Fake Journalists-- Whether At Politico Or The Texas Monthly, Don't Know What A Primary Is

The headline is idiotic. The Texas Monthly asked, trying to be provocative, I suppose: Can Out-of-State Liberals Oust a Texas Democrat? The answer, of course, is NO. Only a solid home-grown progressive Democrat from Webb or Bexar County is going to oust Henry Cuellar. Good candidates aren't found on top shelves in an old WalMart and they don't get invented. No one wins a race who isn't positively driven by inner demons, especially not a primary.

Six of the nine counties that make up Texas' 28th district are deep blue. Tiny Atascosa, Wilson and even tinier McMullen Counties are the exceptions. Trump won Atascosa with 63.2%, Wilson with 72.7% and McMullen with 91.3%. It didn't make any difference. The massive majorities Hillary ran up in the more populated counties-- Webb (74.4%), Bexar (54.5%) and Hidalgo (68.6%)-- gave her a districtwide 58.3% to 38.5% win over Trump.

Last year the Republicans didn't even bother running an opponent against Cuellar, not just because he votes with them more than any other Democrat in Congress, but because the district is too blue for them to win (PVI is D+9). Republicans in TX-28 are lucky if they can get a third of the vote. In Congress, Cuellar's Trump adhesion score is 55.9%, the highest of any Democrat... by far.

Maria Recio wrote, so simplistically as to be almost misleading, that "Now the same group of young activists from Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign who boosted Ocasio-Cortez are looking to replace other moderate and conservative Democrats across the country with leftist candidates. Their first target? U.S. representative Henry Cuellar, of Texas’s Twenty-eighth Congressional District. 'His votes and his rhetoric are not upholding Democratic values,' says Alexandra Rojas, the executive director of the political action committee Justice Democrats, which launched its 'Primary Cuellar' campaign in January. In arguing why the eight-term congressman must go, Rojas points to the frequency with which Cuellar votes with President Donald Trump-- about 60 percent of the time, more than almost any other House Democrat-- despite representing a district that favored Hillary Clinton over Trump by nearly 20 percent in the 2016 election. The Justice Democrats say they believe, contrary to the results of recent elections, that the values of Texans aren’t significantly different from those of New Yorkers-- and, furthermore, that those values are progressive. 'In poll after poll, Americans everywhere want change in immigration, health care, climate change, and income inequality,' Rojas says."

Justice Democrats didn't invent Ocasio-Cortez. Their support for her was very important in her victory. But it was her victory, based primarily on how smart and effective she was as a campaigner and how charismatic she is. The way to do this is to start with a candidate, not with an enemy. "Their effort," wrote Recio, "is something of a proxy war for a larger conflict that has erupted within the Democratic party about the right way to mobilize voters and take the White House back from Trump in the 2020 election. Did Clinton lose the presidency because she failed to excite progressives by not tacking far enough to the left or because she didn’t hew close enough to the center to attract moderates? And is the answer to that question the same in all parts of the country?" Jesus, what a bunch of amateur and idiotic question-- well-meaning, terribly put.

The writer is so inept than she tries to say TX-28 Democrats should be discouraged because Beto didn't win Texas, seeming to have forgotten that he did win TX-28-- and massively so. Beto took Webb County 71.2% to 28.0%, Bexar 59.5% to 39.6%, Hidalgo 68.8% to 30.6% and so on. Of course, she's absolutely correct in pointing out that "Cuellar’s slice of South Texas and AOC’s corner of the Bronx and Queens are culturally worlds apart" and maybe even that "the Justice Democrats may be deluding themselves into thinking that they can replicate in Texas’s Twenty-eighth District the success they achieved in New York’s Fourteenth." There's no replication in politics. The Justice Democrats-- and the rest of use hoping to replace Cuellar with an actual Democrat-- need to find a good solid Texas candidate and then support her or him with all our might.

Recio veers off course though when she implies that the Justice Dems, in "their desire to shift the party sharply to the left could undermine the Democrats’ renewed attempts to turn the state blue." What does "blue" mean to Rechio; she doesn't say in her piece. Cuellar-like? Is that the blue she means. I can't speak for the Justice Democrats, but I sincerely doubt they would consider that electing more Henry Cuellars-- something Cheri Bustos' DCCC has made clear that that's exactly what they want to do-- would equate to turning anything blue at all. Nor is there a need for that. There are dozens and dozens of districts that are less blue than Cuellar's with more progressive congress members than he is. Take a guy like John Yarmuth. Not only is Kentucky (R+15) much redder than Texas (R+8), Yarmuth is, across-the-board, far more progressive than Cuellar despite representing a less blue district. TX-28 has a PVI of D+9 while Yarmuth is far more vulnerable in a D+6 district. Instead of Cuellar's strong Trump adhesion score (55.9%), Yarmuth's is more like a normal Democrat (16.5%). Babbling imbeciles like Recio, shrieking about leftists and mixing up facts-- citing Filemon Vela, for example as a liberal, when Vela is also a right-of-center Blue Dog with a solid "F" ProgressivePunch score in an even bluer district than Cuellar's-- spit out pseudo analyses that just confuse her readers. Vela supports Cuellar, she reports. Wow! Amazing, two right-wing corrupt Blue Dogs support each other. Unheard of!

She did stumble upon a fact worth noting though. Gilberto Hinojosa, the chairman of the Texas Democratic party, disagrees with the DCCC policy protecting worthless incumbents like Cuellar from primary challenges. Hinojosa doesn’t believe the Justice Democrats’ efforts pose any threat to the party’s plans because the TX-28 itself is already 'deep blue' and is likely to remain so, regardless of the nominee who emerges from the primary. Exactly what establishment hacks rarely seem capable of grasping.

Politico found someone as hackish and ignorant as Recio, Steven Perlberg, to write a posy for them yesterday, How The Intercept Is Fueling The Democratic Civil War. Because, you know, primaries between progressives and the Republican wing iff the Democratic Party are always terrible civil wars. "For a broad swath of Democrats," wrote Perlberg, a [Mark] Kelly campaign is precisely what the party needs." Really? A Republican suddenly pretending to be a Democrat is just what the party needs? Perlberg described him as "a patriotic, mediagenic, center-friendly liberal who has a rare chance to turn the longtime Republican stronghold of Arizona into a state with two Democratic U.S. senators." He's wrong about "liberal" and very correct about "center-friendly," not as in center of the Democratic Party, but center of the political spectrum... so the place where the GOP meets the Democratic Party, home to shitheads like the aforementioned Henry Cuellar, as well as other corrupted right-wing corporatists who usually join the Blue Dogs and New Dems in the House and vote with Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Warner (VA), Michael Bennet (CO), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Tom Carper (DE) in the Senate. You know who was defeated in the midst of the big anti-red wave last year? While Democrats were capturing dozens of Republican-held House seats across the country, "center-friendly" faux-Dems like Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Bill Nelson (FL) and Claire McCaskill (MO) all lost their seats, failing to win their gamble that Republicans would vote for them and that the Democratic base would go with a lesser-of-two-evils strategy. Meanwhile, Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Sherrod Brown (WI), similarly targeted by the GOP, stuck to progressive platforms and won solid reelection battles in states Trump won.

Perlberg is angry that an Intercept reporter reported that Kelly, who pretends to be free of building a political career based on fealty to corporate special interests-- which Democratic and independent voters are demanding nationwide-- "made at least 19 paid corporate speeches in front of audiences including Goldman Sachs" and was enjoying the inherent corruption of having slimy lobbyists raise money for his campaign from DC fat-cats. Perlberg is freaking out because suddenly the less vigilant Arizona Republic and CNN picked up on the story and because the embarrassment caused Kelly to return the $55,000 the Emeratis had given him as a legalistic bribe for services they expect will be rendered. "For The Intercept, wrote the foolish Perlberg who probably never imagined the Republicans would use this kind of thing against Kelly when it would be too late for Democrats to find a better candidate, "it was another notch on an increasingly crowded belt-- mostly decorated with attacks on Democrats."

The Politico hit job on The Intercept is funny. I wonder if The Intercept is encouraging it. Politico, like The Hill and other Beltway trade publications exist to puff up the establishments of both parties. That's very, very different from the actual reporting The Intercept does. Real journalists don't write for Politico and Politico isn't able to grok what writers like Ryan Grim, Lee Fang, Kate Aronoff, David Dayen, Akela Lacy and Mehdi Hasan do. Politico is a press release-based operation. The Intercept isn't part of their sad little world.