Subject: H4A News Clips 5.18.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 07:47:19 -0400
List-Id: <hrcrapid.googlegroups.com>

*H4A Press Clips*

*May 18, 2015*

SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS

Rep. Paul Ryan said Sunday the House has the votes to approve President
Barack Obama's free trade initiative. Labor leaders are supportive of her
current strategy of staying neutral saying, “Right now, personally, there’s
no reason she should take a position on it, she’s not a government
official.”

The Washington Post outlines Hillary Clinton’s strategy as “a bet that
social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton
takes now is likely to hurt her when she makes her case to moderate and
independent voters in the general election next year.”

Hillary Clinton will make her second campaign trip to Iowa today and
Tuesday, May 19. During her visit, she will discuss ideas to expand small
businesses in Iowa - an issue Clinton heard about during her previous trip
through the state.

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

TODAY’S KEY
STORIES............................................................................
3

*Running to the left, Hillary Clinton is banking on the Obama coalition to
win* // WaPo // Anne Gearan - May 17, 2015           3

*Groups lobbying on trade paid Hillary Clinton $2.5M in speaking fees* //
CBS News // Julianna Goldman – May 18, 2015     7

*How Dubya Is Winning 2016 for Hillary* // Daily Beast // Michael Tomasky -
May 18, 2015.. 9

*Labor Gives Clinton Room to Maneuver on Trade Talks* // WSJ // Laura
Meckler and Melanie Trottman - May 17, 2015             11

HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE...................................................................
14

*Hillary Clinton Pivots from Big Money to Small Business* // Bloomberg //
Jen Epstein – May 18, 2015               14

*Bernie Sanders casts Hillary Clinton as newcomer to income fight* // CNN
// Eric Bradner - May 17, 2015      16

*Bernie Sanders: 'Maybe I shouldn't say this: I like Hillary Clinton'* //
The Guardian // Martin Pengelly - May 17, 2015            17

*Axelrod: "Terrible Mistake" For Hillary Clinton Not To Take Questions From
Media, "She's Got To Get Out There"* // Real Clear Politics // May 17,
2015................................................................................................................................................
18

*Peggy Noonan On Hillary’s Press Strategy: ‘She’s Running A Silent Movie Of
A Campaign’* // Daily Caller // Al Weaver - May 17, 2015         19

*Bill And Hillary Clinton Rob Inequality Of Its Unrelenting Beauty* //
Forbes // John Tamny - May 17, 2015  19

*Hillary Clinton’s consigliere covers up her scandals* // NY Post // Paul
Sperry - May 17, 2015                22

*It's the Summer of Hillary Clinton on "SNL"* // NBC New York // Michael
Rodio - May 17, 2015               24

*Diane Lane on Her Aborted Hillary Clinton Miniseries and Surviving
Hollywood* // The Daily Beast // Marlow Stern - May 17, 2015
25

*Unions Pour Millions into Clinton Foundation* // AP // Bill McMorris - May
18, 2015........ 29

*Stephanopoulos, ABC have not fully disclosed Clinton ties: Schweizer* //
USA Today // Peter Schweizer - May 17, 2015             30

*Clinton's super PAC fundraising irks progressives* // CNN // MJ Lee – May
18, 2015.......... 32

*‘Super PACS’ Are Remaking 2016 Campaigns, Official or Not* // NYT //
Nicholas Confessore and Eric Lichtblau - May 17, 2015         35

*Bill Clinton to attend Emanuel's, City Council's inaugural ceremony* //
Chicago Sun Times // Mary Mitchell - May 17, 2015                38

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE....................................... 39

*Bernie Sanders to Introduce Bill to Make College Tuition-Free* //
Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – May 17, 2015           39

GOP.........................................................................................................
40

*Iowa GOP audience delights in bounty of choices* // Des Moines Register //
Jennifer Jacobs - May 17, 2015      40

*Republican Candidates Dodge Immigration Questions* // TIME // Alex Altman
- May 17, 2015               43

*GOP hopefuls debate: Was Iraq a mistake?* // LA Times // Katherine Skiba -
May 17, 2015.. 44

*Lindsey Graham to provide ‘very important update’ on 2016 plans Monday* //
WaPo // Sean Sullivan - May 17, 2015                  47

*Top Scott Walker aides pushed for questionable $500,000 WEDC loan* //
Wisconsin State Journal // Matthew DeFour - May 17, 2015                 47

*Scott Walker's Iowa dilemma* // Politico // James Hohmann, Katie Glueck,
and Eli Stokols -May 17, 2015        52

*Jeb Bush Takes Tougher Stance Against Same-Sex Marriage* // First Draft –
NYT // Patrick Healy – May 17, 2015    56

*Jeb Bush: No constitutional right to same-sex marriage* // WaPo // Ed
O'Keefe - May 17, 2015                 56

*Jeb Bush Announces Plans to 'Campaign Hard' in Iowa* // NBC News // Perry
Bacon Jr. – May 17, 2015             57

*Bush insists he's not writing off Iowa* // Politico // Eli Stokols – May
18, 2015.................... 59

*Marco Rubio Struggles To Explain Whether He Thinks Invading Iraq Was A
'Mistake'* // Huffington Post // Samantha Lachman - May 17, 2015    62

*Rubio says 'we don't have the votes' for broad immigration bill* //
Reuters // John Whitesides - May 17, 2015                 62

*Rubio’s Cash Needs: Run For President, Make Home Repairs* // CBS Local //
May 17, 2015. 63

*Rand Paul: ‘We still have chaos’ in Iraq* // WaPo // Sean Sullivan - May
17, 2015............... 64

*Sen. Rand Paul Does Not Commit to Patriot Act Filibuster* // NBC News //
Dale Armbruster - May 17, 2015   65

*Christie enters new stage as he eyes 2016: Bashing fellow Republicans* //
NJ // Matt Arco - May 17, 2015        66

*Santorum and Clinton set to visit Mason City* // KIMT // Allie Krug – May
17, 2015............ 67

*Fiorina 'a fireball' at GOP Lincoln Dinner* // USA Today // Jennifer
Jacobs – May 17, 2015 68

TOP
NEWS...............................................................................................
71

DOMESTIC............................................................................................
71

*Paul Ryan: House will approve Obama's trade effort* // CNN // Eric Bradner
- May 17, 2015 71

*9 Are Killed in Biker Gang Shootout in Waco* // NYT // Manny Fernandez
Liam Stack and Alan Blinder – May 17, 2015         72

*U.S. gas prices up 22 cents over past three weeks -survey* // Reuters //
Bill Berkrot - May 17, 2015       75

*FBI: Hacker claimed to have taken over flight's engine controls* // CNN //
Evan Perez - May 17, 2015                  75

INTERNATIONAL.................................................................................
77

*Officials: Iraqi city of Ramadi falls to Islamic State* // USA Today //
Ammar Al Shamary - May 17, 2015         77

*Saudi-Led Airstrikes Resume in Yemen as Truce Ends* // NYT // Mohammed Ali
Kalfood and Kareem Fahim - May 17, 2015               79

*In Seoul, Kerry Rallies Region Against North Korea* // WSJ // Jeyup S.
Kwaak - May 18, 2015                  81

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS.............................................................
82

*Why the GOP Can't Get No Satisfaction* // Politico // Jim Messina - May
17, 2015................ 82

*Jeb Bush’s brotherly bind* // WaPo // E.J. Dionne Jr. – May 17,
2015.................................... 84

*Six dangerous issues in the 2016 GOP White House race* // The Hill //
Peter Schroeder - May 17, 2015                 86

MISCELLANEOUS...................................................................................
89

*Iowa Democrats flee Hillary Clinton over GMO support, Monsanto ties* //
WaPo // S.A. Miller - May 17, 2015  89

TODAY’S KEY STORIES

Running to the left, Hillary Clinton is banking on the Obama coalition to
win
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-to-the-left-hillary-clinton-is-banking-on-the-obama-coalition-to-win/2015/05/17/33b7844a-fb28-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html?tid=sm_tw>
// WaPo // Anne Gearan - May 17, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton is running as the most liberal Democratic
presidential front-runner in decades, with positions on issues from gay
marriage to immigration that would, in past elections, have put her at her
party’s precarious left edge.

The moves are part of a strategic conclusion by Clinton’s emerging
campaign: that it can harness the same kind of young and diverse coalition
as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012, bolstered by even stronger appeal
among women.

Her approach — outlined in interviews with aides and advisers — is a bet
that social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position
Clinton takes now is likely to hurt her when she makes her case to moderate
and independent voters in the general election next year.

The strategy relies on calculations about the 2016 landscape, including
that up to 31 percent of the electorate will be Americans of color — a
projection that may be overly optimistic for her campaign. It factors in
that a majority of independent voters already support same-sex marriage and
the pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that Clinton
endorsed this month.

The game plan also hinges on a conclusion by Clinton strategists that the
broad appeal of issues such as paid family leave, a higher minimum wage and
more affordable college will help outweigh any concerns about costs.

The campaign’s overall calculus relies on a mix of polling — including both
internal and public surveys — internal focus groups and what advisers
described as gut feelings about the national mood. It also reflects what
Clinton backers say are her firmly held personal convictions and her
pragmatism.

“Her approach to this really is not trying to take a ruler out and measure
where she wants to be on some ideological scale,” Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta said. “It’s to dive deeply into the problems facing the
American people and American families. She’s a proud wonk, and she looks at
policy from that perspective.”

Clinton’s full embrace of same-sex marriage in the first days of her
campaign was followed by clear statements in favor of scrapping get-tough
immigration and incarceration policies — many of which took root during her
husband’s administration. She has also weighed in with liberal takes on
climate change, abortion rights and disparities in income and opportunity
between rich and poor.

All are issues that have been divisive in the past for both Democrats and
Republicans. But none are now judged to be radioactive for Democrats, which
gives Clinton more elbow room.

By taking such positions, aides and advisers hope Clinton will not only
inoculate herself against a serious challenge from the left in the
primaries, but that she also will be able to push on through the general
election. Her campaign believes American public opinion has moved left not
only since Bill Clinton won election in 1992 on a centrist platform, but
also since Barack Obama won on a more liberal one.

Republicans — as part of a broader critique of her trustworthiness — accuse
Clinton of flip-flopping on some positions and hiding on others, such as
free trade, to cater to the liberal base.

“Clinton’s already moved her position leftward on numerous hot button
issues to the base, including immigration, gay marriage, Wall Street and
criminal justice reforms,” conservative America Rising PAC director Colin
Reed wrote in a position paper Friday.

“Clinton’s moves reinforce all her worst attributes as a candidate and hurt
her image among voters of all stripes,” Reed said. “Progressive voters know
that she’s not truly one of them” while swing voters “see a desperate
politician staking out far-left positions that are outside of the
mainstream of most Americans.”

Many political strategists also say Clinton will be hard-pressed to
re-create Obama’s winning coalition and that the 30 percent to 31 percent
non-white turnout that some of her outside backers are projecting may be
out of reach. Exit polls show non-white turnout was 28 percent in 2012 and
26 percent in 2008. Clinton will have to expand Hispanic support, increase
turnout among independent women and still hold onto a large share of black
voters drawn to the first African American major party nominee.

The bold stance on immigration is widely seen as one way to jump-start the
expansion of Hispanic support Clinton will need, although advisers say she
had already made up her mind about citizenship and there was no reason to
put off an announcement. When outlining her position in Nevada, where 1 in
4 residents is Hispanic, she made a point of saying that no Republican
would go as far — and alleged the GOP wanted immigrants to have
“second-class status.”

“People often talk about the electorate moving left,” said Clinton senior
policy adviser Jake Sullivan. “I think it’s more that the electorate is
just getting more practical. For Hillary Clinton, that matches her
evidence-based approach. The arguments that persuade her are evidence-based
and progressive.”

He cited the growing consensus that mass incarceration is expensive and
unworkable, and that the country is never going to deport all of the more
than 11 million people who are here illegally.

Advisers do not dispute that Clinton has a finger to the wind of the
national mood, but they insist the timing and substance of her positions
are not driven by polling. The still-cautious candidate has declined to
make clear her position on two key proposals that many liberals oppose: the
Keystone XL Pipeline and Obama’s free-trade deal.

Sullivan also noted that some of Clinton’s early proposals “cut against the
grain” of political liberalism, such as her emphasis on improving the
playing field for American small businesses.

Clinton will debut policy proposals to ease lending bottlenecks for small
businesses on campaign trips to Iowa and New Hampshire this week. The
impetus came largely from conversations Clinton had in the run-up to the
campaign and a six-month policy review led by Sullivan that looked at how
Clinton might address a range of national concerns.

“The thing she is most interested in is not what position is most popular,
it’s what do people worry about,” Sullivan said.

Clinton’s 2008 campaign was so focused on polling data and the consequences
of saying the wrong thing that it sometimes appeared paralyzed. Some of
that campaign’s infamous staff battles focused on the advice from senior
adviser Mark Penn, a pollster, to avoid more liberal positions in the
primary that year for fear they would hurt her in a general election
contest.

This time is different, backers say. “The strategic advantage the Democrats
have is that the distance between our base and the middle is shorter than
for Republicans,” said Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for
American Progress and a longtime Clinton confidant.

In other words, Clinton’s strategists say, she does not face the same
whiplash as Republican candidates who seek to dial back hard-right
positions on issues such as abortion or immigration adopted during a
competitive primary.

Senior campaign officials acknowledged that trade is a divisive and fraught
issue for Democrats and for her. Clinton’s past support for the Asia free
trade pact makes her current silence awkward at best, but her advisers are
gambling that the issue won’t leave an enduring rift within the party.

Clinton campaign leaders and outside loyalists also bridle at the
perception that she is less of a progressive politician than, say, Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). They point to Clinton’s early career as a
crusading lawyer in Arkansas and lifelong professional commitments to
improving women’s lives.

Warren has said she isn’t running but has declined so far to endorse
Clinton. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is running a strongly populist
challenge to Clinton, and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley — who
has suggested Clinton is too hesitant and poll-driven — is expected to
enter the race this month.

“If Clinton and other candidates are not seen as standing with Warren on
the TPP trade deal and a number of other economic issues critical to
working families, it could create an even greater sense of urgency” to get
Warren into the race, said Gary Ritterstein, an adviser to the support
group Ready for Warren.

The clearest shift in national attitudes, and Clinton’s own, has come on
same-sex marriage. She moved from saying she considered marriage to be
between a man and a woman when she was first lady to backing civil unions
as an alternative to marriage in 2008 to full support of gay and lesbian
marriage now.

Public opinion polling suggests she is on safe ground, despite ongoing
legal fights in several states. The firmest opposition to gay marriage is
centered in red states and among Republican voters unlikely to consider
voting for Clinton.

Pew Research polling shows that in August 2008 — when Clinton endorsed
Obama as the Democratic nominee — 52 percent of Americans opposed legal
same-sex marriage and 39 percent supported it. The same poll now shows 54
percent support for such marriages while 39 percent are opposed.

Shifts on criminal justice issues are less dramatic, but there are
bipartisan efforts now to repeal some of the harshest and least flexible
laws on the books for two decades. Outrage and revulsion over police
killings of black men over the past year made the issue more urgent for
many young, African American and socially liberal voters.

Last month, Clinton gave an address calling for dramatic changes in
policing and prosecution to lessen the rate of incarceration. The remarks
echo similar calls among both Democrats and some Republicans, such as Sen.
Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

“Two or three years ago,” said Clinton policy adviser Ann O’Leary, “that
speech might have been seen as a very left-leaning speech.”

Groups lobbying on trade paid Hillary Clinton $2.5M in speaking fees
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-earned-more-than-25m-speaking-groups-lobbying-trade/>
// CBS News // Julianna Goldman – May 18, 2015

Since leaving her post as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton earned
millions of dollars delivering 41 paid speeches in the U.S. to a variety of
companies and organizations. At least 10 of those groups have been lobbying
Congress and federal agencies on trade, an issue that has divided Democrats
as the Obama administration pushes for a 12-nation pacific trade deal - and
around which Hillary Clinton has remained mum.

Clinton has spoken in general terms on trade, saying in New Hampshire last
month that any trade deal "has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase
prosperity and protect our security." But the issue pits liberal Democrats
against the White House and Republicans, and there's a chorus of Democrats
are calling for Clinton to weigh in.

Critics say Clinton Foundation has pattern of not disclosing foreign donors

In the weeks since she launched her presidential bid, Clinton has been
dogged by questions about whether special interests sought to buy influence
while she was secretary of state through donations to the Clinton
Foundation and through Bill Clinton's paid speeches. For the first time,
Hillary Clinton's financial disclosures provide a picture of the speaking
engagements for which she was paid since leaving the State Department and
at a time when she was actively considering whether to run for president.

According to the disclosures released by the campaign on Friday evening,
the former secretary of state earned at least $2.7 million from speeches at
companies backing the trade promotion authority (TPA) that President Obama
has been seeking in order to "fast track" approval of trade deals. While
that's a fraction of the $25 million Bill and Hillary Clinton earned from
paid speeches from January 2014 to present, they nonetheless open the
presidential candidate to criticism.

"She's put herself in the position where people are going to question
whether she was influenced by the money she was paid if she supports the
trade agreements," said Larry Noble, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal
Center. "One of the problems with these situations is even if she reaches
her decision for reasons she truly believes in, people are going to
question it. It undermines her credibility."

·      Hillary and Bill Clinton have earned over $25 million since January
2014

·      The Democrats' internal battle over free trade

A number of Clinton's appearances before the organizations lobbying on
trade were among her most lucrative speeches.

Clinton earned $335,000 from Qualcomm for a speech in San Diego on October
14, 2014; $335,000 from the Biotechnology Industry Organization on June 25,
2014; and $325,000 from Cisco Systems for a speech in Las Vegas on August
28, 2014. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics,
both tech companies lobbied in support of TPA in 2014 and 2015. They're
also members of the Trade Benefits America Coalition, which in November
2014 sent a letter to congressional leaders saying, "As members of the
Trade Benefits America Coalition, we write to urge passage of bipartisan
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation this year....Congressional
action on TPA is needed to help ensure high-standard outcomes in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which the United States and
11 other Asia-Pacific countries are striving to complete."

That letter was also signed by General Electric and Xerox, companies that
paid Hillary Clinton to give speeches in 2014. Clinton earned $225,000 from
GE on January 6, 2014 and $225,000 from Xerox Corporation on March 18,
2014. In total, she earned at least $1.4 million from companies signing
that letter.

To be sure, these companies have lobbied on a variety of issues. Qualcomm,
for example, lobbied on more than 15 policy areas including transportation
and taxes in 2015.

Likewise, trade has traditionally been a thorny issue for Democratic
presidential candidates who are courting progressives and union support. In
2008, Clinton and then-Sen. Obama sparred over NAFTA, the trade deal with
the U.S., Canada and Mexico, struck Bill Clinton signed during his
presidency.

As secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP). In her book, "Hard Choices," she said it would level the
playing field for American workers in a global marketplace, and that it
would "link markets throughout Asia."

Now, the Clinton campaign says she'll be watching negotiations closely.

Asked whether they're concerned that Clinton's paid speeches from companies
that lobbied for TPA could pose a conflict, campaign spokesman Brian Fallon
said Clinton has "laid out the bar that needs to be met, to protect
American workers, raise wages, and create more good jobs at home."

"So, consistent with what she's been saying on the issue, while this is
still being negotiated, she will be watching closely to see what is being
done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect
the environment and health, promote transparency, and open new
opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas," he said.

Some Democrats are looking for a more definitive stance.

On Sunday Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders was asked on CNN's "State of the Union" whether Clinton should take
a position on trade and he said: "You can't be on the fence on this one.
You're either for it or against."

Asked the same question on ABC's This Week, Senator Dianne Feinstein said,
"I think it would be very helpful. I think it's been typified by our party
in a way which is most unfortunate and that is on the jobs issue."

Corning Incorporated and eBay were among companies signing another letter
from that same coalition in January 2015, urging passage of TPA. Clinton
earned $225,000 in honoraria for a speech at Corning on July 29, 2014; and
she earned $315,000 at a speech for eBay in San Jose, California on March
11, 2015 - her second to last before she stopped delivering paid speeches
ahead of her presidential announcement.

Clinton had two paid appearances for Salesforce.com - one in Las Vegas on
February 6, 2014 for $225,500 and another in San Francisco on October 14,
2014, where Clinton also earned $225,500. According to the Center for
Responsive Politics, the company in 2014 and 2015 has lobbied on a number
of trade related areas, including information technology trade issues, TPA
and trade agreements. In a March letter to congressional committee leaders,
Salesforce was among the software companies urging Congress to move quickly
to pass updated TPA legislation with strong digital trade provisions.

What do independent voters think about foreign donations to the Clinton
Foundation?

On October 8, 2014, Clinton earned $265,000 for an appearance in Chicago
with the Advanced Medical Technology Association, or AdvaMed. According to
the Center for Responsive Politics, the group has lobbied on issues related
to global trade and the international competitiveness related to the
medical device industry including TPA, The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). When the
House and Senate introduced TPA legislation in April to fast-track the
trade deal, the group's CEO said in a statement, "The U.S. Trade
Representative is currently working to advance priority issues for the
medical technology industry as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), both of
which will greatly improve market access to medical technology in these
regions."

One other group - the Institute of Scrap Recycling, where Clinton earned
$225,000 for an April 10, 2014 speech - has also lobbied on trade issues,
but its lobbying doesn't appear to be related to TPP, TTIP or TPA.

"It's not unusual for former elected officials to go out and give speeches
and make a lot of money," said Noble. "What the problem now is that they're
coming back into government after going out and having been paid large sums
by these various special interests."

How Dubya Is Winning 2016 for Hillary
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/18/how-dubya-is-winning-2016-for-hillary.html>
// Daily Beast // Michael Tomasky - May 18, 2015

What a marvelous historical anomaly: Democrats are on the offense, and the
GOPers sound like peaceniks on Iraq.

What a delightful week, watching Republicans not Democrats sink in the
foreign-policy quicksand. For most of my adult lifetime—come to think of
it, all of it, and pretty much all of my entire lifetime—to the extent that
foreign policy has mattered in presidential campaigns, it’s been brandished
by Republicans to accuse the Democrats of being soft on whatever the
supposed threat was at the time. To think that we might have a presidential
campaign in which the Democrats are the ones playing foreign-policy
offense, forcing the Republicans to profess that they are not war-mongering
psychopaths, would be a thing to behold—as well as a measure, eight long
years later, of how much damage George W. Bush and his co-belligerents did
to the Republican Party.

It surely caught Jeb Bush by total surprise, the shitstorm that kicked up
after his first answer about invading Iraq. Yes, he’s rustier than a 1970s
Plymouth; yes, he appears not to have been really quite listening to Megyn
Kelly; and yes, it’s beginning to dawn on all of us, God help us, that
Dubya may have been the smart one.

But all those factors are subordinate to the main one, which is this:
History instructs that if you’re a Republican running for president and
you’re asked about a war, you probably can’t go wrong by saying you’re for
it. A past war, a current war, a future war (perhaps these most of all!),
it doesn’t matter. Be pro-war, accuse the Democrats of wanting the United
States to suckle at the teat of the UN and the new global order; and if
it’s a current war that’s not going swimmingly, blame the Democrats and the
anti-war elements at home. These are can’t lose propositions.

Or were. This week, Bush learned otherwise. I know, specifically it had to
do with the “knowing what we know now” language, which is what really
cranked up the media’s chainsaw. But public anti-war sentiment is even more
blunt than that. Here for example is a question from a Quinnipiac poll last
summer:  “Do you think the result of the Iraq War was worth the loss of
American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?” This does not
say “knowing what we know now,” which would clearly prod the respondent to
think, “Oh, yeah, no WMD,” and would be more likely to produce a higher
“not worth it” result.

Now, the cowboys have to prove their solution to every problem isn’t to
invade it or bomb it.

But even keeping the WMD lie out of the conversation, not worth it won by
75-18 percent. Even Republicans said not worth it by 63-27.

It has created a new and perhaps not un- but let’s say little-precedented
default foreign-policy position in the American electorate: Now, the
cowboys have to prove their solution to every problem isn’t to invade it or
bomb it. This may have been true for 1976 election, during the Vietnam
hangover. But even if so, concerns about Vietnam were a distant second to
unease about Richard Nixon’s rape of the Constitution and Gerry Ford’s
pardon of him for doing it. Today, though, this question of reflexive Iraq
hawkery is enough of a no-no that some people think Bush might already be
sunk and should just quit now.

And this is why we saw Marco Rubio also reverse himself this week (although
he would deny that) on the Iraq War. He used to defend the war, but now,
with the new Kelly Standard in play, he decided he’d better come out and
say: “Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.]
Bush wouldn't have been in favor of it and he said so.”

Rubio, of course, has neoconned himself to the gills, and there will be
plenty of time for him during this primary season to come out swinging on
Iran, once he figures out that Iran and ISIS are not allies. But that even
he “clarified” his position in the anti-war direction says something.

Now I should note: It may not play out the way I’m describing during the
primary campaign. Yes, as we saw above, rank-and-file Republicans said the
Iraq War wasn’t worth it by 63-27. But in the context of a primary season,
that 27 can be as loud as or louder than the 63. It’s probably the 27 who
are more likely to vote or attend caucuses, which means the minority would
have inordinate influence over the shape of the candidates’ rhetoric.

But in a general-election context, the GOP nominee will probably have to
tack back pretty quickly toward the anti-war position. This will give
Hillary Clinton a great opportunity. For one thing, it’ll weaken the
salience of the whole “she can’t defend the country cuz she’s a girl” line
of attack, which will come, however subtly. It will allow Clinton to define
the terms of what constitutes a sensible foreign policy, and the Republican
man will likely have to agree with her.

And most of all it will be a lot better for the world than if the situation
were reversed. Contrary to liberals’ deepest suspicions about her, she is
not a neoconservative; she is not going to have regime change in Iran on
her mind, which any of the Republicans as president would, except for Rand
Paul.

Poor Republicans! Crime is down; they can’t scream law and order. And now
war is unpopular, so they can’t say the Democrats are soft on whomever.
Their economic theories are increasingly discredited. I guess that leaves
the old standby: race-baiting. But we may have reached a point where that
doesn’t work anymore either. Should be an interesting race.

Labor Gives Clinton Room to Maneuver on Trade Talks
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-gives-clinton-room-to-maneuver-on-trade-talks-1431906204>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler and Melanie Trottman - May 17, 2015

LAS VEGAS—Michael Collins, a nurse and active member of his local union,
isn’t happy about free-trade legislation being debated in Congress,
believing it would undermine American workers. It won’t, however, change
his view of Hillary Clinton, a one-time booster of the pact.d

In the 2016 presidential race, “Hillary’s about the only person we’ve got
who’s viable,” he said.

Labor unions are fighting hard to defeat legislation that would authorize
sped-up consideration of a trade agreement being negotiated with 11 Pacific
Rim nations. However, they are giving Mrs. Clinton the kind of breathing
room they aren’t affording congressional Democrats or even the
president.

Mrs. Clinton as a senator voted in support of several free-trade
agreements, and opposed one, with Central American nations. As secretary of
state, she supported the Pacific Rim negotiations, and her former boss,
President Barack Obama, is leading the effort to approve them.

But in recent weeks, as the Trans-Pacific Partnership took center stage in
the Senate and opened schisms within the Democratic Party, Mrs. Clinton has
maintained steadfast neutrality. She issued one statement and answered one
question on the matter. In neither case did she pick a side.

“Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity
and protect our security,” she told reporters in New Hampshire last month.
“We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the
skills to be competitive.”

At a speech last month, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, the nation’s most
powerful labor leader, said any presidential candidates who seek labor’s
backing should oppose the trade deal. When asked after the speech if Mrs.
Clinton was ducking on trade, he, too, avoided the question.

“I think she started off by doing what every candidate” should do, he said,
by listening to voters in what will be a long campaign.

The Senate last week voted to move forward on a measure to accelerate a
trade deal, setting the stage to approve a final bill as early as this
week. But that push for fast-track legislation faces an even higher hurdle
in the House, amid opposition from Democrats and many conservative
Republicans.

A failure to secure congressional backing could imperil Mr. Obama’s
negotiations. Even if lawmakers do sign off, Congress could face a
fractious debate when the actual trade deal comes back to both the full
House and Senate for final approval as early as this fall.

People familiar with the Clinton campaign’s thinking say she is determined
to remain neutral for as long as possible, ideally until Congress resolves
the issue.

Mrs. Clinton has previously recalibrated her stance on free-trade
agreements. In her 2003 memoir “Living History,” she spoke approvingly of
the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated by her husband in the
early 1990s. But as a presidential candidate in the 2008 race, she said the
way Nafta was implemented “has hurt a lot of American workers.”

On the current talks, the nation’s labor leaders say trade is just one
issue by which they will judge candidates. Many union leaders have longtime
ties to Mrs. Clinton, and as long as she doesn’t campaign for the
agreement, they don’t appear eager to bloody the Democrats’ front-runner
for the nomination.

“For us, an endorsement process is based on lots of different issues and
lots of different variables,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the
American Federation of Teachers. She has said her union “has a long
relationship with Hillary because of her long-standing support for working
families.”

The indifference stems in part from the changing nature of the labor
movement, which over many years has filled its membership rolls with
workers in government, hospitality and service jobs—fields less vulnerable
to outsourcing than manufacturing jobs that once accounted for a large
share of union membership. The United Auto Workers represented about 1.5
million workers in the late 1970s; today, its membership is about one-third
of that. At the same time, membership in unions filled with public-sector
workers has remained relatively stable.

“The great old unions of the past—the steelworkers, the auto workers—these
unions are seen as shadows of themselves,” said Gary Chaison, professor of
industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. On trade,
“Hillary Clinton really does have much more ground to operate on, because
it’s not the issue it once was.”

Even manufacturing unions won’t criticize Mrs. Clinton on the issue,
despite their vocal opposition to the trade bill itself.

“Right now, personally, there’s no reason she should take a position on
it,” said Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “She’s not a government official,” he
said.

At a recent SEIU Local 1107 meeting in Las Vegas, one member reported
favorably to the group about Mrs. Clinton’s remarks earlier in the day
about immigration. Afterward, several workers said they weren’t
particularly concerned with trade. The Service Employees International
Union represents a diverse range of public- and private-sector workers,
including nurses, lab technicians, janitors and security guards.

Yvanna Cancela, political director of the Culinary Workers Local 226, which
represents 55,000 workers, said her union stands with others in opposing
the trade agreement. But she said the trade issue isn’t likely to directly
affect her members.

“We haven’t widely discussed it within the membership,” she said. “In
prioritizing our political discussions, people want to hear about what
affects them and their families.”

At Ranchos High School, where Mrs. Clinton made her immigration comments,
history teacher Reuben Silva, a member of the Clark County Education
Association, said he leans toward favoring the agreement.

“Overall, it’s good for America, especially in a globalized economy,” said
Mr. Silva, who voted for Mr. Obama twice.

Mrs. Clinton’s silence isn’t risk free. If she is seen as too supportive of
trade, some of her supporters worry, a challenger could gain a foothold
among Democratic voters and union activists. Both Sen. Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, who is running for the Democratic nomination, and former Maryland
Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is expected to announce a bid, have railed
against the agreement.

“The notion that we can somehow chase cheap labor abroad, send jobs abroad,
and that helps our country, I think, is a falsehood we should wake up to,”
Mr. O’Malley told reporters last week in Manchester, N.H.

Asked about Mrs. Clinton’s position on TPP, Mr. O’Malley said, “I don’t
know where she stands on that.”

HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE

Hillary Clinton Pivots from Big Money to Small Business
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-18/hillary-clinton-pivots-from-big-money-to-small-business>
// Bloomberg // Jen Epstein – May 18, 2015

Three days after revealing that her own husband-and-wife cottage industry
brought in more than $30 million since the start of 2014, Hillary Clinton
arrives in Iowa on Monday to pitch herself as an advocate for small
business.

For Clinton, who has not answered media questions in a month and who spent
much of the last two weeks in New York and California raising millions of
dollars for her presidential campaign from wealthy donors, including
Beyonce, it’s an opportunity to showcase her humble heartland roots and to
reconnect with the "everyday people" that her campaign says are at the core
of her candidacy.

Her financial disclosure form filed with the Federal Elections Committee
late Friday showed how far she and her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, have moved from that category, thanks largely to the couple's
ability to command six-figure speaking fees.

"You can't be on the fence on this one."

Senator Bernie Sanders

Clinton’s father, Hugh Rodham, owned a drapery business just outside
Chicago, something she often mentions to remind voters that she wasn’t
always the person who until less than two months ago was taking in more
than $200,000 a speech.

The trip to Iowa, as well as a return visit to New Hampshire on Friday, are
chances for Clinton to appeal to Main Street and the centrist voters she'll
need in the general election, after tacking left earlier this month on
immigration and hinting that she plans to press for aggressive regulations
on Wall Street.

Clinton, her campaign said, plans to outline ideas for cutting red tape for
small businesses, expanding access to capital, finding tax relief for
business owners and stimulating exports.

"We glad that she’s focused on small business as a presidential candidate
and we’re eager to find out what she has in mind," said Jack Mozloom, the
communications director of National Federation of Independent Business.

The group, which generally endorses Republican candidates, said that
Clinton voted with its interests 25 percent of the time during her eight
years in the Senate. "It’s not the worst but she could do better from our
perspective," Mozloom said.

Avoiding trade

But it’s all while avoiding the issue Clinton has been dithering over for
months: where she stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The former
secretary of state worked on the development of the TPP while serving in
the Obama administration and wrote about it in positive terms in Hard
Choices, the 2014 memoir for which she’s earned at least $5 million and
likely much more. On the campaign trail, however, Clinton has ducked the
issue at every turn, aware that continued support would upset important
Democratic constituencies on left, while opposition could undermine her
former boss, President Barack Obama.

But the trade issue may prove difficult for Clinton to avoid, especially
when discussing exports, and with the Senate slated to debate TPP this week.

Democrats on both sides of the issue aren’t exactly aiding in her continued
dodge.

On ABC’s This Week Sunday, Senator Dianne Feinstein, an early backer of
Clinton's presidential bid, argued that TPP will help the small businesses
Clinton is touting this week. "I want to straighten one thing out, and that
is that most people think this is a bill for corporate America," said the
veteran Democrat, citing her home state. “In California, 95 percent of the
trade is carried out by companies and business of less than 500 people.”

Feinstein added that “it would be very helpful” for Clinton to take a
position.

Clinton’s challengers are piling on, too. Clinton should “absolutely” take
a position, Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who is seeking
the Democratic party's presidential nomination, said on CNN’s State of the
Union. "You can’t be on the fence on this one. You’re either for it or
you’re against it." Sanders is against.

Not meeting the press

Finding out where Clinton stands hasn't been easy: The last time the
Democratic frontrunner took questions from the press was four weeks ago
today — April 20 in Keene, N.H. When she has spoken to reporters, it has
been for a question or two at a time, generally shouted at the end of one
of her roundtables. Her refusal to do the kind of extended press conference
that would allow for follow up questions has led to protests from
journalists and gibes from her Republican rivals. At an Iowa Republican
dinner over the weekend Senators Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham and former
Hewlett Packard CEO all mocked Clinton for refusing to meet the press.

Fiorina said she's taken more than 300 on-the-record questions from the
media since launching her campaign two weeks ago. Clinton, according to
media accounts, has taken somewhere between nine and 13.

Correct the Record, the new super PAC supporting Clinton's campaign, has
issued a tally documenting more than 100 questions Clinton has taken from
"everyday people."

"The Republican candidates are spending their time talking to reporters
with cameras, while Hillary Clinton is talking to people across the country
about the issues that affect them every day, all to figure out how she can
help make their lives better. That’s what leaders do," said the group's
Mary Jennings.

But thus far, Clinton's interlocutors have been members of the small,
carefully vetted audiences at her heavily stage-managed events.

On NBC's Meet the Press Sunday,  fellow Democrat, longtime Obama adviser
David Axelrod, urged his party's would-be standard-bearer to hold a press
conference.

"She has to do it quickly and she has to start getting into the rhythm of a
campaign where she's out there, she's answering questions," Axelrod said.
"It would be a terrible mistake not to do that."

Bernie Sanders casts Hillary Clinton as newcomer to income fight
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality-election-2016/index.html>
// CNN // Eric Bradner - May 17, 2015

Washington (CNN)Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders is
portraying his rival Hillary Clinton a newcomer to the left's fight against
income inequality.

"It's one thing to talk about it. It's one thing to act on it," the Vermont
senator said during an interview with CNN's Brianna Keilar aired Sunday on
"State of the Union."

"You are looking at the most progressive member of the United States
Senate," he said, touting his relationship as a "good friend" of firebrand
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Sanders said he's led efforts to challenge Wall Street, push for universal
health care, tackle climate change and combat "disastrous trade agreements."

He also said Clinton should take a position on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a massive 12-country deal that President Barack Obama is
pushing to the dismay of liberals.

"You can't be on the fence of this one," he said. "You're either for it or
you're against it. No fence-sitting on this one."

Sanders said he personally likes Clinton. He said he's willing to
challenger her on policy issues -- but that he hopes media will cover those
differences without Sanders having to launch "reckless attacks."

"Are you in the media prepared to allow us to engage in that serious
debate?" he said. "Or do I have to get media attention by simply making
reckless attacks on Hillary Clinton or anybody else? I don't believe in
that. I believe in serious debates on serious issues."

Bernie Sanders: 'Maybe I shouldn't say this: I like Hillary Clinton'
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/17/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-spoiler>
// The Guardian // Martin Pengelly - May 17, 2015

Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who is running for the
Democratic presidential nomination on 2016, on Sunday denied that he would
be a “spoiler” for the electoral chances of the establishment favourite and
said: “Maybe I shouldn’t say this: I like Hillary Clinton.”

Sanders also asked if the media would “allow us to have a serious debate”,
and said: “Or is the only way you get media attention by ripping apart
somebody else?”

Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to succeed
Barack Obama in the White House, polling well over 50% ahead of Sanders,
the only other declared candidate, and potential contenders such as former
Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and the former Virginia senator Jim Webb.

Sanders, a self-declared “democratic socialist” who has repeatedly
championed social reform on a Scandinavian model and attacked the influence
and behaviour of the wealthiest sections of society, appeared on CNN. He
was asked how he differed from Clinton on income inequality, a key issue in
both campaigns so far.

“It’s one thing to talk about it, it’s one thing to act on it,” Sanders
said. “I have been helping to lead the fight for the American middle class
for the last 25 or 30 years … in the Senate I am leading the effort to
raise the minimum wage up to $15 an hour so that people who work 40 hours a
week will not be living in poverty.

“We have presented legislation that will say to the wealthiest people and
the largest corporations, ‘You know what? You can’t continue to avoid
paying your fair share of taxes.”

Sanders was asked if he would have a “civil debate” with Clinton in the
months to come, given her status as a member of the political establishment
he said he did not represent, and given that she has been widely criticised
on matters regarding her wealth. On Friday she and her husband, former
president Bill Clinton, said they had earned more than $25m in speaking
fees since January 2014.

“I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life,” Sanders said. “…I
believe in serious debates on serious issues. I’ve known Hillary Clinton
for 25 years. Maybe I shouldn’t say this: I like Hillary Clinton. I respect
Hillary Clinton.

“Will the media, among others, allow us to have a civil debate on civil
issues? Or is the only way you get media attention by ripping apart
somebody else?”

Sanders did say Clinton should indicate her position on the proposed Trans
Pacific Partnership trade deal which is dividing Democrats and forcing
Obama to depend on Republican support in Congress.

“You’re either for or you’re against it,” he said. “There’s no
fence-sitting on this one.”

Sanders is against the agreement, which he says would be “disastrous” for
middle-class American jobs.

Clinton has not committed herself. Last month her campaign chief, John
Podesta, was quoted as having told donors: “Can you make it go away?”

Axelrod: "Terrible Mistake" For Hillary Clinton Not To Take Questions From
Media, "She's Got To Get Out There"
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/17/axelrod_hillary_is_making_a_terrible_mistake_avoiding_questions_from_the_press.html>
// Real Clear Politics // May 17, 2015

On Sunday's Meet the Press, former Obama campaign advisor and MSNBC
contributor David Axelrod criticized presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
for dodging media questions on the Clinton Foundation controversy.

"Part of that is because a lot of the questions were about the Clinton
Foundation and they made a decision to let him handle those questions,"
Axelrod told moderator Chuck Todd. "But look, I think she has got to get
out there, she has to answer questions. And she has to do it routinely so
it's not a major news event when she takes a few questions from the news
media."

NBC's Chuck Todd noted since she has become a candidate, Hillary Clinton
has only taken 9 questions on camera while her husband, former President
Bill Clinton, has taken 39.

"It does make Bill Clinton, right now, the face of the Clinton campaign, in
an odd way," Todd said. "He hasn't been helpful."

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS: I'm starting off with a retort that is becoming
familiar with Republicans, David Axelrod, which is this: When is Hillary
Clinton going to answer questions from the media? We did our own math here.
What's been amazing is since Hillary Clinton became an official candidate
for president, there has been a Clinton that has taken quite a few
questions on camera. Bill Clinton has taken 39 questions on camera, that
includes Letterman, our Cynthia McFadden, also a CNN interview. Hillary
Clinton is up to 9. NPR puts it up to 13 because of a question right there
(on screen).

DAVID AXELROD, MSNBC: Part of that is because a lot of the questions were
about the Clinton Foundation and they made a decision to let him handle
those questions. But look, I think she has got to get out there, she has to
answer questions. And she has to do it routinely so it's not a major news
event when she takes a few questions from the news media.

TODD: It makes the press conference seems relevant.

ALEXELROD: She has to do it quickly and she has to get into the rhythm of a
campaign where she's out there, she's answering questions, she's making
speeches. It would be a terrible mistake to not do that.

TODD: It does make Bill Clinton, right now, the face of the Clinton
campaign, in an odd way. He hasn't been helpful.

Peggy Noonan On Hillary’s Press Strategy: ‘She’s Running A Silent Movie Of
A Campaign’
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/17/peggy-noonan-on-hillarys-press-strategy-shes-running-a-silent-movie-of-a-campaign/>
// Daily Caller // Al Weaver - May 17, 2015

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan took aim at the former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton’s media strategy Sunday, telling “Face The Nation”
Clinton is “running a silent movie of a campaign” as she dodges the press.

Noonan made the comments to host Bob Schieffer after giving credit to
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for continuing to take questions from the
media after he endured a tough week. Bush waffled on questions about the
Iraq War.

BOB SCHIFFER: Peggy, this was a tough week for Jeb Bush. PEGGY NOONAN:
Yeah, It definitely was. He seemed consistently taken aback by the asking
of a question anyone could have told you a year and two years ago was going
to be primary question of the primary time. It was difficult for him in
ways that are almost mysterious. And because I think he showed such
discomfort in his answers, he sort of opened up the possibility that this
will only be the beginning of many questions about things your brother did,
would you have done them? Do you know what I mean? So, it was difficult.
However, he deserves, I think, great credit in this. He’s going to the
press every day, he’s taking questions, he’s being out there, he’s doing
sit-down interviews. Mrs. Clinton instead is doing, sort of, a silent movie
of a campaign in which she doesn’t feel she has to do those things. I don’t
think that’s a good way to go and will problematic for her down the road.

Bill And Hillary Clinton Rob Inequality Of Its Unrelenting Beauty
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/05/17/bill-and-hillary-clinton-rob-inequality-of-its-unrelenting-beauty/2/>
// Forbes // John Tamny - May 17, 2015

In a McDonald’s recently, a witnessed interview between the restaurant’s
manager and a potential new hire was striking for its economic
significance.  At one point the manager went back behind the counter to
help with a surge of customers, at which time the interviewee took out her
mobile phone to send texts, read e-mails, check Facebook…

Interesting about what took place is that 35 years ago cellphones were
non-existent.  Worse, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Bill Frezza
regularly reminds those lucky enough to hear him speak, in the 1970s
wall-mounted telephones were illegal to own.  If you wanted a phone your
only option was to rent it from the federal government’s approved telephone
monopoly.

Thirty years ago mobile phones were finally available, but only the
superrich owned them. That was true because the purchase of a brick-sized
phone with ½ hour of battery life, terrible reception, and highly limited
calling range set the wealthy few back $3,995.  If you had the temerity to
call San Diego from Los Angeles with any frequency your monthly bill was
measured in the hundreds of dollars. Nowadays McDonald’s applicants can
cheaply call anywhere around the country on phones with capabilities that
would have floored the richest technology billionaires, Hollywood movie
producers and Connecticut hedge fund managers no more than five years ago.

The above is of course the norm in societies defined by personal and
economic freedom. What the rich initially enjoy exclusively merely signals
what we’ll all eventually enjoy if the economy is left alone.  It’s forever
been this way, and the evidence is all around us.

The ‘Mansion’ section of a recent Wall Street Journal featured a ‘car
garage’ for sale as an apartment on East 73rd Street in Manhattan.  As the
Journal noted about the $50 million Beaux-Arts structure, it “was built
around 1905, when only the elite had cars.” Henry Ford grew very rich
making the Ford Model T accessible to the non-rich; Ford’s cars powered by
gasoline made broadly available by the richest man of all time, John D.
Rockefeller.

Fast forward to the present, an overnight stay at supposedly down market
lodging chains like Motel 6 includes not just air conditioning, but a flat
screen television in each room.  In the year 2000 a ‘’50 flat-screen
television cost $20,000, and even the rooms at luxury chains like the Four
Seasons were bereft of them.  There’s a detectable pattern here.

Specifically, the ‘wealth inequality’ decried by clueless economists and
opportunistic politicians has been mis-named.  What’s a pejorative is
unrelentingly beautiful. The “rising wealth inequality” that reduces
economists, pundits and politicians to puddles of emotion should be
properly renamed “surging lifestyle equality” with an eye on calming their
rage.  Put more simply, the inequality that horrifies self-proclaimed deep
thinkers is the wondrous process whereby entrepreneurs turn the former
luxuries of the rich into everyday items.  To be blunt, a world without
wealth inequality would be one marked by excessive deprivation.

All of which brings us to the latest news about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
According to numerous media accounts the formidable political couple has
earned at least $30 million in speaking fees since 2014.  The Clintons are
maybe who President Obama had in mind when he famously said “You didn’t
build that.”

The Clintons are extraordinarily rich not because Bill discovered a cure
for cancer, or because Hillary has a knack for resuscitating companies that
are on the proverbial deathbed, because both are expert as Ford,
Rockefeller and Steve Jobs were at mass producing former baubles of the
rich, or even because they were born well.  No, the Clintons are rich for
having been wise enough to make a profession of politics in what is the
richest, most innovative country on earth.  Without a hint of hyperbole,
the wealth they enjoy is a function of their pull within a federal
government that is empowered to tax away trillions on an annual basis.  The
Clintons are posh and supercilious, but their grand posture is directly
attributable to the political class’s ability to plunder the actual wealth
of America’s truly productive.

The Clinton’s millions are the result of government force, and those
millions rob inequality of its life-enhancing beauty. While rising wealth
inequality in the world of free markets is once again a sign of
entrepreneurs shrinking the lifestyle gap, Clinton-style inequality is
rooted in the political ability to influence the direction of economic
resources created by others, but that were expropriated by the federal
government.

To be fair to the Clintons, they’re hardly alone.  This isn’t a Democrat or
Republican thing.  It’s a national politics thing. Politicians claim to
enter what is nowadays a profession with ‘public service’ in mind, but as
their soaring net worth in and out office plainly reveals, men and women
enter politics in the U.S. to get rich.  As evidenced by their earnings,
the Clintons are simply the best at a game played by Democrats and
Republicans alike.  Maybe an unsung reason why Americans despise
politicians so much has to do with intuitive knowledge that their arrogance
is entirely unearned.

Bill Clinton is by most accounts an accomplished speaker, both Bill and
Hillary are presumably very book smart, but if they weren’t born in the
U.S. such that they could play U.S. politics at the highest of levels, no
one would presently pay them six and seven figures for their speeches.  The
Clintons oddly decry the very inequality that creates a taxable bonanza
each year for the federal government, and this is odd simply because the
resulting federal spending is the undeniable source of all the fawning
treatment they receive from people who are always ‘fascinated’ by what they
have to say on the stump.  Reduced to the basics, there aren’t many rich
people in Bangladesh, and as a result there aren’t many influential people
seeking favor with their politicians.  Politicians from Bangladesh are for
some strange reason not as interesting or insightful as are American
politicians.  They’re also not as rich….There’s no bustling, ritzy, K
Street equivalent in Dhaka.

Hillary Clinton’s decision to make her presidential campaign about the
alleged horrors of inequality despite her and Bill’s many millions has her
being labeled by many as a hypocrite.  Fair enough, but this amounts to
shooting fish in the most crowded of barrels.

What’s most bothersome is that Hillary would bash the very inequality that
has made it possible for her and Bill to be prominent global figures, and
by extension wildly rich global figures.  If not for the immense taxable
wealth in the U.S., and the Clintons’ ability to influence its direction
around the world, very few would give them the time of day.

In short, the Clintons are nothing without the wealth inequality they claim
to disdain.  It’s the sole source of their power.  The swagger of the
world’s foremost political couple was taken from someone else.

Hillary Clinton’s consigliere covers up her scandals
<http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/hillary-clintons-consigliere-covers-up-for-her-scandals/>
// NY Post // Paul Sperry - May 17, 2015

If Congress really wants to get to the bottom of Hillary Clinton’s missing
Benghazi and pay-to-play emails, it should call her consigliere Cheryl D.
Mills to testify — under oath, and under the klieg lights.

A hearing featuring Clinton will be a wasted show trial with a lot of
political grandstanding.

But Mills, who served as the former secretary of state’s chief of staff and
counselor, knows where the bodies are buried. After all, Hillary tasked her
with “identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be
federal records.”

And, presumably, deleting.

Mills has a long track record of hiding Clinton documents.

Since the 1990s, Mills has been at Hillary’s side — first as a White House
lawyer, then as her closest and most loyal adviser at the State Department,
and now as a key member of the Clinton Foundation board, which is under
fire for raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from dubious foreign
sources in alleged influence-peddling deals.

The job of damage control has fallen to Mills through a parade of scandals.
Her lack of cooperation is legendary. In fact, she’s been officially
accused of both perjury and obstruction of justice.

Sworn affidavits, depositions and court rulings, as well as congressional
reports and testimony, paint a picture of, to put it charitably, a brazenly
dishonest cover-up specialist.

Among her shenanigans:

·      As White House deputy counsel, Mills ordered Commerce Department
officials to “withhold” from investigators emails and other documents
detailing then-President Clinton’s and First Lady Hillary Clinton’s
allegedly illegal selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign
cash, according to sworn statements by Commerce’s former FOIA chief. “Ms.
Mills, in her position as deputy counsel to the president, advised Commerce
officials to withhold certain documents,” testified Sonya Stewart Gilliam
in a July 2000 sworn affidavit taken by Judicial Watch, a government
watchdog group in Washington. “The Commerce Department’s collaboration with
White House Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience,
highly irregular and at variance with normal procedures.

·      At the same time, a federal judge ruled that Mills “failed
miserably” to take proper steps to search for and recover 1.8 million
Executive Office of the President and Office of the First Lady emails under
subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky and Filegate scandal investigations, after
computer contractors discovered them mysteriously missing from the
automated White House archiving system. Mills, who was in charge of finding
the lost email, conveniently made “the most critical error” in recovering
them, US District Judge Royce Lamberth concluded in a 63-page opinion,
adding that he found her actions “loathsome.” In fact, Judicial Watch
accused Mills of orchestrating a “cover-up” in what became known as
“Email-gate.” Her court testimony in the case, during which she repeatedly
answered “I don’t have a recollection,” sounds like an interview with an
amnesia patient. (In the end, the emails were never recovered).

·      In another scandal, Mills “concealed” so many subpoenaed emails and
other documents detailing allegedly illegal fundraising activity between
the White House and the Democratic National Committee — specifically,
Hillary’s illegal integration of White House and DNC computer databases —
that staff lawyers for the House Government Oversight Committee in 1998
sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding federal
prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury. “Ms.
Mills knowingly and willfully obstructed the investigative authority of
this committee by withholding documents,” the panel concluded in a 647-page
investigative report. “Moreover, when this obstruction was brought to light
in a hearing before the committee, Ms. Mills lied under oath about the
documents and the circumstances surrounding their nonproduction.”

·      In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and
decided which ones to withhold from an independent review board. She also
leaned on witnessses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified
before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop
cooperating with investigators.

·      On behalf of the Clintons, Mills negotiated the weak
conflict-of-interest rules for disclosing foreign donations to the Clinton
Foundation with the Obama administration. She also reportedly helped broker
international payments to the group.

In short, Mills “is in the middle of it,” Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton said.

An investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi said if the
panel calls Mills as a witness, her testimony will most likely be taken
behind closed doors in a “transcribed interview.” That would be a mistake.

Mills should be sworn in and grilled in a public hearing in front of TV
cameras.

Sweating Mills could crack the case wide open. Otherwise, Hillary could
walk away unscathed, waltz right back into the White House — and Mills
could end up running it as chief of staff.

It's the Summer of Hillary Clinton on "SNL"
<http://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/SNL-Summer-Hillary-Clinton-Jeb-Bush-2016-President-304031391.html>
// NBC New York // Michael Rodio - May 17, 2015

Summer is only a calendar page away. But nevermind the sunny skies and
balmy breezes: the season of straw polls and caucuses has arrived, and
Hillary Clinton was in campaign mode on "Saturday Night Live."

In the musical opening sketch, the former senator and secretary of state
(portrayed in her latest "SNL" incarnation by a manic, delighftully
unhinged Kate McKinnon) took to beaches and sand castles to introduce
herself to a younger generation.

"May I have just a moment of your summer? I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm
running for president of these United States," said Clinton, clawing at the
air, her hands like pincers.

"But that's not for a long time," one (Kenan Thompson) said. "Now it's
summer vacation."

"My last vacation was in 1953," she replied. "I played one round of
hopscotch with a friend. I found it tedious. Why hop when you can march —
straight to the White House."

She then issued her percussive laugh — something like "ah HA HA haaaaaa" —
as her mouth curled into a snarling rictus.

She spoke with some kids (Aidy Bryant and Pete Davidson), whose parents
remained resolutely against her political aspirations.

"I like your sand castle," she said.

"Thanks," Bryant's character replied. "It's our dream house."

"That's nice. This is my dream house," Clinton said, embracing a massive,
sandy model of the White House.

Also on the campaign trail were a few surfers (Kyle Mooney, Jay Pharoah and
Beck Bennett).

“Hey there, 18-to-25-year-olds," she said, stiffly hula-twisting up to a
surfboard. "How does it hang?”

Blank stares.

"You know what's cool? In two years I'll be 69," Clinton said. (More blank
stares). "You like that? Bill told me to tell that to young males."

The former president made a brief appearance himself (in the person of
longtime "SNL" impersonator Darrell Hammond), if only to help a young woman
(Sasheer Zamata) apply sunscreen.

"Billary Rodham Clinton, what are you doing?" the former first lady hissed
at her husband.

"Sorry," Mr. Clinton told Zamata's character. "It's my mom."

The Clintons weren't the only political dynasty to take some flak on
Saturday night. On "Weekend Update," co-host Colin Jost skewered Jeb Bush
for his fumbled responses to questions related to his brother's record in
Iraq.

"Jeb Bush said in an interview this week that, like his brother, he would
have authorized the invasion of Iraq," Jost said. "But he wouldn't have
done it for the same George did: to capture the genie from Aladdin."

Jost also noted that Jeb Bush faced criticism during a Nevada town hall
meeting, where a college student said George W. Bush "created ISIS."

"But that's really not fair," Jost said. "It's more like he co-created it,"
as a photo of Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney appeared.

Diane Lane on Her Aborted Hillary Clinton Miniseries and Surviving Hollywood
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/17/diane-lane-on-her-aborted-hillary-clinton-miniseries-and-surviving-hollywood.html>
// The Daily Beast // Marlow Stern - May 17, 2015

“I was a complete anomaly,” says Diane Lane. “It was almost like a freak
show to see a kid in the movies in the ’70s, and now it’s all kids.”

Yes, back in 1979, Lane was featured on the cover of Time magazine and
christened one of Hollywood’s “Whiz Kids.” She’d just made her Broadway
debut at the age of 12 in The Cherry Orchard opposite Meryl Streep when
film icon Laurence Olivier fought with producers to get her out of her
theatrical obligations so he could cast her in A Little Romance. Olivier,
as is his wont, got his way, and after working with Lane christened her
“the new Grace Kelly.”

Lane went on to star as the lone ballsy female in Francis Ford Coppola’s
testosterone-fueled teen flicks The Outsiders and Rumble Fish before
seguing to more adult roles, earning a well-deserved Oscar nomination for
her turn as an unfulfilled housewife who embarks on a steamy affair with a
sexy Frenchman in Unfaithful.

Her latest film is Every Secret Thing. Directed by Oscar-nominated
documentarian Amy Berg, Lane stars as Helen Manning, the mother of a young
girl, Alice (Danielle Macdonald), who’s—along with her alleged accomplice,
Ronnie (Dakota Fanning)—hauled off to jail at a young age for a heinous
crime. When she’s released seven years later, another young girl goes
missing, and the two young women are the prime suspects.

The Daily Beast spoke with Lane about her new film and storied career,
including her highly publicized—and ultimately canceled—turn as Hillary
Clinton in the four-part NBC miniseries Hillary.

How did you get involved with Every Secret Thing?

I’m a Frances McDormand fan, and it was her connection as a producer on it
that sparked my interest first. And then I read the book, which was a fun,
unexpected read. You get to see behind the scenes of mass confusion in the
justice system. Nicole Holofcener, who wrote the screenplay, was going to
direct it at one point, so I met with her and I’m a fan of hers, and then
we hit a lot of snags with our schedules, so Fran found Amy [Berg] to
direct, who was just this wunderkind. For me, the territory of this
character was fascinating because I felt that her failure as a mother was
the first domino in how such a horrible crime could take place, and the
ensuing drama of the girls coming out of incarceration as adults. How do
you look for a job? It’s all rather daunting.

This is a much darker turn—and film—for you. I remember around the time of
Nights of Rodanthe you’d been vocal about your frustration with being
typecast as a sunny character.

Well, yeah. Opportunity is key. They don’t make a lot of these, for
whatever reason. I just thought it was a breath of fresh air to allow for
the female experience to have nothing to do with the prerequisite
sympathetic or nurturing presumptions. That’s a mask that we want to see. I
understand a lot of people want to go and believe in fairytales, and that’s
great and a big part of the entertainment industry, but there are other
appetites that are more interested in the psychology. From my point of
view, playing someone like this is definitely more of a hurdle—and also
not, in a way. After so many years of being rather sunny, as you say, it’s
refreshing to examine what’s not so “popular” about what exists in people.

Every Secret Thing is also a Hollywood rarity in that it’s almost entirely
made by women. It’s written by Nicole Holofcener, directed by Amy Berg,
stars you, Dakota Fanning, and Danielle Macdonald. Hell, even the lead
detective in the film is a woman, played by Elizabeth Banks.

Yeah! And Laura Lippman wrote the book, too. I don’t think it was intended
that way, but I think there’s a need for society to not just keep the
female experience in the narrow confines of what’s appealing. Only living
on candy is not a good thing, you know?

I totally agree. Now, I want to talk about Hillary, the aborted NBC
miniseries that was supposed to air sometime in 2014 and star you as
Hillary Clinton. What story was it going to tell?

It was going to start with the Monica Lewinsky morning-after. Waking up to
that news had to be quite a morning in their house! And then it continued
on until she was embarking on her presidential bid.

It seems pretty prescient, given that the series was green-lit back in 2013
and Hillary only recently declared she’d be running for POTUS in 2016.

Well… I remember going with my daughter to sit down and vote for a woman
[in the 2008 primary], because I never knew that the opportunity would
present itself again—just so she’d have the experience as a young person to
say that it happened. And hopefully for her, it will become a commonplace
option.

Why do you think it was canceled? I read stories about NBC receiving
pressure from the Republican National Committee, who’d voted to boycott NBC
during the 2016 presidential primary debates when Hillary was announced.

You know, I suspect that it’s possible that nobody wanted to fathom that a
film could impact the psyche of the demographics who would be potential
voters—meaning in one direction or another. I think it became about, “Wow,
are we going to make a ‘pro’ or an ‘anti’ film?” “Are we going to elucidate
aspects that will detract from the more important issues, or are we going
to create speculation about things that are distracting from the agenda of
the future of our country?” I do think there was cause for concern, because
honestly, does anyone want to be a grain of sand tipping the scale in
either direction? Only in hindsight can we guess the impact of media on the
mentality of the voting body.

It was going to be a pretty positive portrayal of Hillary though, right?

I never got to see the final script. We only created an outline that was to
be filled in, but we never got to the point that there was an actual
screenplay. We did have an outline, though. I mean her whole life,
depending on your opinion, is a positive or a negative. Are you anti things
that she’s done or what she represents, or are you pro what she represents
and the things that she’d done? But the one thing that I don’t think they
can take away from Hillary is her experience. That’s a different
conversation, but as far as that project, it was a fun, exciting,
risk-taking moment for me to allow them to announce! It was so much larger
than the project already; it was so unwieldy. I think we all were
spared—everyone involved!

The first thing I ever saw you in was The Outsiders. Half of ’80s Hollywood
is in that movie, and yours is really the only prominent female role.

It’s so interesting because it was all for the love of a woman. It’s like
Helen of Troy, in a sense. What women represent to the male is,
historically, a big burden. It’s a lovely dream but it’s the stuff of
literature, art, and everything. Living up to what the male psyche projects
onto the female is the stuff of books. You’d need a lot more than an
interview to go into it! But at the time it was really the only film
besides Bugsy Malone that was an art film for teenagers. It went deeper.

Tom Cruise must’ve taken a liking to you on that film, because I read that
he asked you to star in Risky Business with him while you two were shooting
The Outsiders.

That’s true. That’s true. My Dad was like, “There’s no way you’re playing a
prostitute for that guy.”

He said that?!

[Laughs] Absolutely!

But then you almost played a prostitute later in Pretty Woman.

Oh, yeah. But that was a very different film, you have to understand. It
was a movie called 3000, and it was a dark, dark psychological drama about
a delusional prostitute who gets kicked out of a limousine at the end of
the movie. They took that film and they dignified it, you know? She was not
getting any jewelry. She might’ve for the weekend, but it was
Cinderella-time.

So the version of Pretty Woman you’d signed onto was about a rich asshole
playing mind games with a prostitute and convincing her that he loved her,
only to kick her to the curb?

Correct. And every actress in town was auditioning in her underwear for
that movie. It was a very uncomfortable time for everyone. Auditioning for
Pretty Baby was pretty bad, too. It was a screen test, and I hated it. I
get uncomfortable in my body now just remembering it. The fact that you go
on meetings and hope you don’t get the part is always an awkward time.

How have you managed to stay relevant in this pretty sexist industry that
tends to cast aside women of a certain age?

Part of that is the psyche I was talking about earlier that men project and
filter the female experience through. I was watching a documentary awhile
back about pedophilia—at least I thought it was going to be about that—and
it turned out that the males of our species invariably go for the youngest
opportunity because, in our DNA, that meant you could have the most babies
for longer. I don’t take it personally anymore. I think it’s a default, and
leftover. It’s like our fingernails; we don’t use them for much anymore.

I gotta ask about Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, because the trailer
came out recently and everyone lost their shit.

Oh, that’s done. We shot that last year. I’m Martha Kent again. I’m not
really allowed to talk about it! It’s one of those movies. Scenes were
redacted! It was very hush-hush. I don’t even know a lot of the movie
myself! I didn’t participate in a lot of green screen, though. My scenes
were very earthbound, and normal.

Did you get to observe Ben Affleck as Batman? People are very curious how
he’ll be as the Dark Knight.

Oh, yeah. It certainly impressed the hell outta me! I thought he was
brilliantly cast. I love Ben, and I worked with him years ago on a film
called Hollywoodland, and he played the actor playing Superman in that!
It’s all so confusing and incestuous and curious, the trail that actors
wander through in the course of their careers and how stories overlap. It’s
funny.

Unions Pour Millions into Clinton Foundation
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/unions-pour-millions-into-clinton-foundation/>
// AP // Bill McMorris - May 18, 2015

Big labor funneled millions of dollars in dues money to the Clinton
Foundation, according to a new report.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a union
watchdog group, traced at least $2 million in donations from multiple union
organizations and affiliates.

“U.S. Department of Labor’s union financial disclosure reports reveal that
Big Labor gave at least $2,034,500 in union general treasury funds to
Clinton Foundations. Union treasuries are funded mostly by compulsory union
dues or fees collected from workers who would be fired for refusing to
pay,” the NILRR report says. “As Mrs. Clinton became closer to her current
run for president, donations amounts appear to have increased.”

The Clintons have turned their foundation into a lucrative “slush fund,”
according to one charity watchdog group, and have received hundreds of
millions of dollars from notable businesses, media personalities, and
political luminaries. The family has maintained that none of those
donations influenced her decisions as secretary of state and that the money
is strictly philanthropic.

However, unions did not necessarily agree about the apolitical nature of
the donations, according to NILRR.

“Some of these ‘donations’ are categorized by the unions as ‘political’ on
their financial disclosure report” to the Labor Department, the report says.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, a national plumbers
union, for example, poured in nearly $200,000 through two contributions in
2013; each of those donations was classified as a political activity.

The AFL-CIO, one of the nation’s most influential labor groups, contributed
$23,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2012 and reported the donation
as a political activity. The union lobbied the State Department several
times about pending free trade agreements over the course of the year.

Neither the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices nor the
AFL-CIO returned a request for comment.

Clinton gave a tepid endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
deal being negotiated by the Obama administration in her memoir Hard
Choices, but has backed away from that position since declaring her
presidential candidacy.

A Washington Free Beacon review found that all of the donations unearthed
by NILRR were accounted for in the public disclosures that Hillary Clinton
pledged to make when she joined the Obama administration. She and the
foundation have faced scrutiny for not properly living up to that pledge by
author Peter Schweizer, the New York Times, Washington Free Beacon, and
numerous other media outlets.

Neither the Clinton Foundation, nor the Clinton campaign returned request
for comment.

Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work, said the
donations fit into the pattern of Big Labor’s political influence peddling.

“Once again union bosses are playing politics with rank-and-file workers’
money, including money from workers who would be fired if they didn’t pay,”
he said “There’s no question the union officials view two million dollars
as a down-payment towards making sure that a Hillary Administration will
continue the Obama policy of wielding Executive power to benefit Big Labor
at the expense of independent workers and businesses.”

Stephanopoulos, ABC have not fully disclosed Clinton ties: Schweizer
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/16/stephanopoulos-abc-clinton-schweizer-foundation-hillary-column/27436475/>
// USA Today // Peter Schweizer - May 17, 2015

Fact-driven, fair, aggressive journalism animates American politics. As an
investigative journalist, I am accustomed to asking tough questions. When I
publish, I expect tough questions in turn,

That's not what ABC News This Week host and chief anchor George
Stephanopoulos delivered when he interviewed me about my new book on the
Clinton Foundation last month. There's a reason. Though Stephanopoulos
belatedly disclosed$75,000 in donations to the foundation, he has yet to
disclose his much deeper relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

When Stephanopoulos invited me on his Sunday program, I knew that he had
worked as a top adviser and campaign manager to President Bill Clinton in
the 1990s, but I didn't know about his donations or his other ties to the
foundation founded and overseen by the former president and his wife,
potential future president Hillary Clinton.

I agreed to be interviewed, expecting a robust examination of my new book,
Clinton Cash, and my reporting on the Clintons' accumulation of massive
personal wealth, cronyism and the lack of transparency surrounding the
Clintons' foundation.

I expected probing questions, similar to the ones I've received from Andrea
Mitchell on MSNBC, Chris Wallace on Fox News and Frank Sesno on CNN.

What I did not expect — what no one expected — was the sort of "hidden hand
journalism" that has contributed to America's news media's crisis of
credibility in particular, and Americans' distrust of the news media more
broadly.

If Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donations to the very foundation I was
there to talk about, perhaps it would have put the aggressive posture of
his interview with me in context.

But he didn't.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this
information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that
Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a
passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer
look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton
Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos
did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel
moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI
annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report
on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin,
Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose
involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to
discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI
annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the
book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O'Brien.

ABC's most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served
as a panel moderator at CGI's annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in
2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea
Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by
Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I
report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent
resignation.

Obviously, Stephanopoulos has favorable feelings toward Hillary and Bill
Clinton; he gives their foundation his money and his time. Big-time news
media personalities have one thing in very short supply — time. Regular
participation in Clinton Foundation events shows a deeper commitment to the
Clintons than just the donations.

Perhaps if Stephanopoulos weren't so close to the subject of my book, he
might have asked me about my reporting on Hillary Clinton's brother, Tony
Rodham, serving on the board of a company that scored a coveted and rare
gold mining permit in Haiti as the Clintons directed the flow of U.S.
Agency for International Development dollars. (As The Washington Post
reported, Rodham met those mining executives at a CGI meeting.)

Indeed, Stephanopoulos could have pounded away at all the book's news. He
chose not to. Instead, he made sure to highlight the four months I wrote
speeches for President George W. Bush and my long past financial
supporters, all while keeping quiet about his deep and longstanding
involvement in the Clintons' foundation, and the three annual checks for
$25,000 that he wrote.

What ABC News' top anchor has done is far different than the "honest
mistake" ABC called it in a statement earlier this week.

I asked ABC News about the fact that this information was yet to be
disclosed to ABC viewers, and mostly they avoided my questions, releasing a
statement that reads in full, "Yes, George made us aware that he was
moderating these panels and that is absolutely within our guidelines. We
know that he would be listed as a member — as all moderators are. He is in
good company of scores of other journalists that have moderated these
panels."

That, however, is not at all what the Clinton Foundation website says about
CGI membership. Read for yourself. Whether ABC News will ultimately punish
Stephanopoulos is unclear.

What is certain is that Stephanopoulos' ethical malpractice and hidden-hand
journalism have done further injury to an essential, if beleaguered,
institution, one already battling to preserve legitimacy.

That's news no one can celebrate.

Clinton's super PAC fundraising irks progressives
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/18/politics/hillary-clinton-super-pac-election-2016/>
// CNN // MJ Lee – May 18, 2015

Clinton campaigns in Council Bluffs, Iowa, with her daughter, Chelsea, on
January 1, 2008, two days ahead of the January 3 state caucus.

(CNN)Hillary Clinton's decision to personally raise money for a super PAC
supporting her campaign is agitating her progressive critics, who see the
move as further proof that the Democratic presidential frontrunner doesn't
share some of their values.

There was never any expectation that Clinton would renounce super PAC money
this election cycle. But liberal activists determined to use the Democratic
primary to pressure Clinton to embrace a progressive agenda say the idea of
the former secretary of state personally wooing the wealthiest class of
donors runs counter to the populist rhetoric she's employed this year.

Within days of announcing her White House bid, Clinton had called out
wealthy investors for paying too little in taxes and pledged to get big
money out of politics. At the time, it was a welcome message for liberal
Democrats who are uncomfortable with Clinton's close ties to Wall Street
and find the prominent role of super PACs in elections utterly distasteful.

But the recent revelation that Clinton will personally fundraise for a
super PAC supporting her campaign -- a decision to play by the rules of a
system she has condemned as "dysfunctional" -- has invited fresh
eye-rolling. It has also exposed a core tension for Democrats, who have
increasingly embraced super PACs at the same time that they decry the
explosion of soft money in national politics.

Clinton's campaign is explaining the decision as a matter of political
necessity.

"With some Republican candidates reportedly setting up and outsourcing
their entire campaign to super PACs and the Koch Brothers pledging $1
billion alone for the 2016 campaign, Democrats have to have the resources
to fight back," a Clinton campaign official said in an email, who spoke
anonymously to discuss the sensitive topic of fundraising. "There is too
much at stake for our future for Democrats to unilaterally disarm."

Clinton's expected involvement with Priorities USA has highlighted the
contrast between her and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who is
Clinton's only declared rival to date for the Democratic presidential
nomination, as well as other potential challengers.

An independent from Vermont seeking the Democratic presidential nomination,
Sanders has aggressively opposed super PAC donations. A long-shot candidate
without a national fundraising operation, Sanders has no chance of matching
Clinton's fundraising haul and has little to lose by going after
millionaire and billionaire donors.

On Capitol Hill last week, Sanders told CNN that Clinton's decision to
personally court super PAC donors was "unfortunate."

"We're living in a world since Citizens United where multi-millionaires and
billionaires are playing a horrendous role in the political system,"
Sanders said, referring to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the
way for super PACs to direct virtually uncapped amounts of money to aid
political candidates. "That's why I believe that we need to overturn
Citizens United and move to public funding of elections."

A former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton and a top counselor
for President Obama, Podesta has the stature to speak truth to power. His
influential role in early structural and strategic decisions suggests that
he will be a far more hands-on campaign chairman than most.

Phil Noble, a South Carolina Democratic activist and supporter of former
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a potential Democratic candidate for
president, said the development underscores what progressives view as a
"fundamental disconnect" between Clinton and middle class voters.

"It's not that she raises a bunch of money for a PAC that causes her
problems with middle class voters. That is a symptom as opposed to the
ailment," Noble said. "The larger illness is she is out of touch with
middle class voters -- she does have a lifestyle and a history that is
about as alien to middle class voters as corporate jets are to a Subaru."

And activists who are pushing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to
challenge Clinton see campaign finance reform as a major issue.

"Being a true champion for working families like Elizabeth Warren is about
clearly and unequivocally supporting such critical priorities as a
constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United," said Erica Sagrans,
campaign manager for Ready for Warren, a movement dedicated to drafting
Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 race.

Clinton's personal involvement with Priorities USA marks the latest chapter
in the Democratic Party's evolving relationship with super PACs.

Democrats initially fiercely opposed Citizens United. But for all of their
rhetoric against super PACs, and as much as the party continues to use the
Supreme Court decision as a political rallying cry, over the years
political interest has largely won out over progressive idealism.

In 2012, President Barack Obama reversed course, declaring after years of
keeping his distance from super PACs that his campaign would participate in
raising money for Priorities USA.

Now that tension is being brought to new heights as the party's next likely
presidential nominee personally plans to drum up support for a super PAC
backing her candidacy.

Clinton allies also see that her fundraising prowess and the depth of her
connections with the kinds of donors who can cut multi-million dollar
checks will likely make her a formidable competitor against any Republican
candidate she may face in the general election. Officials are careful to
emphasize, however, that Clinton and everyone else involved with her
campaign will strictly follow the law as they solicit funds for Priorities
USA.

The 2016 money race is well underway on the other side of the political
aisle.

Declared GOP candidates including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio
of Florida, as well as expected candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush, are on a fundraising tear. And they've shown no signs of distancing
themselves from super PAC money. Cruz launched his campaign in March, and
the senator's allies declared that an affiliated network of pro-Cruz super
PACs had raised upwards of $30 million in just a matter of days.

The stiff competition against Republican money is a reality that some
progressive leaders say they cannot ignore.

Former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean said it would be unwise for Clinton to reject super PAC money.

"Unfortunately, if you don't play by the same rules everybody else does,
you end up losing elections," said Dean, founder of Democracy for America,
one of the groups behind the draft Warren movement. "The key is to change
the rules, and I think we have a much better chance of doing that with her
as president than we do with one of the Republicans."

‘Super PACS’ Are Remaking 2016 Campaigns, Official or Not
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/us/politics/super-pacs-are-remaking-16-campaigns-official-or-not.html>
// NYT // Nicholas Confessore and Eric Lichtblau - May 17, 2015

As the 2016 campaign unfolds, Hillary Rodham Clinton will benefit from one
rapid-response team working out of a war room in her Brooklyn headquarters
— and another one working out of a “super PAC” in Washington.

Jeb Bush has hired a campaign manager, press aides and fund-raisers — yet
insists he is not only not running for president, but not even thinking
about running for president.

And Senator Marco Rubio’s chance of winning his party’s nomination may
hinge on the support of an “independent” group financed by a billionaire
who has bankrolled Mr. Rubio’s past campaigns, paid his salary teaching at
a university and employed his wife.

With striking speed, the 2016 contenders are exploiting loopholes and
regulatory gray areas to transform the way presidential campaigns are
organized and paid for.

Their “campaigns” are in practice intricate constellations of political
committees, super PACs and tax-exempt groups, engineered to avoid
fund-raising restrictions imposed on candidates and their parties after the
Watergate scandal.

Major costs of each candidate’s White House bid, from television
advertising to opposition research to policy development, are now being
shifted to legally independent organizations that can accept unlimited
contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions.

In this new world, campaigns are not campaigns. And candidates are not
actually candidates. Though they sometimes forget it.

“I am running for president in 2016,” Mr. Bush said during a speech in
Nevada last week, before quickly amending himself.

“If I run,” clarified Mr. Bush, whose political operation has already
raised tens of millions of dollars — just in case.

Much rides on this apparent distinction. Because of it, Mr. Bush and
several other contenders have delayed registering their campaigns with the
Federal Election Commission, even as they travel the country, meet with
voters, attend candidate forums and ask donors for money. That allows them
— or so their representatives argue — to personally raise money for and
coordinate spending with super PACs.

By law, a campaign and an independent group cannot coordinate their
activities. But since there is no campaign, the representatives argue,
there is nothing for the groups to illegally coordinate with.

Not everyone agrees. In March, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21,
two groups that favor stricter enforcement of campaign regulations, filed
complaints with the election commission alleging that Mr. Bush; Gov. Scott
Walker of Wisconsin; Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania;
and Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, all met the legal
definition of being a candidate and were raising tens of millions of
dollars in violation of federal rules.

Mr. Bush’s comment in Nevada was “a slip of the mask, not a slip of the
tongue,” said Paul S. Ryan, a senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
“The rules apply to you as soon as you start spending money to determine
whether you will run. Simply denying that you’re a candidate doesn’t get
you around these campaign finance laws.”

No potential candidate has been more aggressive in using the new model than
Mr. Bush. In recent months, his advisers have created a traditional
political action committee — the kind that can accept contributions of only
a few thousand dollars per donor — along with a super PAC that can take
unlimited contributions and is expected to handle the bulk of the
advertising on Mr. Bush’s behalf during the primaries. There is also a
nonprofit organization, based in Arkansas, that can raise unlimited
contributions and is not required to disclose its donors.

All share some variation of the name “Right to Rise,” and Mr. Bush has
headlined fund-raisers for the groups, even putting his name on invitations
to more than 300 donors who attended a Right to Rise conference in Miami in
April.

Technically, however, the super PAC is controlled by a Republican campaign
lawyer in Washington. The regular PAC is run by a Florida accountant who
has also prepared Mr. Bush’s taxes. (Mr. Bush is merely the PAC’s “honorary
chairman.”) And the nonprofit group is controlled by a former Bush aide who
is widely described as the head of Mr. Bush’s policy team, but who has said
the nonprofit will merely be “engaged in policy generation that is
consistent with Governor Bush’s optimistic, conservative message.”

The non-campaigns reject the idea that their non-candidates are doing
anything wrong.

“Right to Rise PAC and Honorary Chairman Jeb Bush are fully complying with
the law and F.E.C. precedent in all of our activities,” said Tim Miller,
who is often described in news accounts as a Bush spokesman but is
technically only a consultant to the Right to Rise PAC.

If there is little risk to candidates in pushing the envelope, the benefits
are substantial. Outsourcing campaign expenses to a super PAC, for example,
allows would-be presidents to avoid the kind of cash-flow problems that can
doom their bids even before the first contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Traditionally, a candidate who waited too long to hire a campaign staff
risked losing all the best talent to rival candidates. Hire too early, and
the campaign’s payroll costs quickly balloon, burning through contributions
that are capped at $2,700 per donor.

Now candidates set up super PACs and other vehicles before entering the
race and fill their bank accounts with six- and seven-figure checks from
wealthy supporters. Those groups, in turn, can employ the candidate’s
campaign staff-in-waiting.

Mr. Walker’s operation, for example, has hired advisers to handle
fund-raising, Christian conservative outreach, polling and more. These
advisers are not working for his campaign, which does not yet exist.
Instead, all are on the payroll of a tax-exempt organization, Our American
Revival, for which Mr. Walker has already raised more than $5 million.

“Governor Walker does not sit on O.A.R.’s board or otherwise control it,”
said AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for the group. “He is simply working with
us to advance a big, bold conservative reform agenda across the country.”

The outsourcing even extends to the daily work of “rapid-response,” or
reacting to criticisms in the news media or from other candidates.

When a Washington Post fact-checker sought clarification from the
Republican campaign of Carly Fiorina about claims she had made about her
business career, he was directed to an independent super PAC for some of
the answers. The name of the super PAC: Carly for America.

“The super PAC has just been very vocal in defending her, so I thought that
they’d be good to talk to,” explained Ms. Fiorina’s spokeswoman, Sarah
Isgur Flores. Ms. Flores works for the campaign, which is registered as
Carly for President.

Campaign lawyers in both parties say their efforts to circumvent the
candidate contribution limits, however suspect they may appear, are fully
consistent with existing laws and regulations. And to some extent, the
model being pioneered in 2016 is merely a culmination of piecemeal efforts
undertaken in past campaigns

Richard L. Hasen, a professor and campaign finance expert at the University
of California, Irvine, School of Law, said it had become hard even for him
to know what is legal anymore.

“You see some of these things and you have to do a double take; things we
thought were established as red lines are no longer red lines,” Mr. Hasen
said in an interview. “It’s all a mess.”

That extends to the rules that govern what candidates can do after they
formally enter the race. Each cycle brings new tactics for candidates to
collaborate with independent groups while trying to steer clear of illegal
“coordination.”

In 2012, aides to the Republican candidate Mitt Romney were wary of
acknowledging that he attended donor gatherings for a super PAC backing his
campaign. This time, there is less sensitivity. Mr. Bush, other Republicans
and Mrs. Clinton will all be attending donor events organized by super
PACs. (Their attendance is legal so long as someone else asks for the
money.)

And they are openly courting the donors who will finance the groups: Mr.
Rubio frequently speaks with Norman Braman, who has said he and Mr. Rubio
are “close personal friends.” Mr. Braman, a billionaire auto dealer who was
a major contributor to Mr. Rubio’s past campaigns, helped cover the cost of
his teaching job at Florida International University and employed his wife
to advise the Braman family’s philanthropic foundation, has pledged at
least $10 million to a pro-Rubio super PAC.

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton announced the creation last week of a super PAC,
Correct the Record, that would serve as a communications “war room” and
coordinate directly with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

Federal law prohibits a candidate from controlling super PACs, and such
groups cannot coordinate expenditures such as paid advertisements.

But Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the super PAC, said the coordination
restriction would not apply because Correct the Record’s defense of Mrs.
Clinton would be built around material posted on the group’s own website,
not paid media. Ms. Watson also ventured a further distinction that she
said would keep Correct the Record on the right side of the law: The group
will collaborate with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, but will not be controlled
by it.

“While Correct the Record can legally coordinate with the Clinton campaign,
the campaign will not be telling us what to do,” she said.

Bill Clinton to attend Emanuel's, City Council's inaugural ceremony
<http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/7/71/613505/bill-clinton-rahm-emanuel-inauguration>
// Chicago Sun Times // Mary Mitchell - May 17, 2015

Former President Bill Clinton will attend the inaugural ceremony Monday at
the Chicago Theatre, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel and 50 Chicago aldermen will
be sworn in.

Emanuel and Clinton — whose wife, Hillary Clinton, is seeking the
Democratic nomination for president — have a long history of working
together. In 1982, Emanuel moved to Little Rock, Arkansas, to work for
then-Gov. Clinton. Emanuel also served in several senior positions during
the Clinton administration.

In an interview ahead of the inauguration, Emanuel talked to Chicago
Sun-Times’ City Hall reporter Fran Spielman about issues that confront the
city and the dark cloud that hangs over his second term now that the
Illinois Supreme Court has overturned state pension reforms and placed city
reforms in jeopardy.

“I am energized by the both the opportunities and challenges that I face,”
Emanuel said. “They’re daunting, yet they’re incredible.

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE

Bernie Sanders to Introduce Bill to Make College Tuition-Free
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-17/bernie-sanders-to-introduce-bill-to-make-college-tuition-free>
// Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – May 17, 2015

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders will introduce legislation
on Tuesday to make public college tuition-free in the United States.

"We live in a highly competitive global economy and, if our economy is to
be strong, we need the best-educated work force in the world. That will not
happen if, every year, hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot
afford to go to college, and if millions more leave school deeply in debt,"
the Vermont senator and presidential candidate said in a statement released
Sunday.

The plan will provide tuition-free higher education to students at
four-year colleges, the statement said, and is modeled after the way many
European nations handle the costs of college.

“Countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden and many more are providing free
or inexpensive higher education for their young people.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders

"Countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden and many more are providing free
or inexpensive higher education for their young people," Sanders said in
the statement.  "They understand how important it is to be investing in
their youth.  We should be doing the same."

The move could put added pressure on Democratic front-runner Hillary
Clinton, who has yet to release her plan for higher education. A few weeks
ago, campaign manager Robby Mook used the phrase "debt-free college," when
discussing the issues important to young people, but Clinton has not yet
said whether or not that would be a part of her plan. Sanders's move could
stack this issue on top of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as
another issue awaiting comment from Clinton, in which more liberal
Democrats are herding her to the left.

President Obama continues to try and drum up congressional support for his
plan to make community college tuition-free.

“I want to lower the cost of community college to zero," Obama said earlier
this month at Lake Area Technical Institute in Watertown, South Dakota. "We
can’t afford to let striving Americans be priced out of the education they
need to get ahead.”

Sanders's statement said his bill will also seek to "substantially lower
student debt and bring down interest rates on college loans."

GOP

Iowa GOP audience delights in bounty of choices
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/05/16/lincoln-dinner-jindal-santorum-carson/27464481/>
// Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs - May 17, 2015

Republicans exulted in what they see as a smorgasbord of good choices in
their 2016 presidential lineup, but former CEO Carly Fiorina seemed to
steal the show at the Iowa GOP's Lincoln Dinner on Saturday night.

The audience of 1,400 stopped just short of booing when dinner organizers
cut the sound to her microphone when she reached the strict 10-minute
speaking limit set for all 11 presidential hopefuls.

One of Fiorina's best-received lines: "I was asked whether a woman's
hormones prevent her from serving in the Oval Office. OK, ladies, this is a
test: Can you think of a single instance in which a man's judgment was
clouded by his hormones? Including in the Oval Office?"

"She was like a fireball," said one dinner guest, Tanya Manatt, a
43-year-old Johnston resident who owns a bridal boutique. "She had a lot of
energy, and she's not intimidated."

The night's next most popular hopefuls — based on crowd reaction, a
sampling of interviews with dinner guests and observations of the traffic
in each contender's hospitality room after the speeches — were three
governors: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

"As far as covering the bases and making me feel like he would be a good
leader, Jeb Bush was next best," Manatt said. "I did not expect that. I
didn't want to like him."

A big honorable mention, for humor and a touching personal story about the
deaths of both of his parents when he was a young man, seemed to go to
South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Graham offered a steady stream of quips as soon as he took the stage.

"Chuck Grassley. Is he still here? The one thing I've learned about this
dinner: It was free for Chuck or he wouldn't have been here."

But there were some gasps when Graham, in a serious moment, said: "If
you're thinking about joining al-Qaeda or ISIS, I'm not going to call a
judge, I'm going to call a drone, and we will kill you. We're at war, and
I'm tired of treating the war as a crime."

The 11 who auditioned for the role of presidential nominee during the
dinner at the Iowa Events Center were Fiorina, Perry, Bush, Walker, Graham,
retired doctor Ben Carson, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York
Gov. George Pataki, Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, former Pennsylvania U.S.
Sen. Rick Santorum and New York reality TV star Donald Trump.

Several audience members said they thought Perry and Bush overperformed,
while Walker underperformed, but still did a good job pitching his status
as an adopted Iowan of sorts and hitting hard on national security and
"safety."

"Rick Perry had a lot of energy, no notes and definite ideas about what he
wanted to do and the experience to back it up as a former military man. I
liked him so much more than I did four years ago," said Shelley Pitts of
Cumming, who works at Von Maur. "And Carly. I loved her. I just loved
everything she said."

In his speech, Perry knocked common core education standards, proposed
rebuilding the U.S. military and bemoaned an "underlying pessimism we see
in this country" about the future.

"If we will unleash people from over-taxation, over-regulation,
over-litigation ... we will have the greatest days in America ahead," Perry
said.

Although several audience members said Bush seemed a little nervous — he
stumbled on some words and referred to his notes more than others did —
they praised how he explained his conservative record in Florida and the
passion he exhibited on education issues.

"To me, Bush exceeded expectations," said Bill Schickel, a former Iowa GOP
official. Schickel also listed Perry, Graham and Fiorina as favorites.

Bush said whether people like it or not, he's proud of the fact that he's
"George and Barbara's boy" and that "W's my brother." Bush talked about his
successes as Florida governor in job creation, school choice and protecting
"the most vulnerable in society," including the unborn, the disabled and
the frail.

Walker showed a photo of himself at age 7 that was shot, he said, after he
and his brother went door to door raising money for a state flag at the
Plainfield City Hall. His family lived there in the mid-1970s. Walker was
one of the only ones to insert religion into his speech, talking about his
recent trip to Israel and how he was moved to see the spot where "literally
Christ fed the 5,000."

Paul zoned in on civil liberties issues, arguing that Americans don't have
to "give up what our founding fathers fought for in order to catch
terrorists."

Carson called division, the economy and a failure to lead the world the
three biggest problems facing America.

Jindal said two major threats the country faces are Islamic terrorism
abroad and the trampling of religious liberties at home. A third threat:
the polices of President Barack Obama and former U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, he said.

Santorum said Republicans need to remember the 74 percent of Americans who
lack a college degree, many of whom still struggle economically.

Pataki noted that he was governor when the airplanes hit the World Trade
Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. But today, "the greatest threat to our
freedom," he said, is an ever-encroaching government. "It's not an imminent
threat, but it's a very real threat," he said.

Trump, a real estate mogul turned reality TV star, said he can build a wall
on the U.S. southern border ("I'm a good builder") and has already created
tens of thousands of jobs. Trump expressed indignation that people — namely
the news media — don't believe he'll run. He said he'll make an
announcement in June that's "going to surprise a lot of people."

Not everyone in the crowd could take Trump seriously.

"Trump! I was trying to hold it in. I didn't want to laugh too much," said
the Rev. Lawrence Davis, a 63-year-old Des Moines pastor. "Now, Carly, she
was dynamite. She knew what she was talking about."

The hospitality rooms weren't all the same size so it was hard to judge,
but a nonscientific survey throughout the night showed Walker's room, in a
prime spot at the bottom of the escalators leading from the banquet hall,
was the most packed at first.

"Cold beer!" said a sign out front. Wisconsin cheese and Miller beer were
being served inside.

Long lines waited for snapshots with Fiorina, Carson and Trump, the night's
celebrities.

But near the end of the evening, the biggest crowds had migrated to Bush's
room, which was unadorned by decorations, but had an open bar and a buffet
of hors d'oeuvres.

Paul and Pataki didn't host receptions. All the other contenders drew
decent-sized crowds, except Santorum.

His Iowa chairman, state Rep. Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, said the small
crowds showed that "people know Rick well. Everyone's kicking the tires on
everyone else. But they'll come back to an old, solid four wheels like
Rick."

Republican Candidates Dodge Immigration Questions
<http://time.com/3867523/immigration-republican-presidential/> // TIME //
Alex Altman - May 17, 2015

Sitting in a hotel conference room of a Scottsdale, Ariz., resort, Mike
Huckabee kibitzed with a few reporters Friday about issues ranging from the
Iraq War to the suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

But when the talk turned to whether undocumented immigrants should have a
path to U.S. citizenship, the former Arkansas governor clammed up. “Until
we have a secure border,” Huckabee demurred, “there isn’t any other
discussion for us to be having.”

Huckabee isn’t the only Republican presidential candidate to dodge the
topic lately. As the 2016 race ramps up, GOP candidates are increasingly
skirting the specifics of immigration policy. It’s a trend that threatens
the party’s hopes of reclaiming the White House.

Routed in the battle for Hispanic voters in 2012, the Republican Party
promised to speak differently about immigration this time. But the need to
repair its relationship with Latinos has collided with its candidates’ need
to court the conservative activists who dominate the GOP nominating
contest. As a result, many of the party’s presidential hopefuls don’t want
to divulge the details of their positions on an issue with major political
and policy ramifications.

To discern the differences between the candidates on immigration, TIME
distributed a brief survey to declared and likely White House hopefuls. The
questions focused on the fate of the estimated 11 million undocumented
immigrants currently in the U.S., a subject at the heart of the bipartisan
debate over comprehensive immigration reform:

1.    Do you support an eventual pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants currently residing in the U.S., and if so, under what conditions?

2.   Do you support an eventual pathway to legal status short of
citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S., and
if so, under what conditions?

3.   Do you support a separate process to give legal status or citizenship
to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as minors?

4.   Do you support any government benefits, such as in-state college
tuition, for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as minors?

5.    Some likely GOP candidates offered clear and succinct answers. Former
Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was a “no” on all four, according to his
spokesman. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the architects of the
Senate’s bipartisan attempt to overhaul U.S. immigration laws in 2013,
stuck by his support for a path to citizenship under detailed conditions.
“Citizenship need not be mandatory, but it needs to be an option for those
who are qualified,” said Graham spokeswoman Brittany Bramell. Graham also
backed a process to give legal status or citizenship—along with government
benefits like in-state tuition—to minors brought to the U.S. by their
parents.

But the majority of the field offered muddier responses, or declined to
answer at all. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was one of several to argue the
debate should be postponed until the southern border is secured.

“Any discussion about dealing with who is already here is counterproductive
until the border is secure,” Jindal told TIME in a statement issued through
his spokesman. “Any attempt to deal with the millions of people who are
currently in this country illegally prior to securing the border is
illogical, and is nothing more than amnesty.”

Asked about a pathway to legal status for undocumented workers who met
certain conditions, Jindal dismissed it as “a hypothetical conversation.”
As for legal status or citizenship for those brought to the U.S. as minors,
Jindal turned the focus to Obama. “A serious discussion about those
individuals is just not possible right now because of the reckless policies
of this administration,” he said. “This President has done everything he
can to encourage illegal immigration.”

GOP hopefuls debate: Was Iraq a mistake?
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gop-iraq-20150517-story.html> // LA
Times // Katherine Skiba - May 17, 2015

Leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination split sharply
Sunday on the same question that tripped up Jeb Bush last week: Was
invading Iraq a mistake?

No, said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): The 2003 invasion was the right
decision because President George W. Bush had intelligence findings
indicating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush “wasn’t dealing with a Nobel Prize winner. He was dealing with Saddam
Hussein,” Rubio said. “And he made the right decision based on the
information he had at that time.”

At the other end of the GOP spectrum, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul stopped just
short of saying that the U.S. would have done better to leave Hussein in
power. He questioned whether toppling secular dictators in the Mideast had
helped or hurt U.S. interests.

 “I think when Hussein was toppled, we got chaos,” Paul said. “We still
have chaos in Iraq. I think it emboldened Iran,” he added. “We now have the
rise of radical Islam in Iraq as well.”

A third potential candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, took a position
closer to Rubio than Paul.

“I think any president, regardless of party, probably would have made a
similar decision to what President Bush did at the time with the
information that he had available,” Walker said.

“Knowing what we know now, I think it’s safe for many of us, myself
included, to say we probably wouldn’t have taken that tack” to launch an
invasion, he said.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, spent much of last week revising
answers to the question of whether he agreed with his older brother’s
decision in 2003 to invade Iraq. After first saying yes, then calling the
question hypothetical, he eventually settled on this answer:

“If we're all supposed to answer hypothetical questions knowing what we
know now, what would you have done, I would have not engaged, I would not
have gone into Iraq.”

Bush’s shifting responses drew dismayed comments from Republican activists
who said he seemed unprepared for an obvious question.

While most of the potential candidates have focused on what they
characterize as an “intelligence failure” in the prewar assessments of
Iraq’s weapons program, Paul’s question about whether overthrowing
dictators is a good idea involves a deeper disagreement with longtime GOP
foreign policy.

He has raised similar questions about U.S. policy toward Syria, where the
Obama administration is, at least officially, committed to seeing President
Bashar Assad removed from power.

Paul has several times made the point that although Assad is a dictator, he
has fought against Islamic radicals and defended the interests of Syrian
Christians.

Rubio, by contrast, has joined many other Republicans in chastising the
administration for not doing more to overthrow Assad. On Sunday, he
repeated his call for the U.S. to take a more muscular approach, saying the
administration should find a group “on the ground in Syria that we could
work with.”

Rubio made his remarks on “Fox News Sunday”; Paul was interviewed on NBC’s
“Meet the Press”; Walker was interviewed on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

The three also differed in how they analyzed negotiations with Iran over
its nuclear program.

Paul, asked if he would consider using military force against a country
trying to develop a nuclear weapons program, said the U.S. always should
have the threat of military force behind diplomacy.

“But I would prefer diplomacy. I think we can still have negotiations,” he
said. “We negotiated with the Soviets for 70 years, and we ended up coming
to a peaceful outcome.”

“My hope is really that negotiations continue,” he said. “There are some in
my party who say, 'Oh, I don't want any negotiations.' They're ready to be
done with it,” he added. “But once you're done with negotiations, the
choices are war, or they get a weapon, and I don't wanna have just those
two binary choices.”

Rubio disagreed. The outlines of negotiations to contain Iran’s nuclear
programs are “much worse than anybody anticipated,” he said. “And, in fact,
every time there’s a new revelation about the deal, it gets worse and worse
and worse.”

Walker said that any agreement with Iran must include full dismantling of
what he characterized as its “illicit” nuclear infrastructure, which he
said was a “real threat” to Israel as well as the U.S. allies among the
Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

The deal the administration has been negotiating with Iran would put new
limits on what Iran can do with its nuclear facilities and would impose new
inspections on them, but would not dismantle them.

Not surprisingly, the one area on which all three would-be nominees agreed
was in criticizing former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the
likely Democratic candidate.

“If she ever takes questions,” reporters should ask Clinton, “Was it a good
idea to invade Libya?” during Obama’s first term, Paul said. “Did that make
us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic? Did it allow radical Islam and
ISIS to grow stronger?”

“I think the war in Iraq is a good question,” he said, “but so is the
question of ‘Should we have gone into Libya?’ ”

Rubio criticized Clinton for her position on Iraq during the latter part of
the Bush presidency. “We don’t know how she justifies, for example, not
supporting the surge in Iraq and these sorts of other things,” he said.
Clinton, who was a senator from New York at the time, opposed the 2007
surge.

Paul, asked about surveillance provision of the Patriot Act, which is
scheduled to expire at the end of this month, noted that a federal appeals
court in New York earlier this month had ruled that the government’s
collection of records of U.S. telephone calls was illegal. So “really, it
oughta stop.”

“You can catch terrorists,” he said. “Judges will grant warrants” when
investigators have a specific person they want to pursue, he said.

The Senate is to take up the Patriot Act this week. Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell has called for an extension of the surveillance provisions
through the end of July to give Congress more time to work on replacement
legislation. Paul did not say whether he would attempt to block such an
extension by a filibuster.

Lindsey Graham to provide ‘very important update’ on 2016 plans Monday
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/lindsey-graham-to-provide-very-important-update-on-2016-plans-monday/?tid=sm_tw>
// WaPo // Sean Sullivan - May 17, 2015

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who in recent months has moved closer to
running for president, will provide a "very important update" on his plans
Monday morning, he told supporters on Sunday.

"Tomorrow morning I will be giving a very important update on my 2016 plans
and I want to make sure you are able to hear it," Graham wrote in an e-mail
to his supporters.

He said he will appear on CBS's "This Morning" at 8 a.m. Eastern time.

"As an announcement draws near, I need to know you stand with me," Graham
continued, linking to a page where people can donate money to his
exploratory committee.

Graham formed the committee, Security Through Strength, in January and has
been staffing it as he prepares for what looks increasingly like it will
become a full-fledged run for president. A Graham spokesperson did not
immediately respond to a question about his plans.

Politico reported earlier this month that Graham told donors that June 1
was the likely date for his presidential announcement.

If Graham runs, he is likely to center his campaign around the theme of
national security. He is among the most hawkish figures in the Republican
Party and already has secured the support of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a
close friend and fellow hawk.

Top Scott Walker aides pushed for questionable $500,000 WEDC loan
<http://host.madison.com/news/local/article_2a29333c-c3dd-50ac-a4b6-c333506530e0.html>
// Wisconsin State Journal // Matthew DeFour - May 17, 2015

Gov. Scott Walker’s top aides and a powerful lobbyist pressed for a
taxpayer-funded loan in 2011 to a financially struggling Milwaukee
construction company that lost the state half a million dollars, created no
jobs and raised questions about where the money went, a State Journal
investigation has found.

The extraordinary steps led the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. in
2011 to award a $500,000 unsecured loan to Building Committee Inc., owned
by William Minahan, for a proposed project to retrofit bank and credit
union buildings for energy efficiency.

The loan, which was not repaid, is one of several agency awards that state
auditors have questioned since Walker created the agency in 2011. Last
year, WEDC, the state’s flagship job-creation agency, took the unusual step
of suing BCI in an attempt to get the money back.

The failed deal was made at the urging of then-Administration Secretary
Mike Huebsch, who wanted WEDC to provide a forgivable loan to the company
eight times that size, according to Paul Jadin, former CEO of WEDC.

Walker’s office confirmed that Huebsch introduced the company’s owner to
Jadin. Lobbyist Eric Petersen, who represented BCI and Minahan, and Keith
Gilkes, Walker’s former campaign manager who was the governor’s chief of
staff at the time, met in June 2011 with Huebsch and Minahan to discuss the
loan, according to records obtained by the State Journal under the state’s
open records law.

Hours after his office released those and other records to the State
Journal on Friday, Walker, who is considering a 2016 presidential bid,
called on the Legislature to scrap WEDC’s entire loan program, citing a
recent legislative audit.

The push to fund the BCI project came after Minahan gave Walker’s 2010
Republican campaign for governor a last-minute infusion of $10,000 on
Election Day — the maximum individual contribution.

Jadin said Minahan and Huebsch -- a member of the WEDC board by virtue of
his role as Administration secretary -- pushed for a $4.3 million WEDC
loan, but the agency could justify no more than a $500,000 loan, which
Jadin said he considered “fairly risky.”

“I wanted to assist the company to the extent that they qualified given
that it had such a strong endorsement from Secretary Huebsch,” Jadin said.

The State Journal investigation found that Huebsch, a former Assembly
speaker from West Salem, was advocating for the taxpayer loan to BCI as the
now-defunct company was collapsing.

The State Journal also found that:

·      WEDC awarded the unsecured loan to BCI only after Huebsch and other
DOA officials were unable to find funding from state or federal energy
programs or the utility-funded Focus on Energy program, according to a May
2011 memo.

·      WEDC was unable to locate the original underwriting documents
justifying the $500,000 loan to BCI. Huebsch’s agency had offered to
conduct a “staff review” of the proposed loan for WEDC, but state officials
said that review never happened.

·      On his 2011 WEDC loan application, Minahan checked “no” when asked
if BCI or any of its officers had been sued in the previous five years,
although electronic court records show three such lawsuits.

·      After Jadin left the agency, WEDC approved BCI’s request for more
time to repay the loan and helped it seek federally subsidized energy
bonding even as other creditors filed lawsuits against BCI and Minahan
seeking half a million dollars for unpaid bills.

·      Minahan listed La Crosse-based Michaels Energy and UW-Milwaukee as
partners in the proposed project. But the owner of Michaels Energy and the
dean of the UW-Milwaukee School of Architecture and Urban Design said their
organizations never received any proceeds from the state loan and did
little or no work on the project.

·      Minahan sent two short emails in response to a set of detailed
questions posed by the State Journal. He chalked up the failure of the loan
to the recession’s impact on the construction industry.

“Having worked in the construction industry since 1982, Wisconsin-based BCI
was fortunate to serve the planning, design and construction management
needs of hundreds of clients across the country,” Minahan wrote. “WEDC’s
initial financial support of our efforts demonstrates their shared vision
to find efficiencies and to reduce energy costs for existing private sector
and municipally owned buildings in Wisconsin.”

Huebsch, who has since been appointed by the governor to a $129,000-a-year
job at the Public Service Commission, released a statement through DOA
spokesman Cullen Werwie. In it, he acknowledges working to find funding for
Minahan’s project through his former agency and WEDC.

“As the Secretary of DOA, I often worked to connect small businesses with
resources that could lead to job creation,” Huebsch’s statement said.
“After the initial connection, there was some additional follow-up on my
part with WEDC to ask that it be clearly communicated to BCI what
additional resources, if any, may be available, as well as to ask that the
denial of additional loan funds be communicated directly to BCI.”

Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said Walker was not aware of Minahan’s
donation to his gubernatorial campaign. According to the Wisconsin
Democracy Campaign, Minahan was one of 32 people who made the maximum
$10,000 individual donation to Friends of Scott Walker in 2010.

Petersen said he was not involved in Minahan’s donation but represented
clients who did give to Walker’s campaign.

Patrick also said Friday the governor, who chairs the WEDC board, “has not
met with Mr. Minahan, nor was he involved in or aware of any part of the
loan process concerning The Building Committee Inc.”

She added that “there was no further contact or involvement with our office
beyond the initial meeting” involving Gilkes.

In calling Friday for an end to the loan program, Walker did not mention
the BCI loan. Instead he cited a recent Legislative Audit Bureau report
that found the agency did not always follow its internal policies,
including verifying the number of jobs created by aid recipients.

The audit also found that while WEDC had reduced its outstanding loans from
$4.2 million to $1.3 million in 2014, most of the decline was due to loans
being extended, forgiven or written off.

The $500,000 BCI award was one of 10 loans the agency wrote off last year.

Huebsch pushes funding

Minahan met with Walker administration officials to discuss the loan
proposal in June 2011 as Walker was launching WEDC, a public-private
organization designed to be more nimble and competent than its predecessor,
the Department of Commerce. Walker had promised to help create 250,000 jobs
during his first term, and forming the agency was a key vehicle to
achieving that goal. In the end, Walker fell short by 100,000 jobs.

Jadin, WEDC’s first chief executive, said Minahan and Huebsch initially
sought a $4.3 million forgivable loan for BCI, which specialized in
building bank and credit union buildings. The company said its project to
retrofit financial buildings for energy efficiency would generate 155 jobs
in Wisconsin.

It was the only time Huebsch pushed for a specific deal, Jadin said, adding
he first learned of the proposal from Huebsch.

“I don’t recall another situation where the secretary became an advocate,”
he said.

Jadin said he told Huebsch he would have the agency’s underwriters check
BCI’s financial viability and come back with a recommendation.

On Sept. 3, 2011, Chris Schoenherr, then-head of DOA’s energy division,
sent a WEDC official information about the project, saying “we are on a
tight time frame on the first stage of this.”

Weeks later, Jadin signed a $500,000, one-year, unsecured loan. WEDC
spokesman Mark Maley said the agency is unable to locate the underwriting
documents supporting the loan.

Jadin said Minahan and Huebsch continued to press the case for additional
funding after the initial award. Emails show Minahan had multiple contacts
with WEDC in late 2011 and early 2012. The agency and Minahan corresponded
about terms for additional money.

In one case, WEDC offered BCI another $500,000 if Minahan agreed to provide
a personal guarantee of $1 million, which he rejected in February 2012. A
few months later, a WEDC underwriter recommended against another proposal,
for a $1.5 million loan, noting “the value of the business owned is hard to
determine without any supporting financial documentation.”

“At this point in time,” the underwriter wrote, “there does not appear to
be a clear source of repayment for the ($500,000) loan. In addition, there
does not appear to be adequate collateral to secure additional WEDC
funding.”

After the loan was granted, Jadin said he met with Minahan and Huebsch to
discuss additional financing.

He said the BCI owner was unable to answer questions about how retrofitting
banks and credit unions for energy efficiency would generate jobs aside
from “normal construction on normal construction projects.”

“We concluded it was already a fairly risky loan and decided not to provide
any additional funding,” Jadin said. “I had very significant concerns about
(Minahan’s) ability to deliver on the basic business premise. I believe my
position was clear and unambiguous, and Secretary Huebsch understood there
were no more funds forthcoming, and he dropped it.”

A state audit later noted the underwriters had warned the original deal did
not include any collateral from its owner, meaning the state would not be
able to seize property — such as Minahan’s $975,000 home in River Hills —
in the case of a default. Jadin said he did not recall that aspect of the
loan.

Jadin, a Republican and former mayor of Green Bay, left WEDC on Nov. 1,
2012, a month after the loan was due, to head up MadREP, an economic
development group in Madison.

WEDC extends loan

As 2012 came to a close, a BCI representative told WEDC it had run out of
money for the project, agency records show. WEDC’s management team,
excluding CEO Reed Hall, authorized extending the loan due date to Aug. 1,
2013, Maley said.

In the seven months after the new loan due date, WEDC sent BCI six notices
warning the loan was overdue and then in default. Even as it was sending
those notices, WEDC and Huebsch’s Department of Administration continued to
help BCI in its ultimately unsuccessful effort to secure $4.5 million in
federal energy conservation bond funding.

Last July, WEDC sued the company seeking repayment of the loan. On Nov. 4 —
the day Walker was elected to his second term as governor — a Dane County
Circuit Court judge ordered BCI to repay the loan plus interest totaling
$542,000. BCI has not repaid the loan.

Hall, Jadin’s successor, declined to be interviewed.

“Throughout this process, WEDC diligently monitored and tracked this loan,”
Maley said. “When it became clear BCI was unable to secure funding to repay
the loan, WEDC aggressively pursued repayment through past-due and default
notices, and eventually by taking the company to court to secure a judgment
against BCI.”

The $500,000 loan may have been even riskier than WEDC officials knew.

The loan application asked whether the applicant or any owner or officer
had been sued in the previous five years, warning that the applicant “will
be deemed ineligible and denied based on the falsification of information.”
Minahan checked “no” to that question.

But electronic court records show at least three lawsuits against the
company in 2010, including one in which BCI was ordered to pay $14,364 to
Superior Safe & Security of Green Bay. The second was a $15,800 tax warrant
from the state of Wisconsin that Minahan paid. The third was filed by an
Oshkosh custom millwork company but was dismissed.

It’s also unclear what work BCI performed on the taxpayer-funded energy
project.

A 2012 report to WEDC from Minahan purported to detail how the funding was
used, but it did not list who did what work nor how much they were paid.
The three buildings it said were readied for retrofit were not identified,
nor were the seven buildings that the report said had preliminary planning
work done on them.

Officials with La Crosse-based Michaels Energy and UW-Milwaukee also
questioned BCI’s characterization of them in the report as partners in the
project.

Michaels Energy’s owner David Waffenschmidt told the State Journal that he
spoke with Minahan and BCI chief operating officer David Jaeckels in 2009
about a possible retrofit project and did some preliminary work on it but
assumed the proposal had been dropped.

“We were not aware of, and not party to, the contract between Building
Committee Inc. and WEDC, nor did we receive any payment from Building
Committee Inc. or anyone else for our work on these development efforts,”
Waffenschmidt said. “We talked about doing this, but that’s all the farther
it went.”

Robert Greenstreet, dean of the UW-Milwaukee architectural school, said he
discussed the energy retrofit project with Minahan and Jaeckels and helped
submit applications for federal funding. But Greenstreet said it was his
perception that BCI “collapsed,” no federal money was secured, and he
assumed the project never got off the ground. Greenstreet recalled Minahan
saying BCI had lined up state funding, but there was a delay in getting the
money.

“The long and short of it is, we have not done any work on this project at
all,” he said.

Scott Walker's Iowa dilemma
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/scott-walkers-iowa-dilemma-118034.html>
// Politico // James Hohmann, Katie Glueck, and Eli Stokols -May 17, 2015

There’s a game of chicken going on in Iowa right now.

When Jeb Bush revealed this week that he will blow off the state GOP’s
famed August straw poll, he left the future of the event to Scott Walker.
Since all of the top tier presidential prospects are waiting to see who
will compete before they commit to the straw poll this year, if the
Wisconsin governor — and current Iowa front-runner — declines to
participate, there’s a good chance Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and other
candidates will follow suit.

The result is that the event, an Iowa tradition dating back to 1979, could
become a mostly irrelevant contest between longshots and underdogs.

Walker, who’s publicly non-committal, leads in recent Iowa polls, may have
the toughest decision of all — he’s damned if he plays and damned if he
doesn’t. If he participates and loses, he risks looking like a fading
candidate who peaked too soon. But if he plays it safe and skips the straw
poll, he could badly alienate Iowa Republicans — more likely than not
ending his status as the state’s perceived front-runner. At the same time,
if Walker and every other top candidate skipped it, the damage to the
47-year-old governor would be minimal.

The importance of the straw poll to the state GOP was highlighted Saturday
night when, with 11 candidates present to speak at the Iowa Republican
Party Lincoln Dinner, Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kauffman opened Saturday’s
confab with a video emphasizing the poll’s relevance. He was followed by
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the leading Republican in the state, who stressed the
seriousness of the tradition.

Two-thirds of Iowa Republican insiders think Walker should compete in the
straw poll, according to this week’s edition of The POLITICO Caucus, a
weekly pulse-taking of the most important activists, operatives and elected
officials in the early states.

“Participate and you are expected to win, and must win,” said a top Iowa
Republican, who is uncommitted and — like all 77 respondents – completed
the weekly questionnaire anonymously in order to answer candidly. “Skip,
and everyone thinks you’re a coward. Then watch your standing in the Iowa
polls continue to drop. Walker needs to suck it up and use the event to
cement himself as the frontrunner in the race.”

There is immense pressure from grassroots activists, who love the event and
see shying away from it as proof of weakness or aloofness. “To be a
frontrunner in Iowa with this standing, Walker needs to demonstrate that he
can compete and win in a straw poll,” said another Republican.

But just as many GOP insiders said the Wisconsin governor would be foolish
to fall into that trap. “Walker will underperform, if he goes,” said one.
“He should avoid Tim Pawlenty’s outcome.” Another added, “No upside. Only
downside to this event.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson have already
telegraphed that that they will play to win.

While Ron Paul’s campaign was obsessed with straw polls the previous two
presidential elections — the then-Texas congressman finished second at Ames
in 2011 — his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, isn’t as committed. He’s more
focused on winning actual elections and has told aides that he’s not as
interested as his father in artificial tests of his strength.

A spokesman for the younger Paul said he hasn’t decided whether to come or
not.

Representatives for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who won the 2008
Iowa caucuses — and former Hewlett Packard head Carly Fiorina were also
non-committal. For Huckabee and Rick Santorum, the 2012 caucus winner,
participating is risky because it could highlight how many of their former
supporters are not signed on for 2016.

To feel good about his chances, Walker would probably have to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Campaigns need to bus in supporters from
around the state on a summer Saturday, no small feat. But expectations
would be almost unachievably high since he’s been leading the pack in
polling since January. Even if he won the straw poll handily, Walker’s
opponents will dismiss the victory as unsurprising.

All of that makes Walker’s straw poll decision arguably the most
significant strategic decision he will make about Iowa in 2015.

The straw poll needs Walker more than he needs it. If all the top-tier
candidates bypass the event, it will not get nearly as much media attention
as in the past.

“If Walker backs out, the Iowa straw poll is in big trouble,” said a top
uncommitted Iowa Republican.

The state Republican Party has been using carrots and sticks to coax Walker
and others to play at the event, which is moving from Ames to Boone this
year. Instead of auctioning off space to raise money from the campaigns,
for instance, they’re assigning it to them – whether they will use it or
not. There will also be food trucks, so that the campaigns do not need to
cater the event themselves if they don’t want to. This will make it
glaringly obvious who is not there and take away one of the main rationales
– at least publicly – for skipping.

“Neither Walker nor Rubio can afford to do the Straw Poll without the
other,” said an uncommitted Iowa Republican. “So, who blinks first in
bowing out? Assuming they both decline, an Iowa Straw Poll without Walker,
Rubio and Bush, might as well be renamed the Iowa 2nd Tier Candidate Straw
Poll. Upside in that? It might make the event go away once and for all.”

Sources close to Walker’s campaign-in-waiting insist that he has not made
up his mind. Because he will not announce his candidacy until after the
Wisconsin legislative session wraps up later this spring, he has at least a
few more weeks to avoid taking a public position. “He’s not a candidate and
hasn’t made a decision on his future, so this will come down the line,”
said one Walker aide.

But the event is only three months away, and the clock is ticking.

Walker has hired consultants, such as David Polyansky and Eric Woolson, who
have extensive experience organizing the kind of field operation needed to
win past straw polls. “Scott Walker is the Iowa frontrunner and has hired
several key Iowa advisers who know how to put on a successful straw poll
operation,” said an Iowa Republican aligned with a rival campaign. “If he
doesn’t play, he is ceding his frontrunner status to someone who takes Iowa
more seriously and it will be very difficult to get it back.”

Walker allies say that the pressure should be on Rubio as much as it is
them. The Florida senator has not been as aggressive at trying to downplay
expectations. On his last trip to the state, he said he will play to win.
The same day, Walker said he would be happy finishing in the top three.

A Rubio spokesman did not respond to three requests for comment this week
on whether the senator will compete.

Bush’s decision to skip the straw poll didn’t come as a surprise. He did
not seriously consider it, sources familiar with his thinking said —
despite the fact his brother won in 2000 and his father won the inaugural
straw poll in 1979. That doesn’t mean Bush won’t compete in Iowa; after a
four month absence, he had three events scheduled in the state this
weekend. Bush, an establishment favorite, trailed six other Republican
presidential hopefuls in Quinnipiac’s Iowa poll earlier this month.

“It’s a predictable decision for Jeb Bush and the right decision,” said
John Weaver, who served as an adviser to John McCain’s 2008 campaign and
along with Mike Murphy, now one of Bush’s main strategists, convinced the
Arizona senator (and eventual GOP nominee) to skip the 2007 straw poll.
Romney won that straw poll, but Mike Huckabee got the bounce in the polls
afterward by finishing a surprisingly strong second. In 2011, Romney
skipped the straw poll and wound up basically tying for first on caucus
night.

“After Michele Bachmann [who won the event in 2011], to say this has any
relevance, significance, influence, doesn’t pass the straight face test,”
said Steve Schmidt, McCain’s 2008 campaign manager. “The straw poll simply
wasn’t worth the time and the money in the context of how little meaning it
had in relation to the outcome of the caucuses.”

Bush, along with Walker, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and others, has
committed to attend a conservative cattle call in Atlanta hosted by
RedState founder Erick Erickson that is concurrent to the straw poll. South
Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has also already ruled out attendance.

The Iowa GOP’s Kaufmann took aim directly at Bush on Twitter Tuesday as
reports of his decision to appear in Atlanta on Aug. 8, the day of the
straw poll, surfaced.

“We hope Governor Bush rethinks his decision and realizes that grassroots
will only grow in Iowa if he waters them,” the state party chair tweeted.
“The RedState Gathering is a four-day event and other candidates have
already indicated that they will be attending both. We don’t buy this
excuse and neither will Iowans.”

Jeb Bush Takes Tougher Stance Against Same-Sex Marriage
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/17/jeb-bush-takes-tougher-stance-against-same-sex-marriage/>
// First Draft – NYT // Patrick Healy – May 17, 2015

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida hardened his position against same-sex
marriage in an interview that aired on Sunday, making clear he did not
believe in constitutional protection for gay marriages — an issue now
before the United States Supreme Court — and leaving out his past call for
“respect” for gay couples.

Appearing on “The Brody File” on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr.
Bush, a likely Republican candidate for president in 2016, was asked in a
brief interview if he believed there should be a constitutional right to
same-sex marriage.

“I don’t, but I’m not a lawyer, and clearly this has been accelerated at a
warp pace,” he said. “What’s interesting is four years ago, Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton had the same view that I just expressed to you.” He
added: “Thousands of years of culture and history is just being changed at
warp speed. It’s hard to fathom why it is this way.”

He also warned that the country’s future would be at risk without
traditional marriages between a man and a woman who go on to raise children.

“To imagine how we are going to succeed in our country unless we have
committed family life, committed child-centered family system, is hard to
imagine,” Mr. Bush said. “We need to be stalwart supporters of traditional
marriage.”

Mr. Bush was explicitly opposed to same-sex marriage for years, but in
recent months, since he has been considering a run for the presidency, he
has made a wider range of statements — saying same-sex marriage is an issue
that should be decided by the states, for instance. This winter, as gay
couples began to wed in Florida, Mr. Bush also struck a conciliatory tone
about those marriages.

“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to
respect the rule of law,” he said in a statement to The New York Times in
January. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides
of the gay and lesbian marriage issue — including couples making lifetime
commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and
those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard
religious liberty.”

Mr. Bush reiterated in the “Brody File” interview on Sunday that his views
about same-sex marriage are based on his Catholic faith. “I think
traditional marriage is a sacrament,” he said. “It’s at the core of the
Catholic faith.”

Jeb Bush: No constitutional right to same-sex marriage
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/jeb-bush-no-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/>
// WaPo // Ed O'Keefe - May 17, 2015

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush reiterated in a new interview that he
doesn't believe that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

The high court is expected to rule next month on the constitutionality of
same-sex marriage, and court observers and justices have hinted in recent
weeks that the court is likely to expand marriage rights to gay men and
lesbians.

Speaking with "The Brody File" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Bush
described marriage between a man and a woman as "a sacrament," one of the
seven significant ceremonies of the Catholic faith.

"It’s at the core of the Catholic faith, and to imagine how we are going to
succeed in our country unless we have committed family life, a committed
child-centered family system, is hard to imagine," he said. "So,
irrespective of the Supreme Court ruling — because they are going to decide
whatever they decide, I don’t know what they are going to do — we need to
be stalwart supporters of traditional marriage."

He told CBN's David Brody that he doesn't believe same-sex marriage is a
constitutional right, "but I'm not a lawyer and clearly this has been
accelerated at a warp pace. What’s interesting is four years ago Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton had the same view that I just expressed to you.
It’s thousands of years of culture and history just being changed at warp
speed. It’s hard to fathom why it is this way."

Bush isn't the only Republican presidential hopeful who has raised concerns
about how quickly courts have been ruling in favor of same-sex marriage
rights. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) also has noted in speeches and interviews
that traditional marriage is an institution that is centuries old, much
older than the United States itself.

"The Brody File" remains a must-do for GOP candidates, given that the
network and its programming remain closely watched by evangelical
conservatives. Last year when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) traveled to Guatemala
to perform pro-bono eye surgeries, a CBN crew traveled with him and
documented portions of the trip.

In the interview, Bush also said that he plans to campaign in Iowa ahead of
its GOP caucuses next year.

"Absolutely," he said. "Look, I'm a really competitive guy to begin with.
It’s hard for me to imagine that I’m going to plan for fifth place. I mean,
that’s not going to happen. We’re going to work hard here. I’m not going to
participate in straw polls anywhere. That’s a distraction, to be honest
with you."

Jeb Bush Announces Plans to 'Campaign Hard' in Iowa
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jeb-bush-iowa-caucuses-campaign-hard-n360156>
// NBC News // Perry Bacon Jr. – May 17, 2015

DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Saturday declared he
would aggressively campaign to win the caucuses here, ending any doubt
about his participation in the first contest of the GOP primary but also
opening himself up to the possibility of a defeat that could severely
damage his candidacy.

With Bush trying to win here, the more than 100,000 Republicans in his
state who are expected to participate in the Iowa caucuses next February
will play an even more important role in winnowing a field that will likely
include more than a dozen candidates. And wooing Iowa's activists will
become a huge test for Bush, who is lagging well behind in current polls in
Iowa, despite being considered one of the leading candidates in the GOP
race based on his fundraising strength.

"I'm going to campaign hard here," Bush said at a press conference in Iowa
City. "It's my intention to win. Period. I'm a competitive person, my hope
is to win any place where I'm competing."

His decision echoes how Hillary Clinton handled Iowa in 2008. Despite some
of her aides being wary of the state's liberal activists and floating the
idea of Clinton skipping or downplaying Iowa, she opted to campaign
aggressively here.

Clinton never won over Iowa's Democrats, and defeating her in a
head-to-head contest in Iowa helped vault Barack Obama to the nomination.
Bush now faces the prospect of running hard in Iowa and still losing to
either Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, his chief
rivals for the nomination and the kind of candidates who could consolidate
support in the GOP if either won in Iowa.

Iowa voters have rejected more moderate Republicans like Bush in the past
two election cycles, in favor of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (2008)
and ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (2012). Conservatives here are
already wary of Bush because of his support for a pathway to legalization
for undocumented immigrants and the Common Core education standards. There
was some thought he would lightly campaign in Iowa and effectively concede
the state to one of the conservatives in this field. Bush could then focus
solely on New Hampshire, a state with many more moderate Republicans.

Instead, he is embracing the process here in Iowa. While George H.W. Bush
won the caucuses in 1980 and George W. Bush finished first here 20 years
later, the number of very conservative, evangelical Christians and Tea
Party supporters are likely to outnumber moderate Republicans in 2016, a
huge challenge for Bush.

In the 2012 caucuses, Santorum narrowly defeated Mitt Romney, with very
conservative voters favoring the former senator 35 to 14 percent over
Romney.

In this campaign cycle, Walker has emerged as the favorite in Iowa, leading
in polls and drawing strong enthusiasm from party activists. Santorum and
Huckabee are running again, with deep ties to Iowa's evangelical community,
and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are also courting
these blocs.

So Bush will face an electorate that may not be favorable to him. And while
Romney won about 25% of the vote in both 2008 and 2012 here, even that part
of the electorate will be challenging for Bush.

Walker is making inroads with more moderate Republicans, holding a
fundraiser on Saturday with Chad Airhart, the recorder in Dallas County and
an influential figure in Iowa politics.

Airhart endorsed Romney during the 2012 campaign, but opted to back Walker
for 2016 despite courting from Bush allies.

"I really like the governor's populist appeal," he said of Walker.

Bush spent Saturday here, in only his second visit to Iowa since he started
running for president. Dogged this week by questions about his views on the
Iraq War, Bush told voters in Dubuque, "I'm proud of my brother."

"He did what he thought was right," Bush said.

And Bush's trademark stubbornness was displayed on another issue as well.
Asked about the presidential straw poll in Boone, Iowa in August, Bush
emphatically rejected the idea he would compete in the event, which is a
fundraiser for the Republican Party of Iowa.

Straw polls are "not relevant," Bush said.

But the candidate is not writing off Iowa. After the Lincoln Day Dinner in
Des Moines on Saturday night, Bush, like the other GOP candidates, hosted a
small reception for Iowa Republicans, posing for more than 100 pictures.

Several of the Iowans asked Bush for reassurance that he would be coming to
the state more often. He told them each of them yes, repeating his line
about being competitive and determined to win here.

Bush insists he's not writing off Iowa
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bush-insists-hes-not-writing-off-iowa-118043.html>
// Politico // Eli Stokols – May 18, 2015

Skepticism runs high about the former Florida governor’s intentions for the
February caucuses.

DES MOINES, Iowa – His brother won the caucuses here in 2000. His likely
campaign manager is a veteran Iowa campaign strategist. And as he stumped
around the state this weekend, Jeb Bush repeatedly insisted he’s going to
compete hard in next year’s caucuses.

Even so, skepticism runs high about Bush’s intentions for next February’s
caucuses.

Between his low standing in state polls, the socially conservative bent of
the Iowa GOP base and his decision to skip the state’s straw poll in
August, Bush has lots of incentives to give up on Iowa next year.
Republicans here know it, which is why the former Florida governor spent
his weekend reassuring them he hasn’t already written off the state as a
lost cause.

“I’m going to be here. I’m here right now!” Bush told reporters Saturday
after appearing at a fundraiser in Iowa City for Sen. Chuck Grassley. “Why
would I be here if I wasn’t going to compete in Iowa?”

From Dubuque to Iowa City to the state GOP’s Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines
Saturday night, Bush threw everything he had into the effort to persuade
Iowans he doesn’t plan to blow off the state. His intensely private wife,
Columba, and his son Jeb Jr., both accompanied him to Dubuque, where he
held an hour-long town hall. He took 11 questions from the crowd there, and
then a few dozen “selfies” with attendees before leaving. He met privately
with several top donors, county chairs and elected officials — some of whom
have been alarmed by Bush’s laissez faire approach to Iowa so far — prior
to his speech at the Republican Party dinner; when it was over, he greeted
a long receiving line of supporters in his hospitality suite.

The decision to do a full day of in-state events — not just the dinner —
wasn’t lost on Republicans here. David Kochel, the top Iowa strategist now
working for Bush in Miami, was happy with Bush’s day introducing himself to
Iowa Republicans.

“They don’t know him yet, but there’s time for us to let people get to know
him,” he said. “When they get to know him, they’re going to like him.”

Bush has much more work to do to convince Iowans that he’s truly invested.
After being absent from the state since early March, he felt the lash of
state GOP chairman Jeff Kauffman on Twitter last week after reports first
surfaced that Bush was planning to bypass the Iowa straw poll in August and
attend another event outside the state.

“We hope Governor Bush rethinks his decision and realizes that grassroots
will only grow in Iowa if he waters them,” Kauffman wrote. “We don’t buy
this excuse and neither will Iowans.”

When reporters asked Bush Saturday about his reasons for skipping the
August 8 straw poll, he hinted at a broader strategy that doesn’t hinge on
the Hawkeye State.

“It’s not relevant,” Bush said of the straw poll. “What’s relevant is
running a campaign, creating a strategy, building a good team towards
success, which is in the primaries, and doing it in a way that makes it
possible to win the general, which is the whole point of this.”

According to a number of people close to the candidate, Bush’s strategy
rests on simply doing well enough in February’s earliest contests to come
out of South Carolina as one of the two or three leading candidates — in
other words, a first-place finish in Iowa win isn’t essential.

When Bush met the traveling press in Iowa City Saturday afternoon, the
second time he got a question about the straw poll and his seriousness
about the caucuses, he turned it back around at the reporter.

“Would you aspire to fourth place in anything? Or sixth place?” Bush asked.
His point: his own competitive nature wouldn’t allow him accept such a weak
performance. Besides, a win for Bush might be defined as a finish anywhere
in the top three.

As long as Bush doesn’t get embarrassed in Iowa and potentially wins in New
Hampshire, the campaign’s anticipated financial advantage could be the
difference-maker, especially in March when crowded primary days take place
and only the most well-funded campaigns will be able to compete across the
map.

To get to March, Bush still must deliver a respectable performance in Iowa
in February, and that’ll mean investing the kind of resources here to
ensure a win, place or show finish.

“He’ll signal with his time how much of a priority Iowa is,” said Zach
Nunn, a Republican state legislator. “Any time he comes to Iowa is a
serious indicator that he sees Iowa as a place he needs to do well.”

The most recent polling shows Bush in seventh place among likely Republican
presidential hopefuls with just 5 percent support among Iowa primary voters
— a sign that Bush, who’d only made one trip here before last weekend, has
a lot of work to do here. Bush’s father and brother both had campaigned far
earlier and more often than Jeb Bush at this point in the election.

“Does he have a one or two-state strategy like some other candidates? Of
course not,” said former Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn. “The challenge is
to make sure those activists who are predisposed to support Bush are seeing
him here. They want to see a candidate making a commitment to Iowa before
they make a commitment to Gov. Bush.”

In the end, the size of the GOP field could work to Bush’s advantage. With
as many as 19 potential candidates, it’s possible that evangelicals won’t
coalesce around one clear choice and the vote will be splintered — which
would open the door for a steady and solid establishment candidate like
Bush to finish near the top in Iowa.

“If the evangelical vote gets split up, it’s possible that someone can win
the Iowa caucuses with 20 percent of the vote,” Strawn said.

When he opened his town hall meeting Saturday morning at Loras College in
Dubuque, Bush spoke to those who doubt his prospects in Iowa — or the depth
of his commitment to playing here — by pointing to his father’s 1980
come-from-behind win in the Iowa caucuses.

“I’ll just remind everybody that’s interested in political history,” Bush
said. “He started here in Iowa as an asterisk, literally an asterisk, and
he won the Iowa caucuses.”

Marco Rubio Struggles To Explain Whether He Thinks Invading Iraq Was A
'Mistake'
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/17/marco-rubio-iraq-_n_7300400.html>
// Huffington Post // Samantha Lachman - May 17, 2015

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) struggled to reconcile past statements he has
made about the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an answer on whether he thought
the decision to invade was a mistake during an appearance on "Fox News
Sunday."

Last week, Rubio was asked whether he would have still authorized a war,
knowing what is known now about Iraq and its lack of weapons of mass
destruction. He unequivocally said no.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.] Bush
would not have been in favor of it, and he said so," Rubio said following a
foreign policy speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

On Sunday, however, Rubio rejected the rationale behind host Chris
Wallace's question about whether the senator and 2016 presidential
contender had flip-flopped on the issue, since he had said in March that it
was not a mistake to invade the country. Wallace and Rubio spoke over each
other as they attempted to sort out the semantics of the question.

"Those are two different questions; it was not a mistake," Rubio said. "The
question was whether it was a mistake, and my answer was it was not a
mistake. I still say it was not a mistake, because the president was
presented with intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
... [Bush] made the right decision based on what he knew at that time. We
learned subsequently that information was wrong. My answer is, at the time,
it appears the intelligence was wrong."

Rubio also commended President Barack Obama for ordering the recent raid
that killed Abu Sayyaf, a senior Islamic State leader who helped direct the
group's oil, gas and financial operations.

"It's been a successful raid and it's good news. Any time you can degrade
or take away top leadership of an organization, it's a good step forward,"
he said, cautioning that the Islamic State continues to pose a threat. "It
remains a risk, but we want to congratulate the men and women in uniform
that carried it out and the president for undertaking the mission."

Rubio says 'we don't have the votes' for broad immigration bill
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/17/us-usa-election-rubio-idUSKBN0O20SY20150517>
// Reuters // John Whitesides - May 17, 2015

Republican presidential contender Marco Rubio said on Sunday he still
favors immigration reform, but he has accepted the need for a
piece-by-piece legislative approach because "we don't have the votes to
pass" a comprehensive measure.

Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, said on "Fox News Sunday" there were
fewer votes in Congress for comprehensive immigration reform now than two
years ago, when he worked with Senate Democrats to help pass a
comprehensive bill that included a path to citizenship for those in the
country illegally.

That measure died in the House of Representatives amid conservative
opposition. Rubio, who faced criticism from the right over his work on the
Senate bill, now backs a piecemeal approach that would begin with border
security.

"I still believe we need to do immigration reform," said Rubio, the son of
Cuban immigrants. "The problem is we can't do it in one big piece of
legislation. The votes aren't there" in the House of Representatives.

Rubio is one of a half-dozen Republicans running to be the party's nominee
in the November 2016 election, with more expected in the race soon.

Some critics have accused Rubio of backing away from comprehensive reform
to placate conservatives who will play a big role in the Republican
presidential primaries. Asked why he would not fight for comprehensive
reform, Rubio said he was dealing with political realities.

"The context in which we are having this debate is much different," he said.

He cited Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's primary loss last
year in part because of his support for comprehensive immigration
legislation, as well as Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's
executive order last year easing the threat of deportation for millions of
undocumented residents.

"Clearly, leaders stand for the idea you need to do something, but you also
have to deal with the reality that in the political process people are
going to vote based on what they're hearing from their constituents and
others," he said.

Rubio’s Cash Needs: Run For President, Make Home Repairs
<http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/05/17/rubios-cash-needs-run-for-president-make-home-repairs/>
// CBS Local // May 17, 2015

WASHINGTON (CBSMiami/AP) — Sen. Marco Rubio recently cashed out some of his
retirement accountslast year. This is because the Republican presidential
says he is not poor, but not rich either — and he had some unexpected
expenses to account for besides his campaign.

The Florida senator tells “Fox News Sunday” he wanted the cash because he’s
running for president — but also because his refrigerator broke and “that
was $3,000,” his air conditioner had to be replaced and his kids’ schools
are getting more expensive.

Rubio sold retirement funds worth more than $68,000 last September,
according to his personal financial disclosure statement. He made the sale
even though he apparently had ample cash in the bank. He reported between
$100,000 and $250,000 in a checking account and between $50,000 and
$100,000 in a money market account at the end of 2014.

Rand Paul: ‘We still have chaos’ in Iraq
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/rand-paul-we-still-have-chaos-in-iraq/>
// WaPo // Sean Sullivan - May 17, 2015

Iraq is in disarray and the threat posed by Islamist militants there has
placed the United States at greater risk than before, Sen. Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) said in an interview set to broadcast Sunday morning.

Paul said the question of whether the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was
justified is an "important" one and not merely "hypothetical," offering the
latest input on an issue that has been difficult for the Republican
presidential field to navigate in recent days.

"I think when [Saddam] Hussein was toppled, we got chaos," Paul told NBC's
"Meet the Press," according to a transcript provided by the network. "We
still have chaos in — in Iraq. I think it emboldened Iran. I think — we now
have the rise of radical Islam in Ira, as well."

Paul, who is running for president, was asked whether his position on Iraq
puts him at odds with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a White House rival who
has said that "the world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn't
run Iraq."

Paul's response: "I don't think that's exactly how I put it."

He continued: "We are more at risk for attack from people who are training,
organizing and fighting in Iraq than we were before." Paul called the
Islamic State militant group, which controls many areas in Iraq and Syria,
"more of an aberration than even Hussein was."

In particular, questions about Iraq have tripped up Jeb Bush, a likely
presidential contender. He gave different answers last week to the question
of whether the invasion ordered by his brother was justified given that we
now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Bush eventually stated that he would not have gone into Iraq. Paul said
Democratic presidential front-runner and former secretary of state Hillary
Clinton should face similar scrutiny.

"They should ask her, 'Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us
less safe? Did it make it more chaotic?," said Paul, adding, "I think the
war in Iraq is a good question and still a current question, but so is the
question of, 'Should we have gone into Libya?'"

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), a potential presidential candidate,
vouched for George W. Bush's decision-making on Iraq at the time of the
invasion in an interview on CBS's "Face The Nation."

"I did stand up and defend the president, President Bush, that I did say I
think any president, regardless of party, probably would've made a similar
decision to what President Bush did at the time, with the information he
had available," said Walker.

Paul also reiterated his criticism of the National Security Agency's
sweeping surveillance programs and his problems with the Patriot Act. Key
provisions in the act are set to expire June 1.

Asked whether he would do away with the NSA as president, Paul responded
that he would not. Instead, he said, he would direct the agency to
intensify its efforts to combat threats to the nation.

"I would have the NSA target their activities, more and more, towards our
enemies," the senator said. "I think if you're not spending so much time
and money collecting the information of innocent Americans, maybe we
could've spent more time knowing that one of the Tsarnaev boys, one of the
Boston bombers, had gone back to Chechnya."

Sen. Rand Paul Does Not Commit to Patriot Act Filibuster
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sen-rand-paul-does-not-commit-patriot-act-filibuster-n360246>
// NBC News // Dale Armbruster - May 17, 2015

As fights over the temporarily reauthorizing and changing of the Patriot
Act loom, one prominent critic did not commit to battling a possible
extension ahead of the June 1 deadline.

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul did not indicate
whether he would filibuster an extension, instead reiterating his support
for the end of bulk data collection.

"Really, it ought to stop," Paul told Chuck Todd. "If the president's
obeying the law, he should stop it immediately and we shouldn't be doing
this. I don't want to replace it with another system."

Paul, R-Kentucky, has long been a vocal opponent of the law that expanded
the government's surveillance authority in 2001. It has been reauthorized
three times, in 2005, 2006 and 2011.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has proposed an extension
that would give Congress until July 31 to work out a deal. The expiring
provision, Section 215, is the basis for the NSA's bulk collection of U.S.
phone records. The proposal comes on the heels of a May 7 federal appeals
court decision that ruled that the NSA's interpretation of the provision is
incorrect, and that the program is illegal.

Paul did announce that he would not eliminate the National Security Agency
if elected President, arguing the agency's time could be better spent
tracking potential foreign threats.

"I would have the NSA target their activities, more and more, towards our
enemies," Paul said. "I think if you're not spending so much time and money
collecting the information of innocent Americans, maybe we could've spent
more time knowing that one of the Tsarnaev boys, one of the Boston bombers,
had gone back to Chechnya."

Christie enters new stage as he eyes 2016: Bashing fellow Republicans
<http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/christie_enters_new_stage_of_pre-presidential_camp.html>
// NJ // Matt Arco - May 17, 2015

TRENTON — For Gov. Chris Christie, it was the next and perhaps final step
of a pre-presidential campaign.

After months of stumping in the key states, meeting with potential voters
and donors, holding town halls and making the requisite attacks on
President Obama and Democratic 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the New
Jersey governor took it to a new level last week.

He went after fellow Republicans also eyeing the White House.

After he delivered his second national policy speech in another trip to
first-primary state New Hampshire on Tuesday, Christie accused former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker of not bringing
substance to their likely campaigns.

"I've given two really substantive speeches, specific speeches, and I don't
know of anybody else who's doing it," Christie said. "You don't see Jeb
doing this. You don't see Walker doing this."

He added: "I think it's really important if you're going to consider
getting involved in this conversation. You should be specific."

A day later, Christie went even further and attacked Bush for refusing to
answer a question about the Iraqi war.

"Listen, I understand that in politics sometimes there are certain
questions you just don't want to answer," Christie told Laura Ingraham
during an interview on her talk-radio show. "But I think you have to answer
questions like this. These are questions that are extraordinarily important
for the country and I think if you're considering running for president
(that) you need to answer the question."

It was a calculated move, said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for
Politics at the University of Virginia.

"The number one goal in this field is to raise tons of money. But the
number two goal is to somehow distinguish yourself," Sabato said. "And
obviously, in his mind at least, he's in the establishment category
competing mainly with Jeb Bush."

The Bush moment was made possible in part because the former Florida
governor spent days fumbling for an answer to a question about that Iraq
war synonymous with his brother's presidency. It quickly pinned Bush — and
not Christie — as the target of last week's media scrutiny.

Sabato noted that as Christie marches closer to a presidential campaign, he
and other Republicans won't be shy about taking sots at one another instead
of focusing only on Clinton.

Going on the offensive in campaigns isn't foreign Christie, who's developed
a national identity as the brash, no-nonsense governor. But voters didn't
see Christie's tough style during his re-election campaign in 2013, largely
because he began — and ended — it with a huge lead over Democrat Barbara
Buono and never had to punch hard. He fought an aggressive campaign in
unseating Democrat Jon Corzine in 2009.

"The reality is that we haven't seen Governor Christie in a full campaign
since his first campaign as governor," said Brigid Harrison, a professor of
political science at Montclair State University. "He's certainly taken the
reputation as one of the politicians who will knock down his opponents.
He's adept at this strategy."

The political experts said Christie has another reason to attack his fellow
Republicans: He's got a lot of ground to cover because he's hitting
historic lows in voter support back home in New Jersey and is struggling to
get into the top tier of GOP presidential contenders.

"It's mid-May, so it's time. If he's actually going to do it, it's
definitely time," Sabato said.

Christie is scheduled to return to New Hampshire on Monday to deliver
another policy speech and host his fifth early-voting state town hall
meeting.

Santorum and Clinton set to visit Mason City
<http://kimt.com/2015/05/17/santorum-and-clinton-set-to-visit-mason-city/>
// KIMT // Allie Krug – May 17, 2015

Republican Rick Santorum

KIMT News 3 – Two high profile politicians eyeing the presidency will be
making their way into north Iowa on Monday.

Republican Rick Santorum, who hasn’t officially announced a presidential
campaign yet, will be meeting with voters as he hosts a town hall meeting
at the Pizza Ranch in Mason City, and one of his democratic opponents,
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be stopping in town for an
event at a private home.

According to local political analyst, Bennett Smith, this is an important
trip for both presidential hopeful since they have a lot of ground to cover
while they’re here. “It’s important for Hillary Clinton to get into the
state because part of the concern with her campaign is that she hasn’t been
here much and that she hasn’t been very accessible,” Smith explains.

Clinton’s event is closed to the public, something she has been scrutinized
for, however KIMT News 3 will have a camera there.

“It’s also important for Rick Santorum,” Smith adds, “since the slot that
he filled with social conservatives is now being filled by Gov. Scott
Walker so, he needs to get in the state and spend more time with voters,
which he has been doing.”

Iowa has proven very popular lately, this weekend seven major republicans
spoke at the Lincoln Dinner fundraiser in Des Moines.

Fiorina 'a fireball' at GOP Lincoln Dinner
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/17/iowa-gop-lincoln-dinner/27487183/>
// USA Today // Jennifer Jacobs – May 17, 2015

DES MOINES -- Republicans exulted in what they see as a smorgasbord of good
choices in their 2016 presidential lineup, but former CEO Carly Fiorina
seemed to steal the show at the Iowa GOP's Lincoln Dinner on Saturday night.

The audience of 1,400 stopped just short of booing when dinner organizers
cut the sound to her microphone when she reached the strict 10-minute
speaking limit set for all 11 presidential hopefuls.

One of Fiorina's best-received lines: "I was asked whether a woman's
hormones prevent her from serving in the Oval Office. OK, ladies, this is a
test: Can you think of a single instance in which a man's judgment was
clouded by his hormones? Including in the Oval Office?"

"She was like a fireball," said one dinner guest, Tanya Manatt, a
43-year-old Johnston resident who owns a bridal boutique. "She had a lot of
energy, and she's not intimidated."

The night's next most popular hopefuls — based on crowd reaction, a
sampling of interviews with dinner guests and observations of the traffic
in each contender's hospitality room after the speeches — were three
governors: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

"As far as covering the bases and making me feel like he would be a good
leader, Jeb Bush was next best," Manatt said. "I did not expect that. I
didn't want to like him."

A big honorable mention, for humor and a touching personal story about the
deaths of both of his parents when he was a young man, seemed to go to
South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Graham offered a steady stream of quips as soon as he took the stage.

"Chuck Grassley. Is he still here? The one thing I've learned about this
dinner: It was free for Chuck or he wouldn't have been here."

-des.m0517LincolnDinner.bh 0639.JPG_20150516.jpg

Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann told the audience on Saturday at the
Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines that the GOP is bringing together all kinds of
Republicans. “We are a united party, and media — take that to the rest of
the United States!” he said. (Photo: Bryon Houlgrave/The Register)

But there were some gasps when Graham, in a serious moment, said: "If
you're thinking about joining al-Qaeda or ISIS, I'm not going to call a
judge, I'm going to call a drone, and we will kill you. We're at war, and
I'm tired of treating the war as a crime."

The 11 who auditioned for the role of presidential nominee during the
dinner at the Iowa Events Center were Fiorina, Perry, Bush, Walker, Graham,
retired doctor Ben Carson, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York
Gov. George Pataki, Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, former Pennsylvania U.S.
Sen. Rick Santorum and New York reality TV star Donald Trump.

Several audience members said they thought Perry and Bush overperformed,
while Walker underperformed, but still did a good job pitching his status
as an adopted Iowan of sorts and hitting hard on national security and
"safety."

"Rick Perry had a lot of energy, no notes and definite ideas about what he
wanted to do and the experience to back it up as a former military man. I
liked him so much more than I did four years ago," said Shelley Pitts of
Cumming, who works at Von Maur. "And Carly. I loved her. I just loved
everything she said."

In his speech, Perry knocked common core education standards, proposed
rebuilding the U.S. military and bemoaned an "underlying pessimism we see
in this country" about the future.

"If we will unleash people from over-taxation, over-regulation,
over-litigation ... we will have the greatest days in America ahead," Perry
said.

Although several audience members said Bush seemed a little nervous — he
stumbled on some words and referred to his notes more than others did —
they praised how he explained his conservative record in Florida and the
passion he exhibited on education issues.

"To me, Bush exceeded expectations," said Bill Schickel, a former Iowa GOP
official. Schickel also listed Perry, Graham and Fiorina as favorites.

Bush said whether people like it or not, he's proud of the fact that he's
"George and Barbara's boy" and that "W's my brother." Bush talked about his
successes as Florida governor in job creation, school choice and protecting
"the most vulnerable in society," including the unborn, the disabled and
the frail.

Walker showed a photo of himself at age 7 that was shot, he said, after he
and his brother went door to door raising money for a state flag at the
Plainfield City Hall. His family lived there in the mid-1970s. Walker was
one of the only ones to insert religion into his speech, talking about his
recent trip to Israel and how he was moved to see the spot where "literally
Christ fed the 5,000."

-0517 Lincoln Dinner 04.jpg_20150516.jpg

Republican Rand Paul talks with guests Saturday, May 16, 2015, before the
Republican Party of Iowa's Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines. (Photo: Michael
Zamora/The Register)

Paul zoned in on civil liberties issues, arguing that Americans don't have
to "give up what our founding fathers fought for in order to catch
terrorists."

Carson called division, the economy and a failure to lead the world the
three biggest problems facing America.

Jindal said two major threats the country faces are Islamic terrorism
abroad and the trampling of religious liberties at home. A third threat:
the polices of President Barack Obama and former U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, he said.

Santorum said Republicans need to remember the 74 percent of Americans who
lack a college degree, many of whom still struggle economically.

Pataki noted that he was governor when the airplanes hit the World Trade
Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. But today, "the greatest threat to our
freedom," he said, is an ever-encroaching government. "It's not an imminent
threat, but it's a very real threat," he said.

Trump, a real estate mogul turned reality TV star, said he can build a wall
on the U.S. southern border ("I'm a good builder") and has already created
tens of thousands of jobs. Trump expressed indignation that people — namely
the news media — don't believe he'll run. He said he'll make an
announcement in June that's "going to surprise a lot of people."

Not everyone in the crowd could take Trump seriously.

"Trump! I was trying to hold it in. I didn't want to laugh too much," said
the Rev. Lawrence Davis, a 63-year-old Des Moines pastor. "Now, Carly, she
was dynamite. She knew what she was talking about."

-0517 Lincoln Dinner 02.jpg_20150516.jpg

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (left) and Dr. Ben Carson greet each other
Saturday, May 16, 2015, before the Republican Party of Iowa's Lincoln
Dinner in Des Moines. (Photo: Michael Zamora/The Register)

The hospitality rooms weren't all the same size so it was hard to judge,
but a nonscientific survey throughout the night showed Walker's room, in a
prime spot at the bottom of the escalators leading from the banquet hall,
was the most packed at first.

"Cold beer!" said a sign out front. Wisconsin cheese and Miller beer were
being served inside.

Long lines waited for snapshots with Fiorina, Carson and Trump, the night's
celebrities.

But near the end of the evening, the biggest crowds had migrated to Bush's
room, which was unadorned by decorations, but had an open bar and a buffet
of hors d'oeuvres.

Paul and Pataki didn't host receptions. All the other contenders drew
decent-sized crowds, except Santorum.

His Iowa chairman, state Rep. Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, said the small
crowds showed that "people know Rick well. Everyone's kicking the tires on
everyone else. But they'll come back to an old, solid four wheels like
Rick."

TOP NEWS

DOMESTIC

Paul Ryan: House will approve Obama's trade effort
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/politics/paul-ryan-trade-obama-tpa/> // CNN
// Eric Bradner - May 17, 2015

Washington – Rep. Paul Ryan said Sunday the House has the votes to approve
President Barack Obama's free trade initiative.

The House Ways and Means Committee chairman is sponsoring a bill that would
hand Obama "trade promotion authority" -- which would allow him to
negotiate the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership and submit it to
Congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments.

In an unusual alignment, Republicans are aligning with Obama on the issue,
while members of his own party -- as well as some tea partiers -- oppose
him.

"We will have the votes. We're doing very well. We're gaining a lot of
steam and momentum," Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, told CNN's Brianna
Keilar Sunday on "State of the Union."

Ryan argued that the deal, which covers a total of 40% of the world's
economy, is key to maintaining U.S. economic influence in a region where
countries are increasingly falling into China's orbit.

He said trade promotion authority gives lawmakers a chance to instruct the
White House on what to negotiate in the deal.

"There's a misnomer," he said. "It's really not granting the President
authority; it's actually Congress asserting its prerogatives, its authority
in how trade agreements are done."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also praised Obama for his pro-trade
deal lobbying effort.

"President Obama has done his country a service by taking on his base and
pushing back on some of the more ridiculous rhetoric we've heard,"
McConnell told ABC's George Stephanopoulos Sunday on "This Week."

He also predicted the measure will pass the Senate.

"Yes, we'll pass it. We'll pass it later this week," he said.

The Senate advanced trade promotion authority beyond a major procedural
hurdle last week and could vote this week. The House, though, could be
closer -- with more Republicans opposing Obama and fewer Democrats backing
him.

9 Are Killed in Biker Gang Shootout in Waco
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/us/motorcycle-gang-shootout-in-waco-texas.html?_r=0>
// NYT // Manny Fernandez Liam Stack and Alan Blinder – May 17, 2015

HOUSTON — A shootout among members of several rival motorcycle gangs in a
busy shopping plaza in the Central Texas city of Waco on Sunday left at
least nine bikers dead and 18 others injured, creating chaos in a sprawling
parking lot packed with afternoon shoppers, law enforcement officials said.

The gunfire erupted about 12:15 p.m. outside a Twin Peaks Restaurant, where
members of the motorcycle clubs had gathered. The fight spilled into the
parking lot, initially involving just fists and feet, but escalating
quickly to chains, knives, clubs and firearms. Waco police officers were
already at the scene when the confrontation unfolded because they had
anticipated problems as hundreds of bikers from at least five groups
gathered at the shopping plaza.

“There were multiple people on the scene firing weapons at each other,”
Sgt. Patrick Swanton, a Waco Police Department spokesman, said at a news
conference. “They then turned on our officers. Our officers returned
gunfire, wounding and possibly killing several.”

Photo

Officers fired on bikers as the shooting spilled from the restaurant into a
busy parking lot. Credit Rod Aydelotte/Waco Tribune Herald, via Associated
Press

Law enforcement officials said the shootout was the worst violence in Waco
since the siege on the Branch Davidian compound in 1993 that left 86 people
dead. On Sunday, eight members of motorcycle clubs were killed at the scene
and another died at a hospital, Sergeant Swanton said. The injured were
taken to hospitals with gunshot and stab wounds.

No officers, shoppers or bystanders were injured. The authorities said
their decision to place officers outside the restaurant before the gunfire
erupted most likely saved lives.

“There were so many rounds fired from bad-guy weapons here, it is amazing
that innocent civilians were not injured here,” said Sergeant Swanton, who
added that investigators expected to recover about 100 weapons. “In 34
years of law enforcement, this is the worst crime scene — the most violent
crime scene — that I have ever been involved in. There are dead people
still there. There is blood everywhere.”

The police did not identify the groups involved, but photographs of the
members who were arrested showed a number of them in leather jackets
bearing the names of at least three motorcycle clubs: Bandidos, Cossacks
and Scimitars.

Hours after the shooting, police officials were still issuing messages on
social media warning people to stay away from the shopping plaza, the
Central Texas Marketplace, saying that it was closed because it was unsafe.
“Officers are continuing to arrest individuals coming to the scene with
weapons,” one of the department’s Facebook postings read. “This is not the
time to sight see as we are dealing with very dangerous individuals.”

The police detained numerous people involved in the fight, Sergeant Swanton
said, and arrested three bikers who were carrying weapons and tried to
reach the scene after the fighting had quieted down. He said they would be
charged with engaging in organized crime. Late Sunday, Sergeant Swanton
said the police were holding at least 100 people for questioning.

Dozens of officers and medics from local, state and federal agencies
converged on the Central Texas Marketplace. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I.
office in San Antonio said agents were assisting the Waco police in the
investigation.

The Twin Peaks Restaurant had hosted motorcycle gang members in the past,
the police said. The authorities made little effort on Sunday to conceal
their frustration with the restaurant’s managers, who they said had
previously been uncooperative in dealing with the Police Department’s
security concerns about biker gatherings there.

“We have attempted to work with the local management of Twin Peaks to no
avail,” Sergeant Swanton said. “They have continued to allow these bikers
to gather here, and this is the culmination of what has occurred.” He
added: “What happened here today could have been avoided if we had had
management at a local establishment listen to their police department and
assist us. They failed to do that.”

On Sunday, at least 12 Waco police officers, as well as officers with the
state’s top law enforcement agency, the Texas Department of Public Safety,
worked to secure the area before the shootout started because officials
“expected issues,” Sergeant Swanton said.

“Apparently, the management wanted them here,” he said, “so we didn’t have
any say-so on whether they could be here or not.”

Twin Peaks is a national restaurant chain with several Texas locations. The
restaurant in Waco opened last year, and company officials told a local
newspaper that it would employ 150 people and be able to accommodate more
than 350. In an announcement about the restaurant’s opening, Twin Peaks
promoted the location as the “ultimate man-cave,” with at least 55
flat-screen televisions and 24 types of beer. As recently as last week, the
restaurant advertised “Bike Night” on Thursdays and promised “beers, bites
and bikes at the hottest place in town!”

In a statement, a spokesman for the Twin Peaks Restaurant chain emphasized
that the shooting had occurred outside the restaurant.

“We were shocked by the shootings that took place in the parking lot of our
franchised restaurant in Waco and are fully reviewing all the circumstances
surrounding it,” the spokesman, Rick Van Warner, said. “We are thankful no
employees, guests or police were injured in this senseless violence outside
the restaurant, and our sympathies are with the families of those killed.”

Later, in a phone interview, Mr. Van Warner said the company was “seriously
considering revoking the franchise based on this situation.” He added: “If
any of those allegations are true that there was ample warning to
potentially prevent something of this nature, then there is no way we would
allow someone to continue operating under our own brand.”

Jay Patel, operating partner of the Waco franchise, issued a statement
Sunday night defending the restaurant’s dealings with the police and saying
that the managers “share in the community’s trauma.”

“Our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for our
customers and employees, and we consider the police our partners in doing
so,” Mr. Patel’s statement read. “Our management team has had ongoing and
positive communications with the police and we will continue to work with
them as we all want to keep violent crime out of our businesses and
community.”

Sergeant Swanton said the confrontation appeared to have “started over a
parking issue,” but he declined to elaborate. Another law enforcement
official said that the rival gangs needed no incitement and that simply
crossing paths was enough to cause problems.

Asked if the authorities knew the names of the clubs involved, Sergeant
Swanton said, “We do, but we’re not going to give them the privilege at
this point of putting their names out there.” While emphasizing that the
authorities were still in the early stages of an investigation, he
described the biker gangs involved as “dangerous” and “hostile.”

“This is not a bunch of doctors and dentists and lawyers riding Harleys,”
Sergeant Swanton said. “These are criminals on Harley-Davidsons.”

In a report on gang activity submitted last year to the governor and the
state Legislature, law enforcement officials classified the Bandidos Outlaw
Motorcycle Gang, known as Bandidos O.M.G., as a Tier 2 threat, the
second-highest level. The report, prepared annually by the state Department
of Public Safety, noted that the Bandidos were formed in the 1960s and
typically avoided high-profile activities such as drive-by shootings.

Tier 2 gangs were “responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime
across urban, suburban and rural areas of Texas,” the report said.

U.S. gas prices up 22 cents over past three weeks -survey
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/17/usa-gasoline-prices-idUSL1N0Y80GF20150517>
// Reuters // Bill Berkrot - May 17, 2015

May 17 The average price of a gallon of regular-grade gasoline in the
United States rose 22 cents over the past three weeks to $2.82, according
to a Lundberg survey released on Sunday.

The average price per gallon, which has now jumped 35 cents since April 10,
is the highest seen by the survey since late November, but is still nearly
93 cents lower than a year ago.

Rises in crude oil prices over the three-week period were not driven by
changes in oil supplies, said Trilby Lundberg, publisher of the survey, but
rather were caused by a recent weakening of the dollar against key foreign
currencies.

Prices should remain relatively low for the coming summer driving season.
"The chances are high that there will be small or negligible price rises
from here in the national average, assuming no crude oil price spike in the
near future," Lundberg said.

The price increase for the nation would have been substantially smaller if
not for significant hikes in California, the state with the highest
gasoline consumption, and the rest of the West Coast, Lundberg said.

In California, the average price rose 53 cents over the past three weeks to
$3.76 per gallon.

Nationally, among the panel of U.S. cities included in the survey, the
lowest price for a gallon of gasoline was found in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
at $2.32, while Los Angeles had the highest at $3.95.

FBI: Hacker claimed to have taken over flight's engine controls
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/fbi-hacker-flight-computer-systems/> //
CNN // Evan Perez - May 17, 2015

(CNN)A cybersecurity consultant told the FBI he hacked into computer
systems aboard airliners up to 20 times and managed to control an aircraft
engine during a flight, according to federal court documents.

Chris Roberts was detained by the FBI in April following a United Airlines
flight to Syracuse, New York, after officials saw Twitter posts he made
discussing hacking into the plane he was traveling on.

An FBI search warrant application filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York describes the investigation of Roberts for
possible computer crimes.

During FBI interviews in February and March, the document says, Roberts
told investigators he hacked into in-flight entertainment systems aboard
aircraft. He claimed to have done so 15 to 20 times from 2011 to 2014.

He also said, according to the document, that once he had hacked into the
systems and then overwrote code, enabling him to issue a "CLB," or climb,
command.

"He stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb
resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of
these flights," the document says.

Roberts said he knew of vulnerabilities aboard three types of Boeing
aircraft and one Airbus model. He hacked into in-flight entertainment
systems made by Thales and Panasonic, he told agents, according to the
document.

Canada's APTN first reported on the document.

Roberts has said on Twitter that he's been advised not to say much, but he
has tweeted that his only interest is "to improve aircraft security" and
accused the FBI of "incorrectly" condensing five years of his research into
one paragraph.

"Lots to untangle," he tweeted.

Roberts did not immediately reply to CNN messages seeking a response, and
in an interview with Wired magazine, he declined to say whether he had
hacked the flight mentioned in the federal affidavit. In that article, he
said a key paragraph was out of context.

"That paragraph that's in there is one paragraph out of a lot of
discussions, so there is context that is obviously missing which obviously
I can't say anything about," he said. "It would appear from what I've seen
that the federal guys took one paragraph out of a lot of discussions and a
lot of meetings and notes and just chose that one as opposed to plenty of
others."

The FBI document says the bureau's agents and technical specialists
"believed that Roberts had the ability and the willingness to use the
equipment then with him to access or attempt to access the in-flight
entertainment systems and possibly the flight control systems on any
aircraft equipped with an in-flight entertainment system, and that it would
endanger public safety to allow him to leave the Syracuse airport that
evening with that equipment."

Roberts said he used a modified Ethernet cable to connect his laptop to an
electronic box underneath his seat that controls the entertainment system.
From there, he hacked into the airplane's computer nerve center, the
document cites Roberts as telling the FBI.

On April 15, United Airlines told the FBI that Roberts had posted tweets
about hacking into the plane he was traveling on and possibly activating
the emergency passenger oxygen masks, the document says. At the time,
Roberts was traveling on a United flight from Denver to Chicago, then
connecting to Syracuse.

FBI agents tracked the aircraft that Roberts traveled on from Denver to
Chicago and found signs of tampering and damage to electronic control boxes
that connect to in-flight entertainment systems. The boxes tampered with
were under the seat where Roberts sat and the one in front of his seat, the
warrant application says.

Roberts told agents he didn't hack into the systems aboard the
Denver-to-Chicago flight.

The FBI search warrant said agents seized computer equipment, including a
laptop and an iPad, as well as thumb and external drives.

The thumb drives contained "nasty" malware, Roberts said, that could be
used to compromise computer networks, according to the FBI document.

One of the plane manufacturers has cast doubt on the hacking claims. Boeing
said its entertainment systems are "isolated from flight and navigation
systems."

The company further said that it does not discuss its planes' design
features for security reasons, but said, "It is worth noting that Boeing
airplanes have more than one navigational system available to pilots. No
changes to the flight plans loaded into the airplane systems can take place
without pilot review and approval. In addition, other systems, multiple
security measures, and flight deck operating procedures help ensure safe
and secure airplane operations."

Airbus has not yet issued a response, but previously, it has said it has
security measures, such as firewalls, that restrict access and the company
"constantly assesses and revisits the system architecture" to make sure
planes are safe.

INTERNATIONAL

Officials: Iraqi city of Ramadi falls to Islamic State
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/05/17/iraq-ramadi-anbar-islamic-state-baghdad/27488987/>
// USA Today // Ammar Al Shamary - May 17, 2015

BAGHDAD — The Islamic State seized control of the key Iraqi city of Ramadi
on Sunday, despite stepped up U.S.-led airstrikes targeting extremists in
the region, according to officials in Anbar province.

"Ramadi has fallen," Muhannad Haimour, a spokesman for Anbar province, said
as Iraqi forces withdrew from the city "The city was completely taken. … It
was a gradual deterioration. The military is fleeing."

The U.S. Central Command pushed back against reports that Islamic State
militants control the city and said Ramadi remains "contested."

Ramadi, the provincial capital of the western Anbar province, is the latest
battleground in the Iraqi government's efforts to drive out Islamic State
militants from areas the militants seized last year. With the help of
U.S.-led airstrikes, the Iraqi forces and Kurdish fighters had made gains
against the Islamic State elsewhere in the country, including re-capturing
the northern city of Tikrit.

Over the last month, 165 U.S.-led airstrikes had been conducted on Ramadi
to assist Iraqi troops battling the Islamic State.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi appeared on state television earlier Sunday
and ordered his country's security forces not to abandon their posts in
Anbar province. He also ordered Shiite militias to go into the
Sunni-dominated region, despite concerns of sparking sectarian violence,
the Associated Press reported.

Athal al-Fahdawi, a member of the Anbar province council, said the Islamic
State launched a large offensive Sunday and had taken control of most of
the city after initially capturing government buildings late last week.

He said Iraqi forces withdrew to outside of Ramadi after holding onto two
areas in the northern part of the city. That followed four bombings
targeting police officers defending the southern district of Malaab, after
which fierce fighting broke out, al-Fahdawi said. The attacks killed almost
a dozen officers.

The Islamic State posted a message claiming its fighters held the entire
city of Ramadi, the AP reported. The message, posted on a militant website
frequented by the group, said the Islamic State held the 8th Brigade army
base, as well as tanks and missile launchers left behind by fleeing
soldiers.

Iraqi officials said they were waiting for more troops to arrive.

"Iraq authorities have sent reinforcements to Ramadi and are located in the
outskirts of the city but didn't engage till this moment with (Islamic
State) militants," Ramadi Mayor Dalaf al-Kubaisi said. "The Iraqi prime
minster has sent special forces, but they are still waiting for more troops
to start the clearing operation to kick the militants out of the city."

Ramadi was largely evacuated after the Islamic State captured much of the
city by Friday.

The offensive began after areas of the city fell under Islamic State
control earlier this month. Last week, the Islamic State, also known as
ISIL or ISIS, targeted military positions in the city with six truck bombs
and a bulldozer, described as a massive attack that overwhelmed Iraqi
soldiers.

In recent days, the Pentagon has sought to downplay the significance of the
gains the Islamic State made in Ramadi, while insisting the militant group
was on the defensive in the north and west of Iraq compared to last year.

"We firmly believe (ISIL) is on the defensive throughout Iraq and Syria,
attempting to hold previous gains, while conducting small-scale, localized
harassing attacks, occasional complex or high-profile attacks, in order to
feed their information and propaganda apparatus," Brigadier Gen. Thomas
Weidley, chief of staff of the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent
Resolve, told reporters on Friday.

In neighboring Najaf and Karbala provinces, residents began shoring up
their borders with Anbar province and deployed thousands of fighters of
local militias into the desert, officials said.

At the same time, tribal leaders of Anbar province held a news conference
Sunday in the town of Khalidiya demanding the government send more troops
and fighters to secure the province.

Hakem al-Zameli, an Iraqi member of parliament, said he had concerns over
sending militia fighters to Anbar province. "We could come under attack of
(friendly fire)," he said.

The Iraqi military later issued a statement, saying, "Victory will be in
the side of Iraq because Iraq is defending its freedom and dignity." It did
not offer any details about the ongoing fighting.

Saudi-Led Airstrikes Resume in Yemen as Truce Ends
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/middleeast/saudi-led-airstrikes-resume-in-yemen-as-truce-ends.html>
// NYT // Mohammed Ali Kalfood and Kareem Fahim - May 17, 2015

SANA, Yemen — A military coalition led by Saudi Arabia resumed airstrikes
in Yemen on Sunday, hours after the expiration of a five-day humanitarian
cease-fire between the coalition and Houthi rebels.

Residents in the southern city of Aden reported warplanes flying overhead
late Sunday and the sound of airstrikes falling on what appeared to be
Houthi-controlled neighborhoods in the city.

There had been no official statement from Saudi Arabia about whether it
intended to renew the truce when it lapsed at 11 p.m. on Sunday.
International aid agencies, as well as the United Nations envoy to Yemen,
had called for an extension in order to continue delivering relief supplies
to Yemen, which has been under an air and sea blockade since the Saudi-led
coalition began its offensive against the Houthis in late March.

The escalation of the fighting on Sunday appeared to threaten a frenzied
relief effort that had sought to take advantage of the break in the
fighting. On Sunday, aid workers acknowledged that those efforts so far had
been insufficient, given the scale of the crisis in Yemen, a deeply poor
country that relies almost entirely on imports for basic goods.

Emergency supplies, delivered by chartered planes and rickety wooden dhows
during the truce, gave relief to only a fraction of those in need, relief
workers said.

Unicef said it had been able to resupply health care centers, activate
mobile medical teams in rural areas affected by the fighting and supply
fuel that allowed local authorities to run water systems. The group also
delivered solar-power refrigerators to keep vaccines cold in a country
starved of electricity.

“It’s nowhere near enough,” said Julien Harneis, Unicef’s Yemen
representative. “A country of 26 million people was essentially cut off
from any commercial shipping as a result of the way the arms embargo is
being implemented,” he said, referring to the Saudi-led blockade.

Ships that were able to dock during the truce provided a “minute percentage
of the amount of goods that need to come into the country for any normal
life,” Mr. Harneis said.

André Heller Pérache, of Doctors Without Borders in Yemen, said the
shortage of fuel, which had been devastating, hardly eased during the
cease-fire.

“Hospitals are still scrambling to find fuel for generators,” he said.
Without fuel for cars, people struggled to reach hospitals. “The capital
city is dark at night.”

Saudi Arabia proposed the cease-fire this month as it faced growing
criticism of its military campaign against the Houthis, a rebel group from
northern Yemen that had taken control of the capital and other parts of the
country and forced the government of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi into
exile.

Hundreds of airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition of Arab states failed to
stop advances by the Houthis in Aden and the city of Taiz. The combination
of the bombing campaign and a brutal offensive by pro-Houthi forces has
killed more than 1,400, most of them civilians.

The cease-fire halted airstrikes on Sana after weeks of bombing, but
fighting continued in Taiz and elsewhere. It remained unclear whether the
airstrikes on Sunday signaled a full-scale resumption of the war or were a
deft attempt by the Saudis to restore a military advantage, and could be
followed by another truce.

Speaking on Sunday at a conference on the Yemen crisis in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, a special envoy from the United Nations read a statement from
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that called for all parties to come together
to resolve the conflict and urged an extension of the cease-fire.

The conference, convened by Saudi Arabia, consisted of only one side in the
domestic conflict, bringing together Yemen factions and regional
organizations that support the effort to restore Mr. Hadi to power. It
excluded any representatives of the Houthi movement or its allies among the
backers of Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen’s former president.

“The humanitarian truce should turn into a permanent cease-fire,” the
envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, said, reading the statement. There was “no
solution to the crisis but comprehensive dialogue that will not exclude
anyone.”

In Seoul, Kerry Rallies Region Against North Korea
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-seoul-kerry-rallies-region-against-north-korea-1431934109>
// WSJ // Jeyup S. Kwaak - May 18, 2015

SEOUL—U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday played up coordination
between Washington and other nations to pressure North Korea to give up its
nuclear weapons program but underlined the rogue regime’s current
unwillingness to commit to such a path.

Speaking in Seoul, Mr. Kerry said the five members of the forum that had
previously tried to persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize—the U.S., China,
Russia, Japan and South Korea—are discussing measures to ramp up pressure
on North Korea. He didn’t provide details.

“Never has the international community been as united as we are now,” Mr.
Kerry said, referring to calls for North Korea to denuclearize.

Officials from the U.S. and China, a key economic and military ally to
North Korea, will meet in Washington next month to discuss “specific
steps,” Mr. Kerry said. He also mentioned sanctions as a measure under
consideration.

President Barack Obama’s North Korea policy has taken criticism from
experts who say that the isolated state in recent years appears undeterred
in its pursuit of nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them.

A recent estimate from Beijing puts North Korea’s nuclear-warhead count at
20 at the end of last year and potentially double that by next year. That
estimate is higher than many assessments from the U.S.

North Korea earlier this month also claimed to have conducted a successful
test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile. U.S. and South Korean
officials have said North Korea remains in the initial stages of developing
the missile.

North Korea regularly test-fires a range of rockets, including ballistic
missiles that are banned under United Nations sanctions. The regime has
carried out three nuclear-detonation tests, the last in early 2013.

Mr. Kerry repeated the U.S. position that North Korea must show a genuine
commitment to denuclearization before any talks can begin. But he said
Pyongyang so far has “not come even close.” He said the regime has rebuffed
efforts of engagement from other members of the so-called six-party process
that includes North Korea.

The six-party talks, which began in 2003 to try to negotiate for
Pyongyang’s denuclearization in exchange for economic aid and security
guarantees, have been stalled since late 2008.

Mr. Kerry also condemned North Korea’s reported myriad human-rights
violations, including the reported public executions of senior officials in
what he called “grotesque” displays.

South Korea’s intelligence officials said last week that North Korea’s
dictator had recently executed its defense minister by antiaircraft fire
for treason. North Korea hasn’t acknowledged the execution took place.

Write to Jeyup S. Kwaak at [email-masked]

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS

Why the GOP Can't Get No Satisfaction
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/jim-messina-british-elections-118001.html?hp=t1_r#.VVlGKlVVikp>
// Politico // Jim Messina - May 17, 2015

One of the savviest political observers I’ve come across is Mick Jagger. I
was invited to a dinner that included the legendary rocker in London before
the British election (I took about 9,000 selfies), when I discovered that
Mick has been a bit of a political junkie his whole life. While he’s on
tour he has a lot of down time, which he spends reading, he explained to
me, and I learned that he’s become a master observer not only of UK
politics but of the American political scene as well (although he's not an
activist and doesn't take sides). “You’re going to win,” Mick told me at
dinner, despite some polls showing that my client, Prime Minister David
Cameron, was still trailing in the race. “Why do you think so?” I asked.
Mick replied that while he wasn't supporting any candidate himself, “the
average guy thinks Cameron makes tough decisions and things are getting a
bit better. They won’t change from that." The opposition, Jagger explained,
was percieved as a retreat to the past.

Mick was right, of course. No matter where you go, successful election
campaigns are always about the future, not the past. Ed Miliband was an
old-style Labour leader, unlike Tony Blair, and he paid dearly for that on
Election Day. Mick’s advice, in fact, reminds of something another rather
savvy political observer, Bill Clinton, told me in 2011, as we were
preparing President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign: "All national
elections are always a referendum on the future, and the candidate that can
grasp that mantle wins."  In all major elections after the Great Recession,
the candidate who provided the clearest economic vision looking ahead
prevailed. President Obama won two elections on that exact premise.

In the United Kingdom’s general election, Prime Minister Cameron won on a
vision of a dynamic, competitive Britain as a land of future opportunity
for working families. Miliband was promising them only a return to the
past: 1970s-style rent control, re-nationalization of some services, and
energy price controls were, bizarrely, the main policy initiatives
highlighted by Labour.

The same thing will be true of future presidential contests in the United
States. There are huge political differences between the UK and U.S., but
there are some important common lessons. Especially when you’ve been losing
in recent elections, you’ve got to be able to redefine and rebrand your
party for the future. Tony Blair did that for Labour in the UK. Ronald
Reagan did it for the Republicans in 1980. Bill Clinton did it for us in
1992. So far, during the 2016 cycle, Republican presidential candidates
seem dedicated to defending old policies across the spectrum from going
back to pre-crisis rules for Wall Street to attacking the science of
climate change to constantly focusing on restricting women’s health care
decisions.

If the message the GOP takes away from Cameron’s win is mainly about the
renewed power of right, they will fail in 2016, I believe. The truth is
that British politics is skewed much further left than ours. Cameron
personally led the fight to legalize gay marriage, made addressing climate
change a top priority, and defended generous British humanitarian aid
worldwide even as he was attacked for it. During the campaign, his
manifesto called for a dramatic expansion of child care for working
families, new apprenticeships for young people and eliminating taxes on
workers at the minimum wage. Much of his agenda aligns very well with the
modern Democratic Party platform.

The message of that election for us in the United States is less that
Hillary Clinton needs to stay in the center than it is that Republicans
need to move beyond their base. One reason Miliband failed is because, in
British parliamentary politics, the perception is you only need to win over
that base and little more. Miliband’s people were privately saying he only
needed to get to 35 percent. But in American politics you need the
center—and a majority.

***

So how did a Democratic consultant in the United States come to be working
for the Conservative party in Britain? I first got to know Prime Minister
Cameron when I was White House Deputy Chief of Staff in 2010, and he had
just won the 2010 election. After President Obama’s re-election in 2012
both the Conservatives and the Labour Party sent teams to Washington and
Chicago to do research on lessons-learned, and I spent time with the
Cameron team. I also had a long talk with Tony Blair, the former Labour
prime minister.

Then, after I finished winding down President Obama’s re-election campaign,
the Prime Minister called to ask if I could come to see him in London. My
wife and I had dinner with him and his wife and we had a long talk about
the issues, when I realized how close in thinking we were. That really
struck a chord for me. I spent a lot of time studying both Miliband and
Cameron. In the end I thought Cameron was the better leader, as well as
being a proven, strong ally for the United States.

The British people, clearly, agreed. Cameron’s ability to secure an
outright majority in Parliament is an historic achievement.  Indeed, when
we began advising the prime minister, he trailed Miliband by seven percent,
38-31, with the Liberal Democrats at about 10 percent.  Future rising star
parties United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Scottish National
Party (SNP) had not yet begun taking serious votes off of both parties,
which would later reshape the race and politics in Britain.

In Europe and the United States, the strongest leaders have faced an
incredibly difficult combination of rising debt and stubborn unemployment
that mandated a number of unenviable choices since 2008. Nine major
European countries dumped their leaders, including those in France, Italy,
and Spain.  The difference between the leaders who were re-elected and
those who were defeated had much to do with their ability to not just
explain their difficult past choices but to articulate a future that
expands opportunity. In Cameron’s case it was an emphasis on concrete,
believable next steps to continue the path of economic growth like
eliminating taxes on most workers at or near the minimum wage, expanded
apprenticeships, and dramatically expanded childcare for working parents.

Jeb Bush’s brotherly bind
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeb-bushs-brotherly-bind/2015/05/17/4a87ba2c-fb51-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html>
// WaPo // E.J. Dionne Jr. – May 17, 2015

Am I am the only person outside the Bush family who has a smidgen of
empathy for Jeb Bush’s roller-coaster ride in trying to answer a
straightforward question: Was going to war in Iraq the right thing to do?

It’s hard to go much beyond “smidgen” because it remains astonishing that
Bush hadn’t worked out long in advance how he’d grapple with an inevitable
query about the invasion his brother launched. Jeb’s responses over four
days were, as The Post’s Philip Rucker and Ed O’Keefe wrote, “wavering,
uncertain and incongruous.”

E.J. Dionne writes about politics in a twice-weekly column and on the
PostPartisan blog. He is also a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the
Brookings Institution, a government professor at Georgetown University and
a frequent commentator on politics for National Public Radio, ABC’s “This
Week” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” View Archive

The saga began when Fox News’s Megyn Kelly asked Bush if, knowing all we
know now, he would have gone to war. “I would have, and so would have
Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody,” Bush replied. “And so would
have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”

Bang! The political world, including conservatives who had strongly
supported George W.’s foreign policy, came down on him hard. After going
this way and that, Jeb admitted defeat on Thursday. He mixed the
first-person singular and plural with the second person in, finally,
responding to Kelly’s original question. “Knowing what we know now, what
would you have done? I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into
Iraq.”

So why have any sympathy for him at all? The main reason is very
old-fashioned: His apparent reluctance to cast his own brother into the
darkness. In justifying his initial answer, Bush later used his own
reframing of Kelly’s words as an excuse, explaining he hadn’t understood
the “know now” part. But it’s just as possible that he knew perfectly well
what Kelly had asked — Jeb Bush is not stupid — and hoped he could get away
with answering a different question to avoid being disloyal to George W.

Loyalty is a virtue in rather short supply in our culture, so I admire it
when I see it. Of course it can be misplaced. There are times when other
virtues should trump it. But loyalty does matter, and I have some respect
for Jeb for trying to stay true to his family ties over four utterly
miserable days.

Still, there are more important issues here than family. Bush’s agony isn’t
over because Iraq raises profound questions not only for him but also for
all of his GOP opponents. If Bush’s initial answer about the war was wrong
and his most recent answer was right, this means that opponents of the war
were also right. They included a young Illinois state senator, Barack
Obama, who predicted in 2002 that “even a successful war against Iraq will
require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost,
with undetermined consequences.”

Many of the war’s staunchest supporters understand that they can never
concede that Obama was right because doing so would undermine their ongoing
defense of a hyperinterventionist foreign policy. That’s why some of them
remain unrepentant. “I believed in it then,” former vice president Dick
Cheney said of the war to Politico’s Mike Allen last July. “I look back on
it now, it was absolutely the right thing to do.”

Bill Kristol, one of the war’s leading promoters, told CNN last June: “I’m
not apologizing for something that I think was not wrong. I think going to
war to remove Saddam was the right thing to do and necessary and just thing
to do.” Donald Rumsfeld, George W.’s first secretary of defense, said that
it would have been “immoral” not to go to Iraq.

But other hawks would rather see the was-the-Iraq-War-right question
magically disappear because they know it’s a no-win for them. Most
Americans now think the war was ill-advised. Why remind them that most of
the same people who are super hawks now brought them an adventure they
deeply regret? Thus did the Wall Street Journal editorial page on Friday
come out firmly and unequivocally in favor of — evasion. “The right answer
to the question is that it’s not a useful or instructive one to answer,
because statesmanship, like life, is not conducted in hindsight.”

Sorry, but inquiring minds will want all the candidates to offer straight
answers. This means that Bush’s Republican opponents will have to do more
than trash his botched dodging. Bush at least had the excuse that he didn’t
want to speak ill of his brother. The rest of them still need to explain
how their own views of the past relate to where they’ll take us in the
future.

Six dangerous issues in the 2016 GOP White House race
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242272-six-dangerous-issues-in-the-2016-gop-race>
// The Hill // Peter Schroeder - May 17, 2015

Republican contenders for the White House are under pressure to toe the
party line on a number of issues as they battle for the nomination.

Primary voters will demand to know where the presidential hopefuls stand on
a slew of hot-button issues, including immigration, taxes and climate
change.

Several of the candidates have already stumbled with their answers,
highlighting the intense scrutiny they will be under in the critical early
voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Here are some of the biggest political landmines ahead for the Republican
field.

IMMIGRATION

Immigration is one of the thorniest issues for the Republican Party.

In the GOP primary, the candidates are fighting for the support of mostly
conservative voters, who are generally opposed to anything they view as
granting “amnesty” to undocumented people.

But the eventual Republican nominee will need to make gains with Hispanic
voters in the general election to win the White House, but that segment of
the electorate has shifted decisively toward Democrats in recent years.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who helped write the Senate’s 2013 immigration
reform bill, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have cast themselves as
candidates who can appeal to Hispanics and win the general election.

But to become their party’s nominee, both will have to overcome distrust on
immigration from the party’s base.

Rubio has backed away from the reform legislation he helped write, telling
a conservative crowd in February that border security must come first.

Other Republican candidates, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, have come out against a pathway to citizenship
for undocumented immigrants.

Bush has mostly stuck to his guns on granting illegal immigrants a path to
citizenship, while emphasizing to conservatives their common ground on
border security and fighting Obama’s executive actions.

Other candidates in the 2016 race, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), are
likely to hammer Rubio and Bush as backing “amnesty.”

COMMON CORE

The federal education standards known as Common Core are deeply unpopular
in the GOP, with polls show that Republican voters oppose them by a 3 to 1
margin.

The education standards have provided a ripe target for Republican
candidates to take swings at a top-down prescription from the federal
government.

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) have assailed the
education protocol, with Paul’s PAC referring to it as “anti-American
propaganda.”

Walker has said he wants to eliminate the requirement, and Gov. Chris
Christie has created a commission to review its place in New Jersey.

Standing virtually alone in support of Common Core is Bush, who argues
states have plenty of say in how the standards are carried out.

That stance could prove to be a real liability in Iowa. A February Des
Moines Register poll found that while 56 percent of Iowans back the
standards, just 34 percent of Iowa Republicans do.

THE IRAQ WAR

President George W. Bush’s controversial tenure in the White House looms
large over the current field, and candidates have been rushing to distance
themselves from his Iraq War.

It’s been hard to find a prominent Republican who now supports the 2002
invasion, which remains deeply unpopular with the public. Rubio, New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie and Cruz have all said that in hindsight, going to war
was a mistake, as has Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), a longtime critic of that
military action.

The political peril of Iraq is especially acute for Jeb Bush, who struggled
much of the past week to say whether he would have also authorized the
military action. After vacillating on the issue for several days, Bush
finally came out against his brother’s decision on Thursday.

But his confusing and dismissive responses to the question over several
days gave his rivals an opening, with Paul arguing his responses made clear
Jeb would be “George Bush 3.”

GAY MARRIAGE

Opposition to same-sex marriage used to be a reliable position for any
Republican presidential candidate, but at a time of growing support for
such unions, the GOP primary field has splintered.

Most Republican candidates have answered affirmatively when asked if they
would attend a gay wedding. Walker said he actually has done so for a
family member.

But social conservatives remain staunchly opposed to gay marriage, and some
of the contenders are taking a hard line.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Cruz and Jindal have fiercely opposed
same-sex unions, and back legislative efforts to block them.

Others, like Paul, Rubio and Christie, have said the matter should be left
up to the states. Rubio drew headlines in April when he said he did not
believe sexual orientation was a choice, even as he said same-sex marriage
is not a right.

The challenge of the issue was apparent when Ben Carson, the former
neurosurgeon now running for the White House, apologized after saying that
same-sex relationships in prison prove sexual orientation is a choice.

TAXES

Any Republican with an eye towards the White House is going to be talking
taxes, which has long been one of the biggest dividing lines with the
Democratic Party.

While all of the GOPers are eager to promote fiscal responsibility and tax
cuts, there is an emerging split among the candidates on how far they are
willing to go.

Some of the 2016 hopefuls have issued dramatic plans to slash taxes, as
they look to stand out in the crowded field.

Cruz, Paul and Carson have called for the outright elimination of the
Internal Revenue Service, and some are advocating a dramatic overhaul of
the tax code, pushing for a single flat tax rate for all Americans.

Rubio has taken a different tack, proposing a tax plan in March alongside
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would moderately trim the top rates for
individuals and businesses, while eliminating some deductions. But that
proposal has opened him up to conservative criticism, as some on the right
call it insufficient.

But Rubio is lockstep with nearly every other GOP candidate in signing
Grover Norquist’s taxpayer pledge, vowing to oppose any and all tax
increases while in office. The only Republican candidate thus far to refuse
the pledge is Bush.

CLIMATE CHANGE

While none of the Republican contenders are vowing to tackle climate change
if elected president, they are split on whether human activity is driving
it.

Most Republican voters say it would be unacceptable for their candidate to
believe in man-made climate change, let alone pursue policies to address it.

Some of the candidates, including Paul and Bush, have adopted an agnostic
view, saying the jury is still out on how much the climate is changing, and
if so, what role humans play in it.

Others, such as Cruz and Santorum, have depicted climate change as a hoax
by the left to impose new environmental restrictions on the business
community.

When the Senate considered legislation on the Keystone XL pipeline, Cruz,
Rubio and Paul all voted for an amendment stating that climate change was
real.

Paul was the only 2016 contender to support a separate amendment that
stated human beings contribute to climate change.

MISCELLANEOUS

From Nick:

Iowa Democrats flee Hillary Clinton over GMO support, Monsanto ties
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/hillary-clinton-gmo-support-monsanto-ties-spark-ba/>
// WaPo // S.A. Miller - May 17, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto, and her
advocacy for the industry’s genetically modified crops, have
environmentalists in Iowa calling her “Bride of Frankenfood” — putting yet
another wrinkle in her presidential campaign’s courtship of liberal
activists who are crucial to winning the state’s Democratic caucuses.

The backlash against Mrs. Clinton for her support of genetically modified
organisms (GMO), which dominate the corn and soybean crops at the heart of
Iowa’s economy, manifested itself at a recent meeting of the Tri-County
Democrats, where members gauged support for the former secretary of state.

A large faction of women voiced strong support for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy
until the GMO issue came up, prompting them to switch allegiances to Sen.
Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a liberal stalwart challenging her for the
Democratic nomination.

“I was surprised, because these women were really pushing for Hillary until
they found out about the Monsanto connection, and then they dropped her
like a hot potato,” said James Berge, Democratic Party chairman for Worth
County, Iowa.

“It’s quite a big issue,” he said. “There’s people who are just wild about
all the use of GMOs.”

The issue gives liberal voters another reason to be skeptical of Mrs.
Clinton, whom they already distrust because of her cozy relationship with
Wall Street and the centrist philosophy that she and her husband, former
President Bill Clinton, long embraced.

Mrs. Clinton likely will keep the GMO debate on a back burner when she
makes her second swing through Iowa this week. She has scheduled stops
Monday and Tuesday to rally grass-roots support and discuss ideas to expand
small businesses in the state.

She enjoys a massive advantage in the polls in Iowa, leading Mr. Sanders 60
percent to 15 percent in a recent Quinnipiac University survey. While not
an overt threat to her, Mr. Sanders has inched up in the polls since he
entered the race April 30, and his liberal agenda is popular with the party
activists.

“Iowa is a big agricultural state, but we’ve got to realize some of the
food that we are producing in this country is going to cause great health
effects down the road, and then it’s probably going to be too late to try
to fix it,” said Mr. Berge. “You can’t even wash this pesticide off,
because it is in the plants themselves, and you are digesting it, and it
goes into your body. It’s not a good thing.”

GMOs include seeds engineered in a laboratory to have certain traits, such
as resistance to such herbicides as Monsanto’s widely used Roundup. Most of
the corn and soybeans in the U.S. are genetically modified. Much of it goes
into animal feed, but it also is in popular processed food ingredients like
high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil.

Iowa leads the country in the production of corn and ranks among the top
producers of soybeans.

Agribusiness interests claim that GMO crops are more resistant to pests,
drought and cold weather, increasing yields and limiting the use of
pesticides.

But environmentalists argue that genetically modified food is unhealthy and
promotes excessive use of pesticides.

A new scientific study bolstered environmentalists’ concerns by finding the
herbicide Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and
diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers. The study
published last month in the scientific journal Entropy also reported
evidence that residue of glyphosate, a chief ingredient in the weed killer,
has been found in food.

In the GMO debate, Mrs. Clinton has consistently sided with the chemical
companies.

Her top campaign operative in Iowa is former Monsanto lobbyist Jerry
Crawford, who’s also a veteran of Iowa politics and Clinton campaigns.

Her history of backing GMO dates back to her early days in Arkansas as a
lawyer with the Rose Law Firm, which represented Monsanto and other
agribusiness leaders.

Just last year, Mrs. Clinton gave a paid speech at a biotech industry
conference in San Diego, where she championed GMOs and advised the
executives and investors to give their products an image makeover.

“‘Genetically modified’ sounds Frankensteinish. ‘Drought-resistant’ sounds
like something you’d want,” she said. “Be more careful so you don’t raise
that red flag immediately.”

Big ag also has been a big donor to the Clinton Foundation, the family
charity at the center of pay-to-play accusations involving foreign donors
while Mrs. Clinton ran the State Department.

Monsanto gave the foundation between $501,250 and $1 million. Dow Chemical
Company, which is among the top GMO players, gave between $1 million and $5
million, according to financial disclosures by the Clinton Foundation.

Mrs. Clinton’s support for Monsanto and genetically modified food was one
of the factors that contributed to her embarrassing third-place finish in
the 2008 Iowa caucuses, said Laura Hubka, vice chair of the Tri-County
Democrats, a club in Howard, Mitchell and Worth counties along the state’s
norther border with Minnesota.

“We are very environmentally active,” said Ms. Hubka. “It would be great to
hear her come out and speak against Monsanto and what it has done to our
farmers as far as our corn production now. There’s a lot of things Monsanto
has done that [have] made us unhappy.”

Ms. Hubka said that Mrs. Clinton could make amends by getting out in front
of the GMO issue.

“It seems like she is out in front of several issues [like] the immigration
issue, [and] she’s been out in front of working on police issues that have
come up recently,” said Ms. Hubka. “We are hoping to see her make a turn
also against Monsanto. That would be fantastic for us.”

Mark Shelley, chairman of the political science department at Iowa State
University, said that Mrs. Clinton likely would be able to weather
opposition from environmentalists at the caucuses because farming is a
pocketbook issue for most Iowans.

“So much of Iowa’s economy is connected to agriculture directly, and to
closely related industries such as farm implement manufacturing, seed
companies and food processing, that agribusiness interests are often seen
as having outsize influence on the state’s political climate,” he said.

“It is important to note, though, that Democratic caucuses tend to attract
people with more active interests in issues, which in that party translates
to caucus attenders who are generally more progressive-leaning than the
party as a whole,” Mr. Shelley said

-- 
*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.