothering me today. I finally blocked him. Whats up with these guys? never seen a stripper before??

— Alana (@TipAStripper) May 13, 2015

Very interesting.

And, just to be sure, she confirms it's him:

@SocraticGadfly Yes Dan Patrick. Kept tweeting stuff out to my handle this morning. I just blocked him

— Alana (@TipAStripper) May 13, 2015

What a sack o shite. (That said, I've gone through Patrick's feed; I can't confirm this. They could have been direct messages — wouldn't that been interesting — or public messages later deleted, but I can't confirm it.)

And, Alana, if people will get over their prudishness, at least on initial impression, seems like far more of a real person than either Patrick or Perry.

But, back to the issue at hand. Does Alana's possible misstatement about Patrick's "tweet bothering" undermine her credibility in general?

Not yet, at least. We don't know exactly what the Texas Rangers are investigating. Until someone associates $$$ with her name, then extortion ideas are off the table. Anyway, here's the page of her making the request for restraining order.

Is this possible, otherwise? I just mentioned two fallen preachers. How about I throw in Trey Radel?

Update: More seriously, Cyndi Ortiz is a former political consultant, from Lubbock but working in Austin. That said, a Texas winger commentator, former Lubbock County GOP chair, says he blocked Ortiz in the past from emailing him. Won't say why but invites speculation.

Fine, mine's funnier speculation than Pratt's at least.

On the other hand, Perry's spokescritter says this is not her first false accusation against Perry, and that he's not been her only target.

On the third hand, maybe Perry has harassed her more than once.

On the fourth hand, LinkedIn says she ran the MacDaddy Campaign Network, apparently out of her own house. (Insert jokes here; sorry, Cyndi, but I'm an equal offender jokester.)

On the fifth hand, she appears to have done some sort of legit work. And, sorry Dems, it was teaparty-favoring, per this letter. Mucus, Peggy Venable, David Barton, other "heavy hitters" in that crowd, are co-signers.

And, she did $200 of presumably legit campaign work for Odessa's Randy Rives, a perennial candidate for various state offices, the Texas Ethics Commission reports. It also says she contributed in the past to Lubbock Area Republican Women.

She's now saying that she doesn't necessarily agree with all views of clients. That doesn't answer her campaign contributions, nor her name on that teaparty letter.

My state reps: Unconstitutional

The Waco Tribune, showing that the paper is certainly not wingnutty, and the greater Waco area is at least not as wingnutty as stereotypes have it (they're also at least a bit wrong about the Baylor stereotype) calls out both State Sen. Brian Birdwell and State Rep. Kyle Kacal for being willing to pre-emptively take anti-constitutional actions on the issue of gay marriage.

Here’s the nut grafs:

House members will vote on HB 4105, which basically dares the U.S. Supreme Court to issue any ruling on same-sex marriage with which the religious right disagrees. State Rep. Cecil Bell’s bill forbids state and local officials from issuing or recognizing marriage licenses involving same-sex couples — even if the nation’s highest court rules same-same marriages are constitutional. That’s called anarchy. 

 This newspaper, believing that most people already have their minds made up on the issue of same-sex marriage, has offered no opinion on the subject. However, given the likelihood that lawmakers such as Anderson, Kacal and state Sen. Brian Birdwell don’t really understand the Constitution (except when it’s convenient to their political prospects), here are the basics of how our system works under the U.S. Constitution: 

 Congress and state legislatures pass legislation, which is then approved by the president or governors, thus making our laws. State and federal agencies then issue rules based on those laws. Presidents sometimes issue decrees and executive orders. When concern for constitutionality of these laws, rules and directives arises, the Supreme Court is sometimes tapped to render a studied decision. 

 Right-wing zealots have lately insisted that the high court is not final arbiter in such matters. But it is the final arbiter in the sense the specific questions raised about the law, ruling or directive are settled by the court on constitutional grounds, without concern for Christian, Muslim or Jewish dogma. In another sense, lawmakers are free to try to address the topic again, but this time the idea is they do so with regard to settled constitutional law. 

 Oh, yes — another thing. If you don’t like how our Constitution operates, you’re free to try to amend it. Otherwise, politicians should abide by their oaths and their allegiance to our flag — or quit taking oaths they won’t honor.

Amen.

Besides "anarchy," the word "petulance" comes first and foremost to mind. Because that's what things like this are — the political equivalent of 2-year-olds holding their breath until mommy changes her mind. 

And, as for these social conservatives claiming to also be fiscal conservatives?

Well, the Texas Observer covers that. They'll open the state to lawsuits that far exceed the amount of money Greg Abbott squandered as AG with his overall negative record on "suing Obama."

Dear Birdwell and Kacal — if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry gay people.

And, what the hell do you expect from a state that still has anti-sodomy laws on the books more than a decade after SCOTUS struck it down?

Unfortunately, the Waco Trib isn't fully aligned constitutionally itself:

It’s too bad smarter minds couldn’t have crafted a real solution in Texas — possibly granting civil union licenses to couples, whatever their sexual orientation, and leaving churches, mosques and temples their religious freedom to decide whether to marry someone. Alas, state lawmakers have chosen grandstanding to wisdom and are painting themselves into a corner. Let this costly circus begin.

Err, Waco Trib?

Under Windsor, SCOTUS found that civil unions that are anything short of being gay marriages in all but name, at the federal level, at least, already are unconstitutional. Federal district and appellate court rulings since then have set the state for SCOTUS’ expected ruling this summer that Kacal, Birdwell et al are trying to pre-emptively undermine.

In short, barring a surprise from Anthony Kennedy (it’s possible John Roberts joins the majority, too), the civil union bus has not only left the station, it will be out of service in a couple of months.

It is, perhaps, too bad, that smarter minds didn't start working on this a few years back. But, zealotry has pretty much driven smarter minds from the Texas Legislature.

So Barry Bonds wants to sue baseball?

Barry Bonds

That's what Hardball Talk says Scott Boras mouthpiece Jon Heyman is reporting — former Giants slugger and steroid-aided home run king Barry Bonds is planning some sort of legal action over nobody offering him a contract after his 2007 season. (Note: It's not clear whether Bonds is eyeballing a full lawsuit, or some sort of grievance; Heyman's amended his post to indicate grievance is the first route.)

First, as for facts on the ground? The Major League Baseball Players' Union had said it had found evidence of collusion against Bonds, but had reached agreement with MLB not to pursue that in 2008. Bonds, presumably, was waiting until his criminal situation played out to take action himself.

With that, let's look at Bonds' two possible legal routes

Briefly, on that, the grievance angle?

I don’t know that he ever “officially retired.” That said, Wiki says that he withdrew from the MLBPA’s licensing agreement back in 2003. Even if he’s not “officially retired,” MLB might use that as an argument that the union shouldn’t be representing him in a grievance. It would surely also challenge "de facto" vs "de jure" retirement issues. And, yes, given his actions on both Alex Rodriguez (although just an MLB VP then) and Josh Hamilton, Rob Manfred, aka Commissioner Corleone, would have no problem with scorched-earth tactics on this. And, I think this is an angle a lot of people are missing. Especially with Tony Clark still relatively new as MLBPA exec, he'll "push" as much as he can.

As for a full legal case? I doubt he’d win that.

First, MLB in its defense might be allowed to “prowl around the edges” more than in a criminal case on people like Bonds’ former trainer Greg Anderson, or Victor Conte.

As for a defense? Owners would have a couple of other angles.

One, especially in light of Manny Ramirez, might be, “We didn’t think he’d pass a test.” That’s how Anderson’s relevant. And, were I an owner, that might be a better starting point than the personality angle.

Or an owner might say: We didn’t know if legal proceedings would interrupt his baseball playing time.

1. Yes, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. But, it’s now Bonds’ burden, not MLB’s as the equivalent of the government in the criminal cases.

2. Assuming that this is a federal case, given it would be against MLB and/or multiple individual teams, the feds require a unanimous jury vote in civil as well as criminal. I don’t see Bonds winning that.

Beyond that, why? Is Bonds broke? I doubt that; beyond his massive contracts, I’m betting he was a pretty smart investor.

Is this a “revenge factor” thing? In that case, it undercuts the “new Bonds” image he’s trying to make, and if there’s an actual trial, especially, “old Bonds” gets put on the stand.

Barry? Join Manny, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens and others, and just walk away. Along with your anti-Ruth comments and other baggage. (Oh, speaking of, this will likely only hurt your case for the Hall of Fame with BBWAA voters.) Even A-Rod has learned — for now at least — to take his lumps.

TX Progressive bloggers eye #JadeHelm, #fracking, progressive election wins

The Texas Progressive Alliance is busy designing its own TexMoji as it brings you this week's roundup.

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.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson. It 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 Council prepare a new Cultural Plan for the Bayou City, artists themselves met 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 observed Jade Helm operations in Houston. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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.

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

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

The 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.

Robert Rivard recalls the legacy of William Velasquez and wonders what he'd make of today's turnout rates.

Who replaces Bill Simmons at ESPN? And where's he land?

Love him, hate him, or think he was good to start but went way past his stay-fresh date (my take), if you're a modern sports media fan, you can't ignore Bill Simmons, who has largely become the face of ESPN in the last 15 years, but will no longer be so after September, with his contract not being renewed.

So, who replaces him in general, and more specifically, running the Grantland portion of ESPN, which I assume John Skipper continues?

I and a friend brainstormed this.

There's only one realistic internal choice that we see: Keith Olbermann. Nobody else, whether at Grantland or the whole of ESPN, has a combination of professional chops and a "rainmaker" style to bit the bill.

That said, in previous tenures at ESPN, Olbermann's envelope-pushing on some of his rainmaking has produced as much corporate angst as Simmons', so this may not happen. And, at 55, he may not profile young enough to replace Simmons.

Nate Silver? While Simmons was right about Grantland, he was wrong about 538, which has been a flop at ESPN, to the point that, as in telling us that Willie Mays actually, truly, was better than Alex Rodriguez (as if Baseball-Reference can't?), it's increasingly operating in Captain Obvious territory. Plus, Silver doesn't strike me as "rainmaker" type. (And, per the likes of that, that doesn't even touch whether or not ESPN cuts back on backing for 538, or even kills it, after Simmons is gone.)

So, from the outside?

Said friend mentioned Will Leitch of Sports on Earth. He's got the professional chops and is respected. He's younger than Simmons, which could help on the rainmaking side, as could his angle in starting Deadspin, which gives him a bit of snark. He doesn't seem to have baggage, other than, like Simmons, being a big homer — Leitch for the St. Louis Cardinals, Simmons for the Boston Celtics, even if he doesn't dive too deep into homerism for individual players, like Larry Bird and Bill Russell.

On the other hand, if Leitch is intellectually lazy enough to put David Blatt ahead of Larry Brown and Red Holzman in the NBA Jewish pantheon, he's writing himself out of the running.

I mentioned Jeff Passan at Yahoo, but he was ixnay on that. Dan Wetzel might be another option.

That said, where's Simmons land?

Said friend mentioned Sports Illustrated, which recently announced it would get into documentary video work. (As in, 30-for-30 stuff.)

OTOH, does SI have the platform reach to under-50 folks anymore? (Of course, Simmons is 45 and not getting younger; that said, he's not necessarily getting more mature, either.) And, as a bit of the battered remnants of the print-first Time empire, does it have the money to pay Simmons' ask, let alone front all that he might want to do?

What about Yahoo, speaking of? It's got money from its sale of Alibaba, and a need to increase its visibility. This would certainly do that.

Finally, when does Simmons land? His contract expires in September. Does ESPN have a non-compete? If so, is it enforceable, even if he lives in California, which bans non-compete clauses in contracts? If there is one, and it's non-enforceable, could ESPN still get an injunction to keep him off the Internet outside the Golden State? Stay tuned.