The Weekly Wrangle

With this week's lefty blog and news roundup, the Texas Progressive Alliance would like to know if Energy Secretary Rick Perry pronounces the word "nuk-ya-ler" or "new-clee-ur".

Off the Kuff looks at precinct data in Senate districts, which present some interesting opportunities next year.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos is not surprised that a political party -- aka Trump's Republican Russian Party -- that relies upon gerrymandering, voter suppression efforts, dirty dark money, and Russian hackers (ed. note: sic) to win elections is hard-wired for right wing authoritarianism and corporate fascism.

Socratic Gadfly heard about President Obama's new book coming out, got a secret advance copy through The Dark Side and wrote up a quick review.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme sees the Trump angry white man as a domestic abuser. Texas Republicans vote to increase maternal deaths spawning trickle down violence against women.

While most DC Democrats were focused on Trump's latest Russian affair, Bernie Sanders went to Mississippi to rally with Nissan autoworkers who've been abused by the automaker's plant managers there.   PDiddie at Brains and Eggs wonders when the Democrats who want labor's help in 2018 will start showing up to support the working class.

jobsanger uses the Texas Tribune's data to bar-graph the cost per vote to elect Texas Congressional representatives in the 2016 election.

The Lewisville Texan Journal published an LTTE reminding Cong. Michael Burgess that citizen activists at town hall meetings are not paid protestors.

In the run-up to yesterday's Harris County Democratic chair election (won by Lillie Schechter), John Coby at Bay Area Houston posted twice, about the candidates and about their campaign treasurers (or lack thereof).

And Neil at All People Have Value was once again out on the streets of Houston asking for kindness and respect for all.  APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

The CERAWeek conference opens in Houston today.  It's a gathering of oil company executives as well as government officials of oil-producing nations, and there's more at stake than usual, as OPEC and some non-OPEC countries such as Russia agreed to production cuts at the end of last November in order to stabilize global oil prices.  That worked, but now that oil has risen back into the mid-50s, US companies are ramping up domestic fracking operations, and that threatens the game of Jenga they all began three months ago.

Exxon Mobil in particular has a lot at stake with shale plays, especially in the Permian Basin.  So there may be repercussions to the new petroleum world order, or there may be just some threats and bluster coming out of CERAWeek.  It's news worth looking out for, as speakers include author Daniel Yergin, EPA chief Scott Pruitt, and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (keynoting on March 9).

The Midland Reporter-Telegram sees that US oil exports have already exceeded one million barrels per day, adding to the business opportunities for West Texas producers.

The San Antonio Express News (via Sayfie Review Texas) writes about two bills in the Texas Lege that aim to protect kids from the anti-vaxx crowd, and the Texas Election Law Blog analyzes two more bills that would limit voting.

Grits for Breakfast still opposes a law against texting while driving.

Texas Freedom Network notes that the public hearing for Senate Bill 6, aka the bathroom bill, is scheduled on the same day that a parade of prominent anti-LGBT speakers will join Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and Ken Paxton at a so-called “Pastors’ Briefing” at the state capital.

Somervell County Salon wants to know why Trump's babysitters are taking weekends off.

Pages of Victory also noticed Bernie Sanders' helping hand to organized labor by rallying with Nissan workers in Canton, MS.

The Lunch Tray assures us that Betsy DeVos doesn't have the power to change the National School Lunch Program, but Congressional Republicans and other federal officials do.

Lone Star Ma focuses on the 15th of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals: forestry management, desertification, land degradation, and biodiversity loss.

The TSTA Blog reminds us that vouchers never truly go away.

Better Texas Blog finds the Republicans' Obamacare replacement plans to be wanting.

And Houstonia has photos and a story about the history of the trail riders, who arrived in Houston for the Livestock Show and Rodeo.

Sunday "What? Where?" Funnies

Bernie Sanders goes to the mat for Nissan autoworkers

He's doing the jobs the Democratic Party won't do.

Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a protest Saturday against what activists are calling civil rights violations by Nissan.

Sanders will join actor Danny Glover, NAACP President Cornell William Brooks, politicians and activists at a Nissan plant in Canton, Mississippi.

The activists cite "a pattern of civil rights abuses by Nissan against its predominantly African-American workforce in Mississippi," according to a statement from the march's organizers.

The automaker's efforts to stifle its workers range from the typical to the outrageous.

One of Nissan's first Canton employees, Chip Wells, told Sanders the harassment he received in response to taking his pro-union views public was so extreme — he described being targeted for unreasonable discipline — the stress caused him to take medical leave. When his physician cleared him, though, Nissan wouldn't let him return, he said. Wells' story is just one of many that some employees say illustrates a culture of distrust at Nissan, where supporters of unionizing efforts say workers have little voice and little of their superiors' respect.

Wells ultimately filed an unfair labor complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, and Nissan settled in 2014.

More on today's protest rally.  The grievances have gone across the pond.

Earlier last year, members of the French Parliament questioned Carlos Ghosn, chairman and CEO of Japan-based Nissan and CEO of France-based Renault, which partners with Nissan, about the conditions at the Canton plant. The French government owns 19.7 percent of stockholder voting shares in Renault, which controls more than 40 percent of Nissan's voting shares.

In an effort to take its concerns international, UAW filed a complaint in December with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in three overseas countries.

"Everything has been done to prevent the formation of a union. Even efforts by the OECD and all other undertakings have not made a difference," said French politician Jean-Luc Laurent, according to a translated video of the February 2016 hearing. "So you may say that this may not be of concern because it is Nissan, not Renault, and it's not in France. However, France is attached to a social model, to workers rights because it is a component to industrial success."

Be sure and read this article about the Kelly Service temps hired by Nissan at lower-than-Nissan wages, who were promised full-time jobs after six months, some of whom have been there three years without having been converted.  It's Mississippi, after all, where 80% of the workers are African American and are easily intimidated by that "be thankful you have a job " crap.

This effort checks a lot of boxes for Bernie's Revolutionary mission: coming to the aid of black working class Americans getting beaten up by a foul multi-national corporation.

While Alex Acosta is no Andy Puzder, and with Trump and the GOP Congress' efforts to stamp out unions via a national "right to work" (sic) law the goal, let's see how long it takes for a few weak-kneed Democrats who want labor's support in 2018 to get on this bandwagon.

Speech honeymoon over; Russians are back

Sessions lied about talking to the Russians during his confirmation hearing.

Democrats escalated their demands late Wednesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself from overseeing an investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government after a disclosure that Sessions himself spoke with the Russian ambassador last year, seemingly contradicting his testimony at his confirmation hearing.

And some Democrats went further, suggesting that Sessions had perjured himself and demanding that he resign.

Just yesterday I posted the link that indicated there was still nothing but circumstantial evidence that the Kremlin influenced the 2016 election.  It's been clear for a long time that they tried to do so... but not that they succeeded in doing so.  This dribbling out of details that Trump's people have lied about what they know about the Russkies and how long they have known -- to Congress, mind you, an offense people usually go to jail over -- tightens the noose somewhat.  Once more, it's not the crime but the coverup.

At the confirmation hearing for attorney general in January, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, asked Sessions about a CNN report that intelligence briefers had told Barack Obama, then the president, and Trump, then the president-elect, that Russian operatives claimed to have compromising information about Trump.

Franken also noted that the report indicated that surrogates for Trump and intermediaries for the Russian government continued to exchange information during the campaign. He asked Sessions what he would do if that report proved true.

Sessions replied that he was “not aware of any of those activities.” He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

But the Justice Department acknowledged on Wednesday that Sessions had twice communicated with the Russian ambassador last year. The first time was in July, at the Republican National Convention, after he gave a speech at an event for ambassadors sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. The second time was a visit to his office by (Russian Ambassador Sergey) Kislyak in September. The Washington Post earlier reported both encounters.

Kisylak already has Michael Flynn's ass in his briefcase.  And you may recall that Elizabeth Warren was "silenced" by Mitch McConnell for "impugning the character" (sic) of Sessions when she questioned him aggressively during his hearing.

Vox gives Sessions some room to wiggle off the hook.

A word of caution: Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the blog Lawfare, said on Twitter that there’s probably not enough for a perjury charge. He argued that there is enough ambiguity about whether Sessions, at his hearing, meant he had no communication with Russia as part of his work as a campaign surrogate versus his work as a senator. If he was speaking exclusively about his work on the behalf of the campaign, Sessions could argue that his work as a US senator was a separate matter.

“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” Sessions spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said. “Last year, the senator had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German and Russian ambassadors. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

Sessions, for his part, made a similar argument in his statement: “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Sessions seems to misunderstand the allegations in his statement. It’s not whether he met with Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign, but whether he spoke with them in any capacity despite telling Congress he had no communications with Russians. His spokesperson’s statement and his own statement only deny that he spoke with Russian officials as a campaign surrogate, but he still apparently communicated with a Russian official as a senator.

The Post report suggests that Sessions’ contact with Kislyak, even as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time, was unusual. Among the 20 (of 26) members of the committee who responded to the Post, none of them met with Russia’s ambassador last year.

However this goes in the days ahead, Sessions is damaged goods.  Even if he just recuses from any Russian investigation or appoints a special investigator, he's still there to lean on it, keeping Trump's massive ass covered as best he can.

Maybe Trump will blast out some Tweets soon, make everything worse.

Update, 3 pm CST: Sessions recuses himself.  Relevant passage from The New Yorker:

At a news conference on February 16th, when Trump was asked if anyone in his campaign had been in contact with Russia, he said, “Nobody that I know of.” He also said, “I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years.” In fact, Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin less than three weeks before that—an event that the White House announced at the time, on January 28th. So how are we to understand the President’s plainly false statement? If he doesn’t acknowledge the calls that his office has announced, what are we to make of his categorical declarations that he had no contact with Russian representatives during the campaign? Now that he knows that Sessions, one of his earliest supporters, was in contact with the Russian Ambassador, will he take steps to reassure members of Congress that he is taking the matter seriously and has been honest about his own actions?

Getting your ashes on

For those of you who aren't Catholic, don't try to wipe off that schmutz you'll see on some people's foreheads today.

 -- The normalization campaign has begun.  "Softer Trump storms Capitol":

A disciplined President Trump stormed Capitol Hill late Tuesday bearing a few olive branches for Democrats, some red meat for conservatives and a softer tone that surprised members in both parties.

Republicans cheered the president both for his policy vision and an unusually restrained delivery –– one they hope marks a turning point in a presidency plagued by early missteps. Democrats, meanwhile, welcomed Trump’s calls for unity and vows to bolster civil rights, hike infrastructure spending and prioritize education.

Van Jones became a believer, but two Texas Democrats made the (nearly) ultimate sacrifice: Sheila Jackson Lee did not post up on the aisle to shake the president's hand, and Al Green wasn't in the chamber at all.  Hope he had some mudbug and daiquiris somewhere.  Resistance!

For those who did attend, the response to Trump’s message was largely a study in contrasts in the divided House chamber, where the theme was established early: Republicans stood frequently and cheered enthusiastically; Democrats sat sullenly and exuded resentment. And the disparity foreshadows the likely difficulty surrounding the fights to come as Trump and the Republicans try to enact their ambitious agenda under a unified government.

Reading quickly, Trump thrilled the Republicans with vows to bring jobs home, rejuvenate inner cities and put America first. But on those and countless other themes, the Democrats sat motionless and un-clapping. On numerous topics, the only Democrat standing was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

I wonder if LieberManchin will have a primary opponent from his left.

'Short on specifics'.  The AP fact-checks, finds the speech long on unearned credit-taking.  Blame avoidance is the man's more practiced game, so I suppose this can be gauged an improvement.

Meanwhile, his travel ban is still being massaged to try to pass constitutional muster, but there remains no evidence that Russians hacked, conspired, or colluded to throw the election.  Trump's business relationships with Russia are the issue, which is why the Republicans in Congress don't want to force his tax returns out in the open.  But some people still need to get over November 8 and focus on the issues that will bring him down... before he brings us all down with him.

This was going to be a longer post, but I'm out of time again.

Trump's State of the Union

Maybe he'll speak some French since it's Fat Tuesday.

Lawmakers, investors and the American public want President Donald Trump to provide some much-desired clarity on his policy agenda with his first address to Congress on Tuesday.

Six weeks into his presidency, Trump is under increasing pressure to answer core questions about how he’ll deliver on his promises to bring fundamental change to U.S. health-care policy, the tax system, defense spending and immigration. Explanations have been elusive so far, and his prime-time speech could determine whether markets -- and voters -- believe Trump has a firm handle on his job.

He doesn't.  He does seem to have a tight grasp on the nether regions of 229 Republicans in the House of Representatives, though.

Trump sought to provide some answers on how his proposed budget would pay for a 10 percent increase in spending on defense without cutting “entitlement” programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which make up about two-thirds of the $4 trillion federal budget, in an interview with Fox News that aired Tuesday.

“I think the money is going to come from a revved-up economy,” Trump said. The U.S. gross domestic product will be “a little more than 1 percent and if I can get that up to 3 and maybe more that’s a whole different ballgame,” he said.

Yay trickle down!  Trump and the GOP have hit the wall on the first turn trying to yank Americans' healthcare insurance out from under them, however.

Trump has shown signs of breaking from congressional Republicans on Obamacare. Governors meeting in Washington on Saturday were presented with an analysis of a House Republican repeal bill that suggested many people may lose their insurance under the measure and states would lose billions of dollars. Trump has previously vowed that no one would lose their coverage.

There are divisions among congressional Republicans over whether a replacement plan should subsidize insurance, and if so how generously and how to finance such a policy. Trump may use his speech to push one side to compromise, particularly since it’s clear he’s getting impatient.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the National Governors Association, said Trump asked Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price when a bill would be proposed during a meeting Monday with the governors group. Price told Trump a bill would be delivered in three or four weeks.

“Trump said, ‘I want it in two.’ Or something like that,” McAuliffe said.

Who knew this could be so complicated?  Not Trump.

In reality, I think that literally anyone who has ever worked on health care policy at the state or federal level could have told Trump that. If Trump wanted to stick to his usual aversion to experienced public servants, he alternatively could have asked anyone who’s worked in the private health insurance or hospital industries, and they would have told him that it’s complicated. 

It was a weird, somewhat inconsequential thing to say. However immediately after, Trump gave us a good example of how his general lack of knowledge of policy issues really matters. 

Referring to his own enthusiasm for tax reform, Trump explained, “I can’t do it until we do health care, because we have to know what the health care is going to cost and — statutorily — that’s the way it is. So for those people who say, ‘oh, gee, I wish we could do the tax first,’ it just doesn’t work that way. I would like to do the tax first.” 

Trump is wrong about this. There is no statutory requirement for him to do health care before he works on tax reform. What’s at issue is simply Paul Ryan’s legislative strategy. Ryan wants to pass a tax reform plan with a party-line vote, which means he needs to use the budget reconciliation process to avoid a Senate filibuster. 

America is not going to be winning more wars with a Commander-in-Chief this dense.

HCDP chair race update

There was a good crowd by all appearances at yesterday's forum, but there was scant social media coverage -- even of the cheerleading variety -- that I could find.  Only one declared candidate appears to have skipped the event (Rob Collier).

L to R: Johnathan Miller, Lillie Schechter, Chris Spellmon, DeWayne Lark, Dominique Davis, Keryl Douglas, and Eartha Jean Johnson speak at the Harris County Democratic Party's forum for chair candidates, Sunday, Feb. 26. Photo by Ken Olive (above) and Kingwood Area Democrats (below). Moderator Sherrie Matula stands behind candidates below.

These two Tweets were the most informative from my perspective:

At HCDP Chair forum, 7 candidates, only 2 spoke in specifics, 5 talked in platitudes and generalities.

— Jason P Bergman (@jpvivier) February 26, 2017

"I keep companies out of court and jail" is an interesting message for a Democratic base vote #HCDPChair

— Kris Banks (@KrisBanks) February 26, 2017

Kuff's had a few interviews, and Aubrey Taylor has posted some bios.  That's all I got on this race, with a week to go before the election.  Anybody got any links, comments, etc. to share?

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is ready to laizzes les bons temps rouler with this week's blog post roundup.

Off the Kuff looks at the bill to modify Texas' voter ID law and sees a bit of reality acceptance by the Republicans.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos notes that we have three equal branches of government and a free press.  So far the POTUS has attacked the judiciary and has declared war on the media.  The legislative branch that should be holding the POTUS accountable looks the other way.  Meanwhile, the Russians...

SocraticGadfly takes a look at both Democratic Party post-election issues and Green Party discussion group comments, and issues his political ideas wish list for 2018 and beyond.

Easter Lemming Liberal News reports that because of slow action by Harris County and the City of Pasadena, information on election locations and hours and even district boundaries are -- so far -- available only on mayoral candidate Pat Van Houte's Facebook page Pat4Pasadena and her Pat4Pasadena.com website.  (Gary Denton works for Pat Van Houte's campaign as well as blogging as Easter Lemming.)

Bexar County commissioners have voted to oppose the transport of high-level nuclear waste through their county in response to ongoing developments associated with the expansion of the repository in Andrews, according to Texas Vox.

It was a big weekend for the Democrats as Tom Perez prevailed (barely) over Keith Ellison for the chairmanship of the DNC, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs takes a look at what's next for the Donks.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme contributes to the ACLU to protect us against Republicans going after voters; harassing those who signed an affidavit in the last election and trying to send them to jail before the next one.

Neil at All People Have Value attended a protest at a Houston country club calling upon cowardly Houston Congressperson John Culberson to have an open town hall meeting rather than just speaking to invited Republicans.  APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The Lewisville Texan Journal explains to its readers why it won't report on the partisan affiliations of the city's municipal candidates.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston blogs about the failure of Texas electricity deregulation in 'The Power to Lose'.

TXsharon at Bluedaze takes note of Frackmaster Chris Faulkner's arrest on felony charges.

And Stace at Dos Centavos applauds the decision of Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who ended the county's participation in the immigration directive known as 287(g).

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

More Texas progressive news!

Juan Lozano at the AP, via The Statesman, reports on how missing accounts of police shootings are driving legislative changes to the law (and the record-keeping of the shootings).

The Intercept details the long history of deportation scare tactics at the US-Mexico border.

Grist describes how Mardi Gras beads make a much bigger environmental mess than you might imagine.

The Texas Observer passes along the story about how the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the chair of the House Corrections Committee would like to see repeal the law that imprisons debtors of misdemeanor fines.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram writes about the bill in the Lege that would do away with Daylight Saving Time.

Insurance company profits are bigger in Texas, posts Texas Watch.

Somervell County Salon muses about First Amendment rights and recording the police.

The Rag Blog shares Cong. Lamar Smith's words about the unvarnished truth falling from the lips of President Trump.

Zachery Taylor wonders if the ongoing resistance protests signal overdue reform, or are just another Democratic Trojan horse.

And Ty Clevenger at Lawflog has news of former Dallas County DA Craig Watkins being sued for allegedly ordering the burglary of an H.L. Hunt heir's home.

How Perez defeated Ellison, and what's next

Jonathan Easley at The Hill.

One vote.

That’s how close former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was to defeating Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on the initial ballot and becoming the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the first contested race in more than a decade.

The hundreds of DNC members and liberal activists gathered inside the Atlanta Convention Center hall gasped when interim chairwoman Donna Brazile read the results. None of the candidates received a majority and there would have to be at least a second round of voting where anything could happen.

When Perez supporters gathered at a party at the Westin Hotel in downtown Atlanta on Friday night, they thought they had about 220 votes, which would have given them a majority. Instead, they clocked in at 213.5 in the first round — some Democrats abroad and from the territories only get half votes — with eight DNC members abstaining. That left the door open for Ellison, who was only 13 votes behind.

The narrow miss struck fear in the hearts of Perez supporters who were frustratingly close to victory.

Many DNC members had told the campaigns they could only count on their support through the first round of voting. After that, all bets were off, sending the whip operations for both campaigns into high gear. With fringe candidates dropping out and DNC members susceptible to flipping, there were more than enough votes free to shift to Ellison.

“I thought Ellison would win on the second ballot,” said one Perez supporter. “I have never been involved in something that intense.”

Ellison’s campaign was confident that they would pick up all 12 of the supporters from Idaho Democratic Party executive director Sally Boynton Brown, who bowed out after the first round but notably did not endorse any candidate.

Boynton Brown, who is in her early 40s, is a rising party star who fits the mold of a progressive. The conventional wisdom was that her supporters would back Ellison, who ran with the blessing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “We’re going to win on the second ballot,” an Ellison campaign source said in a text. “Some folks didn’t vote in the first round and we’re getting all of Sally’s supporters.”

Perez’s allies weren’t just rattled — they were also angry.

Naturally.  Anger when their entitlement is threatened has been the Clinton Dems' knee-jerk response to everything for practically two years running.

Before the second vote, a text went out from Ellison’s campaign to DNC members claiming that South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who dropped out before the first vote, was casting his support to Ellison. “Keith is grateful to have the support of Mayor Buttigieg and we’re in a strong position to win on the next ballot,” the text said. “Can he count on your support?”

The problem: Buttigieg did not endorse anyone after dropping out.

One Ellison ally described the mistake as fog-of-war confusion. They quickly sent a follow-up text admitting the error. Instead, former DNC chairman Howard Dean — who was originally a Buttigieg supporter — announced he would be backing Ellison. Dean’s emailed endorsement included a parenthetical disclaimer: "This is real."

This contains an element of what may have been gaslighting the Ellison crew by Dean.  The Hill also reported Friday afternoon that Dean called Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer's endorsement of Ellison 'the kiss of death'.  (Juxtapose that against Alan Dershowitz's ugly threats to leave the party had Ellison prevailed.) 

Establishment Democrats like Schumer and Dean endorsed Ellison so that when Tom Perez wins #DNCChair they can say, "We tried, Berniecrats."

— Nicholas Youngren (@NSYoungren) February 25, 2017

Back to the neoliberal rage.

Perez’s supporters were irate, believing the Ellison camp was playing dirty. Some grumbled that if the Perez camp had made the same mistake, Ellison’s supporters would have never let them live it down.

“Such a double-standard,” one Democrat said.

As this drama unfolded, the whip operations on the convention hall floor had become infinitely more complicated.The campaigns were supposed to get lists of candidates everyone had voted, for but the DNC had to abandon its digital voting tools over fears the Wi-Fi would give out. They would go to the back-up plan of hand-counting paper ballots instead. That meant there wouldn’t be a master list of who voted for who.

“Total chaos,” one Democrat fumed.

You probably could have guessed that Gil Hinojosa was right in the middle of the action.

Still, the campaigns had their own lists of people they thought might be susceptible to flipping. On the Perez side, South Carolina Democratic chairman Jaime Harrison, Texas Democratic chairman Gilberto Hinojosa and DNC finance chairman Henry Muñoz III went to work whipping.

The Perez campaign was thrilled to have Harrison drop out of the race and join their side on Thursday, believing he brought at least a dozen votes. (But) they think Muñoz might have put them over the top. The finance chairman, who spends his weeks jetting across the country and raising millions of dollars from wealthy donors and celebrities from Miami to San Francisco, is among the most connected people at the DNC.

On the Ellison side, key labor leaders including Randi Weingarten and Stuart Applebaum, as well as Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), worked the floor.

The Perez operation won out. Ellison registered 200 votes — the exact same number he had in the first round.

Perez increased his count by 21.5 votes to 235 overall. That means he likely got most of Boynton Brown’s 12 and most of the eight members who abstained from voting in the first round, as well as at least a couple of former Ellison supporters.

In a show of unity, Perez immediately tapped Ellison as deputy chair, and everybody in the hall screamed and cried.  It was high drama, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as people think ... or are complaining about.  Those who supported Perez, or just opposed Ellison -- and vice versa -- are members of two distinct Democratic Parties: one of them can't win elections outside of safe districts and metropolitan areas, and the other can't quit the losing team.

But count on the one Democratic Party to stumble on, dysfunctions intact and disconnected from a progressive caucus that keeps threatening to leave but, like a battered spouse, won't.  Talk of a third-party movement is just that; until the Sanders/Ellison faction suck it up and vote their hopes and not their fears, it won't ever be anything more than social media blather and fodder for Vox sentences.

It's all about the cash ...

[...]The Democrats have raised more money than ever and lost more seats than ever (1,000+ seats nationwide since 2009). They had an elaborate convention, beautifully crafted marketing, what was praised as the most sophisticated data operation to date and teams of veteran campaign strategists working in what was supposed to be the easiest Presidential race in recent history. But around 9:45pm ET on Nov 8, it was clear that the house of cards was on the verge of collapse. And that by the next day, the DNC would have to not just answer how they lost the Presidency and so many other races, but: Where did all that money go?

Former chair candidate and NH state Chairman Ray Buckley broke the news during the Phoenix DNC forum that as an executive member he had never seen the budget — -- and that most leaders at the DNC, as well as all of the members, had no idea where the record amount of money raised was being spent. When the DNC chair candidates debated over whether the party should accept lobbyist money (which was banned under Obama’s administration), Buckley stated “the question should not be about whether we need the lobbyist money, but rather where we’ve spent all this money we’ve raised.”

[...]

Several DNC members have privately disclosed that they received calls on behalf of Tom Perez from Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, a partner of Precision Strategies and former Executive Director of the DNC when the OFA was housed within it. Dillon is also a Co-Chair of the upcoming Unity Commission, forged out of the 2016 rules committee. The goal of the Unity Commission is to set the DNC’s new rules.

Members have repeatedly discussed the frustration with the conflicts of interests within the Democratic party. For Dillon — whose firm received $571,573 from HFA and $593,397 from the DNC, totaling almost $1.2 million — having a seat as a co-chair of the DNC’s rules committee, raises red flags.

One DNC member voting for Mayor Pete Buttigieg stated, “When a firm with a large contract with the DNC co-chairs the new rules committee and makes calls on behalf of a DNC candidate, you can’t help but wonder whether Perez’s interests lie with the DNC members or if he’s cut a deal to keep the contract with Precision.”

I'll stop there; you can go on without me.

I got no votes left in me for this breed of mule.

Update: In his first media appearance on yesterday morning's talking heads, Perez screwed the pooch.  "Mostly False".

Sunday Oscar-Winning Funnies

'Post-election stress disorder' sweeps the nation

Big weekend on tap for Democrats *two updates

Both the locals and the nationals are choosing new leaders.  Let's look at the DNC race first, with the AP having already reported that Tom Perez is on the cusp of victory.

DNC race whip count—via @AP

Perez 205
Ellison 153
Harrison 27
Brown 10
Buttigieg 8
Greene 0

(224 required to win)https://t.co/JLEfnqj92O

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) February 22, 2017

Last night's CNN debate (Twitter hash here) between the field was informative.

The 447 DNC members will vote during the party's meeting in Atlanta on Saturday, with as many rounds as required for a candidate to get 224 votes. The candidates will meet for a forum hosted by CNN on Wednesday night and spend the next several days wooing the state party chairs, longtime activists and donors who make up the voting members.

Even in the final days, the race remains highly volatile as DNC members try to determine which candidate could best lead a party with no formal hold on power in Washington and no unifying national leader after President Barack Obama's departure from the White House and Hillary Clinton's loss of the presidential election.

Update I: Jaime Harrison has withdrawn and thrown his support to Perez, which all but seals the deal for the former labor secretary and Clintonite.

So it appears that the progressives are going to be turned back again, and as with the primary skirmish last year, are threatening to bolt (again).  It would be nice if that would happen, but after spending half of 2015 and all of last year blogging about my expectations for it, I watched with grim face as Berniecrats slowly marched back into the fold, too scared of a Trump victory to risk a vote for Not Hillary even in Texas, where none of them mattered in the ashes of her polls-defying upset loss.

If I had more time to excerpt and comment at length on the following links, I'd do so.  Since I don't, I leave it to your reading and interpretation to decide if the Democratic Party will choose a path toward relevance or continue off into the weeds.  I'll simply say that no hope and not enough change among the blue sheep seems to be forthcoming.

-- Is the Democratic Party with the Resistance?  This weekend should tell us, says 350.org's Bill McKibben, in his endorsement of Keith Ellison.

-- If the Democrats won't take the risks, it's up to the people.  Duh.

-- Some thought-provoking 2016 autopsy from pollster Cornell Belcher, who IMO misuses the word 'progressive' but makes important points about race trumping gender.

-- The NYT asks if all this protesting is enabling Trump to some degree (maybe, but who really gives AF) and two takes on the activists and the PAC, We Will Replace You, targeting Blue Dogs in 2018 (important but also potentially self-defeating).

-- Using the word 'progressive' properly, DC Rutledge at HuffPo writes an open letter to Bernie Sanders, distilled as: at some point Pops, you've got to get off the D train.  I'm pretty sure it's already derailed, but maybe that's just me and a very small percentage of others.  If you make a move, however, you carry about 25-33% of the Democratic base with you.  So please hurry up and figure it out before this latest movement dies.

-- Some state party leaders think Obama's organizing arm is "some Grade A bullshit".  Heh.

Update II: two more things, one from Cait Johnstone trying to get a message through, and one from Matt Taibbi and his book "Insane Clown President".

"The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.

"But they won’t do that, because they don’t see what just happened this year as a message rising up from millions of voters. 

"Politicians are so used to viewing the electorate as a giant thing to be manipulated that no matter what happens at the ballot, they usually can only focus on the Washington-based characters they perceive to be pulling the strings.

"Through this lens, the uprising among Democratic voters this year wasn’t an organic expression of mass disgust, but wholly the fault of Bernie Sanders, who within the Beltway is viewed as an oddball amateur and radical who jumped the line. Nobody saw his campaign as an honest effort to restore power to voters, because nobody in the capital even knows what that is.

"In the rules of palace intrigue, Sanders only made sense as a kind of self-centered huckster who made a failed play for power. And the narrative will be that with him out of the picture, the crisis is over. No person, no problem.

"This inability to grasp that the problem is bigger than Bernie Sanders is a huge red flag. As  (Paul) Thacker puts it, the theme of this election year was widespread anger toward both parties, and both the Trump craziness and the near-miss with Sanders should have served as a warning. “The Democrats should be worried they’re next,” he says. 

Finally, the pathetic TDP chair weighed in with a Captain Obvious understatement yesterday (that would be 2/23, or first posting without updates) which turned laughable and ridiculous within 24 hours, in the context of the Harrison withdrawal/Perez endorsement (Update I above) which he surely knew was coming.  On my observation, this kind of deception, misdirection, obfuscation, etc. is a consistent habit of Gil's.  The only thing he seems to have mastered.

"Nobody really knows what's going to happen on Saturday," said Texas Democratic Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa, who's backing Perez.

Hinojosa, as I have blogged repeatedly, is anathema to the prospect of Democratic fortunes in the Lone Star State and the most obvious walking, talking symbol of Donkey incompetence found anywhere in the country.  His support of Perez reflects a continuation of the patron neoliberal model which Hillary Clinton and every statewide candidate from Wendy Davis to Jim Hogan has ridden to defeat in years past.  It's the definition of insanity, an executable program in the TDP, and it's been going on since Bill White was the chair in the '80's.

Texas Democrats should be looking to the Harris County example from 2016, a solid set of wins pulled off by their outgoing chairman, Lane Lewis, who is to be succeeded in a vote by county precinct chairs on March 5.  There is a forum for candidates also this weekend.  Andrew Cockburn at Harper's has written the most glowing account, in "Texas is The Future":

Ask anyone who was present at Hillary Clinton’s presumptive victory celebration on November 8 and they will tell you of the stunned silence, broken only by sobs, that settled across the vast glass enclosure of the Javits Center in Manhattan. Upstairs, in the suite where the candidate was closeted with her family and associates, the trauma was even more intense. As one attendee later reported to me, it featured the “full range of human emotions: screams, shock, fainting. Bill moved immediately to blame.” The former president, I was told, singled out campaign manager Robby Mook: “ ‘We should have fired that asshole months ago!’ It was awful.”

This funereal atmosphere was replicated wherever Democrats were gathered across the nation — with one instructive exception. In the Heights neighborhood of Houston, hundreds of revelers thronged bars along Studewood Street late into the night. “Any Houston Democrat who was anybody was there,” Doug Miller, a local reporter, told me later. “I looked up at the TV screens on the walls, I could see the whole country turning red, but everyone there seemed happy!”

The reason was simple. Unlike the rest of the country, Houston Democrats had a full-scale Republican rout to celebrate. The party had swept the polls in Harris County, the vast region encompassing Houston, arguably the nation’s most diverse city (as locals never tire of repeating). With 4.5 million inhabitants, the county is more populous than half the states in America. Now Harris voters had elected a Democratic district attorney — a very powerful post in Texas law enforcement — for the first time in thirty-six years. The Democrats had also captured almost every other slot on the ballot, including the tax assessor’s office, which oversees voter registration: a crucial win in an age of Republican voter suppression.

Furthermore, these local victories carried over to the top of the ticket. Though it probably did little to lighten the mood in the Javits Center, Hillary Clinton trounced Donald Trump by more than 160,000 votes in a county that Barack Obama had carried by fewer than a thousand in 2012. While others in the defeated party were subsiding into melancholy, hand-wringing, and consolatory tales of Russian hackers, the county’s newly elected sheriff, former Houston police sergeant Ed Gonzalez, was assuring supporters that he would defy any orders to round up undocumented immigrants. Across the street, the new D.A., Kim Ogg, promised her exuberant audience a progressive agenda: “We’re going to have a system that doesn’t oppress the poor.”

Voter endorsement of such progressive positions, well to the left of anything Clinton promoted during her message-lite campaign, was all the more dramatic in this reddest of red states. The prospect of life under an administration populated with avaricious plutocrats, xenophobes, and religious fanatics may chill the blood of countless Americans, but Texans have been living in such conditions for decades. Pertinent examples abound, not least the unremitting legislative assaults on Texan women, the latest being a proposed rule requiring that fetal tissue from abortions or miscarriages be expensively interred or cremated. Add to that cash-starved public schools, cuts in services for disabled children, record-breaking numbers of uninsured, lack of compensation for injured workers, the wholesale gutting of environmental regulations, soaring inequality, hostility to immigrants, and multiple restrictions on voting rights. Texas may therefore serve as an example of what could be in store for the rest of us. “The Texas Republicans have done a good job on voter suppression,” Craig Varoga, a Democratic political consultant and veteran of many election battles across the state, told me gloomily. “Now you’re going to see the same thing happening nationally, with the blessing of the Department of Justice.”

Read on from there.  The author spotlights the sheriff and DA's races, where Ed Gonzalez and Kim Ogg ran on actual liberal policies against hapless Republican incumbent opponents, and gives kudos to the Texas Organizing Project for turning out the vote.  These are election strategies that can be duplicated here again and elsewhere across the state.  If Lillie Schechter or Dominique Davis is elected, then I suspect either one of those women has the chops to keep the roll going.  If some pretender like Rob Collier or Keryl Douglas gets in, something tells me the momentum will be endangered.  Twenty-eighteen is going to be a rough enough cycle for the Blues without committing the usual unforced errors.

Blogging less and enjoying it more

At least through the end of tax season.

Trump's had a quiet week so far, don't you think?  Outside of the continuing developments surrounding Russians named Felix Sater, this piece about the James Comey letter and its ensuing debacle may spark some discussion.

The Texas Lege has been getting a little busier, however.  My go-to source remains Quorum Report's Daily Buzz; even if you can't read the full story about the rural high-speed rail pushback (setting up a confrontation between Trump's stated priority and the hicks that rule this state), or the $11 trillion in financial interests standing up to Dan Patrick's Not Free to Pee bill, or Dan Patrick being a jerk in other ways, Harvey's crew is always first with the news that breaks.

Some polling is out this week: Americans are worried about war but still favor support for the NATO alliance.  And the TexTrib surveyed Texans and finds that Republicans love their president and everybody likes their weed, and even Obamacare if it went by another name.  But they don't care about where people do their business in public even if they support (scroll down) the bathroom bill's intentions, and they still despise Ill Eagles.  Way to go once again, Texas Democrats!  We obviously need more independents in this state.

Most poll respondents — 54 percent — said Texans should use the public restrooms based on their birth gender, while 31 percent said they should base their choice on their gender identities.

Note also that Governor Hell on Wheels hasn't stimulated much interest for his constitutional convention.  Some of this poll's takeaways are actually positive; let's hope it doesn't hold to the typical track record of the TexTrib in specific and the recent history of polling generally.

Much more but out of time.