SocraticGadfly

February 19, 2020

Dem Debate quick thoughts, mainly on Bloomberg, bit on Bernie

For a man who so calculatingly delayed his entry into the race (he did plan this, bet on it) Bloomberg sure wasn't prepared for oppo research hitting him this quickly and this hard.

And he's sure been thin-skinned about it. This and more showed up in the Las Vegas debate. Politico has a decent summary.

But this isn't just MiniMike. The Donald is the same way. Ross is Boss Perot was the same, too.

It's the CEO syndrome. Corporate heads get largely insulated from criticism by servile boards and on-demand corporate PR staff. They forget about two big things: The media, and two other branches of state or federal government. Trump has gotten enough fawningness from GOP legiscritters that unconstitutional things like his misprision of funds on the fall for which Dems refused to impeach gets covered over by them, too. The third branch? On this, in the American federal judiciary system, the wheels of justice aren't even grinding slowly. To show my age, they're like a 78 rpm record played on the old 16 rpm speed. (Yes, more than 33s and 45s existed at one time, folks.) Compounding the problem is that the Supreme Court, IMO, not only could but should be exercising original review on a lot of these issues and refuses to do so.

Anyway, Bloomberg got some hard hits and didn't take them well.

Bernie? His health probably is good. But, the non-disclosure makes him look like a backtracker. That's because he IS a backtracker on previous pledges, stanners. Just own up and admit it was a gaffe by Bernie, because it was. Now, how he gets off this hook, other than simply saying that the doctors' statements he's offered have met the bar of transparency and moving on, I don't know.

Back to Bloomberg, speaking of backtracking. Five bucks says he doesn't release his back taxes before the April 15 IRS filing deadline. That, too, will be calculated, not because a billionaire can't pay salaried accountants and tax attorneys to work enough overtime to make it so.
Labels: , ,
at Wednesday, February 19, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

#WheresWarren?

That was a hashtag trending on Twitter Tuesday evening.

I've skewered the cults of Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg. I've just skewered, period, both Gabbard and Marianne Williamson. I've even, going back to pre-2016, pointed out that while Bernie is the best Democrat, he's still well short of non-duopoly ideals.

But until now, I've not skewered the #StillWithering cult of Elizabeth Warren that much.

I have, along with many, many others, noted the stupidity of her DNA test — something that plays right to Trump's strength. As someone who grew up in the Southwest and is belatedly repenting of some of his father's comments about American Indians, I've commented on her stereotyping and such — while also using the opportunity to skewer Cherokees for their treatment of Black Cherokees.

But, I've not skewered her cult.

Until now, or rather, until last night on Twitter.

Let's dig in!

Starting with presidential history:
Can't go wrong there.

Next, speaking of Warrent, alleged media blackouts, DNA tests, and presidential odds?
That's about the truth. Got some Oklahoma Cherokee Moon Pie in one of those plagiarized cookbooks of yours?

Where's Warren? Well, he could be all sorts of places, but I just listed one of the ones he mentioned:
Ooowww WOOOO!

Well, speaking of President Warrens, besides the one of history, there's two would-be ones:
I'm surprised that he didn't pull the trigger in 2000. Did Clinton talk him out of it? Annette Benning? Past girlfriends?

Where's Warren? Spinning his webs in Nebraska.
Geico geckos, anybody?

Where's Warren? Trying to find a successor to the Expos!
As I said ...

Where's Warren? Six feet under but wishing he could get out, if immaterial souls existed:
Maybe Rob Manfred and John Roberts could be forcibly switched? Couldn't be any worse for either the Supreme Court or pro baseball, could it?

Where's Warren?
Damned if I didn't think of this before!

Where's Warren?

In reality? She's cringing in fear of doze meanie BernieBros, because Culinary 226 claimed somebody threw a chair at their Neera Tanden-loving secretary-treasurer or something. And, of course, nobody's proven anything beyond, as Bernie said, some Twitter yahoos saying something or another.

There is one good thing out of this. It may undercut some Berners' penchant for conspiracy thinking. Yes, many in the MSM may not be enamored of Sanders, and many of them may be ditching Warren on electability grounds. But, some of these things are just .... mistakes.
Labels:
at Wednesday, February 19, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

Texas progressives salute the start of early voting

Texas Progressives wonder what the start of early voting will show on turnout tea leaves while giving you updates in local, state and national political and other news.

Brains offers his initial glance, leading off with thoughts on the Donkeys' Senate nomination race.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, I saw not a BernieBro, but a BernieBarbie, engaging in what could indeed be considered stereotypical conspiracy thinking:
Yes, I'm in the media, so I know about ballot order issues. But, if you don't know? It's called "asking," not going off half-cocked (or less).


Texas politics

The cult of Bob on a Knob O'Rourke and his new PAC has both upsides and downsides for Texas Democrats.

Austin Merikan Stateless, now under the ownership of Craphouse, endorses ConservaDem MJ Hegar in the Dem Senate race. San Antone endorses ModeratoDem Amanda Edwards. I presume the hometown Chronic will do or has done the same.

The Observer anti-endorses incumbent DAs Kim Ogg in Harris County and Margaret Moore in Travis County. (Your blogger thinks both counties needs more prosecutorial reform, but sides with the more moderate challengers in both cases and rejects the idea of a blanket refusal to pursue any felony drug cases.)

Paradise in Hell interprets Sen. John Cornyn. The Texas Signal comments on Cornyn's low name recognition.


Texana

Socratic Gadfly had more sad trombones for Texas sports, this time just for Dusty Baker worried about Cheating Astros players getting beaned, even as Commissioner Rob Manfred appeared determined to show he could do worse PR than Astros owner Jim Crane.

Claytie Williams is dead of pneumonia at 88. I hope he laid there and enjoyed it.

Following up on last week's article about lung-clogging shit-laden Panhandle feetlot pollution, the Observer notes that photojournalism groups say state law forbidding drone photography of feedlots is unconstitutional — and they're suing.

The Lunch Tray takes a closer look at Unilever's decision to mostly end child-directed marketing of ice cream.

The Rag Blog talks about an Underground Railroad route in Texas.


Dallas

Oh, Lordy! Pun intended! Dallas' top Trump ass-kisser, and possibly Protestant ministry's top Trump ass-kisser, Robert Jeffress will be interviewing Sarah Sanders during Sunday, March 1, worship services, while continuing to claim he's not a political stooge.

Jim Schutze calls out the Snooze for refusing to run a piece that eventually dropped in the StartleGram about DART bleeding money. He then calls out former Snooze sister WFAA for a totally wrong story on Jim's Car Wash.


Houston

Mayor Sylvester Turner showed he's full on ConservaDem with his endorsement of Mike Bloomberg. Sly has since claimed that Mini Mike apologizing for stop and frisk was why he endorsed him. Really? Julian Castro surely has it right in noting the apology came just before the former Republican decided to seek the Dem nomination.

Houston is one of the cities where the Border Patrol will embed with ICE, and new thuggishness will likely result. Keep the ugly word "tonk" in mind.

Off the Kuff interviewed three candidates for Harris County District Attorney: Kim Ogg (the incumbent), Carvana Cloud, and Audia Jones.


National/Texas politics

Brains notes that Bernie now leads in Dem polling in Texas; he also snarks well on Sylvester's Sellout as part of Bloomberg buying up everything and everyone in sight.

Gadfly raised eyebrows at a former GP state co-chair getting into Jill Stein-for-Bernie territory by stanning on Twitter for specific Dems even while part of a Greens ballot access lawsuit.

Jenny Rollins looks at Sen. Mitt Romney's lone Republican vote to convict Donald Trump in the impeachment trial through a Mormon lens.


National

Robert Nagle endorses Elizabeth Warren for President.

Mustafa Tameez criticizes the Trump administration’s recent attacks on so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Labels: , ,
at Wednesday, February 19, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

February 18, 2020

Ty Clevenger faces new Seth Rich conspiracy theory problems

Counsel for NPR's David Folkenflick, whom Seth Rich conspiracy theory nutter Ed Bukowsky has sued for defamation and who is represented in part by Seth Rich conspiracy theory nutter Ty Clevenger, had filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 11 of federal court procedure, which covers violations by legal counsel. The original motion was under seal on the details, presumably because, per that original, a co-counsel of Clevenger's could not be reached. We now also have the full deal.

This isn't the only time Clevenger's allegedly airtight legal beaglery has been challeged; last fall, he beat the rap on a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.

But it was nowhere near a slam dunk. The length of the magistrate's response indicates that it was getting careful consideration.

In the new filing? Let's see if the feds know that Butowsky and associates also have allegedly discussed spying on Rich's family.

Meanwhile, Clevenger faces California Supreme Court sanctions; let's hope that court knows his scofflaw history on such things.

(Update: I read the link when I got home. The Cal Bar gave him a hand-slap of a two-year suspension from practicing in California, itself probated three years. It did consider his previous sanctions, but did NOT consider him being a scofflaw on paying them. It listened to his friends saying he had integrity, when his integrity, to the degree it exists, wouldn't extend to gays and Muslims.)

Anyway, Rich nutters and Clevenger nutters are already circling the wagons with the usual claims which I refuted long ago.

July 24, 2020: Clevenger et al now want to have a totally new round of discovery. Proving that he, and his client, are both Seth Rich conspiracy theorists, they both want that discovery to include a nameless former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who is almost surely Assange toady Craig Murray.

Worse yet on the discovery version of barratry AND the clearest demonstration yet that this case is asshattery? Wanting to RE-depose Ellen Ratner, whom I thought was a friendly witness type. Turns out Butowsky didn't like her testimony. Oops.

Seriously, Butowsky is a clown, a buffoon, an idiot, and apparently a direct and indirect liar.  He'd be funny if we weren't talking about a death-related conspiracy theory. He did a self-own on Andrew Cuomo's show three full years ago:



He's not even that good of a dodger! And, on Aug. 1, though there's no blue check mark, it sure reads like the real Butowsky decided to follow me. (And blocked other people on a group thread.)
Labels: ,
at Tuesday, February 18, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

February 17, 2020

Sinema-Cassidy isn't bipartisan, but is fake help for child care
and no matter the issue, it's bad tax and fiscal policy

In a column, Chris Tomlinson ignores two things about Trump's fake tax credits child care bill. (Note: Per the first half of the header, it IS fake; per the second half, there's a deeper issue, which is what prompted this blog post.)

One is that Arizona "Democrat" Kyrsten Sinema is considered even more in the GOP camp than Joe Manchin by many Congressional rating services.

The second is that the bill is bad policy.

On Twitter, Chris claims that Pelosi and House Dems would incorporate Sinema-Kennedy into any child care bill.

I doubt it. They'd incorporate ACTUAL tax credits, yes; I highly doubt they'd do this.

Per the "actual," all this bill does is let parents borrow ahead against future tax credits. Chris admits that in the column. Per the Pelosi angle?

In fact, House + Senate Dems have (sad trombones, not bipartisan) have a bill that would make child care more affordable in the first place.

All the Trump bill would do is have parents, 5-10 years from now, at risk of having their taxes audited for using child care tax credits that they've borrowed to exhaustion already, followed by stamping their feet over wanting to be "reimbursed." And yes, the Merikan ppl are like that, and yes, there's a good chance Congress would "cave." A Democrat president would cave, too. Look at the "Bush tax cuts" becoming the "Obama tax cuts." And, yes, Chris, I think there's a good chance you know this would be a likely outcome.

I think it's the alleged bipartisanness or whatever that seduces Chris. More on that below.

That said, if Dem Congresscritters did do a volte-face someday and adopt the Trump idea lock, stock and barrel? It would still be bad policy. It would be even if Greens somehow got a Member of Congress and that person introduced such an idea.

So, no, Chris and sorry. This one is a clunker and it's #FakeChildCareHelp, to modify a Trumpian hashtag.

Also, Chris, as a business and economics columnist, knows about the Obama tax cuts. He knows this would be bad business policy if something similar were proposed in business tax deductions. (Or I hope he does.)


Well, I hope he would oppose it, even though he calls my stance here an ideological purity test.

I Tweeted back asking if he would support a bill that, for whatever reason, allowed eXXXon to "borrow ahead" against the depletion allowance. (Given that fracking has put oil prices in the toilet, this isn't a totally out of the blue hypothetical.)

Or, lest Chris think I'm picking on Big Oil, let's say there's a multi-year tax credit for putting in solar panels. Would I support borrowing ahead against that? Or for non-oil businesses, to borrow ahead against depreciation schedules? No.

(I'm not an informed expert on the tax code; AFAIK, there may be some stupid tax code subsection that already allows this in some area. It would most likely be a section of corporate tax code if it exists. Well, if it DOES exist? Two wrongs don't make a right here more than any place else.)

And, other pieces agree with me. This one explicitly notes that Sinema-Cassidy is essentially a tax loan.

Or, since I'm in full snark mode now? What if we had paid, rather than unpaid, family leave time, to go back to the subject matter of this fake help bill? Would you be OK with "borrowing ahead" on that, if the paid family leave split between two years?

Chris, in an earlier Tweet, justified borrowing ahead my claiming parenting expenses are frontloaded. Actually, the only one that is, really,  is the costs of birth itself. Like many things in US medicine, it's overpriced, which is an issue itself.  But for this discussion? The main issue is that we don't allow that elsewhere in the individual tax code, and a childbirth itself is not a deductible expense.
And, while the Warren bill isn't perfect, it explicitly addresses lower income needs much better than Trump's bill does. Tax credits in general are targeted at the middle class, and within that, the top half of the middle class. This bill is no exception.

Finally, if he claims that Pelosi would incorporate this if it didn't have Trump's backing? Well, first, Trump (as he notes) has failed to do anything real on this issue. So, it's bad policy that's also serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior. Second, Trump has had the chance to back the Warren bill, or even do a slimmed-down, but real, GOP alternative to it.

So, let's go back to the Tweet that started this:
No, Chris, not true. I'm actually suggesting Warren's bill as one of many good bills that's the enemy of a not-good bill.

I don't often blog about such things, but this is bad enough policy, the bill itself, along with bad ideas in the column, and not thinking through how this would play out, means I had to respond. A column like this, to complete the trifecta, is a bad column serving as a reward for bad policy that's serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior, and that justifies bad policy no matter the issue. No purity tests involved.

The "bipartisanship" angle may not all be Chris'. After all, early voting starts tomorrow, and even the higher ups at the Chronic are loosening up a bit. But not much. Klobuchar (the viable, non-Biden centrist) got their endorsement for president on the Democratic ballot. (I assume they'll endorse any Democrat short of Sanders in the general, but do no endorsement if he gets the Dem nod.)

==

Now, while you're here, about the first name on that bill.

Sinema isn't even up for re-election until 2024. So, she clearly believes in this boondoggle. (And she's been touting the idea since last July.) On the House side, Texas ConservaDem Colin Allred has proven his true colors by being a co-sponsor.
Labels:
at Monday, February 17, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

Texas 13 — Josh Winegarner and who else?

Texas' 13th Congressional District is the most GOP-friendly in the nation. With incumbent Mac Thornberry being term-limited out of either running or being ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, the Newt-era Contract on America alum decided to leave after nearly 30 years.

As one might expect, such a one-party district for the Rethugs has brought out not just wingnuts, but wingnuts squared, as I noted about a recent campaign forum.

That said, it also has people who might be called non-wingnut IN TODAY'S GOP, and with some brains in their skulls.

With a 15-person field, it's obviously headed to a runoff. Which two get in?

It's looking more and more like Josh Winegarner is one of those two. Winegarner started rounding up endorsements from the time he entered the race, and earlier this week he got the most coveted of all — Mac's.

(Thornberry said he had pledged he would "not try to pick [his] successor" when he decided not to run. So, he just said that Winegarner is getting his and his wife's votes. That's an endorsement by any name, and most the other 14 surely consider it trying to pick his successor. I would.)

Winegarner worked for both Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, as well as being a lobbyist for the Panhandle-polluting Texas Cattle Feeders' Association. So, he's connected. And born in the district.

That said, per the top link, Winegarner isn't totally non-nutbar, either. For public consumption, at least, he said Trump's wall would stop terrorism. Bullshit.

So, who is the other?

Amarillo City Councilwoman Elaine Hays challenged Mac two cycles ago and she was born in Bridgeport, so she knows both ends of the district. She has a good shot at the other spot.

Her main contender for that second spot is probably Chris Ekstrom. Per Ballotpedia's partial list of endorsements, he's got the real wingnuts, including Former Fetus Forever Fuckwad Jonathan Stickland. And the district has real wingnuts, represented by candidates like Catherine "I Swear" Carr, who expressed her fear of "Sahara law" at a forum. That said, Ekstrom, like Ronny Jackson, is arguably one of the carpetbaggers Mac warned about. And, his claim to be the only real conservative may be off-putting.

Wichita County Commissioner Lee Harvey has a shot if the plethora of Amarillo area candidates split much of the vote. But I rank him third behind Hays and Eckstrom.

Winegarner doubled down on being a wingnut on the wall last week. Mac actually called out Trump for his misprision of funds on diverting Pentagon money to wall-building. Winegarner blamed Democrats for that, showing he's either unaware of or doesn't care about the constitutional process of budgeting. Ekstrom and Jackson went further and attacked Mac.

(Sidebar: This all leads to discussions of what the word "conservative" means today. If it means prudence? None of these folks are. If it means following established principles, none of these people are. The Constitution mandates and stipulates a budgeting process and Mac got it right.)

Trump made an endorsement in the almost-as-crowded CD 11, where nearly as long-termed an incumbent, Mike Conaway, is retiring, per the Trib's "carpetbaggers" story. Nothing here, though, at least not yet. And, with early voting starting tomorrow, I doubt there will be. Even more candidates, Mac being around even longer than Conaway, more elbows being thrown. Trump advisors are telling him to stay out, surely, even if Ekstrom (I assume) had strongly asked for the signal boost.

That said, I don't think Winegarner can avoid a runoff.

And, he might not win a runoff, no matter his amount of lead, but below 50 percent, on March 3.

Let me explain.

It's possible that the true wingnuts coalesce behind whoever finishes second, especially if it is Ekstrom and not Hays. It's then possible that Trump makes that endorsement in the runoff.
Labels:
at Monday, February 17, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)