H4A News Clips 5.25.15
H4A Press Clips
May 25, 2015
Today Hillary Clinton will march in the Memorial Day parade in Chappaqua, NY. CNN does a profile of the campaign strategy including Clinton continuing her tradition of marching in the parade with President Clinton.
The campaign announced plans for Wednesday's trip to South Carolina including Hillary Clinton giving the keynote address at the third annual 2015 Day in Blue. Clinton will also hold a roundtable discussion with minority small business owners and make brief remarks to the S.C. House and Senate Democratic caucuses.
SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS....................................................................... 1
TODAY’S KEY STORIES................................................................................... 2
A Memorial Day test for Hillary Clinton // CNN // John King - May 24, 2015.................................. 2
Hillary Clinton to speak at S.C. Democratic women’s event in Columbia // The State // Jamie Self - May 24, 2015.................................................................................................................................................. 5
HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE.......................................................................... 6
Clinton’s full embrace of immigration // MSNBC // Amanda Sakuma - May 24, 2015...................... 6
Clinton, Secret Service go way back // TH Online // William Garbe -May 24, 2015 - May 24, 2015... 8
'16 race feeds Benghazi talk // Boston Globe // Owen Boss - May 24, 2015.................................... 10
Clinton campaign strategy catching flak // Sentinel Source // Anita Kumar - May 24, 2015............ 11
Sliver of Clinton Emails Hint at Lingering Political Trouble // Real Clear Politics // Lisa Lerer, Matthew Lee & Jack Gillum - May 24, 2015......................................................................................................... 12
8 things we learned from the Clinton emails // Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - May 23, 2015 14
Possible Clinton running mate decries Benghazi ‘witch hunt’ // The Hill // Devin Henry - May 24, 2015 17
Clinton inevitable? Really? // Miami Herald // Editorial Board - May 23, 2015............................. 18
Can Hillary Clinton Keep it Cool? // Elle // Sarah Lindig - May 24, 2015....................................... 19
OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................ 20
Hillary: hiding in plain sight // Baltimore Sun // Jules Witcover – May 25, 2015.......................... 20
If Hillary Falters, Why Not Joe? // Real Clear Politics // Carl M. Cannon - May 24, 2015................ 21
Sanders opens presidential campaign headquarters in downtown BTV // WPTZ // Stewart Ledbettr - May 24, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 24
Bernie Sanders Is Over Social Media Gaffe Stories // Bloomberg // Ali Elkin -May 24, 2015........... 24
Step aside, Bernie Sanders has a big week // Washington Times // Jennifer Harper - May 24, 2015 25
Bill de Blasio: The Boring Progressive // American Thinker // David Lawrence - May 24, 2015...... 26
GOP................................................................................................................ 28
Carly Fiorina Talks, Iowa Swoons, as Polls Shrug // NYT // Amy Chozick - May 24, 2015................ 28
Ohio Gov. John Kasich edges closer to 2016 run // Washington Times // Tom Howell Jr. - May 24, 2015 30
Perry Seeks to Win Over Iowa, One Handshake at a Time // RCP // Catherine Lucey & Steve Peoples- May 24, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 31
Huckabee: Distrust of government at new high // The Hill // Mark Hensch - May 24, 2015........... 33
Huckabee suggests government should have a warrant before spying // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 34
Mike Huckabee on Fox News Sunday // Fox News // May 24, 2015.............................................. 35
When Huckabee Also Wanted Us To Forgive Mel Gibson // The Daily Beast // Aswain Suebsaeng - May 24, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 39
Jeb Bush having new mansion built for him on family compound in Maine: report // Daily News // Adam Edelman - May 24, 2015............................................................................................................ 40
Christie's curse-fest, and how the media blew it // Star Ledger // Tom Moran - May 24, 2015........ 41
Can Feingold come back from defeat? // Milwaukee Journal Sentinel // Craig Gilbert - May 23, 2015 43
The road to the White House // The Tampa Tribune // Blaise Ingooglia - May 23, 2015................ 46
TOP NEWS...................................................................................................... 47
DOMESTIC.................................................................................................. 47
Two dead as south-central U.S. storms force evacuations // Reuters // Jim Forsyth - May 24, 2015 47
Here are the cities that need a $15 minimum wage the most // Fortune // Claire Zillman - May 24, 2015 48
GM: Criminal charges likely in ignition case // Fortune // Stephen Gandel - May 24, 2015............ 50
John Nash dies in car accident leaving behind incredible legacy: 6 remarkable life lessons // True Jersey // Ann Brasco - May 24, 2015................................................................................................................ 50
INTERNATIONAL....................................................................................... 53
Defense Secretary Ash Carter: Iraqis lack ‘will to fight’ // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015 53
Vote serves as beacon of hope for those still facing oppression // Irish Times // Dennis Staunton - May 24, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 54
Women activists cross DMZ between North and South Korea // CNN // Jethro Mullen - May 24, 2015 56
OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................. 58
The Center Needs a Voice // WaPo // David Ignatius - May 22, 2015............................................ 58
Who's going 'Iowa heavy,' 'Iowa light' // Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs - May 25, 2015... 59
Welcome, candidates: Some answers, please // TH Online // Editorial Board - May 24, 2015........ 61
Fusion Media Aims at Millennials, but Struggles to Find Its Identity // NYT // Ravi Somaiya - May 24, 2015 63
Only Capitalism Can Save the Planet // The Daily Beast // Eleanor Clift - May 23, 2015................ 66
ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s legacy falls apart // NY Post // John Podhoretz - May 23, 2015 68
The Making of a Great Ex-President // NYT // Justin S. Vaugh - May 23, 2015.............................. 71
MISCELLANEOUS.......................................................................................... 74
N.H. political veterans talk about what it takes to throw a good campaign event // Concord Monitor // Casey McDermott - May 24, 2015......................................................................................................... 74
A Memorial Day test for Hillary Clinton // CNN // John King - May 24, 2015
Jitters about Jeb, some praise for Rick Perry, the meaning of Hillary Clinton's holiday weekend parade march and some coming Democratic competition filled our Sunday trip around the "Inside Politics" table. Plus, a take from conversations with a couple dozen younger voters that was both interesting and a bit depressing.
1. Hillary's hometown parade & a test of 2016 style
Memorial Day parades are a popular place to find politicians this holiday weekend, whether one is running for sheriff or president. Count Hillary Clinton among those marching, and it is both a familiar stroll for her and perhaps a glimpse at her style as she moves past early events that have been carefully scripted.
Maggie Haberman of The New York Times reminded us that Secretary Clinton -- formerly Senator Clinton -- has walked in her local New York parade before and gotten a great reception. Perhaps there's a tad more scrutiny this time because she is back in the running for president -- and because she is about to enter a somewhat new phase of the 2016 effort -- including the big official rollout rally.
"There has not been a sense of great energy around her candidacy so far," said Haberman. "So that is one thing to keep an eye on."
"So far, she's keeping these events small. They're doing it for a reason, but you lose something when you do it that way and they need to really kind of galvanize and mobilize people."
2. The summer of Bernie?
So far, the Clinton strategy is pretty obvious: lay out her positions in a way that both protects her standing as the prohibitive Democratic front-runner and, when possible, exposes GOP divisions.
Can she stick to what at times seems to be already a general election approach? Stay tuned.
CNN's Jeff Zeleny notes that the Democratic field is about to become bigger, at least officially, when Bernie Sanders launches his campaign on Tuesday.
"He's going to have a big rally, probably reminiscent of Howard Dean's big entry into the race in '03-'04," said Zeleny.
"The question is, will this be the summer of Bernie? Will he be able to rally things? He's already getting a lot of online support and a lot of interest from that side."
Zeleny adds that he will be watching Sanders and O'Malley, who will launch later in the week, to see how much "space they occupy" in the Democratic 2016 presidential field.
3. Jitters about Jeb, even as he says the ship has been righted
It's a bit off when the candidates get into self-analysis, but there was Jeb Bush this past week saying all is well and the ship is righted.
He felt compelled to make that statement after a stretch in which he seemed to have a hard time talking about the Iraq War and his brother's judgment in launching it.
So is his self-assessment shared by other Republicans? Not so fast, reports Robert Costa of The Washington Post.
"When I was in Iowa and New Hampshire this past week, I sat down with a lot of Republican officials and donors in those states and I said, you know, really just give me a sense of what's on your mind behind the scenes," said Costa.
"And the topic almost all of them brought up was angst about Jeb Bush, angst about his candidacy. They're anxious that he's not getting momentum, that he doesn't have energy in any way in this primary. They're not sure how he's going to get it."
4. Is Rick Perry the new Rick Santorum?
Rick Perry torpedoed his 2012 run for the presidency. The trademark moment was, of course, when he couldn't -- in a debate -- name three Cabinet agencies he would eliminate if elected.
This time, as he explores another run, the former Texas governor is but a blip in most polls.
But Julie Pace of The Associated Press, just back from some time on the ground in Iowa, says Perry is getting some favorable reviews from activists as he works the state and seeks political redemption. And, Pace says, he has a model for his 2016 plan: the rise of former Senator Rick Santorum from 1% or 2% in early polls to victory on caucus night.
"He is spending a ton of time in Iowa," said Pace. "He's doing all of the big campaign forums. He went to the Eagle Scout dedication of a local activist. He's just doing the things that people in Iowa want to see candidates do."
5. Some Sanders buzz, plus a lot of disillusionment among younger voters
I spent a good deal of time last week talking to younger voters, and possible voters. As always, these conversations were refreshing -- the energy is inspiring and I was involved in several interesting conversations about big 2016 campaign issues. But some of it was a tad depressing.
At a Boston dinner for the remarkable community service organization City Year, I was approached by a handful of young people who wanted me to know how eager they were to help Sen. Sanders in his Democratic bid.
Many others said they were unimpressed with the candidates so far. Many expressed views consistent with what we see in public opinion polling: Many young people lean conservative or libertarian on issues such as taxes and regulation and NSA surveillance, but see the Republican Party as trapped in a time warp when it comes to issues such as immigration, climate change and same-sex marriage.
My casual, and unscientific, focus groups included my older children. My son, Noah, graduated from Boston College on Monday. We drove back to Washington on Wednesday, with all his stuff, plus 18-year old Hannah King and "almost four" Jonah King.
We don't talk politics much because they have always viewed it as dad's job -- and boring. But for a chunk of our drive we did, and they had thoughtful observations about the big issues and about many of the candidates in the 2016 race.
But -- this is the tad depressing part -- like many of those at the City Year dinner, they voiced the opinion that nothing gets done on the big and hard stuff anyway, so why waste their time worrying about the campaign?
Whether you were happy with the results or not, the enthusiasm of younger voters in the Obama campaigns was good for our politics.
There is a huge opportunity -- and a huge potential campaign talent pool -- available to the 2016 contenders. But most of the young people I talked to were skeptical about politics, if not outright disillusioned.
All of the candidates, regardless of party, need to do a better job convincing these voters -- and possible voters -- that they are listening, and that it does matter.
Hillary Clinton to speak at S.C. Democratic women’s event in Columbia // The State // Jamie Self - May 24, 2015
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is coming to Columbia on Wednesday for her first trip back to the Palmetto State since her 2008 presidential campaign.
The former secretary of state will give the keynote address at the third annual 2015 Day in Blue, the event’s co-hosts announced Sunday.
Clinton also will hold a roundtable discussion with African American small business owners and make brief remarks to the S.C. House and Senate Democratic caucuses.
Hosted by the S.C. Democratic Women’s Council and the S.C. House Democratic Women’s Caucus, the Day in Blue brings together S.C. Democratic women to the State House for a conference.
Clinton will give her keynote address at 1:45 p.m. at the Columbia Marriott.
Clinton’s visit comes more than a month after her April 12 entry into the race and after she has campaigned in early primary states Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.
Clinton’s stops so far have consisted of small, controlled events and roundtable discussions.
The campaign has announced a larger campaign kick-off event scheduled for June 13, but the location has not been announced.
An ongoing congressional inquiry into Clinton’s leadership of the U.S. Department of State during the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and revelations that she used a private email account and server to conduct state department business have followed her on the campaign trail.
Last Friday, on her second visit to New Hampshire, Clinton took questions from a gaggle of reporters, marking a shift from the distance she has kept from the media since entering the race.
Also the heavy favorite in the race, Clinton returns to the Palmetto State after a seven-year absence. She last was in South Carolina during the January 2008 Democratic presidential primary debate in Myrtle Beach. She lost the S.C. primary to then-Sen. Barack Obama who won all but two counties.
The former first lady’s S.C. trip also trails visits by her rivals, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who was first to announce he’s seeking the nomination. Former governors Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island are expected to announce soon. Former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia also is eyeing a run.
Clinton will head to Florida on Thursday and Friday followed by a June 3-4 trip to Texas, according to media reports.
HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE
Clinton’s full embrace of immigration // MSNBC // Amanda Sakuma - May 24, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s embrace of immigration reform has been an unusually bold gesture for a public figure best known for her caution. By hiring onto her campaign staff a 26-year-old grassroots activist who lived in the U.S. without documentation for more than a decade, the 2016 Democratic front runner has signaled she’s serious about going all-in on the single-most contentious issue roiling the immigration debate – full citizenship for potentially millions of undocumented immigrants – all the while hitting a key Republican pressure point with precision.
The effort may reflect a heartfelt change in Clinton’s views on immigration, nearly 8 years after a question in a nationally televised debate on whether she supported driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants sent her into a fit of verbal contortion. But the move largely political, severely undercutting her likely GOP opponents’ ability to compete in drawing support from Latinos, one of the fastest growing voting blocs in the country, and one that will be crucial for any party to claim future presidential elections.
As the former secretary of state’s stance on the issue takes shape with increased clarity, the spotlight falls squarely on the crowded Republican field, where candidates’ murky policy positions are being pushed further and further to the right.
The strategy could risk alienating voters in areas of the country where illegal immigration remains a hot button issue. But by coming out early and strong on the matter, Clinton appears willing to take that risk – clearly acknowledging that Latinos have led the way in turning many historically red states purple.
“She’s concerned about the swing states where it’s crucial for her to win: Nevada, Colorado and certainly Florida,” said William Frey, an expert in U.S. demographics with the Brookings Institute. “Immigration is not the most important issue, but it’s a symbolic. That enthusiasm is going to be very important for her.”
Clinton outpaced Obama’s Latino support during the 2008 primaries by a nearly two-to-one margin, throwing her support behind comprehensive immigration reform before stumbling at that infamous primary debate. She eventually come out against driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. This month Clinton went much further, saying she supported a full and equal pathway to citizenship, while also vowing to take Obama’s controversial executive actions a step further to extend work permits and a temporary legal status to millions more undocumented immigrants.
While Clinton has been aggressively pushing her position on immigration forward, Republicans have been scrambling to pull theirs back. Sen. Marco Rubio was the architect of the comprehensive immigration plan in Congress before he abruptly began sprinting away from the bi-partisan bill; Govs. Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush favored a pathway to citizenship before they suddenly didn’t; and former Govs. Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee have advocated for tighter border security without detailing what exactly that means.
It was not by mistake that Clinton chose to unveil her immigration platform in Nevada, a swing state that Obama visited immediately after announcing his sweeping executive actions last November. Nor was it by accident that Clinton chose to make her announcement while sitting at a table with young, undocumented student activists – a group the former secretary of state knows she needs to win over – rather than by giving a barn-burning speech before hundreds of supporters.
Lorella Praeli, who was appointed this week to lead Clinton’s immigrant outreach, sits atop a very short list of young DREAMers who can seamlessly shift between roles as an activist, cable news commentator and honored White House guest. Immigration advocacy is inevitably divided into two separate camps – those who influence from within the halls of power and those on the outside who build political pressure from the ground up. Few organizations, like Praeli’s, have managed to do both, proving that the young people directly impacted by immigration policy are some of the most effective messengers for reform.
DREAMers often note that they’ve been burned before. Obama made sweeping promises early in his first term to pass comprehensive immigration reform, but instead the community watched as more people were deported under his administration than any other. Obama later followed through with his series of sweeping executive actions, but with the programs tied up in the courts, it’s now up to the next occupant of the Oval Office to finish what he started.
The obstacles facing Clinton on immigration remain formidable. She faces an uphill battle in actually accomplishing most policy positions she has staked out on immigration: creating a pathway to citizenship and ending bed-quotas at immigrant detention centers would both require support from Congress. Meanwhile, the Obama administration maintains that the president’s executive actions are as far-reaching as possible within the confines of the law – anything further, as Clinton has promised, would almost certainly be challenged in the courts.
The question remains whether Clinton’s early immigration platform could come back to bite her with undecided voters in the general election, should she secure the Democratic nomination. Clinton’s campaign has not been defined by immigration yet, but she carries the risk of being defined in negative terms on the issue with some white voters in Iowa, said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa.
“For your average, rural, small town Republican voter, illegal immigration is an assault on their culture,” Goldford said.
Just a month into her official campaign, Clinton’s consistency on immigration only amplifies the disarray within the GOP 2016 field over how to address immigration without alienating base voters. In 2012, Republican leaders made adopting a more welcoming tone toward Latinos a top priority after the party’s “self-deportation” platform set them back dramatically in the last presidential election. But 2016 Republican candidates have since seized on the anti-immigrant sentiment of the party’s base, pushing their platforms further to the right.
While flip-flopping on his own position on a pathway to citizenship this week, New Jersey governor and likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie called out Clinton for “pandering” to immigration advocates. Some immigrant rights groups, however, are saying that they’re shamelessly accepting the attention.
“It was a brilliant electoral strategy and it’s a strong commitment,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the advocacy group America’s Voice. “If there’s any pandering going on, it’s the Republicans who are lurching to the right to pander to the nativists.”
Clinton, Secret Service go way back // TH Online // William Garbe -May 24, 2015 - May 24, 2015
Carrie Tedore's home was packed with people as a member of Hillary Clinton's Secret Service detail stood watch at the front door, a star-shaped badge emblazoned with the White House facade pinned to the chest of his shirt.
Among those impressed with the Secret Service was Tedore's 10-year-old son, Bobby, who greeted the Democratic presidential candidate with his parents before dashing upstairs.
"I didn't expect him to be quiet the whole time," Tedore said. "That's a 10-year-old for you."
The Secret Service detail has followed Clinton since the successful 1992 presidential campaign of her husband, Bill. More than two decades later, the same type of detail followed her to Dubuque Regional Airport after she departed the Tedore residence.
"On Tuesday afternoon in Dubuque, Iowa, a few dozen passengers waited for their routine American Airlines flight to Chicago, one of only three flights scheduled from the tiny airport that day," wrote MSNBC journalist Alex Seitz-Wald.
Clinton neither passed through TSA security, nor did she converse with passengers or talk to Seitz-Wald, a passenger himself. Instead, she sat on the plane, sunglasses on, BlackBerry in hand, surrounded by the Secret Service, he reported.
Jeb Bush tidbits
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hasn't run for any office since 2002, and he technically isn't running for one now -- at least yet. But should the Republican choose to do so, he'll be ready to take selfies.
"By the way, I found a new way of doing this," he said to a supporter during his May 16 visit to Loras College. The supporter had just asked to take a cellphone photo with Bush.
"You turn it back to the way it was, go like this," Bush said, fiddling with an iPhone in his hand. "I found out yesterday. I take a lot of these."
Bush continued working the room when another attendee approached.
"Gov. Bush, since the tallest candidate always wins," said Russ Furhman, of Dubuque.
"George Pataki?" Bush said interrupting Furhman, referring to the also-tall former governor of New York.
"Now that I've seen you I'm going to run out and put 10 bucks on you," Furhman said.
"Well, it's a long path, man," Bush said. "Wait until the odds get really, really bad and then buy."
FUNDRAISING FOR BUSTOS
If you're in the market to see Taylor Swift in concert, you might consider making a $2,500 donation to U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.
According to an invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan, open government nonprofit, Bustos is offering tickets to donors willing to make the per-person donation. The concert will be held July 13 at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C.
POLITICAL CALENDAR
* Saturday, June 6 -- U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, will host "Joni's 1st Annual Roast and Ride." Most GOP declared and potential presidential candidates are expected to attend. Ernst will lead a motorcycle trip from Des Moines to the Central Iowa Expo in Boone. Tickets are $30 and are available at jonipac.com.
'16 race feeds Benghazi talk // Boston Globe // Owen Boss - May 24, 2015
The sister of a Navy SEAL killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack is wary that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run will mean her family will have to deal with nonstop news coverage
focused on the former secretary of state’s failure to boost security at the embassy.
“What’s unfortunate for us is Hillary Clinton running for president is going to keep this story on the news,” Kate Quigley of Marblehead told the Herald yesterday. “It would’ve been lovely a long time ago if she accepted her responsibility in it but that never happened and that most likely will never happen.”
Quigley’s brother, Glen Doherty of Winchester, and fellow Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar fire while holding off dozens of insurgents on Sept. 11, 2012, at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith also were killed in the attack.
The State Department released nearly 900 pages of Clinton’s personal correspondence Friday, some of which reinforced the notion that the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination received numerous warnings about security at the American diplomatic compound prior to the deadly attack.
One email shows Clinton received a message from Stevens warning of the deteriorating police presence near the compound.
“The police chief is a university professor who took on these police duties after the revolution. According to the police chief, there are only 3,000 police in the Benghazi area, down from 6,000 prior to the revolution,” Stevens wrote. “Many police simply did not return to their jobs after the revolution, as they feared retaliation.”
Another email, sent just seven months before the attack by then-Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz, warned of “concern here that continuing rivalries among the militias remains dangerous from the perspective of the havoc they can wreak with their firepower and their continued control of select turf.”
Quigley said the release of Clinton’s personal emails hasn’t provided her family any bombshell revelations.
“We’ve known this all along,” Quigley said of the lack of security at the compound. “I have heard that now there are new restrictions pertaining to how embassies are supposed to be staffed but this is nothing new for us. We still are not going to blame the government, we still lay blame where we always have — with the people who planned and executed the attack.”
Clinton campaign strategy catching flak // Sentinel Source // Anita Kumar - May 24, 2015
CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — Here’s how Hillary Clinton campaigned for president this week: She took a private 15-minute tour of a bike shop that had closed for her visit. She spoke to four small-business owners chosen by her staff in front of an audience of 20, also chosen by her staff. She answered a few questions from the media following weeks of silence.
And after a little more than an hour, Clinton was off, whisked away by aides and Secret Service agents, into a minivan and on to the next event.
Members of the public who wanted to go inside the building to support her, oppose her or merely ask a question of her were left outside on an unseasonably cool Iowa day. Most didn’t bother showing up.
“I am troubled that so far in this caucus cycle she hasn’t had any public town halls,” said Chris Schwartz, a liberal activist from Waterloo, as he stood outside the bike store hoping to talk to Clinton about trade. “If she had a public town hall then we wouldn’t be out here. We would much rather be in there engaging with her.”
Welcome to Hillary Clinton 2.0. Mindful of her defeat by Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton has embraced a new strategy — one that so far does not include town hall meetings and campaign rallies, media interviews, even public events.
Instead, she holds small controlled events with a handful of potential voters in homes, businesses and schools. She repeats many of the same lines (“I want to be your champion” is a favorite), participants are handpicked by her staff or the event host, and topics are dictated by her campaign.
Clinton’s approach — made possible by her lack of strong competition for the Democratic nomination — comes as she works to relate to working American families after years of being criticized as an out-of-touch Washington insider garnering hefty paychecks for her speeches and books.
But the campaign to show the world that she’s never forgotten her middle-class, Middle America sensibilities can be a tough sell from inside a bubble of armored cars, Secret Service agents and wary aides.
“It’s going to come back and haunt her,” said Eric Herzik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno. “I think it will backfire.”
Clinton’s distance from the public stands in contrast to other candidates in both parties, who routinely mix and mingle with the public, hold town hall meetings and appear on TV news programs.
So far, Clinton has not held one event open to the public since she launched her campaign, though aides say she eventually will hold bigger events..”
Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said that while there’s value in hearing what potential voters say, the Clinton campaign has ensured she only gets friendly audiences even if she doesn’t know exactly what they will say.
“There’s not the same level of pushback. It’s always going to be artificial,” he said. “She shouldn’t be afraid to talk to voters and really campaign.”
Sliver of Clinton Emails Hint at Lingering Political Trouble // Real Clear Politics // Lisa Lerer, Matthew Lee & Jack Gillum - May 24, 2015
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on her private email account about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that was later classified "secret" at the request of the FBI, underscoring lingering questions about how responsibly she handled sensitive information on a home server.
The nearly 900 pages of her correspondence released Friday are only a sliver of the more than 55,000 pages of emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department, which had its plan to release them next January rejected this week by a federal judge.
Instead, the judge ordered the agency to conduct a "rolling production" of the records. Along with a Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, the slow drip of emails will likely keep the issue of how Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, used a personal email account while serving as the nation's top diplomat alive indefinitely.
Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said that the released emails were incomplete, adding that it "strains credibility" to view them as a thorough record of Clinton's tenure.
The prospect for political complication in Clinton's choice to use a personal email account, rather than one issued by the government, was evident in the messages released Friday. They included several that were deemed sensitive but unclassified, contained details about her daily schedule and held information - censored in the documents as released - about the CIA that the government is barred from publicly disclosing.
Taken together, the correspondence provides examples of material considered to be sensitive that Clinton received on the account run out of her home. She has said the private server had "numerous safeguards."
Campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton said Friday she was aware that the FBI now wanted some of the email to be classified, "but that doesn't change the fact all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately."
Asked if she was concerned it was on a private server, she replied, "No."
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "It was not classified at the time. The occurrence of subsequent upgrade does not mean anyone did anything wrong."
It's not clear if Clinton's home computer system used encryption software to communicate securely with government email services. That would have protected her communications from the prying eyes of foreign spies, hackers, or anyone interested on the Internet.
Last year, Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 pages of emails that she said pertained to her work as secretary sent from her personal address. Only messages related to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were released by the department on Friday. The 296 emails had already been turned over to the House Benghazi committee.
A Nov. 18, 2012, message about arrests in Libya was not classified at the time, meaning no laws were violated, but was upgraded from "unclassified" to "secret" on Friday at the request of the FBI to redact information that could contain information damaging to national security or foreign relations.
Twenty-three words were redacted from the message, which detailed reports of arrests in Libya of people who might have connections to the attack, Harf said.
The redacted portion appears to relate to people who provided information about the alleged suspects to the Libyans. That part of the email had been categorized by the State Department as "NOFORN," meaning that foreign nationals weren't allowed to read it, including close U.S. allies.
The message, originally from Bill Roebuck, then director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs, was forwarded to Clinton by her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with the comment: "fyi."
No other redactions were made to the collection of Benghazi-related emails for classification reasons, officials said. They added that the Justice Department had not raised classification concerns about the now-redacted 1 1/2 lines in the Nov. 18 email when the documents were turned over to the Benghazi committee. The committee retains an unredacted copy of the email, the officials said.
Clinton also appeared to send and receive protected information about the CIA, which was withheld on Friday because the State Department said federal law prevented its disclosure. The department did not offer a detailed description of what it was withholding, such as a name or other sensitive information.
A number of the messages were marked with codes indicating that the information had been censored for reasons related to the U.S. intelligence community, law enforcement or personal privacy - a process that happened after they'd already been circulated through Clinton's home server.
Much of the correspondence concerned the mundane matters of high-level government service, press clippings, speech drafts, and coordination of calls with other top officials as well as chit-chat about shopping between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin.
"What a wonderful, strong and moving statement by your boss," Christian Brose, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, writes in an email to Sullivan, forwarded to Clinton just after Stevens' death. "Please tell her how much Sen. McCain appreciated it. Me too."
There are repeated warnings of the unrest in Libya, though Clinton has said she was never personally involved in questions of security in Benghazi before the attack. One message describes a one-day trip by Stevens in March 2011 to "get a sense of the situation on the ground" and prepare for a 30-day stay in the future. A request for Defense Department support was made, the email adds, but no approval had yet been received. Stevens was killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff that the situation in the country had worsened to the point "where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi," The email was marked "Importance: High."
8 things we learned from the Clinton emails // Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - May 23, 2015
The highly selective trove of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department Friday revealed both the seemingly strong influence Sidney Blumenthal wielded over the secretary of state and the preoccupation with media coverage exhibited by her closest aides.
If the 296 published emails are to be considered a complete collection, they would suggest Clinton relied almost exclusively on an aide that had been banned from the State Department, Blumenthal, to provide her intelligence on a country at war.
The emails show that Clinton's staffers often circulated and debated press clippings amongst themselves and occasionally discussed how to respond to certain media criticisms.
They also provide a narrow glimpse of how the State Department's top ranks operated in the weeks before and after the greatest crisis of Clinton's tenure.
Clinton asked State Dept. aides to prepare speech for Clinton Foundation
An email dated Sept. 22, 2012 shows Clinton appeared to discuss a speech for the Clinton Global Initiative less than two weeks after the Benghazi attack.
Jake Sullivan, a top Clinton aide, sent Clinton a draft of the speech that day and encouraged her to "let me know your thoughts."
The entire speech is redacted under a FOIA exemption that allows agencies to hold back internal deliberations.
What is unclear is why Clinton was using State Department aides to prepare a speech for her family's foundation, or why the text of that draft would be considered an internal government communication.
The day of Benghazi attacks, Clinton asked for a film she made a cameo in
Hours before the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Clinton asked a pair of her top staffers to find her a copy of the Bernard Henri Levy documentary, "The Oath of Tobruk."
Levy had directed the film about the Libyan war, which featured a cameo from Clinton herself.
But elsewhere in the emails, Levy's name surfaced again, although it was redacted in the version released by the State Department.
In a memo to Clinton dated March 27, 2011, Blumenthal noted that French President Nicolas Sarkozy had asked Levy, a sociologist, to use his "long established ties to Israel, Syria, and other nations in the Middle East" to assess the level of influence al Qaeda and other terrorist groups wielded in the Libyan government.
'This will be exciting when it's FOIA'd'
A light-hearted exchange between Philippe Reines, Thomas Nides and Caroline Adler — all top Clinton aides — revealed the staffers had FOIA in mind when emailing with their government accounts.
Describing an interview Clinton gave to Wall Street Journal reporter Monica Langley in which the reporter sat too close to the secretary, Reines said he didn't "think you see that behavior among any type of mammal."
"Was like the dental hygienist rolling around the floor to get the best access to your mouth depending on what tooth she was trying to get access to," he wrote.
"I may go and throw up since I am laughing so hard," Nides said.
Adler, who was copied on the chain, added, "this will be exciting when it's FOIA'd."
Clinton confused names of slain Americans
In the hours after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in a terrorist raid, Clinton sought advice from her aides about when to announce Stevens' death.
But critics quickly pounced on the fact that Clinton seemingly jumbled the ambassador's name with that of Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer who was also killed in the attack, by referring to the slain diplomat as "Chris Smith" instead of Chris Stevens.
Blumenthal and Clinton had secret meeting just after Benghazi attack
Clinton appears to have visited Blumenthal just weeks after the Benghazi attack.
Blumenthal told his old friend it was "great to see you" on October 6, 2012, and encouraged her to "drop in again," the emails show.
A day later, he invited Bill and Hillary Clinton to his home after the election.
"Post-election, we'd like to have you over for dinner," Blumenthal wrote. "Bill can come too, if he's in town. Whatever works."
"Will do," she replied.
The exchange was yet another illustration of the close ties between the former Clinton aide and secretary of state that has sparked controversy in recent days.
Emails between Blumenthal and Clinton made up a significant portion of the records released Friday.
In 9 months leading up to Benghazi, there's only 35 Clinton emails
The State Department emails span most of Clinton's final two years in office, but the cache contains long stretches of time when either no emails were sent, or none were disclosed.
In the two weeks before the Benghazi attack, Clinton and her staff either did not send each other a single email regarding the atmosphere in Benghazi that led to the death of four Americans in a raid on the U.S. consulate there, or the emails during that time were not disclosed.
In the nine months of 2012 before the Sept. 11 attack, Clinton and her aides exchanged just 35 emails that the secretary of state evidently deemed fit to give the State Department.
Private server emails contained sensitive data FBI classified just hours before release
The FBI classified information in one of Clinton's emails just hours before their release, the Associated Press reported Friday.
State Department officials told the AP Clinton's emails from Nov. 18, 2012, contained the names of suspects that had been arrested in Libya in connection with the attacks.
Twenty-three words were redacted from that particular email published on the State Department website.
Reporters pressed State Department spokesperson Marie Harf on why information sensitive enough to be considered classified, even retroactively, was handled on a private server.
"It's possible that the degree of sensitivity … evolved over time," Harf said at a briefing Friday.
State Dept. made political, helpful redactions
Leaked emails published by the New York Times just one day before the State Department officially released the email trove show that the agency redacted a number of passages before publishing the documents.
The State Department had redacted parts of emails that revealed officials' personal opinions about prominent Libyans.
The agency also removed some of Clinton's own words, such as her suggestion to explore arming the Libyan rebels using "private security experts."
Clinton's attempt to warn the White House to prepare for Republican attacks on the Obama campaign using Benghazi as fodder was also redacted, although it is unclear how that information would affect national security.
Possible Clinton running mate decries Benghazi ‘witch hunt’ // The Hill // Devin Henry - May 24, 2015
Julian Castro, an Obama Cabinet secretary floated as a potential running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, said on Sunday the release of State Department emails relating to Benghazi is part of “basically a witch hunt.”
"What you have here with these emails is basically a witch hunt, and Congressman [Trey] Gowdy [R-S.C.], who is leading this, is very intentionally trying to manipulate this witch hunt to play politics,” Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Under public pressure, the State Department on Friday released hundreds of emails between Clinton and other department officials related to the 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Gowdy, who is chairing a congressional investigative committee into the events around the attack, has called Clinton to testify on the matter before Congress later this year.
“This thing has been studied to death, by Republicans and by Democrats, several committees, including in Congress, that have all said, ‘Yes, of course what happened was tragic, but Secretary Clinton was not in any way at fault,’ ” Castro said.
Democrats have pitched Castro as a potential running mate for Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, speculation he has brushed off as “flattering.”
“If I had a dime for every amount of speculation that happens in DC, I think all of us would be wealthy,” he said.
Clinton inevitable? Really? // Miami Herald // Editorial Board - May 23, 2015
The aura of inevitability in which Hillary Clinton basked for so long has smacked up against the reality of the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign. And both she and the Democratic Party are worse off.
She deigned to speak at length to the media last week after about a month of giving reporters, and the public she seeks to represent, the silent treatment. At a time when Republican wannabes are grabbing every microphone, gabbing at length to differentiate themselves from each other, Mrs. Clinton, until last week, had taken another, less winning approach.
Really, the Republican campaign so far, with its cast of seemingly thousands, has been fun to watch, informative and revealing.
Mrs. Clinton, however, has seemed imperious, remote and tone-deaf to the clamor to hear directly from her instead of being defined by the people who hope to oppose her next Election Day. She’s already lost one presidential campaign; it’s up to her now to persuade Americans that she really wants to be president and is not just going through the motions because of ...inevitability.
Of course, it’s way early in this campaign, and she may yet find her mojo. Maybe it’s part of her strategy to not expend a lot of energy before it’s clearer who her Republican opponent will be.
Still, it’s no longer too early for Mrs. Clinton to make the case that she’s hungry for this job, that she’s the better choice for the position. So far, though, she hasn’t really moved the needle of her poll numbers since declaring her candidacy. And despite the intimate, unrecorded chats Mrs. Clinton has held with small groups of voters, her 27-day silence let others fill the void and tell the public who she is, and mostly in negative terms.
Thing is, when she engages in straight talk, as she did this week in unequivocally declaring that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake, she plays to her strengths. Yes, it’s past time for her foes to give up on their Benghazi allegations — they have been a nonstarter from the outset.
But, like every other candidate, Mrs. Clinton comes with baggage, the contents of which should be examined, explained. The dubious sources of donations to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, are fair game.
Mrs. Clinton’s hurdles are short-term — she only has to make it to Election Day — but the Democratic Party’s challenges are long-term. Despite having one of its own in the White House for six years, party leaders seem complacent, not hungry to maintain occupancy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not just in 2016, but 2024, 2032 and beyond.
In other words, the Democratic bench isn’t very deep, and that stands to cause enduring damage to the rich mix of ideas and ideology that has propelled American politics for centuries now.
If tomorrow Mrs. Clinton decided, “You know, maybe I don’t want to be president after all,” who would step into the void? So far, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a large, cultish following that could translate into a credible, popular campaign. Joe Biden? Experienced and personable, but like Mrs. Clinton, and even Jeb Bush on the Republican side, there’s a freshness lacking, though it’s not a deal-killer.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is in there pitching, and former Maryland Gov. Mike O’Malley is exploring. But where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side, from the credible to the far-out, Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy.
Can Hillary Clinton Keep it Cool? // Elle // Sarah Lindig - May 24, 2015
The old adage says, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." And then there's also "Learn from your mistakes," which is always good advice, right? Just ask Hillary Clinton. She's taking both these themes to heart with her #Hillary2016 campaign.
Back in 2008, she had her work cut out for her. It was a battle of competing "firsts": Hillary Clinton as the first female vs. Barack Obama as the first African American. Both were undeniably progressive, but Obama had the cool factor. He (along with his stylish wife) was new, inspiring, savvy, and just really, really likable—and with that he had a lock on the lucrative Generation Y demographic. The celebrities, digital media users and cultural trendsetters that made up this group of voters championed Obama's cause as their own, turning support for his campaign into a lifestyle, if not a social status symbol. No Hope posters and t-shirts for Hillary.
Despite her legacy as a feminist and political icon, other elements of Mrs. Clinton's (or the Clintons, general) reputation precede her. Before she ever officially announced she'd be running, there was already a circulation of criticism about a second-time-around regime returning to the White House and skepticism about what will be different, plus endless spoofs and parodies that painted her as an icy, power-hungry, headband and skirt suit-wearing woman and played up her husband's notoriety. (We're looking at you, SNL.) In the face of it all, the political powerhouse seems to be operating under a new strategy that seeks to shake these stereotypes. The new Hillary isn't cold—she's cool.
This time around though, the former Secretary of State is taking cues from the exiting president's success. Hillary's official announcement video focused on communities and individuals before ever mentioning her name or the word "campaign"—a far cry from the stiff talking head that she showed us in 2008. Her online presence is revamped from her active social media use, complete with the requisite Beyoncé references, gifs, memes and selfies, down to her website's humorous 404 page (which, it just so happens, would make for a great #tbt). And let's not forget her new campaign headquarters, located in the heart of Brooklyn Heights. Because, "Brooklyn, U.S.A. How can you beat that?"
The question we're left wondering is this: Can Hillary Clinton keep it cool? Popularity is fleeting, especially with the Millennial crowd where technology is tantamount to oxygen and the window for what's trending refreshes daily. Will Hillary successfully excite and engage young voters the way Obama did, or will the level of interest rest firmly at apathetic? She's got a jumpstart on the campaign trail and numerous heavy-hitting stars in her corner, but there's still a year and change left to tell.
OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE
Hillary: hiding in plain sight // Baltimore Sun // Jules Witcover – May 25, 2015
Has Hillary Clinton learned the lessons of 2008? Her reticence on TPP says no.
In President Barack Obama's struggle with Congress to win fast-track authority on trade with 12 Pacific nations, a conspicuously missing voice has been that of his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, now a declared 2016 presidential candidate. It's in keeping with her obvious strategy to campaign in a defensive crouch.
Her reintroduction to the American electorate, delayed well into 2015, was deliberately — yet transparently — low key, to counter the widespread perception not only that she is entitled but also that her coronation for the next Democratic nomination is assured.
Rather than kicking off her campaign with a large and raucous televised rally and full-throated campaign speech, she settled for a brief Internet video pitched to the "everyday Americans" she pledged to represent, in which she appeared and spoke only for a few closing moments.
In an obvious gesture of calculated humility, the former first lady eschewed a lightning-swift opening visit to Iowa, the state in which she had placed an embarrassing third behind Mr. Obama and Sen. John Edwards in its 2008 caucuses. Instead, she elected to endure a 1,000-mile bus ride.
That endurance was tempered by her use of a large luxury van driven by a Secret Service agent. But she maintained a facade of just-folks normality by stopping off at a Chipotle, where photographers managed to capture her consorting with the hoi polloi.
Throughout the Iowa visit and in the following days, Hillary Clinton continued to hold small conversations with her intended targets in neighborly chats. They were designed to combat an impression left by her failed 2008 presidential campaign that she was too impersonal and aloof to warm hearts of other than the already committed and faithful.
But a bump in the road came early. After leaving the Obama cabinet, it turned out she had complied with a government requirement to forward business-related emails yet chose to erase personal emails from the private Internet server she had used in office. She defended the action as a right of privacy in a rare press conference of limited duration, and thereafter took few questions from the press.
All of this conduct inevitably worked against the campaign strategy of presenting a Hillary Clinton who had learned lessons from her 2008 campaign, widely criticized in the press at the time as excessively closed, cautious and isolated her from the voters.
Then the other day, a serious policy question was in the news that saw her on the sidelines in a potentially disadvantageous manner. President Obama's major effort to gain fast-track trade authority from Congress, as part of the effort to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP), suffered a temporary setback when all but one Democratic senator voted against it, leaving the measure eight votes short of the margin necessary for it to advance.
Candidate Clinton is no longer in the Senate, and she remained essentially silent on the matter that she once as secretary of state said would "create a new high standard for multilateral trade." Her reticence drew a jibe from House Speaker John Boehner last week on "Meet the Press," who remarked that "she can't sit at the sidelines and let the president swing in the wind here."
Her failure to step into the fray came as Democrat Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, emerging as the party's strongest liberal voice in the Senate, has pointedly taken on Mr. Obama on the pending trade deal. She contends the deal could jeopardize the financial reforms on Wall Street and investments set in place by Congress after the Great Recession, and that the text of the deal, now classified, should be made public before any binding vote.
Mr. Obama in turn lashed out personally, saying Ms. Warren is "absolutely wrong" on the point, adding he would be "pretty stupid to sign a provision that would unravel" the reforms enacted with his support.
The disagreement within the Democratic ranks would ordinarily be an invitation to a presidential candidate like Ms. Clinton to express her views on it. Yet to date she has looked like a referee standing in a neutral corner, letting the boxers untangle each other on their own. With the fate of TPP still to be resolved, Hillary's cautious election strategy compromises her claim to be a decisive leader.
If Hillary Falters, Why Not Joe? // Real Clear Politics // Carl M. Cannon - May 24, 2015
Ten years ago, I wrote an article making the case for Hillary Clinton in 2008. The former first lady, then a senator from New York, was popular with Democrats and boasted near-total national name identification. She’d proven her fundraising prowess, was improving her résumé, and had ambition to burn. “Why Not Hillary?” my essay was titled.
It didn’t happen for Clinton in that election cycle. She ran up against a historical juggernaut in the person of Barack Obama, who’d been in the Senate only a few months when I assessed Hillary’s chances. In a long primary season they essentially split their party’s votes, but Obama narrowly edged her out in delegates, mainly with superior organizational skills.
When it came to dividing the spoils, Clinton seemed to get short shrift again. Although she would become Obama’s first secretary of state, Joe Biden—a distant also-ran in the Democratic primaries—was tapped as Obama’s running mate. But Biden seems to have been informed by his boss that this was as far as he was going in politics. Clinton was told no such thing, not that she would have accepted such a restriction anyway, and she’s running again.
For those who care about good government, this is problematic. Eight years ago, Bill and Hillary Clinton hadn’t yet perfected the sophisticated money-making operation that has Republicans salivating and Democrats fretting. The details are only now coming to light, but the scheme seems to work like this: huge corporations and wealthy individuals—and foreign governments—donated millions to the Clintons’ foundation, while also paying Bill huge speaking fees, and then turned around and lobbied the administration in which Hillary was a high-ranking official for various favorable decisions that will generate great profits. The projects we’re talking about range from transnational oil pipelines to uranium mines.
Democratic Party professionals are understandably worried about the atmospherics. On Thursday, I had lunch with three former White House officials, all Democrats, who were discussing possible alternatives. “Hillary’s campaign is going to implode,” one of them said. The question was who could pick up the pieces. None of my lunch companions gave any love to the three Democrats who have expressed interest in running against Clinton. (If you’re keeping score, that’s former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. James Webb, and former Socialist Bernie Sanders, currently representing Vermont in the Senate.)
Three other names arose, however: California Gov. Jerry Brown, former vice president Al Gore, and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry—the man who replaced Hillary Clinton at the State Department. I added a fourth: Joe Biden.
Why not Joe?
For the pros and cons, let’s start with the positive: On paper, he may be the most qualified presidential candidate in America: two terms as vice president, three decades in the U.S. Senate, including chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee. He’s run for president twice before. He’s been scandal-free in all that time, save for a 1987 plagiarism beef that looks mild by today’s standards. He has working-class roots, connects with blue-collar “Reagan Democrats,” and is respected by military families. He has easy sense of humor.
Unlike other Democrats I could name, he hasn’t amassed a personal fortune. He’s a public servant committed to public service. As vice president, he’s been exceedingly valuable to Obama, on politics and policy. I’ll cite two examples.
Remember when the intransigence of House Republicans and the petulance of Senate Democrats—and the president himself—threatened to take the country over a “fiscal cliff” in 2013? Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called Biden, his former and longtime colleague, with a simple question: “Does anyone down there know how to make a deal?”
There was, and once Obama tasked his vice president with getting it done, a deal happened. It’s called governing, and Joe Biden knows how to do it.
He’s savvy on politics, too. The prevailing wisdom holds that Bill Clinton rescued the Democrats’ 2012 humdrum nominating convention in Charlotte with a stemwinder that pumped up the delegates. But Biden is the one who may have actually saved that convention four months earlier when he blurted out his support for same-sex marriage on “Meet the Press.”
“I think you may have just gotten in front of the president on gay marriage,” his communications director told him afterward. This was true, but after Education Secretary Arne Duncan did the same thing on “Morning Joe,” the president realized that the Democrats’ days of having it both ways on gay marriage were over.
White House officials didn’t know it then but Biden may have saved the convention. Delegates would have raised hell over this issue in Charlotte. Some would have walked out over it. That would have been a bigger news story than Bill Clinton’s speech.
So those are the pros. There are cons—Joe is only human—and I won’t gloss over them. For one, he will be nearly 74 on Election Day 2016. Also, he’s famous for his blooper reel. That sense of humor I mentioned? Sometimes it’s inadvertent. Everybody, it seems, has their favorite Biden gaffe. Two of my favorites came on the 2012 campaign trail. “My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be, I could be vice president!”
Three weeks earlier, he told a college audience, “I promise you, the president has a big stick. I promise you.”
At a White House conference on violent extremism earlier this year, Biden said he has “great relationships” with Somalis because “there is a large, very identifiable Somali community” in Wilmington, Delaware and “an awful lot [of them are] driving cabs and are friends of mine. For real. I’m not being solicitous. I’m serious.”
This might have been problematic even if Biden’s premise were true; actually there are hardly any Somalis in Wilmington, let alone a huge squadron of taxi drivers. But nobody is perfect, and after eight years of Obama’s cautious and detached diffidence—and after only two months of fresh Clinton scandals—maybe Biden’s genuine, if flawed, “Uncle Joe” persona is what the American people want.
“Joe Biden is what you see,” says Republican former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. “Yes, he’s prone to gaffes publicly, and he'll admit that. He’s very self-deprecating like that. And I'm certainly not one who agrees with Joe Biden on all things … but from a human and relationship standpoint, the guy’s awesome.”
Sanders opens presidential campaign headquarters in downtown BTV // WPTZ // Stewart Ledbettr - May 24, 2015
BURLINGTON, Vt. —Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has leased office space in downtown Burlington for his presidential campaign headquarters on the eve of the national kickoff here Tuesday.
The insurgent candidate will challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
Staffers already occupy part of the third floor space at 131 Church Street, a stone's throw from City Hall where Sanders' political career first gained traction with his election as mayor in 1981.
Nostalgia, aides said, played a role in selecting the location.
Sanders has hired former Chief of Staff Jeff Weaver to manage the presidential effort.
"This campaign is going to be a grassroots campaign," Weaver said. "It's going to take advantage of the tens and tens of thousands of volunteers we already have, and the tens and tens of thousands more we're going to get, and he is going to go from one end of Iowa to the other, one end of New Hampshire to the other, and we're going to be in a whole bunch of other states as well."
Weaver said they're looking to open satellite offices in Ohio and New Hampshire soon.
Sanders will hold a rally and formally begin his campaign on Tuesday at 5 p.m. at Waterfront Park in Burlington.
Bernie Sanders Is Over Social Media Gaffe Stories // Bloomberg // Ali Elkin -May 24, 2015
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he's grown weary of campaign coverage that focuses more on the horse race and outrage than on the policy issues shaping the election.
“In terms of campaign coverage, there is more coverage about the political gossip of the campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb, or some kid works for a campaign and sends out something stupid on Facebook, right?” the Vermont senator said in an appearance Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources, a program about media. “We can expect that to be a major story. But what your job is, what the media's job is, is to say, 'Look, these are the major issues facing the country.' We're a democracy. People have different points of view. Let's argue it.”
Controversies about social media posts by aides to figures including Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, likely Republican presidential candidates, have captured the political media's attention repeatedly in this early stage of the race.
“We can expect that to be a major story.”
Senator Bernie Sanders
Sanders, who identifies as an independent in the Senate, said last week on the network that he likes Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and wants to avoid attacking her but, to his dismay, isn't sure he can get any media attention with that approach. During Sunday's appearance, Sanders said he would much rather see news outlets focus on climate change or income inequality than on some of the other stories they deem newsworthy.
“I think that instead of coming up with the next news of the moment, 'Breaking news! There was an automobile accident and a cat got run over,' here's breaking news: For 40 years the American middle lass has been disappearing and the rich have been getting richer. Why?” Sanders said.
Step aside, Bernie Sanders has a big week // Washington Times // Jennifer Harper - May 24, 2015
He is the busiest of all the presidential hopefuls this week. Sure, Sen. Marco Rubio will celebrate his birthday in Las Vegas on Thursday, and Carly Fiorinaand Gov. Scott Walkerwill head for New Hampshire later in the week, but it’s Sen. Bernard Sanders who has the wall-to-wall schedule punctuated by the rallying cry, “A political revolution is coming.” So step aside, folks.
On Tuesday, the Vermont senator kicks off his formal campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination with a Zydeco band and free Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Company founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfieldwill be by his side, incidentally. Mr. Sanders rushes to New Hampshire on Wednesday for town meetings in Concord, Portsmouth and Eppington. By Thursday, he will be in Iowa for more town meetings in Davenport, Muscatine, West Branch, Iowa City and Kensett and pushing his new “Agenda for America” wherever he goes. And Mr. Sanders, 75, is in a fighting mood when it comes to the press.
“In terms of campaign coverage, there is more coverage about the political gossip of the campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb or some kid works for a campaign and sends out something stupid on Facebook, right?” Mr. Sanders told CNN on Sunday. “The media’s job is to say, ‘Look, these are the major issues facing the country. We’re a democracy. People have different points of view. Let’s argue it.’”
Bill de Blasio: The Boring Progressive // American Thinker // David Lawrence - May 24, 2015
I am so sick of de Blasio promoting his Progressive agenda. The job of a politician is to pragmatically play among various ideologies and to satisfy the majority of his constituents rather than to dogmatically stick to his opinions.
De Blasio has been traveling around the country giving feeble, redundant Progressive speeches. New Yorkers feel that he should stay home attending to New York’s problems rather than campaign for political-philosophical clichés.
In Washington, our resident of Gracie Mansion spoke about income inequality. He spoke with another quasi-communist – Elizabeth (phony Indian) Warren.
Hey, I earn a lot less than either one of them. Yet I don’t feel I deserve income equality. I used to be a businessman and earn millions of dollars. I lost it all. I didn’t feel that because I had been rich, I deserved to be rich again. I am not a jealous person.
I now live modestly as a boxing coach. If you asked me if I wanted to go back to the insurance industry and earn a fortune, I’d tell you no. If income equality demands working a lot in a field that doesn’t stimulate you, then you can shove it. I don’t want to be an accountant or an insurance man even if it would pay me bundles.
De Blasio promotes fiscal jealousy; Obama promotes divisive racism. They both believe in divide and conquer. However, they are conquering themselves and their constituents, us.
De Blasio instituted paid sick leave and universal kindergarten. I don’t think you should get paid for being sick. If you can’t afford a few days off, you haven’t managed your money correctly. Universal kindergarten? I don’t know. I didn’t learn a thing in kindergarten.
Where do the handouts stop? Maybe we should give people free cars, marijuana, and prostitutes? Maybe we should breathe and eat for them?
De Blasio’s still pushing for a minimum wage of $15. As if that wouldn’t turn around and bite us down the line. I don’t want to pay ten dollars for a Big Mac or see inflation go through the roof just so de Blasio can pretend that he’s helped the poor with his $15-an-hour concession. With inflation it washes out to be nothing. Also, it does little to put the poor in dream coops.
Mr. de Blasio said an issue like mass incarceration is “exceedingly pertinent” to income inequality. Crime is a lifestyle not necessarily driven by greed. I knew a gangster who was part of the Whitey Bulger crew in Boston. He told me that he got a football scholarship to college but chose instead to join the mob because it was more exciting. He even told me that he’d rather be John Gotti than Paul McCartney.
Even the poor are not always motivated by money. There’s glamour, style, and leading a proper life.
Give the income inequality a break. It’s boring.
One of de Blasio’s simple-minded cohorts, Ms. Greenberg, ballyhooed gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, and the rephrasing of a negative. De Blasio seems to be behind everything that is new, as if the continuity of the world were meaningless.
Marijuana doesn’t need to be decriminalized. Alcohol is enough to get us high; we don’t need marijuana, too. I had some bad trips on it when I was young and almost flipped out.
Now de Blasio wants to stop arresting drug dealers over 40. He figures that concentrating on younger drug dealers would bring down the gun violence. If he wants to bring down the shootings, which have been going up, why doesn’t he just reinstitute Stop & Frisk?
Oh, that’s right – that would hurt the feelings of the minority criminals who might get profiled. Better to let drugs flow and people get shot. Who cares if the murder rate has gone up?
De Blasio is a tone-deaf egotist. He doesn’t hear that New Yorkers don’t approve of his selfie travels.
He moans again about affordable housing. Hey, let some of these people move to cheaper places outside the city so that New York can become a classier place that attracts businesses, hotels, and posh condos. We don’t need a leprous city like Mumbai. We don’t need bums on every street corner and subway.
New York City is beautiful. Why does de Blasio want to turn it into a slum? As it goes downhill, the crime will only worsen. The windows will all be broken.
Let de Blasio admit that progressivism is a failure. Its goal is progress, but its results are chaos, destruction, and a depressed society. Because “progressivism” has the word “progress” in it, it fools de Blasio and his followers.
De Blasio is impressed by his own borrowed rhetoric. His progress is really regress into his shortsighted failures.
Carly Fiorina Talks, Iowa Swoons, as Polls Shrug // NYT // Amy Chozick - May 24, 2015
DES MOINES — After 11 Republican presidential contenders spoke to a huge gathering of Iowa party activists at the Lincoln Day Dinner this month, they moved to hospitality suites to greet people one on one.
Jeb Bush’s suite looked sparse, with a handful of visitors asking the former Florida governor for a photo. Rick Santorum said hello to a scattering of old supporters.
But the line to meet one candidate, Carly Fiorina, a former Silicon Valley executive whose name recognition is negligible among voters, snaked down the hallway. For more than an hour, Iowans filed into the suite for their chance to meet Ms. Fiorina.
Ms. Fiorina, a former chief executive at Hewlett-Packard with a flair for biting one-liners, had just delivered a speech that included references to God and a joke about former President Bill Clinton’s hormones. When a timekeeper cut off her microphone, indicating that she had used up her allotted 10 minutes, the audience broke out in catcalls and groans. The crowd wanted more Carly.
“It was the most exciting speech all night,” said Cait Suttie, 27, who waited to meet Ms. Fiorina and now wants to volunteer with her campaign.
Iowa voters are known to fall in love with firebrand candidates and underfunded outsiders, from Pat Buchanan in 1996 to Howard Dean in 2004. And this cycle, Republicans here are starting to swoon over Ms. Fiorina, who is so unknown in national polls that she may not even be included in the first presidential debate in August.
Ms. Fiorina, whose net worth is between $30 million and $119 million, has generated headlines and steady crowds of conservative voters. In April, nearly 300 people showed up to see her deliver the keynote address at the Clinton County Republican Party dinner in Iowa, twice as many as were expected. On Saturday, when she spoke at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City, she was interrupted by several standing ovations.
Whether Ms. Fiorina, the only woman in the Republican race, can build from her status as a crowd-pleasing speaker and curiosity into a serious competitor is not clear. But something is happening on the ground here.
While supporters in Iowa noted that she had doubled her standing in state polls, it was a statistically insignificant change from 1 percent to 2 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released May 6. (That may seem piddling, but the same poll had Mr. Santorum, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, also at 2 percent, while 5 percent supported Mr. Bush.)
Not even Ms. Fiorina’s aides predicted that she would become the surprise hit at the Lincoln Day Dinner on May 16, which 1,300 Republican stalwarts paid $75 a plate to attend.
“She walked on the stage, and they said, ‘Who is she?’ “ said Steve DeMaura, the executive director of Carly for America, a “super PAC” that supports her candidacy. “And then she walked off the stage, and they said: ‘She’s impressive. I want to see her six more times.’ “
Gender clearly separates Ms. Fiorina from the pack. And she seems to be building on the popularity of Joni Ernst, the state’s motorcycle-riding senator, who became the first woman to represent Iowa in Congress after a campaign last fall in which she promised to cut pork in Washington much the way she had castrated pigs on her farm.
But another element of Ms. Fiorina’s appeal is an experience often lost in her biography: She spent much of her technology career in marketing, and has a talent for reading an audience and crafting pithy, and sometimes cutting, comments.
Ms. Fiorina says she writes all of her own remarks, including some choice jabs at the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Flying is not an accomplishment, it’s an activity,” she likes to say, knocking Mrs. Clinton’s boast that she traveled 956,733 miles as secretary of state. In her announcement video, Ms. Fiorina watched — and critiqued — Mrs. Clinton’s own announcement video.
She is prepared with answers on issues from the Islamic State to the California drought (which she has blamed on “overzealous liberal environmentalists”) and distills them into one-liners that play to the party’s base.
Of the Affordable Care Act, Ms. Fiorina likes to say, “The law is longer than a Harry Potter novel and not nearly as interesting.”
But at times, Ms. Fiorina, 60, also speaks in deeply personal terms about her faith, her struggles to conceive a child, her survival of breast cancer and the death of a stepdaughter, experiences that seem to resonate with a heavily evangelical party base. “It was my husband Frank’s and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saved us from a desperate sadness,” she has said.
Her favorite remark on the trail — after bashing Mrs. Clinton — is to relay the advice of her mother, who taught Sunday school: “What you are is God’s gift to you, and what you make of yourself is your gift to God.”
Ms. Fiorina has been among the most frequent visitors to Iowa in the Republican field. She has spent 10 days in the state this year, according to a tally kept by The Des Moines Register, and on a five-day swing last month, she held 13 events. On June 6, she will be back, attending a “Roast and Ride” event with Ms. Ernst, a fund-raiser that includes a 38-mile ride on a Harley-Davidson, followed by barbecue and horseshoes.
Her campaign is expanding in the state faster than those of some better-known rivals, and aides hope a strong showing in Iowa will give Ms. Fiorina the money, infrastructure and enthusiasm to continue to make her case in New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond.
Supporters are careful not to call it a groundswell. “Everyone, understand the challenges she faces,” said Boris Feldman, a Silicon Valley lawyer and fund-raiser for Ms. Fiorina. The Republican establishment is “ready to declare the messiah before the three wise men arrive,” he said, but independent-minded Iowans can help stem the tide.
Ms. Fiorina — who lived all over the world as a child, was educated at Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was once criticized for her reliance on private jets at Hewlett-Packard — is not traveling in grand style here. In April, she was driven around the state in a Honda CRV owned by Mary Earnhardt of West Des Moines, who is the Iowa director of Carly for America.
Continue reading the main story
“To me it’s quite fun to see people in their element where they’re comfortable,” Ms. Fiorina said in a telephone interview.
Still, she has not caught on to all the local customs.
“You meet people over breakfast, you talk to them while they’re eating gigantic cinnamon rolls or a Pizza Palace breakfast or whatever it is,” she said. (A spokeswoman said Ms. Fiorina was referring to Pizza Ranch, an evangelical-owned pizza chain and must-stop for candidates here.)
The most immediate aim for the Fiorina campaign is making the threshold for the first debate, which Fox News has said will include only the top 10 contenders.
In perhaps the most meaningful sign that Ms. Fiorina is gaining, she is starting to annoy others in the back of the pack. After the Lincoln Day Dinner, a flustered Donald Trump, told The Register that more people had come to his hospitality suite than to Ms. Fiorina’s, which seemed a debatable claim. “I had people counting. I was curious,” he said.
“She’s a nice woman,” said Mr. Trump, who is expected to announce his own plans next month. “But she got fired viciously from Hewlett-Packard.”
Ohio Gov. John Kasich edges closer to 2016 run // Washington Times // Tom Howell Jr. - May 24, 2015
Ohio Gov. John Kasich hinted Sunday that he is ready to jump into the GOP race for president, saying he’s “very optimistic about where we’re headed.”
Mr. Kasich, a Republican, said his team is “getting closer” to making a firm decision about the 2016 contest and he is soliciting financial support while he tests the waters in key primary states.
“I’m pretty qualified for this kind of a job,” he told ABC’s “This Week,” citing his executive work in a large state and 18 years in Congress.
While Mr. Kasich boasts a long resume, some in the GOP have lambasted his positions as inadequately conservative, notably his embrace of Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.
Also, he would enter the presidential race as a late underdog who wouldn’t qualify for a spot on the stage in early debates.
Unfazed, Mr. Kasich said there’s plenty of time for him to catch fire.
“You go to New Hampshire and you do well and you’re on a rocket ship,” he said.
Perry Seeks to Win Over Iowa, One Handshake at a Time // RCP // Catherine Lucey & Steve Peoples- May 24, 2015
LE MARS, Iowa (AP) -- Rick Perry is working his way through small-town Iowa one handshake, bear hug and backslap at a time.
The early, hands-on approach from the 2016 presidential prospect contrasts with his failed bid four years ago, when he entered the race relatively late and stumbled in the debates. The former Texas governor says he has more policy knowledge under his belt buckle now and more time for the early states.
"Nobody came to Iowa more in 2014 than I did," Perry said after speaking to about 20 people at a Pizza Ranch in Sioux Center this past week. "And I will suggest to you that will probably be the case in 2015. If somebody is going to spend more time in Iowa than I am, they better bring their lunch."
Although politicking in diners and pizza places is hardly new in the leadoff caucus state, Perry has been notably active in some of Iowa's more out-of-the-way places, which get less frequent traffic from presidential hopefuls. Since 2014, he has made more than a dozen visits to Iowa.
"I think it's a good strategy," said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, noting that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum employed a similar tactic in 2012 and narrowly won the caucuses. "It's not a bad strategy to be kind of under the radar and just kind of build."
Perry, 65, has also been spending time in other early voting states, such as New Hampshire and South Carolina. He says he will announce on June 4 whether he's running for president again.
Perry launched his 2012 presidential bid with fanfare and high expectations, but quickly went from being a front-runner to an also-ran because of gaffes and poor debate performances. This time, Perry is hoping his energetic pursuit of each vote will help people forget his "oops" moment, when he was unable to recall the third of three federal agencies he said he would close if elected president.
Perry's aides have said he wasn't prepared when he entered the last presidential race and have blamed his debate problems on a busy schedule and pain medication he was taking after back surgery. After finishing fifth in the Iowa caucuses and sixth in New Hampshire's primary, Perry quit the race.
"I hadn't spent the time and the preparations that I should have," he says now.
During stops in conservative northwestern Iowa, Perry boasted about his record as the longest-serving governor in Texas history, citing his state's low taxes, limited regulation and caps on civil lawsuit damages. An animated speaker, Perry gestures dramatically as he talks about his farm upbringing, military record and experience in office.
"I don't just talk about 'here's what I would do,' but I say 'here's what I've done,'" he said. "This is going to be a show-me, don't-tell-me election. Executive experience has been what's been missing out of the White House."
Texas has a booming population and posted solid job growth during much of Perry's three terms as governor, from December 2000 to January of this year. But it has the nation's highest rate of residents without health insurance and the economy has been hurt in recent months by falling oil prices.
One shadow hanging over him this time: Perry is facing a criminal abuse-of-power indictment in Austin for threatening in 2013 to veto state funding for public corruption prosecutors, then doing so.
If he runs, Perry will enter a race packed with contenders, some of them also former or current governors.
Still, former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn saw opportunity for Perry in the state.
"The good news is, Iowans are going to give Gov. Perry a second chance, and he's doing all the right things," Strawn said. "The bad news is, it's a stronger field of options than four years ago."
As Perry packs in appearances in early voting states, he's also quietly expanding his national network, with an advisory board of donors and Republican officials. Many are prominent GOP names from Texas, but the board also has people from financial centers around the country.
Several Iowa Republicans said they were impressed by Perry, though not ready to commit.
"He's got a great personality," said Leann Bohlken, 56, of Le Mars, who chatted with Perry in an ice cream parlor. "He didn't have to share a personal story with me, but he did."
Huckabee: Distrust of government at new high // The Hill // Mark Hensch - May 24, 2015
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) said on Sunday that American skepticism of the government has reached the highest peak he has ever encountered.
“Frankly, there’s never been a time in my lifetime where people are more distrustful of government,” Huckabee told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”
Huckabee, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, blamed the National Security Administration (NSA) and its bulk phone records collection program as a major force behind citizen unease.
“If this is so effective, why hasn’t it foiled potential terrorist plots?” he asked.
“Not one of them has been tied to the NSA’s collection of metadata,” Huckabee said of the program’s warrantless collection of phone records for countering terrorism.
“It seems like we’re spending billions of dollars on the whiz-bang technology and not enough on human resources, which have proven to be the most effective way of stopping terrorism,” he added.
Huckabee’s remarks follow the Senate’s decision to adjourn early on Saturday without reforming NSA practices or renewing the controversial Patriot Act portion relating to them.
The upper congressional chamber departed on Saturday morning without a clear strategy for revisiting the Patriot Act’s intelligence-gathering provisions, parts of which expire at the end of the month.
Huckabee argued on Sunday that the Constitution offered one tried and true method for combating terrorism – the rule of law.
“I think the Constitution already provides what we should do,” he said.
“If you have probable cause to suspect Chris Wallace is going to commit criminal acts you go to a judge and get a warrant and then you can listen to his phone calls,” Huckabee told Wallace.
Huckabee also noted on Sunday that mystery surrounding the NSA program’s effectiveness mirrored the greater opaqueness of both President Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
“The secrecy with which this government has operated and specifically Hillary Clinton operating outside State Department protocol is extremely troubling,” he said.
Huckabee additionally argued that the Supreme Court had abused its legal power with recent decisions, thus eroding the public’s faith in the institution.
“Judicial review is exactly what we have operated under,” he said of the judicial branch historically. “Judicial supremacy is not what we have operated under.”
“One can’t overrule the other two,” he added of the three branches of government.
“We learned that in ninth grade civics,” Huckabee said. “It’s a matter of balance of power.”
Huckabee suggests government should have a warrant before spying // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015
Mike Huckabee is the latest Republican to weigh in on the controversial issue of government surveillance, going as far on Sunday to suggest authorities should get a warrant if they want to listen in on Americans’ phone calls.
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor criticized the National Security Agency’s controversial collection of millions of Americans’ phone records, asking host Chris Wallace, “If this is so effective, why hasn’t it foiled potential terrorists plots?”
He argued the NSA program – recently deemed illegal by a federal appeals court – was just one of the reasons Americans are so distrustful of government. Huckabee pointed to the U.S. Constitution, saying it “provides what we should do.” He added, “If you have probable cause to suspect Chris Wallace is going to commit criminal acts you go to a judge and get a warrant. Then you can listen to his phone calls.”
If no action is taken by the end of May, some provisions of Patriot Act will expire – including the ability to conduct roving wiretaps, business record searches and gathering information on individuals who are suspected of terrorist activity but aren’t necessarily affiliated with a particular group.
It’s an issue that has divided the emerging 2016 Republican field.
Critics have spent years condemning the Patriot Act – which was instituted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and allows the government to obtain telecommunication, financial and credit records without a court order – arguing it tramples on civil liberties and allows the government to spy on innocent people. In 2011, Obama signed a four-year extension of the act, allowing the government to conduct roving wiretaps in an effort to thwart terrorists.
Some like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – who have not officially declared their 2016 intentions but are expected to run – have defended the programs, arguing they are vital to national security. Similarly, declared candidate Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida Recently argued on the Senate floor that a perception has been created “that the United States government is listening to your phone calls or going through your bills as a matter of course,” said Rubio. “That is absolutely and categorically false.”
Others like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (who spearheaded an 11-hour filibuster like speech against the NSA program) have hailed the court decision as “monumental” for “all lovers of liberty” and called on the Supreme Court to “strike down the NSA’s illegal spying program.” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said the ruling confirmed what many Americans already know – that the NSA “went too far in collecting the phone records.”
Mike Huckabee on Fox News Sunday // Fox News // May 24, 2015
CHRIS WALLACE: all right now on "fox news sunday." hello from fox news in washington. it's not just barbecue on the menu this memorial day weekend. there's also politics and national security. we begin with former arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who ran second for the gop presidential nomination in 2008, became a star on fox news channel, but then left television to run again. governorHuckabee joins us now and welcome back to fox news sunday.
MIKE HUCKABEE: thank you, chris. great to be back.
CHRIS WALLACE: i want to start with a couple of breaking stories. first of all, the release on friday by the state department of 296 of hillary clinton's e-mails concerning benghazi. here's the reaction that you gave.
MIKE HUCKABEE: we expect these charades and masquerades in ussr, the old soviet union, not the u.s. explain what you mean by that. h which this government has operated and specifically, hillary clinton using a private e-mail server outside the bounds of normal state department protocol is very troubling, especially because we have yet to give an answer to what happened in benghazi. i know that sounds like something an old broken record, we need to know why did four different times an ambassador call for help and no help came? the one thing american soldiers and american diplomats need to know wherever they are stationed across the world is when they are under fire and being shot at, we will move heaven and earth to try to get to them, to rescue them and to protect them. and we didn't do that on the night of benghazi. hillary's phone rang 3:00 in the morning and she let it go to voice mail. we need to know why.
CHRIS WALLACE: let me ask you about another breaking question. congress is more deadlocked than ever what to do about the nsa's bulk data collection of phone records with the program set to expire on june 1st. here's what you had to say about that this week.
MIKE HUCKABEE: does the constitution allow the government to read the mail and to listen to the phone calls, even to collect them without a warrant or probable cause? i think the obvious answer is no, it does not.
CHRIS WALLACE: a couple of points here. section 215 of the patriot act, which is the section that is going to expire on June 1st, has nothing to do with listening in on phone calls. it's just recording the fact that my phone number called your phone number. so aren't you wrong there when you talk about listening in? secondly what do you think we need to do about this bulk data collection?
MIKE HUCKABEE: i think the constitution already provides what we should do. if you have probable cause to suspect that Chris Wallace is acting in a nefarious manner, you go to the judge and listen on his calls because you have the other branch of government that is constitutionally required to be part of that process. you don't give unlimited resources, unlimited power. our founders were very concerned about too much power being invested in any one, any branch. the balance of power is fundamental to our system. i don't want to be made unsafe, but Chris, 225 different terrorist plots over the past year since 9/11, and so far not one of them has been tied directly to the NSA collection of meta data. if this is so effective, how come it hasn't resulted in the foiled terrorist plots? those have been foiled by old-fashioned police work, human intelligence. it seems like we are spending billions of dollars on wiz bang technology and not enough money on human resources which has proven to be the most effective way of stopping terrorism.
CHRIS WALLACE: let's turn now to your candidacy. you announced it three weeks ago. i was struck listening to your campaign announcement. you laid out bold policies. i want to drill down into those. you said first of all, no cuts, no changes to medicare or social security. here you are.
MIKE HUCKABEE: if congress wants to take away someone's retirement, let them in their own congressional pensions, not your social security.
CHRIS WALLACE: but government trustees say without any changes, for instance, medicare's hospital instance, medicare's hospital insurance fund will run out of money by 2030 and the social security trust fund will run out of money by 2033. governor, don't we have to find some way, raising the eligibility age, cutting benefits perhaps for the wealthier people to keep these programs solvent for people 55 or younger.
MIKE HUCKABEE: the problem with people 55 or younger, they've been paying in 40 years. this was not a voluntary extraction from their paycheck. it was involuntarily lifted from them under the guise that the government would then provide for them, their money, back in that social security or medicare fund. this is not an entitlement as much as it is an earned benefit that people have paid in. there are some factors here. one of the reasons i'm for the fair tax, it means everybody will help fund social security and medicare, not just the working people of america. right now the only people paying in are the people who work for wages. people who get their money off dividends are not paying anything in. social security and medicare funds are being short shrifted because we limit the manner which people pay in. if everybody was under a consumption tax, which is what the fair tax does, all americans would be contributing.
CHRIS WALLACE: i want to stay on this entitlement reform. back in to 2011 here is what you told neil cavuto.
MIKE HUCKABEE: we keep saying that 60 is the new 40. okay. let's treat 60 like it's the new 40. let's raise that eligibility age up to 70 for the people under 55.
CHRIS WALLACE: you favored reforms to entitlements back then what's changed?
MIKE HUCKABEE: well, the main thing i feel like that has happened, as i understand, if we start breaking promises to people and we start making changes in a program people have been into for years, i think it adds to the distrust we have of government. frankly, there's never been a time in my lifetime where people are more distrustful of government. i say go back to people who are d 15 just entering the work force -- and here is another suggestion.
CHRIS WALLACE: if i may briefly, it was only four years ago you were saying we do need to change it for people who were 55 and younger, because frankly people are living longer.
MIKE HUCKABEE: i think the fact is that we can't make those changes because, as i talk to people across the country, they feel like that is a gut punch and if we are going to make the changes, let the individual. for example, if you want to give me the option to take my retirement benefits in one lump sum, but let me make that choice, okay. give me the tax-free benefits, but i don't think you can go and give seniors the sense that everything they have been involuntarily paying in for is now going to be taken from them.
CHRIS WALLACE: okay. let's talk about the fair tax which you just brought up. you want to abolish the income tax, you want to abolish the irs and create a fair tax, as you say, is a national sales tax. critics say the problem with that is it's too regressive. the tax policy center said that the average rate for the lowest income group would exceed 33%, while the average for the top group would fall to less than 16%. the argument, governor, is that the rich who spend less of their income are going to end up making out pretty well under this. and the poor who spend almost all their income and are going to be paying this sales tax are going to pay the most, or at least the highest percentage.
MIKE HUCKABEE: they have it exactly wrong. in fact, it's the bottom third of the economy who benefit the most from the fair tax. the people of the top of the economy benefit the least. although everybody benefits some. that tax study is one that has been discredited by the people who spend over $20 million, very thorough economic study developing the fair tax. it's not ome political idea.
CHRIS WALLACE: doesn't it just stand to reason if i make 5,000, i'm going to spend a higher percentage of my income just for the necessities, and if i make $1 million, i probably am not going to spend as much a percentage of my income because i've got a lot of income.
MIKE HUCKABEE: well, the difference is who, and this is where a lot of people don't understand, the fair tax has what's called the prebate, if you are at the bottom third, chances are you don't pay any effective tax in the consumption tax because you are consuming less and getting a prebate in advance of what you would have spent. that's why the poorest people come out better. i recommend people going to the fair tax website, reading books on the fair tax, but getting it from people who actually know what it does rather than those who don't want to see the fair tax. i'll tell you what the fair tax does, it empowers the consumer and lets people have their whole paycheck and takes the power out of the hands of congress and puts it in the hands of the consumer. that's power to the people.
CHRIS WALLACE: governor, i want to keep moving along. there are a lot of things you said in your announcement. you indicate as president you wouldn't necessarily obey court rulings, even the supreme court. here you are.
MIKE HUCKABEE: many of our politicians have surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black robed and unelected judges the power to make law as well as enforce it.
CHRIS WALLACE: we have operated under the principle of judicial review since 1803.
MIKE HUCKABEE: judicial review is actually what we've operated under. we have not operated under judicial supremacy. presidents lincoln, jefferson, jackson, presidents understood that the supreme court cannot make a law. they cannot make it. the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it, and the notion that the supreme court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government. the supreme court is not the supreme branch. for god's sake, it isn't the supreme being. it is the supreme court.
CHRIS WALLACE: but sir, george will, the conservative columnist pointed out back in 1957, another governor of arkansas, orville forbis decided to disregard and refuse to obey the ruling to desegregate schools. president eisenhower had to call in the 101st airborne. are you saying president Huckabee might decide he wasn't going to obey the ruling on desegregation or president nixon to turn over the tapes? that it's up in the air whether you are going to obey the supreme court?
MIKE HUCKABEE: you know george will is no fan of mine. he recently called me appalling. i'm not surprised he would make such a false comparison. in that case the supreme court had ruled the legislature and executive branch agreed with the supreme court and precisely what happened is what should happen. the president ordered the airborne to come in and enforce the law. the law that did exist. it wasn't that the president defied the law, the president was carrying out the law and using all the forces at his resources to do it.
CHRIS WALLACE: let's say he said i don't want to turn over the tapes and the court can't make me?
MIKE HUCKABEE: the president has to follow whatever the law is. does congress have a law that tells him what he is going to do? in that case, the congress was ready to impeach nixon and he ultimately resigned. i want to get back to the main point. it's a matter of balance of power. if the supreme court could just make a ruling and everybody has to bow down and fall on their faces and worship that law, it isn't a law because it hasn't been passed, what if the supreme court ruled they were going to make the decision as to who was going to be the next president and save the taxpayers and voter from all the expense and trouble of voting, and they'll just pick a president. we would say, they can't do that. why can't they do it? they can't do it because it's not in the law. we are sworn to uphold the constitution and law. it has to be consistent and agreed upon with three branches of government. one can't overrule the other two. that's all i'm saying. we learned that in ninth grade civics. i'm convinced a lot of ivy league law schools must have forgotten that simple basic civic lessons along the way.
CHRIS WALLACE: governor Huckabee, an awful lot of interesting things you said in your announcement. interesting things you'll say in this campaign. thank you for coming in today and thank you for sharing your holiday weekend with us. we'll see you on the campaign trail.
MIKE HUCKABEE: thank you.
CHRIS WALLACE: and we'll keep asking you questions.
MIKE HUCKABEE: all right, chris. thanks.
When Huckabee Also Wanted Us To Forgive Mel Gibson // The Daily Beast // Aswain Suebsaeng - May 24, 2015
GOP Presidential contender Mike Huckabee not only wants you to forgive an admitted sexual predator, he wants Mel Gibson off the hook too.
On Friday, 2016 Republican presidential hopeful and professional Beyoncé opponent Mike Huckabee took to Facebook to publicly convey his support for accused sexual predator Josh Duggar.
“Josh’s actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, ‘inexcusable,’ but that doesn’t mean ‘unforgivable,’” the former Arkansas governor wrote. “No purpose whatsoever is served by those who are now trying to discredit Josh or his family by sensationalizing the story. Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things.”
He goes on to chide the “blood-thirsty media” for covering the fact that Duggar—a social-conservative activist and reality-TV star—was accused of molesting five underage girls when he was a teen.
Huckabee, being the devout Christian that he is, has plenty of forgiveness to throw around at controversial, similarly devout figures in entertainment. (Again, provided they are not Beyoncé.) For instance, last year, Huckabee took to his verified Facebook account to urge Hollywood and America to make up with Mel Gibson.
“Will Hollywood ever forgive Mel Gibson?” his post reads. He, again, spots an opportunity for casual media-bashing, this time unfair “showbiz journalists.”
“[Gibson has] also quietly given millions of dollars to Jewish charities, and not just to polish his image, because nobody knew about it,” Huckabee added. You can read the whole post below:
Huckabee is a fan of Gibson’s controversial 2004 film, The Passion of the Christ. In fact, Huckabee owes some of the early momentum during his last presidential campaign to a Christian-voters email list that had its roots in the marketing strategy for The Passion of the Christ.
Gibson fell out with much of Hollywood over accusations of anti-Semitism, and his widely covered ugly, racist, misogynistic rant.
But again, the “blood-thirsty media” are the real problem here.
Jeb Bush having new mansion built for him on family compound in Maine: report // Daily News // Adam Edelman - May 24, 2015
Jeb Bush is going for Maine over Main Street.
The all-but-certain 2016 candidate is having a huge house built for him at the Bush family compound at Walker’s Point, in Kennebunkport, Maine, the Boston Globe reported Sunday.
The former Florida governor’s new home will be built on a 1.3-acre site worth at least $1.4 million, the Globe reported, and was ordered built by Bush’s parents, former President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush.
The 3,000 square-foot, 4-bedroom, 4.5-bathroom “cottage” is expected to have a gorgeous wraparound porch and feature panoramic views of the Atlantic Ocean. The construction of the house, which is expected to be completed in July, is thought to be around $600,000, the Globe reported.
“I’m incredibly blessed to be George and Barbara’s son and am thankful that they have built a special place for their family to gather,” Bush, who currently owns a home in Coral Gables, Fla., with his wife worth at least $1.3 million, said in an email to the Globe. “We are so lucky.”
According to the Globe, the potential 2016 candidate didn’t take part in the design of the new mansion, yielding instead to his mother Barbara.
“Barbara dictated most things,” Kristi Kenney, the architect of the new house as well as another one built nearby for Jeb’s younger brother Marvin, told the Globe.
The extended Bush clan has enjoyed a decades-long relationship with the Kennebunkport area, where multiple generations of the iconic political family have vacationed, and where Jeb’s four siblings already have homes “set aside for them,” the Globe reported.
The land for the “Bush Compound,” which serves as the summer home for George H.W. Bush and Barbara, was originally purchased by the 41st president’s great-grandfather, and has been kept in family since. It now houses several homes for the Bushes as well as a unit for Secret Service agents.
For Jeb Bush, however, who is already struggling both with making inroads with middle-America Republicans and with distancing himself from his family’s political legacy, another mansion in a New England vacation town given to him by his parents may not provide him the relaxation it was intended to.
Bush has faced continued criticism over his inability to articulate how he would govern differently than his brother, former President George W. Bush, experiencing particular difficulty in stating his position on the failed 2003 invasion of Iraq.
He has also been on the receiving end of attacks from a growing number of rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination, who have suggested he won’t be a friend to middle-class voters.
Christie's curse-fest, and how the media blew it // Star Ledger // Tom Moran - May 24, 2015
I don't usually rush to defend someone who calls me an angry drunk, but I'm making an exception today.
The crack came from Gov. Chris Christie, and it was part of a good-natured roast at an annual dinner where journalists and politicians trade jabs while raising money for a good cause.
He's wrong about me, first of all. I'm not angry.
But Christie is taking heat because his speech was packed with obscenities, including a generous helping of the f-word, and some of the media broke custom and reported every scrap of it.
This won't hurt Christie here in Jersey, where our sensibilities have been worn down to a nub. But evangelical Christians might see things differently.
"In South Carolina and other states with a conservative religious tradition, it could be a big deal," says Brigid Harrison, a political scientist at Montclair State University.
My concern is not for Christie's campaign. If he becomes commander in chief, I'm building a bomb shelter and investing my money in gold bullion. Scary.
He regards me now as something akin to toe fungus. But he feels free to joke, and I feel free to laugh.
But this event, the Legislative Correspondents Dinner, just suffered a wound that could be mortal. And that's a pity. This is one night a year when we all put down our weapons and share a drink and a few laughs.
The dinner, which raises about $10,000 a year for scholarships, began in 1890. I don't know what they talked about back then, but the speeches these days are full of obscenity and personal attacks. People laugh hard. Christie broke no new ground; he was just a lot funnier than most of them.
Normally, that stuff stays in house. The speeches used to be strictly off the record, and most journalists still treat it that way. But the rules changed in 1994 after the editor of The Record of North Jersey objected.
Even now, though, most reporters treat the dinner as off the record. Until last week, I thought it was still officially off the record. Christie did, too, clearly.
"Probably more than half the audience thinks that," says Mike Symons, a reporter for Gannett New Jersey Newspapers, and the director of the show.
The tradition of restraint died Thursday morning when a small consulting firm, Jaffe Communications, printed the meat of Christie's speech, including the f-words, in its daily newsletter to clients and media.
Bruno Tedeschi, a former Star-Ledger reporter who is a partner in the firm, had recorded the speech.
"How do you have a gathering of 350 people and tell them it's off the record when everyone has a recording device," Tedeschi says. "And how does being off record give you license to say thing that are just crude, quite frankly?"
After the newsletter broke this, Bloomberg News ran a story, as did the International Business Times, and the New York Times. Then the social media world exploded. The Star-Ledger declined to publish a news story until Saturday.
You can now send friends a recording of Christie using the f-word over and over. Why that is considered newsworthy is a mystery. Seems to me more like teenager staring through a keyhole for thrills.
Christie is considering a boycott next year, and who can blame him? Will the next governor play ball?
Symons worries the whole event could collapse. To some editors and ethicists, that would be welcome. They warn that politicians and journalists have become too chummy.
I get the concern, but I don't see much evidence of it on the ground. Most journalists I know salivate at the prospect of uncovering a scandal and sending a politician to jail.
We can laugh at Christie's jokes, and then skewer him the next day. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
My own relationship with Christie is a good example. When he was a prosecutor, we had many lunches together, used first names, joked and chatted frequently.
Then he started screwing up as governor, and I wrote that he was screwing up. He regards me now as something akin to toe fungus. But he feels free to joke, and I feel free to laugh.
It strikes me as healthy for pols and journalists to be reminded once a year that the other guy is a human being, that banging heads on the job doesn't have to make us personal enemies.
That's probably lost now. And for what?
This was not a noble fight for a free press, or the public's right to know. This was a cheap shot on the governor, first from a communications firm eager for attention, then from mainstream media that followed the path without thinking.
It's not a week when I'm proud to wear the uniform.
Can Feingold come back from defeat? // Milwaukee Journal Sentinel // Craig Gilbert - May 23, 2015
For almost two decades, Russ Feingold had a winning image in Wisconsin politics — the liberal maverick. He galvanized Democrats, won independents and made small but critical inroads among Republicans.
That election formula abandoned him in the conservative wave of 2010, when the three-term senator lost his seat to Republican newcomer Ron Johnson.
Can Feingold come back from defeat?
Can he recover his “maverick” brand?
Can he reconstruct the appeal he once had to voters outside his Democratic base?
Early polls seem to offer that hope. In fact, his numbers right now are more reminiscent of the Feingold victories of 1992, 1998 and 2004 than the Feingold rejection of 2010 (see chart).
In surveys by the Marquette University Law School, Feingold’s popularity ratings are better than almost any politician Marquette has asked about in its three and a half years of statewide polling. He led Johnson by 16 points in last month’s poll. He led by almost 20 points among independents — after losing them by 12 in 2010.
Even among Republicans, a sizable minority — 27% — viewed Feingold favorably. That may not sound like much, but it’s practically unheard of these days in a polarized state where big-name politicians get almost no support from voters in the other party.
These numbers are so promising for Feingold it’s hard to know how much stock to put in them. Is a 27% favorability rating among Republicans sustainable for a Wisconsin Democrat trying to unseat a Republican senator? No. Is a 16-point lead sustainable in a state as divided as this one? Almost certainly not.
It’s worth remembering that what Feingold is trying to do — win back his old Senate seat — is rare for a reason. Rejection isn’t usually a building block to victory.
But it’s also worth asking why someone who lost his job less than five years ago is polling so well.
Let’s start with something both sides can agree on about Feingold’s political history.
Even in his losing 2010 campaign, voters didn’t come to view him all that negatively.
“Both candidates ended up with pretty good image ratings after the 2010 race,” says Johnson strategist Brad Todd.
“In the last week of the campaign, his favorability rating was coming back up,” says Paul Maslin, who polled for Feingold in 2010.
But they take different lessons from that. Todd says Feingold’s loss wasn’t about “personal animus” but political rejection based on Feingold’s voting record on issues like the stimulus and the new health care law. That record will remain a problem whatever voters think of him personally, Todd argues.
“It has been since the 1930s that a senator (last) came back to beat the person that took him out of office. The reason that is nearly impossible to do is because the voters have already made that choice,” says Todd. “You can’t escape the fact that Russ was fired, despite the fact that he had a positive image among Wisconsin voters. It was pleasant, it was amicable, but it was a firing. He can’t come back and say, ‘I’m going to make the case I made before,’ and expect to be rehired.”
Feingold has a different reading of his defeat: that it had much more to do with a national political wave than an individual repudiation.
“I do not believe and didn’t believe then it was a personal judgment or rebuke (by voters),” says Maslin. As a three-term senator “in the midst of the Obama administration, it was very difficult for him to maintain the Feingold brand...But I don’t think voters concluded Russ Feingold’s time had come and gone,” Maslin says.
In last month’s Marquette poll, Feingold was viewed favorably by 47% and unfavorably by 26% of registered voters, a better “net favorable” rating than almost any politician Marquette has asked about since it started polling in Wisconsin in 2012. At the moment, voters are much less polarized over him than over Gov. Scott Walker, President Barack Obama or either of the state’s two U.S. senators, Republican Johnson and Democrat Tammy Baldwin.
Marquette pollster Charles Franklin says all that is a “positive signal” for Feingold.
“It says the voters’ rejection of him in 2010 did not turn into a lasting antipathy toward him,” says Franklin.
There are some caveats, however. The one other Wisconsin politician with numbers like Feingold’s in recent years was former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson at the outset of his own 2012 Senate race. Like Feingold, Thompson had been out of partisan politics for several years, making him a less polarizing figure. Like Feingold, he scored well with independents and did unusually well with voters in the opposing party.
But in Thompson’s case, his popularity and crossover appeal didn’t survive the polarizing brawl of the 2012 election, which he lost to Baldwin.
“Thompson started at plus 18,” says Franklin, referring to the difference between his positive and negative rating. “But he finished at minus 14. It’s a powerful example of how a campaign can change a politician’s image with the voters in the state.”
So Feingold’s early polling numbers should be taken with some caution. He won’t end up with 12% of the GOP vote against Johnson, as he did in last month’s Marquette poll. The state has grown too polarized for that to happen. In recent state elections, only about 5% of voters in each party have crossed over to vote for the other party’s candidate.
And Feingold will be hard-pressed to win independents by 20 points as he did in last month’s Marquette poll, since those independents include many voters who lean Republican and usually vote that way in the end.
On the other hand, Feingold doesn’t need to make the kind of Republican inroads he made in the 1990s to win in 2016, and he doesn’t need to win independents by double digits.
The presidential electorate in Wisconsin usually includes more Democrats than Republicans. It’s usually better for Democratic candidates than the midterm electorate. If that turns out to be the case next year, Feingold only needs to hold his own among independents to win.
That makes it sounds easy, but broadly speaking, what Feingold is trying to do is not easy. He’s trying to persuade Wisconsin voters to make a different choice between the same two options they had a few years ago. He has to do that by getting people to switch their votes, or by relying on the added voters that turn out in a presidential election, or both.
It’s a challenging path. But the early polling suggests that Feingold starts out with less baggage than you might expect for someone who was voted out of office in his last election.
The road to the White House // The Tampa Tribune // Blaise Ingooglia - May 23, 2015
The road to the White House goes through Florida, and that means it goes through each one of us. Voters across our great state get to play a key role in electing the next president of the United States. Moms and dads, students and recent grads, hardworking employees and job seekers all alike will have the opportunity to decide which candidate has the leadership and plan for our country.
This is why the Republican Party of Florida is committed to having an open conversation on our vision of a better future for all people through greater opportunity, economic growth and individual empowerment.
At our recent spring quarterly meeting, I introduced our plan for 2016: Project 29. Our first goal of Project 29 will be to fully engage with all communities, Hispanics and African-Americans, seniors and millennials, students and taxpayers, to talk about the issues facing our nation.
Project 29 will help shape how our party operates during the 2016 elections, and it is my hope that these changes will make a lasting impression on our state.
We are not only fighting for Florida’s 29 electoral votes, but we are fighting to keep control of Florida’s U.S. Senate seat, increase Florida’s Congressional majority and maintain majorities in the Florida House and Senate.
Our Party will accomplish these goals by being present and embedded in communities where we have been absent in the past. We plan to engage with churches and faith leaders, local community leaders and organizations. We plan to have one-on-one conversations about the future of our economy and discuss your concerns and ideas for the future of our country.
A key part of our plan is to provide support for local races in addition to moving back toward the grass roots by opening Victory Offices throughout the state.
Florida will now be the first winner-take-all primary in the country, ensuring that all presidential campaigns will have to spend a considerable amount of time in our neighborhoods speaking to Floridians from Pensacola to Key West and everywhere in-between.
Our party is going to be called on to do more than ever before. We’re going to knock on more doors. We’re going to make more phone calls. We’re going to reach out to voters that may never have heard from us before. I know that Republicans in this state are ready to hear your opinion and talk about our future.
The Democratic Party believes it is ready for Hillary Clinton, but I can promise it that it won’t be nearly as ready as we will. From being embedded early on in all communities to building up the technology infrastructure needed for digital outreach, our party will be ready to play a key role on the national stage.
Project 29 is not just about outcomes, but changing the way our party engages with communities as well. With the launch of our new website, Florida.GOP, we are fulfilling our commitment to modernize the way we engage with voters across the state. As we prepare our path to victory in 2016, this new website provides a digital platform to interact with voters and empower volunteers with the tools they need to be effective.
We now have a clear road map with Project 29, and if we work hard and spread our message I know we can be successful. Florida’s 29 electoral votes can only be delivered by the voters of Florida. We need to make sure that we make our votes count. Florida will decide the next President of the United States, and our Party will make sure Project 29 is successful.
Blaise Ingoglia is the chairman of the Florida Republican Party.
Two dead as south-central U.S. storms force evacuations // Reuters // Jim Forsyth - May 24, 2015
Two people were killed in flash flooding and severe storms in Texas and Oklahoma that forced evacuations and rooftop rescues and left thousands without power, officials said on Sunday.
The National Weather Service reported river flooding across southern Oklahoma and central Texas, where 6 to 9 inches of rain fell overnight. Flash flooding remained a threat on Sunday from central Iowa into southern Texas, where the heaviest rainfall was expected, the NWS said.
Tornado watches were in effect in the Midwest and south on Sunday evening, including Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas and Louisiana, the NWS said.
As much as 3 inches of rain could fall in east central Texas on Monday, and possibly more in certain areas, the NWS said.
"They haven't seen flooding like this for probably a good decade, probably more like 25 years, even longer, on some of these rivers," said Kurt Van Speybroeck, a NWS meteorologist in Fort Worth, Texas.
He said soil was saturated from heavy rainfall over the past three weeks.
Helicopters rescued people off rooftops in Hays County in central Texas.
More than 1,000 people were rescued or evacuated from 400 homes, county officials reported on Sunday.
The county, which includes the small cities of Wimberley and San Marcos, about an hour's drive north of San Antonio, ordered a Sunday night curfew.
Local officials at an afternoon news conference said debris piles were nearly 20 feet high. An unidentified man was found dead from the flooding in San Marcos.
Three people who had been reported missing in San Marcos were found safe, a representative for emergency management operations said.
In San Antonio, electric utility CPS Energy said it would take up to 48 hours for power to be restored to 2,600 customers.
In Oklahoma, which also had weekend flooding, a firefighter died overnight in Claremore, about 30 miles northeast of Tulsa.
Captain Jason Farley, a 20-year veteran of the department, had been responding to a call to help about 10 people trapped in their homes by floodwater, said Claremore Fire Chief Sean Douglas. Farley was swept into a storm drain and died.
Another firefighter who rushed to his aid was also swept into a drain but survived with minor injuries, he said.
"It is a tragic event and a devastating loss for us," Douglas said.
Dozens of streets were closed, and the Red Cross had opened shelters.
Here are the cities that need a $15 minimum wage the most // Fortune // Claire Zillman - May 24, 2015
Californian cities have plenty of work to do.
The Los Angeles City Council this week voted 14-1 to pass a $15 minimum wage for the city. The hike, which will go into effect over the next five years, further solidifies the $15 minimum as the new national standard.
New York City seems poised to follow suit. This month, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced plans to convene a panel to consider a wage increase for the fast-food industry, a change that can become law without a vote in the legislature.
There are plenty of arguments against this high of a minimum wage, including one made by Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett on Friday, in which he called for an expanded earned income tax credit rather than a $15 per hour wage. But like it or not, the $15 per hour train is gaining steam. It had already made stops in Seattle and San Francisco before pulling into L.A. Should others follow suit? That question prompted Fortune to examine which U.S. city residents would benefit the most from a $15 per hour minimum wage. We asked David Cooper, an economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, for help.
We first wanted to determine which cities had the largest share of sub-$15 per hour earners, where a minimum wage boost to $15 would presumably have the biggest direct effect, not in absolute numbers but by percentage of the working population. (One caveat here: we used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data for metropolitan statistical areas—geographical areas with high population density and consistent economies that don’t necessarily contain just one city and might reach beyond a city’s official limits.)
It turns out that there are plenty of metropolitan areas—especially in the South—where 45%, 50%, and even 55% of the working population earn less than $15 per hour. (Another caveat, because of the size of some of these areas, some percentages have margins of error up to 4.3%.) For example, in the part of Texas that encompasses McAllen, Edinburg, and Pharr, which is located in the state’s southeast corner near the Mexican border, just over 68% of its workforce earns less than $15 per hour.
But when you examine how much it costs to live in that region—which Cooper measured using regional price parity, the price of goods and services in that area versus the national average—you get a different picture. The RPP there is 85, on a scale where the overall national RPP is equal to 100, which means goods and services in that area are cheaper than the national average. To take that factor into account, we looked at the most expensive places to live, as measured by RPP, and used the U.S.’s average share of sub-$15 per hour earners—42.4%—as a cutoff for the share of low-wage workers.
The map above shows the metropolitan areas that turned up. L.A., which will soon have a $15 per hour minimum wage when Mayor Eric Garcetti signs the recently passed measure into law, makes the list. It’s one of five California areas in the top 10.
The list picks up on the fact that there’s “greater inequality in cities where there’s a high cost of living and where wages are low,” says Chris Tilly, director of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
In the old, rust belt wage structure, there was a healthy population of middle wage income earners. Men worked in manufacturing; women held clerical jobs. But the bottom has dropped out of the middle class, in part, because of the reduction in traditional manufacturing jobs. As cities begin to orient themselves to newer, techonology-driven economies, there’s very little middle ground. You either work in high tech (engineers, etc.,) and its ecosystem (lawyers, accountants) or you’re left at the bottom, Tilly says. Cities with large immigrant populations also tend to have a wide disconnect between the cost of living and wages.
Missing from this list is, notably, New York City. The metropolitan statistical area that includes New York (plus parts of New Jersey and Long Island) has the second highest regional price parity on our list—122.2, behind only Honolulu’s 122.9. But the New York area’s share of sub-$15 per hour workers is 36%, considerably lower than the the national average of 42.4%. Then again, with a national average as high as 42.4%, it sounds like there’s plenty of room for improvement all across the U.S.
GM: Criminal charges likely in ignition case // Fortune // Stephen Gandel - May 24, 2015
Fine is likely to eclipse $1.2 billion paid by Toyota last year.
General Motors is facing a criminal prosecution and may have to pay a record fine to resolve charges related to its faulty ignition switches. The switches, which shut some cars off while traveling at high speeds, have been linked to over 100 deaths.
The Department of Justice’s soon-to-be-unveiled criminal case against the company appears to revolve around the fact that GM failed to disclose the problem with the switches in Chevrolet Cobalts and other older cars. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan believes the company hid problems with misstatements for over a decade.
The Justice Department is also considering charges against former GM employees, but has not finalized whether those charges will be brought.
GM’s fine is likely to eclipse the $1.2 billion Toyota paid last year for concealing acceleration problems in its cars. GM could also plead guilty to criminal charges, but a deferred-prosecution agreement is also possible in the case.
The ignition switch problems emerged more than a year ago, and have weighed on GM’s stock. The possible criminal charges were first reported by the New York Times.
John Nash dies in car accident leaving behind incredible legacy: 6 remarkable life lessons // True Jersey // Ann Brasco - May 24, 2015
American mathematician, John Forbes Nash Jr., and his wife, Alicia, were suddenly killed in a taxi accident on the New Jersey Turnpike today.
I never knew John Nash. I never met him. I never was fortunate enough to be his student, or to stand in a room with him. Like most everyone else, I came to know of his story through the 2001 movie A Beautiful Mind.
The unexpected news was startling. There is something about tragedy when it unexpectedly strikes in the middle of a sunshine day. It is as if the tragedy grabs your being by its lapels and shakes you to essence of your core, reminding you to look inward at what matters.
A remarkable, gifted man best known for providing the world with insight into the factors that govern chance taught us, in fitting irony, leaves behind great lessons both the orderly and expected and all that is possible. His brilliant life reminds us of how these seemingly adverse pieces of a complex puzzle fit together.
The legacy of a courageous and tireless genius speaks to us all in many ways. Here are just six of many lessons that a remarkable teacher has left us with:
1. Don't believe everything you are told. When Nash was sold a bill of goods about his prognosis, he didn't buy it. If John Nash would have believed his mental condition to be limiting, it would have been.
Nash didn't let the limitation of others dictate who he became and what he could achieve. He didn't let ordinary assumption dull his potential for extraordinary achievement.
2. Non-conformity is a gift. Nash was not valued solely because he was one of the most talented mathematicians of the century. John Nash was incredibly wonderful because he embraced, especially in his latter years, an offbeat authenticity that was completely unique and completely himself.
John Nash's life, both his remarkable body of work and who he was as an individual, remain inexplicably intertwined and boldly remind us of that being ordinary should never be the goal. It is in our authenticity that our gifts, talents, and self-truths are tangled.
Nash embraced his unique perspective. He explained, "One aspect of this is that rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos."
3. Egotism is sheer madness. In his eighty-six years of life, John Nash's achievements were truly extraordinary. Nash was on the mathematics faculty at MIT and a Senior Research Mathematician at Princeton University. Nash was awarded the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with two other game theorists and recently won the notable Abel Prize in 2015. Nash had much to proudly boast about and yet he did not.
Nash, never a fan of egotism, thrived in humility. Those who knew him are quick to point out that he always focused on his work before he even mentioned his own accomplishments. Nash understood his own contributions to be part of something infinitely greater.
Nash candidly admitted, "When I started thinking irrationally, I imagined myself as really on a Number 1 level. I was the most important person of the world."
4. Believe in second chances. When it came to love, Nash remarried his first wife, Alicia, in 2001. When it came to work, Nash was indefatigable and understood his value in a larger context. He persevered through struggle with tenacity, grit and a passion for creativity.
Nash explained, "The only thing greater than the mind is the power of the heart." Nash showed us through constant example that authenticity is far more interesting and outstanding than a pursuit of ghostly perfection.
5. Be careful not to judge. Long before I was a mom and a writer, I had the unique privilege of working as a clinical social worker in a long-term inpatient adult psychiatric ward. I only say this because after spending over half a decade in this setting, I have a slight understanding of a fraction of Nash's uphill climb.
Nash was treated in a medical field that was just emerging in terms of treatment and not very fair to its patients. He was existing in a society that, at its worst, stigmatizes those with a different brain composition, and at its best, pities them.
John Nash said it best when he explained, "People are always selling the idea that people with mental illness are suffering. I think madness can be an escape. If things are not so good, you maybe want to imagine something better."
6. Believe you matter. Several great athletes in the past century have overcome physical limitations. Many of our greatest thinkers throughout history have been those affected by adversity, whether it was a neurological limitation, a disorder related to concentration, a problem related to reading, depression, mania, or even delusion.
It seems that that the concurrence of great adversity and extraordinary accomplishment is more than coincidental. It also appears that the way that person perceives themselves to be a determining factor.
Whether we hear our subconscious as a literal voice or a soft echo, it shapes who we become and what value we add to the world around us. The thoughts we think undoubtedly shape the actions we take.
Few of us will solve complex mathematical theorems, yet we all have talents, gifts, and purpose and it is up to no one but ourselves to remain committed to these gifts. As parents, caregivers, and teachers, we must build up our children to know that they matter because they do.
The world is often too eager to separate and classify madness from genius, obstacle from advantage, misapplication from accuracy, and weakness from strength. Nash's life brilliantly reminds us that these things are not so easily separated or even classified for that matter. Perhaps it is only the total sum of these things that matters anyway.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter: Iraqis lack ‘will to fight’ // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015
U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter offered a stinging criticism of the recent takeover of Ramadi by the terrorist group known as ISIS, arguing it demonstrated Iraqi forces lacked the “will to fight.”
Carter’s remarks are the most strident yet from the Obama Administration since the crucial city fell to extremists a week ago. He told CNN’s Barbara Starr in an interview that aired on Sunday that Iraqi forces were not outnumbered. “In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight, they withdrew from the site. And that says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight [ISIS] and defend themselves,” he said.
The defense secretary called the situation “very concerning,” arguing while the U.S. and allies could provide Iraqis with training and equipment, they can’t give the forces motivation to fight.
“We can’t make this happen by ourselves, but we can assist it to happen, and we are counting on the Iraqi people to come behind a multi-sectarian government in Baghdad,” said Carter.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi’s office dismissed Carter’s assessment, telling NBC News that the takeover by ISIS was an anomaly and that the government has “started its on investigation to punish those who neglected their duty.” Dr. Sa’ad Al-Hadithi, the media director for Al-Abadi, added, “…we cannot consider one or two failures committed by our forces as a failure of all Iraqi troops.”
According to NBC News, Iraqi forces on Sunday, recaptured territory near Ramadi on Sunday – an effort to head back toward the key city that fell to ISIS a week ago.
Separately, according to Syrian state television, members of ISIS reportedly killed at least 400 people in the ancient city of Palmyra. Just days ago, the terrorist group claimed it had taken over Palmyra as well.
How to combat ISIS was a central issue on the Sunday news shows. Sen. John McCain of Arizona accused the White House of having no game plan. The Republican said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “there is no strategy, and anybody that says that there is, I’d like to hear what it is, because it certainly isn’t apparent…” McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee argued in favor of a more militaristic strategy. “We need to have a more robust strategy. We need more troops on the ground, we need forward air controllers - we’re just referring to air strikes,” he said.
On the other hand, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff said on the same show that there will be no victory unless the Iraqi government can resolve its own issues. He added, “I wouldn’t say that we’re winning. I don’t think we’re losing either, but I think we’re seeing an ebb and flow, and largely a stalemate situation in the war against ISIS.”
Vote serves as beacon of hope for those still facing oppression // Irish Times // Dennis Staunton - May 24, 2015
Ireland’s vote in favour of same-sex marriage is a milestone in the global struggle for equality for gays and lesbians that has seen dramatic progress in many western countries while others slide backwards into further repression.
Homosexual activity remains illegal in almost 80 countries and in many, including Uganda, Nigeria, Russia and Egypt, the situation for gays and lesbians has worsened. Our Yes vote can serve as a beacon of hope not just for LGBT people on the brink of achieving equality but for those millions throughout the world who continue to face persecution, oppression and violence.
Marriage equality, which was a marginal, almost eccentric demand only two decades ago, is now a reality in 20 countries and in many sub-national regions, including 37 of the 50 states of the United States.
Crowds react in the court yard at Dublin Castle on Saturay. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill Campaign to promote Ireland as same-sex wedding destination
Yes Equality Roscommon said it ‘watched in envy as well-known politicians in almost every other area in the country got publicly and deeply involved in the campaigns in their areas’. Photograph: Cyril Byrne / The Irish Times Yes Equality Roscommon says politicians did not support campaign
A dog waiting outside a polling station on Friday while his owner casts his vote. Photograph: Dave MeehanWorking class areas embracing change faster, campaigners claim
A supporter holds a sign reading ‘Thank You - You’re All Invited to the Wedding’ as he celebrates outside Dublin Castle following the result of the same-sex marriage referendum in Dublin on May 23rd, 2015. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty ImagesAll churches in Ireland in need of ‘reality check’
‘It made me cry’: Generation Emigration expresses pride at same-sex marriage result
‘A day when hope and history rhyme’: writers and artists react to same-sex marriage vote
Scenes Dublin Castle on Saturday for the referendum count. Photograph: Stephen Collins/Collins PhotosSame-sex marriage: Northern Ireland ‘last bastion of discrimination’ says Amnesty
Singer Miley Cyrus tweeted in response to the same-sex marriage referendum result: ‘Fuck yeah Ireland!’ Photograph: George Pimentel/Getty ImagesCelebrities react to Ireland legalising gay marriage
It is an entirely 21st century phenomenon, with the Netherlands becoming the first country in the world to allow gays to marry in 2001. It is also essentially a conservative one, which was initially resisted by radical gay rights campaigners who saw marriage as a repressive, patriarchal institution.
Tragic
The Aids crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s brought into sharp, tragic relief the consequences of the lack of legal recognition of gay partnerships as men were denied access to their dying partners in hospitals, were evicted from the homes they shared when loved ones died and had no inheritance rights. The initial response came in the form of domestic partnerships.
It was the gay conservative writer Andrew Sullivan who first put gay marriage on the agenda in the US in 1989 with a groundbreaking essay in the New Republic called “Here Comes the Groom”. He argued that marriage would help to “humanise and traditionalise” gays by strengthening their relationships and providing emotional and economic security.
As in Ireland, what brought marriage equality into the mainstream in the US was the growing number of gays and lesbians coming out to friends and family. Greater visibility not only made gays and lesbians appear less exotic, it gave more straight people a stake in the debate as they backed equal rights for friends or family members.
Some 60 per cent of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage and the US supreme court will next month rule on Obergefell v Hodges, a set of four challenges to state bans on gay marriage. It is expected to rule that the bans are unconstitutional, a move that would effectively legalise same-sex marriage throughout the US.
Until 2010, when the states of Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington approved same-sex marriage in referendums, the conventional wisdom in the US was that the issue could not win popular approval at the ballot box.
Progress
Most progress on the issue in the US has come through the courts, with referendums more often called to introduce bans on same-sex marriage than to lift them.
But the courts are not deaf to public opinion and the head of the European Court of Human Rights suggested in 2012 that the court could reconsider its view that same-sex marriage is not a human right if enough countries introduced it. The European Parliament last March passed a resolution recognising such a right, although just 10 European Union member-states, including Ireland, have marriage equality, with two more – Slovenia and Finland– set to join them within months.
Ireland has shown marriage equality can win popular support and Friday’s vote will encourage legislators and activists elsewhere in Europe to be bolder. The lessons of Ireland’s campaign will be useful elsewhere, just as the successful campaigns in the US in 2012 helped to guide Ireland’s campaigners.
Perhaps the central lesson is that it is less effective to simply demand rights than to persuade through personal testimony. It was stories such as those of Ursula Halligan, Pat Carey and Una Mullally that cut through the noise and appealed to the better nature of undecided voters. And straight allies such as Mary McAleese and Noel Whelan were eloquent in making the case that marriage was so important to them that they wanted to allow equal access to it.
Women activists cross DMZ between North and South Korea // CNN // Jethro Mullen - May 24, 2015
Paju, South Korea (CNN)An international group of female activists crossed the heavily fortified border between North and South Korea on Sunday in a controversial effort to bring attention to the need for peace between the two nations.
The group of about 30 members, called WomenCrossDMZ, included feminist Gloria Steinem and two Nobel Peace laureates, Mairead Maguire of Northern Ireland and Leymah Gbowee of Liberia.
On Sunday morning, a bus picked them up from the North Korean side and ferried them across the Demilitarized Zone that has separated the two Koreas for more than half a century.
"We feel very celebratory and positive that we have created a voyage across the DMZ in peace and reconciliation that was said to be impossible," Steinem said after the group, which had originally planned to walk across the zone, arrived in South Korea.
The activists said they acted as "citizen diplomats" in North Korea, speaking with women at a series of events during their time there.
"We can learn on paper and on screen," Steinem said. "But the ability to understand, not just learn, happens when we are together and able to empathize."
The group says women need to be involved in the peace-building process. It calls for reuniting families divided by the Korean War, and replacing the 1953 armistice with a permanent peace treaty -- demands similar to those made by the North Korean government.
Criticism from other activists
Other activists have criticized the event, saying the group is overlooking major problems faced by women under Kim Jong Un's authoritarian rule.
"It is absolutely outrageous that they completely ignore the suffering of the North Korean people, especially North Korean women," said Suzanne Scholte, head of the North Korea Freedom Coalition.
"If they truly cared, they would cross the China-North Korea border instead, which is actually more dangerous now than the DMZ," Scholte said ahead of the event.
North Korean women who cross into China often become victims of human trafficking, ending up being forced to work in the sex industry or sold as brides to rural Chinese men.
The reported abuses for North Korean women are not limited to the Chinese border. North Korean defectors have testified of rape and abuse in prison camps by fellow inmates or guards.
Maguire, who became known for organizing peace demonstrations during the conflict in Northern Ireland, suggested the human rights situation would improve if the two Koreas were to sign a full peace treaty.
"You can get to human rights when you have a normal situation and not a country at war," she said Sunday.
Sympathy for North Korea?
Christine Ahn, one of the event's organizers, has been called a North Korea sympathizer -- an allegation she denies.
"Basically that is a Cold War, McCarthyist mentality," she told CNN in April. "And that kind of framework has enabled Korea to remain divided. I am pro-peace. I am pro-engagement. I am pro-dialogue. I am pro-human rights."
She says she is for ending "the state of war on the Korean peninsula."
Her critics include Human Rights Foundation's Alex Gladstein, who accused Ahn of "whitewashing the North Korean regime for more than a decade, always excusing the Kims, saying they aren't so bad, and blaming North Korea's problems on South Korea and the U.S."
Observers say that a group being allowed by both North and South Korean authorities to hold this kind of event is unusual but not unheard of.
A group of bikers from New Zealand crossed the border in 2013, and another group drove through the DMZ last year.
Last week, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the North Korean government abruptly canceled his planned visit to an industrial zone. Situated to the north of the DMZ, the Kaesong Industrial Complex contains factories that are owned by South Koreans and staffed by thousands of North Koreans.
The Center Needs a Voice // WaPo // David Ignatius - May 22, 2015
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's move to the left on trade and other issues is a reminder of the growing power of activists on the wings in presidential nominating politics -- and a corresponding diminution of the power of the center.
"Social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton takes now would be likely to hurt her" in the 2016 general election, writes The Washington Post's Anne Gearan in a recent assessment of Clinton's strategy. Meanwhile, GOP candidates are doubling down in the other direction, as they move toward their party's right wing.
The disenfranchisement of the center is a fact of modern politics. That should be worrisome even if you think the center is an ideological muddle. As we've seen in recent years, in a world dominated by the political wings, the compromises necessary for passing any legislation become difficult. As the center disappears, so does governance.
To illustrate how the current system works, a would-be reformer named Peter Ackerman recently showed me a diagram that estimates party affiliation: "Democrats: Less than 30 percent," "Republicans: Less than 30 percent," and in the middle "Unaffiliated: Greater than 40 percent." He argues that if you include left-leaning and right-leaning voters in the "moderate" camp, it makes up two-thirds of the electorate.
Yet as we head toward the presidential nominating season, the voice of this broad center is barely audible. Politics is pulled toward the left and right by campaign-finance rules, redistricting and other issues discussed in countless essays and op-ed pieces. This centrifugal force seems to increase in every election cycle, with a resulting paralysis in Washington.
Ackerman has launched a campaign dubbed "Change the Rule" to address one piece of this puzzle of America's political dysfunction. The rule in question is imposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which the two major parties created in 1987 to administer the televised debates that are the nexus of modern presidential campaigns. Ackerman argues that this rule, as currently applied, prevents the emergence of an independent candidate who might empower the underrepresented middle.
The current debate rule requires that any third-party candidate must average 15 percent support in five polls taken in the two weeks before the debates begin in October of the election year. To get the necessary name recognition and support, Ackerman's group estimates that an independent candidate would have to spend $266 million. Because of contribution limits, this effectively precludes anyone who's not a billionaire from joining the debates as an independent.
Ackerman argues that the entry ticket to the debate should instead be getting on the ballots by the end of April in an election year in states that together have at least 270 Electoral College votes. To avoid chaotic debates, just one such independent candidate should be added -- the one with the highest number of ballot-access signatures nationwide. Such a signature drive would cost less than $15 million, Ackerman estimates, opening the field to less-wealthy candidates who could mobilize volunteers and small donations.
Supporters are a "who's who" of the bipartisan center: John Anderson, a Republican former congressman who ran as an independent in the 1980 presidential race; William Cohen, a Republican former senator who served as secretary of defense for a Democratic president; Lee Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman who co-chaired bipartisan commissions on 9/11 and the Iraq War; Jon Huntsman, a Republican former governor whose moderate positions vaporized his 2012 presidential campaign; and Joe Lieberman, a Democratic former senator and vice presidential nominee. Other backers include retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and retired Adm. James Stavridis.
To bolster the case, Ackerman commissioned a survey last July by pollster Douglas Schoen. In the sample of 1,000 likely voters, 86 percent said the political system is broken and doesn't serve ordinary people; 89 percent said they wished politicians would work together and compromise; and, interestingly, 66 percent said they thought presidential debates could do a better job of informing the electorate.
Other surveys reflect this deep mistrust of the system. A January 2015 Pew Research Center poll reported a 48 percent unfavorability rating for the Democratic Party and a 53 percent negative for the Republicans. An August 2014 Gallup survey found that 83 percent disapproved of the job Congress is doing.
Yet the system grinds forward with a perverse set of incentives that rewards extremism and punishes compromise. I don't know if opening the presidential debates would fix this mess, but it might pull candidates back toward the center, where the public lives and where problems get solved.
Who's going 'Iowa heavy,' 'Iowa light' // Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs - May 25, 2015
Presidential contenders often tell Iowa voters some variation of "I'll be back soon" or "You'll see a lot of me."
Their travel histories, however, reveal which ones truly have an "Iowa heavy" strategy and which ones are playing "Iowa light" — at least so far.
Of the 15 GOP White House hopefuls knocking around Iowa these days, a Des Moines Register review of days spent in Iowa pegs five as Iowa light, six in the middle range and four as Iowa heavy.
At the lightest end of the scale among top-tier candidates is Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, with just two days here in calendar year 2015.
No one has had more face time in Iowa than Rick Perry. The former Texas governor is looking for redemption after a 2012 presidential bid he admits was pock-marked with mistakes, including spending only 36 days here last cycle. He has already tabulated 30 this time, with nine months to go before caucus night, scheduled for Feb. 1.
"If anyone spends more time in Iowa over the next year, God bless them," Perry said in an interview with the Quad-City Times last week. "They'd better pack a lunch because I will be here often."
Because of the record number of Republicans slicing up the positioning for the Iowa caucuses, the amount of time a contender spends connecting with voters could be more critical this year than in earlier cycles, Iowa politics watchers said.
"In a crowded field, personal retail interaction becomes even more important," said Republican strategist Matt Strawn, a former state party chairman. "That may be the differentiation between candidates that are very closely aligned ideologically."
STRAW POLL:
And with polling showing the GOP field tightly clustered, the dicey game of beating expectations may be another factor that weighs more heavily than ideology in determining victory, said Dennis Goldford, a Drake University political science professor.
"For candidates high in the polls, failing to do well in the caucuses hurts worse than a win helps," Goldford said.
Appearances in Iowa are one of the most visible measures of commitment to the first-in-the-nation presidential voting state, but appearances may not be what they seem when it comes to an Iowa footprint, strategists cautioned.
Contenders seeking to keep expectations low are likely doing more than meets the eye, said campaign veteran Craig Schoenfeld, who is unaligned with any 2016 candidate. Subterranean work includes private telephone calls to Iowans from the contender, tele-town halls (a speech or Q&A by mass conference call), social media outreach and online advertising — which can all happen without the candidate ever stepping foot in Iowa, and sometimes without the media or rivals knowing about it, Schoenfeld said.
And in the new era of super PACs taking on more campaign-style voter recruitment duties rather than just doing TV advertising, a candidate's Iowa footprint may be even less obvious than when the traditional campaign structure handled them.
To sum it up, strategists said, "Iowa heavy" for 2016 candidates means: Be here. Be here virtually even when you're not. Have your friends and super PAC allies here when you're here — and when you're not.
Historically, there hasn't always been a direct correlation between days spent in Iowa and victory in the caucuses, said Goldford, who co-authored a book on the caucuses. The Rick Santorum model of hitting all 99 counties is merely a way for candidates who aren't well known or well funded to gain an edge, he said.
Mitt Romney, who spent just 19 days in Iowa on his second go at the White House in 2012, fell just 34 votes shy of Santorum, a little-known Pennsylvania senator who blew apart the GOP record book with 105 days here. But Romney had built his Iowa network by spending 77 days here in the 2008 cycle. (Historical days in Iowa are from Goldford's book, "The Iowa Precinct Caucuses," co-authored with Hugh Winebrenner.)
Eventual caucus winners such as Kansas U.S. Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 (41 days) and Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 (29 days) were well-known figures who didn't need to camp out in Iowa to establish a following.
What about the Democrats?
Democrats reign as king of the road warriors in the Iowa caucuses, according to "The Iowa Precinct Caucuses" co-authors Hugh Winebrenner and Dennis Goldford.
While Rick Santorum set the Republican record with 105 days in 2012, his total pales compared with the all-time leader: Democrat Dick Gephardt, a U.S. representative from neighboring Missouri who campaigned 148 days in Iowa in the 1988 cycle. The time Gephardt put in paid off with a caucus win. Eventual nominee Mike Dukakis, who campaigned in Iowa 82 days, came in third.
In the Democrats' most recent competitive caucus, in 2008, six candidates spent more than 75 days each in Iowa. Then-Delaware U.S. Sen. Joe Biden led the way with 120 days, but placed a disappointing fifth and left the race. The caucus winner and eventual president, Barack Obama, spent 89 days in Iowa. Hillary Clinton, a candidate again this cycle, spent 74 days.
Welcome, candidates: Some answers, please // TH Online // Editorial Board - May 24, 2015
When presidential hopefuls visit with Iowans, let's press them to talk about the real issues.
The next presidential election is still a year and a half away, but campaigning is ramping up in Iowa, where citizens are treated to an "early bird special" of candidate visits.
Its status as first-in-the-nation caucus state makes Iowa a choice destination for presidential hopefuls. Thus, Iowans, more than citizens in nearly all other states, have more chances to see and hear the candidates. Just in the past week or so in Dubuque, Republicans Jeb Bush and Rick Perry made public appearances and Democrat Hillary Clinton attended a private event.
But a stump speech is a stump speech, whether you see it from the front row or on YouTube. Citizens want more from candidates than platitudes and promises, one-liners and tweets. One of the reasons Iowa maintains its first-caucus status is because Iowans have a reputation for being no-nonsense and interested in the issues, not just the personalities.
While the candidates are appearing in Iowa's town halls and coffee shops -- come January, they will be gone -- Iowans should be proactive in directing the conversation.
The problems facing our country are complex and will require thoughtful planning and collaboration. Detailing a solution won't fit in a sound bite. A quip won't do justice to a difficult problem. Pointing out what's wrong is not the same as explaining how to make it right.
Rather than sit back and let the candidates choose the topics and spin them their way, Iowans would be doing themselves and the country a monumental favor if they pressed the candidates to be more specific on how they would address major issues.
For example:
* Infrastructure: Some 20 percent of the country's 900,000 miles of highways are in desperate need of reconstruction. About a quarter of its 600,000 bridges are categorized as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In Iowa, that accounts for more than a quarter of the bridges people use every day. Fixing infrastructure means spending.
What's your plan for paying for the infrastructure work the country so desperately needs?
* Debt: While issues like infrastructure will require spending, fiscal responsibility must be a key element to any candidate's platform. U.S. debt is on an unsustainable track. As a share of the economy (GDP), the debt has grown from 35 percent of GDP in 2007 to 74 percent today, according to the Concord Coalition. The debt is projected to exceed the entire economy by the 2030s.
What steps will you take to address the unsustainable growth of debt? Will reforming the tax code and changing the Social Security formula be part of the plan?
* Immigration: Politicians of every stripe know that immigration reform is long overdue. Still, we have yet to see anyone with the leadership to make that happen. It has been seven years since the Postville, Iowa, raid that resulted in nearly 400 employees of Agriprocessors being arrested and hauled away. That event put a face on the issue of illegal immigration in the Heartland, and still reform has languished.
What plan do you have for immigration reform? Should there be a path to citizenship for undocumented people living here now?
* Health care: Ever since the landmark Affordable Care Act was passed, it's been a tale of two Obamacares. Opponents will tell you this legislation will drive up prices, limit health care options and critically damage our whole health care system. Supporters will talk about how many people have insurance coverage for the first time and the benefits, rights and protections now in place.
Is there a way to keep the elements of the Affordable Care Act that are working well and discard the parts that have failed? Who will make those assessments and how?
* Economy/jobs: Though the economy has shown great strides of improvement, memories of the recession and job losses are still fresh in the mind of many Americans. The availability of better-paying jobs is part of the American Dream.
How would you continue to grow the economy and spur business and industry to create jobs and increase wages?
* Environment: As evidence of climate change caused by human action piles up, government has been slow to react. A global issue like this shouldn't divide people down party lines, but it has. Regardless of political persuasion, there ought to be some basic tenets upon which everyone can agree. Increasing research on and production of renewable fuels, for example, and mandating greater fuel-efficiency. Meanwhile, the quality of our air and water, while better than it was a half-century ago, remains an issue of concern.
What environmental rules would you support to decrease humans' footprint on our world, improve sustainability and protect our air and water?
* Partisanship: The preceding laundry list of challenging issues all have one thing in common -- they are stymied in large part because of partisan politics.
How will you break through partisan gridlock and be a leader for all Americans? Everyone knows collaboration needs to happen to effect change. How will you get the two sides to work together?
None of these questions is easy to answer. But anyone running for president should have taken the time to think not just about campaigning but about governing and what it will require. The candidate who can answer these questions -- no matter what the answer is -- will go a long way toward winning credibility among Iowans during caucus season and all Americans come November 2016.
Fusion Media Aims at Millennials, but Struggles to Find Its Identity // NYT // Ravi Somaiya - May 24, 2015
From left, Dodai Stewart, Fusion’s director of culture; Hillary Frey, executive editor; and Joyce Tang, managing editor. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
In 2011, when Isaac Lee, president of news for Univision, set out to persuade his company and Disney to back Fusion, a digital news service and cable channel he wanted to start, he promised nothing less than the holy grail: young viewers for the older media conglomerates.
He played a slide show in which a middle-aged white man transformed into a young brown woman. The executives present were dazzled.
“It’s very hard to say no to Isaac Lee,” said Ben Sherwood, president of the Disney/ABC Television Group, describing him as “extremely charismatic and dynamic and a visionary.” Randy Falco, president and chief executive of Univision, said of Mr. Lee: “Oh, my God. He is really a force of nature.”
The reality, since Fusion began in October 2013, has been more complex. Many inside and outside the company are hard pressed to define what exactly Fusion does. Traffic to its website has been anemic at times, and it has yet to deliver the kind of attention-getting stories that digital media rivals like Buzzfeed and Vice have produced.
The site was originally aimed at young Latinos who spoke English as a first language, but it quickly shifted its target audience to young viewers of all ethnicities. In April, it shuffled its news and features editorial team and appointed a new editor in chief.
Fusion has grown quickly, with 250 employees and offices in Miami, New York, Washington, D.C., Boulder, Colo., and Oakland, Calif. Mr. Lee and his senior editors say the organization is young and quickly finding its way — they point to an interview with Marco Rubio as an example of the kind of noteworthy journalism they strive for.
They believe that Fusion will eventually fulfill a mission that news organizations across the world see as vital to survival: reaching younger and more diverse audiences on the platforms they go to for news, like Snapchat and YouTube.
In an interview, Mr. Lee, 44, said his employees “have the ability to bet and to make mistakes, and the results are there,” specifying both written and visual storytelling and investigative reporting. “I think that this is one of the very few organizations that is about journalism and talent,” he added.
Fusion is, in many ways, the archetype for broader movements in media. As traditional news organizations have struggled to adapt to the rhythms of the web, a new generation of media companies, like Buzzfeed and Vox, have moved from bright ideas to full-fledged businesses at breakneck speed. They are often backed by big corporations — Disney is also behind the websites Grantland and FiveThirtyEight — or venture capital firms making big bets that all the people browsing the web on their phones will demand fresh content.
Many covet millennials — a group loosely defined as those born after 1980, or about one-third of the current American work force, according to the Pew Research Center. Nobody has quite figured out what they want or if it is possible to tell stories that appeal universally to a huge number of Americans who sometimes seem united only in the dreams of marketers.
Disney and Univision supplied Fusion with an additional $30 million in financing recently, according to a person involved with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity. But the cultures of the companies and Fusion have already clashed. For instance, according to two senior Fusion staff members, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Disney put the organization on notice that it would not take kindly to coverage that might dent its standing with consumers. The warning came after Fusion published several stories based on documents that hackers stole from Sony.
Fusion is not alone: In negotiations to create a Vice cable channel, Disney and Hearst insisted on a clause protecting the companies in the event that Vice content “embarrasses Hearst or Disney in any way,” according to people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.
Fusion has offered lavish wages to hire a number of highly regarded journalists. Big names include the financial writer Felix Salmon and The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal, who was named editor in chief in late April in a broad reshuffling of the organization’s management ranks.
Mr. Lee made his name starting and editing a series of publications aimed at audiences in Mexico and his native Colombia. He became the head of news at Univision in 2010 and is known in media circles to be funny, profane and inclined to go off on philosophical tangents.
He said that no one, however close to him they are, receives preferential treatment. Addressing high wages, he said he believed that journalists, “not just suits,” should be paid well.
Though Fusion was recently nominated for two Livingston Awards for its investigative work, the network is perhaps best known for sifting through hacked Sony emails — something that made Disney the target of criticism in Hollywood — and for using foul-mouthed puppets in its State of the Union coverage in January.
Recently, Fusion’s website had stories on the potential dangers of virtual-reality pornography and on new emojis, and an investigation into industrialized chicken farms titled “Cock Fight.” Its television offerings include “America with Jorge Ramos,” the popular Univision news anchor, and the Cannabusiness Report, on “the mainstreaming of marijuana.”
Several current and former Fusion employees mentioned a masculine and raucous office culture inside the organization.
Last year, when the company instituted what it described as a routine training program on appropriate sexual behavior, some employees took it as a reaction to widespread rumors of office liaisons. David Ford, a spokesman for Fusion, said that, just like other corporations, it conducted “respect in the workplace training as part of our overall compliance program.”
Its web traffic late last year, according to internal figures obtained by The New York Times, dropped as low as 23,000 page views on some days. Fusion said its traffic this past December reached 1.9 million unique users and increased to about five million by April. The media measurement company Nielsen said it did not measure Fusion’s viewership on television.
Mr. Madrigal described the organization in simple terms: “Fusion is a cable and digital network that is championing a more diverse and inclusive America.” It will do so by hiring those who are “naturally and natively interested in things that the rising generation of people in America are interested in,” he added. That will include television shows on topics like prisons and technology, with matching content online, on social media and in live events.
Mr. Falco said Fusion was “different, experimental.” It should act as a kind of ideas lab, he said, that feeds the lessons it learns back to its parent companies. One goal, he said, was to expand Fusion’s cable channel from its current reach of 40 million homes to as many as 70 million homes over the next few years.
It is a complex time to introduce a new cable channel — the pressure from consumers is to narrow the bundle of networks sold to them, not to expand it. But Fusion, one of the most modern of media enterprises, is supported in part by one of the most old-fashioned of revenue streams: cable fees.
For his part, Mr. Sherwood, the president of Disney/ABC Television Group, repeatedly compared the service to ESPN, which began as a small-town Connecticut cable channel and grew into a media behemoth.
“It’s going to be a big success,” Mr. Sherwood said of Fusion. “You have to take the long view when you’re building a multiplatform service.” He added that he was “excited” about the comedy news program with the puppets, which is called “No, You Shut Up!”
Mr. Lee projected confidence, too.
“I have nothing to worry about,” he said. “I know exactly what I am doing. I know that we don’t know everything, but we are running the best possible process to figure it out. This is a marathon.”
Only Capitalism Can Save the Planet // The Daily Beast // Eleanor Clift - May 23, 2015
Lester Brown, environmentalist nonpareil, isn’t waiting for government. He thinks the free market is the way to address climate change.
A warming planet poses a threat to our way of life whether it’s man-made or a natural phenomenon, and government efforts to combat and slow its impact so far have been minimal. President Obama says our failure to act weakens national security, yet Congress is beholden to climate-change deniers and no real action is likely to happen anytime soon.
This isn’t surprising in the least to Lester Brown. A pioneering environmentalist who decades ago warned of the “manhandling of nature” and its dire consequences, Brown isn’t looking to government to save the planet. “Government helped get some of these things going (like solar energy and wind farms), but now government is less and less important,” he says. “The important thing is that the market is now driving this.”
As the founder of two nonprofit research organizations, the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, and the recipient of a MacArthur genius grant for his work on sustainable development, Brown is an unlikely champion of capitalism. But he predicts a half-century’s worth of change is possible in the next decade as corporate America and billionaire investors move into profit-making new-energy ventures.
He cites Wal-Mart’s decision last year to move toward solar energy—not to save the planet, but to save money. “It’s a business decision,” Wal-Mart CEO Bill Simon said in May 2014. “The renewable energy we buy meets or beats prices from the grid.”
The beauty of this quiet revolution is that it’s more than the usual suspects. Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffett are on the front lines, investing in new sources of energy, but so is conservative oilman Philip Anschutz, owner of the conservative outlets The Weekly Standard and The Washington Examiner, who a year ago invested $15 billion to build a 3,000-megawatt wind farm in Wyoming. “Anschutz has jumped into this with all four feet, he’s pulling out all the stops,” says Brown. “He sees Wyoming as a huge gold mine, and he’s building a transmission line to California. Wyoming has 600,000 people; California has 28 million.” Do the math, he says.
Renewable energy is an issue that divides conservatives. Some see its value; others see it as a threat to oil and gas. When the business-friendly American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) developed legislation for state legislatures requiring consumers who use solar to pay an added fee, the Tea Party joined with the Sierra Club in some states to fight the fee, dubbing itself the Green Tea Party.
Shifting alliances in energy can be dizzying. Texas has gone from being the country’s leading oil producer to being the biggest wind producer, getting 10 percent of its power from wind and building transmission lines to Mississippi and Louisiana. Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, an early believer in wind power, backed away in the face of early challenges. Brown tells of listening indifferently as Pickens lectured him on how oil is forever. “You’re not listening to me, are you?” Pickens said. “No,” Brown replied.
Trim and fit in his 80s, still jogging, and with a full head of white hair, Brown cemented his reputation as a seer with a 1994 article on who will feed China that ran in The Washington Post under the headline, “How China Will Starve the World.” It said that to feed 1.2 billion people, China would have to import so much grain that world food prices would rise, and nations would move away from emphasizing military preparedness to insuring and protecting food supplies.
Chinese officials angrily denied any such looming crisis. But they quietly revamped their agriculture policies to accommodate population growth that Brown said was the equivalent of a new Beijing each year. Several years later, a top Chinese official who was in power at the time told Brown his book, Who Will Feed China? Wake-up Call for a Small Planet, was very helpful.
It may seem unusual for a leading environmentalist to place his faith in the power of capitalism to move the country, and indeed the world, away from the cheap oil and coal economy that has powered America’s economic success since the Industrial Revolution. Brown does hedge, writing in his new book, The Great Transition, that no one can say with any certainty that the change that’s underway will proceed fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Ted Turner, long an advocate on climate change and a funder of Brown’s work, purchased 4,000 copies of The Great Transition and is distributing them to members of Congress and elected officials across the country. It is a rare optimistic look at evidence that the economy is moving away from oil and coal to solar and wind and battery-powered vehicles. “That’s the most exciting for me, how fast things are moving,” says Brown, citing a UBS survey that says rooftop solar panels with backup batteries for home and cars will be cost-competitive in Europe by 2020.
Obama’s “war on coal” was a feature in the 2014 midterm election, and there’s still plenty of pushback in Congress. But 188 of the nation’s 523 coal plants have closed or are scheduled to close, and the $80 million donated by Michael Bloomberg to the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign is a game-changer, says Brown. As the economy transitions, so does the investor class. Brown points out that Goldman Sachs pulled out of coal, and Morgan Stanley is out of oil. Even the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, whose ancestor founded Standard Oil, divested its investments in fossil fuels last year. “When you get the billionaires moving out, that’s smart money,” says Brown.
Pressure to divest is also cropping up on college campuses. Stanford is out of coal, and Syracuse University is out of all fossil fuels. Harvard students staged a sit-in in February demanding the university shed its investments in fossil-fuel companies. The administration refused, but the pressure will continue. More than 200 faculty members have signed a letter asking Harvard’s governing body to reconsider, and Harvard law students have filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the change that everybody knows is coming. For those who worry about the health of the planet, help is on the way.
ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s legacy falls apart // NY Post // John Podhoretz - May 23, 2015
Deep into the seventh year of his tenure, Barack Obama is thinking about his post-presidential legacy. We know this because he’s telling us so.
In an interview this week with The Atlantic about the potential deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program, the president sought to use the fact of his relative youth and his consciousness about how history might judge him to his advantage: “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this. I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
In one sense, this is what we want presidents to worry about. We want them to be restrained by the cautionary examples provided by history and by the fact that history will judge them.
But what if the desire to tip the scales of history’s judgment in his favor leads a president to take dangerous risks?
In fact, we know that is what Obama has done with the Iran deal because his aides have told us so.
His deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, put it this way last year to a roomful of liberal activists when talking about the initial November 2013 agreement to begin talking about Iran’s nuclear program: “Bottom line is, this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically…This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is health care for us, just to put it in context.”
But this “opportunity” didn’t just emerge organically — which is actually where “opportunities” are supposed to come from. It did not result from changing conditions that opened a new possibility of finding common ground.
Iran’s behavior didn’t change, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons didn’t change. Obama manufactured what Rhodes called an opportunity by pursuing a deal with Iran and dangling all kinds of carrots in front of the mullahs.
And why? Because he wants a foreign-policy legacy to match the size and scope of his key legacy in domestic policy.
And who can blame him? After the failure of the Arab Spring, the collapse of Libya, the failure to act on his self-imposed “red line” in Syria, Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine and the terrifying rise and forward march of ISIS, the only unmitigated positive on his foreign-policy spreadsheet remains the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Masked Iraqi fighters prepare to battle ISIS who have risen to prominence on Obama’s watch.
Look, the guy will need something impressive to fill the exhibition space at his brand-new presidential library in Chicago.
Obama’s asking us to trust him because, he says, you can’t think he would want to look like the man who allowed Iran to go nuclear at some point in the future.
So what explains the president’s own unprompted comments in an NPR interview in April that, under the terms already announced, Iran would have the right to go nuclear by 2028 — when he will,
God willing, be a mere 67 years of age?
“A more relevant fear,” he said, “would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
Obama offered an answer. “The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished,” he said.
So it will be up to his successors to bail him out in the eyes of history and make it appear as though his legacy wasn’t the nuclear destabilization of the Middle East!
For all of Obama’s posturing, he has done little to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Speaking of legacies, how’s that key domestic-policy legacy going? Not so hot.
ObamaCare remains unpopular; far more Americans oppose than favor it.
People still remember the disaster of the October 2013 rollout, which still casts a shadow over the program today.
Those hard feelings were deepened last year by the discovery of a series of talks by key ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in which he bragged that it had been falsely marketed to the American people to take advantage of their stupidity.
Its defenders say the program is beginning to work, in the sense that it’s covering more people — but it’s not covering as many as the administration said it would by this time.
They tout the fact that the cost of the program is lower than it was supposed to be by now.
But that’s an inconsistent claim; it’s only less expensive because it isn’t meeting its target numbers, not because cost savings have suddenly materialized from the ether.
Meanwhile, at some point over the next month, the entire policy may be thrown into terminal chaos when the Supreme Court issues its judgment in a case called King v. Burwell — which challenges the legality of a central component of ObamaCare.
Modal Trigger
Obamacare is the president’s key domestic achievement, but the gargantuan piece of legislation might not even be legal.
As the Supreme Court debates and writes its opinions, the overall economy continues to sputter. Over the past five years, it grows and halts, grows and halts, in a somewhat mystifying pattern that has kept the American people on guard and on edge.
In the latest RealClearPolitics polling average, 62% say the country is on the wrong track — more than seven years after Obama moved into the White House.
Obama still has 18 months to go, and presidents have staged remarkable turnarounds in public opinion in such a time frame. Bill Clinton did it before his re-election in 1996, which seemed like a ludicrous prospect in early 1995.
Ronald Reagan was at low ebb in mid-1987 and left office on a triumphant high in early 1989.
But we’ve also seen the opposite. Indeed, we’ve seen the opposite more recently. George W. Bush was in bad shape in mid-2007, unquestionably — worse than Obama, because he’d lost the confidence of some Republicans, while Obama seems not to have lost any of his base.
But in 2008 the bottom fell out when a financial crisis that began in the spring turned into a total meltdown by the fall. Bush left office with one poll showing his approval rating at 22%.
Right now, would you bet on things getting substantially better for Barack Obama, or substantially worse? Does it look like we’re going to triumph over ISIS?
Does it feel like the economy is going to improve or that ObamaCare will suddenly gain public support? Does it seem like the deal with Iran is a good one?
If you answer these questions in the affirmative, then you are likely to be the sort of person who’s kept your 2008 Obama “Hope” poster on your wall and your 2012 Obama bumper sticker on your car.
Alas for America and the world, a poster and a bumper sticker do not a legacy make.
The Making of a Great Ex-President // NYT // Justin S. Vaugh - May 23, 2015
Though deeply engaged in his presidency — battling for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and against ISIS — Barack Obama is also casting an eye beyond Jan. 20, 2017, when his post-presidency begins. We’ve learned that his presidential library will be in Chicago, and he will continue to advocate for young minority men.
Mr. Obama’s slow pivot to his retirement coincides with renewed controversy over how Bill Clinton has conducted his, especially around donors to the Clinton Global Initiative and possible conflicts of interest during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Some assessments of Mr. Clinton’s post-presidential career have become extremely critical.
Which of Mr. Obama’s predecessors have been the best ex-presidents and which have been the worst? ...
Best
Engaged in important work, sometimes at a level that exceeded White House accomplishments.
John Quincy Adams
After losing badly to Andrew Jackson in 1828, he re-entered politics almost immediately and served nearly 20 years in the House of Representatives. While in Congress, he was chairman of multiple committees, fought vigorously against slavery and helped bring the Nullification Crisis to an end. He was instrumental in ensuring that James Smithson’s fortune built the Smithsonian Institution and successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of African slaves who had revolted against their Spanish captors and seized the slave ship Amistad.
Jimmy Carter
President Carter has been out of office for 34 years and counting. He is renowned for his work with Habitat for Humanity, and his foundation, the Carter Center, has done extraordinary work promoting democracy, human rights and global health. Of particular note is the foundation’s effort to eradicate the Guinea worm, which has helped lead to infections dropping from 3.5 million in 1986, when the foundation began combating the problem, to around 100 in 2014. Critics, however, allege the foundation gave its approval to questionable election processes in Venezuela in 2004.
William Howard Taft
Eight years after leaving the presidency, Taft became chief justice of the United States. He held the post, which had long been his dream job, from 1921 to 1930. Taft was the author of more than 250 opinions and became well respected for his role as a jurist, appearing in the Top 20 in some academic rankings of the greatest Supreme Court justices. He also led reform efforts to streamline the Supreme Court’s organization and give it greater control over which cases it hears, and led the charge for a new Supreme Court building, though it would not be completed until after his death.
Herbert Hoover
He lived three decades after leaving office at 58. He campaigned against Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and rebuked Harry Truman’s decision to drop the bomb on Japan in 1945 and his aggressive approach to the Cold War. But he also led essential administrative efforts, including international relief in Europe during World War II and food distribution in famine-stricken parts of the world. Hoover later was chairman of the Hoover Commission, from 1947 to 1949, which proposed reforms to strengthen the executive branch and helped make the modern presidency.
Worst
Took strong positions against the national interest and undermined successors for personal and political reasons.
John Tyler
Tyler became an advocate for Southern secession from the Union and was elected to the Confederacy’s House of Representatives, though he died before he could be sworn in. At the time of his death, many in the North considered him a traitor, a position Jefferson Davis’s political exploitation of his funeral did little to combat. Even though his coffin was draped with a Confederate flag, it should be noted that Tyler was chairman of the 1861 Virginia peace convention in a commendable, if failed, effort to avert civil war.
Millard Fillmore
After leaving office in 1853, Fillmore ran again as the Know-Nothing Party’s candidate in 1856. He lost, but still helped prevent John C. Frémont, a Republican, from defeating James Buchanan, who went on to be the worst president in American history, according to numerous scholarly studies. Fillmore continued to take positions on the wrong side of history, from his support of the Constitutional Union Party (which placed priority on maintaining the union above all else, including ending slavery) in 1860 to his disdain for the Emancipation Proclamation.
Franklin Pierce
A staunch critic of Abraham Lincoln throughout the Civil War, Pierce’s opposition to the 16th president was so renowned he became the subject of rumors that he was involved in a planned uprising against the government, which would replace Lincoln’s administration with a provisional government and put in office a president more sympathetic to the Southern states. Although these claims would ultimately be revealed as a hoax, the public remained suspicious of his loyalty to the country. A longtime drinker, Pierce ultimately succumbed to cirrhosis of the liver in 1869.
Teddy Roosevelt
After leaving office, he went on an African safari with a group that killed hundreds of animals, including rare species like the white rhino. Upon his return, he undermined his chosen successor, William Howard Taft. After a failed challenge to Taft for the 1912 Republican presidential nomination, Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party, known as the Bull Moose Party, which split the Republicans and helped elect Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt railed against Wilson, too, helping the Republicans win back Congress in 1918, which would play a key role in the defeat of Wilson’s League of Nations plan.
Studies and rankings in that area are rare, compared with those that rate or rank presidential greatness, which has become something of an intellectual cottage industry. Indeed, in the most recent poll of professional presidency watchers — which I conducted with Brandon Rottinghaus of the University of Houston — Mr. Obama found a place at No. 18.
In looking at the recipe for post-presidential greatness, an analysis of his predecessors suggests equal parts opportunity, activity and incentive.
First, presidents need to stay alive after leaving office long enough to have a chance to provide meaningful service. Those who do need to also accomplish something significant beyond campaigning for their fellow partisans, burnishing their legacy and cutting the ribbon at the groundbreaking of their library.
Many of our greatest presidents would not — indeed, could not — make the list. Fully one-half of all presidents died either in office or within a decade of decamping from the White House. Favorites like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy died as presidents, and others, including near-greats Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson, suffered health problems that severely constrained their post-presidential activities.
As one study shows, the presidents most likely to engage in ambitious post-presidencies were those who either resigned or failed to win re-election. Consider, for example, Richard M. Nixon’s purposeful post-presidency: In addition to writing several books, he represented presidents abroad in sticky diplomatic situations and became a respected elder statesman.
Our greatest ex-presidents have engaged in important work, sometimes at a level that rivaled their accomplishments in the White House. Our worst ex-presidents, on the other hand, have been noteworthy for taking strong positions against the national interest and consistently undermining their successors for personal and political reasons.
If Mr. Obama seeks an alternative to Mr. Clinton’s path, George H. W. Bush offers a model. He has been the very picture of post-presidential dignity, retiring to Houston, where he is loath to criticize his successors or appear on the national stage, except for the occasional birthday sky-dive or to raise funds for natural disaster relief.
President Obama would do well to chart an active course that makes a difference but avoids partisan entanglements and financial controversy.
N.H. political veterans talk about what it takes to throw a good campaign event // Concord Monitor // Casey McDermott - May 24, 2015
If you’re a presidential candidate looking to make your mark in New Hampshire, the old adage rings true: Location, location, location.
There’s no shortage of iconic campaign stops that have produced legendary primary moments over the years, but when voters show up to a town hall, a house party, a Politics and Eggs breakfast, a parade or any other pre-planned event, they’re only seeing half of it.
Just about any veteran strategist who’s navigated the Granite State campaign trail agrees that a location can say a lot about a candidate.
“You can tell a lot about a candidate’s strategy – where they think their voters are – by where they go,” said veteran Republican strategist Tom Rath.
As much as the place itself, a good campaign stop is also about the people who show up or lend a hand behind the scenes, about the potential for photo ops, about the press access, about the broader message, about paying homage to New Hampshire traditions without revisiting the same list of places candidates have been frequenting for decades.
“New Hampshire primary history is filled with really historic and meaningful sites, it is a challenge to find the right balance,” said Jim Merrill, who’s handled his fair share of location scouting assignments through the years and serves as a senior adviser to Marco Rubio’s campaign. “The challenge and the joy of each cycle is finding the new places folks haven’t gone to before.”
There are places like the Merrimack VFW post or the Old Bow Town Hall — no better way to illustrate a candidate’s appreciation for New Hampshire’s civically active electorate than to meet them at one of these community institutions.
Then there are the greasy spoons and cafes: Chez Vachon, the Red Arrow, the Tilt’n Diner and the like. Candidates are almost guaranteed to find people who otherwise might not attend a political event, and it makes for a fun photo op. There’s little control over who’s in the room, and these can yield especially unscripted moments with voters. And those who don’t win the presidency can at least get their name or campaign sticker adorned on a booth.
Large rallies like the ones held in the past at the State House, Concord High School or local colleges attract plenty of attention in the media and otherwise, but these venues come with some risk as candidates have to place bets on whether they’ll draw large enough crowds to fill the space.
In the summer, candidates benefit from the state’s lineup of parades and festivals – which offer great exposure and require little energy from campaign staff. Candidates often just have to show up, shake hands and smile.
And for more formal policy conversations, presidential hopefuls can tailor “roundtable” discussions to suit their intended themes: a community college to talk about education, a high tech company to talk about business or energy, a defense firm to talk about national security, and so on.
And that thrill Merrill mentioned about finding just the right New Hampshire spot for a presidential candidate’s appearance crosses party lines. Mike Vlacich, who’s leading Hillary Clinton’s team in New Hampshire after years of working on local campaigns, approaches the challenge with equal enthusiasm.
“What I like about this cycle is the conversations both parties are having about how to bring candidates back to the living room and back to the small businesses,” Vlacich said. “While there is always going to be a role for the large venues. . . . What’s important is that we’re all working hard to get back to a place where we can keep the primary unique and special and having the candidates have a conversation with people, not talk at people.”
The way Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern sees it, the candidates who visit New Hampshire can be broken up into three tiers. There’s the first tier, the lowest: These are the ones who focus mostly on optics, using the state “as a backdrop for the national media.” Then there’s the next level: These ones recognize that the first-in-the-nation primary state gives them an opportunity to “shake a lot of hands and meet a lot of people,” and to make a dent in their standing. “That’s valuable,” Van Ostern noted, “because we’re not a big state.”
And then there are, in his eyes, the top-tier candidates: the ones who take the time to do more than shake hands and take pictures, and use it as a chance to really listen.
“Not only does it help them win over New Hampshire voters,” said Van Ostern, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose resume includes work on a few high-profile campaigns, “but it makes them a better candidate.”
Advice for beginners: Try ‘borrowing’ a crowd
New Hampshire is especially well-suited for underdogs who might not have the kind of staff and resources to launch a campaign with lots of bells and whistles.
“Oftentimes, you’ll see candidates borrowing someone else’s crowd,” said Fergus Cullen, a former state Republican Party chairman who’s working on a book about the history of the New Hampshire primary.
Local civic organizations – like, say, a rotary club or a VFW post – can help on this front. Often, these groups can also boost a candidate’s turnout by spreading the word to their existing members and encouraging them to share with their networks.
Likewise, Cullen and other strategists said, long-running traditions like “Politics and Eggs” can be ideal for candidates in the early stages of a campaign. That event, hosted by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics and the New England Council, has the added benefit of bringing out people from both parties – regardless of who’s speaking.
“Those are great events for the beginning of a campaign and newer candidates,” said Terry Shumaker, a Hillary Clinton supporter and a former co-chair of Bill Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire. “It doesn’t take a lot of staff. The event is built – you just pretty much have to show up, make your remarks and take questions.”
These pre-packaged events, however, can only take a candidate so far.
“The real point of graduation is, can they start doing events where they’re responsible for their own audience?” Cullen added. “Some of them never get to that point.”
Setting the stage
Back in the 1960s, when Rath was getting his start working on political campaigns as a student at Dartmouth, his pre-event responsibilities mostly consisted of showing up somewhere in Grafton County a few hours before the event and making some coffee.
“The advance was not nearly as glamorous,” he said, now with the benefit of decades of presidential campaigns under his belt.
Today, Rath and others said campaigns live and die by their ability to solicit interest and size up a potential crowd before an event even begins. A candidate can use his or her list of supporters (or in some cases, a list of voters rented from another campaign) to send invitations to precisely the kind of voters they want to attend.
“It’s not just where you go, it’s how you get the people in the room that you want there,” Rath said. “That’s become much more focused and pinpointed as we have data. ‘Oh, you should call Voter X because he or she is likely to be a Romney supporter.’ ”
With larger venues, it becomes especially important for campaigns to figure out how many people they think they can get to show up. Too few people to fill a room, and they risk looking like they’re lacking interest.
“You want to make the point that you are cresting here, that you have momentum,” Rath said.
Too many people, on the other hand, and they run the risk of getting into trouble with local authorities. Though, as Shumaker can attest, that’s not always necessarily a bad thing.
Recalling a Clinton campaign event back in October 1991 at a Merrimack venue, Shumaker said: “The place was so full you couldn’t move, the fire marshal threatened to close the event down.” When the press heard about it and pushed out reports over the wires, he said, “the national campaign was ecstatic.”
Both Rath and Shumaker said it’s important, too, to strike a balance between creating an environment that allows for robust press coverage without allowing the media circus to overtake the event. Clinton’s team used a press pooling system to cover some of the private stops during her first New Hampshire visits, and other campaigns’ staffers have privately floated the possibility of pooling events to keep the media logistics more manageable.
“You don’t want the gaggle to get in the way of the others, you’ve got to think that through. You want the coverage, but you don’t want to make the voters unhappy with it,” Rath said. “You’ve got to be very careful with the care and feeding of the press.”
Scaling back
The Clinton campaign, in particular, has drawn some criticism for its approach thus far on the campaign trail. During her first visit to New Hampshire as a 2016 presidential candidate, Clinton stuck to small gatherings at supporters’ homes, roundtables at a small business and NHTI, and a meeting with Democratic legislators at the party’s headquarters in Concord this time around.
The contrast between 2008 and 2016 isn’t lost on the campaign or its closest supporters. Last time around, Clinton launched her campaign here with larger public events. Vlacich says the initial roll-out with smaller events is meant to breed more meaningful discussions.
“While that might result in us not necessarily being able to see thousands of people as you would in a gym, you’re able to have that more intense conversation,” Vlacich said.
Shumaker, who’s been through campaign cycles with both Clintons, said balancing the need for a certain level of security with access is a challenge – but not necessarily a new one. When Bill Clinton was running for re-election in the mid-1990s, Shumaker said, the president’s secret service teams came up with all sorts of new security approaches to allow him to mingle with crowds without being too inhibited by bodyguards.
Now, Shumaker said Hillary Clinton’s high profile – and a heightened sensitivity to security, overall – also necessitates a certain layer of protection for the candidate.
“You just have to grin and bear it,” Shumaker said. “It’s a sign of the times. We’re learning how to work with it.”
Playing host
Outside of diner stops or town halls, there’s also the living rooms, the backyards and – in some cases – the barnyards. For candidates who are really looking to solidify their first-in-the-nation credentials, it’s hard to overstate the importance of getting an influential local to invite them into their home.
These events are ideal for making personal connections with potential voters who can then go and tell all of their friends about the presidential hopeful they just met, strategists on both sides say.
“If a really important supporter or somebody you want to be a supporter wants you to do a house party at (their) house, it would probably be unwise not to do it,” Shumaker said. “And also people are generally able to make sure that house is full.”
If that supporter also happens to own one of New Hampshire’s famous political farms, even better. Luckily for those on both sides, each party has one of their own: For the Democrats, it’s been former State senator Peter Burling’s farm in Cornish; for Republicans, it’s been former state lawmakers’ Doug and Stella Scamman’s farm in Stratham. These settings can offer the best elements of a New Hampshire campaign – a connection to a politically active host, an atmosphere that feels personal but still offers plenty of space for crowds, and a great backdrop for photos.
In Burling’s case, the events at his place also acted as prime fund-raising opportunities for the House Democratic Caucus. When it came to preparing food, setting up chairs or otherwise preparing, Burling also said he was lucky to have plenty of help.
“At the very least there were 100 active Democrats who were eager to help and participate in whatever event there was,” Burling said. “I started out with one of the largest armies of volunteers anybody in the country could assemble.”
Doug Scamman said he hasn’t yet finalized plans to host another party at his farm this year.
“People keep asking me if we’re going to, we haven’t decided whom we’re going to support yet,” he said in an interview a few weeks ago.
Like Burling, he doesn’t see the ordeal of hosting candidates to be too much of a burden, and he likes giving crowds – in one case, several thousand who turned out to see George W. Bush – another chance to see a candidate.
“I think people put a little stock in the fact that we’ve studied candidates and we feel strongly about it,” Scamman said. “To allow people who come and listen to see what candidates have to say, and they decide if they agree with us or not.”
And while Burling said he, too, hasn’t finalized any plans for hosting a party this year, he’s watching eagerly as the Democratic field – while substantially smaller than the Republican one – starts to take shape.
“One of the reasons I’m so delighted to see Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley get into the Democratic primary – that’s going to make all of this possible,” Burling said of traditional New Hampshire campaign festivities. “Otherwise, I think it’s very easy to have Secretary Clinton’s campaign become a scripted, controlled event.”
Alexandria Phillips
Press Assistant | Communications
Hillary for America | www.hillaryclinton.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRapid" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hrcrapid+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to hrcrapid@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.