Subject: H4A News Clips 5.13.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 07:55:29 -0400
List-Id: <hrcrapid.googlegroups.com>

*H4A Press Clips*

*May 13, 2015*

SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS

Last night around 9PM five people died when a passenger train carrying 238
passengers and five crewmembers derailed in Philadelphia, PA, forcing
Amtrak to shut down all service between New York City and Philadelphia. A
sixth person was reported dead this morning and 8 remain in critical
condition.

In political news the Senate voted Tuesday to block action on a crucial
“trade promotion authority” bill, delivering a setback to President Obama,
who strongly supports the bill. The Washington Post Editorial Board calls
on Hillary Clinton to take a position on trade saying, her “performance on
trade so far implies that it’s just about winning the nomination.”

Congressman Gowdy is expected to say whether he’ll accept Hillary Clinton’s
offer to appear once before his committee next week. The likely answer will
be ‘no’ and this will delay the process again.

A CBS News piece highlighted last week’s CBS/New York Times poll that found
that both Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings and the percent of people
who see her as a strong leader have jumped in the month since questions
about the Clinton Foundation began mounting. Her favorability rating leapt
from 26 to 35 percent, and the number of people who see her as a strong
leader jumped from 57 to 65 percent.

Bill de Blasio Elizabeth Warren have been labeled as the voice of  the
liberal opposition, and yesterday unveiled a “Progressive Contract With
America” alongside dozens of fellow travelers in Washington, D.C. The Daily
Beast characterized the Hillary Clinton  campaign as "yawning" in response.

LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS

NBC had a segment on Jeb Bush’s support for the Iraq war discussing his
controversial comments from earlier today. There was no 2016 coverage on
ABC or CBS. They instead covered the American military helicopter with six
marines, helping in the aftermath of the earthquake in Nepal, is missing;
the NFL’s lead investigator making critical statements about Tom Brady;
Homeland Security agents raided a clothing drive that was a front for
weapons trafficking.

SUMMARY OF TODAY’S
NEWS................................................................. 1

LAST NIGHTS EVENING
NEWS................................................................. 1

TODAY’S KEY
STORIES............................................................................
4

*Hillary Clinton, MIA on trade* // WaPo // Editorial Board - May 12,
2015............................... 4

*Do independent voters care about foreign donations to the Clinton
Foundation?* // CBS News // Jake Miller - May 12, 2015    5

*Is New Hillary Clinton Super-PAC Pushing Legal Boundaries?* // Bloomberg
// Jennifer Epstein - May 12, 2015        9

*Gowdy vs. Clinton, no end in sight* // Politico // Lauren French – May 13,
2015................... 10

*Hillary Campaign Yawns at de Blasio* // Daily Beast // David Freedlander -
May 12, 2015. 12

SOCIAL
MEDIA........................................................................................
15

*Annie Karnie (5/12/15, 11:14 AM) @anniekarni*:  "If I were advising
candidates I would say you’ve got to have a credible position on
immigration reform," @BillClinton at Univision
upfronts........................................................................
15

*Adrian Carrasquillo (5/12/15, 8:14 AM) @Carrasquillo*: Bill Clinton brings
up Eric Garner, says controversy can be lessened if there is dispute
resolution by diverse community decision
makers............................................................... 15

*Chad Pergram (5/12/15, 2:59 PM) @ChadPergram*: Senate blocks trade
framework. Vote was 52 yeas to 45 nays. But needed 60. McConnell switched
so he could call for
revote............................................................................................................
15

*Jeff Kaufmann (5/12/15 12:49 PM) @kaufmannGOP*: We hope Governor Bush
rethinks his decision and realizes that grassroots will only grow in Iowa
if he waters them. (1/3); The RedState Gathering is a four day event and
other candidates have already indicated that they will be attending both.
(2/3); We don’t buy this excuse and neither will Iowans.
(3/3).................................... 15

*Jeremy W. Peters (5/12/15 5:56 AM) @jwpetersNYT*:  @ananavarro says Jeb
Bush told her he misheard Megyn Kelly's question about invading Iraq and
answered
accordingly.....................................................................................................
15

HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE...................................................................
15

*GOP battles for Benghazi leverage* // The Hill // Martin Matishak – May
13, 2015.............. 16

*Why Hillary Clinton Is Our Champion* // Urban Voice // State Senate
Minority Leader Aaron D. Ford - May 12, 2015                  18

*Hillary Clinton’s hedge on trade leaves Obama without political cover* //
WaPo // David Nakamura - May 12, 2015  19

*Obama’s war of words over trade deal puts pressure on Clinton* // Yahoo
News // Jon  Ward - May 12, 2015      22

*Will Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren be able to push Hillary Clinton
to the left?* // Slate // Jamelle Bouie – May 12, 2015             24

*Hillary Is Passing 2016's Biggest Test—and Jeb Is Flunking* // The New
Republic // Brian Beutler - May 12, 2015     26

*Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and authorizing the war in Iraq* // PolitiFact
// Amy Sherman – May 12, 2015       29

*The 13 Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered From The Press* // NPR //
Tamara Keith – May 13, 2015        33

*Hillary Clinton Hasn't Answered a Press Question in 21 Days (And Her
Opponents Are Taking Notice)* // ABC News // Liz Kruetz - May 12, 2015    36

*Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days* //
WaPo // Chris Cillizza - May 12, 2015           38

*Here’s a clock that counts the minutes since Hillary Clinton answered a
press question* // WaPo // Philip Bump - May 12, 2015        39

*Journalists Try Shaming Hillary Clinton Into Speaking To The Press* //
Huffington Post // Michael Calderone - May 12, 2015            39

*Super PACs rise in influence in 2016 campaign* // AP // Ken Thomas and
Steve Peoples - May 12, 2015             41

*Hillary Clinton-Aligned Group Gets Closer to Her Campaign* // New York
Times // Maggie Haberman - May 12, 2015               43

*Hillary Clinton's damage control operation gets more troops* // POLITICO
// Annie Karni - May 12, 2015          44

*Pro-Hillary Clinton Group Sets Novel Strategy to Back Presidential Hopeful*
// WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus - May 12, 2015        45

*US OK'd Most Bill Clinton Speech Requests Within Days* // AP // Lisa Lerer
and Stephen Braun - May 12, 2015             46

*Hillary Has Some 'Splainin' To Do About Clinton Foundation* // Forbes //
Robert W. Wood - May 12, 2015          51

*Uranium Investor- Turned Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes
Grilled by CNBC*  // Breitbart News // May 12, 2015         53

*Inside the Univision-Clinton network* // POLITICO // Hadas Gold and Marc
Caputo - May 12, 2015       54

*State Dept. can’t fulfill your FOIA because it’s overwhelmed by Hillary
e-mails* // WaPo // Al Kamen - May 12, 2015                 59

*Clinton facing new ethics questions on role in Boeing deal* // Fox News //
Dan Springer – May 13, 2015            60

*Bill Clinton: path to citizenship is just common sense* // POLITICO //
Annie Karni - May 12, 2015        61

*Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Noncampaigning Campaigner* // New
York Times // Amy Chozick - May 12, 2015     63

*Hillary Runs to the Left of Bill on Immigration Reform* // WSJ // Jason L.
Riley - May 13, 2015              65

*Dear Hillary, Do Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Or Get Bigger Refunds?*
// Forbes // Robert Wood – May 12, 2015             66

*How Bill Clinton’s Library Promotes Hillary Too* // TIME // Philip Elliott
- May 12, 2015... 68

*Chelsea Clinton could take on role of first lady if Hillary wins, White
House expert says* // Daily Mail // Francesco Chambers - May 12,
2015             70

*Hillary Clinton’s first South Carolina campaign visit is May 27* // Post
and Courier // Schuyler Kropf - May 12, 2015               70

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE....................................... 71

*Banks brace for Bernie Sanders* // The Hill // Kevin Cirill - May 12,
2015............................ 71

*O'Malley plans 4 stops in NH Wednesday* // WMUR // May 11,
2015..................................... 73

*O'Malley Returns to New Hampshire this Week* // Cocord Patch // Tony
Schinella - May 12, 2015         74

*Bill de Blasio proposing national paid family leave that his own employees
don’t get* // WaPo // Reid Wilson - May 12, 2015                74

GOP.........................................................................................................
75

*New Hampshire Poll: 2016 Republican Pack Has No Breakout Candidate Yet* //
Bloomberg // Margaret Talev - May 12, 2015               75

*Jeb Bush Backpedals Again* // New York Times // Maggie Haberman -May 12,
2015.......... 77

*Jeb Bush, Ana Navarro and the Question That May Have Been Misheard* // New
York Times // Jason Horowitz - May 12, 2015             79

*Jeb keeps it all in the family* // POLITICO // Roger Simon - May 12,
2015............................. 81

*No Iowa Straw Poll for Jeb Bush* // Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs
- May 12, 2015.. 83

*Fighting the Last War* // Slate // John Dickerson - May 12,
2015.......................................... 84

*Chris Christie hits Jeb Bush on Iraq War* // CNN // Alexandra Jaffe - May
12, 2015............ 87

*Jeb Bush’s eloquent defense of Christianity* // WaPo // Kathleen Parker –
May 12, 2015.... 89

*Paul opposes granting Obama fast-track trade authority* // WMUR // John
DiStasso - May 12, 2015   91

*Rand Paul tweets fake Hillary Clinton to-do list* // POLITICO // Adam B.
Lerner - May 12, 2015              93

*Paul says he can run for White House and do day job, questions whether
rivals can multi-task* // NH1 // Paul Steinhauser - May 11,
2015                  94

*Rand Paul Promises To Fight On Against Patriot Act* // NHPR // Josh Rogers
- May 11, 2015 95

*Paul calls for limited government in Londonderry visit* // Eagle Tribune
// Doug Ireland - May 12, 2015        96

*Rand Paul: Advocates for the Disabled Should Help Brainstorm Ways to Cut
Social Security Spending* // Bloomberg // David Weigel – May 12,
2015................................................................................................................................................
97

*Rand Paul tries to get younger voters in Granite State* // Boston Herald
// Chris Cassidy - May 12, 2015            98

*Christie defends use of $85,000 in public funds to entertain guests at
sporting events* // Boston Globe // May 12, 2015             99

*Rare NH visit for Rick Santorum* // NH1 // Paul Steinhauser - May 12,
2015.................... 100

*Fiorina Grabs Attention In Iowa* // Oskaloosa News // May 12,
2015................................... 101

*Rick Santorum: Odd man out?* // POLITICO // James Hohmann - May 12,
2015................. 102

*Will Scott Walker’s budget troubles hurt his potential 2016 bid?* // WaPo
// Jenna Johnson -May 12, 2015      105

*This Is Where Liberals Have Gotten Us* // Medium // Marco Rubio - May 12,
2015............. 108

*Marco Rubio Shifts Rightward on Foreign Policy* // TIME // Philip Elliott
- May 12, 2015 109

*In title for most conservative, Marco Rubio just misses top spot* // Miami
Herald // Chris Adams - May 12, 2015          111

*Lindsey Graham to Hold Senate Fundraiser Days After Planned Launch of
White House Bid* // WSJ // Reid Epstein – May 12, 2015                 111

TOP
NEWS..............................................................................................
112

DOMESTIC...........................................................................................
113

*Senate Democrats vote to block Obama on trade* // WaPo // Mike DeBonis and
Steven Mufson – May 12, 2015                   113

*At least 5 dead in Amtrak crash in Philadelphia* // USA Today // Melanie
Eversley - May 13, 2015     116

*No charges in Wisconsin police shooting of black teen* // Reuters // Fiona
Ortiz - May 12, 2015               117

*AOL, a Digital Pioneer, With Another Chance to Reshape Itself* // New York
Times // Emly Steel and Michael j. de la Merced - May 12,
2015                118

INTERNATIONAL...............................................................................
120

*Nepal earthquake: Rescue resumes after latest deadly tremor* //  BBC News
// May 12, 2015 121

*China Lashes Out Over U.S. Plan on South China Sea* // WSJ // Eva Dou
And.................... 123

James Hookway - May 13,
2015.............................................................................................
123

*Inspectors in Syria Find Traces of Banned Military Chemicals* // NYT //
Somini Sengupta, Marlise Simons and Anne Barnard - MAY 12, 2015     125

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...........................................................
128

*Why Hillary Clinton Would Be a Weak Presidential Nominee for Democrats* //
Huffington Post // Eric Zuesse – May 12, 2015            128

*Time for a Conversation about Paid Sick Leave* // Huffington Post //
Jonathan Cohn - May 12, 2015    130

*America Doesn't Need Another 'Contract With America'—Not Even a Liberal
One* // The New Republic // Elspeth Reeve - May 12, 2015        134

*The Aggressive, Sometimes Bizarre Progressive Campaign Against Obama’s
Trade Agenda* // BuzzFeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro - May 12,
2015..............................................................................................................................................
137

*Sabotage! Will Bill Save Us from Hill?* // PJ Media // Roger Simon - May
12, 2015............. 141

*The Center-Right Moment* // New York Times // David Brooks - May 12,
2015................... 143

*A Million Missing Black Voters* // The Atlantic // David A. Graham - May
12, 2015.......... 145

*Hillary 'Rewrites' the Economic Debate* // Huffington Post // Richard
Brodsky – May 12, 2015               147

TODAY’S KEY STORIES

Hillary Clinton, MIA on trade
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-s/2015/05/12/d89d9e68-f8bc-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z3>
// WaPo // Editorial Board - May 12, 2015

FORTY-FOUR senators in the Democratic caucus voted Tuesday to block action
on a crucial “trade promotion authority” bill, delivering an embarrassing
setback to President Obama, who strongly supports the bill — and, more
importantly, sowing doubts about U.S. leadership among friends and foes
around the world. Leaders of both parties swore that this would not be the
final word, that they would find a face-saving exit from the arcane
procedural conflict that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is
using as a fig leaf for the ascendant anti-trade agenda within his party.

As it happens, they are probably right, in part because there are still
enough Democrats in the Senate (in addition to the one, Thomas R. Carper of
Delaware, who had the guts to vote against Mr. Reid on Tuesday) who favor
trade. Still, it’s remarkable how much power the anti-trade left wing of
the Democratic Party has come to wield within the Senate, which
historically was a bastion of bipartisan pro-trade sentiment. Mr. Obama
wants trade promotion authority — “fast-track” authority — to grease the
legislative skids for his proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a measure
that would enhance U.S. exports to Asia, as well as security ties to key
nations such as Japan. Progressives oppose the trade deal on the spurious
grounds that it would kill American jobs.

So powerful has the opposition on the left become, in fact, that it has
turned the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, into
a quiet follower on the issue, rather than the forceful leader she once was
— and still could be. While her opponents for the Democratic nomination
populistically posture, all she has mustered are a couple of anodyne
remarks. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase
prosperity and protect our security,” she said in a recent visit to New
Hampshire.

Ms. Clinton’s dash for the tall grass is transparently inconsistent with
the position she embraced as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state. “Our hope is
that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for
future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional
interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific,” she
wrote in an October 2011 cover story for Foreign Policy magazine. Indeed,
given this well-known record, her avoidance now rather insults the
electorate’s intelligence.

With the president’s agenda embattled in the Senate, this would be a good
time for Ms. Clinton to abandon her political caution and speak up for what
she said so recently were her principles. In refusing to take a stand, Ms.
Clinton is not only abandoning the president she once served but also
missing an opportunity to help define the values of the party she would
lead in November 2016.

Do independent voters care about foreign donations to the Clinton
Foundation?
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-independent-voters-care-about-foreign-donations-to-the-clinton-foundation/>
// CBS News // Jake Miller - May 12, 2015

Republican candidates are on the warpath against the Clinton Foundation,
raising questions about whether Hillary and Bill Clinton sold influence to
foreign entities in exchange for donations to their sprawling philanthropy.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told Politico the Clintons accepted "thinly-veiled
bribes."

"Are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a
foreign source?" asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry during a recent
interview on CNN. "Where's your loyalty?"

"At the very least, these revelations present a clear conflict of
interest," added Texas Sen. Ted Cruz last month in a statement. "I call on
Hillary Clinton to return the donations from foreign governments. Until she
does, how can the American people trust her with another position of power?"

Journalists have followed the money trail as well, examining whether
Hillary Clinton took any actions as secretary of state that benefited
donors to the Clinton Foundation. That question was thrust back into the
media spotlight last month by a new book called "Clinton Cash: The The
Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make
Bill and Hillary Rich." The author of that book, conservative Peter
Schweizer, has admitted he found no "smoking gun" pointing to tangible
wrongdoing by the Clintons, but he's argued their "pattern of behavior"
suggests a quid pro quo.

The Clintons themselves have strongly denied any wrongdoing and accused
Republicans and the media of hyping unsubstantiated claims about a
foundation that does a lot of valuable charity work around the world. Bill
Clinton has argued the scrutiny shows he and his wife are held to a
different standard than many other public figures.

If nothing else, though, the kerfuffle has presented a big political
headache for Hillary Clinton as her 2016 presidential bid is taking flight.
But with Clinton likely to seize the Democratic presidential nomination in
2016, is there any indication the issue is resonating with the swing voters
who will decide the election?

Thus far, it doesn't seem to be taking much of a toll. A CBS News/New York
Times poll released last week found that both her favorability ratings and
the percent of people who see her as a strong leader have jumped in the
month since questions about the Clinton Foundation began mounting. Her
favorability rating leapt from 26 to 35 percent, and the number of people
who see her as a strong leader jumped from 57 to 65 percent.

It's still possible the issue could begin to erode her poll numbers, though
- 55 percent of independent voters said they did not yet know enough about
the foundation's fundraising to render an opinion on its integrity. If
opinions among that bloc begin to harden, either for or against the
Clintons, it could make an appreciable difference in the outcome of the
2016 election.

CBS News talked to twelve of those poll respondents - independent voters
who have not decided how they plan to vote in 2016, and who have said they
need to know more about the foundation before forming an opinion on the
matter. During a follow-up conversation, these voters were asked whether
they plan to investigate the issue further and whether any information they
find will factor into their 2016 decision. The results, together forming a
kind of virtual focus group, suggest the issue won't be too big a hurdle
for Clinton come Election Day, barring a more scandalous revelation over
the course of the campaign.

Most respondents seemed willing to give the Clintons the benefit of the
doubt, disputing the idea that they would leverage their influence on
behalf of foundation donors.

"I don't believe that a donation from a foreign country or dignitary will
have that big of an effect on decision making for the country," said
Jerome, a 63-year-old from California.

"If they were directly selling influence, you know, through the secretary
of state's office, then yeah, that would probably be a deal breaker for
me," said Michael, a 35-year-old Arizonan who works in the restaurant
industry. That said, he added, there's a "lack" of a smoking gun. "A lot of
it is based off of that book written by that author that has done nothing
but trash the Clintons," he explained. "The snippets that I have read from
his book, they're baseless. They basically connect a few dots that
shouldn't be connected, you know. He uses a lot of, you know, just
guessing, to connect two dots."

Several suggested the whole episode is much ado about nothing, arguing
there are more important considerations facing voters than charitable
donations to the Clinton Foundation.

"There are bigger issues on the table," said Alex, a 35-year-old writer
from Texas who said she's not seen any evidence of wrongdoing, and that
she's "satisfied" all of her questions about the issue have been answered

"I don't see it being that big of an issue," agreed Andrew, a 28-year-old
physician from Oklahoma who suggested other candidates have their own
controversies. "It's politics and all politics has, you know -- it's always
something."

"Of course if it's some enormous scandal or fraud or something, I'm sure
that would affect me more," Andrew added.

Ruth, an 84-year-old from New York, said the issue would "certainly" play a
role in her vote, though she did not indicate which way she's leaning.
"There are questions about the funding and how it was used," she explained.
"I think all that enters...into a judgment as to what kind of a person this
is, how they use their funds."

Some voters suggested Hillary Clinton would be able to distance herself
from any questions of impropriety -- that she couldn't be expected to
monitor all the foundation's activities, and that her husband deserves more
scrutiny on the issue than she does.

"This is more affecting what former President Clinton has done, for his
charity, causes, and things like that, rather than what Mrs. Clinton, and
how she's been involved with it. Because I think she's been more involved
in government, more than what her husband has, since he's left office,"
said John, a 63-year-old retired chauffeur from New York. "One person
doesn't know everything. To hold one person accountable for what goes on
like in a foundation, that's unrealistic."

Others nodded at a reservoir of trust and goodwill that the Clintons have
earned during their long time in public life. Mary, a 52-year-old nurse
from Massachusetts, initially told the pollsters that she did not have
enough information to render a verdict, but that she's since heard all she
needs to know.

"I just saw something last night on TV and it was regarding Bill Clinton
making a statement, so he brought me up to speed," she said. "I thoroughly
trust the Clinton family, and I believe that that foundation is on the up
and up, I never had a hint of thinking Hillary, or Bill, or [the
foundation] would be other than the up and up. I have a good feeling of the
Clinton family, and I don't think they'd ruin their integrity,"

Mary blamed the controversy on a "smear campaign" by Clinton's opponents
and suggested it would "in no way" alter her opinion of Bill or Hillary. "I
have a good feeling of the Clinton family, and I don't think they'd ruin
their integrity."

Almost all of the voters said they were leaning toward supporting Clinton,
though several allowed that subsequent developments could prompt them to
reconsider.

"She's, in my mind, like the person I'd vote for given the other
candidates, but, like I said, a lot can change between now and then,"
explained Andrew, the Oklahoma physician.

"Unless someone else come into it, she's probably my best bet," said John,
the retired chauffeur from New York. "Just because of her experience."

"I'm leaning towards voting for her, I would like to have Hillary in there
just from hearing what she says - her views on everything," said Justin, a
31-year old from West Virginia who works in real estate and property
maintenance. "But I need to figure out what this scandal is all about, and
that will be the deciding factor for me."

"I would ultimately vote for her over pretty much any candidate you can
name coming from the Republican Party," said Michael from Arizona.

"I'm leaning towards Hillary Clinton," agreed Alex from Texas. "I haven't
seen any other candidate that suits my needs as a voter, that represents
me."

Even voters who said they're leaning against Clinton suggested the
questions surrounding the foundation are not foremost in their mind.

"As long as the money is going for what it's supposed to go for, I don't
have a problem with that - the charitable work," said Kim, a 46 year old
from Arizona. "There's bigger issues on the table. I probably would not be
voting for her."

Of course, at this early stage in the election, the electorate is
relatively tuned out - political geeks are following the story intensely,
but most voters aren't political geeks.

"I'm really busy," said Andrew from Oklahoma. "I can't keep track of every
single thing between now and 2016. You know, like I said I'll look at it
close to that time and...make a decision then."

"Truthfully, I've read a little about it, but I couldn't care less," said
William, a 24-year-old from New York. The election is "too far in the
future, really. There are so many things that can happen."

Is New Hillary Clinton Super-PAC Pushing Legal Boundaries?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-13/is-new-hillary-clinton-super-pac-pushing-legal-boundaries->
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - May 12, 2015

A second, semi-official super-PAC is being formed to help Hillary Clinton,
and in an unusual twist, has announced plans to coordinate with the
Democratic presidential front-runner's campaign.

The move is the latest manifestation of a new trend in 2016 politics: the
outsourcing of routine campaign functions to outside groups that are
permitted to raise money in unlimited amounts. Candidate committees are
limited to donations of $5,400 a campaign cycle from individuals. Last
month, the Associated Press reported that all-but-declared Republican
presidential candidate Jeb Bush will be running much of his campaign
through a super-PAC.

Clinton's newest super-PAC ally, Correct the Record, is spinning off from
American Bridge, another super-PAC that formed four years ago and that
conducts opposition research on Republican presidential hopefuls. Correct
the Record, which has been serving as a rapid-response team to defend
Clinton since November 2013, is being recast as an independent super-PAC
that will continue to serve as “a political research and communications war
room,” the group said Tuesday.

What’s unusual is that Correct the Record plans to coordinate with the
Clinton campaign and potentially other federal campaigns and Democratic
party committees—something that quickly drew skepticism from watchdogs who
find it difficult to see how the group can function without running afoul
of campaign finance laws. Those laws are designed to prevent committees
that collect big-dollar contributions from having direct contact with
campaigns.

Correct the Record’s plans to coordinate with Clinton’s team amount, at the
very least, to a “campaign finance law boundary-pushing” arrangement, said
Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. As a super-PAC,
the group “cannot make any contributions to a candidate directly or in
kind,” he said.

Correct the Record’s communications director, Adrienne Watson, defended its
approach, arguing that “FEC rules specifically permit some activity—in
particular, activity on an organization’s website, in email, and on social
media—to be legally coordinated with candidates and political parties.”

She added: “This exception has been relied upon countless times by
organizations raising non-federal money.” The group’s lawyer, who declined
to be named for the record, pointed to nonprofit issue-focused groups like
the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, which can communicate
with candidates and convey their views through press releases or on
websites, as playing a similar role.

If Correct the Record follows through on its plans to bulk up its existing
rapid response and research structures, it could allow Clinton campaign to
outsource some of the functions that have typically been part of
presidential campaigns to a group that can collect dollars in much larger
denominations than she can legally. That could mean that Clinton’s campaign
committee could focus its more funds elsewhere.

A Democratic lawyer supportive of the Correct the Record-Clinton campaign
alliance dismissed the argument that the group’s work would amount to an
in-kind contribution, saying it’s no different than a state political party
doing rapid response to defend a presidential candidate.

Correct the Record is the second super-PAC to largely focus on boosting
Clinton. The other is Priorities USA Action, the group formed in 2012 to
support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. That group will not
coordinate with the Clinton campaign but the candidate and her team have
signaled that she welcomes Priorities' efforts. Clinton met last week with
a few potential donors to Priorities and former Clinton staffers including
her 2008 political director, Guy Cecil, are coming on board to balance the
influence of the Obamans still there.

There’s at least one preliminary hint that the new super-PAC has the
Clinton campaign's blessing too: Correct the Record is represented by
lawyers in the Washington office of Perkins Coie and the Clinton campaign’s
general counsel is Marc Elias, chair of the firm’s political law practice.

Regardless of the legal precedents it cites for the coordination it plans
with Clinton, Correct the Record will draw plenty of scrutiny. “We will be
monitoring the activities of Correct the Record and the Clinton campaign
very closely,” Ryan said, and CLC will file complaints not only with the
Federal Elections Commission but with the Justice Department, if it
believes that campaign laws have been violated.

Gowdy vs. Clinton, no end in sight
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton-benghazi-117881.html>
// Politico // Lauren French – May 13, 2015

Trey Gowdy and Hillary Clinton are locked in a high-stakes game of
cat-and-mouse that is threatening to drag on deep into the 2016 campaign.

Depending on which side you talk to, it’s either a search for truth in the
death of four Americans or a partisan witch hunt to hobble the presumed
Democratic nominee. On the ground, the tit for tat is more mundane — a
dispute over when, how many times and in which forum Clinton will testify
in what promises to be a media circus.

The Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the
2016 Democratic presidential candidate have become inextricably linked by
the congressional investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks and related
to her use of an email account set up on a private server during her four
years as secretary of state.

The latest twist could come this week, when Gowdy, a three-term congressman
from South Carolina who was appointed a year ago to lead the Benghazi
panel, is expected to say whether he’ll accept Clinton’s offer to appear
once — but only once — before his committee next week.

The answer likely will be no: Gowdy and Republicans wanted Clinton to
appear for a private interview with the committee but later offered two
public hearings as a compromise.

“The fear was if she was to do two hearings, he would take the information
from the first, which would probably be about the emails, and cherry-pick
it and use it in whatever way was most advantageous,” said Rep. Elijah
Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel. “This thing has
gotten to be too much about Hillary Clinton and far away from what the
parents of the victims (of the attacks) asked from us.”

At the very least, Gowdy wants the State Department to turn over a trove of
documents before scheduling a public hearing with Clinton.

As his negotiations with Clinton’s high-powered attorney, David Kendall,
continue, Gowdy is going out of his way to avoid the appearance of meddling
in presidential politics — no easy task given who he’s dealing with. The
50-year-old congressman, a federal and state prosecutor earlier in his
career, is eyeing a federal judgeship and hates being tagged as an
ideologue.

Since Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) tapped Gowdy to run the Benghazi panel,
Gowdy has repeatedly stressed that he’s unwilling to risk his reputation as
a sincere legislator just to nab a Democratic heavyweight — even if the
catch is the presumed Democratic nominee for president.

“This has always been about getting the facts … and the first thing you
have to do is establish that you have all the relevant documents,” a
Republican committee aide said. “That is the only thing he is looking for.
… It would probably be easier if he was trying to be political, but he
isn’t.”

When Clinton does finally appear, she’ll face a balancing act between the
highly message-focused act of running for president and being forthright
about the consequences of the Obama administration’s decisions in Libya.
Clinton’s camp has known since the House voted to create the Benghazi
select committee in May 2014 that the former secretary of state would be
asked to testify — and her allies on the Hill had long predicted that her
appearance would come after she announced her candidacy.

Clinton backers say the spectacle of Clinton testifying under oath again
about the Benghazi attacks will backfire on Republicans.

“Rep. Gowdy reminds me of my old dog, Gus, who I had when I was a kid in
Missouri City, Texas,” said Paul Begala, a close Clinton ally. “Ol’ Gus
loved to chase cars. … Till one day he caught one. Or, rather, one caught
him. Before you knew it, Ol’ Gus had 5,000 pounds of 1977 Oldsmobile
rolling over his head. If I were Mr. Gowdy, I’d be mighty careful. Hillary
has the facts on her side, and I suspect the last thing the Republicans
truly want are the facts.”

Still, the former diplomat also needs to avoid another “What difference
does it make?” moment. That animated retort — which came under tough
questioning from Republicans during a Senate committee hearing in 2013 —
was promptly turned into a sound bite by her adversaries.

Clinton’s campaign did not return a request for comment.

Gowdy has been trying to schedule a Clinton appearance for weeks — making
multiple offers to the former secretary of state to answer questions in
public and private about Benghazi and her use of a non-official email
account while at State. Clinton’s team has steadfastly refused to appear
for more than a single, public hearing.

The latest offer from Gowdy could come within days, after Kendall told the
12-member panel last week that Clinton was ready to appear as early as next
week.

“The committee will call Secretary Clinton to testify once it is satisfied
that all the relevant information has been provided by both the State
Department and her,” Gowdy said Friday. His statement came shortly after
Kendall accused the Republican-led committee of having “no basis, logic or
precedent” for multiple hearings.

Gowdy has zeroed in on outstanding requests for documents and emails from
the State Department and Obama administration as the major sticking points
in scheduling a hearing with Clinton. Without assurances from the State
Department that they have the documents, congressional Republicans have
been wary of agreeing to just one hearing.

Aides on the committee have pointed to the committee’s discovery of
Clinton’s private email as proof that it would be ineffective to have her
appear, only to discover new evidence later.

But Democrats have seized on the delay as evidence that Gowdy is only
interested in damaging Clinton by pushing the probe further into campaign
season. Cummings repeatedly has compared the Benghazi panel to the National
Republican Congressional Committee.

“At every turn, the select committee comes up with a new excuse to further
delay its work and then blames its glacial pace on someone else,” he said.
“Republicans are desperately trying to validate the $3 million in taxpayer
funds they have spent over the past year, but they have nothing to show for
it other than a partisan attack against Secretary Clinton and her campaign
for president.”

Hillary Campaign Yawns at de Blasio
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/12/hillary-campaign-yawns-at-de-blasio.html?via=mobile&source=twitter>
// Daily Beast // David Freedlander - May 12, 2015

During a Democratic primary season in which Hillary Clinton’s putative
opponents have pointedly declined to criticize her, Bill de Blasio has
emerged as the voice of the liberal opposition, declining to endorse her on
national television on the day she announced her candidacy, traveling to
the early primary states to tout his vision for the Democratic Party, and
on Tuesday unveiling a “Progressive Contract With America” alongside dozens
of fellow travelers in Washington, D.C.

But if all that activity is supposed to rally the Democratic base to pull
Clinton to the left, the Clinton campaign would like to thank de Blasio
very much for his effort, but says it is unnecessary.

“For her entire career, Hillary Clinton has championed many of the issues
included in this contract,” said Karen Finney, senior campaign spokeswoman.
“She has a long record of pushing for progress on issues like family leave,
income inequality, and education, and she looks forward to continuing the
conversation around these important topics as she lays out her own ideas in
this campaign.”

Indeed, many of the nearly a dozen Clinton advisers and supporters
contacted for this article said they welcomed de Blasio’s forays into
presidential politics, as so much of what he has been trying to do is
create a constituency that dovetailed with Clinton’s own record and
platform. Most of the issues de Blasio touts in his Progressive Agenda to
Combat Income Inequality, like a higher minimum wage and higher taxes on
the wealthy, have been pushed by President Obama, to little avail, and
Clinton has spoken out in favor of them.

“Hillary Clinton has a long career of advocating for progressive issues—the
minimum wage, issues important to women,” said Jack Rosen, a New York-based
real estate executive and longtime donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. “De
Blasio has a right to speak out on issues he cares about, but Hillary
Clinton doesn’t need any advice. She has her own inner compass on this.”

Tom Sheridan, a top D.C lobbyist and a donor to the Clinton campaign, said
that by trying to pressure Clinton from the left, de Blasio was actually
creating space for Clinton to position herself as palatable to the broad
middle.

“He is giving her running room and new ways to position herself on these
issues,” he said. “I think it’s all good, I really do. You have people
trying to put pressure on the left wing and the right wing, and Hillary
gets to show that she knows how to fly the plane, so to speak.”

“If the purpose of this is to put pressure on our candidate, there are
better ways to do it, and it’s unnecessary anyway.”

Polls show that Clinton remains strongly popular with even the most liberal
elements of the party, though grassroots organizers continue to push
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as a populist challenger to her. Robert
Wolf, a former CEO of UBS Americas and friend of Obama who has already
signed on to the Clinton campaign financial operation, predicted that the
impact of de Blasio’s press conference Tuesday on the Clinton campaign
would be minimal, especially once Clinton flushes out more of her own
agenda.

“To me the candidates that are talking about real issues like the secretary
last week on immigration versus trying to rally the far left or the far
right seem to get the most traction to the thoughtful person, as opposed to
getting the most media hype of the day,” Wolf told The Daily Beast.

Which isn’t to say Team Clinton isn’t a bit mystified at what de Blasio is
doing. The New York City mayor owes his career in part to Clinton, having
served as campaign manager for her 2000 run for the U.S. Senate, then
parlaying that experience into his first political run. Bill Clinton
inaugurated de Blasio as mayor, while Hillary Clinton looked on. “I am
proud to come from the Clinton family,” de Blasio told reporters after he
won the Democratic nomination.

“If he were running for president, that would be one thing, but he is not,”
said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist and longtime adviser to both
Clintons. “People who hold elective office like to get covered and like to
be heard and like to be part of the conversation. I take him at face value.”

People in and close to the Clinton campaign say they take de Blasio at his
word, that he is not running for president (despite a New York Post report
to the contrary). Rather, they assume he is trying either to elevate his
national profile and capitalize on a Democratic base yearning for a
standard-bearer, or trying to shore up his credentials with progressives in
New York in the face of sinking poll numbers and what could be a
potentially competitive reelection in 2017.

“I know Bill de Blasio like the back of my hand,” said Manhattan borough
president Gale Brewer, who served with de Blasio in the David Dinkins
administration in City Hall and in the City Council, and who was one of the
first New York City elected officials to endorse the Ready for Hillary
super PAC that laid the groundwork for another Clinton run.

“He thinks this is part of his official duties as mayor,” she said. “Of
course, you elevate yourself when you do that, but in his head it is about
elevating the city.”

Brewer said she was supportive of the mayor’s efforts if it meant getting
more resources to the city. If it also meant getting Clinton to tack left,
well, good luck.

“I don’t think that is helpful,” Brewer said. “She is going to do what she
needs to do to win the election. I don’t know too many people who are
listening to what Bill de Blasio is saying about Hillary Clinton being to
the left or not. They are judging Hillary Clinton on her own pluses and
minuses.”

Much of the Democratic establishment backed Clinton long before she was
even a candidate, even many of those who appeared alongside de Blasio at
his press conference in Washington on Tuesday. If de Blasio’s
non-endorsement on Meet the Press was a bit curious, few Clintonistas
doubted that he would eventually come around.

“I was with Bill de Blasio in the 2000 Senate campaign. I bumped into him
several times in Ohio in 2008 when he was campaigning for Hillary,” said
Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton adviser. “And I fully expect to be
campaigning with him again.”

Former Rep. Anthony Weiner, a one-time de Blasio opponent—and whose wedding
to a Hillary Clinton aide was officiated by Bill Clinton—agreed. He said de
Blasio had every right to step out on the national stage as mayor of New
York but that he was not sure exactly what the point of it all would be.

“It takes some hubris here to suggest that Hillary Clinton doesn’t
understand the challenges of inequality or the challenges facing our
country,” Weiner said. “So what are you going to do, say, ‘I am going to
hold my breath until Hillary becomes a good Democrat?’ If the purpose of
this is to put pressure on our candidate, there are better ways to do it,
and it’s unnecessary anyway.”

SOCIAL MEDIA

Annie Karnie (5/12/15, 11:14 AM) @anniekarni
<https://twitter.com/anniekarni/status/598142583861354496>:  "If I were
advising candidates I would say you’ve got to have a credible position on
immigration reform," @BillClinton at Univision upfronts

Adrian Carrasquillo (5/12/15, 8:14 AM) @Carrasquillo
<https://twitter.com/Carrasquillo/status/598144242893094913>: Bill Clinton
brings up Eric Garner, says controversy can be lessened if there is dispute
resolution by diverse community decision makers.

Chad Pergram (5/12/15, 2:59 PM) @ChadPergram
<https://twitter.com/ChadPergram>: Senate blocks trade framework. Vote was
52 yeas to 45 nays. But needed 60. McConnell switched so he could call for
revote.

Jeff Kaufmann (5/12/15 12:49 PM) @kaufmannGOP
<https://twitter.com/kaufmannGOP>: We hope Governor Bush rethinks his
decision and realizes that grassroots will only grow in Iowa if he waters
them. (1/3); The RedState Gathering is a four day event and other
candidates have already indicated that they will be attending both. (2/3);
We don’t buy this excuse and neither will Iowans. (3/3)

Jeremy W. Peters (5/12/15 5:56 AM) @jwpetersNYT
<https://twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/598109379032920065>:  @ananavarro
says Jeb Bush told her he misheard Megyn Kelly's question about invading
Iraq and answered accordingly.

HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE

GOP battles for Benghazi leverage
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/241858-gop-battles-for-benghazi-leverage>
// The Hill // Martin Matishak – May 13, 2015

Hillary Clinton and Republicans on the House Benghazi panel are battling
for leverage surrounding the Democratic presidential front-runner’s
possible testimony on the deadly 2012 attack.

Both sides are determined to make sure that if and when Clinton testifies
to the panel, it is on their side’s terms.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is due to consult with Republican
leaders and his fellow panel members on Wednesday about how to best respond
to a request by Clinton’s camp to have her testify only once and not twice
as he wanted.

One congressional aide predicted Gowdy would give his response to Clinton
before the end of the week.

“I’d be surprised if that didn’t happen,” an aide said on Tuesday.

The former secretary of State has made it clear that she is willing to
testify — but only once. She does not want the fight over the 2012
terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, to cast a long shadow on her 2016
presidential campaign.

Republicans, for their part, have an obvious interest in extending the
Benghazi battle, which could be a lingering distraction for Clinton’s
campaign.

Both sides face risks as they battle over when and how Clinton will testify.

If Republicans are seen as continually pushing off Clinton’s testimony even
as she agrees to appear before the panel, it will bolster allegations that
the committee is all about politics.

Republicans firmly deny their probe is about politics, even as Democrats on
the panel insist it is all about Clinton.

Gowdy “is not interested in the politics of this,” the congressional aide
said.

“He’s made that clear from Day One,” the aide said, adding that any
possible long-term political risks to Clinton’s presidential bid are “not a
consideration he has made.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel’s top Democrat, rejected that
argument. He said Republicans appear to want to drag the process out for as
long as possible so that it remains a focus in 2016.

“It does appear we have a situation where Republicans are drawing this
entire situation out,” he told The Hill. “I think it would be very
difficult to draw any other conclusion than it’s all about Hillary Clinton.”

A risk for Clinton is appearing as if she has something to hide. It’s a
risk magnified by the controversy over her use of a private email account
while she served as secretary of State.

The former secretary of State has gone to lengths to make sure she does not
come off as reluctant to appear before the panel.

Clinton, Cummings said, has been willing to “come forth and provide the
truth and resolve any questions that the committee might have.”

“It seems like the Republicans can’t take yes for an answer,” he told The
Hill.

Cummings, who said he has not been in touch with the Democratic
front-runner’s campaign, said he was “sure it’s very frustrating for her to
see the goal posts constantly being moved” over when she will testify and
about what.

Gowdy has been careful to signal that, while his panel wants to hear from
Clinton, its members must first have access to all of the information
necessary to question her.

It’s an argument that hints at the controversy over Clinton’s private email
server, a topic likely to dominate any appearance she makes before the
panel.

An interim report from the Benghazi committee, released on Friday, said it
would not call Clinton to testify until “it is satisfied that all the
relevant information has been provided by both the State Department and
her.”

The congressional aide said Gowdy has “hands down” placed a premium on
getting emails from State Department principals, including Clinton, before
her appearance.

The committee requested those communications in November and issued a
subpoena for them in March.

Without those records “it becomes difficult to question because how do you
close the loop?” the aide asked.

Despite the delays, Gowdy doesn’t plan on subpoenaing Clinton to appear.

“From his perspective, it hasn’t come to that, and he’ll cross that bridge
if it’s necessary, but so far, it has not come to that. She hasn’t said
she’s unwilling to come, so I don’t know why you would subpoena her,” the
aide said.

Any impact the investigation might have on Clinton and her White House bid
“would only be with regards to what the committee can determine are the
actual facts.”

Cummings said he doesn’t know what the GOP wants, as Clinton has already
agreed to testify.

“The question is, when does it end?” he asked.

Why Hillary Clinton Is Our Champion
<http://www.theurbanvoice.com/las_vegas/2015/05_may/02_why_hillary_clinton_is_our_champion.htm>
// Urban Voice // State Senate Minority Leader Aaron D. Ford - May 12, 2015

In mid-April, Hillary Clinton announced she was running for President of
the United States because everyday Americans and their families need a
champion, and she wants to be that champion

Her life's work reflects her middle-class upbringing in Chicago,
demonstrates that she is a hard-worker and listener, and proves that
Hillary will stand strong for everyday Americans. She has consistently
fought to help women and children, the middle class, and the
African-American community because she knows that when our families are
strong, America is strong.

Like all of us, Hillary is shaped by her parents and her upbringing. At a
young age, Hillary's mother was abandoned, and understanding her struggle
motivated Hillary's tireless efforts to become a champion for children and
families. That’s why when she graduated from law school, Hillary chose not
to go to a large law firm in a big city. Instead, she knocked doors in New
Bedford, Massachusetts for Marian Wright Edelman’s Children's Defense Fund.
Her on-the-ground work helped ensure that all children, including those
with disabilities, had a fair shot at a good education.

Strengthening families and keeping loved ones together has been the bedrock
of Hillary’s work as a Senator on criminal justice reform, too. By
promoting tough but fair reforms of probation and drug diversion programs,
pushing an anti-crime plan to cut the number of repeat offenders and reduce
the prison population, and championing community policing programs, Hillary
has shown time and again that she will fight for fair treatment under the
law.

As a co-sponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001, she fought to
prohibit any racial profiling. And by proposing a strong Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) hiring program, Hillary worked to ensure that new
community police officers were trained to partner and work with the
communities they serve. Bottom line:  an important part of her career has
focused on creating safe neighborhoods.

Important as well for the African-American community, and all Nevadans, is
the feeling that while the economy has come back from collapse, many
families still don't feel economically secure. We see those at the top
benefiting from the growing economy while wages stagnate and the cost of
living increases. Hillary has made clear she will work so that all
middle-class families can thrive. So many Nevadans are waiting for it to be
their turn; they want someone they can count on who can help them get ahead
and stay ahead.

President Obama inherited an economy wracked by the financial crisis, but
over the last six years he has made remarkable progress in turning our
economy around. Over the last year, according to the Department of Labor,
we have added an average of 269,000 jobs per month. The person we can count
on to continue this progress is Hillary Clinton.

While we have started to bounce back, we cannot lose sight of the need to
grow our economy for everyone. When the deck is stacked in favor of those
at the top, we need to reshuffle that deck. CEO pay is through the roof,
and yet everyday Americans are not sharing in the success. It is time for
our everyday Nevadans to get ahead and stay ahead.

Hillary Clinton is focused on engaging every community, hearing our ideas,
and working with us to find solutions. Our country, our state, and our
community needs a champion. The middle class needs a champion. Hillary
Clinton will be that champion. That’s why I’m standing with her as she
works to earn your vote.

Hillary Clinton’s hedge on trade leaves Obama without political cover
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-trade-deal-hillary-clinton-keeps-her-distance-from-obama-and-her-past/2015/05/11/bc2cc604-f7e1-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html>
// WaPo // David Nakamura - May 12, 2015

The United States’ reputation in Asia was suffering under the weight of
economic and political turmoil at home when Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton arrived in Hong Kong in the summer of 2011 to reassure
American business executives that the future was brighter.

Back in Washington, President Obama was locked in a budget dispute with
Congress that would ultimately damage the nation’s credit rating. But in
remarks to the American Chamber of Commerce, Clinton painted a robust
vision of U.S. economic leadership, anchored by an emerging free-trade deal
that “will bring together economies from across the Pacific.”

The goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she explained, was to “create a
new high standard for multilateral free trade,” a pact that would cement
the United States’ standing in the world’s fastest-growing region.

Four years later, with Obama making a desperate final push to complete that
12-nation pact, his former partner and most effective global advocate for
the deal has gone quiet. As the president has scoured Capitol Hill for
elusive Democratic support in recent weeks, Clinton has said virtually
nothing about the TPP, other than to point out areas of the deal with which
she has concerns.

Senate Democrats blocked legislation on Tuesday that would have given
President Obama the power to grant “fast-track” authority to move trade
deals quickly through Congress. (Reuters)

Clinton’s silence on trade, coming at the worst possible time for Obama,
dovetails with her transformation into a presidential candidate eager to
align herself more squarely with the liberal wing of her party. In other
areas in which Clinton has moved to the left — such as immigration reform
and gay marriage — White House aides have been delighted that she has
forcefully embraced the president’s governing record.

But on trade, Clinton’s hedge has left Obama without political cover in his
increasingly bitter feud with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other
progressives, who have fiercely opposed the pact as a boondoggle for big
business. On Tuesday, a bill to grant Obama “fast track” trade authority
failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate, with only one Democrat
voting in favor of it. Republican leaders have vowed to try again, but it
was an embarrassment for the president.

“One of the biggest proponents of the TPP in the administration now, as a
candidate, picking on a couple of technical issues just looks like pure
politicking,” Ernest Bower, a Southeast Asia expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, said of Clinton.

White House aides have refused to criticize Clinton for remaining on the
sidelines, noting that the trade pact has undergone changes since she
departed more than two years ago. But she has been mocked by her political
rivals on both sides of the aisle for her refusal to take a clear position.

“She can’t sit on the sidelines and let the president swing in the wind
here,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said on “Meet the Press” last
week.

Clinton’s campaign pointed to a statement from three weeks ago, in which
her spokesman said any trade pact must “raise wages and create more good
jobs at home” and strengthen national security. Clinton reiterated those
criteria a few days later during an appearance in New Hampshire, her only
public comments on the trade deal since launching her campaign.

In many ways, the politics for Clinton are playing out in a fashion similar
to 2008, when both she and Obama, competing for support in Rust Belt states
during the Democratic primary, distanced themselves from the 1993 North
American Free Trade Agreement, signed by President Bill Clinton.

Longtime allies described Hillary Clinton as generally less inclined to
support large, multilateral trade deals than her husband was. As a senator,
she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, as did
Obama, then also a senator.

“Some people are generally pro-trade or anti-trade. She’s case-by-case on
trade,” said Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council in
both the Clinton and Obama administrations.

With manufacturing-heavy Iowa holding the first-in-the-nation caucuses —
which she lost to Obama seven years ago — Clinton would be foolish to
actively stump in favor of the president’s trade initiative, allies said.

But this time, the political calculus is complicated by her legacy as the
nation’s top diplomat.

Foreign policy analysts have pointed to the Obama administration’s bid to
shift U.S. attention and resources toward Asia to counter China as
potentially one of Clinton’s most significant achievements as secretary of
state.

From the start of her tenure, Clinton made Asia a priority; her first trip
in office was a swing through Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and China.
Early on, Clinton and her top aides endorsed the TPP to balance the
Pentagon’s military buildup in the Asia Pacific region.

Clinton’s team helped elevate the trade pact as a pillar of what Clinton
later described, in a Foreign Policy magazine cover story in October 2011,
as the administration’s “pivot” to Asia.

“Clearly, we all saw this as strategic,” said James Keith, the U.S.
ambassador to Malaysia from 2007 to 2010. Before the administration
publicly unveiled its Asia strategy, “there was lots of talk of having to
add meat to the bones, not just on security but on economics, too.”

Yet a primary concern Clinton has raised about the TPP after leaving office
did not register alarms inside the State Department during her tenure.

In 2009, the agency oversaw a review of a component of U.S. trade policy,
appointing a panel of business officials, labor leaders and academics to
review the language in the United States’ “model bilateral investment
treaty.” That treaty is used by U.S. negotiators in most trade deals.

During the review, which lasted six months, one of the primary
disagreements centered on the standard inclusion of a dispute settlement
mechanism that allows corporations to sue nations over policies that damage
their profits. Under the provision, the cases are heard by an international
tribunal that rules outside of domestic legal systems.

To the chagrin of the labor representatives, the dispute mechanism
provision remained intact during the State Department review after the
business representatives on the panel fiercely defended it.

“I had the feeling that we were a box that was just going to be checked
off,” said Kevin P. Gallagher, an associate professor at Boston University
who was on the panel. “It was a multi-stakeholder dialogue in which we did
not agree with each other, so they just go with the old model.”

Warren has made this arrangement — formally known as “investor-state
dispute settlement” — a chief part of her objections to the TPP. She has
argued that the mechanism potentially exposes U.S. taxpayers to massive
monetary damages outside of U.S. courts if corporations sue the government
over new laws to protect the environment or workers.

Obama has called her arguments “dishonest,” noting that the United States
has been sued just 13 times over the provision in previous trade pacts and
never lost a case.

In her book “Hard Choices,” published last year, Clinton raised concerns
that echo Warren’s. She cited a case in which the Asia division of tobacco
giant Philip Morris sued Australia over a “plain packaging” law, employing
the dispute settlement provisions in an Australia-Hong Kong trade pact.

“We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests,”
Clinton wrote.

Robert Hormats, a high-ranking State Department official from 2009 to 2013,
oversaw the trade policy review and emphasized that Clinton was not
involved in those types of granular policy discussions.

By the time she left office, the general framework for the TPP was already
in place. During a speech in Australia in November 2012, Clinton referred
to the pact as “the gold standard in trade agreements.”

The risk now for Clinton is that if the trade deal fails, the Obama
administration’s “Asia pivot” strategy risks being viewed as more
rhetorical than tangible, foreign policy analysts said, which could lead to
a reevaluation of her legacy at the State Department.

“We saw it as a chance to make a difference,” Hormats said, reflecting on
the Clinton team’s early embrace of the TPP. He added, “The weakness of the
American economy in the financial crisis led many to assume the U.S. was
backing off and incapacitated.”

After he and other Clinton aides made trips to China in 2009, Hormats said,
“we came back more resolute than ever that we had to do this.”

Obama’s war of words over trade deal puts pressure on Clinton
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obamas-war-of-words-over-trade-deal-puts-pressure-118746488241.html>
// Yahoo News // Jon  Ward - May 12, 2015

President Barack Obama’s decision to escalate his fight with the Elizabeth
Warren wing of the Democratic Party over a free trade deal with Asia is
unwelcome news for Hillary Clinton.

Former secretary of state Clinton, who is now running for president, had
been keeping her head down on the trade issue — and on the fast-track trade
authority that Obama is seeking in order to execute the deal. Despite her
past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which she in 2012
called “the gold standard,” she has remained noncommittal on it since
announcing her presidential bid.

Labor and progressive groups are eager to see Clinton come out swinging
against the deal. But Clinton would open herself up to charges of
flip-flopping and cynical pandering if she did so now, given her past
remarks and her generally pro-trade positions in the past.

“What would be her reason for opposing it? She hasn’t laid the groundwork
for that with any articulation of serious concerns about this trade deal,”
said a senior-ranking Democratic congressional aide. “She probably wants
fast-track authority if she’s going to be president.”

If Clinton were to vocally back the deal, however, that could give oxygen
to one of the other declared or likely candidates for the Democratic
nomination, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or former Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley, both of whom oppose the deal. And while Clinton at present
far outpaces both men in polls, fighting members of her own party on the
trade deal could pave the way for union endorsements for her opponents and
give them strength on the ground in early-contest states.

“TPP is treacherous territory. It proves that … even without a dozen
well-funded primary opponents, she’ll still have to navigate a bunch of
tough issues that various segments of her base consider critically
important — all without alienating swing voters for the general,” said Dan
Newman, a Democratic consultant who is working for California U.S. Senate
candidate Kamala Harris and the state’s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom.

Union and liberal organizer support for Clinton’s opponents would drain
resources, time and energy from her campaign that otherwise could have gone
to preparing for a general election.

“Whatever the merits of the TPP, this issue has become a surrogate within
the party for a larger debate about corporate power and fairness, which
puts her in a difficult spot,” said David Axelrod, a former top political
adviser to the president.

“She was the [secretary of state] when these negotiations began, and the
previous Clinton administration was closely identified with trade. But it
is a volatile issue, and supporting it could add to fears on the left that
she is too oriented toward big business and give additional impetus to a
potential primary challenger,” Axelrod said.

“In the end, this is one where [Clinton] is going to have to take a gut
check and choose. And she would probably do best by choosing the side in
which she genuinely believes, even if it buys her some grief,” he noted.
Obama “could relieve some of that pressure” on Clinton “by making a
compelling case” for the trade deal, he said.

The president should stress “a cooling-off period for review before he
signs and another before Congress votes, and specific standards for labor,
human rights, and the environment, with the ability of Congress to rescind
fast track if the standards are deemed not to be met,” Axelrod said.

When asked if he thought Obama was doing enough to make a “compelling case”
for the deal, Axelrod said, “It’s a tough hill to climb. He just needs to
keep climbing.”

Obama and the White House have been feuding with Warren for days over her
opposition to the trade deal. But during the weekend, the president made
his most pointed comments about the liberal Democratic senator from
Massachusetts, inan interview with Yahoo News.

Obama told Yahoo’s Matt Bai that Warren is “absolutely wrong” in her
opposition to the trade deal and that her warnings of a Republican
president using authorities given to the executive in the deal to unwind
Wall Street regulations are “made up.”

“It doesn’t make any sense,” he said of Warren’s objections to the bill.

The president also suggested that Warren’s opposition is motivated more by
her own ambition than by righteous ideology. “The truth of the matter is
that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else, and she’s
got a voice that she wants to get out there.”

Warren quickly responded on Monday morning, reiterating her concerns in
detail to the Washington Post. It is a quickly intensifying intraparty
squabble that will be increasingly hard for Clinton to ignore.

“Given how this is developing, I think she will need to pick a lane,” said
Iowa Democratic operative Jeff Link.

In Iowa, “we tend to support trade deals,” he said, and so if Clinton were
to support the deal, it would not hurt her in the first primary or caucus
state.

But in the broader Democratic Party, there is money and organization that
is poised to punish Clinton if she does step out and take a position in
favor of the trade deal.

“Unless there is some miracle compromise to convert the bill’s fierce
opposition, it’s a very risky thing for a candidate to support. Why wade
into danger when you can promise to sign a better version as president?”
asked Gil Duran, a California political operative who has worked for
Governor Jerry Brown. “Any candidate who backs this turkey stands to lose
some very important blocs of support.”

A Clinton spokesman did not answer a question about whether Clinton would
take a position on the issue. In roughly a month as a presidential
candidate, Clinton hasanswered only eight questions from the media. She has
not spoken with the press in almost three weeks.

Will Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren be able to push Hillary Clinton to
the left?
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/hillary_clinton_s_liberal_agenda_how_far_is_the_democratic_front_runner.html>
// Slate // Jamelle Bouie – May 12, 2015

Thus far, the Democrats’ anti-inequality agenda has focused on
redistribution. Barack Obama wants free community college and tax credits
for child care, congressional Democrats want a $12 minimum wage, and
Hillary Clinton has endorsed paid family leave. But scholars at the
forefront of the inequality battle want Democrats to go even further.

“To fix the economy for average Americans,” writes Joseph Stiglitz and his
team of fellow economists in a report for the left-leaning Roosevelt
Institute titled “Rewriting the Rules: An Agenda for Growth and Shared
Prosperity,” “we need to tackle the rules and institutions that have
generated low investment, sluggish growth, and runaway incomes and wealth
accumulation at the top and created a steeper hill for the rest to climb.
It would be easier, politically, to push for one or two policies on which
we have consensus, but that approach would be insufficient to match the
severity of the problems posed by rising inequality.”

In an unequal economy, they argue, it’s not enough to redistribute the
gains of a tiny, wealthy minority. Even with more programs—more health
care, more tax credits—the shape of the economy is the same: The wealthiest
individuals and corporations receive the lion’s share of national income.
And that’s by design. “Inequality has been a choice,” writes Stiglitz and
his team. “Beginning in the 1970s, a wave of deliberate ideological,
institutional, and legal changes began to reconfigure the marketplace. …
Get government out of the way and the creativity of the marketplace—and the
ingenuity of the financial sector—would revitalize society.” Put
differently, the “deregulation” of the 1980s and 1990s was really a
“re-regulation”—“a new set of rules for governing the economy that favors a
specific set of actors.”

And it failed. Labor force participation sits at a 37-year low, public and
private investment is weak, and tens of millions of Americans struggle with
slow growth and low wages. Greater redistribution can ameliorate these
problems, but it can’t solve them.

For that, you need to rethink the markets themselves. You need new rules to
build an economy that delivers more equal results before the government
steps in to tax and spend. In short, Stiglitz and company recommend greater
financial regulation—ending “too big too fail” and creating greater
transparency in financial markets—incentives for long-term business growth
(including a financial transaction tax to discourage short-term trading and
“encourage more productive long-term investment”); higher taxes on capital
gains, dividends, and corporate income; and a national commitment to full
employment, through public works and monetary policy. And to deliver more
gains to ordinary people, they call for stronger bargaining rights and
lower barriers to unionization, criminal justice reform, pay equity, health
care reform (“Medicare-for-all”), and a host of new programs for children
(universal pre-K, child benefits), retirees, and homeowners (a public
option for mortgages).

It is one thing to push Clinton on immigration and criminal justice reform;
it’s something else to push her toward a fundamental revamp of our economy.

The bulk of this plan is far afield from the mainstream of the Democratic
Party. Which means it runs far afield from Hillary Clinton, who stands at
the center of the Democratic coalition. What’s more, from the Clinton
administration to her time in the Senate, Clinton has held close ties to
the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, which favors the kind of
financial deregulation that produced yawning inequality and a catastrophic
economic collapse. It is one thing to push Clinton on immigration and
criminal justice reform—areas where the coalition has moved to the left.
It’s something different, and more difficult, to push her toward a
fundamental revamp of our economy and its rules.

It helps, however, to have an ally. And the Roosevelt Institute has two in
the form of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor
Bill de Blasio. Both spoke at the Tuesday event for the new report, urging
Democrats—and Republicans, for that matter—to rethink their economic
assumptions. “This country is in real trouble. The game is rigged and we
are running out of time,” Warren said. “We cannot continue to run this
country for the top 10 percent.” De Blasio touted his agenda in New York
City—including universal pre-K and paid sick time for all workers—but urged
national action. “We in New York are doing all we can, but we cannot
complete the mission without fundamental change in federal policy,” he
said. “There needs to be not only new debate in this country, but there
needs to be a movement that will carry these ideas forward.”

To that end, de Blasio took to the Capitol steps Tuesday afternoon to
unveil his “Progressive Agenda to Combat Inequality,” a deliberate echo to
the 1994 “Contract With America” of Newt Gingrich and the congressional
GOP. “These 13 progressive ideas,” he said, “will make an enormous
difference for families all over this country, for everyday Americans.”
Among the proposals are a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour, national
paid sick and family leave, subsidized child care, and “closing the
loopholes that allow CEOs, hedge fund managers, and billionaires to avoid
paying their fair share in taxes.”

There’s no doubt Clinton will adopt this language—to an extent, she already
has. But will she adopt the policies? Will she go beyond the agenda for
redistribution to embrace structural change of the American economy?

The answer to this question depends on power. Is the left strong enough to
budge Clinton from her ground in the corporate center of the Democratic
Party? It’s too early to say—the fight has just begun—but there are signs.
Hours after the Roosevelt Institute unveiled its package, the Senate held a
cloture vote for a bill that would give President Obama “accelerated power
to complete a major trade accord with Asia.” On this, Warren has been a
strong opponent, denouncing the bill—and the accord itself—as a giveaway to
corporate America. The vote failed. Warren peeled away enough Democrats to
block cloture and continue debate, a blow to the president's standing.

If this is a fluke, then Clinton can resist the calls from her left. But if
it’s a sign of the times, then liberals can look forward to a Clinton
campaign that sounds a lot like them.

Hillary Is Passing 2016's Biggest Test—and Jeb Is Flunking
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121772/hillary-passing-2016s-biggest-test-and-jeb-flunking>
// The New Republic // Brian Beutler - May 12, 2015

In America, in 2015, large swaths of people with wildly differing political
ideologies—and, in some cases, wildly differing factual and analytical
premises—are converging on a series of assumptions they didn’t always
share. The list is long, but it includes the following, timely opinions:
that the drug war is a moral and practical failure; that three-strikes
laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and myriad other aspects of our criminal
justice system are flawed, racially biased, and in desperate need of
reform; that the loosening of certain financial regulations in recent
decades was disastrous; that the Iraq war never should have happened.

The political establishment hasn’t caught up to all of these consensuses,
or emerging consensuses, but in most cases the public has, and in each
instance the public has outpaced its elected officials. And when you view
the aforementioned left-right convergence in light of federal policymaking
over the past 20 or 30 years, it reflects poorly on our country’s most
recent political leaders. Or at the very least, it suggests those political
leaders made a number of very consequential decisions while they were in
power without thinking past near-term politics. You might believe these
errors stem from the inherent difficulties of governing, or from systemic
institutional failures, or a mix of both. But the phenomenon is
indisputable, and a reckoning with the causes is now inevitable.

Why? Because these issues have moved to the foreground of the country’s
political imagination just as the most recent president’s brother and his
predecessor’s wife are running for president. In the absence of the Hillary
Clinton and Jeb Bush candidacies, a new paradigm could prevail without a
great deal of bipartisan introspection. Instead, this election will force
referenda on the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies. The coming
Democratic and Republican primaries will to a great extent turn on how
adeptly and convincingly Jeb and Hillary can explain away or atone for the
country’s biggest public policy failures in recent memory. Were these
mistakes? Were they rational decisions that simply didn’t withstand the
test of time or have grown obsolete? Or, despite all appearances, is the
jury still out?

From an elevated vantage point, the retrospective politics of the 2016
campaign should be easier for Hillary Clinton than for Jeb Bush to
navigate. Whatever particular mistakes her husband made in office, the
public generally remembers Bill Clinton’s presidency fondly, as a time of
relative peace and economic growth. He left office popular and has grown
more so ever since.

George W. Bush’s presidency, by contrast, is widely and correctly
understood as a travesty—marred by debt-financed social policy,
intelligence failures, the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history,
grand-scale deception, a gruesome, losing war of aggression— which
culminated in the country’s worst economic crisis in nearly a century. He
became historically unpopular and has only returned to parity, or
near-parity, by dint of the afterglow that tends to accrete around
presidents after they leave political office.

And yet despite these fundamental differences, both Hillary Clinton and her
husband are publicly grappling with the shortcomings of his substantive
record, while Jeb Bush, if anything, is embracing his brother’s toxic
record.

Jeb told funders in New York recently that when it comes to Middle East
foreign policy, George is his lodestar. “If you want to know who I listen
to for advice, it’s him.”

More damningly, Jeb told Fox News host Megan Kelly that he still supports
the invasion of Iraq.

"Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?" she
asked.

"I would have," replied.

Jeb’s full answer was actually more ambiguous than most political writers,
including Washington Examiner’s conservative reporter Byron York, are
allowing. Though he appeared to suggest that the Iraq war was wise despite
false pretenses, he added, “And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to
remind everybody. And so would have almost everybody that was confronted
with the intelligence they got.” But Jeb is painfully aware of the
expectation that he’ll disavow George W.’s presidency. “[J]ust for the news
flash to the world,” he told Kelly, “if they’re trying to find places where
there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of
those.”

The Clintons are, by contrast, at pains to scrutinize their own records.
Hillary's criminal justice speech last week, in which she called for an end
to “the era of mass incarceration” was an implicit rebuke of her husband's
former views and her own. Bill himself conceded that mass incarceration
(and thus its attendant racial inequities) were partly attributable to a
1994 crime bill that he signed. Republicans, he said, insisted on
incorporating the legislation’s tough-on-crime measures, but he was willing
to accept them as the price of signing. “The problem is the way it was
written and implemented,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at the
Clinton Global Initiative last week, “we cast too wide a net and we had too
many people in prison. And we wound up... putting so many people in prison
that there wasn't enough money left to educate them, train them for new
jobs, and increase the chances when they came out so they could live
productive lives.”

Hillary has had a more difficult time explaining how she landed on her
belief that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right and explicating her
position on free trade (which her husband supported unabashedly), but in
both cases her current substantive views depart in obvious ways from her
previous ones and thus constitute admissions that—at the very least—time
hasn’t been kind to the Democratic orthodoxy of the 1990s, which she helped
shape.

Though there’s a strangeness to the spectacle of Jeb embracing his
unpopular brother while the Clintons break faith with their former selves,
it’s also difficult to see how it could be any other way. Progressivism by
its nature isn’t kind to old dogmas, which is why any politician who hopes
to remain relevant in progressive politics for decades will have to evolve
and atone. Conservatives, by contrast, are wary of precisely this kind of
second-guessing. Republicans no longer zealously guard Iraq as a war of
patriotic necessity, but they will sooner admit that Obamacare isn’t a
complete failure than that Iraq was a mistake on its own terms.

And here the dynastic differences between the Bushes and the Clintons
further complicate matters. Unlike the Bushes, the Clintons don’t have a
political ancestry. You can believe that they admit error now because they
learn from their mistakes or simply because it’s the path of least
resistance to power, but they aren’t the reflexive defenders of Bill’s
every decision the way the Bush family must be of George W.’s.

That’s partly attributable to the unusually bad record George W. amassed
over eight years—it’s ironically easier for the Clintons to admit select
errors when they can defend Bill’s record in general. But it’s also partly
attributable the fact that the Clintons just aren’t like the Bushes. As The
New Republic’s Rebecca Traister wrote recently, “There are big differences
between being born into a position of political privilege and marrying
someone who becomes politically powerful.” One of those differences is that
you don’t have to treat the family name as if it’s a precious stone that
must constantly be burnished.

A further irony is that these apparently liabilities—the dynastic heritage,
the conservative reluctance to second guess—each work to Bush’s advantage
in Republican politics. But when conservatives fret that nominating a Bush
will neutralize one of Hillary Clinton’s only big weaknesses, this—the
inherent awkwardness of squaring the recent historical record with the
current state of public opinion—is exactly what they have in mind.

Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and authorizing the war in Iraq
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/may/12/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-and-authorizing-war-iraq/>
// PolitiFact // Amy Sherman – May 12, 2015

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s comments on Fox News about the Iraq War
brought up more questions than answers.

Did Bush fully understood the question posed by Megyn Kelly on May 10?
We’ll go straight to the transcript.

Kelly: "On the subject of Iraq, very controversial, knowing what we know
now, would you have authorized the invasion?"

Bush: "I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind
everybody, and so would almost everybody that was confronted with the
intelligence they got."

Kelly: "You don't think it was a mistake?"

Bush: "In retrospect, the intelligence that everybody saw, that the world
saw, not just the United States, was faulty. And in retrospect, once we
invaded and took out Saddam Hussein, we didn't focus on security first, and
the Iraqis in this incredibly insecure environment turned on the United
States military because there was no security for themselves and their
families. By the way, guess who thinks that those mistakes took place as
well? George W. Bush."

His remarks drew considerable attention: Was Bush saying that even knowing
the intelligence was faulty, even he and Clinton would have gone to war
anyway?

After the interview aired, Kelly said, "I do think, in fairness to Gov.
Bush, when I said ‘knowing what we know now would you have invaded Iraq,’ I
think he was trying to answer the question: ‘Do you think it was a mistake
at the time?’ " she said. "That was my take on it in the interview. He
wasn’t trying to say, ‘Still today I don’t there is an issue.’ "

Bush went on Sean Hannity’s radio show May 12 to clarify his remarks.

"I interpreted the question wrong, I guess," Bush said. "I was talking
about, given what people knew then, would you have done it, rather that
knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, clearly there were
mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead up to war and the
lack of focus on security. My brother has admitted this, and we have to
learn from that."

Of course, it’s impossible to know with certainty how people would have
acted if history were different. But we suspect Clinton would have answered
the question differently than Bush. How candidate Clinton and presidential
contender Bush talk about the Iraq war will be a major foreign policy topic
in the 2016 race, so we decided to take a look at their statements about
the Iraq war.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton has said recently that she regrets her 2002 vote, which ended up
being a stumbling block during her 2008 presidential campaign.

In her 2014 book Hard Choices, Clinton said this about her vote:

"While many were never going to look past my 2002 vote no matter what I did
or said, I should have stated my regret sooner and in the plainest, most
direct language possible. I’d gone most of the way there by saying I
regretted the way President Bush used his authority and by saying that if
we knew then what we later learned, there wouldn’t have been a vote. But I
held out against using the word mistake. It wasn’t because of political
expediency. After all, primary voters and the press were clamoring for me
to say that word. When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it
was ‘probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.’ I thought I
had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the
information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got
it wrong. Plain and simple."

On Meet the Press on Sept. 23, 2007, she said, "Well, I cast a sincere vote
based on my assessment at the time, and I take responsibility for that
vote. I also said on the floor that day that this was not a vote for
pre-emptive war. ... Now, obviously, if I had known then what I know now
about what the president would do with the authority that was given him, I
would not have voted the way that I did." She made similar comments on the
Today Show on Dec. 18, 2006: "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now,
there wouldn't have been a vote, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for
it."

Her decision in 2002 to vote for the Iraq war urged international
co-operation and focused on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. She described
Hussein as "a tyrant" who used weapons to kill more than 20,000 people and
that he blocked weapons inspections in 1998.

"A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome
responsibility in the hands of our president and we say to him -- use these
powers wisely and as a last resort," Clinton said in a speech on the Senate
floor. "And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is
your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed.

Jeb Bush’s statements about the Iraq war

Bush showed strong support for his brother leading up to and during the war.

During a 2003 news conference in Pensacola, Bush said, "It is the last
thing that a commander in chief, a president of the United States, wants to
do. But in his heart, I know he is doing what he thinks is right, and I
concur with him."

In April 2006, amid mounting criticism of how President Bush was handling
the war, Gov. Bush visited Florida troops in Iraq for Easter.

"It is very important that we stay the course, that we provide support for
these incredible people that are doing such a service for liberty around
the world and protecting our freedoms here," Bush said upon returning.

Bush has been asked about the Iraq war several times since he left office
in January 2007.

In March 2013, CNN’s Candy Crowley asked Bush about polls showing that the
American public thinks the war was a mistake: "Do you think that will ever
change?"

Bush: "Yes. You know, a lot of things in history change over time. I think
people will respect the resolve that my brother showed, both in defending
the country and the war in Iraq. But history will judge that in a more
objective way than today. The war has wound down now, and it's still way
too early to judge what success it had in providing some degree of
stability in the region."

As Bush has explored a bid for president, at times he has tried to avoid
picking apart his brother’s decisions about Iraq.

At an event with his mother in Florida in February, Bush told reporters
that he would not be addressing the war in Iraq or "re-litigating anything
in the past."

But that’s exactly what he has had to do.

In a February speech in Chicago, Bush said during the question-and-answer
session:

"There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure," Bush said, adding that the
intelligence "that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction
turned out to not be accurate."

Bush also faulted his brother's administration for failing to create "an
environment for security" in Iraq after the removal of Hussein.

However, he called his brother's decision to deploy 20,000 additional
troops into Iraq in 2007 "one of the most heroic acts of courage,
politically, that any president's done because there was no support."

While in New Hampshire in March, Bush said that if Obama had kept 10,000
troops in Iraq, it would have prevented the rise of the Islamic State.

"The surge worked. We created a fragile degree of stability. The forces
agreement the president could have signed, I think, would have avoided
where we are today," Bush said, referring to a troop level increase that
his brother had authorized. "But we are where we are."

He said the United States should "re-engage with some small force level who
can help continue to train the Iraqi army, to be able to provide some
stability."

In his most recent remarks on Hannity, Bush praised the surge again, but
wouldn’t say if he would have authorized the war, knowing what he knows now.

"Yeah, I don’t know what that decision would have been," Bush said. "That’s
a hypothetical. But the simple fact is, mistakes were made. They always are
in life and (in) foreign policy. So we need to learn from the past to make
sure we are strong and secure going forward."

Our conclusion

Bush said regarding the Iraq invasion that both himself and Clinton would
have authorized it.

"I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody,
and so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence
they got," he said.

Bush can’t know what Clinton would have done if she had known that the
intelligence was faulty. Here is what we do know: In 2002, Clinton
supported the Iraq resolution, but by 2006 she said she regretted it.

Bush was a supporter of the invasion at the time and stood by his brother.
He has acknowledged that the intelligence was flawed but has still
expressed support for his brother’s decisions.

The 13 Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered From The Press
<http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/13/406250488/the-13-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-from-the-press>
// NPR // Tamara Keith – May 13, 2015

It has been more than three weeks since Hillary Clinton has answered a
question from reporters. There is always a tension between the press and
the candidates they cover. Journalists want access, and want to ask
questions. Campaigns want to control the message. Over time, that has
especially been true with Hillary Clinton.

Since announcing her candidacy in a web video, there have been no press
conferences and no sit-down interviews. It has been a month, and the
candidate has answered just 13 reporter questions (at least that we've been
able to find, building on the work of National Journal). And you can
quibble about whether some of the answers were really answers.

Last week in Nevada, as Clinton posed for pictures, we in the press corps
attempted to get her attention. All we saw was the back of her head as she
walked out of the room, to applause from a small hand-selected group of
participants and observers.

Clinton's campaign describes this as the ramp-up phase, where she listens
to voters. Questions about when there will be interviews, or when she will
make herself available to questions from reporters are deflected with
something along the lines of: all in good time.

Now, this isn't to say the candidate hasn't answered any questions. She's
answered plenty. But they've been generally friendly questions on
comfortable topics from people invited to participate in round-table
discussions with her.

Her campaign spokesperson, Nick Merrill responds in an email:

The focus of our ramp-up period is to hear from voters about the issues
they care about. She's enjoyed engaging in hours of public question and
answers sessions and, as the campaign progresses, looks forward to more
engagement with voters and the press as well.

Until then, here are the 13 reporter questions Clinton has answered:

1. Strategy in Iowa

NBC's Kristen Welker caught up with Clinton outside of her very first
campaign stop at an Iowa coffee shop:

"You lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What's your strategy?"
Welker asked.

Clinton's reply, as she walked toward an open van door: "I'm having a great
time. Can't look forward any more than I am."

2. Liking Iowa

AP got in a question as Clinton walked into the Iowa State Capitol building
to meet with lawmakers: "How are you liking Iowa?"

"I'm having a great time," Clinton answered.

3. Why are you running?

ABC's Cecilia Vega got a question in during Clinton's visit to a community
college in Iowa. "What would you say to Americans who want to know why you
are running?," she asked.

"I'm running to be the champion to Americans and their families, so that we
can not just worry about treading water, but you can get ahead and you can
stay ahead," she answered.

4-6. More liking Iowa, and opportunity structure

Clinton answered three other questions from reporters at the community
college in Iowa.

One was "Is it good to be back out here again?"

Her response was: "Welcome. It is, it's fabulous. We're having the best
time."

She was also asked what she learned during her visit, to which she
responded, in part: "So much good information, so much great exchange about
what works, what can work not just here in Iowa, but I think across the
country."

She was also asked a question not caught in recordings of the event, and in
response spoke about the start of the campaign and her visit to Iowa.
"We're off and running, and I had a great drive across the country. One of
the highlights was seeing spring, finally, once I got to Iowa, which I
thought was a good sign. I saw daffodils and tulips and flowering trees. It
was so beautiful. Just glad to be here," she said.

7-8. Campaign finance plan

A pair of Washington Post reporters spotted her outside of an unannounced
event and asked about campaign finance reform. The answers weren't
substantive.

According to the Post, she said "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my
plan."

9. Importance of Iowa

Brent Roske, the host of the Iowa television show Roske on Politics worked
his sources to figure out where the candidate would be.

"I found myself basically the sixth car in the motorcade pulling into Mount
Vernon, Iowa," he said.

He was in the right place at the right time and was able to ask a question.

"Secretary Clinton what do you think the importance of the Iowa caucus will
be in the upcoming election?," Roske asked.

Clinton answered: "I think it's important because it's the first contest
and I look forward to getting prepared for it next February."

Roske admits it was a softball question. But it's a question he asks all of
the candidates he interviews, to get the conversation going. And Roske has
interviewed a ton of candidates. His Clinton interview in the middle of the
street as she headed into a closed door event has to go down as one of his
shortest.

"Was hoping to get a minute or two with her and just got a very short
exchange," he said. "I was hoping it would spark a bit more of a
conversation. I didn't know at the time that she wasn't necessarily taking
press questions on this tour."

10. Position on trade deal

In New Hampshire, Clinton answered four reporter questions. One was about
trade. NBC's Andrea Mitchell asked Clinton about the trade deal, and
whether that will hurt American competitiveness.

Clinton didn't answer immediately or directly. Instead she talked about an
Intellitech machine assembled in Manchester. And then about 30 seconds
later, she talked more broadly about trade deals. "Well any trade deal has
to produce jobs, and raise wages, and increase prosperity and protect our
security. And we have to do our part in making sure we have the
capabilities and the skills to be competitive," Clinton said.

11. Response to Clinton Cash book

ABC's Vega asked Clinton for her response to the Clinton Cash book,
specifically:

"Did foreign embassies receive any special treatment for making any kind of
donations to foundation or your husband?"

"Well, we're back into the political season and therefore we will be
subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks. And I'm ready for that.
I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory," Clinton
answered. She went on to say she didn't know what the Republicans would
talk about "if I weren't in the race."

12-13. Criticism of a staged campaign

And then a reporter from WMUR asked her to respond to criticism that the
campaign is too staged.

"This is exactly what I want to do. I want to hear from people in New
Hampshire about what's on their minds," she said.

And the follow-up:

"Are you planning to answer reporter questions about some of the things
that are coming up regarding the play for pay allegations in the latest
book, emails back in 2012?" the reporter asked.

"Those issues are in my view distractions from what this campaign should be
about. What I'm going to make this campaign about," Clinton responded.

But does avoiding questions or not answering them directly hurt her with
voters?

"The premise of your question presupposes that the way that Hillary Clinton
needs to reach voters is through the national media, and that's simply not
the case anymore," said Steve Schmidt, a Republican strategist who was a
senior adviser on John McCain's Straight Talk Express campaign back in 2000.

He argues a campaign as sophisticated Clinton's can bypass the media filter
and target voters directly.

"The notion that real voters worried about real issues cares one whit about
how often a presidential candidate talks to their traveling press corps or
answers questions from them is just ludicrous. It's not the case," he said.

You can argue other candidates have to answer reporter questions. They need
the free media. Clinton doesn't. And with minimal primary competition,
she'd be happy to have much less media attention.

GOP candidate Carly Fiorina's campaign is keeping a running tally of all
the questions she's answered. Since the last time Hillary Clinton answered
a reporter question, Fiorina has answered 328.

Hillary Clinton Hasn't Answered a Press Question in 21 Days (And Her
Opponents Are Taking Notice)
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-answered-press-question-21-days-opponents/story?id=30969628>
// ABC News // Liz Kruetz - May 12, 2015

Today is the one month anniversary of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
campaign. It also marks 21 days since she has answered a question from the
press.

During this "ramp up" phase of her candidacy, Clinton has kept her distance
from the media, answering only a handful of questions from the reporters
following her on the campaign trail.

As the days go by, Clinton’s opponents have begun to take notice and
Clinton’s limited engagement with reporters is becoming an issue.

Likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush took a shot at Clinton
for not taking questions, saying in an interview with Fox News Monday he
wants to run a campaign where he doesn’t “have a protective bubble.”

And last weekend, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina rolled
out a fresh attack line.

“Like Hillary Clinton, I’m also running for president, but unlike her, I’m
not afraid to answer questions about my record," Fiorina noted at the South
Carolina Freedom Summit. "She’s answered seven on-the-record questions
since April 12th; I’ve answered over 200 on the record since Monday.”

Not surprisingly the press is also taking notice: The New York Times
launched a new feature called “Questions for Hillary,” dedicated to posing
hypothetical questions that it would ask Clinton (if the paper had the
chance).

By ABC News’ count, Clinton has responded -- in one way or another -- to a
grand total of nine questions from reporters since she launched her
campaign last month. Most recently, on April 21 she answered a question
from a reporter about her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade
Agreement.

Clinton has not answered any questions from reporters since, though she has
fielded her fair share from voters in events her campaign has organized.

Here’s how Clinton campaign spokesman Jesse Ferguson explained the
approach: “The focus of our ramp up period is to hear from voters about the
issues they care about. She’s enjoyed engaging in hours of public question
and answers sessions and, as the campaign progresses, looks forward to more
engagement with voters and the press as well.”

Clinton has participated in multiple roundtable discussions and coffee
chats with voters during campaign swings through Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada. But, in some instances, those voters were chosen by her own
campaign.

Clinton is not the only 2016 hopeful who has been steering clear of
inquisitive journalists lately. Wisconsin governor and likely Republican
presidential candidate, Scott Walker, has largely ducked encounters with
the media since he told the Washington Post in February he did not know
whether President Obama was a Christian. This week, Walker is on a trip to
Israel (the national press were not invited).

Even so, Clinton’s strategy differs from that of many other announced or
likely presidential candidates such as Bush and potential Democratic rivals
Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, who have been doing regular television
interviews and answering multiple questions on their campaign stops.

Clinton herself, however, has suggested things could change.

As reporters swarmed during her first official campaign stop last month in
Iowa, Clinton dodged their questions but offered this: “We'll have lots of
time to talk later.”

Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/11/hillary-clinton-hasnt-answered-a-question-from-the-media-in-20-days/?wprss=rss_politics>
// WaPo // Chris Cillizza - May 12, 2015

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes part in a roundtable
of young Nevadans discussing immigration as she campaigns for the 2016
Democratic presidential nomination at Rancho High School in Las Vegas,
Nevada May 5, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Welcome to day 29 of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign!

In those 29 days -- including April 12, the day she announced, and today --
Clinton has taken a total of eight questions from the press.  That breaks
out to roughly one questions every 3.6 days. Of late, she's taken even
fewer questions than that.  According to press reports, the last day
Clinton answered a question was April 21 in New Hampshire; that means that
she hasn't taken a question from the media in 20 straight days.

Carly Fiorina, one of the many newly-minted Republicans running for
president, is doing everything she can to shine a light on Clinton's
close-mouthed approach with the press.  This came from Fiorina deputy
campaign manager Sasha Isgur Flores this morning:

In the last eight days, Carly has been interviewed almost 30 times and
answered well over 300 questions. She continues to impress voters, pundits,
and reporters alike with her willingness to share her thoughts and ideas –
and to answer any question, from whether she likes hot dogs to how she
would tackle the crisis in the Middle East....This is in stark contrast to
many other candidates – and most especially to Hillary Clinton.

And, it's not just the Republican candidates attacking Clinton on her
silence.  The New York Times posted an item on its "First Draft" blog last
week entitled "Questions for Hillary Clinton: Immigration" in which
Timeswoman Amy Chozick wrote: "This is the first installment of a regular
First Draft feature in which The Times will publish questions we would have
asked Mrs. Clinton had we had the opportunity." And, late last month, I
offered up seven questions Clinton should answer.

The Clinton campaign's response to all of this? Blah.  Reporters whining --
like they always do. And, as every Clinton staffer is quick to note, she
hasanswered questions from lots of regular people during her first month as
a candidate -- holding roundtables in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. They
are also quick to note that she makes opening statements at these
roundtables.

She's taking questions from voters! She's talking about policy! You guys
just don't like it because she's not falling all over herself to jump
through your hoops!

So, for roughly the billionth time, let me make two points in response to
that way of thinking.

1. Making policy statements/opening statements does not remove the need to
answer actual questions from reporters.

2. While answering questions from hand-picked audience members is not
without value, no one could possibly think it is the equivalent of
answering questions from the working press.

As I have written before, Clinton needs the press at this point in the
campaign far less than someone like Carly Fiorina does.  Clinton is not
only universally known but also has a huge primary lead and is ahead of all
Republican contenders in general election matchups as well.  Fiorina, on
the other hand, is known by roughly no one and to the extent anyone does
know her, it's for the way she left HP.

Still, this is the new Clinton campaign, right? The one where she and the
people around her pledged to deal differently with the press?  Little did
we know that "different" in this case meant "next to not at all."

Yes, we are one month into the campaign. And, yes, Clinton and her team
wanted to start very low profile this time around -- to avoid making the
mistakes she made in 2008. So, it's possible things could change. But, if
past is prologue, I wouldn't bet on it.

Here’s a clock that counts the minutes since Hillary Clinton answered a
press question
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/12/heres-a-clock-that-counts-the-minutes-since-hillary-clinton-answered-a-press-question/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump - May 12, 2015

We have noted, as have others, that it has been three weeks since
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has answered a question
posed to her by the press. (She's been an official candidate for a month as
of today.) She's happy to talk with screened attendees of her events --
just not the media.

Last question answered: April 21, 2015, 3 p.m. (or so). Question and
response on "Clinton Cash" book reported by WMUR in New Hampshire.

Journalists Try Shaming Hillary Clinton Into Speaking To The Press
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/hillary-clinton-journalists_n_7268572.html>
// Huffington Post // Michael Calderone - May 12, 2015

NEW YORK –- In the months leading up to the 2008 Iowa caucus, reporters
covering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign grew increasingly
frustrated by their lack of access to the Democratic frontrunner. Such
complaints make for easy Twitter fodder these days, but two election cycles
ago, journalist grumbling was still largely confined to the back of the
press bus.

Now, as the front-running Clinton again dodges the press, reporters are
more than willing to publicly acknowledge the snub. A flurry of recent
articles suggest they hope to nudge the press-averse candidate into
engaging with them by highlighting how infrequently she does.

Clinton has taken questions from members of the public in controlled
settings, but has only answered nine questions from the press in the month
since she declared her campaign. She's avoided serious challenges from
journalists on her policy positions and on recent controversies involving
her exclusive use of a private email account while at the State Department
and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.

"The focus of our ramp-up period is to hear from voters about the issues
they care about," Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon said in a
statement. "She’s enjoyed engaging in hours of public question and answer
sessions and, as the campaign progresses, looks forward to more engagement
with voters and press as well.”

Meanwhile, Republican candidates like Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz
(Texas), and Rand Paul (Ky.), and likely candidate Jeb Bush, have done
numerous interviews as Clinton has remained silent. Paul even joked in an
interview with a New York Times reporter on Monday about how Clinton won’t
speak to the paper.

So political reporters, starved for answers from Clinton, have resorted to
covering their lack of access to her instead

National Journal highlighted Clinton’s lack of accessibility last month in
a post aptly titled, “Here Are All Eight Media Questions Hillary Clinton
Has Answered During Her Campaign.”

Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for The New York Times since
the summer of 2013, launched a recurring post last week featuring questions
the Times would’ve asked the candidate “had we had the opportunity.”

On Monday, The Washington Post Chris Cillizza published a post titled,
“Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days.”

And ABC News followed up Tuesday morning with, “Hillary Clinton Hasn't
Answered a Press Question in 21 Days (And Her Opponents Are Taking Notice).”

Later on Tuesday, The Washington Post took the shaming up a notch by
unveiling a countdown clock that tracks the time that has elapsed since
Clinton last answered a question. (Fox News tried something similar in 2008
in hopes of getting then-candidate Barack Obama to appear on the network).

Clinton's 2016 campaign surely has its reasons for keeping the press at
arm's length, and it may end up being a savvy move. But such a controlled
media strategy could also lead to an uneasy relationship between reporters
and a candidate they never really get to know, something Politico's Glenn
Thrush described in a recent piece about the 2008 campaign.

“I was there, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, when Clinton boarded the
press bus for the very first time to offer a bag of Dunkin Donuts bagels as
a peace offering after months of giving us the stiff arm,” Thrush wrote.
"The candidate was smiling, but her eyes said something different—and so
did her feet, which never budged past the white line that separates bus
driver from passenger. It is the only time I can ever recall a group of
reporters happy to see a major newsmaker depart.”

Super PACs rise in influence in 2016 campaign
<http://www.kwwl.com/story/29033630/super-pacs-rise-in-influence-in-2016-campaign>
// AP // Ken Thomas and Steve Peoples - May 12, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) - When Hillary Rodham Clinton takes the stage at
fundraisers thrown by a group that wants to elect her president, she's not
presented as a White House candidate. She's a "special guest."

When Jeb Bush raises money for a group preparing to run major parts of his
all-but-certain presidential campaign, he doesn't ask for the cash himself.

And the hundreds of millions these groups will raise? They have to spend it
without talking strategy with the candidates and campaigns they support.

The groups are called super PACs, and their influence in selecting the next
president will be without precedent. Born out of two Supreme Court
decisions in 2010, they are governed by rules some see as a game of winks
and nods, enforced by an agency bedeviled by partisan gridlock.

As with most things in Washington, there's not even agreement on whether
they are a problem to solve, or are a solution to celebrate.

"What's really going on largely is a breakdown of the enforcement system of
the campaign finance laws," says Craig Holman of the left-leaning consumer
group Public Citizen. "The Federal Election Commission is just broken."

Counters David Keating of the right-leaning Center for Competitive
Politics, "I think this is overblown. The line has been drawn: It's the
First Amendment. So if people want to speak, let them."

The primary benefit for campaigns of the super PACs is that they can raise
and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for and against
candidates, with only a few rules holding them back.

Among the rules is a ban on campaigns and super PACs working together. They
cannot discuss political strategy or share key information such as internal
polling. While candidates can attend super PAC events, they cannot
technically ask for the unlimited donations that make the groups such a
powerful force.

"Most of these super PACs that are going to be spending millions of
dollars, I think they have a good understanding of what the law is,"
Keating said.

But even should they break the rules, there are questions about what price
they might pay. The six commissioners of the Federal Election Commission
are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and they have only once
cited someone for breaking the rules. In February, the campaign manager for
a failed Virginia Republican congressional candidate pleaded guilty to
funneling money illegally from a super PAC to bolster his campaign.

Clinton has decried the existence of "unaccounted money" in politics and
has suggested a constitutional amendment to overturn the case that helped
usher in the new system. Yet during a California fundraising trip last
week, she took her first steps to embrace Priorities USA Action, a
Democratic super PAC that helped support President Barack Obama in 2012.

Like other candidates, Clinton cannot legally ask donors to give more than
$5,000 to the group. But she can appear as a "special guest." Her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, has headlined Priorities events in the past.

On the Republican side, Bush is taking it even further.

The former Florida governor is preparing to delegate many of the operations
of his expected campaign to his allied Right to Rise super PAC, using the
group to produce campaign ads, conduct voter data analysis and run
get-out-the-vote efforts.

Mike Murphy, one of Bush's closest political advisers, is expected to lead
the super PAC and is intimately involved in Bush's current operation, where
he guides staffing decisions, courts donors and shapes political strategy.
Bush takes care to say he's not yet a candidate, allowing him to work with
Murphy and the super PAC in a way that won't be allowed once he's in the
race.

A dozen White House prospects are already benefiting from allied super
PACs, which are frequently led by former political advisers and business
partners.

For example, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul will benefit from a super PAC run by
his former campaign manager, who is also married to Paul's niece. Texas
Sen. Ted Cruz's college roommate is working prominently in a network of
four allied super PACs, while a longtime friend and financial backer,
Dathan Voelter, is the treasurer. Voelter said the pro-Cruz groups have
already raised more than $31 million.

During his run for re-election in 2012, Obama never really warmed up to the
super PAC world and the group supporting him, Priorities USA Action. He
declined to appear at fundraising events even though his opponent,
Republican Mitt Romney, frequently attended gatherings held by Restore Our
Future, a pro-Romney super PAC.

Seeking to succeed Obama in the White House, Clinton and her allies have
taken steps recently to strengthen Priorities USA Action. Among them: She
will appear at the group's events and reach out to potential donors,
something Obama declined to do.

The group is also bringing aboard Guy Cecil, a former staffer on Clinton's
2008 presidential campaign who remains close to Bill Clinton and previously
worked for a firm stocked with longtime Clinton advisers.

Hillary Clinton-Aligned Group Gets Closer to Her Campaign
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/12/> // New York Times
// Maggie Haberman - May 12, 2015

Correct the Record, a group started by David Brock, a staunch ally of
Hillary Rodham Clinton, is recreating itself as a stand-alone “super PAC”
that has the ability to coordinate with her campaign.

Correct the Record, initially run by the opposition research group American
Bridge 21st Century — another Brock-connected super PAC — had been focused
loosely on the goal of defending all Democrats from attacks. Now its sole
mission is helping Mrs. Clinton.

The new version will be run by Brad Woodhouse, a former spokesman for the
Democratic National Committee who is now president of American Bridge.
Burns Strider, a Clinton ally who runs Correct the Record, will stay on as
senior adviser, with his role focused on reaching out to Democratic groups
and campaigns.

Jessica Mackler, the chief executive of American Bridge, will become the
new president of Correct the Record.

“Going forward, Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary
Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false attacks
and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record,” Mr. Brock said in a
statement.

The group’s board includes Nina Turner, the former deputy minority whip for
the Ohio State Senate; James Carville, the longtime adviser to Bill
Clinton; Susie Tompkins Buell, a friend to Mrs. Clinton; and Freddy
Balsera, national co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee’s
Hispanic Leadership Council.

The new version of Correct the Record will be able to communicate with
federal campaigns and party committees, as it is not involved with
independent expenditures.

The old version of the group was involved in research that helped pick
apart the book “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, which raised questions
about overlaps between donors to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton’s
paid speaking gigs and Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Hillary Clinton's damage control operation gets more troops
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-damage-control-operation-gets-more-troops-117868.html>
// POLITICO // Annie Karni - May 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is getting more firepower to help with its
damage control.

Correct The Record, an outside rapid response and research group dedicated
to defending the records of Clinton and the other Democratic presidential
candidates is reorganizing so it can coordinate with Clinton’s campaign and
devote all of its resources to her.

Founded by Clinton ally David Brock in late 2013, Correct the Record is
splitting off from its parent organization, the opposition research group
American Bridge 21st Century, and registering with the Federal Election
Commission as a stand-alone super PAC, the group announced Tuesday.

Because the group will no longer be involved in paid media, it will be able
to coordinate with the campaign and party committees. The change will go
into effect by the end of the month.

Brad Woodhouse, who is taking a leave as president of American Bridge to
become president of Correct The Record, said the time was right to split
off the research group, now that Democrats are announcing their
candidacies. He said the entity would be “aggressively responding to false
attacks and misstatements of the Secretary’s exemplary record.”

A Clinton campaign spokeswoman declined to comment.

The Republican National Committee was quick to criticize the move. “Hillary
Clinton is taking her hypocrisy on money in politics to interesting new
heights, directly linking her campaign to a super PAC whose sole purpose is
to play defense,” the RNC said.

The change, first reported Tuesday by the New York Times, is good news for
the Clinton campaign, which now can assert more control over the surrogates
speaking on behalf of Clinton.

Until now, Brock and his team have been defending Clinton’s record against
attacks, most recently from the book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer. But
it could not receive talking points from the campaign and created its own.

American Bridge will remain a separate independent expenditure group that
purchases paid media, and is prohibited from coordinating with the
campaign. Brock will remained involved with both American Bridge and
Correct The Record, but there will be a firewall, sources said.

Brock is also a former board member of Priorities USA, an outside super PAC
raising money for Clinton. Last February he resigned from the board, but
has been expected to rejoin at some point.

Pro-Hillary Clinton Group Sets Novel Strategy to Back Presidential Hopeful
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/12/pro-hillary-clinton-group-sets-novel-strategy-to-back-presidential-hopeful/>
// WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus - May 12, 2015

Democratic presidential hopeful and former U.S. Sectetary of State Hillary
Clinton speaks in Keene, New Hampshire in April.

Andrew Burton/Getty Images

A pro-Hillary Clinton group formerly under the umbrella of Democratic
opposition research group American Bridge is set to become its own super
PAC in an effort to more forcefully push back on criticism of Mrs. Clinton.

The group, Correct the Record, launched in 2013 ahead of an expected
presidential bid by Mrs. Clinton. At the time, its goal was to back all
Democratic presidential candidates, though its primary focus remained on
Mrs. Clinton. Now, it is explicitly allying itself with the former
secretary of state’s presidential campaign.

The group will employ an unusual strategy in doing so. Though it plans to
register as a super PAC, a spokeswoman for the group says it doesn’t plan
to make independent expenditures, which are ads explicitly advocating for
or against a candidate. Super PACs aren’t restricted in how much money they
can raise and spend, but are generally barred from coordinating with
candidate campaigns.

By not making independent expenditures, the group said there are no
restrictions on its ability to coordinate with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The
group will spend money on activities that can legally be coordinated with a
campaign, such as social media, the spokeswoman said.

It is unclear how the super PAC’s interpretation of the rules will be met
by the Federal Election Commission. The FEC defines super PACs as
committees that can take uncapped contributions “for the purpose of
financing independent expenditures and other independent political
activity.”

Correct the Record is expected to register with the FEC in coming days and
begin operating as planned. If the FEC—a notoriously slow-moving
operation—takes issue with the group’s plan it could at a later point
request changes in how it is registered or operates. A spokeswoman for the
agency declined to comment on Correct the Record’s plans.

The strategy “breaks new ground,” said Kenneth Gross, former head of
enforcement at the FEC. “Since this is uncharted territory it remains to be
seen how this plays out,” he said.

The new super PAC will be headed by Brad Woodhouse, previously the
president of American Bridge, which is also a super PAC. He will be
replaced by Jessica Mackler, who was previously the chief operating officer
of American Bridge.

“Correct The Record is a strong brand in its own right and now that
Democrats are announcing their candidacies, it’s the right time to separate
it from American Bridge, which focuses on opposition research,” Mr.
Woodhouse said. “Going forward, Correct the Record will work in support of
Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false
attacks and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record.”

Burns Strider, a Clinton ally, will stay on as a senior adviser. The
group’s board will include Susie Tompkins Buell—who is often described as
Mrs. Clinton’s best friend and hosted a fundraiser for the candidate in her
San Francisco home earlier in May—along with longtime Clinton strategist
James Carville and David Brock, who founded the group.

The development is the latest in a series of efforts by the Clinton
campaign to sharpen its response operation. Last week, Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta announced on Medium the launch of a new website
called “The Briefing” to provide a “one-stop shop to provide the facts”
about Mrs. Clinton’s record.

The website’s launch came amid a media frenzy over a book called “Clinton
Cash,” written by Peter Schweizer, editor-in-chief of a conservative news
website. The book added fresh details to previous reporting about potential
conflicts between Mrs. Clinton’s charitable work with her family’s
foundation and her public activities as secretary of state.

US OK'd Most Bill Clinton Speech Requests Within Days
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-okd-bill-clinton-speech-requests-days-30973682>
// AP // Lisa Lerer and Stephen Braun - May 12, 2015

WASHINGTON — State Department officials under Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton moved quickly when aides to Bill Clinton asked them in March
2010 to approve plans for the former president to address clients of a
multinational British bank, Barclays. Within four days, the department's
ethics office signed off on the request — as it did for hundreds of others
from the former president during his wife's four-year tenure leading the
agency.

Its standard response, fired off in a short memo: "We have no objection."

That decision remained unchanged even after the Justice Department
announced just months later, in August 2010, that Barclays Bank agreed to
pay nearly $300 million in penalties for violating financial sanctions
against Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Libya and Burma. The long-running case had
hardly been a secret: Barclays had openly acknowledged in its annual
reports — as recently as the same month as Clinton's 2010 request — that it
was under investigation by the Justice Department and others for sanctions
violations, and it cautioned that the impact on its profits "could be
substantial."

In November, the former president mingled with top Barclays executives and
clients at a bank-sponsored question session in Singapore. A little more
than two months later, he again joined Barclays officers and clients at an
exclusive dinner in Davos, Switzerland. The two appearances for Barclays
netted Bill Clinton $650,000.

During Hillary Clinton's tenure as the top U.S. diplomat, lawyers and other
ethics officials in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser gave
near-blanket approval to at least 330 requests for Bill Clinton's
appearance at speeches, dinners and events both in the U.S. and around the
globe. More than 220 paid events earned the family nearly $50 million,
according to a review of State Department documents and Hillary Clinton's
financial disclosure forms by The Associated Press.

Now, as Hillary Clinton moves forward with her presidential campaign, the
ease with which her husband was repeatedly cleared to address companies and
governments around the world highlights potential ethical complications
that are likely to intensify if she becomes the country's next president.

"It's politically going to be very treacherous," said Jan Baran, head of
the government ethics group at Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLP, who
served as general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "It just
becomes controversy all the time."

The potential "first dude" has said he intends to continue accepting
speaking fees during the presidential campaign.

"I got to pay our bills," he said in an interview with NBC's "Today Show"
last week.

Taken together, the State Department and financial disclosure documents
show the agency sped through Bill Clinton's steady stream of requests for
events while rarely raising concerns about potential conflicts. At the same
time, the agency's ethics office, which had primary responsibility for the
decisions, was hobbled by "strained program operations," according to a
2012 report by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, the government's top
ethics agency.

State Department ethics officials gave quick approval, for example, for the
two Barclays appearances and events paid by other international banks under
legal scrutiny. Bill Clinton's $200,000 appearance in Florida for
British-based HSBC in 2011 was cleared despite an ongoing federal
money-laundering investigation that led to a 2012 settlement with
prosecutors.

Five U.S. events in 2011 and 2012 earned the former president $840,000 from
the wealth management unit of UBS Bank less than two years after the Swiss
bank had acknowledged a massive tax evasion scheme aiding American clients
and paid $780 million in penalties. The banks declined to comment about
their dealings with the former president.

The State Department also green-lighted requests by foreign governments to
hire the former president for events, despite potential complications for
his wife's diplomacy at the time and for a future Hillary Clinton
presidency. Similar concerns about foreign influence have been raised about
the millions of dollars donated by foreign governments over the past decade
to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton family's global charity.

The former president was paid $600,000 to appear at a government-sponsored
event in the United Arab Emirates in December 2011. The State Department
also approved a 2010 Clinton event in Bangkok co-sponsored by a Thai
government energy ministry and state gas firm, but despite news coverage of
the speech there is no record of payment in his wife's financial
disclosure. An aide to Bill Clinton said the Thai speech fee was donated to
the Clinton Foundation.

Not all appearances were approved: A request for Clinton to speak in
Shanghai in 2009 was rejected because of State Department hesitation that a
prospective host might be an agent of the Chinese government. The former
president's team withdrew the request.

The Clinton campaign declined to comment, referring questions to the State
Department and Bill Clinton's private office.

State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said last week the agency was not
"aware of any actions taken by Secretary Clinton that were influenced by
donations to the Clinton Foundation or its offshoots or by speech honoraria
and consultancies of former President Clinton." Another spokesman, Alec
Gerlach, declined to address specific cases such as the Barclays events.

The State Department's scrutiny, which went beyond the standard ethics
requirements for all federal officials, was the result of a voluntary
process agreed to by both Clintons to avoid "even the appearance of a
conflict of interest," according to a January 2009 memo sent by David
Kendall, Bill Clinton's personal lawyer, to Jim Thessin, who oversaw the
vetting in the State Department. Clinton's office agreed to provide the
names of organizations hosting the former president at least 14 days before
the event, according to the memo. Lawyers at the agency would then aim to
complete their review within five days.

While most internal emails between State Department ethics officials about
Bill Clinton's proposed appearances were redacted to protect internal legal
considerations, snippets that survived the censoring depict a vetting
process that appeared both strained by the workload and rushed by the
former president's deadlines.

"This is overdue and our host needs a signed contract today," wrote Terry
Krinvic, Clinton's director of scheduling, in a March 2, 2011, email to
State Department officials. A State Department official working on a speech
request described herself in a February 2011 email as "totally stressed
out, but will do it this afternoon."

In another memo from June 2010, an agency official dashed off a memo
warning: "URGENT RE: Clinton Foundation Issue." The official told a State
lawyer: "I'd very much appreciate a turnaround this afternoon as former
President Clinton is scheduled to arrive in Tanzania tomorrow and
(diplomatic) Post needs to run out these details." The issue, not
identified in the redaction, was left unresolved overnight. "Former POTUS
Clinton is on the ground in Tanzania," the agency lawyer wrote the next
morning. "We need guidance fairly urgently to still be relevant." The
censored emails do not indicate whether the State officials resolved the
issue in time. POTUS means "president of the United States."

As State Department officials processed Clinton's event requests in
September 2012, the Office of Government Ethics warned that the State
Department's office "has extremely limited capacity to respond to the
increased demands on its program." It said it was "concerned about the lack
of compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements in the areas of
financial disclosure, annual training and ethics agreements."

Gerlach, the State Department spokesman, said the department's review of
former President Clinton's speeches and consultancies was not within the
scope of the review by the government-wide ethics agency.

A former senior State Department official familiar with the vetting process
in the early months of Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state
described the department as often shut out from both relevant internal
department information and ongoing investigations at other federal agencies
that might have aided their reviews. The former official spoke on condition
of anonymity to discuss the department's ethics work.

On all sides, the process involved lawyers with long ties to the Clinton
family — and each other. Cheryl Mills was Hillary Clinton's chief of staff
at the State Department and was frequently included on the other end of
emails during the State Department review of the requests. Mills was a
former White House deputy counsel who collaborated with Kendall on Bill
Clinton's impeachment legal defense before working for Hillary Clinton at
the State Department.

Less than a month after Hillary Clinton was confirmed, a request to approve
some of Bill Clinton's proposed private consulting work was sent by his
long-time personal aide Doug Band, prompting Mills to prod the agency's
deputy legal adviser to review the arrangement. Approval for the former
president to enter into a consultancy arrangement with Band's corporate
advisory firm, Teneo, came in 2011, allowing Clinton to offer "services
regarding geopolitical, economic and social trends" for three years.

Only a handful of proposed arrangements appear to have been rejected. A
consulting contract with Saban Capital Group Inc., a firm headed by major
Clinton donor Haim Saban, was rejected because of what the State Department
deemed Saban's active involvement in foreign affairs, particularly the
Middle East.

Two other consulting contracts — one with longtime friend Steve Bing's
Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments GP — raised no
such concerns. A corporate entity for Wasserman Investments GP could not be
found, but California's Wasserman Media group is run by entertainment and
sports executive and Democratic donor Casey Wasserman.

On Thursday, Saban hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign at
his Beverly Hills home, raising at least $1.2 million from 450 attendees.

Occasionally, the agency offered guidance to avoid a clear conflict. In the
case of White & Case, an international law firm based in New York, a
department lawyer signed off on the speech but noted for "situational
awareness" that the firm was representing the 1979 U.S. hostages seeking
damages from Iran — a case the State Department was trying to have
dismissed. "We think it would be best to avoid being drawn into any
discussion of the litigation," the lawyer wrote.

Bill Clinton's November 2010 appearance for Barclays in Singapore was one
example of the potential for conflict posed by the frenetic stream of
requests.

In March 2010, Krinvic forwarded a Clinton proposal to appear at two bank
events, a Barclays Asia Forum in Singapore in November and Barclays dinner
in Davos in January 2011. In Singapore, the plans called for Clinton to
speak during a moderated question-and-answer session before 650 Asian
investors and pose for photos. In Davos, Clinton would attend a similar
session before 20 Barclays senior executives and 140 clients and their
spouses.

Thessin replied on March 23, telling Krinvic that "we have no objection."

It was widely known by then that Barclays was under investigation by
federal prosecutors for repeated illegal transactions with banks in Iran,
Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Burma and for violating U.S. financial sanctions
against those governments.

Barclays had voluntarily disclosed four illegal banking transactions to
federal and New York financial authorities in 2006. That led to an internal
inquiry by the bank and investigations by federal and New York state
prosecutors. The scrutiny resulted in Barclays' acknowledgement in federal
court in August 2010 that it had violated U.S. sanctions. The bank also
agreed to cooperate with the government under a deal that deferred
prosecution for two years under supervision of a federal judge. Barclays
agreed to pay $298 million in fines.

The same week in November 2010 that Barclays' lawyers submitted a status
report to the trial judge overseeing their case, Bill Clinton appeared at
the Barclays forum in Singapore and mingled with clients who also attended
a golf tournament sponsored by the bank. There is no documentation in State
Department files whether officials had reconsidered their approval after
Barclays acknowledged violating U.S. laws. Barclays declined to comment
about Clinton's appearances or the investigation.

"People admire the way he can take complex issues and break them down for a
global audience," Barclays Plc CEO Robert Diamond said in an interview with
Bloomberg News two days after Clinton addressed bank clients in Davos.

While the Treasury Department administers oversees the administration of
U.S. financial sanctions, the State Department has its own Office of
Economic Sanctions Policy, which is responsible for developing foreign
policy-related sanctions to counter threats to national security.

The criminal case against Barclays also noted that the presidential orders
for sanctions against Iran were authorized by the treasury secretary in
consultation with the secretary of state.

While the State Department's lawyers concluded that most of Clinton's
speeches did not violate foreign policy interests, some of his appearances
could pose political risk for his wife's presidential bid by giving
Republican opponents an opening to depict the couple as beholden to
powerful interests.

Over a three-day period in November 2011, the Swedish telecom company
Ericsson paid $750,000 for Clinton to address industry leaders in Hong
Kong; Chinese executives paid $550,000 for a speech in Shanghai; and he
made $260,000 addressing the annual meeting of HCL, an Indian outsourcing
giant, at Disney World in Orlando, Florida. His total haul: $1.56 million.

While the former president traveled the world, efforts to assure the ethics
of his itineraries bounced around the State Department. A request to speak
at a climate change summit organized by an Abu Dhabi government
environmental group prompted an email to the UAE desk officer asking
whether "potential affiliation with it by high-level officials" would pose
"any harm to foreign policy." The response: "No concerns here." Bill
Clinton was paid $600,000 by the group, the Abu Dhabi Global Initiative.

When Clinton was invited to participate in the China Philanthropy Forum in
November 2012, an event aimed at promoting Chinese charitable giving, the
State Department raised concerns that the event's sponsor was an
association made up of former and current senior Chinese government
officials. "We will need to further consider this one," it said.

Clinton eventually spoke at the forum's annual conference — nine months
after his wife left office.

Hillary Has Some 'Splainin' To Do About Clinton Foundation
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/05/12/hillary-has-some-splainin-to-do-about-clinton-foundation/>
// Forbes // Robert W. Wood - May 12, 2015

Bill and Hillary Clinton can sometimes sound like Sargent Schulz on the old
Hogan’s Heroes show. “I know nothing!” As Mrs. Clinton remains largely mum,
the former President said the Foundation had ”never done anything knowingly
inappropriate.” He sounded annoyed, a little like his “I did not have
sexual relations with that woman.”

Mrs. Clinton had repeatedly promised disclosure and transparency, but then
her private email server and preposterous ‘single wireless device’ excuse
emerged. Oh well, ‘mistakes were made. The acting CEO of the Clinton
Foundation posted a statement acknowledging that the Foundation failed to
separate government grants from donations. Oops, we’re amending our tax
returns, no harm done, the Foundation suggests. It is clear that the
Foundation does good works. The ‘no harm done’ is somewhat less clear, and
it isn’t just the tax returns.

Clinton Foundation

Mrs. Clinton has done little to address the extensive donations or grants
to her Foundation made by foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was
Secretary of State. Tens of millions of dollars in foreign government
payments weren’t reported in tax filings for five years. The Foundations
acting CEO said they were on the website. But it turns out that is not true
either, as the Foundation has belatedly acknowledged.

Foreign government funding has received particular scrutiny, and yet
incredibly, precise totals for government grants to the Foundation for the
last three years of Clinton’s four-year tenure as secretary of state have
still not been publicly disclosed. The parsing of ‘is’ worked for President
Clinton, and perhaps it can for Mrs. Clinton too. Mr. Obama may not be mad,
but perhaps he should be, since it appears that Mrs. Clinton violated his
rules too.

The opaque Clinton Foundation tax returns make it look as if someone wanted
to keep the embarrassing and conflict-triggering gifts quiet. Perhaps there
are emails? The run-by-someone-else Foundation also came under additional
scrutiny for failing to clear all foreign government donations through an
agreed-upon State Department vetting process. The Foundation initially
claimed that it was barred by Canadian law from revealing the names of
donors, apparently a bogus excuse.

How much of Clinton Foundation donations go to overhead is a worry too.
Upon becoming Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton promised that the Foundation
would stop accepting donations from foreign governments. There were
exceptions, and the Foundation’s IRS filings were less than transparent.
Starting in 2010, the Foundation reported on its IRS tax return for three
consecutive years that it received no donations from foreign government
sources.

It wasn’t as if they didn’t know how. In prior years, the Foundation
reported tens of millions of dollars in donations. The Foundation is now
worrying over the accuracy of the IRS returns from 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Refiling sounds responsible, but it may not fix everything. Indeed, it is
clear that the Foundation did accept millions in donations from foreign
governments in those years. It is clear that they overlapped with the time
Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State. In fact, a whopping 181 donors
lobbied the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was there. Amended tax
forms aren’t going to change that.

Uranium Investor- Turned Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes Grilled
by CNBC
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/12/uranium-investor-turned-clinton-foundation-mega-donor-frank-holmes-grilled-by-cnbc/>
// Breitbart News // May 12, 2015

Clinton Foundation mega donor Frank Holmes was grilled on Tuesday in a
blistering CNBC interview when Holmes gave answers at odds with CNBC’s own
reporting about his investments in the highly controversial Uranium One—a
company Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approved for a 2010 sale to the
Russian government that resulted in the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S.
uranium to the Russian government, according to the New York Times and
Clinton Cash.

Nine Uranium One investors, including Frank Holmes, gave Hillary’s
foundation a combined $145 million.

In a CNBC Squawk Box segment titled “The Clinton Cash Scandal: Frank
Holmes,” U.S. Global Investors CEO Frank Holmes was asked when he invested
and sold Uranium One. The exchange produced an embarrassing moment for
Holmes, as his on-air statements directly contradicted the CNBC fact
graphics displayed on the screen.

In a graphics box titled “From the New York Times,” the CNBC screen graphic
stated: “Frank Holmes donated between $250-$500k to the Clinton
Foundation—U.S. Global Investors held $4.7 million in Uranium Ones shares
in Q1 of 2011.”

U.S. Global Investors’ own 2011 SEC filing further confirms Holmes’ company
held Uranium One.

However, when CNBC host Joe Kernan asked Holmes when he bought and sold the
uranium stock, Holmes’s answer contradicted CNBC’s fact box.

“We were long gone before 2008,” claimed Holmes.

“You didn’t own it when it was acquired by the Russians [2010]?” asked
Kernan.

“Uh, by the, by what the date is. I bought it early and I sold it before
2008,” said Holmes, before adding that he gives money to orphanages.

“You sold the stock in 2008?” asked Kernan.

“We were long gone well before all that,” said Holmes.

CNBC’s chief international correspondent Michelle Caruso-Cabrera then
jumped in to follow-up on Kernan’s line of questioning.

“But the suggestion is that you donated money to a foundation that was
connected with the possibility of approval of a deal that you may have
benefited from. Is that correct?” Caruso-Cabrera asked Holmes.

“No, that’s a lot of disinformation. That’s just a political battle this
year,” said Holmes.

“But, still, the question is, were you in a position to benefit from
approval of this deal at the same time that you were writing checks to the
Clinton Foundation?” asked Caruso-Cabrera.

“No, there’s no, I had no idea any of those two events. There are two
separate events,” said Holmes.

The CNBC hosts appeared stunned, before CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin jumped
in.

“When people finish watching this interview, they’re going to say, it
wasn’t unequivocal on your part and that there wasn’t a lot of clarity,”
said Sorkin.

“I don’t understand. I have no idea what—you’re making—lots of conjecture,”
Holmes fired back.

“We’ll give you one last shot at it,” said Sorkin. “In a sentence or two,
unequivocally, anything you want to say? Because right now it’s all a big
haze for us.”

“There’s no haze. I have a global investment company and I invest in many
companies in many different countries and I give to a lot of charitable
organizations,” said Holmes.

“Unfortunately, I don’t think it speaks to the answer. We’ll leave it
there,” said Sorkin.

Hillary Clinton has yet to answer a single question surrounding the
widening Clinton Cash scandals or her role in the transfer of 20% of U.S.
uranium to the Russian government.

Inside the Univision-Clinton network
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/univision-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-117851.html>
// POLITICO // Hadas Gold and Marc Caputo - May 12, 2015

When former President Bill Clinton takes center stage at Univision’s
upfront presentation Tuesday, it will mark more than just one of his many
paid appearances.

The relationship between the Clintons and Univision flows from top to
bottom — from owner Haim Saban’s unabashed support for Hillary Clinton’s
election effort to a partnership between Univision and the Clinton
Foundation to the network’s newscasts that have bashed Republicans and,
most recently, praised Hillary’s new position on immigration — putting her
squarely in line with the network’s stance on the issue.

The importance of Univision for the Latino electorate and 2016 is hard to
overstate. It is by far the biggest Spanish-language media network in the
United States when it comes to revenue, ratings and stations owned. In some
markets, such as Los Angeles, the Univision-owned local newscasts are in
the top one or two by ratings. On big nights for the Hispanic community,
such as President Barack Obama’s remarks on immigration in November,
Univision raked in 4.8 million viewers, more than any other network. During
the July sweeps last summer, Univision boasted the No. 1 spot in prime time
among 18-to-49-year-old viewers for the second year in a row.

“You have to go to Univision to get to Latino voters,” said Gabriela
Domenzain, a liberal strategist who was a founding producer on Univision’s
Sunday news show “Al Punto” and who ran Obama’s Hispanic media outreach in
the 2012 election.

“Even though demographics are changing and more Latinos and young Latinos
get their news from English language sites and media, Univision … has been
front and center advocating for Latinos for 25 years,” she said. “Maybe
it’s not the 18-25 voters who watches Univision, but their moms do and
their grandmas do, and if not it’s in the background. You can’t
disassociate the power of the older generation on the younger generation
either.”

Univision and the Clinton Foundation joined forces in 2014 for a multi-year
early childhood initiative dubbed “Pequeños y Valiosos” (or “Young and
Valuable”). The relationship proved of immediate value to Hillary Clinton,
whose face was featured in five of seven slides on Univision’s website
promoting the initiative in February 2014. She also held a New York media
event where reporters couldn’t ask her questions.

The initiative between the Clintons and Univision last year provoked a
sharp response from the Republican National Committee, which accused the
network of promoting Hillary Clinton ahead of her presidential campaign.
The RNC, which has tussled with the network behind the scenes over its
coverage of the GOP and immigration, made sure Univision did not host a
presidential debate this year.

Univision spokesperson Monica Talan, however, emphasized the bipartisan
nature of their initiative in an email, noting that its Leadership Council
Members include Cindy McCain, former Sen. Bill Frist and George W. Bush’s
Under Secretary of Education Sara Martinez Tucker.

“As far as Pequeños y Valiosos, this is a Corporate initiative that is
focused on children and is a partnership of Too Small To Fail, one of many
foundations and partners we work with to promote education to our Hispanic
community,” Talan said via email. “As a Company we have been transparent,
disclosing the partners in this initiative to our audiences. Our focus is
on helping children in the Hispanic community, not on party affiliations.”

But the connection to the foundation isn’t always transparent on the
network’s nightly newscast, even in reports that are specifically about the
foundation. There was no mention of the network’s partnership with the
Clinton Foundation in a May 4th segment on Univision’s nightly news program
about allegations that donations to the foundation affected Hillary
Clinton’s decisions during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Talan declined to respond specifically to questions about disclosing the
network’s relationship with the foundation in their reporting.

Domenzain said she thought the network should always note the partnership
whenever covering the Clinton Foundation.

“Even if it’s apolitical, for childhood education … given that foundation
most likely will be a center theme in this campaign, that yes, these are
alliances that should be put out in the open,” Domenzain said. “When
covering the political aspect of it, yes they should and they’re going to
be much more under the microscope because of that.”

Then there’s the subject of Univision owner, billionaire media mogul Saban,
who purchased Univision in 2007 along with a group of investors. Saban has
donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation and his wife sits
on its board. He has said it’s a dream of his to see Hillary Clinton
elected. The week before Bill Clinton’s Univision appearance, Saban hosted
a fundraiser for Hillary in California.

“As much as is needed,” Saban said in July when asked by Bloomberg Politics
how much he’d give to the Clinton campaign. “I think she would be great for
the country and great for the world.”

Despite Saban’s Clinton fandom, a firewall exists between editorial and
corporate, Univision spokesperson Talan said in an email.

“As President and CEO, Randy Falco is responsible for maintaining
separation between Haim Saban, any other Board member and our News division
when it comes to news and editorial judgments. The News division must have
complete editorial independence, and it does,” she said.

Daniel Coronell, Univision News senior vice president told BuzzFeed in
January that Saban is very respectful of the network’s journalistic
independence.

“He’s not connected with our day to day; we’re not in this to build his
happiness,” Coronell said.

But a spirit of Republican-bashing has sometimes reared its head at
Univision. Coronell’s own assistant, for instance, was outed by The Miami
Herald after she repeatedly trashed Sen. Marco Rubio on her Facebook page.

Republicans say that incident is emblematic of a culture at Univision,
where employees don’t have to be told to be biased. Many national
Republicans don’t trust the network. They’re suspicious of Saban’s ties to
the Clintons. And some believe that any network’s talk of balanced is just
lip service designed to minimize friction and negative press as part of an
effort to fetch a higher price for a planned initial public offering within
the next year.

“Based on what we’ve seen so far, Univision’s coverage of the Clinton
campaign has been characterized by cheerleading more than anything else,”
said Ken Olivier-Méndez, director of the conservative-leaning Media
Research Center’s Latino division. “The extremely solicitous and
practically acritical coverage Hillary Clinton has been receiving from
Univision so far stands in stark contrast with the consistently tough
coverage Republicans like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul
have been receiving on the network in recent weeks.”

Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Spanish-speaking Republican from Miami who watches
Univision and is a moderate on immigration reform, said Univision needs to
be more cautious.

“To preserve the integrity of its journalists, Univision should be more
careful about identifying with political candidates and parties,” he said.

Curbelo said he couldn’t speculate too much about why there has been
relatively little press coverage about Univision’s relationship with the
Clintons, but he said it would be hard to imagine Rupert Murdoch being
treated the same way if he pledged to support a candidate who had a
separate initiative that Fox promoted.

“He would be far more criticized and pilloried if he did something like
that. Spanish-language networks probably don’t draw as much attention. But
when you’re talking about Univision, it has high ratings. It does matter,”
Curbelo said.

“When you have the ownership of a network aggressively backing a
presidential candidate – combined with advocacy journalism on some issues –
it threatens the journalistic integrity of a news organization,” he added.

The top “advocacy” issue: immigration. Last week (on Cinco de Mayo, no
less) Clinton went beyond Obama on immigration, promising that as president
she would use executive action to allow more undocumented immigrants to get
legal protection and work permits. Jorge Ramos, Univision’s star anchor and
correspondent who is open about his feelings toward immigration reform,
tweeted a day later that the debate over immigration might be over.

“I wonder how Republicans are going to respond to the immigration proposals
by @HillaryClinton Maybe the debate is over already,” he tweeted.

Ramos has also drawn criticism from some in the mainstream media, who say
he strays form objectivity into advocacy. But Univision News President
Isaac Lee — who has equated speaking truth in today’s politics to speaking
out against the Nazis during World War II — vigorously defends Ramos’
journalist-activist role.

“He’s entitled to his opinion. I don’t think Jorge wants to be impartial, I
think Jorge wants to be a responsible journalist,” Lee said in April during
the International Symposium on Online Journalism conference in Austin.
“Univision’s audience knows that Jorge is representing them. That he is not
asking the questions to be celebrated as a fair and balanced journalist.
He’s asking the questions to represent them. He’s going to ask the person
whatever is necessary to push the agenda for a more fair society, for a
more inclusive society and for the Hispanic community to be better.”

To be sure, Ramos has been tough on both Democrats and Republicans. In an
infamously testy interview with Obama late last year, Ramos accused Obama
of not doing enough early in his term to stop deportations, telling him he
“destroyed many families.” But many Republicans remain wary of him and of
Univision, though Domenzain said it was just an excuse to avoid tough
questions.

“I think it’s mostly an excuse to not go on. I can’t tell you how many
times we’d extend offers to Republicans and they wouldn’t come,” Domenzain
said. “What they don’t like is Univision’s immigration editoiral line
because it goes against their beliefs.”

The feud between Univision and Republicans broke out in the open in 2011
after Sen. Marco Rubio and the network clashed. At the time, Rubio was a
newly elected senator – and former Univision commentator – and the network
wanted to spend a day with him and talk about immigration reform. At the
time, Rubio wasn’t ready. And his staff didn’t trust the crusading Ramos to
conduct a fair interview because he was such an advocate for the DREAM Act
and, in the words of one Rubio adviser, “open borders.” So Rubio’s shop
declined, but said it would be willing to participate in an interview with
another Univision reporter from South Florida.

That’s when things got strange. A reporter from Univision’s investigative
team soon cold-called Rubio’s sister and asked about the 24-year-old drug
bust of her husband. Rubio’s staff said the senator – who was 16 at the
time of the crime in question — was basically being pressured to submit to
an interview or have his family embarrassed. Univision honchos denied the
claim, but Isaac Lee later acknowledged to the New Yorker that the network
offered the senator “options” regarding how the story of his brother-in-law
would be reported. Rubio declined the offer of the “options,” the story ran
and Republicans flipped out when The Miami Herald reported the story of the
discussions.

Led by Rubio’s longtime friend, U.S. Rep. David Rivera, Republican
candidates for president announced they would boycott a proposed debate
that Univision wanted to host. Republicans felt even more justified in
their decision when they read the reaction of Univision’s chairman, Saban,
in the New Yorker: “The fact that Rubio and some Republican Presidential
candidates have an anti-Hispanic stand that they don’t want to share with
our community is understandable but despicable. So ‘boycotting’ Univision,
the largest Spanish-language media company in the U.S., is disingenuous at
best and foolish at worst.”

Behind the scenes, Univision hired lobbyists tied to the GOP to smooth
things over with the Republican National Committee. But at the same time,
Republicans say, they grew more concerned about the network’s coverage of
Republicans, particularly with regards to immigration. Criticism of Rubio
was rife in Univision’s newsrooms. During the August 2012 Republican
National Convention in Tampa, an unknown person trashed Rubio via
Univisión’s official Facebook account, writing “beyond his ideology, Rubio
is a mediocre politician who contradicts the values he says he represents.
Jeb Bush is more Latino and talented than him,” the Facebook posting said.
Months later, a top assistant to a Univision news boss ripped Rubio on
Twitter by calling him a “loser” and “a token slave boy.”

Shortly after he announced his campaign for president in April, Rubio sat
down for a relatively calm interview with Ramos and made news by saying
he’d attend a gay marriage of someone he loved, but that he’d get rid of
deferred action for children of illegal immigrants. But a report on
Univision’s morning show two weeks later included a title on the screen
describing Rubio’s comments on gay marriage (that it’s “ridiculous” to
believe there’s a constitutional right to gay marriage) “postura radical”
(a radical position). And last week, during a local Arizona broadcast on
Univision, the network played up Rubio’s refusal to talk with an
immigration activist for the liberal group called “Mi Familia Vota.”

Though BuzzFeed reports Univision is working to develop better
relationships in both parties with internal “red” and “blue” teams,
Republicans still have a hurdle when it comes to their relationship with
Univision in the 2016 election. The network was already snubbed for a
chance at hosting a GOP primary debate, with Telemundo picking up hosting
duties instead.

“Regardless of those relationships what’s really interesting this cycle is
Fusion in particular and the Jorge Ramos show in Fusion has brought them
onto the English language mainstream radar, so they’re under much more
pressure to be quote-unquote ‘balanced,’ however, the Univision editorial
line on immigration is always going to be there,” Domenzain said.

But for Hillary, things with Univision are looking good.

“Hillary’s Cinco de Mayo Promise: path to citizenship for [undocumented],
DACA and extended executive action. Of course we’ll remember
@HillaryClinton,” Ramos tweeted last week.

State Dept. can’t fulfill your FOIA because it’s overwhelmed by Hillary
e-mails
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/05/12/state-dept-cant-fulfill-your-foia-because-its-overwhelmed-by-hillary-e-mails/?wprss=rss_in-the-loop&tid=sm_tw_pp>
// WaPo // Al Kamen - May 12, 2015

The State Department’s latest defense on why it can’t comply with your
ancient Freedom of Information request for documents is: Blame it on
Hillary.

The State Department says it is too overwhelmed by reviewing those 55,000
pages of e-mails former secretary Hillary Clinton turned over last year.

That apparently means other folks, who’ve waited years on their requests
for State Department documents, are being told they’ll have to wait even
longer because of the Clinton review.

The National Security Archive, for example, filed a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request in 2001 for records of phone conversations of former
secretary Henry Kissinger, who left Foggy Bottom 38 years ago. The Archive
filed suit in March.

The department on Friday asked U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer
for a six-month extension to turn over the documents. State said there’s
been a huge “surge” in FOIA lawsuits in the last year alone, suits that
“have grown increasingly burdensome and complex.”

“These exceptional circumstances are compounded” — here it comes — “by the
fact that a significant portion of [State’s] FOIA-processing resources are
currently devoted to reviewing for public release the collection of
approximately 55,000 pages of emails that were recently provided to State
by former Secretary Hillary Clinton. . . and to making those documents
available to the public by posting them on a department website.”

Clinton tweeted in March that the State Department “said they will review
them for release as soon as possible.” And Secretary of State John Kerry
told reporters the agency would “undertake this task as rapidly as
possible” — though another official cautioned the process could be
time-consuming.

Call it the “Hillary Dodge?”

Clinton facing new ethics questions on role in Boeing deal
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/clinton-facing-new-ethics-questions-on-role-in-boeing-deal/?intcmp=latestnews>
// Fox News // Dan Springer – May 13, 2015

When Hillary Clinton was America's top diplomat, she also appeared at times
like a top salesperson for America's biggest airplane maker, Boeing.

Traveling abroad on official business as secretary of state, Clinton often
visited Boeing facilities and made a pitch for the host country to buy
Boeing jets. During one visit to Shanghai in May 2010, she boasted that
"more than half the commercial jetliners operating in China are made by
Boeing."

A sales plug in Russia in 2009, though, may have proved especially
fruitful. While touring a Boeing plant, Secretary of State Clinton said,
"We're delighted that a new Russian airline, Rossiya, is actively
considering acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and this is a shameless pitch."

In 2010, Boeing landed the Russian deal, worth $3.7 billion. And two months
later, the company donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

This chain of events is raising new questions for Clinton, and Boeing, as
the former secretary of state launches her 2016 presidential campaign. The
Boeing deal only adds to a growing list of business deals involving Clinton
Foundation donors now coming under scrutiny.

Boeing shareholder David Almasi recently confronted CEO James McNerney
about the ethics of it.

"That opens the door to charges of honest services fraud, that there was a
quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and
Boeing," Almasi said.

In prepared answers to questions posed to Boeing by Fox News, a spokesman
defended the company's actions.

"Our contribution to the Clinton Foundation to help the people of Haiti
rebuild was a transparent act of compassion and an investment aimed at
aiding the long-term interests and hopes of the Haitian people," the
spokesman said. The company also pointed out that it gave the American Red
Cross $1.3 million after the devastating 2010 earthquake.

Clinton defenders say there is no smoking gun. "There's zero evidence that
Hillary Clinton went to bat for Boeing for any reason other than to benefit
the U.S. economy and U.S. workers," said former Clinton/Gore adviser
Richard Goldstein.

But the financial connections don't end there. Boeing also paid former
President Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech in 2012. It was a speech that
was approved by the State Department's Ethics Office -- which according to
an Associated Press report often approved the ex-president's speaking
engagements within days.

And in another potential trouble spot, Boeing's chief lobbyist and former
Bill Clinton aide Tim Keating hosted a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary,
the political action committee raising money to help fund a run for the
White House. Boeing took no issue with Keating doing so.

"Employees are free on their personal time and with personal resources --
as was the case here -- to support candidates and causes of their choice,"
Boeing wrote in its statement.

The Clinton campaign told Fox News in a statement, "She did the job that
every Secretary of State is supposed to do and what the American people
expect of them -- especially during difficult economic turmoil."

Bill Clinton: path to citizenship is just common sense
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bill-clinton-immigration-citizenship-path-117856.html>
// POLITICO // Annie Karni - May 12, 2015

Former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday promoted his wife’s robust call
for immigration reform during a paid appearance at the Univision upfront
presentation.

“If I were advising candidates, I would say you’ve got to have a credible
position on immigration reform,” Clinton said in a brief Q-and-A session
with Fusion anchor Alicia Menendez. “I think the only thing that makes
sense is a path to citizenship and adequate support for children in a much
more discriminating way than enforcing the law.”

His comment came one week after Hillary Clinton, speaking at a campaign
stop in Las Vegas, vowed to expand on President Obama’s executive actions
to allow millions of more undocumented immigrants obtain legal protection
and work permits.

Hillary Clinton also challenged the entire Republican field for failing to
support a path to citizenship. “When they talk about legal status,” she
said, “that is code for second-class status.”

Bill Clinton has said he plans to continue giving paid speeches while his
wife runs for president. The appearance before Univision, however, was the
product of a long relationship between the Clintons and the Spanish
language network. Haim Saban, who with a group of investors acquired
Univision in 2007, is a Hillary Clinton megadonor, and threw her a
fundraiser last week. Univision and the Clinton Foundation are also
partners on an education program, “Too Small To Fail,” and the network
praised Hillary Clinton’s stance last week on immigration.

Bill Clinton, fresh off a Foundation trip to Africa, spoke for about 15
minutes about how cooperation must triumph conflict as the country’s
population becomes more diverse.

“The only thing that makes sense is to have a policy of radical inclusion,”
he said. “If you look at the world today, everywhere people are practicing
inclusive governance … good things are happening. Everywhere people are
practicing divisive politics, unequal economic opportunities, and unequal
exclusive governance arrangements good things are not happening. This is
not rocket science.”

Speaking briefly about the criminal justice system, he evoked the death of
Eric Garner last July, but appeared not to remember his name.

“Remember when the fellow was dying in New York, who was selling the
illegal cigarettes in the street and he had a bunch of kids and he was very
much overweight and was put in a chokehold and his cardio-vascular system
failed,” Clinton said.

He contrasted the tragedy of his death and the protests it sparked with the
death of Ezell Ford, a civilian, by police hands in Los Angeles days later,
where there were no protests because a system of “community decision
makers” was instituted to review every police incident.

“There weren’t riots,” Clinton said. “People felt like they were part of a
process that treated them like they mattered. That their children’s lives
were not insignificant…that’s the big test of the entire world.”

His message to the growing population of millennial Hispanics: “be upbeat
and relentlessly forward looking,” he said. “Every country, every company,
every person needs to be in the future business. You may think that’s funny
for a guy that’s older than everybody in this audience, but you have to
live in the future.”

Clinton was the first former President to participate in the media
company’s upfront presentation.

“I’m well aware I’m just a warm up act for Ricky Martin,” said Clinton. “At
my age, you just take these changes when you get them.”

Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Noncampaigning Campaigner
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/12/another-busy-day-for-bill-clinton-the-noncampaigning-campaigner/?_r=0>
// New York Times // Amy Chozick - May 12, 2015

Bill Clinton will not (repeat, not) be campaigning for his wife in the
early stages of her 2016 presidential campaign.

He will, however, be discussing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s policies and
vision for the country in front of live audiences of thousands of likely
voters and in television interviews with the country’s most influential
talk-show hosts.

On Tuesday, when Mr. Clinton discussed immigration reform, climate change,
Middle East policy and economic policy before a crowd of nearly 2,000
people in New York, the fuzzy gray area of a preternatural campaigner who
insists he is not campaigning began to come into focus.

“If I were advising candidates, I would say you’ve got to have a credible
position on immigration reform,” Mr. Clinton said at a presentation to
advertisers for the Univision network. He went on to endorse a path to
citizenship and “adequate support for children,” policies that Mrs. Clinton
presented at a campaign event in Las Vegas last week.

Later, Mr. Clinton planned to appear on CBS’s “Late Show With David
Letterman,” as one of Mr. Letterman’s final guests (along with George
Clooney and Oprah Winfrey) before the longtime host retires.

Both the late-night chat and the Univision question-and-answer session are
unrelated to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and Bill Clinton’s camp insists he
will not campaign or raise funds for the campaign this year. But any
appearance by Mr. Clinton is intrinsically linked to his wife’s campaign,
and his schedule on Tuesday gave the widely popular 42nd president an
enormous platform to push policies Mrs. Clinton is advocating and to
generally advance Brand Clinton.

Just before Mr. Clinton took the stage at the Lyric Theater in Times Square
for the Univision event, the sultry salsa song “Suavamente Besame” blared.
“I’m well aware I’m just the warm-up act for Ricky Martin,” Mr. Clinton
joked of the former Menudo member who would perform later.

He’s the first former president to speak at a network upfront — the annual
ritual of television networks pitching airtime to marketers — and Mr.
Clinton was paid to participate in the event, a question-and-answer session
with Alicia Menendez, an anchor on the Fusion channel.

(A Univision spokesman would not comment on how much Mr. Clinton was paid,
but according to previous disclosures, similar corporate appearances
generally pay upward of $200,000.)

Then there were the less tangible upsides. Sitting in front was the media
magnate Haim Saban, the biggest shareholder in Univision and a major donor
to the Clintons’ political and philanthropic causes. Last week, Mr. Saban
hosted Mrs. Clinton at a fund-raiser at his Beverly Hills mansion.

Univision, the No. 1 network for Latinos, whose audience often surpasses
English-language broadcasters among viewers 18 to 34, gives any candidate
(or their spouse) enormous reach among a critical part of the electorate.
Ms. Menendez pointed out that there are 59 million Latinos in the United
States, compared with 29 million when Mr. Clinton was president. (According
to people close to the former president, Mr. Clinton has become
particularly fixated on the demographic and on how Latinos could affect his
wife’s political fortunes, particularly if she finds herself running
against one of two Florida Republicans, Senator Marco Rubio, a
Cuban-American, or Jeb Bush, whose wife is Mexican.)

Without mentioning Mrs. Clinton or her campaign, Mr. Clinton said a path to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants would improve the economy and
alleviate poverty.

“Putting people in the workplace legally would raise their wages and it
would make our overall economy more prosperous,” he said.

The topics, in typical Bill Clinton manner, transcended immigration. On a
day when an economic adviser to the Clinton campaign, Joseph E. Stiglitz,
presented a proposal to make companies less focused on short-term profits,
Mr. Clinton endorsed the idea and called for increases in profit sharing
with employees.

“We need to move away from so much financial trading to more old-fashioned
investing,” he said.

Mr. Clinton also said he worried about climate change and that United
States foreign policy should support Lebanon and Jordan as they welcome
refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria. He said he worried about
farmers in Africa if there was ever a global food supply shortage, and he
expressed concern about the growing distrust of police officers in the
United States (“By the way, the time that fellow died in New York who was
selling illegal cigarettes on the street … ”).

And, finally, when he started to talk about his recent visit to the
Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania, where life is said to have begun some
200,000 years ago, when “man first stood up on our planet,” Ms. Menendez
cut him off. “President Clinton, I’ve been told we’ve got to wrap it up,”
she said.

The applause and music started just as the former president was in
midsentence. An omniscient upfront voice chimed in. And just moments after
Mr. Clinton departed the stage, lime-green money signs flashed against a
black backdrop, and Univision’s executive vice president of advertising
sales took the microphone.

Hillary Runs to the Left of Bill on Immigration Reform
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-runs-to-the-left-of-bill-on-immigration-reform-1431516433>
// WSJ // Jason L. Riley - May 13, 2015

Hillary Clinton has spent her nascent campaign staking out positions to the
left of where President Clinton stood on free trade, crime prevention and
same-sex marriage. As of last week, we can add immigration reform to the
list.

Bill Clinton, you might recall, was a vocal proponent of border
enforcement. “We must say ‘no’ to illegal immigration so we can continue to
say ‘yes’ to legal immigration,” he remarked in July 1993 before asking
Congress for an additional $172 million to launch Operation Hold the Line.
Mr. Clinton said his multiyear plan would “protect our borders, remove
criminal aliens, reduce work incentives for illegal immigration [and] stop
asylum abuse.” Within a year, the administration had erected miles of
fencing and increased border patrols by 40% along the most popular
corridors in California, Texas and Arizona.

There was no emphasis on border enforcement when the former first lady sat
down with illegal immigrants in Nevada last week. Mrs. Clinton said she
would give comprehensive immigration reform a try if elected, but don’t
expect her to try very hard. She was more interested in emphasizing her
admiration for President Obama’s executive action approach. “If Congress
refuses to act,” she said, “as president I will do everything possible
under the law to go even further” than Mr. Obama, who bypassed the
legislative branch last year and unilaterally shielded millions of illegal
aliens from deportation.

Mrs. Clinton claims to want to “work across party lines” on immigration,
which is how her husband operated. But lawmakers have little incentive to
deal with a president who announces publicly before negotiations even begin
that Congress’s input will have no impact on the outcome, which is how Mr.
Obama has operated. She is promising to humor Republicans, not bargain in
good faith. And when she is not humoring them, she will be painting them as
anti-Hispanic. “When they talk about ‘legal status,’” said Mrs. Clinton,
describing Republican presidential candidates who may be open to allowing
some illegal immigrants to live and work here without being eligible for
citizenship, “that’s code for ‘second-class’ status.”

Of course, second-class status is exactly what Mr. Obama has offered
undocumented immigrants through his executive action, which is legally
suspect, temporary and easily reversible by the next president. The GOP
candidates have an opportunity to respond to Mrs. Clinton’s pandering with
a more permanent bipartisan solution to the problem, but so far most of
them don’t see much urgency.

Whit Ayers, a Republican pollster and strategist, says merely attacking
illegal immigration—which is viewed by many Hispanics as an attack on their
entire community—isn’t enough for a candidate, and that the GOP’s
immigration-reform complacency could be costly in 2016 and beyond.

“The demographics in our country are changing so rapidly—with whites
declining and nonwhites increasing about three percentage points each
presidential election—that it becomes exceedingly difficult to win a
majority of the popular vote just by increasing the share of the white vote
going to the Republican candidate,” Mr. Ayers told Forbes last month.
Trying to gain a larger share of a shrinking proportion of the electorate
is a losing strategy, he added. “It makes far more sense—in 2016 and
certainly for elections after that—for Republicans to focus on dramatically
increasing their share of the nonwhite vote, especially among Hispanics who
are the fastest-growing minority group.”

Among the Republican front-runners, Marco Rubio has been the most outspoken
and specific. Rather than passing one large bill dealing with border
security, worker visas and the legal status of people already here, Mr.
Rubio favors passing smaller chunks of legislation sequentially. This
approach both bows to reality—larger bills, including one formerly backed
by Mr. Rubio, have repeatedly stalled—and polls well with Republican
primary voters in early states. Jeb Bush and Rand Paul seem open to a
similar strategy but have offered fewer details. Too many of the other
Republicans, however, including the otherwise impressive Scott Walker, seem
to think that “No Amnesty!” will suffice as an immigration platform.

Hillary Clinton needs to distance herself from her husband’s handling of
illegal immigration two decades ago in order to accommodate a Democratic
Party that has since moved much further to the left. But what the GOP ought
to have learned from Bill Clinton’s experience is that focusing on border
enforcement to the exclusion of economic factors that affect illegal
immigration has its limits.

Operation Hold the Line and similar efforts like Operation Blockade and
Operation Gatekeeper initially were successful. Illicit border crossings
fell in areas where physical barriers were erected and patrols were added.
But after a spell, people from south of the border found new ways to enter
undetected, often across less-forgiving terrain. The more difficult journey
allowed human smugglers to increase their fees. The cost and difficulty of
crossing the better-fortified border gave illegals an incentive to remain
in the U.S. after the harvest instead of returning home as they had in
years past. Between 1990 and 2000, the illegal immigrant population in the
U.S. grew by 5.5 million.

Illegal immigration is primarily a function of too many foreign nationals
chasing too few work permits. Executive amnesties won’t solve that problem,
and neither will militarizing the Rio Grande.

Dear Hillary, Do Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Or Get Bigger Refunds?
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/05/12/dear-hillary-do-illegal-immigrants-pay-more-taxes-or-get-bigger-refunds/>
// Forbes // Robert Wood – May 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton claimed at a roundtable in North Las Vegas that illegal
immigrants pay more taxes than some big corporations: “In New York, which I
know a little bit about because I represented it for eight years and I live
there now, our undocumented workers in New York pay more in taxes than some
of the biggest corporations in New York.”

Even the Washington Post awarded Mrs. Clinton Four Pinocchios for her
claim. To be fair, Mrs. Clinton was speaking generally. Plus, she can find
some thin support in an opinion column that says corporate giants often get
huge tax breaks. In contrast, poor, undocumented immigrants have paid
billions in state taxes. Even so, WaPo tracks this back to the website of
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and an Institute for Taxation and Economic
Policy report.

It turns out that Mrs. Clinton’s comparison conflates state and local
taxes, including property and sales taxes, with federal income taxes. If
you look at property and sales taxes, the big companies to which Mrs.
Clinton alludes pay a lot, more, in fact, than undocumented individuals.
WaPo mentions Verizon and Citicorp. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman Josh Schwerin
stated that:

The point she was making is that undocumented immigrants pay more in state
and local taxes alone than some of our biggest companies pay in either
state or federal corporate income tax. That is a striking fact. And that’s
why she raised it.

Undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes. Moreover, one estimate says that
illegal immigrants paid $12 billion in Social Security taxes in 2010–using
false or duplicative Social Security numbers. Even companies that pay
little or no federal income tax pay lots of other taxes. It is also not
clear how much illegal immigrants take out. President Obama’s aggressive
executive action on immigration is still being litigated in the courts.

Tax refunds for the affected illegal immigrants have become controversial.
The IRS says that illegal immigrants can file and claim refunds for the
last three years under the Earned Income Tax Credit. That is the same
refundable tax credit that is responsible for billions in fraudulent
refunds. IRS Commissioner Koskinen confirmed this, explaining the seemingly
bizarre result to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). What if you never
reported any income or never filed a return?

Under President Obama’s executive action, an illegal immigrant can: (1) get
a Social Security number; (2) claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for the
three open tax years; and (3) IRS sends three years of tax refunds. No
matter that you never paid taxes, never filed a return, worked off the
books, etc. The IRS says this is the way the Earned Income Tax Credit
works. IRS Commissioner Koskinen says the IRS is following a 15-year-old
opinion that “a taxpayer may claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for a
taxable year using a Social Security number acquired in a later taxable
year.”

Calling the three year tax refund perk a mockery of the law, Senator
Grassley noted that illegals would be able to claim billions of dollars in
tax benefits. Sen. Grassley vowed legislation to overturn the IRS position.
“The tax code shouldn’t reward those who broke our immigration laws,” he
said. So far, the President hasn’t backed down, so U.S. Rep. Patrick
McHenry has introduced a bill to keep undocumented workers from receiving
the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit for low- to moderate-income
taxpayers.

“My bill is a direct result of the (IRS) announcement,” said McHenry, a
Republican who represents the 10th District, which includes Gaston County.
“It’s very simple. If you’re not here legally, you should not be able to
access the Earned Income Credit. It’s for the American taxpayers who are
trying to make ends meet.”

Illegal immigrants in the U.S. covered by President Obama’s executive
action can apply for tax breaks going back three years. Rep. McHenry thinks
there is a great chance for fraudulent returns, noting that even if
undocumented workers were employed in the past, many may have used Social
Security numbers that didn’t belong to them. That in itself is fraud.

Rep. McHenry says illegal workers who broke the law should not benefit from
the U.S. tax system. “If you’re here counter to the law, you should not be
able to recoup from the taxpayer that which you were fraudulently getting,”
he said. Rep. McHenry introduced the No Free Rides Act. The bill would not
stop illegal immigrants from filing tax returns, but would prohibit those
workers from using Earned Income Tax Credit.

“President Obama’s immigration action giving millions of illegal immigrants
Social Security numbers marked an unprecedented executive overreach,” said
McHenry. “Now, we learn that these same people, whose first act on American
soil was breaking our laws, might be eligible for up to $24,000 in tax
credits. This is simply unacceptable. By introducing the No Free Rides Act
we ensure these illegal immigrants will not receive any more benefits
intended to help American families.”

How Bill Clinton’s Library Promotes Hillary Too
<http://time.com/3855499/bill-hillary-clinton-presidential-library/> //
TIME // Philip Elliott - May 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton worked to expand health care, improve failing schools and
served as “America’s foremost ambassador.” And that was just during her
time as First Lady.

That’s the portrait painted by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library,
which despite the name has no shortage of material on Hillary. Around every
corner of the Little Rock museum is another testimonial to Hillary’s role
in his administration and a reminder that—as he put it in the 1992
campaign—voters got “two for the price of one.”

These days, Hillary Clinton is running as her own woman, stressing her time
as U.S. Senator from New York and Secretary of State in the Obama
Administration. She’s also moving away from her husband’s record on issues
as varied as trade deals, gay rights and policing.

(Bill Clinton can hardly take offense. He even does a bit of that in his
own library. In one display, the library tries to distance him from the
now-scrapped Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that barred gays and lesbians to
serve openly in the military. “The law was never applied as intended,”
reads a placard.)

Throughout the modern and spacious library, Bill Clinton offers nothing but
the predictably glowing account of his wife’s skills and experience as a
public servant. Even in failure, as was the case in her push to overhaul
the nation’s health care system, Clinton’s library pitches success. “The
effort to expand coverage, led by the First Lady, set the stage for
step-by-step improvements to our health care system over the next seven
years,” reads one caption.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton was tapped to “spearhead” education reform. And
in describing her landmark address in China, in which she declared women’s
rights are human rights, the library’s displays lauded her: “As America’s
foremost ambassador, she brought to Beijing a message of hope, empowerment
and social development.”

An inquiry to the library about how the former First Lady is represented
and how the exhibits might have changed since they opened in 2004 was
referred to a public relations adviser, Jordan Johnson. He did not return
phone messages.

Yet not all depictions of Clinton are exactly flattering. After all, it
isn’t every museum that has depictions of a spouse on needlepoint or on a
quilt. Or includes a pair of cream cowboy boots emblazoned with her
initials in gold leather, a gift from a Houston admirer. Or a stitched
blanket from a California supporter that includes not just the Clintons’
October wedding date but also daughter Chelsea’s birthday.

At the same time, the scandals of the 1990s are obviously whitewashed and
political scores are settled, as is the case at most presidential
libraries. The Clintons single out House Speaker Newt Gingrich as pushing
the “politics of personal destruction.” The museum reminds visitors that in
1994, shortly before becoming Speaker of the House, Gingrich publicly
described Clinton Democrats “the enemy of normal Americans.”

In describing the government shutdowns the followed GOP takeover of
Congress, the Clinton library describes Republicans as “rejecting
compromise” and bringing “an ideological agenda.”

The library’s take on independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who discovered
Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky? “A
conservative activist who had never before prosecuted a case.” The
resulting impeachment had “no constitutional or legal basis.”

And on the failed land deal known as Whitewater that set off the string of
scandals that threatened Clinton’s presidency, the library is terse: “No
evidence of wrongdoing was ever found.”

But there is no escaping some of the awkwardness that crept into the
Clinton presidency amid the tumult. In a 1998 holiday portrait taken in the
White House’s formal Blue Room, the pair is not touching or even looking at
each other. Bill Clinton admitted to having an affair with Lewinsky during
the summer of that year.

By the following year, facing a shared Republican enemy and the threat of
impeachment, the Clintons again were embracing and working as political
partners, as the library is fond of portraying them.

Chelsea Clinton could take on role of first lady if Hillary wins, White
House expert says
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078415/Chelsea-Clinton-role-lady-Hillary-wins-White-House-expert-says.html>
// Daily Mail // Francesco Chambers - May 12, 2015

If the Clintons were to move back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the first
daughter, Chelsea, would presumably take on the traditional
responsibilities of the first lady, an expert on the White House tells
Daily Mail Online.

'There is a social function to the first lady's role, and that will not go
away,' C-SPAN co-CEO Susan Swain said. 'Diplomacy' is conducted through
social settings, 'and it is important to have somebody in that role.'

Several first daughters have filled the role of hostess in place of their
mothers throughout American history, Swain, the producer of C-SPAN's
acclaimed series on America's first ladies and the author of a book on the
same subject, said, noting that there is precedent for such an arrangement.

'The best guesstimate with the Clintons is that Chelsea Clinton would take
over that role,' Swain said.

The last White House to have a hostess who was not the wife of the
president was exactly a century ago during the tenure of Woodrow Wilson.

After Wilson's first wife, Ellen, died a year and a half into his
presidency, their daughter, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, formally took on the
role of first lady at age 28 for more than a year until the president
remarried in 1915.

The only daughter of Benjamin Harrison, Mary McKee, also became the face of
the East Wing after her mother Caroline died. She was 34 when she assumed
the role, which she held until the end of her father's time as the nation's
chief executive.

Likewise, Martha Jefferson Randolph's mother, also named Martha, had
already passed away when her father, Thomas Jefferson, was elected to serve
in the Oval Office. That left the 28-year-old daughter of the nation's
third president to manage the East Wing.

In other instances, daughters-in-laws, sisters and even a niece fulfilled
the duties of the first lady when the position was otherwise vacant.

A recluse who didn't want her husband to win his bid for the White House,
Margaret 'Peggy' Taylor shunned the role of hostess and instead bestowed it
on her daughter, Mary Elizabeth 'Betty' Bliss.

Hillary Clinton’s first South Carolina campaign visit is May 27
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150512/PC1603/150519796/hillary-clinton-x2019-s-first-south-carolina-campaign-visit-is-may-27>
// Post and Courier // Schuyler Kropf - May 12, 2015

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton will make her first
campaign trip to South Carolina on May 27 - a Wednesday two weeks from now.

No list of sites or schedule of appearances was immediately released by the
campaign, but Charleston and Columbia are likely to be included.

Both areas are home to large pockets of traditional Democratic voters.

“It will be the first of many conversations with South Carolinians about
making sure the economy works for everyday Americans,” her campaign said in
a news release Tuesday.

“As she has said before, Hillary Clinton will work to earn every vote, run
hard in the 2016 South Carolina Primary and take nothing for granted,” the
announcement also said.

In 2008, Clinton lost her previous primary run here by a wide margin when
Barack Obama collected 55 percent of the vote in the multi-candidate field.

She finished a distant second, with 27 percent.

As a declared 2016 White House hopeful, Clinton has previously visited the
other early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. During those
stops she mostly favored small-scale events, such as roundtables with local
officials or students and other private gatherings.

But during her Las Vegas stop she gave her most comprehensive statement on
immigration reform as a presidential candidate, advocating “a full and
equal path to citizenship” for undocumented residents now in the U.S.

In advance of her South Carolina visit, Clinton supporters have been
meeting in grassroots events across the state. Nearly a dozen house parties
are scheduled in the upcoming weeks.

On Wednesday, the Hillary for South Carolina campaign will host its first
phone bank in the Midlands region, from 6-8 p.m.

Other house parties include Greenville on Saturday and Charleston on
Sunday. More events will follow in Spartanburg, Columbia and Rock Hill in
the next week, the campaign said.

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE

Banks brace for Bernie Sanders
<http://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/241693-banks-brace-for-bernie>
// The Hill // Kevin Cirill - May 12, 2015

Wall Street is worried that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s vigorous calls for
banking industry reform will pull Hillary Clinton to the left, as the two
presidential candidates battle for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

Sanders (I-Vt.) last week unveiled new legislation designed to break up the
nation’s largest banks, declaring that “if an institution is too big to
fail, it is too big to exist.”

Though it stands virtually no chance of passage in the GOP-controlled
Congress, the bill has industry leaders fretting.

“The prospects of it becoming law are nil,” said one banking lobbyist, who
described Sanders’s legislations as “shrill, bombastic and misaligned.”

“But we care about whether this impacts Hillary and whether she’ll try to
pander to the far left.”

Business and banking groups, and their lobbying forces on K Street, are
quickly lining up against the legislation.

“Misses the mark,” said Tom Quaadman, vice president of the U.S. Chamber
Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

“I fully expect Senator Sanders’s third attempt to break up banks to have
the same impact as the previous two: zero,” echoed Tony Fratto, a partner
at Hamilton Place Strategies, which does communications work with big banks.

Despite the vocal opposition from the business community, Sanders’s ability
to activate progressive outside groups could mean he may be able to move
Clinton to the left — even if, as conventional wisdom says, he poses no
real threat to the former secretary of State’s eventual nomination.

Sanders’s rhetoric signals that, seven years after the 2008 economic
collapse, progressives still see tapping into anger about the taxpayer
bailouts to big banks as a winning political strategy.

“When it comes down to it — he’s doing this not just because he’s trying to
demonize the industry but this populist stuff is popular with his base,” a
second banking lobbyist said.

Groups like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (DFA) have already
launched campaigns to get Clinton to adopt a more progressive platform and
to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) into the race, despite her
declarations that she’s not running for president.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who is sponsoring similar legislation in the
House, said that any criticism of the legislation is coming from “top
executives who control the biggest banks.”

“This isn’t about an election cycle,” Sherman said. “I am much more
interested in what Hillary Clinton does as president in office than in a
campaign. Campaigns are fun but governing is what matters.”

Still, Sherman said that he hopes the legislation, which even he conceded
isn’t likely to become law this Congress, might move the needle for his
party.

“I’m hoping that some time in the next few years we will have ‘too big to
fail is too big to exist’ policy either by using existing laws or by
passing new statutes,” Sherman said.

Paul Merski, an executive vice president at the Independent Community
Bankers Association, said many smaller community banks support Sanders’s
effort.

“It may force [Clinton] to speak about ‘too big to fail,’ ” Merski said.

Clinton is under pressure from Sanders, Warren and other liberals to take a
harder line on financial issues as she looks to rally Democrats behind her
campaign. But at the same time, too forceful a stance could cause her a
headache in the general election.

In other areas — such as immigration, gay marriage and campaign finance
—Clinton has taken liberal positions on issues since launching her campaign.

But she has yet to release any specific type of economic policy agenda,
something that she is certain to be asked about in the coming months.

Meanwhile, Warren, Sanders and other progressives have raised criticism
about former President Bill Clinton’s economic policies during the late
1990s. Chief among them is his support for — and signature on — the repeal
in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall banking law requiring commercial banks to
split their investment banking operations.

Sanders was one of eight lawmakers to vote against Glass-Steagall’s repeal.

“Bernie Sanders is a long-time champion of these issues,” said Neil Sroka,
spokesman for the DFA. “This is about Democrats putting forward very early
on in the cycle big progressive ideas.”

Quaadman was less convinced.

“Continuing to politicize the debate about our financial regulatory system
will not produce the thoughtful, forward-looking leadership and smart
regulation we need to grow our economy,” Quaadman said.

O'Malley plans 4 stops in NH Wednesday
<http://www.wmur.com/politics/omalley-plans-4-stops-in-nh-wednesday/32952016>
// WMUR // May 11, 2015

MANCHESTER, N.H. —Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has four New
Hampshire stops planned for Wednesday. The Democrat will begin the day with
a diner stop in Manchester at a location to be announced, followed by a
visit to the Alpha Loft, a business incubator, also in Manchester.

O’Malley will attend a private fundraiser for the New Hampshire House
Democratic Caucus at midday and then attend a party at the Durham home of
former executi

O'Malley Returns to New Hampshire this Week
<http://patch.com/new-hampshire/concord-nh/omalley-returns-new-hampshire-week>
// Cocord Patch // Tony Schinella - May 12, 2015

Potential first-in-the-nation Democratic primary presidential candidate
former Gov. Martin O’Malley, D-MD, will be in New Hampshire beginning on
May 13, according to a statement.

O’Malley will be making a diner stop in Manchester at around 8:30 a.m.
He’ll also be visiting Alpha Loft on Elm Street.

He’ll be participating in a private fundraiser for the House Democratic
Caucus at the New Hampshire Democratic Party headquarters.

Later, he’ll be participating in a house party hosted by Dudley Dudley in
Durham. O’Malley will then be campaigning with Maureen Mann, candidate for
NH House of Representatives.

Bill de Blasio proposing national paid family leave that his own employees
don’t get
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/05/12/bill-de-blasio-proposing-national-paid-family-leave-that-his-own-employees-dont-get/>
// WaPo // Reid Wilson - May 12, 2015

When New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio rolls out his liberal response to
the Contract with America today in Washington, his 13-point plan will call
for a $15 minimum wage, universal pre-kindergarten programs — and paid
family leave.

That left some New York City employees scratching their heads: The half a
million people who work for the city don’t receive paid maternity or
paternity leave through their own health plan.

In fact, New York City’s health plan lags far behind even the most basic
Affordable Care Act plans when it comes to maternity care. The health-care
plan is one of a number of plans grandfathered into the ACA, which means it
doesn’t have to meet standards the law requires of other plans.

So while the Affordable Care Act requires plans competing in Health
Insurance Marketplaces to cover things like contraception, breastfeeding
supplies and screenings for gestational diabetes and domestic violence, the
grandfather clause allows New York’s health plan to avoid offering any of
those.

De Blasio has proposed broadening the city’s health-care plan to cover
those expenses, but the city council and the state legislature in Albany
have yet to act.

“Mayor de Blasio supports a national paid family leave policy as the most
comprehensive way to achieve this vital goal. We are also studying what we
can do locally, including how best to provide paid family leave to City
employees,” Amy Spitalnick, de Blasio’s spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

In March, he signed legislation requiring companies with more than five
employees to provide paid sick leave, a measure his office estimated will
extend to about half a million New Yorkers working for the private sector.

The grandfathered rules in the Affordable Care Act were designed to protect
health-care plans that existed before March 23, 2010, the day President
Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. More than half of all companies
offered at least one grandfathered plan in their range of options,
according to a 2013 Kaiser Family Foundation survey.

But enrollment in those plans is dropping, from 56 percent of covered
workers in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013, according to the Bell Policy Center.

GOP

New Hampshire Poll: 2016 Republican Pack Has No Breakout Candidate Yet
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-12/new-hampshire-poll-2016-republican-pack-has-no-breakout-candidate-yet>
// Bloomberg // Margaret Talev - May 12, 2015

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush may have money and name recognition, but
voter enthusiasm for Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Wisconsin
Governor Scott Walker is fueling a wide-open contest in New Hampshire, nine
months before the state's first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

More likely Republican primary voters in a new Bloomberg Politics/Saint
Anselm New Hampshire Poll said they had either a “very favorable” or
“somewhat favorable” opinion of Paul than any other GOP contender, 62
percent. He's followed by Rubio at 60 percent, Bush at 59 percent, and
Walker and Texas Senator Ted Cruz at 54 percent. Rubio's popularity with
New Hampshire primary voters represents a surge, up from 52 percent in
February, suggesting a good bounce off of his formal entry into the race
last month.

Bush has the highest unfavorable rating from likely Republican primary
voters among the party's leading contenders, with 35 percent saying they
had either “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinions of him.
Paul's unfavorable rating is 27 percent among primary voters, while Rubio's
is 18 percent and Walker's is only 14 percent.

Regardless of who wins the primary, the general election may pose problems
for Republicans in New Hampshire. No Republican has a higher favorability
rating among likely general-election voters than Democratic front-runner
Hillary Clinton, who stands at 46 percent.

The poll, conducted May 2-6 by Washington-based Purple Insights, found that
the four leading Republican candidates are neck and neck: Paul and Walker
each were the first choice of 12 percent of likely GOP primary voters,
while Bush and Rubio took 11 percent. While Cruz scored a high favorable
mark, he was the first choice of just 6 percent of GOP primary voters.

“This is incredibly fluid, and all of these underlying numbers point to
that fluidity,” said Purple Insights' Doug Usher.

“It's four people, all at about the same level, with no clear
front-runner,” Usher said. “So the next question: Is one of them better
liked? And the answer is, there are three of them who are better liked:
Paul, Walker, and Rubio,” when their unfavorable ratings and the intensity
of voters' favorable feelings toward them are taken into account.

When only the “very favorable” category is measured among likely Republican
primary voters, Walker leads with 25 percent, followed by Rubio at 24
percent, Paul at 22 percent, and Bush, Cruz, and retired neurosurgeon Ben
Carson at 19 percent. Usher said Bush's perceived fundraising advantage may
even out the dynamic to some degree.

“Jeb's got the money, and these folks have popularity. If you're Jeb and
you look at these numbers, you're thinking, 'I've got to bolster my
strength, and I've got to bring them down a peg.'”

Among likely general-election voters, Paul enjoys the highest favorability
rating of the Republican contenders, with 40 percent expressing either
“very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” opinions of him. Rubio and Bush
follow, at 37 percent. Behind them are former Arkansas Governor Mike
Huckabee, at 34 percent; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 32 percent;
Cruz at 31 percent; and Walker at 30 percent.

Many Republicans–including Paul and Bush–have higher unfavorable ratings
than favorables among likely general-election voters.

Bush's unfavorable rating among likely general-election voters–53
percent–is the highest of the four leading Republicans. Only businessman
and TV personality Donald Trump and Christie had worse unfavorables, at 64
percent and 54 percent respectively.

Among independent voters—a barometer of general-election dynamics—Paul
again enjoys an advantage among the four leading Republicans, with a
favorable-to-unfavorable ratio of 44 percent to 39 percent. Rubio also is
in positive territory, 36 percent to 32 percent. Walker gets a 27 percent
favorable rating from independents and a 29 percent unfavorable rating,
while Bush's rating is 38 percent favorable to 51 percent unfavorable.

Underscoring the fluidity of the race, the poll found that the Republican
presidential hopefuls have yet to distinguish themselves from one another
when it comes to specific leadership traits.

Likely Republican primary voters were asked which of five candidates—Bush,
Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker—were best described by the phrase “cares
about people like you.” Nearly half of the respondents didn't pick a
specific candidate. Among the individual candidates, Walker fared best, at
15 percent.

Similar results for other questions on leadership, honesty, values, and
vision suggest that all five have room to grow as the state's voters get to
know more about them.

Les McKechnie, 68, of Freedom, N.H., a retired sales engineer and Army
colonel who responded to the poll, said Rubio is his leading choice because
“he's young; he's got new ideas.” But in a reflection of just how much
opinions can change, McKechnie jokingly added: “That was last week.”

“You never know what's going to happen,” he said. “We're so far away from
the ultimate determination.”

The poll included 500 general-election voters as well as oversamples to
have 400 Republican primary voters and 400 Democratic primary voters. It
has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points on
general-election questions and plus or minus 4.9 percentage points on
primary-election questions. The margin of error in subgroups such as
independents voting in the general election may be higher.

Jeb Bush Backpedals Again
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/us/politics/jeb-bush-walks-back-iraq-war-comments.html?referrer=>
// New York Times // Maggie Haberman -May 12, 2015

Jeb Bush on Tuesday sought to arrest a chorus of criticism from Democrats
and some conservatives after he told an interviewer that, knowing what
history has since shown about intelligence failures, he still would have
authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Calling in to Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Mr. Bush said he had
misunderstood a question that one of Mr. Hannity’s Fox News colleagues,
Megyn Kelly, had asked him in an interview shown on Sunday and Monday
nights.

“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess,” Mr. Bush said. “I was talking
about, given what people knew then.”

The attempt at mopping-up was quick, but it did not bring the controversy
to an immediate end: When Mr. Hannity asked about the 2003 Iraq invasion
again, in yes-or-no fashion, Mr. Bush said he did not know what the answer
would have been, saying, “That’s a hypothetical.” Then, he seemed to go out
of his way to absolve his brother, former President George W. Bush, who
ordered the invasion: “Mistakes were made, as they always are in life,” Mr.
Bush said.

It was the third time in six weeks that Mr. Bush had to backpedal, offering
a stark reminder that despite his deep political ties and his family’s
history in elected office, he remains a novice on the national campaign
trail.

Allies believe that Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, has had to contend
with an unfair level of scrutiny that no other Republican has faced. Though
his team still lacks formal structure, Mr. Bush is generally more visible
than, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who entered the race for the Democratic
nomination in mid-April but has not taken reporters’ questions in three
weeks.

But for Mr. Bush, the last six weeks have been a bracing reminder that
helping a relative run for president is not the same as running yourself.

Mr. Bush, who is said to take a dim view of his Republican rivals’
leadership qualities, prides himself on his candor, authenticity and
ability to work without a script, and his skills as a candidate have
noticeably sharpened. But he has repeatedly paid a price for straying from
his briefing notes.

In a radio interview in late March, Mr. Bush praised an Indiana law billed
as protecting religious freedom that was backed by Gov. Mike Pence, saying
that if people read the law, they would find nothing discriminatory in it.

Less than 48 hours later, after a number of Republican donors complained to
his advisers, Mr. Bush told donors in Silicon Valley that he believed
Indiana would end up in “the right place” with a compromise fix that would
offer greater gay rights protections.

People close to Mr. Bush later told allies that he had gone further than he
had intended to in the radio interview.

Also in late March, Mr. Bush incurred the wrath of pro-Israel hawks by
refusing to step in to prevent James A. Baker III — the former secretary of
state who is on a long list of foreign policy advisers to Mr. Bush — from
appearing before the liberal pro-Israel group J Street. Fulfilling the
predictions of Mr. Baker’s critics, Mr. Bush has faced questions about the
episode at closed-door meetings with donors and party activists ever since.

As late as last week, in a meeting in Manhattan with more than 40 foreign
policy-minded donors organized by the hedge-fund executive Paul Singer, Mr.
Bush called Mr. Baker a “good man” but added that he was 85 — a remark
several people in the room took to mean that he believed Mr. Baker’s
worldview was dated.

Still, Mr. Bush conceded that his rollout of such a broad array of foreign
policy advisers had been “a mistake.” He had pleased no one by putting so
many people on the list, he said, instead giving all corners of the party
something to criticize.

Mr. Bush’s botching of the question from Ms. Kelly on the Iraq invasion —
one that was eminently foreseeable for a brother of the president who
ordered it — was seized upon by commentators across the political spectrum.

“Jeb’s statement is likely to resonate until he either changes his position
or loses the race for the Republican nomination,” wrote Byron York, the
chief political correspondent for the conservative Washington Examiner.

Not long before Mr. Hannity’s interview with Mr. Bush was broadcast on
Tuesday, one of Mr. Bush’s potential rivals, Gov. Chris Christie of New
Jersey, sought to draw a contrast between himself and Mr. Bush.

“I want to directly answer your question, because that’s what I do,” Mr.
Christie told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “If we knew then what we know now and I
were the president of the United States, I wouldn’t have gone to war. But
you don’t get to replay history.”

Jeb Bush, Ana Navarro and the Question That May Have Been Misheard
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/us/politics/jeb-bush-ana-navarro-and-the-question-that-may-have-been-misheard.html>
// New York Times // Jason Horowitz - May 12, 2015

MIAMI — The media’s preferred expert on Jeb Bush’s inner thoughts tried to
explain on Tuesday morning the likely Republican presidential candidate’s
much discussed remarks to an interviewer that, even knowing what he knows
now, he would have authorized the invasion of Iraq.

“I can tell you that I emailed him this morning, and I said to him, ‘Hey,
I’m a little confused by this answer so I’m genuinely wondering, did you
mishear the question?’” Ana Navarro, an oft-quoted dial-a-zinger, said
Tuesday on CNN, where she is a political pundit. “And he said, ‘Yes, I
misheard the question.’”

Ms. Navarro, 43, is often identified as a “confidante” of Jeb Bush or a
“Republican strategist.” But her chief qualification is that she, better
than anyone in the 2016 presidential cycle, hits the sweet spot of the
Republican Party’s hunger for Hispanic female validators, the political
media’s craving for an aura of access, and the overall dearth of wit in the
talking point echo chamber.

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?

Well liked in political media circles, Ms. Navarro visits primary states
and skewers Mr. Bush’s potential opponents. (“I don’t need her to drown me
in estrogen every time she opens her mouth,” she said of Hillary Rodham
Clinton on CNN.) Her rollicking commentary and willingness to criticize
Republicans on same-sex marriage and immigration issues make her a favorite
of TV bookers.

How much of a confidante she is of Mr. Bush, however, is open to question.
She never worked as a strategist on any of his campaigns, and she had to
leave a job as Florida’s director of immigration policy when he was
governor after it was discovered that she did not have a law license.
Still, her connection to Mr. Bush has been decades in the making.

“She’s a friend” who “hangs out in South Florida” and “had been around the
political world,” said Jeb Bush Jr., a son of the former governor. “We’ve
known her for a long time,” he said, adding that having “more Hispanic or
Latina conservatives out there” is good “for any Republican, especially
Dad.”

Bush père et fils both keep offices in Coral Gables’s Biltmore Hotel, the
president of which is Ms. Navarro’s boyfriend, Gene Prescott, 71, a
Democratic fund-raiser. On a recent afternoon, Mr. Prescott sat in the
courtyard of the hotel’s Fontana restaurant scooping the froth off his
cappuccino with a biscotto. Ms. Navarro herself talks often of her
afternoons spent among the faux Grecian statues around the pool of the
Spanish colonial-style hotel.

Ms. Navarro at first declined to comment for this article. “She said, ‘Do
Not Cooperate,’ in big, bold flashing letters,” said Donna Brazile, Ms.
Navarro’s Democratic counterpart on CNN, with whom she enjoys drinking wine
and shooting back oysters-on-the-half–shell. But after her remarks on
Tuesday morning, which were not authorized or entirely appreciated by Mr.
Bush’s nascent campaign, Ms. Navarro wrote: “I’m often described as Jeb’s
adviser. It’s the opposite. Jeb has helped me and doled out words of wisdom
and advice throughout my adult life. I am grateful for that.”

The daughter of a Nicaraguan businessman who opposed the rise of the
leftist Sandanistas, Ms. Navarro came to Florida in 1980 at age 8. She went
on to graduate from the University of Miami and then St. Thomas University
Law School. As an activist in the Nicaraguan community, she befriended Mr.
Bush as he lobbied Congress on an immigration law to benefit others fleeing
her home country. She joined Mr. Bush’s transition team and then his
administration.

“I am passing on your email to ana navarro who just came on as our
immigration lawyer/advisor,” Mr. Bush replied to a constituent in an email
on Jan. 31, 1999.

Ms. Navarro said her initial job did not require a law license. But after
being reassigned to another one that did, she left state government.

“We parted amicably,” said Ms. Navarro, adding that Mr. Bush helped set her
up with a public affairs firm. From that perch she communicated with him
frequently, according to emails that have since become public.

In one email she told him that he was “looking verrrry gubernatorial” and
asked him if he could make some remarks for a “primera pagina” Wall Street
Journal article about a client of hers. She told him that the Ryder
company, a major employer in Florida, was going through a rough patch that
could lead to its scaling back in the state, and that the article could
help the company avoid that. It would be “enormemente” appreciated, she
wrote.

Mr. Bush wrote back, in an email peppered with sideways smiley faces, “I
will speak highly about Ryder which I will do with gusto.”

More emails sprinkled with Spanish and smiley faces followed, and Ms.
Navarro became an expert at leveraging her access to the governor to
benefit her clients. And she made sure her clients knew she had access. In
2002, she wrote to Mr. Bush explaining that she had helped persuade
Nicaragua’s president, Enrique Bolaños, to take in Cuban refugees
intercepted by the American authorities at sea, in part by assuring him
that such a measure would be appreciated by Mr. Bush and his brother,
President George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton-Aligned Group Gets Closer to Her Campaign 3:27 PM ET

In the fall of 2003, she wrote to Mr. Bush that “all the commies are coming
to town” for an event at the Biltmore Hotel promoting a normalization of
relations with Cuba. She wrote that she had “persuaded” the Biltmore to
allow her to stage a counterevent attended by prominent opponents of the
Castro government.

“Ana, you are right on target with the counter event,” Mr. Bush replied. “I
will try to make it.”

Mr. Bush’s senior staff was less enthusiastic. “Please tell me he is not
doing????” Arlene DiBenigno, a top aide to Mr. Bush, wrote to his
scheduler, adding, “bottom line I think everyone has agreed because they
think Gov is going to be there.”

The Biltmore is a concrete connection between Ms. Navarro and Mr. Bush, but
it was once a source of tension. In a 2004 email with the subject line
“budget request,” Ms. Navarro asked Mr. Bush to look with a “very kind and
generous eye” at proposed funding for the hotel.

But Mr. Bush later vetoed the item, prompting another email from Ms.
Navarro.

“My boyfriend hates you,” she wrote, referring to Mr. Prescott.

If Mr. Prescott “hates me,” Mr. Bush wrote back, “I am sorry about that.”

Since then, Ms. Navarro has stayed active in politics.

She joined Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign as a leader of his
Hispanic advisory council in 2008, and she made a name for herself by
criticizing fellow Republicans, especially former Gov. Charlie Crist of
Florida. She attacked Governor Crist for endorsing the Obama
administration’s stimulus plan and once upbraided him on a plane.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, she supported former Gov. Jon M.
Huntsman Jr. of Utah and became a familiar face on television as a CNN
political analyst, increasingly known for her candid assessments. That led
in February 2014 to another job as a contributor to ABC News.

While Ms. Navarro has been a consistent and highly quotable booster of Mr.
Bush in all places, she seemed to acknowledge that she had gone too far on
CNN on Tuesday.

When pressed as to what Mr. Bush should have said regarding invading Iraq,
Ms. Navarro answered, “That’s one for his spokesperson, not for me.”

But on this occasion, she seemed to have given Mr. Bush little choice about
what to say.

“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess. I was talking about, given what
people knew then,” Mr. Bush said in a Tuesday evening interview with Sean
Hannity. He added, “Knowing what we know now, clearly there were mistakes.”

Jeb keeps it all in the family
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-mideast-israeli-adviser-george-w-bush-117829.html>
// POLITICO // Roger Simon - May 12, 2015

Would you let Donald Trump tell you where to get a haircut? Would you take
driving tips from Lindsay Lohan? Or ask Sarah Palin’s advice about …
anything?

Whom we seek advice from reveals a lot about ourselves, our judgment, our
common sense.

So it was a shock over the past week when presidential candidate in
training Jeb Bush divulged that his closest adviser on Mideast and Israeli
affairs is George W. Bush.

I actually blinked when I read that. George W. used to make jokes about his
own intelligence. Or lack thereof. This was one of his favorite anecdotes:

“Don’t try to be charming, witty or intelligent,” Laura Bush told her
husband as he began his campaign for president. “Just be yourself.”

As the years went by, that got less and less funny. And today, many look at
George W. Bush and see the man who launched a disastrous war in Iraq that
killed thousands and squandered trillions.

But not his brother Jeb. “If you want to know who I listen to for advice,
it’s him,” Jeb said of George W. last Tuesday at a secret meeting for
fat-cat investors in New York.

Which leads me to wonder just how many times Jeb was dropped on his head as
a child.

History will record that George W. Bush’s most significant contribution to
world history was invading Iraq under the totally false notion that Iraq
had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq War of 2003-11 resulted in 4,488 U.S. dead and 32,222 U.S.
wounded, and cost more than $2 trillion.

According to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for
International Studies at Brown University, the war also “killed at least
134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many
as four times that number.”

Well, stuff happens. You want an omelet, you’ve got to break some eggs. And
at least we got something out of the war, right?

Well, not so much.

The Brown report said, “The United States gained little from the war while
Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist
militants in the region, set back women’s rights, and weakened an already
precarious healthcare system.

“Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure
with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud.”

According to Robert Costa and Matea Gold of The Washington Post, one
attendee of the fat-cat meeting in New York “was ‘stunned’ to hear Jeb Bush
specifically mention George W. Bush as his go-to adviser. ‘I started
looking around and wondering if people were recording it. It was jarring,’
the attendee said. ‘If video of it got out, it’d be devastating.’’’

Maybe. Maybe not. A few days after the New York gathering, Jeb Bush told
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “I would have [authorized the invasion of Iraq], and
so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody.”

And “just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places
where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of
those,” Jeb said.

Yeah, what the heck. It was just a war. And some really, really smart
people were all for it. People like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

When you’re president, you pick the people you want around you and then you
listen to them.

Some 71 percent of Americans believe the Iraq War “wasn’t worth it,”
according to a June 2014 NBC/WSJ poll. But it’s easy to criticize after the
fact.

Back before the war started, it was the men and women gathered in the
Situation Room and the Oval Office who advised the president on the
war-or-peace, life-or-death decisions.

And choosing those people is one of the most important things a president
does.

So to fully appreciate the importance of Jeb’s revelation that George W.
will be his chief adviser when it comes to the Mideast, you’ve got to keep
in mind that Jeb’s entire campaign is built around one selling point:

Jeb is the smart one in the family.

No Iowa Straw Poll for Jeb Bush
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/05/12/jeb-bush-skip-iowa-straw-poll/27187589/?hootPostID=1e6de13c072a326655d7bab4a1a0b1d0>
// Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs - May 12, 2015

The likely Republican presidential candidate will instead attend a
competing event, the RedState Gathering in Atlanta, the day of the Iowa
event, GOP sources in Iowa told The Des Moines Register Tuesday. A
spokesman for Bush confirmed the report.

Bush, a former Florida governor, is the first among the Republican 2016
presidential field to officially opt out of the straw poll, a
nationally-renowned event that has drawn significant criticism over the
years.

The Republican Party of Iowa, which hosts the Iowa Straw Poll, has been
working to shore up the event’s reputation and lure candidates by
addressing some of the most prevalent complaints. Last week, Iowa GOP
officials announced they’ll provide free tent space and utilities for the
campaigns. The straw poll has been bashed as having outsized importance,
even to the point of having losing candidates drop out of the race.
Campaigns sometimes spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at the straw
poll as a sort of dry run for the Iowa caucuses.

But for the GOP presidential contenders, the straw poll provides more of a
risk-reward analysis. For those who compete, the aim is to do better than
expected. This cycle, some contenders have said, they intend to focus
instead on the caucuses, which will take place in precincts across the
state on Feb. 1.

Recent polling has shown that Iowa isn’t exactly friendly territory for
Bush. He ranked in seventh place out of 14 GOP contenders tested in a April
25-May 4 Quinnipiac University poll. When asked if there is any candidate
they would definitely not support, 25 percent of likely Iowa GOP
caucusgoers named Bush. That put Bush at the top of that negative list.

Late Monday, the founder of the RedState blog, Erick Erickson, announced
that Bush, former CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former
Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker would speak during
the three-day RedState Gathering Aug. 6-8. The Register was first to report
that Bush will address the GOP activists in Georgia on Aug, 8, the same day
as the straw poll.

Fighting the Last War
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/jeb_bush_must_speak_clearly_about_america_s_lessons_in_iraq_the_former_florida.html>
// Slate // John Dickerson - May 12, 2015

What does Jeb Bush think about Iraq? It’s not clear. When he’s asked about
it, he is quick to note that it’s an issue where people won’t find much
daylight between him and his brother George W. Bush. “Just for the news
flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big
space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those,” he told
Megyn Kelly, the Fox News host.

There’s no evidence that was what Kelly was going after, but there is an
endless obsession with measuring him relative to his brother and father, so
he’s naturally wary. But he’s also trying to twist any questions about his
brother’s foreign policy legacy in Iraq into gotcha journalism (see Mark
Leibovich), making inquiries into the topic seem like a low-rent effort to
sow filial discord. The implication is that if it weren’t for that media
fixation, there wouldn’t be so much poking around on where he stands on
Iraq.

That’s obviously not the case. Or it shouldn’t be anyway. Iraq and what
went right and wrong are a part of any intelligent conversation about
America’s foreign policy posture, particularly the posture as Republicans
see it. Republicans in the main believe that President Obama has been weak.
GOP presidential candidates promise they will be strong. If Obama is at the
weak end of the continuum, then George W. Bush’s actions in Iraq and
Afghanistan represent the opposite—resolute strength and risk-taking. So
where do the various 2016 candidates fit on that continuum? That requires a
thorough discussion of Obama’s foreign policy—and also the policy he
inherited.

These are the events that give shape and details to abstract discussions.
We could allow ourselves to use vague words like weak and strong about the
largest military intervention America has launched since the Vietnam War,
but then we’d just blunder forward. So it’s in everyone’s interest to get
specific, especially since we’re going to spend so much time together in
this presidential campaign.

It’s hard to know what Bush believes not just because he doesn’t seem to
want to talk about Iraq, but when he does, it’s confusing.

 Knowing what he knows now, would Jeb Bush approve of the Iraq war? This is
the question he was asked by Megyn Kelly. He seemed to answer a different
one. Bush said, “I would,” but then went on to say, “So would Hillary
Clinton, by the way.”

That’s not quite right. Clinton would not. She has said that given what
transpired after giving President Bush the power to go to war, she would
not give him the authority again to wage it. She’s said her vote was wrong.
This raises questions about her judgment that she’ll have to answer. Jeb
Bush’s answer suggested that perhaps he heard a different question than the
one he was asked. He seemed to think he was asked to answer what he would
have done in 2003 before the invasion. (A request for clarification from
the campaign on Monday did not bring clarity, which suggests that the
former governor will be revising and extending his remarks.)

So which does Bush believe? If there is no distance between Jeb and his
brother, then he believes that the decision to invade was “the right
decision,” given all that has happened. That raises political and policy
questions. First, the political one: What are voters going to think about
this position given that the war’s costs have been so high—nearly 4,500
Americans dead and 32,000 injured—and the promises of the invasion—a cache
of weapons of mass destruction and democracy-spreading through the
region—did not materialize.

Laura Ingraham, a conservative who is no Jeb Bush fan, found the claim
outlandish. “You can’t still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane
human being, was the right thing to do,” Ingraham said on her radio show in
response to Bush’s remarks. In a recent piece in National Review, Jim
Geraghty asked the question, “Regardless of how you feel about George W.
Bush, the pre-war intelligence, Michael Moore and the anti-war left, or the
opportunistic flip-floppers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, is there
anyone who would argue that the price America paid in its battle in Iraq
was NOT too high?”

In June of last year, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that only 18
percent of the country thought that the Iraq war was worth the cost. So a
candidate who holds that view would seem to have some explaining to do if
he is to convince voters that he should be the next commander in chief.

Given what we know now, if Jeb Bush believes that he would not have
authorized the war, then he will find himself at odds with members of his
brother’s administration, such as Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, who say
America should be proud of removing Saddam Hussein from power. In other
words, that the war was still worth it. If Jeb Bush has a different view,
then he’ll be asked if the war was a mistake. Bush may want to put it in
the category that Hillary Clinton now puts her own war vote: an error made
in good faith.  Though unlike Clinton, Bush doesn’t have to defend whether
he did his homework before making that mistake.

But let’s leave aside the topography of views. As a policy matter, the Iraq
war and a candidate’s position on it raises a host of important questions.
Bush has said in deflecting questions about Iraq that he doesn’t want to
relitigate the past. But explaining what we’ve learned from the past and
how we understand it is central to human experience; it’s not some gotcha
question. Also, as a practical matter, Republicans don’t want to treat the
past as off limits; doing so would rob them of an iconic example of
strength from the past: Ronald Reagan’s treatment of the Soviet Union.

Republicans also have an interest in maintaining conversations about U.S.
obligations to countries where we have had a hand in blowing things up.
That’s in part what justifies rigorous questioning of Clinton and the
misadventure in Libya that led to the Benghazi attacks. The country is a
mess. The former secretary of state should explain why it is and why that
outcome wasn’t inevitable given U.S. policy.

Candidates collude to avoid the type of hypothetical questions they must
rigorously engage once they take office. When they go on foreign trips
organized by their campaign staffs, they only learn things that affirm
their existing beliefs, which is what happened when Obama, then a senator,
went to Iraq in 2008. So there is a conspiracy among all politicians to
show us very little about their thinking on foreign affairs. Questions
about history are all we have to go on to investigate how a candidate
understands the relationship between action and consequence.

The U.S. military has studied the last decade of war and found 11 enduring
lessons. What does the Iraq war tell Jeb Bush or any presidential candidate
about the limits of U.S. military power, the possibility of nation-building
in the Middle East, or our ability to predict outcomes when large-scale
operations are launched? What does it teach about the limits of U.S.
popular support for a process that certainly will last longer than civilian
patience, and what doctrine should emerge from these lessons that guides
the United States in the future? The Bush brothers agree that the security
vacuum in Iraq after the invasion created the conditions that led to
destabilization. How did that happen? Didn’t people predict that might
happen before the invasion was launched? Why weren’t they listened to?
Where did the process break down?

It is possible that after doing a careful assessment one could conclude
that the United States should never have gone to war in Iraq in 2003 and
should not have withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. Arguing that position or any
position that seemed the product of hard thinking would inform a lot of
voters about a candidate’s worldview. Then voters would know what to expect
if that candidate ever gave one of those grim addresses from the Oval
Office explaining the rationale for the next U.S. military action. If we
knew what the men and women seeking the presidency really thought, then
there’d be no gotcha questions left to ask.

Chris Christie hits Jeb Bush on Iraq War
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/politics/chris-christie-jeb-bush-iraq-war/index.html>
// CNN // Alexandra Jaffe - May 12, 2015

"I think President (George W.) Bush made the best decision he could at the
time, given that his intelligence community was telling him that there was
(weapons of mass destruction) and that there were other threats right there
in Iraq," he told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead."

"But I don't think you can honestly say that if we knew then that there was
no (weapons of mass destruction), that the country should have gone to
war," he said.

The comments were a direct response to Bush's support for the Iraq War
during a Fox News interview. Though Bush was asked by host Megyn Kelly
whether, "knowing what we know now," he would've authorized the war in
Iraq, he responded affirmatively to a slightly different scenario.

"I would have (authorized the invasion), and so would have Hillary Clinton,
just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted
with the intelligence they got," Bush said in the interview.

The remarks drew widespread criticism from Bush's left and right flanks,
and caused a close ally, GOP strategist Ana Navarro, to backtrack on the
comments, saying Bush told her he had "misheard" Kelly's question.

But the comments gave Christie -- who is actively contemplating a
presidential bid, and would compete with Bush for establishment Republican
support if both run -- an opening to differentiate himself from Bush, and
an opportunity for attack.

Christie jabbed at the former Florida governor, who's brother and father
have served in the White House, saying that Americans should "avoid ...
continuing to go backwards in this country."

"We need a forward-looking foreign policy that talks about how to reassert
American authority and influence around the world," he said.

Clinton's "pandering ... disgusts people"

Bush wasn't the only potential opponent that drew fire from Christie in the
broad interview with Tapper conducted in New Hampshire, where Christie had
delivered an economic speech and was planning a town hall meeting.

In response to a question on his own position on immigration reform,
Christie took direct aim at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
accusing her of "pandering" with her recent speech promising to go further
than President Barack Obama in giving illegal immigrants legal and
citizenship rights.

"The pandering that's going on by Secretary Clinton is really the kind of
thing that disgusts people about American politics," he said. "The fact is
that, all of a sudden, she's had this epiphany: She wants to go to the left
of President Obama. I didn't know there was room to the left of President
Obama on an issue like this -- but that's apparently where she's headed."

Christie pointedly didn't answer whether he believes legal status for
immigrants creates a second-class citizenship, promising to "give a
thoughtful and complete answer on immigration" if he becomes a presidential
candidate.

He also issued a veiled jab at Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul for his efforts to
rein in government surveillance programs, arguing that a major lesson from
the Iraq War was that "there is almost nothing more valuable to a strong
national defense than a strong, empowered intelligence community."

"I'm very concerned about those who want to weaken our intelligence
community. The President has done it already. And there are those that are
running for president now that want to weaken the intelligence community
even more," he said.

Can't be responsible for "people who wind up in your employ"

Despite his sharp words for his potential opponents, whether Christie will
actually pull the trigger on a run remains an open question -- and
political observers have increasingly begun to question his viability in
the race. Three of his former associates were hit with criminal charges
related to the scandal surrounding lane closures on the George Washington
Bridge this month; New Jersey's economy continues to struggle and Christie
has stalled in the polls.

Christie sounded unswayed from an expected run during his Tuesday interview
with Tapper. He defended his economic record as one of improvement,
declaring that in New Jersey he "inherited a wrecked ship and we've now
made it seaworthy," and promising to "make it even better than that" by the
end of his term.

Christie also insisted that the act of political retribution from his
former allies that landed them criminal charges was not evidence of a
cultural issue within his administration.

"I think, unfortunately, there are going to be times when people that work
for me do things that are completely out of character," he said.

The governor also said he bore no responsibility for the situation,
declaring, "You can't be responsible for the bad acts of some people who
wind up in your employ."

Republican voters "could change their minds"

And he's continuing his preparations for a potential run, visiting New
Hampshire this week to deliver an address on the economy, with another
address on national security planned for next week.

Though a recent NBC News/WSJ survey showed 57% of Republican primary voters
said they couldn't back Christie -- the highest opposition faced by any
potential candidate in the field -- Christie told Tapper on Tuesday that
his polling position has no bearing on his decision to run.

"If you determine what your commitment is to your country by what your poll
number is on any particular morning, then I'd suggest to you that you have
no business running for President of the United States," he said.

That's because, Christie said, that 57% of Republicans "could change their
minds."

"The job of campaigns -- if we were to engage in one -- is to change minds.
And the job of leaders is not to follow polls, it's to change polls," he
said. "If I decide to run for president, I'll run, and my job would be to
convince people to vote for me."

Jeb Bush’s eloquent defense of Christianity
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/religious-entanglements/2015/05/12/0169ec30-f8e4-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html>
// WaPo // Kathleen Parker – May 12, 2015

It is nearly axiomatic that presidential contests tend to shine a harsh
light on conservative Christians — inasmuch as they are viewed as the
Republican Party’s base and are, therefore, deemed fair game.

Of course, religious folks come in a variety of stripes, checks and polka
dots. Many are Democrats. But it is the members of the Christian right —
evangelicals and Catholics, especially — who are treated every four years
to the sneers of lefties, academics, proud atheists (allow me to quote
myself: “There’s no dogma like no dogma”) and certain but not all media.

Kathleen Parker writes a twice-weekly column on politics and culture. She
received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary In 2010. View Archive

Roger Ailes’s Fox News has succeeded in no small part because he doesn’t
treat Christians as though they’re Darwin’s missing link.

Fortunately for Western civilization, Christianity has survived worse
insults. Lately, conservative Christians in the country that codified
freedom of religion have been placed on the defensive. Often viewed as
obstructionists to progress, a secular world wonders: What’s wrong with
those people? Why can’t they just get with the program?

Why can’t the Little Sisters of the Poor suck it up and sign off on the
Affordable Care Act’s demand that their insurance policy include
contraception funding? Ditto Hobby Lobby, the family-owned craft business
that prevailed in its Supreme Court fight to not fund insurance covering
contraception that destroys embryos.

Hobby Lobby detractors argued that the company was trying to impose its
religious beliefs on others. In fact, the family was resisting the
government’s insistence that they render those beliefs unto Caesar. (The
Supreme Court granted the Little Sisters an injunction pending their appeal
in the 10th Circuit that protects them from enforcement.)

These issues, I’ll admit, can seem arcane and are tiresome at times. But
I’m convinced, as Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr agreed during a debate last
year on these two cases, that the state should always go to extra lengths
to protect religious liberty whenever possible.

If only more Democrats and Republicans were as agreeable.

Recent history and more recent comments by the likeliest presidential
candidates make it clear, however, that Democrats and Republicans will take
very different approaches in future state/religion entanglements.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she has more or less promised that
the state’s interests will crush the individual’s as necessary to advance
women’s rights. Giving a fiery speech last month at Tina Brown’s “Women in
the World Summit,” Clinton plainly said: “Deep-seated cultural codes,
religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” so that women
can have unfettered access to “reproductive health care and safe
childbirth.”

One would like to imagine that Clinton was speaking only about primitive
cultures where children are forced into marriage and childbearing, or where
genital cutting is common. But we know that she also meant religious
conservatives closer to home whose beliefs get in the way. She explicitly
criticized Hobby Lobby for not paying for its employees’ contraception.

By contrast, Jeb Bush, who will become the GOP nominee if Republicans are
smart, assumed a much different tone and direction in his recent
commencement address at Liberty University.

“How strange, in our own time, to hear Christianity spoken of as some sort
of backward and oppressive force,” he said. “It’s a depressing fact that
when some people think of Christianity and of Judeo-Christian values, they
think of something static, narrow and outdated. . . . I cannot think of any
more subversive moral idea ever loosed on the world than ‘the last shall be
first, and the first last.’ ”

He also spoke of what our world would have been like without the “unalloyed
compassion, such genuine love, such thorough altruism,” as Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. described Christianity.

It would be defined, Bush said, by “power without restraint, conflict
without reconciliation, oppression without deliverance, corruption without
reformation, tragedy without renewal.”

In a culture more attuned to the grits-’n’-gravy style of a Mike Huckabee,
it is rare to hear Christianity discussed in such elevated terms. Indeed,
Huckabee can be expected to go after Bush as a blue-blooded elite who can’t
relate to everyday Americans. Well, yee-haw, one can hardly wait. But I
suspect that even conservative Southern Christians, who can absorb more
than one-syllable words, might appreciate hearing their beliefs so
eloquently described as by Bush.

To be fair, Clinton likely would have reframed her comments — and maybe
even her beliefs and accent — had she been speaking to a Christian
audience. But her spoken words can’t be deleted and her thinking is clear:
Religious beliefs have to be changed.

Or else what, pray tell?

Paul opposes granting Obama fast-track trade authority
<http://www.wmur.com/politics/paul-opposes-granting-obama-fasttrack-trade-authority/32951864?absolute=true>
// WMUR // John DiStasso - May 12, 2015

MANCHESTER, N.H. —Frustrated by being required to find his way to a private
“dungeon” to read the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, Rand Paul said
Monday he is a “no vote” on a provision to allow President Obama to
complete the deal on a fast track.

It may well be a first in the world of political tracking, the increasingly
common practice of shooting and posting video of political opponents,
trying to find a gaffe, a point of controversy or just an instant of
vulnerability.

The Republican presidential candidate said in an interview in Manchester he
will vote against granting Obama trade promotion authority, which limits
Congress to only up or down votes on trade deals. A vote on “TPA” is
expected as early as Tuesday on the Senate floor.

The Kentucky senator spent part of the day in New Hampshire before heading
back to Washington for a late afternoon vote.

He held a town hall at the Londonderry Lions Club, an event that was at
least partially overshadowed by a top New Hampshire staffer licking the
camera lens of a pro-Democratic video tracker. The video of David Chesley
quickly went viral on social media.

Paul told WMUR.com the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement “is being held
under lock and key” by the Obama administration “because they’re afraid
that if the public knows what we are going to vote on, that somehow that
would destroy the republic.”

Members of Congress must go to office of the U.S. Trade Representative to
see a copy of the agreement, but are not allowed to take notes, make copies
or bring any members of their staffs.

“I’ve told leadership I’m a ‘no’ vote” on trade promotion authority, Paul
said. “I’m hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven’t seen. I’m
not saying there wouldn’t be a time I could be for it, if I’d seen the
trade agreement, and it’s fine,” Paul said.

“I still might vote for the trade agreement, but I hate giving up power. We
give up so much power from Congress to the presidency, and with them being
so secretive on the treaty, it just concerns me what’s in the treaty,” he
said.

"The text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations has been available
for members of Congress to read since 2012 at their request. Earlier this
year, the administration took the additional step of placing copies of the
text in the Capitol building for members of Congress to review at their
convenience.

"Members of Congress can bring staffs and take notes when they review the
document. A number of Senators have chosen to read the text. In addition,
once the negotiations are complete, the full text of the agreement will be
available for the public and members of Congress to review for two months
before the president even signs the agreement in the first place and many
more months before any vote in Congress is ever taken."

McAlvanah continued, "It is simply untrue that members of Congress must go
to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to see the text. The
procedures that are followed regarding TPP are consistent with the
procedures of the Senate for handling other classified material.

"Trade Promotion Authority cedes no authority to the president whatsoever.
It is a law that provides the adminstration instructions on what to
negotiate, imposes requirements on the administration for congressional
consultation, and reiterates that Congress must approve any agreement
before it can enter into force.")

Paul supports court ruling on NSA

Paul has been a leader in the Senate to do away with the NSA’s power to
engage in mass collection of phone data. Last week, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled the program “exceeded the scope of what Congress has
authorized” in the Patriot Act.

Paul said he hopes the case eventually goes to the U.S. Supreme Court,
although that is not certain based on the status of the case. He said it is
significant that the appeals court did not rule on the constitutionality of
the NSA collection program.

“They ruled it illegal, and that may be lost on people but it’s a big
difference,” Paul said. “However, it’s a pretty important ruling to be
illegal. The court said the Patriot Act does not authorize this. But I also
think the Constitution doesn’t authorize this.”

He said the Fourth Amendment requires specific names to be on warrants,
“and you have to have probable cause and a judge has to sign it. So there
are a lot of reasons to say this is an overstep by the government.

“But I would end it all,” he said. “On day one if elected president, I
would stop the bulk collection. And when people say, ‘How would you stop
terrorism?’ I would say, ‘The old-fashioned way. We’d use the
Constitution.’”

The ability to “look into everyone’s house and into everyone’s records is
antithetical to what our founders wanted,” Paul said.

At the town hall, Paul said Republicans have been equally responsible as
Democrats in increasing the national debt.

“We borrow $1 million a minute, and it’s not pretty,” he said. “It’s going
to end in calamity if we’re not careful.

Paul also talked about his goal of broadening the GOP.

“You’re going to have other Republicans who are conservative,” he said.
“But New Hampshire is a purple state now. Republicans don’t always win. We
need somebody who is going to bring new people into the party.

“People who are not just business owners, but the people who work for
them,’ he said. “People who are not just part of America’s rich, but people
who are poor or black or brown.”

Paul said the United Nations “should not have any power or authority over
anything that happens inside the United States.

“I’m not against having some type of international forum where we try to
work things out rather than have war,” said Paul. “I’m not against
dialogue. I’m just against paying for people to come and attack America and
tell us what a terrible country America is.”

On immigration, Paul said, “Let’s figure out a lawful way to do it. Let’s
figure out how many immigrants we can absorb each year and let’s do it in
as lawful manner. When you get past the politics of it, the only thing that
will get us started in doing something about it is we have to have a will
in the leader of the country, and we also have to have the laws to enforce
the border and have border security.”

Rand Paul tweets fake Hillary Clinton to-do list
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rand-paul-tweets-fake-hillary-clinton-to-do-list-117875.html>
// POLITICO // Adam B. Lerner - May 12, 2015

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul continued his Twitter trolling of his rival
presidential candidates with an attack on Hillary Clinton.

After the Clinton campaign tweeted an image of a “to do” list for campaign
manager Robby Mook with a list of items for the next two months of the
campaign, Paul tweeted his own fake “to do” list for Team Clinton.

The Clinton campaigns list included six relatively banal campaign functions
like “Sign off on office contracts” and “Set staffing plans June-Dec.”

Paul’s note had four items: “Sign off on new private server location”;
“Hire next stage of reporters to avoid real questions”; “Finalize plan to
evade Benghazi testimony”; and “Final update of foreign ‘contributions’
list.”

The Kentucky Republican has played the role of Twitter troll on other
occasions. He has directed jabs at Marco Rubio for wanting to “build a
moat” around Cuba and at Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney who he joked have
exchanged friendship bracelets.

He has also targeted Hillary Clinton before, once posting a fake recorded
conversation between her and Jeb Bush in which the two discuss their
families’ ambition to take turns occupying the White House.

Paul says he can run for White House and do day job, questions whether
rivals can multi-task
<http://www.nh1.com/news/steinhauser-paul-says-he-can-run-for-white-house-and-do-day-job-questions-whether-rivals-can-multi-task/>
// NH1 // Paul Steinhauser - May 11, 2015

LONDONDERRY – Rand Paul says he can run for the White House and still do
his day job in the U.S. Senate.

“I get paid by the taxpayer and I figure I need to vote, so I’m working
very hard to do this and also vote at the same time,” the Republican from
Kentucky and presidential candidate told NH1 News Monday in Londonderry,
after wrapping up a town hall event.

Moments after speaking one-on-one with NH1 News, Paul jumped into a waiting
vehicle, to rush to the airport for a flight back to the nation’s capital,
and his job as senator.

“I think the job’s a pretty important job and taxpayers are paying me so I
take it very seriously. I’ll not only be back there for voting this
afternoon, I’ll be leading the vote and the effort against the Patriot Act,
handling the vote to try and end bulk collection of your phone records,”
Paul said.

Paul’s missed a lower percentage of votes than two other GOP senators also
running for the White House, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida,
according to data compiled by GovTrack.US. Asked about his rivals voting
track record, Paul appeared to question whether they could multi-task as
well, saying “I think the people will have to judge that.”

Paul’s latest visit to New Hampshire came just a few days after a federal
appeals court ruled that the National Security Agency’s collection of
Americans’ phone records was illegal under the Patriot Act. Paul was happy
to talk about Thursday’s ruling, saying “I sued the NSA about a year ago,
and the President, because I think it’s illegal and unconstitutional. The
fourth amendment says your name has to be on the warrant and you can’t put
something like Mr. Verizon on a warrant and get all of the customers for
millions of millions of phone records. I think that goes against the spirit
and the letter of the fourth amendment.”

Asked if the ruling justified Paul’s actions, the senator said “the ruling
justifies what I’ve said all along. It’s a message to the President. The
President, if he’s serious, the court has now said it’s illegal. He should
stop it. He started it by executive order. He can stop it tomorrow.”

During the town hall, Paul took a shot at another rival, former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush. Discussing the federal appeals court ruling on the NSA, Paul
said "we have one candidate, I won’t mention any names but he’s a former
governor of Florida, who says that the best thing the president is doing is
collecting all of your phone records without a warrant. I say your phone
records are yours. They’re none of the government’s business.”

Last month, in a radio appearance on the Michael Medved Show, Bush said
that “there has been a continuation of a very important service, which is
the first obligation of our national government, which is to keep us safe.
And the technology that now can be applied to make that so, while
protecting civil liberties, are there and he’s (President Barack Obama) not
abandoned them even though there was some indication that he might.”

The Paul campaign used the Londonderry town hall to announced the
endorsement of 20 state representatives, with eight of those state
lawmakers at the town hall. The event was the last of three stops on Monday
for Paul in the first-in-the-nation primary state. He headlined a business
roundtable at Aspen Insurance in Manchester and met separately behind
closed doors with business leaders, state lawmakers and GOP activists.

A new poll released Sunday indicated Paul tied with Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker at the top of a crowed pack of candidates and potential GOP
contenders. According to a Bloomberg Politics/St. Anselm College survey,
Paul and Walker were at 12% support among likely GOP primary voters in New
Hampshire, with Bush and Rubio at 11% and Donald Trump at 8%, New Jersey
Gov. Christie at 7% and Cruz at 6%. Everyone else tested in the survey
stood at 5% or lower.

Rand Paul Promises To Fight On Against Patriot Act
<http://nhpr.org/post/rand-paul-promises-fight-against-patriot-act> // NHPR
// Josh Rogers - May 11, 2015

Campaigning in Londonderry, GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul went after
fellow republican Jeb Bush on privacy issues, and said he will lead the
filibuster effort against any extension of the Patriot Act.

The Kentucky Senator Paul ask voters to be wary of would-be presidents who,
as he put it, don’t support  'the entire bill of rights.'

“We have one candidate — we won’t mention any names, but he was a former
governor of Florida — who says the best thing the president is doing is
collecting all of your phone records without a warrant, “I say your phone
records are yours, they’re none of the government’s business.”

Last week a federal appeals court ruled that the National Security Agency’s
bulk collection of phone records is illegal.

Paul told reporters he’s the only candidate, Democrat or republican who
said he’d end the program on day one. He also says he’ll fight its
reauthorization.

“I’ll be leading the vote and the effort against the Patriot Act and also
leading the vote to try to end bulk collection of your phone records.”

Senate’s majority leader, Mitch McConnell hopes to extend of the Patriot
Act and is expected to put  a bill before the senate to reauthorize bulk
collection of phone records by month’s end.

Paul calls for limited government in Londonderry visit
<http://www.eagletribune.com/news/new_hampshire/paul-calls-for-limited-government-in-londonderry-visit/article_9e1a3e67-4b1f-5d1f-9901-15dde9169113.html>
// Eagle Tribune // Doug Ireland - May 12, 2015

LONDONDERRY — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is known for his outspoken support
for a limited federal government.

He stopped off at the Londonderry Lions Hall on Monday afternoon to voice
his opposition to the USA Patriot Act and the need to preserve Americans’
constitutional rights.

But the Republican presidential candidate’s visit was overshadowed by what
quickly became known as “LickGate.” It occurred just as Paul began to
address the crowd of more than 100 people.

David Chesley, the New Hampshire political director for Paul’s campaign,
apparently licked the video camera lens of a tracker from the group
American Bridge 21st Century. The video was widely circulated in the media
and on social media.

Paul’s stop in Londonderry came as his campaign announced that 20
Republican state representatives in New Hampshire, or 8 percent of the GOP
caucus, are endorsing the senator for president.

Some of those supporters came to back Paul at the Lions Hall, including
state Sens. Andy Sanborn of Bedford and Kevin Avard of Nashua.

On a wall in the background were signs that said “Unleash the American
Dream” and “Defeat the Washington Machine.”

Paul, 52, began by telling the crowd that Americans are asked to pay too
much to the federal government in taxes.

“If I’m elected, I will let you keep your money in New Hampshire,” he said.
“We will send a lot less to Washington.”

Rand Paul: Advocates for the Disabled Should Help Brainstorm Ways to Cut
Social Security Spending
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-12/rand-paul-advocates-for-the-disabled-should-help-brainstorm-ways-to-cut-social-security-spending>
// Bloomberg // David Weigel – May 12, 2015

Every election cycle, candidates who want to burnish their fiscal hawk
credentials warn that entitlements are going to run out of money. This
election cycle is different: The Social Security disability trust fund
really is in danger of running low before it's over. According to Social
Security's actuary, if nothing is done by late 2016, the fund that paid
$141 billion to disability beneficiaries will be able to meet just 81
percent of its obligations.

Most Republicans want to use this crisis to reform Social Security, arguing
that a disability system that's seen enrollment nearly treble over 30 years
is simply unsustainable. Some have talked about this more elegantly than
others. In a January visit to New Hampshire, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul
half-joked that "over half the people on disability are anxious or their
back hurts."

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is running a populist, pro-entitlement
campaign– far out of step with most Republicans–said last week that the
disability program needed to be treated sensitively. "We should approach it
that people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around," he
told Bloomberg. "You should make the government prove that a person isn't
in need, rather than the person having to absolutely prove that they are."

“There are people who are truly disabled, so the program should first of
all prioritize those who are truly disabled.”

Rand Paul

On Monday, after another event in New Hampshire, Paul expanded on his
disability position by arguing that advocates for the disabled needed to
collaborate on cost-cutting ideas.

"I think the first thing to acknowledge is that there’s not money for all
of these Social Security disability programs," Paul told Bloomberg in an
interview. "It runs out of money this year. [The program does not hit a
shortfall until late 2016, according to the actuary.]

"The overall Social Security system pays out more than it takes in. So I
think it’s really without question that all of these programs need to be
reviewed to make them financially sound. There are people who are truly
disabled, so the program should first of all prioritize those who are truly
disabled."

Paul's solution: Persuade advocates to stop just clamoring for more funding
and start thinking about efficiency. "I think it’s important that all the
advocates for disability realize that it’s in their best interest to make
sure that people who are disabled are receiving money," he said. "So,
there’s a lot of reforms that we’ve talked about–having more certainty in
annual exams, having the exams done by doctors who have not seen the
patient and can be objective in confirming the disability. There’s a lot of
reform we can do, and the key is getting the advocates involved."

Rand Paul tries to get younger voters in Granite State
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/05/rand_paul_tries_to_get_younger_voters_in_granite_state>
// Boston Herald // Chris Cassidy - May 12, 2015

LONDONDERRY, N.H. — GOP presidential contender Sen. Rand Paul is leaving
nothing to chance in New Hampshire, a top campaign staffer told the Herald
yesterday — lining up 20 state rep endorsements, with plans to open a
Manchester campaign office in a few weeks and visit Granite State
universities in the months ahead to mobilize college students.

“In any of the races I’ve worked on, people go, ‘Young people don’t vote.’
I go, ‘Oh no, they vote — they just don’t vote for us.’ Let’s not mince
words,” said Tammy Simmons, Paul’s New Hampshire operations director,
referring to the GOP’s troubles attracting young voters. “We have to make
sure they’re voting for us this time.”

The campaign is seeing signs of support at liberal Dartmouth College, and
also picking up Granite State backers of former Sen. Rick Santorum’s 2012
campaign and are counting on those who backed his father, Ron Paul,
previously, Simmons said.

In a “Live Free or Die” state stop yesterday, Paul took a shot at former
Gov. Jeb Bush on civil liberties and vowed to fight a controversial
extension to the Patriot Act.

“We have one candidate — we won’t mention any names, but he was a former
governor of Florida — who says the best thing the president is doing is
collecting all of your phone records without a warrant,” the Kentucky
senator told the crowd, which booed Bush. “I say your phone records are
yours, they’re none of the government’s business.”

New Hampshire state Rep. Jim McConnell, who has endorsed Paul, said his
candidacy has some GOPers on edge.

“There are at least a couple of Republicans in this race who are here
because they can’t stand him,” said McConnell, naming South Carolina Sen.
Lindsey Graham, New York Rep. Peter King and “probably” former U.N.
Ambassador John Bolton. “If Lindsey Graham can’t stand him, that’s got to
say a lot for him.”

Both Santorum and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are in New Hampshire
today, and Donald Trump — who finished just 4 points off the lead in a poll
released yesterday — will visit here Thursday.

The poll shows a razor-thin GOP race in New Hampshire with as many as six
candidates within 5 points of the lead. Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker both sit at the top, but barely, with 12 points. Right behind them
are Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with 11 points. Trump finished with 8
points, and Christie came in with 7 points.

Christie defends use of $85,000 in public funds to entertain guests at
sporting events
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/11/christie-defends-use-public-funds-entertain-guests-sporting-events/6fGCyZi96v9OjibB4govZI/story.html>
// Boston Globe // May 12, 2015

AMHERST, N.H. (AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he made the
decision to stop billing taxpayers for the cost of entertaining guests in
luxury boxes at three New Jersey sports venues in part because he was
worried about the appearance of impropriety.

Records show that Christie spent $85,000 in public money to entertain in
the boxes between 2010 and early 2012, when the state Republican party took
over those expenses and reimbursed the state for those already incurred.

Speaking to reporters after greeting breakfast diners Friday in Amherst,
New Hampshire, Christie said he thought it was ‘‘completely justifiable’’
to use a discretionary fund for the entertaining, but decided to end the
practice so that nobody could accuse him of spending taxpayer dollars on
politics.

‘‘Quite frankly, in today’s world where everything is kind of twisted and
turned to look like it’s something wrong when it isn’t, I just said in 2012
to my folks, ‘Listen, let’s just have the state party pay for this, so to
the extent there’s anybody there who’s political, people can’t make the
argument that we’re using taxpayer money for anything that even looks like
politics,’’’ he said.

The change was made less than a year after Christie came under fire for
using a state helicopter to attend one of his son’s baseball games and the
year before he ran for re-election.

Christie, who is in the early-voting state as he prepares for a likely
presidential campaign, said that most of his sports box entertaining is
done at football games, and that he invites people from both parties and
different interest groups to spend time speaking with him privately.

He said that since 2012, the state party has been paying for all
entertaining done in the box — even it’s not political.

‘‘I just think it was just the right thing to do and that’s why we decided
to do it,’’ he said.

The state money in question comes from an account, worth $95,000 a year,
allocated to New Jersey governors to pay for official entertainment or
other expenses associated with their job. Much of Christie’s spending from
the account is used to pay for entertaining at the governor’s mansion.

Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would require the
governor to file a written report with the State Ethics Commission about
use of the funds each year.

The spending details were obtained by The Associated Press via the state’s
open records law. The documents obtained by the AP cover expenses like food
and drinks, but do not list at which events, including those at the sports
venues, the governor was entertaining and who was present.

The expenses, which are allowed by state law, also do not include the cost
of using the luxury boxes at MetLife Stadium, Prudential Arena and the Izod
Center, which are provided to the state for use by the governor.

Christie, who says he’ll make a decision about his 2016 plans by the end of
June, has come under scrutiny in the past for not reimbursing the state for
his security costs when he’s traveling for political purposes and for
accepting expensive gifts such as Dallas Cowboys tickets.

Rare NH visit for Rick Santorum
<http://www.nh1.com/news/steinhauser-rare-nh-visit-for-rick-santorum/> //
NH1 // Paul Steinhauser - May 12, 2015

CONCORD – The numbers tell the story.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania’s made 13 trips to Iowa since the
2012 election.

Santorum, who fought eventual GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney deep
into the 2012 primary and caucus calendar and who’s all but certain to run
again in 2016, has made one trip to the Granite State during the same time
period.

That’s the least visits to the first-in-the-nation primary state of any of
the approximately 20 GOP presidential candidates and likely contenders.
Last month, Santorum and famed neurosurgeon Ben Carson were the only two
Republican White House hopefuls to not attend a major NHGOP summit that was
held in Nashua.

Tuesday evening Santorum briefly returns to the Granite State, to keynote a
major fundraising dinner for Cornerstone Action, a Granite State focused
conservative group, which is celebrating it’s 15th anniversary.

“He has one of the best family values focused messages being shared today,”
said Cornerstone director Bryan McCormack, in announcing that Santorum
would headline their event.

The Santorum campaign spent a lot of time and money on his efforts in the
NH primary four years ago. After narrowly edging out Romney in the Iowa
caucuses, Santorum finished a disappointing fourth in the New Hampshire
primary.

This time around it appears that Santorum, who’s expected to announce his
candidacy for president later this month, is devoting much more of his time
and resources to Iowa, which kicks off the primary and caucus calendar, and
South Carolina, which holds the first southern contest in the race for the
White House.

But a source close to the Santorum campaign tells NH1 News that they are in
the process of putting together a small campaign team in the Granite State.
The hope, it seems, is to build on any momentum gained out of Iowa.

Fiorina Grabs Attention In Iowa <http://oskynews.org/?p=71207> // Oskaloosa
News // May 12, 2015

Waukee, Iowa- Hundreds of GOP activists recently descended on Waukee for
the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Freedom Summit. On hand that evening
were a total of nine declared and possible presidential candidates. Of all
the candidates who spoke, one in particular appeared to steal the show:
former Hewlitt Packard executive Carly Fiorina.

Fiorina is no stranger to politics. She served as an advisor to 2008 GOP
Nominee John McCain during his campaign for the White House, and in 2010
made her first bid for elected office when she challenged California
Democrat Barbara Boxer for the US Senate. Despite a large democratic
advantage in the state, Fiorina led in some polls but ultimately lost by 10
points on election day. Fiorina now is making her debut as a national
candidate.

At the Freedom Summit, Fiorina started off by comparing herself to likely
democrat nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. “I too have traveled 1200 miles,
but unlike Mrs. Clinton, I know mileage is not the same as going the
distance,” Fiorina quipped.

Fiorina mentioned her improbable rise from secretary to CEO of one of the
largest technology companies in the world. “Only in the United States of
America is it possible for a young woman to start as a secretary and become
CEO and maybe just maybe run for president,” Fiorina said.

Talking about faith, Fiornia told personal stories of her battle with
cancer as well as her daughter’s battle with addiction. Fiorina said it was
her faith in God that got her and her husband through that time. “It was my
husband Frank’s and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saved
us from a desperate sadness,” Fiorina said.

Talking about her convictions, Fiorina told a story of how she refused to
back down from her pro-life stance as well as other conservative stances
and not turn “towards the middle” after winning a tough GOP primary.
Fiorina noted that she went on to win more democrat and independent votes
than any other candidate in the nation, largely because of the size of
California. “That race taught me something: only a conservative can unify
this party and we do not have to change our beliefs and our convictions to
reach independents and democrats either,” Fiorina said bring the crowd to
their feet.

Fiorina said during her recent trip through Iowa she could “sense a deep
disquiet.” Fiorina elaborated. “It’s not political and it is not partisan,
but I think people are disquieted because they fear we are losing
something. And I think they believe we are missing something.” Fiorina said
that something is the limitless possibilities that have defined America.
“We always knew that if something was worth doing, especially if it was
hard to do, that we as Americans, we would do it,” she said. Fiorina said
she had seen disquiet in business owners, saying the country is now for the
first time ever destroying more businesses than it is creating. Fiorina
cited taxes and other red tape as reasons why this was happening. “We are
crushing the potential of this nation,” she said.

Talking about foreign policy, Fiorina said she had met more world leaders
than any other candidate or possible candidate for President this cycle,
with the exception of Democrat Hillary Clinton. “Unlike Hillary Clinton, I
did not do photo ops,” Fiorina said. In regards to Israel relations,
Fiorina said the United States should stop talking with Iran. “We should
immediately impose as punishing a set of sanctions as

we can and we should not talk again until they submit to full and
unfettered inspections,” she said to a roar of approval from the crowd.
“The world is a dangerous place when the world does not stand with our
allies and does not stand strong against our adversaries,” she also said.

Fiorina announced her candidacy for the Presidency on May 4th.

Rick Santorum: Odd man out?
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rick-santorum-2016-uphill-climb-117832.html?ml=tl_8_b>
// POLITICO // James Hohmann - May 12, 2015

INDIANOLA, Iowa — In 2012, Rick Santorum came out of nowhere to win the
Iowa caucuses.

In 2015, he’s back in nowhere again.

Story Continued Below

As he prepares to announce his second run for president at the end of the
month, he is staring up at many rivals for his base of religious
conservatives, while many of his former senior staffers and high-profile
supporters are working for rival campaigns.

A Quinnipiac poll of likely GOP Caucus goers last week showed him tied for
10th place, garnering just 2 percent, with social conservatives moving on
to fresh faces like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson
or coming home to Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

“It’s going to be extremely difficult for Rick,” said Iowa activist Sam
Clovis, who backed Santorum’s 2012 bid and for whose own U.S. Senate
campaign Santorum cut a commercial last year. “He’s been out here quite a
bit, but I’m not sure that he has retained a lot of the infrastructure he
built in ’12 … and this is a much stronger field.”

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. is questioned
after a town hall meeting at the Loins Club hall with area residents,
Monday, May 11, 2015, in Londonderry,

Clovis, who said he considers Santorum “a good friend,” nonetheless
believes he has a steeper hill to climb than any other candidate. “It’s
literally like starting over,” said Clovis. “It will be very difficult for
him to make up ground here.”

Mike Biundo, his 2012 campaign manager, now works for Kentucky Sen. Rand
Paul. So does John Yob, his national delegate director.

Jill Latham Ryan, his deputy campaign manager, and her husband, Nick Ryan,
who ran the pro-Santorum super PAC, are now running the pro-Huckabee super
PAC. Ryan said he decided to help Huckabee because, “He’s the best
communicator in the Republican Party, and that’s what we need.”

Hogan Gidley and Alice Stewart helmed Santorum’s communications operation
last time; this time, they have those roles on the Huckabee campaign.

When Santorum’s special needs daughter, Bella, was sick during the 2012
primaries, the Duggar family filled in for him at several events. The stars
of the TLC reality show “19 Kids and Counting” were constantly at his side
or caravaning in their RV as his surrogates. This time, they’re all in for
Huckabee.

Nineteen members of the Duggar clan were in the audience at the former
governor’s announcement in Hope, Arkansas, last week. “He has the
communication skills of Ronald Reagan … and being a governor is like being
a president of a state,” Jim Bob Duggar, who served in the state
Legislature back then, said in an interview at the event. “You’ll probably
see us helping out quite a bit.”

It’s a dreary picture that would prompt many politicians to take a pass,
but Santorum — who turned 57 on Sunday — relishes the role of underdog. He
likes to point out that he’s been written off repeatedly throughout this
political career, only to resurrect himself.

“I certainly didn’t expect everybody who was with me last time to uniformly
stay with me, because as you know, we had a lot of people who came in at
the last minute,” Santorum said in a brief interview after an event at an
ice cream parlor here recently.

He believes he has a reservoir of grass-roots support that doesn’t show up
in polls, and by again outworking everyone else in the field, he will surge
late, just like last time. “You don’t get committed volunteers by running
TV ads or appearing on Fox News,” he said.

Still, there are constant reminders that 2016 will be much more difficult
for Santorum than 2012 — despite all the exposure he gained last time
around.

At a cattle call in a Waukee church two weekends ago, the emcee recalled
how Santorum became famous by traversing the state in “the Chuck Truck,”
while other candidates flew private jets, in 2011. Chuck Laudner, who owns
the now legendary pickup and who drove Santorum around, now works for
Donald Trump’s presidential exploratory committee.

When Ted Cruz rolled out his Iowa Leadership Team last week, he announced
Matt Schultz as chairman. The former Iowa secretary of state was the only
statewide official who backed Santorum last time.

Santorum campaigned for Schultz during an unsuccessful bid for House last
year.

Bob Vander Plaats, the evangelical leader who threw critical support behind
Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008, said he’s told both men that “2016
is not 2008, and it’s not 2012.” His group, The Family Leader, has already
hosted several events for other candidates. He expects to endorse someone
around Thanksgiving and says the group might too; he worries that social
conservatives will splinter among several candidates, empowering someone
like Jeb Bush.

“Sen. Santorum has had a history of defying the odds, so maybe he’ll defy
the odds again,” Vander Plaats said Friday, “but for Santorum and Huckabee,
and maybe to a degree Gov. [Rick] Perry, they need to persevere during the
early phase of the campaign when everyone’s attracted to the new car smell
— and then, hopefully they’re willing to come back.”

After losing in 2008, Mitt Romney retained some of the key people he wanted
to have back in senior roles for his 2012 bid, such as campaign manager
Matt Rhoades. Partly because Santorum needed to make money, he didn’t use
the past three years to build the same kind of campaign-in-waiting that
Romney did.

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. is questioned
after a town hall meeting at the Loins Club hall with area residents,
Monday, May 11, 2015, in Londonderry,

To be sure, there are holdovers. John Brabender, Santorum’s highly
respected chief strategist, has been with him since his first House bid in
1990 and will continue to play a top role in 2016. Rob Bickhart, who went
to Penn State with Santorum, was finance director for his U.S. Senate
campaign committee and PAC. Also on the senior staff will be Terry Allen,
who has experience working for Oklahoma Republicans and advised Santorum
during his 2012 victory in the state; Jessica Colon, a member of the
national finance team last time, is now political director for Patriot
Voices PAC; and Matt Beynon, deputy communications director in 2012 is now
leading communications.

Brabender said in an interview that some of the people who are working for
rival campaigns in 2016 were not invited back to join the Santorum team.
Santorum’s PAC has about two dozen staff, and there will be some 30
employees or consultants signed on to the campaign, assuming he goes
forward.

“One of the fortunate things about the campaign this time is that we have
much greater demand and interest in working for our campaign at this
stage,” Brabender said Monday. “There are a number of people who were with
us last time who were invited back and accepted. … There are others we
would like to have had but because of demand and, frankly, the pay scale,
chose to go elsewhere. And then there are people who were with us last time
who got replaced this time by people who are better at those jobs. So it’s
a mixture.”

Santorum also retains the support of billionaire Foster Friess, the biggest
donor to his 2012 super PAC, along with some of his most loyal grass-roots
supporters. Kim Lehman, a former Republican National committeewoman, said
she will stick with him because he’s proven.

“Sometimes people want to try out the new guy because they don’t see his
weaknesses yet,” she said. “I’m going to stay by him because he’s been
tried, he’s been tested and he’s true. He’s got that compass. As much as he
would like to win, he doesn’t change his positions to win."

Santorum himself has put in as much time as anyone else in the Hawkeye
State. Since the start of this year, he’s been to at least 16 of the
state’s 99 counties — including here in Warren County, a half hour outside
Des Moines.

On a recent Saturday morning, Santorum sipped a chocolate shake from a
Styrofoam cup as eight people gathered around a table in a corner sundry
store. He spoke and took questions for more than an hour.

The county GOP chairman, Rick Halvorsen, introduced him by recalling how he
emerged as the social conservative favorite in 2012. “It’s a crowded field
this time,” he told the small group. “I hope Sen. Santorum can gain some
traction.”

Santorum, who has some gray hairs he did not have four years ago, gulped
when he said this. He’s still angry that the state GOP declared Mitt Romney
the winner on caucus night in 2012, only to say nearly two weeks later that
he actually had won.

The senator has convinced himself that if he had been declared the winner
on caucus night, he would have gotten enough momentum to win the nomination
and the White House. He told the group that his message would have
resonated with blue-collar voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Ohio and Wisconsin, all of which were won by Obama in his race against
Romney.

“They didn’t want to run against me,” Santorum said of Obama’s reelection
campaign.

Because there are so many socially conservative candidates this time,
Santorum — a Catholic — is trying to broaden his appeal with greater
emphasis on economic populism and foreign policy. He brags about appearing
in an online magazine that ISIL publishes.

About 20 minutes after Santorum started into his spiel, two women excused
themselves so that they could drive to Urbandale to check out Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker’s appearance at the Machine Shed restaurant.

Will Scott Walker’s budget troubles hurt his potential 2016 bid?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-scott-walkers-budget-troubles-hurt-his-potential-2016-bid/2015/05/12/5b70fe90-f578-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?postshare=601431432462926>
// WaPo // Jenna Johnson -May 12, 2015

As Gov. Scott Walker travels the country ahead of a likely presidential
campaign, he boasts about how quickly he transformed this state’s finances
— weakening unions, eliminating a shortfall and pushing through $2 billion
in tax cuts.

But back home in the State Capitol, a new round of partisan fighting has
erupted over the lingering impacts of Walker’s policies and the amount of
time he is spending away from Wisconsin in preparation for his expected
White House bid. The standoff could have repercussions in 2016 as Walker’s
fiscal record comes under scrutiny.

The promised revenues from Walker’s previous budget moves have not fully
materialized, leading Walker and GOP lawmakers to propose another round of
reductions — including cuts in funding for public schools, the university
system, health-care programs and a slew of other programs. The
Republican-controlled legislature says it won’t be raising taxes no matter
what, though it might increase fees for registering a car or visiting a
state park.

“We’re all are going to have to scratch and claw and figure out how to get
through this budget,” said Wisconsin Senate President Mary Lazich, a
Republican from the Milwaukee suburbs who once car-pooled with Walker.
“When I listen to my constituency that elects me and puts me here, they see
government as having plenty of money.”

Democrats are attempting to derail many of the cuts, and they accuse Walker
of using the state’s budget to advance his own political interests as a
likely presidential candidate. They note that Walker wants to retain a tax
break on manufacturers and farms and to issue $220 million in bonds for a
Milwaukee Bucks basketball arena, even as he’s pushing for cuts in
education and health care.

They also complain that Walker — currently on a tour of Israel sponsored by
political allies — spends too much of his time traveling in anticipation of
a 2016 bid.

“He’s running for president, and he has checked out of here and has used
people here in this state to further his political ambition,” said state
Sen. Jon Erpenbach, a Democrat from Middleton. “He lands in Wisconsin, does
his laundry, gets back on the plane and leaves.”

Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Walker, said the governor has continued
to meet each week with legislative leaders and is in regular contact with
lawmakers, his staff and others, regardless of his location.

“The bottom line is Governor Walker’s focus is on making sure Wisconsin is
a great place to live, work, and raise a family,” Patrick said in a
statement.

In the four years Walker has been governor, Wisconsin has become a petri
dish for fiscally conservative policies. Walker campaigned using his daily
brown-bag lunch as a symbol of how he and his family live within their
means and that the state should do the same.

But during hours of budget-related hearings last week, Wisconsin Democrats
argued that Walker’s tax cuts for the wealthy, corporations and property
owners have yet to help many middle- and working-class families or
jump-start the state’s stagnant economy.

Although Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is well below the national average,
its rate of private-sector job growth is one of the worst in the nation,
and wages have remained stagnant while other states see substantial gains.
A recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that Wisconsin’s middle
class — those earning between about $34,500 and $103,000 — has shrunk at a
faster rate than any other state in the country.

“When does this trickle-down economics kick in?” asked state Sen. Robert W.
Wirch, a Democrat from southeast Wisconsin, during a hearing on repealing a
law that helps set a minimum wage for state construction jobs. “Maybe it’s
time we try something else . . . . Your philosophy, with all due respect,
is not working.”

Republicans argue that the state’s economy is doing much better than
Democrats say it is and that Wisconsin’s problems mirror a slow national
recovery.

“When the economy does pick up across the country, I think we will really
be able to kick it into gear and probably outpace a number of other
states,” said Sen. Stephen L. Nass, a Republican from southern Wisconsin.

Wisconsin sets its budget every two years, and Walker has said he will not
make any announcement about running for president until after the task is
done, likely in June. But his expected run has loomed large over the budget
process — and several of Walker’s initiatives are the type that could play
well in early primary states.

Walker has proposed cutting $300 million over two years from the public
university system, which some Republicans describe as too flush with cash
and bloated with bureaucracy. He also calls for cuts to elderly
prescription assistance, rural health centers, transportation projects and
public schools — although lawmakers are hopeful they will find cash for the
latter.

Meanwhile, Walker wants to allow an unlimited number of children to take
their share of public school funding to a private school, an idea that
lawmakers from both parties have been slow to embrace. Walker has called
for major reforms to welfare programs, including mandating drug-testing for
those who receive benefits, and says his primary goal is to continue to
lower property taxes.

“Now, I get a kick out of this: In my state, I’m proud to say we’ve cut the
tax burden on the hardworking people of our state by some $2 billion over
the past couple years,” Walker said in a speech Saturday in South Carolina.
“In fact, property taxes today in my state are lower today than they were
four years ago. What governor can say that?”

GOP lawmakers have reversed many of Walker’s cuts, ranging from funding for
the removal of roadkill from the side of highways to money for groups that
interview children who have been sexually abused.

Republicans had been holding out hope that tax revenue estimates were too
conservative and that the state might collect more money than expected in
coming years. But the state’s top budget analyst formally announced last
week that more revenue is unlikely, prompting Republicans to scramble for a
Plan B.

Walker took a break from tweeting about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
immigration policy and President Obama’s spending habits to write on
Twitter: “In Wisconsin, we’ve lowered taxes by $2 billion for individuals,
employers, and on property. #WIForward.”

The partisan acrimony was clear at one point last week when lawmakers on a
newly formed welfare reform committee fought over Walker’s proposal to
require recipients of state assistance to undergo drug testing. Democrats
responded by introducing amendments to require the governor, legislators
and chief executives whose companies receive tax breaks to undergo similar
testing.

“If we want the people of Wisconsin to pee in a cup . . . we should pee
first,” said Rep. Andy Jorgensen, a Democrat from southern Wisconsin.

Republicans quashed the effort by refusing to discuss the amendments,
prompting Jorgensen to angrily accuse them of pursuing a “right-wing
agenda.”

Rep. Mark Born (R), the committee chairman, said that Republicans are
reforming the social welfare system because it’s a top priority for their
constituents — not because it bolsters the governor’s résumé.

“What the governor is doing in the state or anywhere else, I don’t think
that impacts what we’re doing here,” Born said. “There are some things
where the governor is talking about them and that’s great, because we are
working together on this stuff, but I don’t really view any of his other
activities as impacting this.”

This Is Where Liberals Have Gotten Us
<https://medium.com/@marcorubio/this-is-where-liberals-have-gotten-us-3276f6dd4d78>
// Medium // Marco Rubio - May 12, 2015

For conservatives especially, we are facing a defining moment. The failure
of government-centered, command-and-control liberalism to lift the poor and
sustain the middle class is apparent as never before. Whether we are able
to step forward with our own solutions — and not simply rail against the
expansion of the state — will determine our future as a movement.

Our recent history in this regard is not encouraging. President Barack
Obama was elected on a promise to fight for poor and middle-class Americas.
During his campaigns for president, he talked directly to the American
people about the girl who’s worried she can’t go to college because she
can’t afford it, about the dad who doesn’t know if his wages will cover the
winter heating bill, about the single mom who’s stressed about what her
children are doing after school while she’s at work. Meanwhile, my party
talked about tax cuts and waited for the American people to punish the
president for the economy. They didn’t. He won. We lost.

And yet seven years into his presidency, struggling Americans are — by
every measure — worse off today than they were before he took office. Why
has a president elected as a champion of the disadvantaged failed so
miserably at helping them? Because, like most liberals, he doesn’t
understand the real causes of the erosion of equal opportunity we are
experiencing today. He has raised taxes, increased regulations and taken
over health care — all according to the outdated liberal theory that
Americans struggle when government doesn’t tax the rich enough and spend on
the poor enough. But the results, such as they are, speak for themselves.
After seven years of old-school liberalism, fewer Americans are working
than at any time since the Great Recession in the first quarter of 2014.

It’s getting harder for millions of Americans to get ahead, not because our
taxes are too low or our government is too stingy. The poor and the middle
class are struggling because while our economy is undergoing a dramatic and
disruptive transformation, our policies have not changed with it. Our
economy is no longer producing well-paying jobs, not enough people have the
skills they need for better-paying jobs and the values needed for success
are eroding at an alarming rate.

It’s time for A New American Century. Join our fight and help lead American
in a new direction.

Marco Rubio Shifts Rightward on Foreign Policy
<http://time.com/3856378/marco-rubio-foreign-policy-2016/> // TIME //
Philip Elliott - May 12, 2015

Moderate-sounding views go by the wayside as Rubio shifts rightward to
curry favor with GOP base

When Sen. Marco Rubio sat down for a Q&A session at a Council on Foreign
Relations event, one participant noted that his differences on foreign
policy with President Obama were “very modest” and asked where he
disagreed. The Florida Republican chuckled in response.

On Wednesday, when Rubio returns to the Council on Foreign Relations three
years later, that question won’t be asked again.

Now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Rubio has
traded in a moderate pitch on international affairs for an aggressive,
hawkish approach. In his first policy speech as a declared White House
hopeful, he will be pushing a muscular stance for the United States and
trying to calm the worries of those who think he is too squeamish to use
America’s might.

For Rubio, its both a natural evolution on his thinking in an era of
Islamic State fighters and new threats from Russia, as well as a shift
rightward to match his party’s demands of its next presidential nominee.
Republican voters and caucus participants in early nominating states demand
an orthodoxy from their presidential candidates, and Rubio’s earlier
flirtation with moderation—even if not entirely moderate—would prove
disqualifying inside the party.

For instance, the now hawkish Rubio previously backed negotiations with
Iran over its nuclear program in 2012. Now, as an increasingly vocal member
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he unsuccessfully sought to
derail Obama’s still-gelling agreement with Tehran over its nukes. He
unsuccessfully tried to attach one amendment that would have made it
impossible for the United States to reach a final agreement with Iran;
leaders in his own party kept the measure far away from the final bill that
gives Congress oversight of any deal.

And in 2012, Rubio intimated that the United States has limited capacity to
guide the world. “Let’s stop and remember that the world America made is
better, but it is not perfect,” Rubio said. “But it is vastly more peaceful
and prosperous than any other age in recorded history.”

Rubio’s rivals are hoping the charismatic, 43-year-old son of Cuban
immigrants has already sullied his conservative credentials with such
statements, along with acknowledging a role for the United Nations in
foreign policy. As the crowded field of White House hopefuls lurch
rightward over each other, Rubio’s earlier, moderate-sounding views are
unlikely to win him many friends.

“Until recently, the general perception was that American conservatism
believed in robust and muscular foreign policy,” Rubio said during a 2012
appearance at the centrist Brookings Institution. “That was certainly the
hallmark of the foreign policies of both President Bushes and of President
Reagan. But when I arrived in the Senate last year, I found that some of
the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted.”

It proved to be a temporary shift, fueled in part by the
libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement that gave the GOP great wins in
2010’s midterm elections.

Now, Rubio is facing a Republican electorate that is itching for a tougher
stance against Vladimir Putin’s Russia, stronger sanctions against Iran and
improved relations with Israel. Rubio’s advisers are looking at Wednesday’s
speech to assure voters that he can deliver on that wish list.

Rubio offered a preview of it last weekend when he went before
conservatives in South Carolina. Channeling Liam Neeson’s character in the
film “Taken,” the senator promised an audience in Greenville he would have
a tough message for America’s enemies: “We will look for you, we will find
you and we will kill you.”

It’s quite the change from a figure who earlier in his career called for
restraint in military engagements; he now backs unlimited authority for
Obama to chase Islamic State fighters across the globe.

Rubio also shifted positions on military spending. In 2013, he said any
increases to the military budget had to be accompanied by cuts to other
spending. With the campaign approaching, Rubio in March called for more
military spending without corresponding reductions elsewhere.

Rubio and his advisers are banking his foreign policy experience and
interest will set him apart from a field that is likely to include Gov.
Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, as well as
former Govs. Jeb Bush of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas and Mike Huckabee of
Arkansas. Rubio tells crowds that senators are more qualified than
governors when it comes to foreign policy.

“The next president of the United States needs to be someone that has a
clear view of what’s happening in the world, a clear strategic vision of
America’s role in it and a clear practical plan for how to engage America
in global affairs,” Rubio told reporters in January. “And I think, for
governors, that’s going to be a challenge, at least initially, because they
don’t deal with foreign policy on a daily basis.”

In title for most conservative, Marco Rubio just misses top spot
<http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/05/in-title-for-most-conservative-marco-rubio-just-misses-the-top-spot.html>
// Miami Herald // Chris Adams - May 12, 2015

As they race for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, the
senators in the running are also in a battle for the title of
most-conservative.

Ted Cruz of Texas wins. But not by much.

The new legislative ratings by the American Conservative Union, a leading
grassroots conservative organization, gave three senators perfect 100
scores: Cruz, Mike Lee of Utah and the just-retired Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Another five senators were bunched together with ratings of 96. Included
were Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Cruz, Rubio and Paul are all declared candidates for president and will
compete in a Republican primary season where conservative credentials will
be a major selling point.

Another Republican senator who has all but declared a run, Lindsey Graham
of South Carolina, had a far-more moderate score of 74.

Florida’s other senator, Bill Nelson of Orlando, was one of 16 Democrats to
score a zero in the conservative group’s rating system.

The group’s ratings were based on an analysis of votes cast or positions
taken on 25 key issues. The group’s ratings are designed to test the issues
and votes that “serve as a dividing line to help separate those members of
the U.S. House and Senate who protect liberty as conservatives and those
who are truly liberal.”

Rubio only went afoul of the group’s positions once: his vote against an
amendment that would have phased in a reduction in government subsidies for
flood insurance.

Lindsey Graham to Hold Senate Fundraiser Days After Planned Launch of White
House Bid <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/12/lindsey-graham/> // WSJ
// Reid Epstein – May 12, 2015

Senator Lindsey Graham, shown at the annual Milken Institute Global
Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on April 27, would be joining a
crowded field of Republican presidential candidates.

Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg News

Sen. Lindsey Graham is planning to announce his presidential campaign June
1. The next week he will be raising money for his Senate war chest.

Taking time from what will then be a nine-day-old presidential campaign to
appear at a fundraiser for his Senate PAC may not indicate the South
Carolina Republican is laser-focused on winning the White House.

“I don’t know where the presidential campaign might go, but crazier things
have happened,” said Dave Barron, a volunteer for Mr. Graham who sent the
invitation Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. Graham’s presidential campaign-in-waiting said he will appear at the
June 10 fundraiser in Washington for the Fund for America’s Future, his
Senate leadership PAC. The fundraiser will be held at the Pennsylvania
Avenue offices of the law firm Balch & Bingham LLP.

Mr. Graham’s presidential aspirations are no secret. In January he formed a
presidential exploratory committee called Security Through Strength and is
planning a June 1 campaign launch. Federal Election Commission rules limit
the amount that can be legally transferred from his federal leadership PAC
to a presidential campaign to $5,000 per year.

Brittany Bramell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Graham’s presidential committee,
said the Senate PAC fundraiser will not distract from his White House
aspirations.

“The Fund for America’s future is an organization that supports other
Republicans running for office throughout the country in order to keep a
Republican majority in Washington, which would surely help a Republican
president in the coming years.”

Mr. Graham is considered a longshot in the increasingly crowded field of
Republicans running or considering running for the party’s 2016
presidential nomination. Last month he told the Journal he needs to raise
$15 million to be competitive in the early primary states and advance to
the “final four” of candidates.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Barron said Mr. Graham could use the money
raised on June 1 to support fellow Senate Republicans who share his hawkish
foreign policy vision. He said none of the funds raised at the June 10
event would go toward Mr. Graham’s re-election campaign.

“Regardless of what presidential path he takes, Lindsey will be involved in
keeping and expanding a Senate majority and this fundraiser is to help us
in that regard,” Mr. Barron said. “If he’s not president of the United
States, in four years he’ll be announcing for re-election in South
Carolina.”

TOP NEWS

DOMESTIC

Senate Democrats vote to block Obama on trade
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-threaten-to-stall-trade-legislation-in-the-senate/2015/05/12/08f71d66-f8c0-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html>
// WaPo // Mike DeBonis and Steven Mufson – May 12, 2015

President Obama collided with his own party Tuesday when Senate Democrats
stalled consideration of a trade measure that would give the administration
greater authority to negotiate more freely with other countries.

The Senate vote was a sharp blow to the president’s efforts to win approval
for a new Asia-Pacific trade bill that has emerged as a top agenda item for
Obama. Only one Democratic senator, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, voted
with the president Tuesday.

Administration officials and Republican leaders immediately said they would
bring a measure back to the Senate floor.

But the setback highlighted the president’s failure to convince Democratic
lawmakers, labor union leaders and environmental groups that the 12-nation
trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership would help the U.S.
economy. Obama has argued that the pact would open markets, promote better
labor conditions abroad and protect endangered species and the environment.

Obama has made the trade deal one of his top priorities, and to bolster his
ability to finish negotiating the still-secret terms of the accord, he has
asked Congress to give him “fast track” trade authority. But a procedural
motion to open up debate of the fast-track legislation failed by a 52-to-45
vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed to begin consideration of the
complex Pacific trade accord.

Senate Democrats blocked legislation on Tuesday that would have given
President Obama the power to grant “fast-track” authority to move trade
deals quickly through Congress. (Reuters)

Ahead of the vote, White House press secretary Josh Earnest played down
crumbling support for the legislation as a “procedural snafu” — a phrase he
repeated 10 times — that could be worked out in the coming days. Earnest
said fast-track authority was “critically important to the future of our
economy.”

But in the Senate, the measure’s failure seemed to be more than a
procedural glitch. The trade accord has sparked a Democratic revolt and
laid bare a spat between Obama and liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
And it has embittered labor union leaders who feel they helped elect Obama
and have received little for their efforts.

Moreover, Senate Democrats — including the handful who have supported
Obama’s trade push — said they were not inclined to move forward with
debate unless Republican leaders provided assurances that related pieces of
legislation would move in tandem.

[Obama, Warren feud breaks open as trade legislation blocked by Democrats]

That group included Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who negotiated the trade
package with top Republicans in the House and Senate and who has been a
rare ally of Obama’s trade agenda inside the president’s party.

“Until there is a path to get all four bills passed,” Wyden said after a
lunchtime meeting with fellow pro-trade Democrats, “we will — certainly
most of us — have to vote no.”

As the vote was faltering in a midday roll call, the bloc of 10 Democrats
willing to support the trade legislation was summoned to the White House
for a meeting with Obama and top deputies to try to forge a compromise,
according to congressional and administration officials. But it was too
late.

As President Obama's trade legislation was facing likely defeat Tuesday on
its first vote in the Senate, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was
ready with a talking point: "procedural snafu." (Tom LeGro/The Washington
Post)

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Republicans were
willing to attach “trade adjustment assistance” — which would provide
funding authority for worker assistance programs — to the fast-track bill.
But he made no pledge to include a trade enforcement bill — which would,
among other things, take aim at alleged Chinese currency manipulation
and is opposed by the administration — or a fourth bill concerning trade
with Africa.

McConnell said those provisions could be attached by amendment to the bills
under consideration.

“We want to pass this and get this to the president’s desk,” he said. “It’s
the Democrats who are standing in the way of what is one of the president’s
prime domestic policy plans for the economy of this country.”

[Clinton hedge on trade leaves Obama without political cover in Warren feud]

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of the Senate’s fiercest opponents of free
trade, said late Monday that the vote to proceed would fail unless
Republicans made a more solid commitment to take up the related bills.

“It’s a betrayal of workers and small business in our communities to pass
fast track, to put it on the president’s desk without enforcement . . . and
without helping workers,” Brown said. “It’s a betrayal of what we should be
standing for.”

But Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,
said Monday that there was “no compromise that can be reached that is going
to link all four bills together.”

Hatch, who for months negotiated with Wyden, the committee’s top Democrat,
over the trade legislation, betrayed frustration at the latest Democratic
demands.

Moving all four trade bills in tandem, he said Tuesday, is “not what we
agreed to, it’s not what we went forth on, it’s not what everybody
understood, and it’s strange to me that they would change their commitments
at the last minute.”

“Everybody will have a chance for their amendments within reason,” Hatch
added. “If they win on currency . . . that’s the way it is.”

[Why Obama went to Oregon to push Congress on trade agreements]

The challenge for Obama is not convincing anti-trade hard-liners such as
Brown, but rather persuading a core group of pro-trade Democrats, such as
Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), to back trade promotion authority
(TPA), the formal name for the fast-track bill. TPA gives the president the
power to negotiate an international deal that Congress can either approve
or reject, but not modify.

“I don’t think today’s vote is a death knell for TPA,” Coons said Tuesday.
“But it is a very strong warning shot to the majority leader and those who
would advance TPA that without worker protections, without enforcement
provisions, they will likely not move forward.”

The provisions the administration is negotiating are difficult to assess.
Although not open to the public, lawmakers are allowed to see them in a
secure room without taking notes or electronic devices.

Nonetheless, the administration has dispatched Cabinet members and the
president to a variety of staged public events around the country meant to
highlight the benefits of increased trade. Obama has argued that the
Trans-Pacific Partnership would make American goods and services more
competitive by opening up markets such as Japan’s auto market and improving
labor conditions in places like Vietnam.

Still, a variety of unions and liberal groups hailed the president’s defeat
Tuesday. AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka said the trade bill “would
have led to undemocratic trade deals that lower wages and eliminate jobs.”

“I’m not sure they can fix it because I think the administration has
indicated it is willing to go so far and no further in fixing the real
problems of our trade agenda,” said Bill Samuel, head of government
relations for the AFL-CIO. “They need to demonstrate what they’re doing.
They have asked people to take it on faith.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the majority whip, said the expected vote was a
“failure” of the president’s influence, and he urged Obama to do more to
convince wavering Senate Democrats.

“Does the president of the United States have enough clout with members of
his own political party to produce enough votes to get this bill debated
and ultimately passed?” Cornyn asked.

Earnest said, “I would withhold judgment about the president’s persuasion
abilities until we’ve had a chance to advance this legislation through.”

McConnell was the only Republican to vote against proceeding, a tactical
move giving him the ability to quickly hold another vote later if
circumstances change. Whether that would happen later this week or whether
the standoff could extend through next week and into a week-long Memorial
Day recess remained unclear Tuesday.

Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his presumptive successor,
Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), have tendered a compromise offer to Republican
leaders, according to a Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss internal maneuverings. Under their proposal, the
currency manipulation measure would be stripped from the broader trade
legislation, but it would have to get a Senate vote before the rest of the
package moved forward.

Schumer said in a news conference after the vote that he was “not
insistent” that the currency manipulation provision be part of the
fast-track bill. “But it ought to move together as a package, concurrently,
alongside it,” he said.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the minority whip, said he doubted the
trade impasse could be quickly overcome and noted other major pieces of
legislation — such as a renewal of highway funding and a possible extension
of telephone surveillance authority — must be addressed before month’s end.

“If you look how much has to be done, there’s not very much time left to do
it,” he said.

At least 5 dead in Amtrak crash in Philadelphia
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/12/amtrak-derailment-philadelphia/27213157/>
// USA Today // Melanie Eversley - May 13, 2015

At least five people died Tuesday night when a passenger train carrying 238
passengers and five crew members derailed in Philadelphia.

The tragedy that took place some times after 9 p.m. EDT forced Amtrak to
shut down all service between New York City and Philadelphia.

"It is an absolute disastrous mess," Mayor Michael Nutter said late Tuesday
night. "Never seen anything like it in my life."

Fifty-three people with injuries were taken to hospitals and six people
were taken to hospitals with critical injuries, officials said.

The train appeared to go off the tracks, Paul Cheung, an Associated Press
employee, said. Cheung said he was fortunate to be at the back of the
train, and that the front of it "looks pretty bad." Cheung said he saw
"some people mangled up."

Former U.S. representative Patrick Murphy tweeted that he was on the train,
that he was OK, but that others were hurt. "Helping others. Pray for those
injured," Murphy tweeted.

The effect that the accident will have on major rail traffic in the
Northeast corridor remains somewhat unclear, but Amtrak did announce late
Tuesday that it was canceling all traffic between New York and Philadelphia
for the time being. Philadelphia is a major hub along the Northeast
corridor, one of the most heavily traveled in the nation.

Shortly after 10 p.m. ET, Amtrak issued a statement saying that it was
aware of the derailment involving Northeast Regional Train 188 and that it
would provide updates as soon as they are available.

Emergency personnel work the scene of an accident, Tuesday, after an Amtrak
train headed to New York City derailed and crashed in Philadelphia. (Photo:
Joseph Kaczmarek, AP)

"It is a devastating scene down there," Nutter said during a late night
news conference. "We walked the entire length of the train area. The engine
completely separated from the rest of the train and one of the cars is
perpendicular to the rest of the cars. It's unbelievable."

Police in Philadelphia issued a statement asking members of the public not
to go anywhere near the scene of the derailment to allow first responders
to do their jobs.

One person, a woman, was being transported to Temple University Hospital,
and three other people were being taken to Jefferson University Hospital,
according to 6ABC.

EMS reported that Temple advised it could take no more patients late
Tuesday.

Others were being taken to Frankford Hospital-Torresdale Division,
according to Philadelphia police.

Representatives at Amtrak's media relations line for emergencies could not
immediately be reached late Tuesday.

No charges in Wisconsin police shooting of black teen
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/us-usa-police-wisconsin-shooting-idUSKBN0NX2FK20150513>
// Reuters // Fiona Ortiz - May 12, 2015

A Madison, Wisconsin police officer will not face charges in the fatal
shooting of an unarmed 19-year-old biracial man in March, the prosecutor
said on Tuesday.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said at a news conference that
Matt Kenny, a veteran white police officer, used lawful lethal force when
he shot Tony Robinson Jr. in the head, torso and right arm.

AOL, a Digital Pioneer, With Another Chance to Reshape Itself
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/business/dealbook/the-deals-that-transformed-aol.html>
// New York Times // Emly Steel and Michael j. de la Merced - May 12, 2015

Soon after Tim Armstrong was named chief executive of AOL in 2009, he
started reading the management book “You’re in Charge, Now What?”

Mr. Armstrong was 38 at the time, a charming, hard-charging Google ad sales
executive who had never before been a chief executive, let alone the head
of a company in complete disarray.

Six years later, he could write a management book of his own.

He has steered the company through its divorce from the media giant Time
Warner, hundreds of millions of dollars of sales and acquisitions,
management clashes, a proxy battle with an activist fund and cost-cutting
measures that led to highly publicized public apologies by him. All those
changes came as AOL continued a rocky transformation into an ad-supported
digital media company from its roots as a subscription-based service for
connecting to the Internet.

AOL had been the frequent subject of takeover speculation by Yahoo, another
early giant of online media.Verizon Bets on Video Ads in $4 Billion Deal
for AOLMAY 12, 2015

Pedestrians in Midtown, communicating the modern way.

On Tuesday, Mr. Armstrong announced that AOL was selling itself to Verizon
for $4.4 billion, a deal that he billed as the creation of a
next-generation media company but that also rescued AOL from having to
continue its turnaround alone.

AOL, the one-time king of media, is a shadow of its former self. Its deal
for Time Warner is regarded as the high-water mark of the dot-com bubble.

“I wasn’t totally prepared for this,” he said on Tuesday about taking on
the top post at AOL, noting that his top three lessons as a first-time
C.E.O. had been the importance of the right talent, the need for grit and
persistence and the value of dedication to a long-term plan.

“The short-term bumps in the strategy don’t matter as much as the long-term
destination that you end up at,” said Mr. Armstrong, a 6-foot-4 former
captain of the Connecticut College lacrosse team who is known for peppering
his speech with sports metaphors. “AOL has become a more valuable company
because we stayed on strategy.”

The value of AOL shares has increased nearly 120 percent since the company
spun out from Time Warner in 2009, as it has steadily transformed into a
digital-media and ad-technology company. But some analysts have questioned
whether AOL’s growth was sustainable on its own. Over the years, the
company has gradually increased its advertising revenue, but its
subscription group, which includes its Internet service, continues to
provide almost all of AOL’s profit.

Now, even with the Verizon merger, the prospect for transforming AOL into a
21st century media conglomerate remains an open question.

Mr. Armstrong, who is one of AOL’s biggest individual shareholders outside
of big investment firms, will see the value of his shares rise to about $84
million as a result of the Verizon deal.

“He made the best of a hand that he was dealt,” said Anthony DiClemente, a
media analyst with Nomura. “As an executive, he did the best job he could
balancing the growth opportunity for shareholders and a business that
definitely is declining.”

When Mr. Armstrong first stepped into the job, AOL had long since been cast
aside as the dinosaur of the Internet. It was the pioneering company that
in the 1990s introduced millions of people to the web. It was also the
acquiring company in the colossal 2000 merger, in which AOL used its
high-priced stock to buy Time Warner, which at the time was the smaller
company, at least in terms of stock market value. That deal is now regarded
as the biggest merger failure in history. But it struggled to adapt as
consumers abandoned its dial-up Internet service for faster broadband
connections.

A revolving door of high-profile executives had tried to turn AOL into a
digital media powerhouse, but it had been eclipsed by new digital darlings
like Google and Facebook. Questions loomed as to whether the company could
be rescued at all.

At $4.4 billion, AOL is valued at a fraction of the worth of younger and
more successful companies like Facebook or even WhatsApp, the messaging
service that Facebook bought for $21 billion. Its price tag also values AOL
at just a shade above Vice, the growing media power that has drawn
adulation, and cash, from private investors.

Deal-making has featured prominently in Mr. Armstrong’s strategy. He has
overseen roughly two dozen acquisitions, worth several hundred million
dollars, aimed at bolstering the company’s media and ad-technology
offerings.

“It is a totally different company than it was five or six years ago,” Mr.
Armstrong said.

Most noteworthy have been the takeovers of content properties like
TechCrunch, a technology news site. And none have surpassed the prominence
of the news site The Huffington Post, for which AOL paid $315 million four
years ago.

One of his most prominent missteps was Patch, a collection of local sites.
Mr. Armstrong was a co-founder of the site and acquired the company weeks
into his tenure. (He recused himself from the acquisition process.)

He was criticized by investors for pouring hundreds of millions of dollars
into the struggling company, which some say he took too long to wind down.

Together, those properties have melded into what Mr. Armstrong has said he
hoped would be a new-media empire that could command attractive advertising
rates. The value of The Huffington Post alone has grown significantly since
its acquisition, Mr. Armstrong said. (The single biggest acquisition that
AOL has struck was its $405 million deal for Adap.tv, a specialist in video
advertising.)

Yet the company has also been pressured to consider various deals. AOL
agreed three years ago to sell a trove of patents to Microsoft for about $1
billion as it faced demands from an activist hedge fund, Starboard Value.

Perhaps the single biggest potential deal that has dogged Mr. Armstrong is
one he has shown little interest in: Yahoo, another onetime Internet giant
humbled by the dot-com bubble’s collapse.

The two companies have held multiple discussions about potential tie-ups
over the years, and investors pushed for such a move as recently as last
fall — though executives consistently said publicly that neither was truly
interested.

Now with the Verizon deal, the fate of the digital-media content business
that Mr. Armstrong built at AOL is up in the air.

Verizon’s interest in keeping The Huffington Post and other prominent media
brands is unclear. In recent months, AOL has considered spinning off The
Huffington Post, according to people with knowledge of the plans who were
not authorized to discuss them. Axel Springer, the German media group, and
General Atlantic, the private equity firm, are among companies that have
expressed interest.

Mr. Armstrong said that both AOL and Verizon were “big investors in
content” and that “content is a huge part of the future.”

Asked if Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post and an AOL
executive, was planning to work for Verizon, Mr. Armstrong said, “Yes,
definitely.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Armstrong said that he also would stay on at Verizon and
that he had signed a multiyear contract with the company. One friend has
said that he aspires to be the Rupert Murdoch of the digital age. Mr.
Armstrong said that he was living his dream now.

“If you want to talk about building the next great global media platform,”
he said, “the deal accomplished that goal, and that is what I am here to
do.”

INTERNATIONAL

Nepal earthquake: Rescue resumes after latest deadly tremor
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32716211> //  BBC News // May 12, 2015

Rescue work has resumed to find victims and survivors of the latest deadly
earthquake to hit Nepal.

At least 65 people died in Nepal and nearly 2,000 were hurt in Tuesday's
7.3 magnitude quake, with fears the figures could rise. At least 17 died in
India.

A search continues for a missing US aid helicopter with eight people on
board.

Thousands of Nepalis spent the night in the open. Many have not returned to
their homes since a 7.8 magnitude quake on 25 April that killed over 8,000.

Tuesday's earthquake was centred about 76km (47 miles) east of the capital,
Kathmandu, near the town of Namche Bazaar.

A second tremor of 6.3-magnitude hit Nepal 30 minutes later and numerous
other aftershocks continued into Wednesday morning.

The main quake was felt in northern India, Tibet and Bangladesh. India's
home ministry said 16 people had been killed in the state of Bihar, and one
more in Uttar Pradesh. Officials in China said one person was confirmed
dead in Tibet.

Nepal's districts of Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk, east of the capital, were
initially listed as the worst hit, with officials confirming 26 fatalities,
20 of them in the town of Charikot.

The latest earthquake in Nepal triggered a landslide in Dhunche near the
country's border with China.

But the true extent of the casualties and damage remains unclear.

Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam said: "Many houses have collapsed in
Dolakha... there is a chance that the number of dead from the district will
go up."

Regine Kopplow, a German aid worker in Charikot said: "I saw a woman in the
building opposite jump from the third floor who suffered injuries to her
leg, elbow and hand.

"People stayed outside, the shaking continued. Some people were crying,
hugging each other."

The US military said a Marine Corps Huey helicopter involved in disaster
relief efforts had gone missing while working in the vicinity of Charikot.

The Pentagon said there were six US Marines and two Nepali soldiers on
board. It said there was as yet no sign of a crash and the craft may have
landed safely, amid reports of fuel issues.

The Red Cross said it had received reports of many casualties in the town
of Chautara in Sindhupalchowk, where it has a hospital and which has become
a hub for humanitarian aid.

Spokeswoman Nichola Jones said: "Hundreds of people are pouring in. They
are treating dozens for injuries and they have performed more than a dozen
surgeries."

At least two major buildings collapsed in Kathmandu, with at least three
people rescued.

But there have been other reports of landslides and fallen buildings in
towns and villages outside the capital.

Save the Children said Gorkha, close to the epicentre of the 25 April
quake, had been hit by new landslides. A spokeswoman told the BBC its staff
had been "dodging huge rocks rolling off the hillside".

At least two major buildings collapsed in Kathmandu, with fears people may
have been trapped

Residents of Namche Bazaar said there was some damage there but no reports
of deaths.

The BBC's Navin Singh Khadka says local officials in the Everest region
report very few tourists are still in the area following the 25 April quake.

Many residents of the capital and other towns spent Tuesday night outdoors,
too scared to return to homes.

Dipak Koirala, who lives in Ramechhap district, told AFP news agency: "I
was thinking of moving to a rented room, but today was so scary I can't
risk my family's life."

Sulav Singh, who lives in Kathmandu, told the Associated Press: "I thought
I was going to die this time. Things were just getting back to normal, and
we get this one."

Politicians on Tuesday fled Nepal's parliament chamber in Kathmandu as the
quake hit.

Prime Minister Sushil Koirala said later: "At an hour of a natural disaster
like this, we have to face it with courage and patience."

The BBC's Yogita Limaye, who was in Nepal's mountains when the latest
earthquake struck, said: "The earth shook and it shook for a pretty long
time.

"I can completely understand the sense of panic. We have been seeing
tremors - it's been two-and-a-half weeks since the first quake. But this
one really felt like it went on for a really long time. People have been
terrified."

line

In April, we saw the fault boundary rupture eastwards for 150km (93 miles).
And the immediate assessment suggests Tuesday's tremor has occurred right
at the eastern edge of this failure.

In that context, this second earthquake was almost certainly triggered by
the stress changes caused by the first one.

The US Geological Survey's modelling suggested there was 1-in-200 chance of
a M7-7.8 event occurring this week.

Quake experts often talk about "seismic gaps", which refer to segments of
faults that are, to some extent, overdue a quake. Tuesday's big tremor may
well have filled a hole between what we saw on 25 April and some historic
events - such as those in 1934, that occurred further still to the east.

China Lashes Out Over U.S. Plan on South China Sea
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-lashes-out-over-u-s-plan-on-south-china-sea-1431508182>
// WSJ // Eva Dou And

James Hookway - May 13, 2015

Beijing strongly condemned on Wednesday a proposed U.S. military plan to
send aircraft and Navy ships near disputed South China Sea islands to
contest Chinese territorial claims over the area.

“Do you think we would support that move? We are severely concerned about
relevant remarks made by the American side. We believe the American side
needs to make clarification on that,” said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua
Chunying.

The unusually strong comments came after U.S. officials said Defense
Secretary Ash Carter had asked his staff to look at options to counter
China’s increasingly assertive claims over disputed islets in the South
China Sea. Those options, officials said, include flying Navy surveillance
aircraft over islands and sending U.S. Navy ships within 12 nautical miles
of reefs that have been built up in recent months around the Spratly
Islands.

“We always uphold the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” Ms.
Hua said. “But the freedom of navigation definitely does not mean the
military vessel or aircraft of a foreign country can willfully enter the
territorial waters or airspace of another country. The Chinese side firmly
upholds national sovereignty and security.”

Ms. Hua said Beijing urged “relevant countries to refrain from taking risky
and provocative action.”

The proposed U.S. military maneuvers and China’s swift response have raised
the stakes in an already tense regional showdown over who controls the
disputed waters. Six governments–China, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan
and the Philippines—claim the South China Sea waters, islands, reefs and
atolls in whole or in part.

The Philippines, the country in the region that has taken the most
confrontational stance against China, quickly welcomed the news of the U.S.
plan.

The rest of Southeast Asia was holding its tongue, at least for now.
Privately, many diplomats and leaders in the region say they worry about
the potentially destabilizing impact of a confrontation between Washington
and Beijing.

Manila has mounted a legal challenge of China’s claims at the United
Nations, much to Beijing’s annoyance, and the country’s foreign secretary,
Albert del Rosario, said Tuesday in Washington that the Philippines is
seeking more help from the U.S. in pegging back China’s land-reclamation
efforts in disputed waters.

“The Philippines believes that the U.S., as well as all responsible members
of the international community, do have an interest and say in what is
happening in the South China Sea,” said Charles Jose, spokesman for the
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, early Wednesday, citing freedom
of navigation and unimpeded flow of commerce among other factors.

The Philippines has tried to nudge the 10-member Association of Southeast
Asian Nations closer to a firmer stand against China’s continuing
land-reclamation projects, but many countries are wary. A recent statement
from Asean criticizing land-reclamation programs in the South China Sea,
for instance, didn’t specifically name China.

ENLARGE

The biggest concern among some is that U.S. efforts to ensure free
navigation in the region might be interpreted in China as an effort to
contain Beijing’s growing influence, which could escalate tensions further.

Malaysia, which currently holds the rotating chairmanship of Asean, also
lays claim to parts of the South China Sea, but officials there said it was
too soon to say anything about the U.S.’s new direction.

Officials in Vietnam, another claimant, didn’t immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told The Wall Street Journal that
Canberra doesn’t take sides on competing territorial claims in the South
China Sea, but is in close contact with the U.S. on regional tensions.

“We are concerned that land reclamation activity by China and other
claimants could raise tensions in the region,” Ms. Bishop said.

The expansion of South China Sea shoals has put Canberra in an
uncomfortable position between Washington, its longstanding security ally,
and China, its largest trade partner. Defense Minister Kevin Andrews is
expected to discuss regional tensions with his U.S. counterpart, Ash
Carter, in Singapore in a few weeks.

U.S. military commanders have in recent months urged Australia to consider
joining multinational patrols in international waters north of Indonesia,
while also increasing the frequency of U.S. warship and aircraft visits
through Australian bases on the periphery of regional tensions.

Other U.S. allies in the region had little to say.

A South Korea Foreign Ministry statement expressed hope China and Asean
would agree on a code of conduct in the South China Sea, saying, “A
guarantee of security and rights of free navigation in South China Sea, a
major maritime route, is a very important issue for South Korea, which
relies heavily on trade.” A ministry official said it is inappropriate for
Seoul to comment directly on South China Sea territorial disputes.

Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga refrained from commenting on
the considerations by the U.S., its top ally, saying only that the Japanese
government wasn’t aware of the matter.

Japan and the Philippines, which have beefed up security ties in response
to China’s maritime assertiveness, on Tuesday conducted a joint naval
exercise in the South China Sea. Japan sent two destroyers to participate
in the drill, which it said took place in “the waters west of Manila.”

While the two navies have trained jointly before, the latest session
featured for the first time an exercise focused on communications
strategies to respond to “unplanned encounters at sea.”

Security experts are closely watching whether Japan will start sending
surveillance planes and naval vessels to the contentious waters of the
South China Sea to aid the U.S.’s efforts to patrol the region.

So far, Mr. Carter has only asked his staff to look into various ways to
contest China’s claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea.

China, meanwhile, has consistently said it has uncontested sovereignty of
the waters, which it maps out with a nine-dash line. It has also said that
the reclamation projects are mostly for civilian purposes. U.S. estimates
suggest that China has expanded the land it controls in the Spratlys chain
to as much as 2,000 acres, up from 500 acres last year. Satellite images
from defense intelligence firm IHS Jane’s also show that China has begun
construction of an airstrip on one of the new artificial islands.

Manila’s challenge of China’s claims through a United Nations’ tribunal
argues that the nine-dash line China uses has no legal basis. Beijing has
said it “will neither accept nor participate” in U.N. arbitration.

Inspectors in Syria Find Traces of Banned Military Chemicals
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/world/middleeast/inspectors-in-syria-find-traces-of-banned-military-chemicals.html>
// NYT //  Somini Sengupta, Marlise Simons and Anne Barnard - MAY 12, 2015

International inspectors have found traces of banned toxic chemicals in at
least three military locations in Syria, four diplomats and officials said,
less than two years after President Bashar al-Assad agreed to dismantle the
country’s chemical arsenal.

Traces of sarin, a nerve agent, were found in drainage pipes and in
artillery shells in two places, and traces of another banned toxin, ricin,
were found in a third location, a scientific research center, according to
a United Nations diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to
discuss confidential reports from the inspectors.

The discovery of the small amounts of banned materials, first reported by
Reuters, comes as Syrian government forces are being accused of continuing
to bombard insurgent-held areas with chlorine bombs.

Taken together, the recent events raised troubling questions for
international inspectors about whether Damascus was violating the terms of
a deal brokered by Russia and the United States in 2013 that forestalled an
American military strike. The Syrian government was held responsible for a
series of chemical weapons attacks, including a deadly sarin attack near
the capital, before that accord.

A Western diplomat briefed on the findings by the inspectors from the
global Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that while
there was no clear evidence of new use or production of forbidden
chemicals, “the strong suspicion is they are retaining stockpiles which are
being held back.”

“This, and the open defiance in using prohibited chlorine bombs, is
indicative of bad faith from the beginning,” the diplomat said.

A violation of the deal struck to eliminate Syria’s chemical arsenal would
undermine President Obama’s single claim to policy success in Syria, where
four years of war has displaced nearly half the country, killed more than
200,000 people and shown no sign of abating. It could also embarrass
Russia, Mr. Assad’s most powerful military and diplomatic patron.

Already there was mounting evidence that Mr. Assad’s forces had violated
the terms of the international treaty banning use of chemical weapons — and
signed as part of the deal facilitated by Washington and Moscow — by
dropping jerry-built chlorine bombs on insurgent-held areas. While the
Syrian government has denied using chlorine or any chemical as a weapon,
only the government has access to the helicopters that witnesses say are
being used, and rescue workers say the pace of such attacks has increased
in some areas.

Now, inspectors are trying to determine the significance of the new
findings of small amounts of banned agents, which do not necessarily
indicate a lingering weapons program and were described by some diplomats
as being perhaps less troublesome than the charges that the Syrian
government is dropping barrel bombs loaded with chlorine. The inspectors,
whose last tour ended on April 3, are expected to seek answers from Syrian
officials during a visit beginning Sunday.

An investigation into both allegations could put even more pressure on Mr.
Assad during a renewed push to find a negotiated settlement to the conflict
that could lead to his removal from office. On Tuesday, President Vladimir
V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Assad’s most powerful ally, met with Secretary of
State John Kerry in Sochi, Russia, to discuss Syria, and Staffan de
Mistura, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, continued a new round
of talks in Geneva. Both sets of talks are aimed at re-energizing the
search for an elusive political solution.

At the United Nations, the Security Council has been hamstrung on chemical
weapons, as Syria’s allies contend that the allegations are part of a
political campaign against Mr. Assad by Western governments, including the
United States, that have called for his ouster. Evidence of chemical
weapons remains a fraught issue for global public opinion more than a
decade after false claims of an Iraqi chemical weapons program were used to
justify the American invasion that deposed Saddam Hussein.

The detection of traces of banned chemicals were revealed as the Security
Council confronted the charges about the use of a more mundane chemical,
chlorine, which is not a banned substance but whose use in weapons is
forbidden under international law. Government opponents, doctors and rescue
workers contend that Syrian forces are increasingly using chlorine in bombs
dropped from aircraft.

Inspectors found last year that chlorine had been used in battle in
violation of international law. But with Syria’s ally Russia wielding a
Security Council veto, the joint mission of the global monitoring
organization with the United Nations was not mandated to investigate who
had used it. In recent days, the United States has sought to establish a
United Nations mission to determine who is responsible.

As for the new discovery of traces of banned chemicals, it is not
necessarily a ground for punitive action by the Security Council, officials
said. There is no evidence that banned materials were used in weapons after
Syria signed the treaty, or that Syria possesses sufficient quantities to
use in future weapons.

What is clear is that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons, the international group that enforces the chemical weapons
convention, has sent its team of inspectors eight times to Syria. The body
is still seeking to clarify gaps in the government’s required official
declarations about the location and amounts of its toxic stockpiles and the
nature and scope of activities at weapons sites.

What steps the Security Council might take depend on what the monitoring
organization’s inspectors conclude about why the traces were there.

“To have some gaps in the initial declaration is quite common,” the
diplomat said. “To have them persist after a year and a half I find a
little odd. It should have been cleared up now.”

At an executive council meeting of the international monitoring group on
May 7 in The Hague, attendees were told that one or more facilities in
Syria had not been inspected because the government said security problems
prevented access, according to diplomats who attended.

The United States ambassador to the organization, Robert Mikulak, told the
group that there were “gaps and inconsistencies” in Syria’s declaration of
its weapons, according to a copy of his speech.

“Progress continues to be agonizingly slow in destroying all of the
remaining chemical weapons facilities,” he said.

He added: “It is the duty of this council — and of its technical
secretariat — to ensure that the facts about use of chemical weapons are
determined and made known. Silent toleration is not an acceptable option.”

Two other United States officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to
discuss the reports, confirmed the United Nations diplomat’s account that
traces of two banned agents were used.

A former United States official added that small amounts of banned agents
might be less problematic than large amounts of chlorine.

“Traces usually means just that — traces,” the official said of the other
banned chemicals.

A spokesman for the international monitoring organization in The Hague
pointed out that the chemical weapons treaty, which Syria signed in October
2013, required Syria to declare the precise locations of facilities that
were part of its chemical weapons program, as well as the nature and scope
of the activities.

The spokesman added that his colleagues were “continuing to work with the
Syrian Arab Republic to clarify their declaration,” though he said he could
not divulge details of the “operational verification matters” because of
confidential provisions in the treaty.

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS

Why Hillary Clinton Would Be a Weak Presidential Nominee for Democrats
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-weak-presidential-nominee_b_7258616.html>
// Huffington Post // Eric Zuesse – May 12, 2015

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, then how
strong a candidate will she be against a Republican nominee who, as a
representative of the conservative party, is proudly and openly supporting
conservative positions?

Taegan Goddard of The Week headlines on May 11th, "Is Hillary Clinton
Flip-Flopping or Just Evolving?" and he notes several issues on which she
has rhetorically veered to the left recently. He further notes that one of
the things that probably shaved a crucial few percentage-points off the
losers in previous Presidential general-election contests and caused them
to lose, such as John Kerry and Mitt Romney, was the given candidate's
primary-campaign rhetorical flip-flops that had been made during the
Party's primaries in order to be able to wrap up that candidate's
Party-base so as to win its Presidential nomination and so be able to
become a participant in the general-election contest.

In other words, the record is clear: such flip-flops reduce the ardor of
the given Party's voters to come to the polls and vote on Election Day. The
opposite Party's nominee, who hasn't flip-flopped quite so blatantly, wins
the general election because that Party's base then comes to the polls in
droves on Election Day in order to ensconce into the White House someone
whom they passionately want to be there, someone whom they strongly believe
represents their values. Thus, George W. Bush and Barack Obama became
Presidents, while Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney didn't.

Whereas today, some Republicans might not consider George W. Bush to have
been a really conservative President, they strongly did believe him to be a
really conservative Presidential nominee, both in 2000 and in 2004. And
whereas today, some Democrats might not consider Barack Obama to be a
really progressive President, they strongly did believe him to be trying
and doing his best to be so against the ferociously conservative Republican
congressional opposition, both in 2008 and in 2012.

So: in order for Hillary Clinton to be credible in the general election
against whomever the Republicans end up nominating, she will need to
out-compete that nominee on consistency, and not only on ideology. Polls
show that the two Parties are overall fairly-equally close to the
viewpoints of the American electorate on ideology; but, in the final
election, what makes the decisive difference is usually instead the
passion-factor: the devotedness of the given nominee's followers, and this
means mainly the Party (but also independents who respect the given
person's consistency or "honesty"). Flip-floppers don't get it, and they
never can, especially when things become closer and closer to Election Day
and the voters become more concerned about the issues than they were at the
contest's start (i.e., before the debates and the advertisements).

The stakes at the end of a Presidential contest are more stark than they
ever were before. The key factor then becomes trust: if you don't trust
your Party's nominee, you're a lot less likely to go to the polls to vote
for him or her. That's a major reason why the U.S. has one of the lowest of
all nations' voter-participation rates.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then how will she be
able to attack the Republican nominee for being a tool of Wall Street --
which she will have to do (and do convincingly) in order to beat the
Republican?

Here's her record, and here are its results:

2015-05-11-1431365914-4055220-ScreenShot20150423at10.17.40AM.png

How many Democrats will be too disheartened even to show up and vote? And
how many of them will even be wondering whether perhaps some of the
"private" emails that Ms. Clinton had wiped off her computer's (even off of
her server's) hard drive, might have been emails with some of the Wall
Street bigs (and their law and accounting firms) who were on that list of
her top campaign contributors? Even the legality of her having destroyed
those emails is far from clear. So: how will she be able to motivate her
Party-base, when that final moment arrives?

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then trust will be the
killer campaign-issue, even if it's not an issue that's being discussed in
the campaign. The closer and closer to Election Day, the bigger and bigger
that issue will be. We're as far from it now as we can be, but, with
Hillary Clinton, it's already rising, and no one has any suggestion of a
way in which it will likely recede. And this is only the start.

Regardless of whom Democratic voters select to become the Democratic
nominee, and regardless of whom Republican voters select to become the
Republican nominee, it would not be going out on a limb to predict, right
now, that the Democratic nominee will be campaigning in the general
election for the issues on which polls show that the public agrees mainly
with the Democratic positions, and that the Republican nominee will be
campaigning in the general election for the issues on which polls show that
the public agrees mainly with the Republican positions. The silent but
decisive killer-issue will be trust.

In primary elections, it's smart for voters to be concerned about ideology.
But, if they really want to be voting for the next President of the United
States, then the smartest voters in the primary elections will be even more
concerned about trustworthiness. When the final election comes, that tends
to be the determining issue -- more than ideology, more than "experience,"
more than anything else.

Time for a Conversation about Paid Sick Leave
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/paid-sick-days-clinton_n_7215274.html>
// Huffington Post // Jonathan Cohn - May 12, 2015

You’ve got a nasty head cold, or maybe your kid is home with the flu. If
you’re a waitress and you call in sick, should the law forbid your employer
from withholding your day's wages?

A big debate over that question is taking place in Pennsylvania, pitting
conservative state lawmakers in Harrisburg against liberal city officials
in Philadelphia. It's the latest in a series of such clashes that have
taken place across the country. Underscoring the high stakes of the
outcome, the battle is also drawing attention from high-profile Democrats,
including Hillary Clinton, in what could be the early stages of an argument
that will play out during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Earlier this year, Philadelphia enacted an ordinance that will allow
employees to earn up to five full days of paid sick time per year. Under
its terms, employees can claim the days for their own illnesses or for
those of direct family members, or they can use the days to deal with
domestic violence incidents. The law goes into effect next week. Once it
does, workers begin accruing paid sick time -- one hour for every 40 that
they work -- as soon as they’ve been on the job for at least three months.

The law doesn’t apply to seasonal employees or interns, or to companies
where workers have unions. Companies with fewer than 10 employees must
provide the time off, but not salary. Even so, as many as 200,000
Philadelphians who didn’t have paid sick days before will now get them,
according to the law’s supporters. When Mayor Michael Nutter signed the
measure in February, after vetoing two previous ones, these advocates were
ecstatic.

“It’s a great day for all of our workers and all of our businesses,” said
Marianne Bellesorte, an official with Pathways PA, a nonprofit service and
advocacy group that works on issues for women, children and families.

But city officials may not have the last word on the matter. As far back as
2013, when Nutter was still blocking the ordinance, conservative lawmakers
in the state were talking about passing a law that would invalidate local
sick day laws altogether. The clear target of that effort was Philadelphia,
since it was the only city considering such a measure and, because of a
quirk in the state’s constitution, it may be the only city that has the
legal authority to do so.

“I think we have an inherent problem with government trying to tell private
business what they should do with their employees,” John Eichelberger, a
Republican state senator, told The Huffington Post in an interview last
year. Eichelberger co-sponsored a preemption bill that the Senate passed
last month; a similar measure is now before the state’s House of
Representatives. Tom Wolf, the newly elected Democratic governor, has
promised to veto such legislation -- and that's where things stand now.
It’s not clear whether Republican leaders in the legislature could muster
the votes to override him

.

A Familiar Fight With Familiar Faces

This isn’t the first time conservatives have tried to leverage their
superior numbers in state government to block or undermine paid sick days
legislation in big cities, where liberals typically hold large majorities.
Using a legislative template supplied by the conservative American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and working closely with employers who
oppose paid sick days mandates, conservatives have tried to enact
preemption laws in more than a dozen other states. In Arizona, Georgia and
nine other states, they have prevailed.

Perhaps the most highly publicized fight took place in Florida starting in
2012, after organizers in Orange County obtained the 50,000 signatures
necessary to put paid sick leave up for a countywide vote. They faced stiff
opposition from local employers, including Disney and Red Lobster, as well
as from the county commission, whose members refused to put the measure on
the ballot.

Although a judge eventually forced the commissioners to back down, the
delay gave the Republican-controlled state legislature a chance to pass a
preemption law -- which it did in April 2013. The delay was apparently the
plan all along: In a text message later made public through state
disclosure laws and reported in the Orlando Sentinel, the head of the
Orange County Republican Party had urged county commissioners to find some
way of slowing the local initiative’s progress, so that state lawmakers
could deliver their “kill shot” first.

The Central Florida debate put the human impact of paid sick time into
sharp relief, since so many people work low-paying jobs in or at least tied
to the big theme parks there. Nationally, more than 40 million Americans --
or roughly four out of every 10 private-sector workers -- have no paid sick
days, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it’s people
working in those low-paying hotel and restaurant jobs who by far have the
least access to paid sick days.

That’s rough on them, because they are the ones who can least afford to go
without a day’s pay. But it also has consequences for customers, who end up
using the facilities and eating the meals these people are cleaning and
preparing -- even while they may have contagious illnesses. In one survey
sponsored by supporters of sick day legislation, more than 60 percent of
cooks and waiters reported serving food while sick.

If the restaurant and hospitality industries are worried about this
prospect, they haven’t shown it. In Pennsylvania, Florida and pretty much
every other part of the country where this debate has come up, these two
industries have led the charge against paid sick days laws. Along with
their conservative allies, they’ve made their case primarily on economic
grounds, arguing that paid sick days are too costly -- and too burdensome
-- for many employers to administer.

The result of paid sick day requirements, business lobbyists and their
conservative allies insist, will inevitably be some combination of higher
prices and fewer jobs. Before New York City enacted its paid sick days law
last year, opponents warned it would be a “de facto half-billion-dollar tax
on small business.”

Proving or disproving such claims is difficult because most of the
available evidence on the economic impact of paid sick days consists of
employer or employee surveys, which are frequently unreliable. But while
there are certainly some for whom paid sick days create real problems,
there’s no sign of serious damage to business in cities like San Francisco,
which has had a law requiring paid sick days in place for several years.

The evidence on the benefits of paid sick days laws is a bit clearer. One
peer-reviewed study, published in the American Journal of Public Health,
has shown that people with access to paid sick days are less likely to
suffer on-the-job injuries -- perhaps because with prompt medical
attention, nagging medical problems don’t get worse. A 2012 study from the
same journal found that during the H1N1 crisis of 2009, workers without
paid sick days were more likely to go to work while feeling flu-like
systems, exposing co-workers to whatever illnesses they had.

In 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a
report on the sources of foodborne norovirus outbreaks -- and found that
contamination from infected restaurant workers was a major cause.

Aron Hall, the study’s lead author and director of viral diseases at the
CDC, said, “Some food service workers understandably fear losing their job
and also leaving co-workers short staffed if they don't go to work when
they're sick. That's why it's so important that businesses consider using
measures that encourage workers to stay home when they're sick. That
includes paid sick leave and a staffing plan that includes on-call workers.”

Coming Soon To The Presidential Campaign

Whatever the policy reality -- and whatever the outcome of the political
fight in Pennsylvania, which will likely drag on for at least a few weeks
while the House considers legislation -- the issue of paid sick days is
unlikely to fade away soon. In November, Massachusetts voters approved a
ballot initiative guaranteeing most workers paid sick leave, making it the
third state -- after California and Connecticut -- to do so. Vermont may be
next, since the state House just passed a bill and its Democratic governor,
Peter Shumlin, has said he supports the measure.

Those are all liberal states. But, in Washington, D.C., President Barack
Obama has called for a national paid sick days law that would cover all
states. Last month, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced a budget
amendment designed to test support for the concept. It got 61 votes.

Murray's proposal wasn’t an actual piece of legislation. A more detailed
bill that made the costs and benefits explicit probably couldn’t get
through the Senate, let alone the (even more conservative) House. But paid
sick days are likely to generate more discussion in the coming months --
maybe even in response to the Pennsylvania debate.

When Nutter signed that measure in his state, Hillary Clinton, the
front-runner for the Democratic nomination, hailed it as an achievement. On
Monday, campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin told HuffPost that Clinton was
"disappointed to learn of the effort to overturn this hard-fought victory."
Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Obama, has also spoken out
against the Pennsylvania preemption effort -- calling it "dreadful."

Clinton has hinted during the campaign that she will support a national
paid sick days law, similar to what Obama has proposed. Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), who is Clinton’s lone declared Democratic rival, has already
co-sponsored such a bill in the Senate. As for the Republicans, the three
presidential candidates who had a chance to vote on Murray’s amendment --
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio -- all voted no. Representatives of the
campaign for Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, did not respond to
questions about paid sick days laws.

That leaves Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who hasn’t taken a public position
on either Philadelphia's ordinance or a national proposal. But Walker has a
history on the issue of paid sick days, and it's from an episode that looks
a lot like the fight in Pennsylvania.

The very first statewide effort to preempt a local paid sick days law took
place in Wisconsin in 2011, in response to an ordinance that voters in
Milwaukee approved. Walker signed that law, saying “patchwork government
mandates stifle job creation and economic opportunity.” When asked to offer
more detail on why he signed that bill -- or what he thought of the fight
in Pennsylvania -- his press secretary, Laurel Patrick, said that Walker
wanted “to ensure Wisconsin has a statewide standard for family and medical
leave. This provides clarity and certainty for businesses operating across
the state.”

Of course, a national law guaranteeing paid sick days would eliminate the
problem of “patchwork” regulations and provide the “clarity” that Walker
and other opponents of local ordinances say they want. But it’s possible
that these conservatives will raise a more fundamental problem with legal
requirements to provide paid sick days: They may oppose such laws on
principle, no matter where the statutes apply. The 2016 campaign should
help settle that question, maybe sooner rather than later.

America Doesn't Need Another 'Contract With America'—Not Even a Liberal One
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121755/bill-de-blasio-wants-progressive-contract-america-bad-idea>
// The New Republic // Elspeth Reeve - May 12, 2015

ill de Blasio says he wants to do what Newt Gingrich did in 1994, but for
progressives. Maybe he should stop saying that.

The New York mayor, joined by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and
economist Joseph Stiglitz, rolled out his Progressive Agenda in Washington,
D.C., on Tuesday; it's a 13-point plan calling for a higher minimum wage,
universal pre-kindergarten, and higher taxes on the wealthy. De Blasio has
explicitly compared it to Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America,” a set of
legislative proposals often credited with helping Republicans win a
majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years in those midterm
elections, and which gave them the appearance of a sweeping national
mandate for specific conservative legislation. On MSNBC's “Morning Joe”
last week, de Blasio said, “I obviously disagree with Newt Gingrich on many
things. But in 1994, he put forward the Contract with America. It had a
crystallizing effect for his party and for conservatives. It was a clear,
sharp set of ideas about how to change America—in my view, in the wrong
direction. But as an organizational tool it was very effective.”

That depends on your definition of "effective." The 1994 Contract was very
effective in getting attention from the press. It was very effective in
making Newt Gingrich famous. It was effective at setting the legislative
agenda of Congress. It was kind of effective at getting legislation passed.
It was kind of effective at making conservatives happy. It was not
effective in electing Bob Dole president in 1996. And it was definitely not
effective at solving many of the long-term social trends it was supposed to
address.

De Blasio (and maybe Gingrich, too) might hope we don’t go back and look at
what the Contract with America actually proposed, because a lot of it is
awful. Sometimes sifting through newspaper archives from just 20 years ago
feels like you’re stumbling through the remnants of an ancient barbaric
civilization. What was wrong with you people? In the primitive writings of
these strange humans (Americans in the '90s) we can find many lessons for
today's progressive mayor of New York.

De Blasio suggests that “on the ground” it’s clear there’s a popular
movement toward more progressive policies, a demand Washington address
income inequality. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that’s true. And
that’s what makes the comparison to the 1994 Contract a little
uncomfortable. The Contract with America was designed to include only
issues that had the support of 60 percent of the public—it was supposed to
be a unifying agenda of things Americans with good common horse sense
agreed on. Today, that good common horse sense looks dumb.

The Contract with America had ten planks, and Republicans promised to vote
on all ten in their first 100 days in office. The Personal Responsibility
Act had many measures for reforming welfare, but the one clearly designed
to capture the public’s attention was the one that would punish poor teen
girls for having sex: Women who had kids before they turned 18 would have
been banned from welfare for life. Here’s how the Heritage Foundation
approvingly analyzed the political calculation of the Contract in 1995:

The items in the Contract were carefully selected in terms of issues that
were of fundamental policy importance but also were "doable," that could be
accomplished rather quickly because of the broad support they engendered.

The Personal Responsibility Act of the Contract sought to fundamentally
revamp the role of the state in welfare policy by developing policies to
reduce teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births by prohibiting aid to
mothers under 18 who give birth out of wedlock and requiring them to name
the fathers of their children, who would be held accountable for their
actions. Such women would be required to live at home to receive any aid
and would not get housing subsidies to set up their own apartments. The Act
also required that aid be cut off if recipients did not work.

As if a teen would ever tell her boyfriend, “You are a good boyfriend who
is sexually attractive and also nice. However, we cannot have sexual
intercourse because if I were to get pregnant, I would not be eligible for
government assistance in raising the child.” Teen pregnancy did drop
steadily in the '90s and the decades after. But it was not because of the
Contract with America (the above provision never became law). It was
because of sex education and greater birth control options. It turns out
that shaming poor women for having sex works less well than low-cost
long-term contraceptives.

Another major plank of the Contract with America is especially relevant
right now: The Taking Back Our Streets Act. The legislation is kind of an
All-Time Worst Hits of Law Enforcement, as it called for longer prison
sentences and more prisons. States that could prove felons served at least
85 percent of their sentences would get more money. It would be harder to
appeal a death sentence, and easier to admit evidence collected
unconstitutionally in criminal prosecutions.

Again, these ideas were very popular at the time. The Washington Post noted
on October 11, 1994, that “virtually all polls [are] showing that crime has
replaced the economy as the top public concern.” (“What is so wrong with
giving the public what it wants, just for once?” GOP pollster Frank Luntz,
who worked for Gingrich, said in the same Post story.) Then-President Bill
Clinton had passed a 1994 crime bill; in 1995, the new Republican majority
tried to make it tougher. In August 1995, Florida Rep. Bill McCollum of
Florida told The New York Times, "If you can get these violent criminals to
serve more time, you will inevitably reduce the violent crime rate… Anyone
who is locked up will not commit a crime."

This turned out to be very bad analysis. Crime had peaked in 1991, and, as
the Brennan Center’s Inimai M. Chettiar wrote in The Atlantic in February,
it was not because of the prison boom. Only about 5 percent of the drop in
crime is attributable to increased incarceration, and the "growth of
incarceration had no observable effect on violent crime in the 1990s or
2000s." Clinton has renounced his own crime bill: "We have too many people
in prison."

So we are somewhat lucky, because the Contract with America failed to
produce much new crime law, aside from making death penalty appeals more
difficult. Despite all the polling on crime and the buzz about Gingrich,
Republican changes to Clinton's crime bill faltered amid congressional
bickering over funding for more police officers. Other parts of the 1994
Contract have been largely abandoned, or addressed inside baseball stuff
about how Congress works, like term limits for members of Congress and
rules about seniority on congressional committees.

Did conservatives get what they wanted out of the Contract? Not really.
Edward H. Crane wrote in Forbes in November 2000:

There will always be a party that believes the coercive mechanisms of the
state are the appropriate means for ordering societal affairs. The
Democrats fill this role by instinct. But these days it appears the GOP has
grown into it.

Consider: Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has
approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests by
more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department
of Education now brags in response to Clinton’s 2000 State of the Union
Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education.
My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined
budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to
eliminate have increased by 13%.

The obvious point is the popular thing is not always the right thing. De
Blasio is responding to years of middle class wage stagnation and a
widening wealth gap. And he's got great enemies—last week The Wall Street
Journal noted that society types are annoyed de Blasio's wife won't go to
fancy socialite charity galas. (A publicist told the Journal, “They have
made themselves socially irrelevant. It is a major shortcoming not to
mingle with all classes.”) What could possibly go wrong? Well, Gingrich and
his fellow Republicans were also responding to troubling long-term social
trends with popular proposals to punish the bad guys; it's not as if they
called for 1.5 million black men to go "missing" due to early death or
prison. Critics of de Blasio and other progressives say they are cynically
trying to whip up a pitchfork-wielding mob, and their populist policies
could have unintended consequences while failing to address the problems
they're designed to solve. Imitating Newt won't dispel that.

The only thing the Contract has a rock-solid record on is the publicity it
brought its author. Gingrich, naturally, is relishing the attention de
Blasio's Progressive Agenda has given him after a few years out of the
spotlight. On Twitter, he offered to debate contracts with the mayor. On
Facebook, he said in a short video, “I look forward to debating him, and I
think it's very important to recognize the original Contract with America
had big ideas that were real, backed up by real legislation, that led to
real change.” Gingrich even wrote an op-ed in the New York Post, offering
"advice" for de Blasio: "I’m flattered, Mr. Mayor. But allow me to offer a
few cautionary thoughts. ... It’s impossible for Mayor de Blasio to create
a document in the mold of the Contract with America—ideas supported by
large majorities of Americans—if it is based on far-left ideas."

On this count, the liberal Contract with America is clearly working for
him. According to Topsy, de Blasio got a surge of mentions on Twitter after
news broke of his Progressive Agenda. He appeared on MSNBC, his plan was
discussed on NPR, and it got a "SIREN!" headline from Politico's Mike
Allen. If that's what de Blasio wants for himself, following Gingrich's
path is a fantastic idea. If he wants to lessen income inequality or pass
laws or satisfy progressives or just generally make America a better place,
he should try something else.

The Aggressive, Sometimes Bizarre Progressive Campaign Against Obama’s
Trade Agenda
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-aggressive-sometimes-bizarre-progressive-campaign-agains#.ohypp0vG1>
// BuzzFeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro - May 12, 2015

Behind the scenes, the tension is even higher: Progressive trade opponents
have followed a pro-trade Democrat home to his house, sent anonymous emails
to Hill staffers some thought came from the administration, leveraged
political money in a way that’s upset even their allies and suggested trade
deals like the one favored by the president were among the causes of the
civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

The White House and its allies have been very aggressive, too. But the
administration side of this fight is well-documented — partially because
the toughest attacks on the left have come from the man with the loudest
voice in the country: Obama, who recently flew to Oregon to attack
progressive trade critics in a high-profile speech from Nike’s global
headquarters (a move unpopular with his critics: “I was appalled the
president would go to Nike,” said Larry Cohen, president of the
Communications Workers of America). Obama is now openly sparring with Sen.
Elizabeth Warren.

Those White House allies argue, however, that they are not alone here. The
progressives, they say, have essentially gotten away with their incendiary
tactics against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the proposed Asian trade
deal, and the fast-track authority that would limit Congress to simple
up-or-down votes on trade deals.

An often-cited example is the treatment of Sen. Ron Wyden. The Oregon
Democrat has been a long-time progressive on many issues, most notably his
ongoing attacks on the administration’s domestic use of bulk surveillance.
But he supports Obama on trade. And since he said that, the left has gone
after Wyden hard. Protesters have taken their efforts to Wyden’s house in
southeast Oregon, his family home in New York City, and the bookstore owned
by his wife there, The Strand. The groups were small — never approaching a
dozen people, according to someone familiar with them — but protesting a
politician at his home did not impress even Obama’s trade opponents back in
Washington.

“I wouldn’t pick that tactic, honestly. I do think that in democracy,
people have a right to do things, but that wouldn’t have been a tactic we
would have suggested,” Cohen said. “On the other hand, the president going
to Nike? And giving the speech that he gave? … Ron Wyden and his
connections to Nike is a lot more troublesome to me than the fact that some
people may have gone overboard at his house. I mean, they didn’t go
overboard, but even showing up there. I don’t think that that’s a tactic
that’s going to build broad-based support.”

For his part, Wyden hasn’t publicly said the protests bothered him. But
many of his and Obama’s allies point to them when complaining about the
progressive attacks.

“I have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with activists over and over again to
push our government in a more progressive direction and stand up for
Americans’ rights, so I welcome their work to have their voices heard, even
when we don’t agree,” Wyden told BuzzFeed News in a statement provided by
his Senate office.

Wyden said the protesters’ cause is already included in the current trade
debate, a point Obama has tried to argue in his public statements lately.

“When it comes to trade, Activists have made valid points about the secrecy
of trade agreements and a lack of enforcement, among other things,” he
said. “That’s one of the reasons the president and I pushed so hard to
ensure today’s trade agreements are very different from those of the 1990s.”

Cohen himself has upset pro-trade Democrats with his often impassioned
rhetoric on the president’s trade plans. Back in January, he drew a line
between the ‘90s trade deals, the decline of Detroit, and the unrest in
Ferguson, Missouri.

“Every one of our members in Detroit, high-tech or low-tech, know that the
trade policies that devastated Detroit devastate their lives also — that
they can’t get a raise when people don’t have a job,” Cohen said at a
Capitol Hill press conference with prominent trade opponents. “Our members
in St. Louis and Ferguson know that the root causes of Ferguson lie in the
shutdowns in St. Louis. And so we connect the dots in this coalition and
with these members of Congress.”

At the time, the comment drew little press scrutiny, but it got the
attention of trade-supporting Democrats. “Obama administration officials
were ‘taken aback’ by the level of rhetoric from Thursday’s anti-fast track
press conference,” read a tiny item buried in a Jan. 9 Politico newsletter.
The claim that trade policy can adversely affect communities of color
pre-dates the Ferguson unrest. A policy brief on the CWA website, “TPA A
Worry For Communities Of Color,” made the case that fast track could hurt
black workers in June 2014.

Months later, though, Cohen’s argument that the “root causes” of Ferguson
were in trade is still is angering pro-trade Democrats, who cast the
comment as over-the-line at best, and illustrative of the progressive
attacks.

Cohen doesn’t think much of the controversy.

“I think the right [connection to trade] to make is Ferguson as a part of
St. Louis, not Ferguson itself,” he said. “The president himself said that
the loss of all the factory jobs in Baltimore is directly related to this.
That’s a quote from the president. He just doesn’t tie it to trade.”

Hilary Shelton, a St. Louis native and senior official at the NAACP, said
the Ferguson comment was “just a little bit hyperbolic,” but said his group
also worries about the potential for trade policy to adversely affect
communities of color.

Labor’s full court press on trade has upset even their political allies. A
freeze on all political spending by the AFL-CIO announced in March wasn’t
supported by all the unions in the labor confederation, and Democratic
allies on the Hill say the move was a step to far.

“I think it was unnecessary, I don’t think the labor unions needed to make
that kind of nuclear threat to their friends. And we are their friends,”
said Rep. G. K. Butterfield, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a
no vote on fast track. “It rises to the level of a nuclear threat and I
think some of them have had second thoughts about making that statement.”

Elsewhere in Washington, other antics have grated on the Democrats backing
Obama. Public Citizen, the progressive activist group originally founded by
but now longer officially associated with Ralph Nader, has been at the
center of generating progressive talking points, opposition research,
op-eds and other material often cited by lawmakers opposed to the trade
deals. The group also has a 16 foot-tall horse-shaped parade float labeled
“Trojan Horse Trade Agreement.” In February, the group combined those two
ideas into an email lobbying campaign that pro-trade Democrats labeled
downright odd, and embarrassing for the TPP-opponents side.

On the Friday before Valentine’s Day, an email from “
[email-masked]” landed in the inbox of dozens of trade-focused
Democratic legislative assistants across Capitol Hill. Michael Froman is
the U.S. Trade Representative, Obama’s top negotiator on the TPP trade
deal, and if not the progressive enemy number one, probably somewhere
between two and four. The email had no signature and directed to readers to
an anonymous website, fromantics.com, which consisted of “Mike” begging
forgiveness for having “not been faithful in this relationship.”

Dearest Member of Congress,

Will you be my Valentine? If I have betrayed your trust, I am sorry that
you feel that way. I’ve been so focused on convincing you to take the Fast
Track trip with me and buy those trade deals I love, I’ve said some things
that, in retrospect, were not true. :( Will you give me another chance?
Will it help if I come clean with a little Valentine’s Day poem for you and
some sweet nothings on a special website just for you?

Neither the website or the email listed Public Citizen.

“There was lot of confusion at first about, ‘Where did this come from?’”
recalled one senior pro-trade Democratic Hill staffer. They asked the USTR,
“Are you guys sending us candygrams right now?”

The anonymous email with the USTR-focused valentines was odd, the staffer
said. “This falls in the more outlandish category,” the staffer said.
“Usually you get a letter with 6,000 groups signed on to it or something.”

Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and a
veteran of the trade wars stretching back decades, was behind the email.
Her name was on the domain registration of the Fromantics website too,
though neither her name nor Public Citizen’s was anywhere on the site
itself. Wallach was happy to discuss it in detail in an interview, and
laughed off congressional staff who may have been confused.

Staff at Public Citizen were actually worried no one would open their
email, not that many people would and would then be fooled.

“We were thinking we would have to print out paper Valentine’s and bring
them to the individual offices because basically anyone with any internet
sanitation protocols would not think that was from the USTR and as a result
they would not open the dang link,” she said.

It was not the first time Wallach had heard congressional staff were
surprised by the email.

“With that email, it did not cross our minds that anyone would think it was
from Mike Froman. But in retrospect, I guess next we do what we thought was
not a very subtle joke, we’ll have to actually specifically say, ’this is
not from USTR Froman!’” she said. “It didn’t seem subtle to us. I mean for
one thing, if we wanted to hide it, we wouldn’t have sent it from here. You
can track it back to us.”

In some ways, this political dynamic was expected: Obama’s allies in
Washington have said all along that passing trade deals with Republican
support is traditionally the way trade deals are done, and that the
sometimes awkward fight amongst Democrats was always an expected part of
the trade push. But pro-trade Democrats have clearly been impressed by the
way the left has rallied, and stayed rallied, against the Obama trade
agenda. On the Hill, Obama’s allies watched in dismay as the left started
applying real pressure against fast track while the White House focused its
defense on a strategy of what one ally called “Let’s get people facts and
information.” That meant dry and policy-heavy briefings many members didn’t
attend. And it certainly did not mean anything like a 16-foot-tall horse.

Now that Obama has fully engaged, really calling on his base to trust him
on trade and to believe that he’s not going to send a trade deal to
Congress that runs counter to the rest of his agenda, his allies are
starting to get more confident that he’s rallied enough Democratic support
to get his trade agenda through. Pro-trade Democrats recently sent around
an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing growing support for trade
among Democratic voters, including big jumps among Latino and black voters.

Progressives say they’ve done enough damage to keep fast-track authority
from passing the House, certainly. They’ve definitely quieted many
Democrats when it comes to crossing them publicly: Democratic critics of
progressive trade strategy contacted by BuzzFeed News generally preferred
to stay off the record or speak without attribution about the groups that
may prove to be valuable allies in future legislative fights.

Pro-trade Democrats say the progressives shot themselves in the foot with
tactics and rhetoric — threats of primaries, an aggressive “you’re with us
or against us” mentality — that have turned many Democrats off.

“The sense is absolutely that the attacks cross the line,” the pro-trade
aide said. “It’s frustrating to a lot of members when they really do want
to get in the room and shape policy and make trade agreements more
progressive.”

Progressives say they don’t mean to scare anybody off, and they’re not
trying to be in your face for in your face’s sake. They just don’t see room
for wiggle room.

“This vote on fast-track and the TPP, it’s not a close call. So if there is
an issue where it’s a sincere ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ moment,
then the kind of really pressured, pointed tactics and messages that apply
for this campaign wouldn’t be appropriate,” Wallach said. “But in this
instance, it’s not a close call.”

Lawmakers stuck in the middle of the fight between the White House and
progressives don’t see the heated rhetoric fading quickly from memories.
Butterfield, the Congressional Black Caucus chair, has been lobbied by the
president directly as well as all the progressive groups pushing to keep
Democrats from standing with Obama on trade. For now, he’s standing with
the progressives. But he said the tactics of both sides have left a mark.

“The president feels very strongly about TPA and TPP. I haven’t seen him
this determined since the whole Affordable Care Act debate back in ‘09. He
is fully invested in this debate, because he is convinced that he’s right,”
he said. “This is not one of those issues that’s a come and go issue. I’ve
lived through and seen many of those, that seem kind of clenching but at
the end of the day it passes over. But this is one of those that’s going to
be with us for a while. The proponents and opponents feel very strongly
about their positions.”

Sabotage! Will Bill Save Us from Hill?
<http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/05/12/sabotage-will-bill-save-us-from-hill/?singlepage=true>
// PJ Media // Roger Simon - May 12, 2015

The more we read of the escapades or listen to the remarks of William
Jefferson Clinton, the less it seems he wants his wife to be president.
Even the court eunuchs at the Washington Post are starting to worry.

Now naturally, Bill cannot come out and say as much,  not even to himself
in the small hours of the morning.  But the way he’s behaving under fire —
“I gotta pay our bills!” – does the talking for him.

As attractive as a Third Clinton Presidency may be in fantasy, I’d wager
the reality of being First Man gives Bill Clinton the heebie-jeebies.  What
a crimp in his lifestyle — and that’s not even the half of it.

Of course, that wasn’t the agreement.  Back when he humiliated Hillary in
public, yet again, and to such an extraordinary degree, with that now
middle-aged TED speaker “Miss Lewinsky,” Hill didn’t run off – like a “good
feminist” or even a moderately self-respecting human being — into the
welcoming  arms of a celebrity  divorce lawyer.  Instead, she played the
game, mouthing such howlers as blaming her husband’s (serial) infidelity on
the “great rightwing conspiracy.”  The deal was — I back you and you back
me…. and back me… and… and… and…

But that was then and this is now, now being years into the Clinton
post-presidency,a gaudy cocktail of goody-goody causes, multi-million
dollar corporate shenanigans, various Hollywood star assignations (yes, I
live here and there are rumors), not to mention myriad private jets of the
727 variety. (No namby-pamby Gulf Streams for our Bill.  Power to the
People!  Right on!)

And of course there was and is the speechifying at 500K a pop and upwards.
One wonders if at those rates he recycles old speeches (as most on the
circuit do) or comes up with a new one for the occasion. If this is
Tuesday, it must be Kazakhstan.  (Who’s the dictator in this joint and have
you made your uranium deal already, Harry?)

Then there’s the matter of Jeffrey Epstein, the king of teenage orgies, now
once more on the loose.  If Bill were in any way serious about a Hillary
presidency he would have stayed on the far side of Pluto from that dude.
What could he possibly see in Epstein?  Intellectual stimulation?  Perhaps
a new reading of the Upanishads.

Now the drill is that this is all irrelevant.  The mainstream media will
not only cover for Bill and Hill as Bonnie and Clyde, as Peggy Noonan
dubbed them in her column, they’d cover for them if they were Gilles de
Rais and Elizabeth Báthory.  And the American public is so anesthetized
taking selfies while watching the Kardashians that the outcome of the
election is nowhere near as important as when Bruce Jenner will make that
final decision. Just keep the free goodies flowing.

Well, maybe.

But that’s good and bad news for Bill.  Can you imagine him sitting around
the White House?  I think he’d take ambassador to the Netherlands, if
people wouldn’t laugh.  Amsterdam is his kind of town and it’s only an hour
from the Hague. And then there’s always a possible posting to Bangkok….

But he can’t do it.  He’s trapped.  And trapped, And trapped…. and he knows
it.  Poor Bill, a prisoner of his own making.  And he doesn’t even get to
give the orders.  She does that.

And that’s the unfortunate part.  Much as we hate to admit it, even the
most right wing of us would prefer Bill to Hillary.  But that’s who were
stuck with now.

Keep your fingers crossed that Bill will finally step over the line and
sabotage her.  He may be our only hope.  Don’t just sit there.  Encourage
him!

Read more:
http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/05/12/sabotage-will-bill-save-us-from-hill/#ixzz3Zzo2991i

The Center-Right Moment
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/opinion/david-brooks-the-center-right-moment.html?ref=todayspaper>
// New York Times // David Brooks - May 12, 2015

The most surprising event of this political era is what hasn’t happened.
The world has not turned left. Given the financial crisis, widening
inequality, the unpopularity of the right’s stances on social issues and
immigration, you would have thought that progressive parties would be
cruising from win to win.

But, instead, right-leaning parties are doing well. In the United States,
Republicans control both houses of Congress. In Israel, the Likud Party led
by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled off a surprising win in an
election that was at least partly about economic policy. In Britain, the
Conservative Party led by Prime Minister David Cameron won a parliamentary
majority.

What’s going on here?

Well, there are some issues in each election specific to that country, but
there are a few broader trends to be observed. The first is that the
cutting-edge, progressive economic arguments do not seem to be swaying
voters.

Over the past few years, left-of-center economic policy has moved from
opportunity progressivism to redistributionist progressivism. Opportunity
progressivism is associated with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the 1990s
and Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago today. This tendency actively uses
government power to give people access to markets, through support for
community colleges, infrastructure and training programs and the like, but
it doesn’t interfere that much in the market and hesitates before raising
taxes.

This tendency has been politically successful. Clinton and Blair had long
terms. This year, Emanuel won by 12 percentage points against the more
progressive candidate, Chuy Garcia, even in a city with a disproportionate
number of union households.

Redistributionist progressivism more aggressively raises taxes to shift
money down the income scale, opposes trade treaties and meddles more in the
marketplace. This tendency has won elections in Massachusetts (Elizabeth
Warren) and New York City (Bill de Blasio) but not in many other places. Ed
Balls, the No. 2 figure in the Labour Party in Britain, co-led the group
from the Center for American Progress that wrote the most influential
statement of modern progressivism, a report on “inclusive prosperity.”
Balls could not even retain his own parliamentary seat in the last election.

The conservative victories probably have more to do with the public’s
skepticism about the left than with any positive enthusiasm toward the
right. Still, there are a few things center-right parties have done
successfully.

First, they have loudly (and sometimes offensively) championed national
identity. In this era of globalization, voters are rewarding candidates who
believe in their country’s exceptionalism.

Second, they have been basically sensible on fiscal policy. After the
financial crisis, there was a big debate over how much governments should
go into debt to stimulate growth. The two nations most associated with the
“austerity” school — those who were suspicious of debt-based stimulus —
were Germany and Britain. This will not settle the debate, but these two
nations now have some of the strongest economies in Europe and their
political leaders are in good shape.

Third, these leaders did not overread their mandate. Cameron in Britain
promised to cut the size of government, and he did, from 45.7 percent of
G.D.P. in 2010 to 40.7 percent today, according to The Economist. The
number of public-sector jobs there has gone down by 1 million.

But he made these cuts without going overboard. Public satisfaction with
government services has gone up. And there have been some sensible efforts
to boost those at the bottom. As The Economist pointed out, “The richest 10
percent have borne the greatest burden of extra taxes. Full-time workers
earning the minimum wage pay a third as much income tax as in 2010.
Overall, inequality has not widened — in contrast to America.”

The British electorate and the American electorate sometimes mirror each
other. Trans-Atlantic voters went for Reagan and Thatcher together and
Clinton and Blair together. In policy terms, Cameron is a more conservative
version of President Obama.

Cameron’s win suggests the kind of candidate that would probably do well in
a general election in this country. He is liberal on social policy, green
on global warming and pragmatically conservative on economic policy. If
he’s faulted for anything, it is for not being particularly ideological,
though he has let his ministers try some pretty bold institutional reforms
to modernize the welfare state.

Globally, voters are disillusioned with large public institutions. They
seem to want to reassert local control and their own particular nationalism
(Scottish or anything else). But they also seem to want a slightly smaller
public sector, strong welfare state reform and more open and vibrant labor
markets as a path to prosperity.

For some reason, American politicians are fleeing from this profile,
Hillary Clinton to the further left and Republicans to the right.

A Million Missing Black Voters
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/a-million-missing-black-voters/392972/>
// The Atlantic // David A. Graham - May 12, 2015

Quick, what are the most racially charged elements of voting? There is a
familiar roster of complaints: felon disenfranchisement, which, given the
racial disparities in the justice system, disproportionately affects
minorities. Voter-ID laws and other restrictions on voting hours.
Gerrymandering, which concentrates minority voters into districts.

But what about mortality rates? It’s not something that enters the
political discussion much, but a new paper, “Black lives matter:
Differential mortality and the racial composition of the U.S. electorate,
1970-2004,” argues that the racial gap in mortality rates could have a
major impact on national politics.

The premise of the paper, by researchers at Mathematica Policy Research,
the University of Michigan, Stanford, and Oxford, is simple: Unless you
live in Chicago, you can’t vote when you’re dead. Since overall black
health outcomes are worse than white ones, and life expectancies are lower
for black Americans, that must have an effect on the results of elections.
The team crunched the numbers from 1970 to 2004 and calculated “excess
deaths” among African Americans:

The total number of black deaths would have been reduced from 8.5 million
to 5.8 million if blacks faced the same mortality schedules as whites.
Thus, 1 out of every 3 black deaths occurring within this time period was
an excess death.

Of the 2.7 million black excess deaths, we project a total of 1.87 million
hypothetical survivors to 2004, 1.74 million of voting age, about 1 million
of whom would have been voters.

For comparison’s sake, and to see how significant that is, 1 million is
also the number of African Americans who have served time but remain
disenfranchised, according to a 2010 analysis.

What effect would that have on elections? The researchers assumed those 1
million extra voters would have behaved similarly to the surviving black
population in terms of both turnout and partisanship, controlling for
gender, age, and geography. Their votes wouldn’t have changed the outcome
of the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John
Kerry—although Kerry would have netted more than 86 percent of the votes
they cast. (As Andrew Prokop notes, but the authors do not, the 2000
election was close enough that the missing black voters would likely have
swung the outcome in Florida and, with it, the national electoral vote.)

Black Turnout Matters

But it would have helped Democrats beat Republicans in seven close Senate
elections and 11 close gubernatorial elections between 1970 and 2004. That
would have handed Democrats continuous control of the Senate between 1986
and 2002—a pretty large impact.

One of the interesting things here is who the missing voters are. Although
media attention has rightly focused on the deaths of young black men like
Freddie Gray, the big difference in mortality has nothing to do with
violent deaths from street violence, police brutality, or drugs. “In fact,
the predominant and persistent driving force behind US black/white
mortality disparities is the unequal distribution of chronic morbidity
among young through middle aged adults,” the paper notes:

Age of Death by Race

The 40-65 range highlighted in the graph above also happens to match up
with the peak age of voting. (Naturally, the longer someone lives, the more
opportunities they have to vote.)

There’s a public-policy catch-22 at work here. The authors note that there
is a range of factors that help determine racial disparities in mortality.
Residential segregation and lower levels of public investment in black
neighborhoods reduce lifespans. Black neighborhoods tend to have greater
exposure to pollution, are less pedestrian-friendly, have higher food
costs, and see more tobacco and alcohol marketing. Access to healthcare is
also sharply divided by race. In short, there is a range of problems that
could be addressed by public policy. But altering public policy requires
voting, and the present policies have combined to remove a chunk of the
voting-age population that would otherwise have benefited from their repeal.

Of course, there’s an element of parlor game in this study—you, too, can
play along at home, as long as you’ve got access to the General Social
Survey, exit polls, and Microsoft Excel. There are all sorts of ways to
design a different electorate. What if the voting age returned to 21? Or
what about differences in mortality rates based purely on socioeconomics?
Better-educated and wealthier people tend to live long. What if mortality
rates among (more conservative) poor southern white voters were the same as
those for (more liberal) wealthy Manhattanites?

But black votes are a particularly interesting and important area of focus,
both because of the long history of efforts to prevent or suppress black
voting, and because of the partisan homogeneity of African Americans.
Electoral impact isn’t the only reason to worry about racial disparities in
health outcomes, much less the best one, but the vicious public-policy
cycle described here makes a compelling case that mortality rates deserve
more attention in conversations about race and voting.

Hillary 'Rewrites' the Economic Debate
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-brodsky/hillary-rewrites-the-economic-debate_b_7267472.html>
// Huffington Post // Richard Brodsky – May 12, 2015

One reason Hillary Clinton is a formidable politician is that she's very
smart and very comfortable with ideas. Another reason is an uncanny ability
to ignore the past, and its mistakes.

Both assets are now on display in the highly public effort by economist
Joseph Stiglitz to "rewrite" the economic policies of the past 35 years,
all in the name of reducing income inequality and revitalizing an economy
that works for everyone.

Stiglitz is even smarter than Hillary. His particular ability is to fashion
concrete policies that embody a more wishful and emotional sense that the
American middle class is eroding. Even Republicans agree we have a problem.
But there's been little out there other than tax the one percent and spend
more on infrastructure and jobs.

The Stiglitz agenda has plenty of that, but it's got a whole bunch of
interesting specifics that will extend the debate and put Hillary at the
center of it.

New slogans abound. An end to "short-termism". That turns into policies
that discourage rapid buying and selling of stocks, or corporate stock
buybacks rather than expansionary investment. A much tougher take on
finance and banking maneuvers as hurtful to free markets. Hmmmm.

"Pre-distribution" rather than "redistribution". Ending tax preferences
that benefit the one percent, but do nothing for most working families.
Also, hmmm.

The specifics are intriguing and worth a healthy debate. It's been more
difficult than thought to put meat on the economic bones of a progressive
agenda. Now, as Portnoy said, we can begin.

Sitglitz also goes head on into the interesting criticism that he and the
Clintons were part of the failure of economic thought over the last 35
years. Sitglitz was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during
Clinton I. Hillary was around too, I think.

Never mind. "I was there when some of the decisions were made, and some of
them were made in good faith," Mr. Stiglitz said. "But, here we are, and
let's not point fingers."

That kind of amnesia is fine, but ought not to be selective. (Imagine what
happens when Jeb Bush revisits the Iraq War decision. Wait, he just did and
is getting roasted.)

Hillary could pull this off. Austerity economics have failed miserable all
over the world and in the U.S. There's been no competing set of ideas. Now
there is. They will be tested intellectually and politically, as they
should. But, if they make as much sense as they seem to make on first
impression, she can end her Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders problem and
then smack the Republicans over the head for the next 18 months.

This is why it's a mistake to underestimate Hillary. And it may be reason
to hope for an end to 35 years of economic policies that have created
concentrated wealth and power in ways that are truly un-American.
-- 
*Alexandria Phillips*
*Communications | Press Assistant*
*Hillary for America *
https://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 [email-masked].
To post to this group, send email to [email-masked].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.