Beto has thrown me for a bit of a loop.

[WeekiWater]

The older I’ve gotten the more progressive I’ve become on economic issues. Beto has historically been more of an economic conservative(please note I’m only referencing that in terms of the Democratic Party). The economic side of the equation is extremely important to me and my vote. It’s the reason I couldn’t vote for a Biden or a Sanders in the primary. Biden is historically one of our more fiscally conservative members and in far too many areas Sanders refuses to even acknowledge systemic oppression in his policies, going for a lift all boats approach. Pure foolishness.

So why am I excited about Beto? I’m really looking forward to seeing his campaign move forward. To me it’s about moving economic policy in the right direction. I’m not talking pragmatic v purist. I’m talking about a possible Presidential candidate who is transformative. Someone who will brazenly call on us for our best and do it by leading the way. Someone who will talk about economic injustice with such passion that people from all walks will be awakened. A person without fear of the perception of impossibility leading a party and setting the standard. Someone who will stand on a stage and forcefully echo the Obama/Biden moonshot of curing cancer.

As I said, I’m further to the left in ideology than Beto. But I wasn’t born yesterday. Personality and how one conducts themselves matters. Being an inspirational leader matters greatly. Being an unashamed and bold salesman matters. I do see how things could swing more dramatically in a direction I would like even if the person hasn’t been historically ideologically aligned with me.

I’m excited to see how he campaigns. I can see him getting my vote if he seems to be transformative.

1) He must be damn near flawless on women’s issues. I don’t back down from the fact that I have a major gender bias when it comes to my vote. I’m not big on my primary vote going to a male. People can say what they want about that.

2) I want to see him speak passionately about the environment.

3) I want to hear him highlight all forms of economic disparity in a way that moves hearts and minds.

4) If he is transformative, he can go forward without attacking his competitors. It’s a different thought process to running.

5) His style is perfectly suited to lead the charge to make changes to our justice system. I want to hear it.

There is more but I really want to see him rise to the challenge. If he is who I think he has the potential of becoming he doesn’t even have to get into detailed plans. He needs to prove he can change the landscape by way of personality.

I know he has done some of the things I mentioned above. He is now on a bigger stage.

A final note because of something I said above. I love Biden. I included the part about him as it was directly in-line with building my thoughts about my Beto conundrum. Biden is someone I greatly appreciate.

[redstateblues]

1. The more I see and hear Beto, the more I like him

[pamela]

2. I love Beto

I voted for him and donated to his campaign. I would love to see him as VP but I don't think he's the one to beat Trump. We really have a great field, though. I'm leaning towards Kamala. I really, really like Mayor Pete.

I think Beto as VP is very likely. A Dem VP candidate who can draw huge crowds, has amazing fundraising and social media skills, gets the youth vote out and could even put Texas in play? That's going to be attractive to the eventual nominee.

[progressoid]

3. "2) I want to see him speak passionately about the environment. "

I wonder if he'll turn away donations from the oil sector this time around. He took in quite a bit of $$ from them during his senate run.

[Cha]

4. That was the smear.. this is the reality..

David Sirota's Attempt To Smear Beto O'Rourke Goes Horribly Wrong

In a series of tweets, Sirota implied that O'Rourke was the second-biggest recipient of oil and gas industry donations during the 2018 election cycle:

However, Sirota's claims simply don't add up when subjected to the most basic levels of scrutiny. During his campaign, O'Rourke pledged not to take any money from PACs, and for the most part, he stayed true to his word, eschewing big corporate donors like the ones he was accused of accepting. O'Rourke's commitment to taking small donations from his supporters made him the best-funded Senate candidate in 2018. According to independent, Texas-based journalist Leah McElrath, the numbers Sirota cites come from individual donors - not corporations.

More..
https://thedailybanter.com/2018/12/04/david-sirota-unfairly-smears-beto/

[progressoid]

5. Well, that's not exactly the whole story is it?

He did sign Oil Change USA's No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge.

Taking the pledge means that a politician and their campaign will adopt a policy to not knowingly accept any contributions over $200 from the PACs, executives, or front groups of fossil fuel companies — companies whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution, or sale of oil, gas, or coal.

The Texas Democratic representative has been taken off the list of politicians who signed a “No Fossil Fuel Money” pledge, according to a new report by Sludge.

Taking the pledge, led by Oil Change USA, means politicians will not knowingly take contributions of over $200 from “the PACs, executives, or front groups of fossil fuel companies — companies whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution, or sale of oil, gas, or coal.”

O’Rourke received $430,000 from individuals working in the oil and gas industry, 75 percent of which he received in the form of a donation over $200. There were 29 large donations from fossil fuel executives, according to Sludge reporter Alex Kotch, a strict no-no if you’re sitting pretty on that list.

[Cha]

6. We'll see how Beto does with his environmental

stance now that he's running for POTUS instead of being a Rep or running for a Senator in Texas.

I appreciate Gov Jay Inslee is running, too.

[melman]

11. "Texas-based journalist Leah McElrath"

Ah yes, who could forget Leah McElrath?

Link to tweet

[WeekiWater]

7. I hope he doesn't turn away campaign contributions.

Their money will secure TV spots and other expenditures just like anyone else’s.

[jalan48]

12. Yes, he's definitely been well-oiled in Texas. Can he turn on those donors when he goes National?

[Gothmog]

8. Opinion: The myth of ideology, and why Democrats' energy isn't all on the left

Link to tweet

The vast majority of Democratic primary voters then and now do not identify as democratic socialists. Perhaps Sanders capitalized on unaffiliated anti-establishment types and Democrats who preferred him despite his ideology and not because of it. Move forward to the 2020 contests. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is providing the most substantive, interesting agenda that committed progressives could hope to see. Yet she is lagging in the polls. If this was all about progressive ideology and policy plans, she’d be running rings around the rest of the field.

As for Sanders, he benefits this time around from 100 percent name identification. However, the flip side of 100 percent name ID is that he’s no longer new, no longer saying things no one else will. He’s just as much of a democratic socialist as he was in 2016, but in the space of a few days we’ve seen that the “energy” isn’t all on the left; it’s drifting toward a centrist, young, optimistic candidate. Voters follow the energy and the ethos. They don’t carry around a thermometer gauging where on the scale of ideological purity each candidate rates.....

All you need to be is progressive enough to win a Democratic primary. Seeming more moderate than the Sanders clan is an advantage in the general election.

Why are pundits, the media and party insiders so convinced that ideological extremism equals energy/success? Part of it may be wishful thinking for progressives. However, part of the difficulty is linguistic. "Moderate” sounds to many ears to mean mild-mannered, prone to compromise and wishy-washy in beliefs. Nonsense. If ever there was a radical moderate, a fervent centrist Democrat, it’s O’Rourke. And gosh, he’s showing that can be exciting.

[WeekiWater]

9. Good read an thank you for sharing it.

I do take issue with a couple of things. Clinton ran a solidly left campaign. She did so from the get-go in the primaries. She wasn’t pushed there. I know there is an image of her being a centrist, and much of that is for good reason, but she hit the ground running with one of the most progressive platforms of a Democratic Presidential candidate(same platform she ran in the primary on, for the most part).

Moving on, I think the further left elements should keep a friendly and open ear to Beto. It’s about the future. It’s about moving the needle and getting lasting change. This is not superficial, it’s an ends to a means. If Beto is the leader who can do it I’ll take everyone of those who vote for superficial reasons along for the ride.

Kessler and Erickson’s excerpt... Wow.

This sentence from the piece is a mouthful and very interesting to me.

“If ever there was a radical moderate, a fervent centrist Democrat, it’s O’Rourke. And gosh, he’s showing that can be exciting.”

They are right. Excitement doesn’t come from ideological extremism like the MSM and others try to make it out to be. I would like to hedge on my use of “extremism.” I don’t think any of our candidates are all that extreme. I’m using it as a term recognizing the spectrum of ideology in our part. Manchin would be the opposite extreme end.

I like Warren a lot. That is who my choice originally was. But I can see a scenario where everyone benefits if Beto is the real deal. Warren and others doing the tough work in congress and Beto selling it.

Again, thanks for sharing that.

[Blue_true]

10. I can't wait for the first debate.

I once dismissed his chances, but one candidate that is impressing me the more I hear him speak on Mayor Pete Buttigieg, he has produced some solid results for a historically economically depressed part of Indiana. I like his calm, complete answers to questions.