Remember, in the 2018 midterms, Beto refused to endorse lesbian Air Force veteran and intelligence officer Gina Ortiz Jones for the one House district on the southern border with a GOP incumbent, Bill Hurd (TX-23), because he's personal friends with Bill Hurd.
He couldn't separate personal ties from the survival of our democracy. And I don't think it's fair to say "What does it matter? Democrats were guaranteed to win the House." Most of us didn't take that for granted at any point, even in the first hours of the vote count; every inch mattered on the battlefield.
He calls this sort of thing being independent-minded, and he's saying in that case, with Hurd, he appreciated Hurd's supposed bipartisanship (Hurd voted for the tax cut, and aims to repeal the ACA, though to be fair he did vote against the most recent Obamacare repeal bill — but Hurd thus far has voted 83% of the time with Trump, according to FiveThirtyEight) and wished to maintain his friendship with Hurd (couldn't separate politics with friendship when it was arguably appropriate). Maybe, but I value knowing how to play on a team. Teamwork still matters.
I started the original Beto 2020 thread (I wanted him to be the presidential nominee AND I "want[ed] his dick"), but at the time I was unaware of his refusal to endorse Jones.
I don't trust him (yet) to fight for many of the most ambitious goals of progressive Democrats, and I'm not even a progressive Democrat: I'm whatever is between being a moderate and progressive Democrat (e.g., I'm against affirmative action at least in education, I support a hardline stance against our foreign enemies and the original, defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership, but I support working on a Green New Deal and a 70% marginal tax rate for incomes over $10 million), but I believe that at least for negotiation purposes, should Dems win, we must anchor our legislative and policy negotiations significantly to the left. I don't know that Beto will come in any negotiation ready to take a strongly left position at the start of any negotiation: he might label such standard negotiating behavior as "game-playing" and "not negotiating in good faith." He might see shifting the Overton window left as "bad-faith manipulation" or "playing games" with our positions (as if everyone should come into every negotiation revealing their bottom lines; as if accepting the central role of game theory in legislating is "cheating").
I want to know he'll jettison his informal ties with the fossil fuel industry . Yes, I know that he accepted no PAC money from oil companies, and only received individual donations from industry employees, but when you know that some of the most ambitious but still feasible environmental policies advocated by members of your party will hurt a major industry of your home state (and its employees, who'll have to retrain or move on), you're liable to be open to watering down those initiatives in the name of "compromise," regardless of any majorities in the House and Senate you have.