Subject: H4A News Clips 6.6.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 10:01:07 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*June 6, 2015*

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

*Hillary Clinton, Voting Rights and the 2016 Election* // NYT // Editorial
Board – June 5, 2015........ 4

*Is Hillary Clinton becoming the candidate of big ideas?* // WaPo // Paul
Waldman – June 5 2015... 6

*Hillary Clinton to Las Vegas Latino community: You can count on me* //
Politico // Adam Lerner – June 5,
2015..................................................................................................................................................
7

*SOCIAL
MEDIA.................................................................................................
**8*

*Elise Gould (6/5/2015, 10:20 am)* - Jobs moving in the right direction,
but the recovery is far from over (see colorful chart, thanks to
@alyssalynn7)........................................................................................
8

*Tim Hogan (6/5/2015, 12:33 pm)* - Pick up a copy of @elmundolv today and
check out @HillaryClinton's op-ed on #immigrationreform!
#Hillary2016..............................................................................................
8

*Frank Thorp V (6/5/2015, 2:49 pm)* - The House #Benghazi Cmte will depose
@HillaryClinton ally Sidney Blumenthal behind closed doors on June 16th at
10am................................................................ 8

*Alex Leary (6/5/2015, 3:36 pm)* - .@JebBush in a new race for cash:
http://bit.ly/1JsdQE0............ 8

*Alex Hanson (6/5/2015, 5:35 pm)* – .@BernieSanders returning to Iowa next
week. Fri. June 12 in DSM; Sat in Marshalltown, CR; Sun in Waterloo, IA
Falls & Indianola. #IAcaucus............................................ 8

*Gabriel Debenedetti (6/5/2015, 5:28 pm)* - Martin O'Malley will sit for an
interview with @MariaESalinas on Univision on Sunday, shortly after Hillary
penned a Spanish op-ed in Vegas................................. 8

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE.............................................................................
**8*

*Clinton accuses GOP rivals of making it difficult to vote* // AP – June 5,
2015................................. 8

*Why Voting Rights Reforms Aren’t a Silver Bullet for Hillary Clinton* //
WSJ // Linda Killian – June 6, 2015   10

*Democrats fret over recent Hillary Clinton polling* // Politico //Katie
Glueck – June 5, 2015.......... 11

*De Blasio ally to hold Clinton fundraiser* // Politico // Annie Karni –
June 5, 2015........................ 13

*House Sets Date for Grilling of Hillary Clinton Aide* // Bloomberg //
Billy House – June 5, 2015.... 14

*Hillary Clinton's Grand Strategy to Beat the GOP: Take Bold Positions
Early and Often* // The New Republic // Brian Beutler – June 5,
2015......................................................................................................
14

*Hillary Clinton Hits the GOP on Voter Suppression* // Slate // Jamelle
Bouie – June 5, 2015......... 16

*Clintons to attend Beau Biden's funeral* // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June
5, 2015....................... 18

*Hillary Clinton Wants To Make It Easy For You To Vote* // Refinery 29 //
Meredith Clark – June 5, 2015           19

*Another Controversy Over Hillary Clinton’s Time at the State Department*
// The Blaze // Fred Lucas – June 5,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
20

*Hillary Clinton's Top Twitter Fan* // The National Journal // Emily
Schultheis – June 5, 2015....... 21

*Longtime Clinton Insider Says Hillary Hasn’t Given ‘Convincing
Explanation’ For Email, Donation Scandals* // The Daily Caller // Chuck
Ross – June 5,
2015.............................................................................
22

*Commentary: Hillary Clinton's Bold Move on Voting Rights* // BET // Keith
Boykin – June 5, 2015 23

*Hillary Clinton Calls the Republican Bluff on Voting Rights* // NY Mag //
Jonathan Chait – June 5, 2015         25

*Hillary Clinton's Campaign Goes Even Gayer* // OUT Magazine // James
McDonald – June 5, 2015 27

*Hillary goes ugly early with racism claims* // Fox News // Chris Stirewalt
– June 5, 2015.............. 27

*House Benghazi committee calls Clinton friend to testify* // McClatchy //
Anita Kumar – June 5, 2015             28

*Sale of Michigan company to China may haunt Clinton* // Detroit Free Press
// Todd Spangler – June 5,
2015................................................................................................................................................
28

*On Hillary Clinton's income inequality plan, de Blasio pauses -- and
GOPers pounce* // NY Daily News // Celeste Katz – June 5,
2015....................................................................................................................
31

*Clinton calls for universal, automatic voter registration; GOP not happy*
// Daily Kos // Kerry Eleveld – June 5,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
32

*Meet the 30-year-old woman running Hillary Clinton's field operations* //
Fortune // Nina Easton – June 5,
2015................................................................................................................................................
33

*Hillary Clinton rakes in $200K in Greenwich* // CT Post // Neil Vigdor –
June 5, 2015................... 35

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **35*

*O’MALLEY...................................................................................................
**35*

*O’Malley’s efforts on immigration reflect complex political realities* //
WaPo // John Wagner & Arelis Hernandez – June 5,
2015...........................................................................................................................
35

*SANDERS....................................................................................................
**38*

*Sanders wants privacy panel in defense bill* // The Hill // Jordain Carney
– June 5, 2015............. 38

*Hawking shirts, buttons, Sanders opens shop* // Burlington Free Press //
Adam Silverman – June 5, 2015      39

*How Bernie Sanders Will Change Your Mind About The Label ‘Socialist’* //
The Elite Daily // Lani Seelinger – June 5,
2015.............................................................................................................................
40

*CHAFEE......................................................................................................
**42*

*Lincoln Chafee May Be Hillary's Biggest Problem* // The Atlantic // Peter
Beinart – June 4, 2015. 42

*WEBB..........................................................................................................
**44*

*Former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has a seven-point plan to save
American foreign policy.* // The National Interest Evan Gottesman – June 5,
2015....................................................................................
44

*OTHER........................................................................................................
**46*

*Bankroller of Democratic Voting Rights Cases? George Soros* // NYT //
Maggie Haberman – June 5, 2015        46

*The voting conversation has shifted. That’s good news for Dems.* //MSNBC
// Zachary Roth – June 5, 2015    48

*Things are looking up for President Obama* // VOX // Jonathan Allen – June
5, 2015................... 49

*Pataki, Chafee, and O’Malley: No Chance In Hell* // Town Hall // Matt
Vespa – June 5, 2015........ 52

*In two minds* // The Economist – June 5,
2015...........................................................................
56

*Iowans Always Complain The Caucuses Are Getting Less Important. This Time
They Have a Point.* // Slate // Josh Voorhees – June 5,
2015....................................................................................................
58

*GOP.................................................................................................................
**59*

*BUSH...........................................................................................................
**59*

*Jeb readies for upcoming road trips* // Politico // Eli Stokols – June 5,
2015................................. 59

*Memo to Jeb Bush: Avoid foreign quagmires* // CNN // Stephen Collinson –
June 5, 2015............ 60

*Jeb Bush’s struggle with conservatives* // MSNBC // Chuck Todd & Mark
Murray – June 5, 2015... 61

*Jeb Bush Facing Crucial Two-Week Stretch* // Bloomberg News // Michael
Bender – June 5, 2015 61

*RUBIO.........................................................................................................
**64*

*Rubios on the Road Have Drawn Unwanted Attention* // NYT // Alan Rappeport
& Steve Eder – June 5,
2015................................................................................................................................................
64

*Marco Rubio’s Iraq quagmire deepens: This is what a foreign policy wonk
looks like?* // Salon // Simon Maloy – June 5,
2015..............................................................................................................................
66

*Ted Cruz Labels Walker, Rubio And Jeb As ‘Moderate’* // The Daily Caller
// Alex Pappas – June 5, 2015        67

*Same-sex marriage advocates pose 'real and present danger' to
Christianity, Sen. Marco Rubio warns* // Christian Today // Marvie Basilan
– June 5,
2015......................................................................................
68

*PAUL...........................................................................................................
**69*

*Rand Paul: "We Shouldn't Do Things to Prevent People from Voting"* //
Bloomberg News // David Wiegel – June 5,
2015......................................................................................................................................
69

*WALKER.....................................................................................................
**70*

*Is Gov. Scott Walker putting the University of Wisconsin system in
jeopardy?* // WaPo // Valerie Strauss – June 5,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
70

*Walker would sign budget with no borrowing for roads* // AP // Scott Bauer
– June 5, 2015........... 72

*Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker fires up NC GOP* //The News & Observer
//Taylor Knopf – June 5, 2015                73

*CRUZ...........................................................................................................
**75*

*Ted Cruz Wonders About Jeb Bush’s Viability* // NYT // Maggie Haberman &
Kitty Bennett – June 5, 2015   76

*Ted Cruz's problems with Latinos run deeper than his policy positions* //
Reuters – June 5, 2015. 76

*Ted Cruz: Campaign and super PAC have raised more than $40 million* // The
Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 5,
2015...........................................................................................................
79

*CHRISTIE...................................................................................................
**80*

*Chris Christie: Hillary Clinton is clueless on voter fraud* // CBS News //
Jake Miller – June 5, 2015 80

*Gov. Christie attacks Hillary Clinton on voter registration* // The Record
// Salvador Rizzo – June 5, 2015        81

*Chris Christie rips Rand Paul, critics of Patriot Act* // The Boston
Herald // Chris Cassidy – June 5, 2015          81

*PERRY........................................................................................................
**82*

*Rick Perry promises to ‘do something’ about student debt. But what did he
do in Texas?* // WaPo // Danielle
Douglas-Gabriel........................................................................................................................
82

*Rick Perry Borrows Elizabeth Warren's Message, but Does It Fit?* //
Bloomberg News // David Weigel – June 5,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
84

*Rick Perry hits back at Hillary Clinton over voter ID* // The Washington
Times // David Sherfinski – June 5,
2015................................................................................................................................................
86

*Perry Kickoff Generates Buzz, But Not in Key States* // Real Clear
Politics // Matthew Disler – June 5, 2015   86

*Welcome Back, Rick Perry: Will 2016 Be Different Than 2012?* // Forbes //
Neil Assur – June 5, 2015 87

*GRAHAM....................................................................................................
**89*

*Ronald Perelman Puts Financial Clout Behind Lindsey Graham* // NYT //
Maggie Haberman – June 5, 2015 89

*Lindsey Graham Offers Straight Talk With a Southern Twang* // TIME //
Phillip Elliott – June 5, 2015              90

*Why Lindsey Graham matters* // The Economist – June 6,
2015.................................................. 91

*Iowans question Graham's gun rights history* // The Des Moines Register //
Linh Ta – June 5, 2015 93

*Presidential candidate compares Hillary to Kim Jong Un* // NY Post //
Marisa Schultz – June 4, 2015               94

*HUCKABEE.................................................................................................
**94*

*Huckabee: Hack exposes Obama’s weakness on China* // The Hill // Cory
Bennett – June 5, 2015 94

*Duggars' Endorsements Go Missing From Mike Huckabee's Website* // ABC News
// Ben Gittleson – June 5,
2015................................................................................................................................................
95

*KASICH.......................................................................................................
**96*

*John Kasich blasts Clinton on voting ‘demagoguery’: ‘Come on, Hillary, you
know better than that’* // The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June
5, 2015................................................................. 96

*Kasich Sees Presidential Pathway After Jeb Bush Doesn’t Dominate* //
Bloomberg News // Mark Niquette – June 5,
2015......................................................................................................................................
97

*CARSON......................................................................................................
**99*

*Ben Carson’s Speaking Career Turned Lucrative Fast, Filing Shows* // NYT
// Trip Gabriel – June 5, 2015        99

*Ben Carson’s campaign faces turmoil after staff exits and super PAC chaos*
// WaPo // Robert Costa & Philip Rucker – June 5,
2015..............................................................................................................
100

*JINDAL......................................................................................................
**102*

*Jindal Slams GOP-Led Congress For Waving ‘White Flag Of Surrender’ On
Amnesty, Broken Promises* // The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – June 5,
2015...................................................................................
102

*Bobby Jindal Keeps Heat on '16 Hopefuls - Lincoln Chafee This Time* //
Newsweek // Melissa Clyne  - June 5,
2015........................................................................................................................................
103

*OTHER......................................................................................................
**104*

*Republican Candidates Assail Hillary Clinton on Voting Rights* // NYT //
Maggie Haberman – June 5, 2015  104

*GOP says Clinton dividing Americans over voting rights* // AP // Ken
Thomas – June 5, 2015...... 105

*Going Negative* // US News // Kenneth Walsh – June 5,
2015.................................................... 107

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**108*

*DOMESTIC................................................................................................
**109*

*U.S. Economy Added 280,000 Jobs in May; Unemployment Rate 5.5%* // NYT //
Patricia Cohen –June 5,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
109

*Pressure Rises for Higher Taxes* // NYT // John Harwood – June 5,
2015.................................... 110

*Senate Rejects Extending Veterans Benefits To Married Gay Couples And
Their Kids* // HuffPo // Jennifer Bendery – June 4,
2015............................................................................................................
112

*INTERNATIONAL......................................................................................
**113*

*U.S. Was Warned of System Open to Cyberattacks* // NYT // David e. Sanger,
Julie Hirschfeld Davis & Nicole Perlroth – June 5,
2015.............................................................................................................
113

*U.S. Airstrikes Whack One Thousand Islamic State Fighters a Month, Air
Force General Says* // Foreign Policy // Paul MCleary – June 5,
2015.....................................................................................................
116

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS....................................................................
**117*

*Jeb Bush and the campaign money fountain* // CNN // Errol Louis – June 5,
2015...................... 117

*Clinton goes bold on voting rights* // MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 5,
2015............................... 119

*Hillary Sides With Democracy* // Bloomberg News // Jonathan Bernstein –
June 5, 2015............ 121

*Why Hillary Clinton Must Back a LGBT Full Civil Rights Law for Her Own
Sake* // HuffPo // Michelangelo Signorile – June 5,
2015...........................................................................................................
122

*Republicans' revisionist history on Iraq* // The Hill // Diana Ohlbaum –
June 5, 2015................. 124

*Hillary Clinton's call for easier voting is self-serving, but so what?* //
LA Times // Michael Mcgough – June 5,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
125

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary Clinton, Voting Rights and the 2016 Election
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-and-the-2016-election.html>
// NYT // Editorial Board – June 5, 2015*

A basic fact often gets lost in the propaganda that swirls around voting
laws in this country: between one-quarter and one-third of all eligible
voters — more than 50 million Americans — are not registered.

That alarming statistic is the backdrop to efforts by Republicans in recent
years to pass state laws that restrict ballot access, a recent Democratic
campaign to push back against those laws, and a bold set of proposals that
Hillary Rodham Clinton laid out Thursday afternoon in a speech at Texas
Southern University, a historically black college in Houston.

In addition to pushing needed and long-overdue reforms, the speech
highlighted the yawning gulf on voting rights between Mrs. Clinton and the
Republican candidates for the White House, many of whom have been cynically
committed to making voting harder for the most vulnerable citizens. “What
part of democracy are they afraid of?” Mrs. Clinton asked.

Most significantly, Mrs. Clinton called for universal and automatic voter
registration, which would register every American citizen at 18. This would
be a transformative step toward modernizing the nation’s archaic,
error-filled approach to registering voters.

No state currently has such inclusive registration, although Oregon came
closest in March when it passed a law automatically registering eligible
citizens with a driver’s license — instantly adding 300,000 voters to the
rolls. Since then, 14 states have considered similar proposals to put the
burden of registration on the government, where it belongs, and not on
individuals.

Mrs. Clinton also called for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide,
including evenings and weekends. This is a proven way of reducing long
lines on Election Day and making voting possible for people whose work or
other commitments prevent them from getting to the polls during regular
business hours. More than one-third of all votes in the 2012 election were
cast early — and yet 14 states still do not offer it, and crucial swing
states like Ohio and Florida have actually cut it back.

Finally, Mrs. Clinton pushed to repeal punitive state laws that ban people
with criminal records from voting, sometimes for life — a population that
approaches six million nationwide.

These are hardly new issues for the country, and the Republican Party as it
now is constituted in Congress is not going to enact the laws to expand
voter registration. Still, it is very encouraging to see Mrs. Clinton
championing this central democratic principle so early in the campaign.
President Obama said very little on voting rights until deep into his
second term, even after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in
2013, freeing up Republican-dominated state governments to enact dozens of
new voting restrictions that previously would have been blocked by federal
law.

Voter ID laws have been a particular favorite, even though their backers
know full well that impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent. In her
speech Mrs. Clinton rebuked Republican presidential contenders who have
signed such laws — including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Perry,
former governor of Texas. She called on Republicans “at all levels of
government, with all manner of ambition, to stop fear-mongering about a
phantom epidemic of election fraud.”

Making voting easier for all eligible voters should be the epitome of a
nonpartisan issue. Unfortunately, stopping people from voting has become a
key part of the modern Republican playbook.

The 2016 election will be about many important issues, from income
inequality to immigration to health care to education, but at its core it
will be a test of two ideas of what it means to be a democracy. One is
currently embodied by what Mrs. Clinton called “a sweeping effort to
disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people
from one end of our country to the other.”

The other, as Mrs. Clinton put it, is that, “We should do everything we can
to make it easier for every citizen to vote.”

*Is Hillary Clinton becoming the candidate of big ideas?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/05/is-hillary-clinton-becoming-the-candidate-of-big-ideas/>
// WaPo // Paul Waldman – June 5 2015*

Hillary Clinton has long been known as a cautious politician who leaned
more toward methodical plodding than grand gestures. She launched her 2000
campaign for the Senate with a purposely low-key “listening tour.” As a
senator, she cultivated a reputation as a workhorse who eschewed
high-profile media appearances for the mundane work of writing legislation.
Throughout, she staked out a place as a familiar kind of Democrat — a
little more liberal on social issues, a little more conservative on foreign
policy and national security — but nobody’s idea of an ideologically
transformative figure.

But now that she’s making her second run for the White House, is Hillary
Clinton becoming the Candidate of Big Ideas?

It’s starting to look that way. When yesterday she proposed national
automatic voter registration — registering all Americans to vote when they
turn 18 unless they opt out — it surprised everyone. While universal
registration isn’t an idea no one had thought of before, Clinton took a
Democratic priority (expanding voting rights and boosting turnout) and
advanced it with an ambitious, national plan that went beyond what most
prominent Democrats had advocated before.

We saw something similar on immigration, where Clinton didn’t just support
the Obama administration’s position on immigration but went beyond
it,proposing that the parents of “DREAMers” be allowed to stay in the
country legally. She also called for an end to the “era of mass
incarceration,” an era her husband had no small part in creating. She has
signaled an intention to go bold in the area of campaign finance, floating
the idea of a Constitutional amendment to get so-called “dark money” out of
politics (though she has not gone so far as to make formal proposal).

This kind of thing is surprising coming from Clinton, given that she’s the
likely nominee of the incumbent party. Usually, a candidate in that
position will propose a program that sounds like, “Let’s continue what
we’ve been doing, but a little better.” Generally it’s the opposition
party, which has had eight years to contemplate everything they dislike
about current government policy, that’s more prone to come up with dramatic
ideas for change. Not only that, the candidate pushing Big Ideas is often
one struggling in the polls who is looking for a way to distinguish himself
from the pack. You might expect some dramatic policy proposals from some of
the lower-tiered Republican candidates.

Clinton, on the other hand, could easily ride to the Democratic nomination
without putting out a single policy paper. But for now she’s taking a very
different course. As a media strategy, it’s very effective: the
less-than-threatening nature of her primary opposition gives her the
freedom to put out big ideas and get attention for them; after a temporary
drought of campaign activity, she can get plenty of coverage for a speech
that includes a significant policy proposal.

To be sure, we shouldn’t exaggerate the extent to which the Clinton
campaign is focused on big ideas. We’re only talking about a few so far,
and there are other topics like the Trans-Pacific Partnership on which
she’s been vague. Part of the explanation for Clinton’s previous cautious
approach lies in the failure of Bill Clinton’s health care overhaul, which
she ran during the early days of his presidency — and which would have been
a much more radical change than the Affordable Care Act. Supposedly, the
lesson she learned from that experience was that people fear change, and
when you propose something too sweeping it’s difficult to succeed and easy
to get burned.

But it’s starting to look as if Clinton has decided that being the
candidate of big ideas might be a pretty good plan. Particularly when the
ideas themselves are likely to be popular.

*Hillary Clinton to Las Vegas Latino community: You can count on me
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-el-mundo-op-ed-las-vegas-118685.html#ixzz3cE6g4PlJ>
// Politico // Adam Lerner – June 5, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton published an op-ed Friday in a small Las Vegas-based
Spanish-language newspaper about immigration, reassuring the
Spanish-speaking Hispanic community in Nevada that they “can count on
[her].”

Beginning with the stories of three young immigrants she met in North Las
Vegas, one who started a business, one who wants to become a doctor, and
one who wants to go to law school, Hillary articulated her support for
comprehensive immigration reform and attacked unnamed Republican candidates
for their stances.

“As a mother, grandmother, and American, I don’t know how a person can meet
these young people that have contributed so much to their communities and
represent so much potential for the future, and think of threatening them
and their families with deportation,” Clinton wrote. “And still that is
precisely what almost every Republican candidate would do.”

The article goes on to boast of Clinton’s senate record on immigration and
to express support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
as well as deferred action for the families of so-called dreamers.

“Don’t deceive yourselves: when they speak of ‘legal status,’ it’s a code
for ‘second class status’,” Clinton wrote of Republican immigration
proposals that do not provide a pathway to citizenship.

Though the former secretary of state doesn’t speak Spanish, the article
begins by saying that it was written by Hillary R. Clinton and translated
by her campaign team. “It’s the first article of its type written by the
ex-secretary of state,” the preamble reads.

“I will continue fighting for immigration reform,” Clinton said in the
headline.

The article was published Friday in El Mundo Las Vegas, a local
Spanish-language paper that has not yet posted it online. According to the
paper’s Twitter, it has existed in the area for 35 years and reported on
Hillary Clinton’s visit to Rancho High School in Las Vegas on May 5.

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Elise Gould (6/5/2015, 10:20 am)
<https://twitter.com/eliselgould/status/606827882590142465/photo/1> - Jobs
moving in the right direction, but the recovery is far from over (see
colorful chart, thanks to @alyssalynn7)*

*Tim Hogan (6/5/2015, 12:33 pm)
<https://twitter.com/timjhogan/status/606866920994828289> - Pick up a copy
of @elmundolv today and check out @HillaryClinton's op-ed on
#immigrationreform! #Hillary2016 *

*Frank Thorp V (6/5/2015, 2:49 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/frankthorpNBC/status/606895610822840321>* -** The
House #Benghazi Cmte will depose @HillaryClinton ally Sidney Blumenthal
behind closed doors on June 16th at 10am*

*Alex Leary (6/5/2015, 3:36 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/learyreports/status/606892254503026689>* - .@JebBush
in a new race for cash: http://bit.ly/1JsdQE0 <http://bit.ly/1JsdQE0>*

*Alex Hanson (6/5/2015, 5:35 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/theAlexHanson/status/606937517846347777>* –
.@BernieSanders returning to Iowa next week. Fri. June 12 in DSM; Sat in
Marshalltown, CR; Sun in Waterloo, IA Falls & Indianola. #IAcaucus*

*Gabriel Debenedetti (6/5/2015, 5:28 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/606935954369179648>* - Martin
O'Malley will sit for an interview with @MariaESalinas on Univision on
Sunday, shortly after Hillary penned a Spanish op-ed in Vegas.*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Clinton accuses GOP rivals of making it difficult to vote
<http://nypost.com/2015/06/05/clinton-accuses-gop-rivals-of-making-it-difficult-to-vote/>
// AP – June 5, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton accused potential Republican presidential rivals
such as Jeb Bush of Florida and Scott Walker of Wisconsin on Thursday of
trying to make it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote, laying
down an early marker on voting rights in her Democratic presidential
campaign.

Clinton, in one of her most partisan speeches as a presidential candidate,
directly criticized Walker, Bush and two other Republican presidential
hopefuls, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

She described those current or former governors as members of a GOP
vanguard that has made it more difficult for students to vote, cut the
numbers of days set aside for early voting and demanded voter ID provisions.

“Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop
millions of American citizens from voting,” Clinton said at historically
black Texas Southern University. “What part of democracy are they afraid
of? I believe every citizen has the right to vote and I believe we should
do everything we can to make it easier for every citizen to vote.”

The issue is closely watched by black voters, who supported President
Barack Obama by sweeping margins in 2008 and 2012 and will be an important
constituency for Clinton to mobilize in next year’s election. She received
an award named after Barbara Jordan, the late Texas congresswoman and civil
rights leader, and the event came a little more than a week before Clinton
is scheduled to deliver a major speech in New York that aides are billing
as a formal campaign kickoff.

Directly challenging Republicans by name, which Clinton has largely
avoided, she plunged into a partisan debate over voting rights that has
roiled statehouses across the country. Democrats contend restricting voter
access and registration purposely aims to suppress turnout among minority
and low-income voters. Republicans say the voting changes are crucial to
guard against voter fraud.

Under Walker, for example, Wisconsin requires proof of residency except for
overseas and military voters. The state shortened the early voting period
and increased residency requirements.

In a statement, Walker responded to the criticism leveled by the Democratic
candidate: “Hillary Clinton’s rejection of efforts to make it easier to
vote and harder to cheat not only defies logic, but the will of the
majority of Americans. Once again, Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are far
outside the mainstream.”

Clinton said that in New Jersey, Christie had vetoed a bill to extend early
voting. She said as Florida’s governor, Bush had conducted a “deeply
flawed” purge of eligible voters, by having the names of people who were
mistakenly thought to be felons removed from voting rolls.

Perry, who announced his presidential campaign earlier Thursday, approved
laws in Texas that discriminated against minority voters, Clinton said.

Republicans, Clinton said, should “stop fear-mongering about a phantom
epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of
letting citizens have their say.”

Clinton said the US should take dramatic steps to expand the right to vote,
with universal, automatic voter registration for young people, and a new
national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early, in-person voting,
including weekend and evening voting.

In the home state of President Lyndon Johnson, architect of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, Clinton said the Supreme Court ruling had “eviscerated” the
law, making it more likely that minority voters, the elderly and others
would face consequences.

Democrats have signaled plans for a large-scale legal fight against new
voter ID laws and efforts to curtail voting access. Party attorneys
recently filed legal challenges to voting changes made by GOP lawmakers in
the presidential battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin.

One of the attorneys involved in the lawsuits is Marc Elias, a top
elections lawyer for Democrats who is also serving as the Clinton
campaign’s general counsel. The campaign is not officially involved in the
lawsuits.

*Why Voting Rights Reforms Aren’t a Silver Bullet for Hillary Clinton
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/06/why-voting-rights-reforms-arent-a-silver-bullet-for-hillary-clinton/>
// WSJ // Linda Killian – June 6, 2015*

In her speech Thursday on voting rights, Hillary Clinton suggested
automatically registering all citizens to vote when they turn 18 as well as
expanding early voting and online registration. Measures by
Republican-controlled state legislatures to tighten voter ID laws and limit
early and weekend voting hurt minority, poor, and young voters the most,
she said.

As many have noted, the support of those groups is seen as crucial for Mrs.
Clinton to win the White House. But the struggle between Republicans and
Democrats over voting administration isn’t at the core of what’s causing
voters to disengage from the political process. There are benefits to
making it easier for people to register, but it would take a lot more to
energize potential voters who have been sitting out.

A recent New York Times-CBS News poll found that Democrats, Republicans,
and independents say, by overwhelming margins, that the wealthy have more
influence on elections than most Americans. Eighty-four percent said they
believe money has too much influence on political campaigns, and 85% said
this country’s system for funding campaigns needs fundamental changes or to
be completely rebuilt.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents favored limiting the amount
individuals can contribute to political campaigns. About the same share
(78%)  said that spending by outside groups should be limited.

Fifty-four percent said they do not believe that money given to campaigns
equals free speech, as the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United
case that cleared the way for unlimited political spending.

Who Isn't Running for President -- and Why It Matters

Another Look at That IMF Paper on Debt--and What It Means for the U.S.

The pervasive belief that money controls the political system and the
outcome of decisions by lawmakers is almost certainly linked to widespread
sentiments, reported by the Times, that the U.S. economic system in
inherently unfair.

Republicans and Democrats believe that income inequality is a problem and
that the power and voices of the wealthy are drowning out those of most
other Americans and that, as a result, government policies skew toward
helping the rich get richer at the expense of most Americans.

These feelings that the political and economic systems are rigged and that
our political leaders aren’t paying attention to the concerns of most
Americans are at the heart of why voter turnout last year was the lowest in
a mid-term election since 1942.

These are issues that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (D.) has made a focal
point of his campaign–and they are unlikely to go away.

News accounts of the millions of dollars that Mrs. Clinton and her husband
have earned giving speeches and about the access to the Clintons accorded
to wealthy donors to their foundation reinforce the idea that Mrs. Clinton
is part of a ruling elite that is out of touch with the problems of most
Americans. This is the biggest challenge for her campaign.

Reforms to voting laws are important. But no matter how much easier it is
for people to vote, if they don’t think their vote matters voter
participation won’t increase.

*Democrats fret over recent Hillary Clinton polling
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-2016-polling-concern-democrats-insiders-caucus-118667.html>
// Politico //Katie Glueck – June 5, 2015 *

Early-state Democrats are evenly divided over whether Hillary Clinton’s
campaign should be worried about recent polls showing her highest
unfavorability ratings in years.

Exactly 50 percent say there’s cause for concern while the other 50 percent
saw no reason for alarm.

That’s the assessment of this week’s survey of the POLITICO Caucus — a
bipartisan group of influential activists, operatives and elected officials
in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“Twenty-plus Republicans beating her up, Elizabeth Warren talking about the
working man issues that terrify her, a couple of candidates like Bernie
[Sanders] and Martin [O’Malley] to fill in her policy blanks and a media
that feels stiffed by her lack of access, so all we can focus on is emails
and the notorious Clinton Foundation and newly acquired wealth that
suggests, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety,” one Granite State
Democrat said, offering an explanation for her sinking favorability.
“Frankly if Hillary could step back at look at herself she would rate
herself unfavorably as well.”

That remark comes during a week in which two major national polls delivered
troubling results, including a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday that showed
Clinton with her highest unfavorability ratings of the past 14 years. A
separate poll released Tuesday by The Washington Post and ABC News found
that Clinton’s favorability was just 45 percent — her lowest in that survey
since April 2008, when she was in the middle of a nomination battle with
Barack Obama.

Caucus participants largely chalked those numbers up to a spate of
unflattering stories about donations made to the Clinton Foundation, as
well as scrutiny of Clinton’s email practices when she was at the State
Department. Some blamed the media — the “drumbeat” of negative headlines
was a common explanation for her slide in popularity.

But others argued that she should engage more with the press about those
subjects.

“She is not proactively addressing the issues of concern to Americans,”
said an Iowa Democrat who, like everyone in the POLITICO Caucus, was
granted anonymity in order to speak freely. “Her refusal to take questions
is taking a toll. These polls indicate that she needs to take a more
proactive role. Not that she needs to be completely responsive to the
media, but she can’t ignore them.”

“Emails, Clinton Foundation, etc,” one New Hampshire Democrat responded.
“She is taking the initial barrage from the punditocracy trying to frame
the narrative of the race — which is largely about process and character,
not very much about issues — and because she is not taking the bait she’s
in a little bit of a roper-doper strategy right now. I think she needs to
go on offense.”

But many Democrats also attributed falling poll numbers to the fact that
she is now a partisan candidate for political office, rather than secretary
of state, and noted that she still outpaces the Republican candidates in
polls. And several who responded that the Clinton campaign should be
concerned by those surveys said the information should be used only to make
minor adjustments.

“Any candidate facing waves of partisan attacks for weeks on end sees the
impact in their numbers, but the list of folks capable of sustaining this
kind of a barrage and still looking this good is very small,” said a
Granite Stater.

Another New Hampshire Democrat, who believes the Clinton campaign should be
concerned about the polls, explained, “Hillary Clinton generates extremely
strong passions, both positive and negative. She needs to be completely
candid and transparent about the [Clinton] Foundation’s dealings and
accomplishments and cannot engage in either spin or obfuscation. As long as
she is straight, truthful and credible, she will be fine.”

Despite the rising negative ratings and polling suggesting high numbers of
voters question her trustworthiness, three-quarters of early-state
Democrats say Clinton is generating sufficient excitement about her
presidential bid — especially among women.

“Regular people, particularly women of all age groups are beyond excited
about this candidacy,” a New Hampshire Democrat said.

“Sufficient is the right choice of words,” said another New Hampshire
Democrat. “Hillary is, and remains, solid in the eyes of Democrats.”

Some respondents, however, wondered whether there’s enough energy and
enthusiasm for the long haul.

“There is almost “forced” excitement from establishment types trying to
sell the Clinton brand as the perfect standard bearer for rank and file
Democrats,” said one New Hampshire Democrat. “In New Hampshire, there does
not appear to be a barrage of new Clinton supporters; rather, just the
usual Clinton supporters.”

An Iowa Democrat cautioned, “Sufficient to win a primary yes, a general
election right now — we aren’t there.”

On the Republican side, unsurprisingly, 94 percent of insiders said her
campaign should be concerned by the polls, and 91 percent said they’re not
seeing much enthusiasm about her candidacy. Several insiders likened
Clinton to former Sen. Bob Dole, who won the 1996 GOP nomination but lost
to Bill Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton is this cycle’s version of Bob Dole. It’s her turn but
holy sh**!” one Granite State Republican said.

*De Blasio ally to hold Clinton fundraiser
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/de-blasio-ally-to-hold-clinton-fundraiser-118694.html>
// Politico // Annie Karni – June 5, 2015 *

One of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s most loyal and fiercest
supporters is throwing a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton will attend a fundraiser on June 29 in Manhattan hosted by public
relations executive Ken Sunshine and his wife, Nancy Hollander. The couple
is co-hosting the event with Janet and Marvin Rosen, the former finance
chairman for the Democratic National Committee who in 1996 was at the
center of a fundraising controversy for helping to arrange sleepovers in
the Lincoln Bedroom for wealthy Bill Clinton donors.

Story Continued Below

Sunshine has also been a longtime friend of the Clintons, but his strongest
political tie is to de Blasio, who worked under him when he served as chief
of staff to former Mayor David Dinkins. The two have remained close ever
since.

De Blasio served as Clinton’s campaign manager when she ran for Senate, but
so far has publicly refused to endorse her, instead using the 2016 election
to position himself as a national leader on progressive issues. That has
made some longtime supporters of both politicians, like Sunshine, feel
awkwardly caught in the middle.

Sunshine, whose firm is Sunshine Sachs, hosted the first fundraiser de
Blasio ever held, when he was running for a seat on the New York City
Council after managing Clinton’s Senate campaign. During the 2013 mayoral
race, many of de Blasio’s fundraising committee meetings were held in
Sunshine’s conference room, and as Mayor, de Blasio has on occasion
continued to use Sunshine’s office when he needs meeting space away from
City Hall.

“I love Bill, and if I’m not the first, I’ll be among the first to
contribute to his reelection campaign,” Sunshine said. “That doesn’t meant
I’m not going to be an early supporter and fundraiser for another friend,
whose name happens to be Hillary Clinton. I assume Bill will eventually
endorse her, but a lot of his friends like me are going to do it before
him.”

The Sunshine and Rosen fundraiser could end up being a star-studded affair.
Some of Sunshine’s longtime clients include Barbra Streisand, Jennifer
Lopez, Ben Affleck, Jon Bon Jovi and Leonardo DiCaprio.

*House Sets Date for Grilling of Hillary Clinton Aide
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-05/house-panel-to-grill-hillary-clinton-aide-sidney-blumenthal>
// Bloomberg // Billy House – June 5, 2015*

Sidney Blumenthal to answer questions behind closed doors

Long-time Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal is set to be
interviewed on June 16 by the House committee investigating the 2012
attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi, in announcing Blumenthal's
appearance Friday, said his deposition will be conducted in a closed
session without media coverage. The move is part of the panel's
investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on two U.S. compounds in
Benghazi, Libya, that led to the death of four Americans, including U.S.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Blumenthal has become a focus of the House Select Committee on Benghazi
since revelations he had been sending Clinton what she called "unsolicited"
memos about Libya, where he was trying to arrange business deal, while she
was secretary of state. Those memos included early suggestions that
terrorists were responsible for Benghazi attacks. Blumenthal did not work
for the State Department but from 2009 to 2013 was employed full-time by
the Clinton Foundation, founded by Clinton's husband, former President Bill
Clinton. After 2013, Blumenthal became a consultant.

His correspondence with the former secretary of state, who is now running
for president, became public as a result of a batch of emails turned over
to the committee after revelations that Clinton had been using a private
email address and home server to conduct business while she worked for the
government.

Congressional Republicans have been trying for more than two years to show
that Clinton failed to bolster security before the Benghazi attack and
should share blame for the administration's initial, erroneous account that
the attacks were not related to terrorism. The Benghazi panel's chairman,
Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, has said he plans to issue a final
report next year, just months before the presidential election.

Democrats have accused the House Republicans of stringing out its
investigation of the Benghazi attacks to undercut Hillary Clinton's
campaign.

*Hillary Clinton's Grand Strategy to Beat the GOP: Take Bold Positions
Early and Often
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121979/clinton-automatic-voter-registration-plan-puts-gop-defensive>
// The New Republic // Brian Beutler – June 5, 2015 *

or the better part of 20 years now, Bill Clinton’s presidency has been
almost synonymous with a hazy political concept called triangulation. Since
his advisers made the term famous, it has been used to describe everything
from standard-issue compromise to the willingness to confront reactionary
elements in one’s own party (thinkSister Souljah) to the appropriation of
another party’s ideas. The latter is as close to a proper definition as
there is.

One big concern bedeviling progressives is that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy
will mark the return of triangulation—the preemptive ceding of ideological
turf, at a time when, thanks to partisan polarization, such concessions
amount to outright victories for the Republican Party. But the early days
of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy suggest these fears are overblown—that she
is engaged in an entirely different kind of political positioning, one that
carries the promise of significant progressive victories or at least of
clarifying the terms of key policy debates dividing the parties.

The nature of the strategy involves staking out a variety of progressive
issue positions that enjoy broad support, but it’s not as straightforward
as simply identifying the public sentiment and riding it to victory. The
key is to embrace these ideas in a way that makes standard Republican
counterspin completely unresponsive, and thus airs out the substantive core
of their agenda: Rather than vie for conservative support by inching
rightward, Clinton is instead reorienting liberal ideas in a way that makes
the Republican agenda come into greater focus.

Most recently, Clinton has endorsed an aggressive position in support of
expanded voting rights. “We have a responsibility to say clearly and
directly what’s really going on in our country,” she said in her latest
campaign speech Thursday, “because what is happening is a sweeping effort
to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young
people from one end of our country to the other.”

This is standard Democratic boilerplate, but in service of something new.
Most Democrats have been engaged for some time now in rearguard actions to
protect voters from disenfranchisement efforts, and promote a remedy to the
damage the Supreme Court did to the Voting Rights Act. These are important
efforts, but easily countered. It isn’t unpopular to argue that voters
should have to show ID, for instance, and it's easy to gloss over the
complex nature of the Voting Rights Act in ways that obscure the real goal
of these policies, which is to systemically reduce turnout among
disproportionately Democratic constituencies—the poor, the young, and
ethnic minorities.

Clinton’s plan, by contrast, demands clarity from her opponents. She has
proposed that every American, except those who opt out, be automatically
registered to vote when they turn 18, and that every state offer at least
20 days' worth of early voting. Republicans can’t easily oppose this—and
oppose it they must—without being explicit about the fact that they want to
keep the voting rolls as trim as possible.

Most Democrats likewise support President Barack Obama’s administrative
efforts to liberalize immigration enforcement, and want to create a
citizenship track for unauthorized immigrants. Republicans oppose both
aims, but have been able to muddle that fact using vague procedural
language. Generally speaking, it’s not the liberalization of immigration
law they oppose, but the unilateral nature of Obama’s actions. They oppose
amnesty, but keep the door to a nebulous “legal status” ajar. Both
positions are malleable enough to allow the Republican presidential nominee
to tack dramatically left in the general election, and gloss over the
hostility the GOP has shown to immigrants since promising to liberalize
after Obama’s reelection.

For over a year, Democrats humored the GOP’s wordplay in order to preserve
the possibility of striking a legislative compromise that includes
something Republicans could call “legal status.” Now that the immigration
reform process has collapsed, Clinton has dispensed with the niceties. In
promising to preserve Obama’s immigration policies, she called out “legal
status” as a ruse. “When [Republicans] talk about legal status,” she said,
’“that is code for second-class status.” She has taken the standard
Democratic position and weaponized it. Republicans can’t pretend there’s no
daylight between their views and Democrats’ views, because Clinton has
defined the Republican position for them, by contrast.

Because this kind of obscurantism pervades the GOP’s substantive agenda—tax
policy, social insurance reforms, workplace regulation—Clinton should be
able to deploy the tactic across a wide array of issues. Seizing the
first-mover advantage is one of the undiscussed upsides of Clinton’s
dominance in the Democratic primary field. It doesn’t guarantee her victory
over a Republican opponent, but it will assure that the debate between the
two of them occurs mostly above board.

*Hillary Clinton Hits the GOP on Voter Suppression
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_speaks_out_on_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner_condemns.html>
// Slate // Jamelle Bouie – June 5, 2015 *

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton received the Barbara Jordan Public-Private
Leadership Award at the historically black Texas Southern University in
Houston. A former member of the House of Representatives, Jordan was the
first black congresswoman elected from the South, the first black American
to represent Texas in Congress, and a fierce advocate for the Voting Rights
Act, fighting to extend its protections to minorities.

It’s on that latter point that Clinton, speaking in acceptance of the
award, made her remarks. “Forty years after Barbara Jordan fought to extend
the Voting Rights Act, its heart has been ripped out,” she said. “What is
happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of
color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the
other.” She continued: “Since the Supreme Court eviscerated a key provision
of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, many of the states that previously faced
special scrutiny because of a history of racial discrimination have
proposed and passed new laws that make it harder than ever to vote.”

She’s not exaggerating. Republicans pitch their voter identification and
“ballot integrity” laws as efforts to protect the voting process. But even
a quick glance shows them as transparent efforts at voter suppression.

In North Carolina, for example, Republicans drastically reduced early
voting, ended same-day voter registration, repealed a mandate for high
school voter-registration drives, eliminated flexibility in early-voting
hours, reinstated felon disenfranchisement measures, authorized vigilante
poll observers, and imposed an ID requirement that excluded municipal
government IDs, photo IDs issued by public assistant agencies, and student
IDs. At the time, the state itself estimated that as many as 318,000 voters
would lack identification to vote on Election Day. Despite this, Gov. Pat
McCrory described the measures as “common sense” designed to “ensure the
integrity” of the ballot box and “provide greater equality in access to
voting to North Carolinians,” which would be accurate, if words were
meaningless.

On voting rights, Clinton is calm, comfortable with the details, and eager
to argue her vision.

Likewise, in Wisconsin, Republicans passed a strict voter-identification
law that also slashed early-voting hours, a twin move that would—noted one
federal judge—“deter or prevent a substantial number of the 300,000–plus
registered voters who lack ID from voting” and would disproportionately
harm minority voters. And beyond laws, there are the shenanigans of local
officials who implement voting rules with little oversight. “Many of the
worst offenses against the right to vote happen below the radar,” explained
Clinton, “like when authorities shift poll locations and election dates, or
scrap language assistance for non-English speaking citizens. Without the
pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, no one outside the local
community is likely to ever hear about these abuses, let alone have a
chance to challenge them and end them.”

Overall, 21 states have put voting restrictions in place since the 2010
elections, including swing states like Florida, New Hampshire, and
Virginia. Next year, in 14 of these states, those laws will be in effect
for the first time. And tellingly, the prevalence of those laws has a lot
to do with the demographics of the state. “Of the 11 states with the
highest African American turnout in 2008, 7 have new restrictions,” notes
the Brennan Center for Justice. “Of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic
population growth between 2000 and 2010, 9 passed laws making it harder to
vote.”

Clinton didn’t shy away from that connection. “It is a cruel irony, but no
coincidence, that millennials—the most diverse, tolerant, and inclusive
generation in American history—are now facing exclusion,” she said, in
reference to restrictions on student voting. Likewise, she explained,
“Minority voters are more likely than white voters to wait in long lines at
polling places. They are also far more likely to vote in polling places
with insufficient numbers of voting machines … This kind of disparity
doesn’t happen by accident.”

To solve these problems and make an affirmative push for voting equality,
Clinton wants to take two ambitious steps. First, she wants universal and
automatic voter registration, with an opt-out for voters who don’t want to
register. This wouldn’t be difficult. As the Center for Voting and
Democracy notes, a combination of federal standards and broader
registration rules would quickly increase total registration. More
importantly, it solves the problems we saw in the 2014 election cycle, when
mass registration efforts ran into partisan opposition from state
officials. Facilitated by federal, state, and local officials, universal
registration would go miles toward improving civic engagement.

For the second step—actual voting—Clinton wants new federal guidelines for
early voting, and national opportunities for weekend and evening voting.
The goal, again, is to make it as easy as possible to join the process and
participate. Indeed, by just announcing her support for these measures,
Clinton helps reformers in states where change is possible.

These are good ideas on the merits. They’re also great politics. Voting is
one of the few issues where the partisan and ideological differences are
easy to understand. Democrats want to expand access to the ballot,
Republicans want to restrict it. It’s an excellent issue for activism—look
at the high number of voters who went to the polls in 2012 in defiance of
voter-suppression measures—and a sturdy cudgel against your political
opponents, who will have to take a stand and risk a mistake or worse.

Voter registration is a weird hurdle that serves no purpose.  It's
annoying, it takes time, and it might lead to some legitimate voters being
unable to vote.  What's the benefit?  More to that point, Clinton attacked
Gov. Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Jeb Bush by name—blasting each for their
voter ID laws—and asked Republicans to “stop fear-mongering” about a
“phantom epidemic of election fraud.” Condemning Republican voter
suppression, Clinton said, “It is just wrong … to try to prevent,
undermine, and inhibit Americans’ right to vote. And at a time when so many
Americans have lost trust in our political system, it’s the opposite of
what we should be doing in our country.”

Invested in voter suppression—Walker touts his ID bill to GOP
audiences—Republicans will push back, attacking Clinton’s plan for its size
and wide federal role. But it’s clear she’s ready for the fight. With this
issue, she’s in her element: Calm, comfortable with details, and eager to
argue her vision. This, in a sense, was the real beginning of the Clinton
campaign, and it was effective.

*Clintons to attend Beau Biden's funeral
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244170-clintons-to-attend-beau-bidens-funeral>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 5, 2015 *

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and former President
Bill Clinton will attend the Saturday funeral mass for Vice President
Biden’s son, Beau Biden, an aide confirmed to The Hill.

Hillary Clinton and Biden are old friends, having served together in the
Senate and briefly battled for the Democratic presidential nomination in
2008.

The two often rode Amtrak together during Clinton’s Senate tenure, and
Biden sometimes ended his phone calls to Clinton by saying “I love you,
darling,” according to a New York Times profile from 2013.

She briefly addressed Beau’s death in a tweet last Saturday night, hours
after he succumbed to brain cancer.

“My heart is broken for the family of Beau Biden—a wonderful man who served
his country with devotion and lived his life with courage,” she said.

President Obama will also attend and give a eulogy for Beau. White House
press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Obama has spent part of Friday
working on the eulogy and that he had a “personal relationship” with Beau.

“The president is feeling, in a very personal way, this loss,” Earnest told
reporters Friday.

“While he is and his family are of course saddened by Beau’s death, I know
he’s also looking forward to spending some time tomorrow celebrating Beau’s
life — that he was a remarkable individual, a remarkable public servant —
and talking in a personal way about his character, about the way that he
felt about his family, about the way he felt about his country."

The former Delaware attorney general is survived by his wife, Hallie, and
his children, Natalie and Hunter.

*Hillary Clinton Wants To Make It Easy For You To Vote
<http://www.refinery29.com/2015/06/88691/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-millennials>
// Refinery 29 // Meredith Clark – June 5, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton laid out the boldest policy plan of her campaign so far —
to expand and protect voting rights — and attacked a number of Republicans,
by name, for their opposition to it. In a major speech at Texas Southern
University on Thursday, Clinton unveiled her ambitious vision, based on a
simple idea: Everyone should vote.

“Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of
American citizens from voting,” Clinton said. “What part of democracy are
they afraid of?”

Many states controlled by Republican legislatures have passed restrictions
on voting rights since 2010, and young and minority voters — who tend to
vote for Democrats — have been disproportionately affected by these new
laws. Now that courts have upheld the new regulations, this will be the
first presidential election where millions of voters will face stringent
new ID requirements, registration requirements, and drastically fewer
opportunities to vote early.

Clinton called on Congress to pass legislation that revitalizes the Voting
Rights Act, and to implement recommendations from a bipartisan presidential
commission to make voting more accessible, recommendations that include
expanding absentee and early voting, making registration easier, and
reducing wait times.

She also voiced her support for creating a standard for early voting —
advocating for an early-voting period of at least 20 days, with times that
include evenings and weekends — as well as for automatic registration for
all citizens when they turn 18.

Clinton singled out North and South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida,
and New Jersey for their voting cuts. In Texas, a gun permit is an
acceptable form of ID at the polls, but student IDs are not. And Hillary’s
potential campaign rival Scott Walker has slashed weekend and evening
voting hours in Wisconsin, and out-of-state students at Wisconsin
universities now have to get Wisconsin ID cards in order to be eligible to
vote there.

“We have a responsibility to say clearly and directly what’s really going
on in our country — because what is happening is a sweeping effort to
disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young
people from one end of our country to the other,” Clinton said.

While universal registration for 18-year-olds is a bold proposal, Clinton
didn’t specify how she would achieve it. There are different ways to make
it happen, but she’ll have to win before any of her proposals stand a
chance.

President Obama won both his elections thanks to heavy turnout from young
voters, minority voters, and first-time voters from every demographic in
the country. With so many hurdles in place for those same people to get to
the polls next year, the 2016 election could end up being decided by a much
older, whiter, and richer subset of the country.

*Another Controversy Over Hillary Clinton’s Time at the State Department
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/05/another-controversy-over-hillary-clintons-time-at-the-state-department/>
// The Blaze // Fred Lucas – June 5, 2015 *

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did nothing to stop the sale of a
Michigan battery company to a Chinese firm, despite making complaints about
it on the campaign trail last month, the Detroit Free Press reported.

A123 Systems was sold to Wanxiang in early 2013. During a campaign stop in
New Hampshire last month, Clinton raised concerns about the sale during a
town hall meeting.

“That does concern me, because a lot of foreign companies, particularly
Chinese companies … are looking to buy American companies,” said Clinton,
the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told the Free Press
that Clinton was just paying “lip service,” since the State Department had
a “role in signing off on these sales.”

“She is not being honest with the American people about her record in this
critical area of national security and economic policy,” Priebus said.

The RNC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State
Department asking for all records on the A123 Systems sale to Wanxiang
Group.

Wanxiang, the Chinese company, bought A123 for $257 million after A123 went
bankrupt when its biggest customer Fisker, an electric car company, had
financial troubles. In January 2013, the government approved the sale.

Clinton’s campaign told the newspaper she didn’t play any role in the
review of the sale and referred questions to the State Department. The
campaign said that Clinton “wants us to be the clean energy superpower for
the 21st century, and that means out-competing countries like China so we
can keep those jobs and companies here.”

The Free Press reported that a review was never taken, and that when such
reviews occur, about half of the sales do not take place, according to the
Congressional Research Service. Several members of Michigan’s congressional
delegation asked for a review.

*Hillary Clinton's Top Twitter Fan
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/hillary-clinton-s-top-twitter-fan-20150605>
// The National Journal // Emily Schultheis – June 5, 2015 *

Every time Hillary Clinton tweets, a maelstrom of replies greets her across
the Twitterverse. Some commenters answer excitedly with "Hillary for
president!" or "you go girl!" Many implore her to visit their states or to
follow them back on Twitter. And there's no shortage of vitriol, of course:
People call her a liar; they insist she's corrupt; they dismiss her as part
of the 1 percent. There are tweets about Benghazi; others ask what she's
hiding in her deleted emails; still more bring up foreign donations to the
Clinton Foundation.

But the first response to many of Clinton's tweets, her campaign has
noticed with amusement, comes from a user with more than 3,600 followers
who goes by the Twitter handle "Monique's Mother." The reply to a tweet
about Clinton holding "fireside chats" in Mason City, Iowa? "YESSS! SLAY
THAT FIRESIDE, QUEEN OF POP!" To one welcoming two new staffers to the
Clinton team, Monique's Mother had this to say: "YASSSS QUEENS! Like a
Destiny's Child reunion! Queen of pop!" A photo of the Hillary "H" logo a
campaign volunteer made out of berries garnered this response: "SLAY US
WITH THOSE BERRIES!!! YASSSSS! QUEEN OF POP."

"I can only hope he replies to @Beyonce with PRESIDENT! and a praise hands
emoji," says Ian Sams, a Clinton spokesman. "It's only fair."

The mind behind "Monique's Mother" (a reference to the movie The First
Wives Club) is Nick Walsh, a 30-year-old social-media manager at an
entertainment marketing firm in Los Angeles. His other pastimes include
selling mounted Beanie Baby heads and clocks made of old Hardy Boys
hardcovers on Etsy. When I talk to him over FaceTime, the New Jersey native
tells me that his online pop-star treatment of Clinton is an ironic
hobby—something he does because he "likes the absurdity" of treating
Clinton the way many online fans treat mega-stars such as Beyoncé or Taylor
Swift. He's also a real-life fan of Clinton's, he tells me, and has been
since before her 2008 campaign. It's less about the specifics of her record
than about what he calls "the female aspect": "I would love to have a
female president," he says. "I think that's awesome."

The impetus for Walsh's Twitter campaign was finding out that Clinton, in
her own way, really did have something in common with those pop stars: She
won a Grammy in 1997 for the audio version of her book It Takes a Village.
Walsh tweeted about the Grammy in early May, complete with a photo of
Clinton accepting the award, and said he was surprised by the positive
response he got.

Since then, Walsh has gone all in on his new hobby, and, despite his
distaste for politics more generally, Clinton is now a regular part of his
day. He has his phone set to get notifications each time she tweets, and,
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Pacific time, he'll try to reply.
He does it when he wakes up in the morning, when he's sitting in a meeting
at work, when he's going about his day. (When he's busy, he keeps it to a
quick, standard "QUEEN OF POP"; if he has more time on his hands, he'll get
more creative, and perhaps even dip into the stock of Clinton photos and
gifs he has amassed.) His primary motive seems to be getting noticed—by
Clinton's Twitter haters, by her campaign, and by others on the
social-media site. "I want them to look forward to my tweets," he says of
Clinton's team. "I want them to be like, 'The "Queen of Pop" guy is
tweeting again.' " When I ask how long he'll keep it up, he replies: "Until
I win a meet and greet with her."

Walsh is hardly the first to find Clinton a figure ripe for ironic
idolization (and Internet fun). Most famously, in 2012, the Tumblr blog
Texts From Hillary used a now-iconic photo of Clinton wearing sunglasses
while gazing down at her Blackberry to create a character who gives
stone-cold replies to various celebrities and politicians. And that
Hillary—rather than the one in the headband—left an imprint on a new
generation of American voters. "Texts From Hillary was a turning point in
that it kind of gave people a different way of looking at her," says Laura
Olin, who ran social-media strategy for President Obama's 2012 campaign and
now works with other Obama alums at the firm Precision Strategies.

That image is one Clinton has been eager to embrace. When she joined
Twitter back in 2013, she made the Texts From Hillary photo her avatar. And
since she declared her presidential candidacy in April, her campaign has
sometimes struck a playfully self-referential tone that's a notable
departure from the tenor of 2008: In announcing its online store last week,
for example, Clinton's campaign included what it called an "Everyday
Pantsuit Tee"—an allusion to Clinton's oft-mocked signature style.

Indeed, you could argue that Walsh's stunt works precisely because it
contains a bit of truth: To some extent, the idea of Hillary Clinton—like
the idea of, say, Oprah Winfrey—has taken on a life of its own. The
Clintons have been in the public eye for so long that, beyond being a
person and a politician, "Hillary Clinton" is also a persona, a character
with cultural meaning. Or, as Walsh puts it, the Clintons "are almost like
America's royal family—aside from the Kardashians."

*Longtime Clinton Insider Says Hillary Hasn’t Given ‘Convincing
Explanation’ For Email, Donation Scandals
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/longtime-clinton-insider-says-hillary-hasnt-given-convincing-explanation-for-email-donation-scandals/>
// The Daily Caller // Chuck Ross – June 5, 2015 *

The former Clinton White House secretary of labor Robert Reich is throwing
Hillary under the scooby bus.

Reich says that Hillary Clinton needs to be more transparent and that she
has more yet to explain concerning her use of a private email account as
secretary of state and the millions of dollars she and Bill have been paid
for speeches.

“She hasn’t yet given a convincing explanation for why she used a private
email account when she was secretary of state, and why she and her husband
have made so many speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop from
special interests that presumably want something in return,” the former
Clinton confidant told ABC News.

“In other words, she needs to be more open and transparent about
everything.”

Reich, who now teaches at Berkeley, also appeared to back away from his
past support of Clinton, whose Democratic challengers include former
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19, and have a great deal of
confidence in her,” said Reich, a staunch progressive. “At the same time, I
agree with Bernie Sanders on much of what he says.”

“As chairman of Common Cause, a nonpartisan national citizen’s group
dedicated to getting big money out of politics, I don’t feel free to
endorse either one of them.”

Reich has not let his position at Common Cause deter him from endorsing
Clinton in the past, however. He was chairman of the organization’s
national board when he said he would back her in 2013. He joined the
organization in 2010.

*Commentary: Hillary Clinton's Bold Move on Voting Rights
<http://www.bet.com/news/national/2015/06/05/commentary-hillary-clinton-s-bold-move-on-voting-rights.html>
// BET // Keith Boykin – June 5, 2015 *

Krystal Watson grew up in Louisiana but left after high school to attend
Wiley College, a historically Black college in Marshall, Texas. There she
registered to vote and signed up to help other people vote as well. But
when Krystal showed up at her local polling place with a Wiley College ID,
she was turned away.

That's because Texas governor Rick Perry signed a law in 2011 that allows
polling places to accept a concealed weapon permit for voter identification
but does not accept student IDs. It's pretty clear who the
Republican-controlled Texas state government wants to vote. In state after
state, GOP legislatures and governors have been passing new and restrictive
voting laws ever since President Obama came into office to make it harder
for people of color, poor people and young people to vote.

That's the message that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
took to Texas Southern University on Thursday. In a speech to 2,000 people
at the historically Black college in Houston, Clinton told Watson's story
and proposed dramatic steps to make it easier for people like Krystal to
vote.

Clinton's boldest proposal is a plan for universal, automatic voter
registration for every citizen in every state in the union. "Everyone,
every young man or young woman, should be automatically registered to vote
when they turn 18 — unless they actively choose to opt out," she said.

That makes a lot of sense. The United States is one of only a few
democratic nations that place the entire burden of registering to vote on
individual citizens, according to a study from the Brennan Center for
Justice. That helps explain why 93 percent of eligible voters are
registered to vote in Canada, for example, while only 68 percent of
Americans are registered.

"Making voting easier for all eligible voters should be the epitome of a
nonpartisan issue," the New York Times wrote Friday. "Unfortunately,
stopping people from voting has become a key part of the modern Republican
playbook," they concluded.

From Texas to Wisconsin, and all parts in between, Republicans are racing
to beat the clock on voting rights. They know that America's changing
demographics make it harder for Republicans to win elections when young
people and people of color turn up at the polls. So rather than crafting
policies to appeal to these voters, Republicans have created laws to block
them from voting.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, a likely Republican presidential
candidate, recently signed a bill to limit the number of early voting days
and prohibit it altogether on weekends.

Similarly in New Jersey, governor Chris Christie, another GOP presidential
hopeful, vetoed a bill that would have allowed early voting in his state.

In Florida, after helping his brother win the disputed 2000 presidential
election, governor Jeb Bush created a list of 48,000 Florida residents to
be purged from the voting rolls. Nearly half of those purged were
African-American, but only 61 people were Hispanic, in a state where
Hispanics make up a significant part of the population and often vote
Republican.

Even in mostly Democratic Maryland, the state's new Republican governor,
Larry Hogan, vetoed a bill last month that would have restored voting
rights to 40,000 former felons who had completed their sentences.

As Hillary Clinton said on Thursday, "Republicans are systematically and
deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What
part of democracy are they afraid of?"

Answer: They're afraid of Black people, young people and progressive
Latinos voting in large numbers. Nearly 90 percent of Mitt Romney voters in
2012 were white, a troubling number considering the share of white voters
in presidential elections is steadily declining.

That's why Republicans are passing these new laws. It's not about voter
fraud. The Bush administration conducted a five-year study and found
virtually no evidence of voter fraud. Subsequent studies and bookshave
confirmed these results. It's about rigging elections.

This is America. We can't go around lecturing the world about democracy if
we don't practice it here at home. We have little credibility to push for
electoral reform in Africa, Latin America or the Middle East when we've
made it so difficult to vote in the U.S. that 50 million of our own
citizens aren't even registered.

Maybe it's a self-serving political move that Hillary Clinton is calling
for 20 days of early voting nationwide and asking Congress to pass
legislation to fix the damage to the Voting Rights Act done by the Supreme
Court in 2013. She's also calling for online voter registration and
establishing the principle that no one should ever have to wait more than
30 minutes to vote.

But Clinton's interest in these issues is not new. She co-sponsored the
Count Every Vote Act, a bill in 2005 that the New York Times called "the
gold standard of election reform." That bill would have made election day a
federal holiday and restored voting rights to ex-felons.

Whatever the motivation for Clinton's latest proposal, she's right on the
mark. Voting is the bedrock of democracy. African-Americans died for the
right to vote.

*Hillary Clinton Calls the Republican Bluff on Voting Rights
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/clinton-calls-the-gop-bluff-on-voting-rights.html>
// NY Mag // Jonathan Chait – June 5, 2015 *

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton endorsed automatic voter registration for all
18-year-olds. Expanding access to voting rights is a civil-rights issue
that can be justified entirely in good-government terms. At the same time,
it is also a completely partisan issue. The Republican Party is in favor of
making voting more inconvenient in the correct belief that winnowing the
electorate operates to its partisan advantage.

The Republican Party prefers to frame its stance on voting rights as a deep
concern for preventing voter fraud. The most common response to this is to
point out that voter impersonation is vanishingly rare — since 2000, 31
instances of it have been found, out of a billion ballots cast. But the
true nature of its concern reveals itself most clearly when the party’s
mania for suppression can be detached from its professed concern for
preventing voter fraud and examined in naked isolation.

In theory, there are a number of ways one might make voting more convenient
without enabling fraud. One of them is to expand early voting. A bipartisan
commission, co-chaired by Democratic campaign lawyer Robert Bauer and
Republican campaign lawyer Ben Ginsburg studied voting extensively and
issued a 2014 report that, among other recommendations, endorsed more early
voting. The authors, who engaged in months of public hearings and
consultations with officials, found that voters are willing to tolerate
waits to vote if they can pick a convenient day. “What does emerge from
evidence about the experience of voters is that their tolerance for wait
times is considerably higher with early voting,” the report found, “Having
chosen the day and time for voting that is convenient for them, early
voters are described as being in a more 'celebratory' frame of mind than
under the often rushed circumstances they face on Election Day when they
must vote at a specific location on a specific day.” This makes perfect
sense — if you can pick a day when you’re not too busy, you can stand a
longer wait than having to queue up on a day you don’t pick when you might
not have time to spare.

The official Republican response rejected the endorsement of early voting.
Letting people vote early, the Republicans reply, “diminishes the
importance of Election Day.” While the bipartisan commission found that
Americans enjoy the freedom to pick a convenient time to vote, the
Republican Party declared that this is not the case — “Most Americans
continue to prefer to vote alongside their neighbors and fellow citizens at
the polls on Election Day so reform needs to start there.” This is a bit
like saying most Americans prefer vanilla, therefore chocolate should not
be allowed. If people prefer to vote on Election Day, they can.

Now, perhaps the Republicans are simply moved by a sentimental attachment
to Election Day, and they don’t want it to get less special-feeling by
giving people the choice to exercise their rights at a more convenient
time. In that case, there is also a solution that meets the party’s
concern: make Election Day a national holiday. Clinton has endorsed that
idea, too, and it’s a long-standing liberal standby. But Republicans also
oppose making Election Day a national holiday. As the conservative pundit
John Fund has explained, making elections a national holiday might lead to
people skipping work the preceding Monday. Also, Fund argued, “There’s no
doubt that many people in our increasingly mobile and hectic society want
voting to be as easy and convenient as buying fast food. But too much of
anything can be bad — just ask someone who has gorged on drive-thru burgers
and fries.” So since convenient fast food can be bad for you, convenient
voting must be bad, too.

Automatic voter registration, which anybody could choose to opt out of, is
another idea that would reduce bureaucratic impediments to voting without
enabling fraud. It will be fascinating to watch the party generate
arguments against this. The current official party response amounts to
simple ad hominum criticism of Clinton (Republican spokesman: “Her
exploitation of this issue only underscores why voters find her dishonest
and untrustworthy,” etc.).

In the meantime, conservatives bothering to express their knee-jerk
hostility have fallen back on actual conviction, which is that voting
should be restricted to a better class of people. An additional
registration requirement, writes National Review’s Daniel Foster, “improves
democratic hygiene because the people who can’t be bothered to register (as
opposed to those who refuse to vote as a means of protest) are, except in
unusual cases, civic idiots.” People who don’t have the flexibility to take
extra time away from work to jump through whatever bureaucratic hurdles the
Republicans throw in their path, or the familiarity with local agencies to
navigate them smoothly, are too shiftless and ignorant to be trusted with
the franchise.

And so Clinton’s embrace of voting rights may not have any plausible
near-term prospects for enactment. But it serves to demonstrate to the
party’s core constituents something elemental, and true: At the current
moment, there is only one party that respects their rights as citizens.

*Hillary Clinton's Campaign Goes Even Gayer
<https://mail.google.com/mail/#label/Clips/14dc47c248133c75> // OUT
Magazine // James McDonald – June 5, 2015*

From the get-go, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has worked to
frame her as the candidate for LGBT Americans. From the inclusion of gay
couples in early campaign videos, to changing her logo in support of the
Supreme Court oral arguments for marriage equality, and tweeting her hopes
for a 'historic' Pride month, she's certainly living up to that image. Now,
she's making it easy for LGBTs to show their support for her in return,
with a collection of Pride merchandise. Yaaas, Hillary!

*Hillary goes ugly early with racism claims
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/05/hillary-goes-ugly-early-with-racism-claims/>
// Fox News // Chris Stirewalt – June 5, 2015 *

If Hillary Clinton is concerned enough about her candidacy to already be
making accusation of racism against her potential Republican rivals, this
is going to be a long election cycle for her and for the rest of the
country.

Down in Texas for a campaign event aimed at restoring her relationship with
black Democrats who rejected her 2008 candidacy, Clinton said that laws
requiring voters to show identification at polls were part of “a sweeping
effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and
young people from one end of our country to the other.” Note the language
here. It’s not a misguided effort with an unfortunate result, it is a
deliberate effort to prevent minorities from voting. That’s not just
racist, that’s evil.

Clinton even made it personal, saying potential general election foes Jeb
Bush, Scott Walker and Rick Perry were “deliberately trying to stop”
minority voters from participating. It’s language that might even give
voter-ID opponent President Obama some pause, but Clinton tore into her
topic with evident relish. In this candidacy, Clinton has seemed at times
uncertain and usually vague. When it came to racially charged, partisan
attacks, however, she was imbued with a new vitality and was nothing if not
direct. In an ironic turn, Clinton accused Republicans of “fear-mongering
about a phantom epidemic” as she intoned against urgent dangers to civil
rights.

Why would a politician go so bananas over policies that are supported by
something like seven out of 10 Americans? The standard media take on
Clinton’s overheated rhetoric is that she is still determined to avoid her
2008 fate by pandering to, one by one, each of the parts of the Democratic
coalition. It’s been rolling out at the rate of about one group and one
policy reversal or expansion a week. And that is surely the biggest part of
this.

But when a candidate, especially a person of pallor such as Clinton, is out
making over-the-top charges of racism at this point in an election cycle it
certainly does not suggest a confident candidate or campaign. While
Republicans might take heart that the woman who remains ahead in
hypothetical matchups against anyone in their field is throwing haymakers
17 months before Election Day, they also ought to remember what else this
gambit says about Clinton: She will do whatever it takes to win.

*House Benghazi committee calls Clinton friend to testify
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/05/269045/house-benghazi-committee-calls.html>
// McClatchy // Anita Kumar – June 5, 2015 *

The House committee investigating the fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya in
2012 announced Friday it will interview Sidney Blumenthal, a friend and
sometime adviser to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The June 16 session will be held behind closed doors.

The committee grew interested in Blumenthal after it received thousands of
pages of documents from the State Department that showed he and she traded
emails on the security in Libya before and after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

Blumenthal, an adviser to former President Bill Clinton, was employed by
the Clinton Foundation when he wrote the emails.

“He sent me unsolicited emails which I passed on in some instances and I
say that that’s just part of the give and take,” Clinton told reporters
recently at a campaign event in Cedar Falls, Iowa. “I have many, many old
friends and I always think that it’s important when you get into politics
to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand
what’s on their minds,” Clinton said Tuesday. “And he’s been a friend of
mine for a long time.”

*Sale of Michigan company to China may haunt Clinton
<http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/06/05/clinton-sale-michigan-china-gop/28525387/>
// Detroit Free Press // Todd Spangler – June 5, 2015 *

Despite expressing her concerns on the campaign trail now, national
Republican party officials are questioning why Hillary Rodham Clinton did
not intervene in the controversial 2013 sale of high-tech battery plants in
Michigan to a Chinese firm when she was secretary of state and could have
done so.

At a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month, Clinton, the leading
Democratic candidate for president, decried the sale of A123 Systems —
built with millions in government aid — along with those of other new
energy firms, to Chinese investors, calling them "unfortunate" and a
"serious" problem for high-tech industries in the U.S.

"That does concern me, because a lot of foreign companies, particularly
Chinese companies ... are looking to buy American companies," she said in
response to an entrepreneur who mentioned A123's sale while commenting that
venture capital for new energy technology has largely fled overseas.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, in a statement to
the Free Press, called Clinton's remarks "lip service" considering that as
the former secretary of state, her department had a "role in signing off on
these sales," including A123's to Wanxiang in early 2013.

"She is not being honest with the American people about her record in this
critical area of national security and economic policy," Priebus said,
suggesting it may not be the last time the bankruptcy sale of A123 and its
facilities in Livonia and Romulus come up in the GOP's campaign against her.

Clinton's campaign said she had no role in the review of the sale and
referred questions to the State Department, saying only that she "wants us
to be the clean energy superpower for the 21st Century, and that means
out-competing countries like China so we can keep those jobs and companies
here."

Review not taken

It does appear, however, that if Clinton had security concerns about
Wanxiang gaining A123's technology, she and the agency she led could have
moved to investigate it, which, at least according to congressional
researchers, typically leads to about half of all transactions being
abandoned.

Several members of Congress, including both of Michigan's U.S. Democratic
senators and a bipartisan group of congressmen, urged such a review; as did
the Strategic Materials Advisory Council, a group that noted that though
Wanxiang had excluded A123's defense contracts from its purchase, it was
still obtaining "91 patents for sensitive military and space battery
technology."

Only the president can officially block such transactions on national
security grounds. But the State Department holds a seat on the nine-member
Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. — CFIUS — which reviews sales
of American assets to foreign investors for any impact on national security.

Hillary Clinton: Give immigrants path to citizenship

A State Department spokeswoman confirmed Thursday that the agency is
represented on CFIUS by an undersecretary — not the secretary — and its
cases seldom if ever reach the secretary's office.

But agency procedures reviewed by the Free Press and published in the
Federal Register also indicate that the "Secretary ... may at any time"
fill that role, if he or she so chooses.

The campaign did not respond to a question as to why Clinton didn't play a
role in the deliberations, despite her noting as a presidential candidate
in 2008, CFIUS's role in "ensuring that technologies ... critical to U.S.
national security are not sold off and outsourced to foreign governments."

In 2008, Clinton was critical of the Bush administration for not blocking
foreign investors from moving jobs from a former General Motors-subsidiary
in Indiana, which made magnets for bombs, to China, saying "not only did
the jobs go to China but so did ... the technological know-how."

The back-and-forth is the latest chapter in the continuing political
fallout from massive government investments in new energy technologies in
Michigan and across the nation beginning around 2009 that promised
thousands of jobs but which, in many instances, failed to materialize.

It also continues a line of attack against Clinton by her critics regarding
her level of involvement — or lack thereof — in foreign purchases of
American assets.

In "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and
Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," Peter Schweizer wrote she
had "veto power" over the sale of uranium assets to Russia, though that
claim — that she could have stopped it alone — has been debunked.

In her remarks at a Hampton, N.H., brewery on May 22, Clinton clearly was
referring to economic competition, not national security concerns, in
discussing the sale of A123 and other American businesses. CFIUS does not
get involved in cases only related to economic considerations.

State Dept. releases hundreds of Clinton Benghazi e-mails

But any of CFIUS's member agencies — Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security
and the others — can request a deeper review to determine if there are
national security implications. A 2014 report by the Congressional Research
Service found nearly half of those investigated "were terminated ...
because the firms decided to withdraw from the transactions rather than
face a negative determination."

If Clinton, who resigned as secretary in 2013, wanted to raise concerns
about the national security implications of the sale, there was plenty of
support for her to do so: In their letter to then-Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner, who served as CFIUS's chair, members of Michigan's delegation
said the sale "might constitute a potential threat" to security since the
company's "core" lithium-ion battery technology was being transferred.

They also suggested the sale might not be appropriate given that A123,
which was based in Massachusetts, had received $133 million in stimulus
funds and was granted more than $125 million in state tax incentives and
credits to build advanced lithium-ion batteries for its clients. Other
members of Congress raised concerns with CFIUS as well.

Expansion in Michigan

A123 went bankrupt after its biggest customer, electric car maker Fisker,
fell on hard times. After a battle for control between Johnson Controls and
Wanxiang, the Chinese company won the bidding, paying $257 million. In
January 2013, CFIUS approved A123's sale without comment.

Treasury, CFIUS's lead agency, declined to comment on the case, citing
confidentiality requirements.

Despite the confidentiality rule, the Republican National Committee has
filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Department asking
for "any and all records ... that mention, reference or relate to the sale
of A123 Systems to Wanxiang Group."

Under CFIUS's regulations, parties to a sale typically file notice with the
committee, which then has 30 days to "identify and address" any national
security concerns. If it chooses, the committee may initiate a subsequent
45-day investigation or refer the sale to the president's office for a
decision.

It is rare for foreign transaction to be blocked, but it does happen:
President Barack Obama blocked a sale to Chinese investors in September
2012 of four Oregon wind farm companies located near a site where the
military tests aircraft and unmanned drones.

Meanwhile, the Free Press reported earlier this week that Wanxiang and A123
plan to invest more than $200 million to add capacity in Livonia and
Romulus, as well as at plants in China, 21/2 years after exiting bankruptcy.

The company, having largely switched over to smaller batteries for hybrid
vehicle systems, continues to employ several hundred workers in Michigan.

Having trouble keeping track? Here's the complete look at who's officially
running for president in 2016.

*On Hillary Clinton's income inequality plan, de Blasio pauses -- and
GOPers pounce
<http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/de-blasio-details-clinton-income-inequality-plan-blog-entry-1.2248398>
// NY Daily News // Celeste Katz – June 5, 2015 *

When it comes to how Hillary Clinton will address income inequality as a
presidential hopeful, Mayor de Blasio says he's (still) all ears.

In a radio interview Friday, de Blasio seemed comfortable continuing to
reserve judgment on the former Secretary of State's plans for closing the
gap between rich and poor.

"People recognize that wealth is getting concentrated in very few hands,
and political power is increasingly getting concentrated in the hands of
the wealthy and it's unacceptable," de Blasio -- who's tried to stake a
claim as a national progressive voice on the issue -- told WNYC radio host
Brian Lehrer during a live exchange.

"I've been very impressed so far by some of the things that Secretary
Clinton has said on areas like immigration reform, criminal justice reform.
Very promising concepts," said de Blasio, a top campaign official in
Clinton's 2000 Senate run.

De Blasio has raised some eyebrows with his unwilllingness to issue a
full-tilt endorsement of Clinton, who's considered overwhelmingly likely to
win the 2016 Democratic nomination.

By comparison, during an appearance in Washington last month, de Blasio
hailed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a "powerful voice" on income
inequality and called her leadership "extraordinary."

Speaking to Lehrer Friday, he said he felt progressive taxation and "ways
that we can raise wages and benefits for people all over the country" were
musts for any substantial blueprint.

"These are the kinds of things that have to happen to change the country,"
de Blasio said, "and I look forward to hearing [Clinton's] vision of how
she'll address these issues."

While de Blasio offered effusive praise for Clinton's speech this week on
attacking voter disenfranchisement -- "I think it was an inspired proposal;
I give her a lot of credit" -- in the selfsame radio interview, Republicans
have widely retorted that her comments were divisive and purely partisan.

A Clinton spokesman declined comment, but the America Rising PAC, which
plugs itself as dedicated to "exposing the truth about Democrats" through
tracking and research, had no such reservations.

“Based on his recent words and actions, Bill de Blasio seems as unimpressed
with Hillary Clinton’s campaign as everyone else in America. It doesn’t
seem like he’s in any hurry to lend his former boss a hand, which is highly
ironic given their long and close history," said PAC spokesman Jeff Bechdel.

"While Clinton struggles to connect with so-called ‘everyday Americans’
because of her ongoing scandals, vast wealth, and insulated campaign, de
Blasio is standing idly by as Clinton watches her poll numbers continue to
plummet," Bechdel said.

Alluding to Clinton's upcoming June 13 kickoff, he added, "No wonder her
campaign has decided they need to officially hit the ‘reset’ button at
Roosevelt Island – less than two months in, they haven’t even convinced
their close allies that Hillary Clinton should be president.”

*Clinton calls for universal, automatic voter registration; GOP not happy
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/05/1390699/-Clinton-calls-for-universal-automatic-voter-registration-GOP-not-happy>
// Daily Kos // Kerry Eleveld – June 5, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton did more than just call for 20 days of early voting
Thursday in her address to Texas Southern University, a historically black
college in Houston. She threw down.

“Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop
millions of American citizens from voting,” Clinton said during a speech at
Texas Southern University. “What part of democracy are they afraid of?”

That was one of the best lines of the speech, second only to this one:

"We need a Supreme Court that cares more about protecting the right to vote
of a person than the right to buy an election of a corporation."

In short, Clinton called for a sweeping expansion of voting access for
every citizen. Along with adding 20 days of early, in-person voting, she
called on Congress to "restore the full protections" that the Supreme Court
ripped from the Voting Rights Act. She called for "expanding early,
absentee, and mail voting; providing online voter registration;
establishing the principle that no one should ever have to wait more than
30 minutes to cast your vote."

And she called for universal, automatic voter registration.

Everyone, every young man or young woman, in every state in the union
should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18—unless they
actively choose to opt out. But I believe this would have a profound impact
on our elections and our democracy. Between a quarter and a third of all
eligible Americans remain unregistered and therefore unable to vote.

None of this made Republicans happy.

The Republican National Committee accused Clinton of being “misleading and
divisive,” and noted that her home state of New York does not provide early
voting. “Her exploitation of this issue only underscores why voters find
her dishonest and untrustworthy,” RNC spokesman Orlando Watson said in a
statement.

Testy, testy.

*Meet the 30-year-old woman running Hillary Clinton's field operations
<https://fortune.com/2015/06/05/meet-the-30-year-old-woman-running-hillary-clintons-field-operations/>
// Fortune // Nina Easton – June 5, 2015 *

With many of the power players from Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run
sitting this one out, the big question is: Who’s in?

What follows is the latest installment of a Fortune series looking at the
the most influential women on Clinton’s 2016 team. When this series wraps,
we’ll turn our attention to the most powerful women on the GOP side of the
race.

Brynne Craig, 30, Deputy National Political Director

By the time Brynne Craig started her career, the Rolodex was as much of a
relic as those pink “while you were out” message slips. But if Craig, 30,
did have an old-style Rolodex sitting on her desk, it would be fat—bulging
with names of Democratic foot soldiers all over the country, from phone
bank volunteers to precinct captains.

Craig does field operations. She’s done that job for presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton in 2008, for the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee—charged with electing House members—in 2012, and for victorious
Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe in 2013. She also picked
up some useful organizing skills working for Democratic nominee Barack
Obama after Clinton dropped out in 2008, but the former First Lady is
clearly her first political love.

Craig’s adoration of Hillary Clinton dates back to her Arizona childhood,
when her music-industry father was rooting for Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory,
voraciously reading newspapers and sharing his opinions with his 8-year-old
daughter. “That was the first time I was really aware of politics,” she
recalls. “We would talk a lot about [the campaign].” Her Republican mother,
however, had different ideas: “George [H.W.] Bush was her guy.”

Craig liked Bill Clinton, but she really liked his wife. “When I was
little, I thought if Hillary ever ran for President I wanted to work for
her,” she recalls. That moment finally came in 2007, after she graduated
from Smith College and joined her campaign in Nevada. It turned to be a
high-wire act: With Obama’s win in Iowa, and Clinton’s dramatic comeback in
New Hampshire, the early Nevada caucus—considered a bellwether for western
states—was billed as a tie-breaker.

Like Iowa, Nevada runs a caucus rather than a primary, and in 2008 this
in-person process was a strange new system to state voters, unlike in Iowa.
So a lot of what Craig did was education–Caucus-101 meetings and
simulations of caucus days. She oversaw 43 precincts. On election day,
Clinton was the top-vote getter (though a complicated process gave Obama
more delegates)—making Nevada the only caucus state to fall into her 2008
column during that grueling primary battle.

After Clinton conceded and dropped out, Craig was off to the swing state of
Ohio for the general election, where Obama would beat GOP nominee John
McCain—and show off an awe-inspiring grass roots operation. “We built a
neighborhood team model all across Ohio, voters talking to their neighbors
and friends, block by block,” Craig recalls. “The lady who was the cashier
in the grocery store was the one knocking on your door.”

Craig took away from that experience a lesson that holds true even in an
age of social media and online communication. “We used to say people will
come to a campaign because they believe in the candidates,” says Craig.
“But the reason they stay is the relationships we have. I still talk to my
precinct captains. Social media engages people, but you have to take that
second step of going off line and continuing the relationship.”

That will come in handy in her current job as part of the “Mook Mafia”
–named for her mentor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook—where she will
need to secure endorsements from local and state officials and keep the
campaign’s relations with grass-roots groups warm and fuzzy, even when
times get tough.

*Hillary Clinton rakes in $200K in Greenwich
<http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Hillary-Clinton-rakes-in-200K-in-Greenwich-6310350.php>
// CT Post // Neil Vigdor – June 5, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton covered the waterfront Friday in Greenwich -- not just
rhetorically.

Heavy on domestic and foreign policy talking points -- some aligning her
with President Barack Obama (the Affordable Care Act) and others distancing
her (the Middle East) -- Clinton huddled with an elite network of
contributors to her presidential campaign at the bygone yachting retreat of
Boss Tweed.

The 13-mile trip from Chappaqua, N.Y., paid handsome dividends for
Democratic contender, who netted $200,000 for her White House bid from
about 85 supporters that included the Empire State Building's controlling
partner and a retired hedge fund manager as the event host, Hearst
Connecticut Media has learned. The reception, held at the $29.7 million
Roman villa of Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener, was closed to the media.

Clinton then added to her haul in New Haven, returning to the city where
she met Bill Clinton as Yale Law students. Her visit came less than 24
hours after U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a potential rival for the Oval
Office, raked in $50,000 in Stamford and bashed Clinton over foreign money
raised by her family foundation.

"Presidential races are all bruising, and this one will probably involve
more spending than any in history, unfortunately," said U.S. Sen. Richard
Blumenthal, D-Conn., who went to school with the Clintons at Yale.

Clinton's campaign declined to comment her fundraising trip to Connecticut.

Blumenthal, who was in attendance at both the Greenwich and New Haven
fundraisers, said Clinton is tough enough to withstand all that will be
thrown at her.

"If you looked at her resume without knowing her name, and saw someone who
has been a U.S. senator, secretary of state and a close adviser and
confidante to at least two presidents and now brings the unique
perspectives and life experience of a woman at a historic turning point for
our country, that is a powerfully impressive candidate," Blumenthal said.
"That persona, plus her dedication to the country and her grasp of the
issues will be important to her winning."

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*O’MALLEY*

*O’Malley’s efforts on immigration reflect complex political realities
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/omalleys-efforts-on-immigration-reflect-complex-political-realities/2015/06/05/842bad96-0ba1-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html>
// WaPo // John Wagner & Arelis Hernandez – June 5, 2015 *

Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley stepped up his efforts to
court Latino voters this week, appearing before a Hispanic business group
and on Spanish-language television.

The former Maryland governor pledged to tackle comprehensive immigration
reform during his first 100 days if he makes it to the White House, and he
touted his record in Annapolis, which includes signing legislation that
allows undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses and in-state
college tuition rates.

While those and other measures have drawn applause from national immigrant
rights advocates — with some declaring O’Malley’s record the strongest in
the Democratic field — Maryland lawmakers present a more nuanced view.

Latino legislators and other advocates credit O’Malley with providing help
at key junctures but add that on some issues, he wasn’t doing the heavy
lifting. And at some points, particularly during the long, thorny debate
over driver’s licenses, O’Malley was at odds with the advocates.

As he has positioned himself to run in a Democratic field dominated by
Hillary Rodham Clinton, O’Malley has made frequent mention of his record on
immigration. He often recounts a battle last summer with the White House,
when he denounced the administration’s efforts to return migrant children
to their home countries after they illegally crossed the border from
Central America. And O’Malley has emphasized his decision to limit
Maryland’s cooperation with federal officials on deportations from a
state-run jail.

Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery), a native of El Salvador and the
first Latina elected to state office in Maryland, was not always pleased
with O’Malley on immigration issues. But on balance, she said, “he really
has shown leadership.”

Others are less charitable, among them former delegate Luiz R.S. Simmons,
another Democrat from Montgomery. O’Malley, Simmons said, “has a tendency
to jump on the caboose of the train as it’s pulling out of the station and
put on a conductor’s hat and walk to the front.”

Haley Morris, an O’Malley spokeswoman, said the candidate has “one of the
most progressive track records in the country on issues facing new
Americans,” noting that Maryland housed more refugee children per capita
than other states during the border crisis.

As a 2006 gubernatorial candidate, O’Malley did not focus heavily on
immigration. But he supported making driver’s licenses available to
undocumented immigrants, a position for which his GOP opponent attacked him
in television ads, and for granting in-state tuition rates to college
students.

A version of the latter legislation, known as the Dream Act, had been
vetoed by O’Malley’s Republican predecessor in 2003.

O’Malley signaled support for the legislation when it was proposed again in
2007, his first year in office. But the bill stalled in the Democratic-led
legislature amid concerns over whether it would reduce slots available for
students with legal status.

Although O’Malley made clear that he would sign the bill, he did not make
it part of his legislative package, a level of priority that he later gave
to bills legalizing same-sex marriage and repealing the death penalty.

Advocates tried again in 2011, bringing waves of “Dreamers” to Annapolis to
testify and lobby lawmakers. State Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery) said
it was widely known that O’Malley wanted the bill to succeed, which helped
secure votes. The measure passed, and Maryland joined nearly a dozen states
with similar measures.

Conservative activists petitioned to have the law put to a voter
referendum. During the campaign that ensued, O’Malley provided fundraising
and other political support. Voters approved the measure by a wide margin,
59 percent to 41 percent. O’Malley “spoke out on the bill and threw down
for the campaign,” said Kim Propeack, director of CASA in Action, the
political arm of the immigrant advocacy group.

The path to Maryland’s current policy on driver’s licenses had far more
twists. When O’Malley took office, Maryland was among just five states
where someone could get a license without having to prove they were in this
country legally. Critics charged that the program was open to fraud and
that it drew illegal immigrants to Maryland. Moreover, the federal
government was clamping down on driver’s licenses after the 2001 terrorist
attacks.

In 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act, which sought to curb state-issued
driver’s licenses for those in the country illegally. States were given
several years to implement the law, and the exact rules and how they would
be enforced changed on multiple occasions, O’Malley aides said.

O’Malley, concerned about threats by the federal government not to allow
anyone with a Maryland driver’s license to board an airplane, announced in
2009 that he would support a halt in issuing full-fledged licenses to
undocumented immigrants. Lawmakers passed a bill that discontinued new
licenses but allowed those who already had licenses to keep a restricted
version of them through 2015. The licenses could not be used as
identification to enter federal buildings or board airplanes.

Gutierrez and others argued that Maryland should leave its earlier policy
in place, in effect daring the federal government — with Democrat Barack
Obama in the White House — to enforce the law.

But other Democrats, including O’Malley, were loath to take the risk. “The
collective wisdom at the time was we shouldn’t roll the dice on it,” said
Brian E. Frosh, then a state senator chairing the Judicial Proceedings
Committee and now Maryland’s attorney general.

Four years later, advocates made a renewed push to overhaul the law, and
lawmakers approved a bill to issue licenses — with restrictions — to new
applicants and renew existing ones beyond 2015. O’Malley signed the bill.

The political climate had changed considerably by then, several lawmakers
said, making them more comfortable with the new approach. It seemed clear
that the Obama administration wasn’t going to impose punitive measures, and
passage of the Dream Act in Maryland in 2011 showed public support for
helping immigrants.

Del. Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Prince George’s) said it took some persuasion
to get O’Malley to support the 2013 bill.

“We showed him the numbers, arguing that immigrants are driving to work and
taking kids to school and that it was better for them to have insurance and
drive legally than to drive without one,” she said.

Gutierrez credited O’Malley with being “helpful the second time around.”

Since then, O’Malley has spoken out more forcefully on immigration, and he
has held up his record as evidence of his commitment to issues of
importance to the fastest-growing demographic group in the country.

“One of the greatest indicators of a person’s future actions will be how
they acted in the past when they had the power,” O’Malley told the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday.

*SANDERS*

*Sanders wants privacy panel in defense bill
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/244169-sanders-wants-privacy-panel-in-defense-bill>
// The Hill // Jordain Carney – June 5, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to create a panel to investigate the
impact of modern technology on privacy as part of an annual defense bill.

Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has
filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to
establish a "commission on privacy rights in the digital age."

The panel would study how the government, as well as private companies,
collect data on Americans and how the data is used, and make
recommendations on any changes needed to protect privacy.

"Innovations in technology have led to the exponential expansion of data
collection by both the public and private sectors," according to the
amendment.

Sanders voted against the USA Freedom Act, which reforms the National
Security Agency's collection of bulk phone metadata.

He suggested at the time the legislation doesn't go far enough to protect
Americans' privacy.

“Technology has significantly outpaced public policy," he said in a
statement earlier this week. "There is a huge amount of information being
collected on our individual lives ranging from where we go to the books we
buy and the magazines we read. We need to have a discussion about that.”

The two-year panel, which would have subpoena power, would also investigate
how data collection has changed and any implications on areas including
surveillance and hiring practices.

*Hawking shirts, buttons, Sanders opens shop
<http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/04/sanders-opens-online-store/28496505/>
// Burlington Free Press // Adam Silverman – June 5, 2015 *

The "For Sale" sign is out at the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.

An online merchandise store opened this week, offering a range of products
from T-shirts and coffee mugs to bulk packs of yard signs.

"Made and printed in the USA," boasts the product description on each of
the two shirts for sale — one light blue, the other white.

"Union-printed in the USA. Car safe! Outdoor durable for 3-5 years," reads
the description on the bumper stickers.

Sanders, Vermont's independent U.S. senator who is seeking the Democratic
presidential nomination, joins a narrow slice of the already packed 2016
presidential field by jumping into merchandising. Only six of the 14
declared candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides are hawking
buttons and hats through official online outlets as of Thursday afternoon.

There are plenty of unofficial vendors on the Web and at campaign events.
When Sanders held his kickoff last week at Burlington's Waterfront Park,
one man drove from Florida to sell buttons to the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000
supporters. Another came from Montpelier with a rack of hand-screened
T-shirts.

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a comprehensive official online
shop, where supporters can select from 32 products, starting at $5. There
are traditional items such as shirts and stickers, along with a number of
unique offerings that include a onesie for those who haven't quite reached
voting age, and a throw pillow for $55 that proclaims, "A woman's place is
in the White House."

A section of merchandise is geared toward "Pride" and features shirts,
stickers and buttons in rainbow colors.

Like Sanders' site, Clinton's also proclaims a made-in-America and union
pedigree for much of the merchandise.

On the Republican side, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., might have the most
extensive and elaborate online store of all. His site sells dozens of items
across a host of categories — "fun stuff," "car decor" and "Hillary"
sections join the more traditional categories of apparel and signs. Among
the highlights from the ophthalmologist's campaign: an autographed eye
chart for a $500 campaign contribution, and a signed copy of the
Constitution for a cool $1,000.

Paul also offers some novelties including an "NSA Spy Cam Blocker" — a $15
cover for webcams on laptop computers — and "Hillary's Hard Drive," a
computer drive for $99.95 that represents a swipe at the former secretary
of state's use of a private email server to conduct government business.

Supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee can browse 27 offerings,
while Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has 23 items in his online store. Rick Perry,
the former Texas governor, just jumped into the race Thursday and promptly
unveiled a bare-bones shop with four products.

As with the Democrats, the Republican stores also promote Made in the USA —
but there's hardly a mention of the word "union."

The candidates without stores are Democrats Lincoln Chafee and Martin
O'Malley, and Republicans Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George
Pataki, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum.

Back at the virtual Sanders storefront, shoppers can choose from 18 items.
The least expensive is $5, which can score a button, a bumper sticker or a
rally sign. T-shirts go for $15 to $21. The scale tops out at $225, which
gets buyers a pack of 25 white or blue "Bernie 2016" yard signs.

A Sanders campaign spokesman did not respond to an email this week asking
about the store.

*How Bernie Sanders Will Change Your Mind About The Label ‘Socialist’
<http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-change-mind-label-socialist/1054723/>
// The Elite Daily // Lani Seelinger – June 5, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. Before your mind goes straight to
Stalin’s Gulag and Iron Curtains, though, let’s talk about what that means.

In a number of different outlets, Bernie Sanders has come upon the
suggestion — which in many other cases would be more of an accusation —
that he is a democratic socialist. Instead of renaming his views, dancing
around the subject or flat out denying it, he embraces it.

It is, quite frankly, refreshing.

Before we get to him, though, let’s talk about the idea itself. Thanks to
the Cold War, Socialism has been a dirty word in American politics for
about 70 years now, and Sanders will be fighting an uphill battle to try to
change that.

In Sweden, though, the state just proposed extending paid paternity leave
to three months. In the Czech Republic, parents can take up to three years
of paid parental leave.

In many European countries, both health care and education all the way up
through graduate degrees are entirely free.

In Finland, every family receives a special “baby box” for the birth of
each child, equipped with everything a parent could need for those first
few months — condoms included.

If they already had a child and don’t need the box, they can opt instead
for financial compensation to the tune of 140 euro. Seriously.

I could go on, but you probably get the idea. Democratic socialism, which
these countries’ governments all practice to some extent, isn’t what we’ve
gotten to know from Soviet spy movies.

It isn’t a nanny state that tries to police your every move. It isn’t even
an arrangement in which the country’s citizens have no personal
responsibility, as so many Republican candidates have claimed over the
years.

It’s about support. It’s about equality. The idea behind the Finnish baby
box is that every child should have an equal starting point, but it doesn’t
stop there.

The Nordic countries, which includes Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and
Iceland, are at the top of scores of desirable measures.

Why wouldn’t we want that for our own country? Why wouldn’t we want to do
away with nasty things like student loan payments, short (and not always
paid) maternity leave time and a lack of helpful boxes for our newborn
children?

Bernie Sanders is here to tell us we could have all those things for our
country and much more… Except for the baby box — as far as I know, he
hasn’t said anything about that yet.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about all of this is, well, that he’s
serious.

Just when the Democrats were settling into the idea that Hillary is who
they’d be supporting for better or worse, just when they accepted that
Elizabeth Warren will not — and I repeat, NOT — be running for president,
in steps an old white guy with the same fire that Warren has and the same
drive to change American politics as we know them.

Or, as Daenerys Targaryen would say, Bernie Sanders wants to break the
wheel.

It’s a shame he doesn’t have any dragons to back his cause. Instead, he has
the examples of successful countries that have put his policies into
action, to great success.

On “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” he outlined his views more specifically,
particularly about why “socialism” isn’t a dirty word to him.

Using one example, he explained,

In most countries, health care is a right of all people. I don’t see that
as a problem.

And the thing is, his form of democratic socialism isn’t actually extreme,
even in America. In fact, it aligns directly with a lot more of the country
than many people seem to have noticed.

His view that the increasing wealth gap is a huge problem in America is one
that 63 percent of Americans share. A majority of Americans, like Sanders,
believe money in politics is hurting the system.

Sizeable majorities believe higher education is too expensive and that
student loan debt is a big issue. Sixty-nine percent of people believe
global warming is happening at least partly because of human activity.

He’s got a lot going for him: passion, early support and ideas for policies
most of the country supports (even if some of those people would normally
vote Republican). For all the Democrats who would have supported Warren’s
fire over Clinton’s centrism, this is the guy.

His challenge will be fighting with the buzzwords — in other words,
changing the public’s view on the word “socialist.” Is it possible? Yes,
definitely. Will it be difficult? Even more so.

We may not have seen this coming, but it’s about time we took note.
Bernie’s in it to win it.

*CHAFEE*

*Lincoln Chafee May Be Hillary's Biggest Problem
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/lincoln-chaffee-iraq-war/394871/>
// The Atlantic // Peter Beinart – June 4, 2015 *

In a field of Democratic presidential long shots, former Rhode Island
senator and governor Lincoln Chafee, who announced his candidacy on
Wednesday, may be the longest shot of all. As an authentic, uncompromising
progressive, Bernie Sanders is poised to grab the bulk of those Elizabeth
Warren enthusiasts who can’t reconcile themselves to Hillary Clinton. As
the handsome, articulate, two-term governor of a mid-size state, Martin
O’Malley at least looks like a plausible contender one day. Chafee, by
contrast, in the words of Quinnipiac University’s Monica Bauer, “has the
charisma of Walter Mondale wrapped in the political instincts of a small
town city councilman, which he once was, and perhaps would have remained,
if he hadn’t been the son of a famous political dynasty. He is George W.
Bush with more intelligence but far less political talent.” And like Bush,
Chafee was, until very recently, a Republican.

But Chafee could prove Hillary’s most intriguing challenger. It’s not
because he’ll garner enough support to give her a scare. If anyone does
that, it will likely be Sanders, who according to the New York Times is
already “gain[ing] momentum in Iowa.” What makes Chafee’s candidacy
intriguing is that he’s attacking Hillary on the issue on which she may be
most vulnerable: her vote to authorize war with Iraq.

“I don’t think anybody should be president of the United States that made
that mistake,” Chafee told The Washington Post in April. “It’s a huge
mistake, and we live with broad, broad ramifications today—of instability
not only in the Middle East but far beyond and the loss of American
credibility.”

A version of this attack helped Barack Obama topple Hillary in 2008. That’s
not likely to happen again, since Democrats care far less about Iraq this
time.

But Republicans do. While foreign policy has been largely absent from the
Democratic presidential campaign thus far, it’s been central to the
Republican debate. And this reflects a divide in the country as a whole. A
May Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that “national security/terrorism,”
which was the top concern of only eight percent of likely GOP primary
voters three years ago, now ranks first, at 27 percent. Among likely
Democratic primary voters, by contrast, it’s less than half that.

Iraq sits near the center of that concern. Every Republican presidential
candidate except Rand Paul is telling the same story: By 2008, as a result
of George W. Bush’s surge, America had won the Iraq War. But then Barack
Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by recklessly withdrawing US
troops. Since then, the Middle East has descended into the depths of hell,
and become a petri dish breeding ISIS barbarians eager to strike the United
States.

The best answer to this line of attack is the one Hillary can’t give: that
America should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. After all, it
wouldn’t have been necessary to stitch the Iraqi state back together
between 2006 and 2008, at a vast cost in money and blood, had the United
States not shattered it in the first place. But Hillary can’t give that
answer because she voted to authorize the war.

That’s what makes Chafee’s attack intriguing. He was the only Republican
senator who voted against authorizing war. Now, as a Democratic candidate
for president, he will talk about the collapse of Iraq and the rise of ISIS
in a way she can’t. And the way Hillary responds to him will preview her
response to the Republicans next fall.

Finding a good answer won’t be easy. On domestic issues like gay marriage,
mass incarceration, immigration, and campaign finance, Hillary has shifted
left in the primary, confident that she’s keeping pace not only with
Democratic primary voters but with the country as a whole. But on foreign
policy, the public isn’t moving left; it’s moving right. And Hillary cannot
as easily adapt her views to match that shift because until two years ago,
she was secretary of state.

Hillary’s greatest challenges may not be policy-based at all. They’ll
likely stem from questions about her honesty, and the sense that she
represents not the future but the past. But if there’s one policy question
that could prove dangerous, it’s Iraq. On that subject, Lincoln Chafee is
the canary in the coal mine. If Hillary can’t find an effective answer to
his attacks, it may be a sign of trouble ahead.

*WEBB*

*Former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has a seven-point plan to save
American foreign policy.
<http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/jim-webbs-seven-point-plan-save-us-foreign-policy-13054?page=2>
// The National Interest Evan Gottesman – June 5, 2015 *

“Our country is in need of a clearly articulated foreign policy statement,”
Webb boldly declared to an audience at George Mason University.

Senator Webb, who also served as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant
Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, characterized
current U.S. foreign policy as reactive and unstructured. Given this state
of affairs, Webb intimated his own platform aimed at grounding America’s
approach to the world in seven key principles.

1. The United States should be able to identify its national security
objectives and value systems.

“I like to see myself as a realist,” Webb told audience members,
contrasting himself with those “who see war at every corner.” Senator Webb
affirmed his opposition to foreign interventions that did not serve any
discernable national interest or worse, undermined America’s global
position.

“I was one of the first people to warn of the strategic blunder of going
into Iraq,” Webb recalled. Indeed, he penned an op-ed in The Washington
Post in September 2002 in which he asked readers, “Is there an absolutely
vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral
war and long-term occupation of Iraq?”

Throughout the years, Senator Webb has maintained a consistent position on
foreign interventions. The Obama administration justified the 2011 War in
Libya in humanitarian terms via the responsibility to protect, a pretext
Webb criticized as “vague.”

2. The United States should be able to develop partnerships with
trustworthy actors.

Senator Webb posited three criteria when considering aligning with a
foreign nation: the country’s stability, whether it engages in aggressive
expansionism, and how its government treats the citizenry.

Despite listing human rights as an area of interest in fostering overseas
partnerships, Webb challenged inconsistent approaches to democracy
overseas, citing American engagement with China as a standard. When he
returned from a trip to Myanmar, a reporter questioned how he could visit
an authoritarian state in good conscience. Webb pushed back: “When was the
last time China had an election?”

The senator also recalled a hearing just prior to the Libya intervention.
Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta charged, “Any government that kills
its own people in nonviolent protests does not deserve to be in power.”
Webb challenged Panetta: “What is your comment on the Tiananmen Square
incident?”

3. The United States should honor treaty obligations.

Here, Senator Webb stressed that Japan and the Philippines, two nations
tied to American defense pacts, should be a “preeminent concern.”

Senator Webb articulated his view that China’s behavior in East and
Southeast Asia warrants a robust American presence in the region. He noted
the area’s uniquely precarious position, describing it as “the only place
where the interests of China, Russia, and Japan intersect.” Here, Webb
believes the United States can be a stabilizing influence while supporting
a friendly Tokyo.

Senator Webb is particularly alarmed over China’s aspirations in the South
China Sea, which Beijing claims in nearly its entirety. “It is vitally in
our national interest to communicate strongly with China when it takes
expansionist moves in the South China Sea.” The dispute in the area could
draw the Philippines, a treaty-ally, and other states like Taiwan and
Vietnam into conflict with China.

4. The United States should support its non-treaty allies.

Not all American allies are bound to Washington by formal agreements.
Senator Webb affirmed that these non-treaty partners should receive
attention too, particularly in the Middle East, a region that hosts many
U.S. aligned governments few of whom have formal defense arrangements with
the United States.

5. The United States should maintain its superiority in strategic systems.

The United States maintains a qualitative technological edge over a range
of potential adversaries. This is visible in weapons systems, nuclear
capacity, and space capabilities. Senator Webb affirmed that these
technological advantages should not be traded away, even for economic
reasons.

6. The United States should preserve and recognize the right of national
self-defense.

Senator Webb closely linked this point to issues of terrorism. The United
States should be able to strike back against such attacks. This view,
Senator Webb explained, is consistent with the United Nations Charter,
particularly Article 51, which reads: “Nothing in the present Charter shall
impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”

7. Congress must step up and restore its relationship with the executive
branch.

Senator Webb identified a shift in war-making power from the Congress to
the presidency. He drew on Libya and Iraq as examples of executive military
maneuvers that bypassed legislative approval. In both cases, Webb felt that
no vital national interest was at stake.

Webb was similarly critical of President Bush’s unilateral negotiations
with Iraq. Bush arranged a long-term strategic relationship with Baghdad
that Congress never sanctioned. By contrast, the Iraqi parliament voted to
approve agreements with Washington.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance of Senator Webb’s
foreign policy platform, his positions are undeniably clear and well
defined. As Webb explores a 2016 presidential bid, the seven points he
articulated on Thursday could form the basis of a wider debate among the
candidates on the future of America’s international role.

*OTHER*

*Bankroller of Democratic Voting Rights Cases? George Soros
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/bankroller-of-democratic-voting-rights-cases-george-soros/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Politics&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 5, 2015 *

The billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whose first major involvement
in politics was with a large-scale voter mobilization effort in the 2004
presidential race, is funding a Democratic legal fight against restrictive
voting laws.

Mr. Soros became involved last year when Marc Elias, one of the top
Democratic lawyers specializing in voter protection issues, began exploring
a series of federal suits in advance of the 2016 election, according to Mr.
Soros’s political adviser, Michael Vachon.

Their goal is to try to influence voting rules in states where Republican
governors and Republican-led legislatures have enacted new election laws
since 2010, and to be ready to intervene when additional measures may be
passed over the next 17 months.

Mr. Soros is prepared to spend $5 million or more on the effort, Mr. Vachon
said. Two suits that he is supporting were filed in Ohio and in Wisconsin
last month, and he is also funding a case Mr. Elias is involved with in
North Carolina.

Mr. Vachon described the Democratic legal effort as an attempt to push back
at Republicans who he said were “using the legislative process” for
partisan purposes.

“It is disingenuous to suggest that these laws are meant to protect against
voter fraud, which is nearly nonexistent,” he said. “Clearly they are meant
to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”

Mr. Elias’s clients include four major Democratic party committees as well
as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“Clearly, fighting the Republican efforts to limit who can vote and when
they can vote will benefit Democrats, and it will benefit whomever runs for
president,” Mr. Vachon said. “But it also primarily benefits democracy with
a small ‘d.’”

In 2004, Mr. Soros invested millions of dollars into efforts to unseat
President George W. Bush, including through a voter mobilization drive
called America Coming Together.

He has not yet taken up the question of whether he will give money to the
“super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Vachon said. But the legal actions
filed by Mr. Elias are in keeping with the type of advocacy that Mr. Soros
has favored: the nexus of policy, politics and movement-building.

Republicans have argued that the new laws are much-needed protections
against election fraud and that the new round of lawsuits is little more
than a publicity-seeking exercise intended to mobilize Democratic voters.

But Democrats say the new laws disproportionately affect the poorest
voters, minorities and young people. A Government Accountability Office
study last October found that states with more stringent voter
identification laws had a larger decline in voter turnout than states that
did not have such new restrictions.

Mr. Vachon said he was approached by Mr. Elias in January 2014 about
supporting a voting rights lawsuit in North Carolina, where student
identification cards are not considered acceptable forms of photo ID. The
restrictions in North Carolina ended a program in which teenagers filled
out a form and were then registered automatically to vote on their 18th
birthday. Joining with the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund, the Justice
Department and the American Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Elias argued that
the law was onerous for younger voters in violation of the 26th Amendment,
which lowered the voting age to 18 from 21.

The North Carolina case is still pending. But Mr. Elias and Mr. Vachon have
discussed filing others in some of the 21 states that have added voting
restrictions since the 2010 Republican electoral wave, if those states seek
to tighten voting access any further.

“I expect there will be more,” Mr. Vachon said.

*The voting conversation has shifted. That’s good news for Dems.
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-voting-conversation-has-shifted-thats-good-news-dems>
//MSNBC // Zachary Roth – June 5, 2015 *

Over the last year or so, the conversation on voting in America has been
shifting. Now, Hillary Clinton’s major speech in Texas Thursday has
massively accelerated that movement.

By laying out a sweeping and positive vision for voting, Clinton smartly
turned the debate away from the restrictive Republican-backed laws like
voter ID that have made headlines in recent years, and toward the kind of
expansive ideas that could usher millions of new voters into the
process—chief among them, automatically registering everyone when they turn
18. That will lend crucial momentum to state-level proposals to increase
access, which already have been gathering steam of late. And politically,
it will force Republicans to explain why they oppose common-sense efforts
to make voting easier.

Democrats are already recognizing that they can take advantage of the
broadening conversation to put Republicans in a deeply uncomfortable spot.

Conservatives are noticing the shift, too. “[V]oter ID is yesterday’s
battleground,” wrote Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer
and a leading supporter of restrictive voting policies, with a hint of
trepidation. ”Sure, there are still court cases and bills, but the Left has
moved on to bigger and better things.”

But finally playing offense on voting isn’t just smart politics—though it
certainly is that. It also has the potential to transform the electorate.

The hot-button controversies over strict Republican voting laws have
obscured a crucial reality: Far more Americans are kept from voting by what
might be called softer barriers that have been in place so long that they
generate less attention: an antiquated registration system that, among
other problems, requires voters to re-register each time they move, leaving
around 50 million people unregistered; poorly maintained voter rolls that
cause confusion on Election Day; hours-long lines that drive some would-be
voters away in frustration and are worst in minority neighborhoods.

President Obama’s bipartisan panel on voting, convened in response to the
massive lines in Florida in 2012, helped put these issues—as well as the
importance of early voting to reduce lines on Election Day—on the agenda.
And the record low turnout in last fall’s midterms has helped focus the
conversation on how to get more voters to the polls. President Obama even
mused recently about mandatory voting, which he called “transformative.”

Since the start of the year, 464 bills to enhance voting access—many of
them modernizing the registration system—have been introduced in state
legislatures, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Democracy.
Oregon recently passed a law to establish automatic voter registration,
which could create as many as 800,000 new registered voters in that state
alone. And other states, including California, are considering following
suit.

Clinton’s aggressive plan will push those efforts forward. Expect to see
more universal voter registration measures introduced in states across the
country.

Of course, polls show ID is popular, so it’s no surprise that Clinton and
her allies would want to focus elsewhere. And to be sure, she offered a
full-throated condemnation of the wave of voting restrictions the GOP has
imposed in state after state. But in calling out four of her potential 2016
rivals by name, it was noticeable that she focused not on voter ID but more
broadly on their support for policies that restrict, rather than expand,
the electorate, and that target particular groups.

Clinton said Rick Perry had “signed a law that a federal court said was
actually written with the purpose of discriminating against minority
voters,” without noting that it was Texas’s strict ID law. And she slammed
Scott Walker for cutting back early voting and signing “legislation that
would make it harder for college students to vote,”—again without noting
that she was referring to voter ID.

In response, Perry sought to turn the focus back to the more familiar
terrain of voter ID. “I think it makes sense to have a photo ID to be able
to vote,” the former Texas governor said on Fox News Friday. “When I got on
the airline to come up here yesterday, I had to show my photo ID.”

And Walker fell back on an oft-used GOP talking point on the issue, asking
why Clinton doesn’t support policies “to make it easier to vote and harder
to cheat,” and calling her “far outside the mainstream.” (Asked which
expansive voting policies Clinton doesn’t support, a spokeswoman for
Walker’s PAC, Our American Revival, didn’t respond.)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, answering Clinton’s criticism of his state’s early
voting cuts, noted that New York, the state Clinton represented in the
Senate, doesn’t offer any early voting at all, and accused her of
“demagoguery.”

But those responses could be hard to sustain once more states move forward
with expansive legislation and the conversation gets more specific.
Ultimately, Republicans will need to explain why they don’t favor policies
to bring more people into the political process. And answering honestly
might not be an option.

*Things are looking up for President Obama
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8737319/economy-President-obama-improving> //
VOX // Jonathan Allen – June 5, 2015 *

President Obama's standing with the American public is improving as he
nears the final 18 months of his presidency, and a combination of solid
economic numbers, finding common ground with Republicans, and a diminished
need to serve as the partisan leader of Democrats should augur well for the
stretch run.

The economy added 280,000 jobs in May, the largest spike this year, and
unemployment remained stable at 5.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported Friday. Jason Furman, the chair of the White House Council of
Economic Advisers, pointed to the increase of 262,000 private sector jobs
in May, and 12.6 million over the past 63 months, as an indication of the
health of the economy.

Bureau of Labor Statistics via the White House Council of Economic Advisers

This graph shows how the economy went from hemorrhaging jobs during the
financial crisis to adding them consistently over the past five-plus years.

Obama still isn't getting as much credit for the improvement of the economy
as he might, but his numbers have been better this year than they were last
year. In late May, a CBS/New York Times poll of 1,022 adults found that 45
percent of Americans approved of the way he was handling the economy and 49
percent disapproved. The approval number was between 45 percent and 49
percent in four surveys taken this year by the two news organizations or
CBS alone. Last year, his numbers ranged from 38 percent to 43 percent in
CBS and CBS/New York Times polls.

"The President has been clear that he believes there is a strong case for
us to make, looking at the economic data, about the significant progress
that our economy has made since the worst economic downturn since the Great
Depression," White House spokesperson Jennifer Friedman said in an email to
Vox. "That said, the president believes there is more work that needs to be
done to strengthen our economy and further expand economic opportunity for
middle-class families."

Not surprisingly, the trends in Obama's overall approval ratings have
improved as Americans' views of his handling of the economy have risen
because jobs and the economy typically rank as the issues most important to
them. Obama's approval numbers have risen and stabilized this year,
compared with 2014, as the Gallup daily tracking polls show.

But Alec Tyson, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center, said that
while a growing economy can improve Americans' view of the president,
lingering worries about their own outlooks can limit that effect.

"It's hard for people to rate the president overwhelmingly favorably when
they're facing daily struggles," he said.

No one expects Obama and his Republican adversaries in Congress to start
clinking champagne glasses in the East Room anytime soon. But it's harder
for Republican leaders to whack him consistently when they find themselves
on the same side on headline-grabbing issues. And they've been working with
Obama a lot more in the early months of what the White House calls the
"fourth quarter" of his presidency.

Speaker John Boehner pushed White House–backed revisions to the Patriot Act
through the House last month, with 196 of the 338 overall votes for the
bill (58 percent) coming from Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell was critical of Obama and the bill — arguing it watered down
essential national security protections — but shepherded it through a bumpy
ride to enactment all the same. Of the 67 senators who voted for it, 23
were Republicans.

Obama's biggest legislative push this year is on trade, an issue that
unites Republicans and divides Democrats. It's got Paul Ryan, the 2012
Republican vice presidential nominee, praising the president.

"I think the president on this particular issue is right, and therefore I
think this is good for our country, good for the people I represent," Ryan,
a House member from Wisconsin, told CNN's Dana Bash in an interview that
aired Friday.

Two tracks

Obama seems to have found the formula he likes for policymaking: work with
lawmakers when he can and go around them when he can't. Executive actions
on climate change, immigration, Cuba policy, and the like have shown
Democrats that he's willing to flex his muscle on behalf of their
priorities. Indeed, there's no shortage of Democratic constituencies lining
up for help with executive action right now.

But the early legislative agenda, including a "fix" on Medicare
reimbursement rates for doctors, trade deals, and the revision and
extension of Patriot Act provisions, has lent itself to bipartisanship.
There's little doubt that will break down at some point: Democratic leaders
are promising to block all Republican spending bills over the GOP's effort
to backfill Obama Pentagon cuts with emergency war-funding money.

But for now, Obama's still looking to complement his use of executive power
with legislative action.

"He will continue to use each and every tool he has to pursue an aggressive
agenda to deliver for working families across the country, both by taking
action on his own and by working with Congress in a bipartisan fashion when
possible," Friedman said.

Tony Fratto, a Treasury and White House official in President George W.
Bush's administration, said working across the aisle could help Obama with
the public.

"I see the president's approval ratings as mostly a function of the
economic environment. As the economy improves and is seen as durable, his
approval ratings will be bolstered," said Fratto, whose firm, Hamilton
Place Strategies, is advocating for fast-track authority for the president.
"A win on trade, which is generally popular, can be seen as a bipartisan
win, and that would give a boost. Incidentally, a bipartisan win on trade
would boost perceptions of Congress, too."

The triangulation machine

Beyond the allure of bipartisanship, trade has given Obama an opportunity
to distance himself a bit from his party's base.

It's been the centerpiece of an increasingly vitriolic war between Obama
and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren's status as a heroine of
the left naturally makes Obama look more centrist when he fights her, and
that may be helpful for him going forward.

Their first big row was over Antonio Weiss, the Obama treasury
undersecretary nominee initially blocked by Warren. She wasn't pleased when
Obama did an end-run around her by giving him a political appointment that
didn't require Senate confirmation. Then came her criticism of Obama's
trade agenda, to which he fired back last month by saying she is
"absolutely wrong" on the merits. And just this week, Warren wrote a harsh
letter to Obama's Securities and Exchange Commission chief, Mary Jo White,
accusing her of leaving a trail of "broken promises" in not being a tougher
Wall Street overseer.

If Obama were looking for a way to show he's not beholden to his party's
base, he could hardly find a better one than fighting with Warren.

Handing over the reins

Obama is fond of reminding people that he's not running for president
again. It's not a completely liberating epiphany — the desire to protect
and nurture his legacy is reason enough not to just follow every whim.

But it's an important observation in this way: As the 2016 presidential
race heats up, Obama will become more of a supporting actor for his party
and less its leader. That role will fall to the Democratic nominee for
president.

That should free him from some of the overtly partisan work he's done in
past election cycles — particularly from raising money for himself and
hitting the stump as a candidate while he's running the country.

He should benefit from that, too.

*Pataki, Chafee, and O’Malley: No Chance In Hell
<http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/05/pataki-chaffee-and-omalley-no-chance-in-hell-n2008177>
// Town Hall // Matt Vespa – June 5, 2015 *

What do Martin O’Malley, George Pataki, and Lincoln Chafee have in common?
They don’t have a chance in hell in winning their party’s nomination for
president. On the Democratic side, given that Hillary’s favorables have
taken a plunge, it’s no surprise that Chafee and O’Malley decided to follow
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in challenging Clinton (via WaPo):

A once-sleepy Democratic presidential primary contest is fast coming alive
as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s poll numbers fall and a diverse array of
long-shot opponents step forward to challenge her.

The recent developments mark a dramatic evolution in the 2016 sweepstakes,
which until now has been shaped by the large assortment of hopefuls on the
Republican side, where there is no front-runner.

The latest Democrat to enter the race is Lincoln Chafee, a onetime
Republican and former Rhode Island governor and senator, who launched his
campaign Wednesday in Northern Virginia. Though his candidacy is quixotic,
Chafee’s sharp attacks on Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy record — and in
particular her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq — could nonetheless
complicate her march to the nomination.

Chafee joins an underfunded and jumbled field of Clinton rivals who see the
favorite’s coziness with Wall Street and political longevity as weaknesses
and who think she is vulnerable to a grass-roots contender who better
captures the party’s liberal soul.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a fiery populist who identifies as a
socialist, has been attracting some of the largest crowds of any candidate
from either party as he summons supporters to join his “political
revolution.”

Truth be told, it’s probably going to remain sleepy. Clinton has the money,
the organization, the endorsements, and the polling advantage–to the point
where she could just ignore her opponents and deprive them of oxygen,
especially when it comes to debates.

With Pataki, well, he would have a chance at winning … if he were running
to replace Richard Nixon (via FiveThirtyEight):

Ideologically, he’s an old-school Republican (i.e., liberal) running in a
modern GOP (i.e., very conservative). He is more moderate than any recent
Republican nominee and is the most moderate candidate in the 2016
Republican field, according to our aggregated ideological scores. Pataki
is, among other things, in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage. He’s
somewhat of an environmentalist.

(Barely) to the left of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose candidacy is
all but dead, is not the place you want to be given that a plurality of
Republicans believe Christie is not conservative enough.

Pataki’s ideological score looks more like Richard Nixon’s, and Pataki
would probably have had better luck running to replace Nixon rather than
President Obama.

According to the General Social Survey, 57 percent of Republicans
identified as moderate or liberal in 1974. Since then, that figure has
steadily declined to 43 percent in 1994 (when Pataki won the governorship
of New York) to only 35 percent in 2014. That’s large enough to be part of
a winning coalition in a primary, but not enough to win.

But the wonks at Nate Silver’s data crunching site aren’t just hitting
Pataki; they had noted that Chafee’s anti-war angle is stale, and that
Maryland voters really don’t like O’Malley.

On Chafee, they’re kind of brutal on his prospects:

The problem for Chafee is that this is 2015, not 2007. Back then, the Iraq
War was at the forefront of the public’s mind. An April 2007 Gallup survey
found that 21 percent of Democrats said the Iraq War was the country’s most
important problem,1 and an additional 13 percent said the “fear of war.”
This gave then-Sen. Barack Obama, who spoke out against the Iraq War from
the start, a wide opening in his run against Clinton. Among those voters
who said the Iraq War was most important, Obama beat Clinton. Clinton beat
Obama on the two other major issues (the economy and health care).

Today, few Democratic voters are thinking about Iraq.

In March 2015, just 3 percent of Democrats said the Iraq War was the most
important problem in Gallup’s poll. Only 1 percent said the most important
problem was the “fear of war.”

Chafee is polling at 1 percent or less nationally and in Iowa and New
Hampshire, and there is absolutely no reason to think he will ever be
competitive in the Democratic primary.

He also had what’s being called a disaster of a campaign rollout.

As for O’Malley, Clinton sucks the oxygen out his home state numbers, but
Bernie Sanders is doing a lot better in Vermont, meaning that while he also
doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning the 2016 nomination–he could mount
a decent challenge to Clinton. After all, there are enough far lefties in
the Democratic base to mount such a campaign; they just don’t have enough
voters to win an insurgent campaign yet:

The people who know him best don’t like him. O’Malley is starting way down
in the polls, and he’s not well known. And we have evidence that more
O’Malley exposure doesn’t equal more O’Malley support. He earned just 3
percent (compared to Clinton’s 63 percent) in a poll of Democratic voters
in Maryland conducted in October by The Washington Post and the University
of Maryland.

If this strikes you as a surprisingly low percentage for a two-term
Maryland governor and former mayor of the state’s most populous city, it
should. It speaks to the fact that O’Malley was unpopular enough in
deep-blue Maryland that by the end of his second term, Republican Larry
Hogan came out of nowhere to defeat O’Malley’s lieutenant governor in the
2014 governor’s race.

Eventual nominees (excluding incumbent presidents) in the modern primary
era have always led in early polling in their home states, even when they
polled poorly nationally.

O’Malley’s main competitor for second place in the Democratic primary,
Bernie Sanders, got 36 percent of the vote and even led Clinton in an
October 2014 Castleton Polling Institute survey of Vermonters. That points
to a base of support that should allow Sanders to do fairly decently in the
primary, even if he has little chance of winning.

There is one silver lining for Pataki, or candidates with his vein of
politics; the conservative base of the GOP is shrinking. Only 42 percent of
Republicans describe themselves as economically and socially conservative.
It’s at its lowest level since Gallup began gauging the party’s base in
2005. Nevertheless, they’re still the largest group representing the
Republican Party. The second largest group at 24 percent regard themselves
as moderate or liberal on social and economic issues. So, theoretically,
there may be some wiggle room for a Pataki candidacy, or one with a similar
flavor in the future, but moderates shouldn’t be hoping for any success.

With Pataki, besides his name recognition problem (Pataki left New York’s
governor’s mansion in 2006), and the fact that he will probably have zero
grassroots support–he’s pro-choice. The Republican base may have seen its
conservative cohorts shrink in size, but there’s probably never going to be
a presidential candidate from the right that will support abortion rights …
ever. As Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg wrote, Gary Johnson, Arlen
Specter, Pete Wilson, and Rudy Giuliani have all tried to win the GOP
nomination with that position and failed.

Moreover, there’s the well-known factor that the 2016 field is already
diverse, stacked with solid conservatives (certainly better than 2012) for
Republican voters to choose from, instead of wasting their time on a
Rockefeller brand name that’s been damaged since the Goldwater campaign in
1964.

With the Democrats, I would have to say they should hope that Vice
President Biden enters the race. It provides the only avenue for them to
attack Clinton effectively on a national stage on live television. Biden
will probably poll low in the polls, but you really can’t deny debating the
VP. And with candidates with similar strength in the polls, there’s no good
argument for the networks to deny them a spot. After all, the motley crew
that is the 2016 Democratic primary isn’t as large.

This could all be pipe dreams though. I mean, even on a debate stage, they
probably still don’t have a chance in hell since no one will abandon
Hillary. She isn’t talking to the media, but even then; bank on pretty much
everyone willing to follow her into the pits of Tartarus, despite the fact
that her possible ethical and legal baggage would disqualify anyone running
for president.

For Democrats, it’s settled. For Republicans, the primary wars are revving
up–and Pataki will probably fall mid-way through the first round.

*In two minds
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21653647-new-challengers-hillary-clinton-underline-partys-weaknesses-two-minds>
// The Economist – June 5, 2015 *

A CURIOUS mixture of cockiness and angst grips Democrats as they
contemplate the next presidential election season, which—dreadful to
relate—is now under way. For their party is at once in a strikingly strong
position, and has not looked so weak in years.

Start with the party’s strengths. Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of
state, senator and first lady, announced that the first big rally of her
campaign for the presidential nomination would take place on June 13th, on
an island off Manhattan. The event is certain to be packed out. Mrs Clinton
is not just very famous; she enjoys poll leads over every Republican
thought to be running for the White House (a pack that looks like growing
to 16 contenders).

Democrats now also know that Mrs Clinton will face a contest for the
Democratic presidential nomination, allowing her to hone her campaign
skills and messages. On May 30th Martin O’Malley (above), a telegenic,
guitar-playing former governor of Maryland, launched a challenge to her. He
spoke at a sun-dappled event overlooking Baltimore harbour, flanked by
artfully chosen representatives of fast-growing voter blocs that twice
helped Barack Obama to win the White House, including Hispanics, urbanites
and young women. Mr O’Malley was introduced by a young, gay Afro-Latino
student without legal immigration status, who thanked him for supporting
migrant rights and gay marriage in the state.

Nor are fans of economic populism forgotten. Activists have reluctantly
concluded that their heroine, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, is
not running, suspending their “Run Warren Run” campaign. But they are
rallying to Senator Bernie Sanders, a snowy-haired tribune of the left who
began his campaign in earnest on May 26th, and who has been wowing meetings
in Iowa.

On paper, then, the party is well-placed to mobilise different elements of
the Obama coalition. The so-far-declared Democratic candidates sound in
near-lockstep on big progressive causes. All support gay marriage and the
right to abortion. They believe that government must tackle climate change,
and want millions of migrants currently in America without legal papers to
be allowed to stay and eventually enjoy a path to citizenship.

On one day every four years, when the presidency is at stake, the voter
blocs of that Obama coalition pose a daunting challenge to Republicans.
Whit Ayres, a pollster advising Senator Marco Rubio, a Floridian Republican
running for president, summed up the problem in a recent book: “2016 and
Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America”.
Demographic groups that form the core of Republican support—older whites,
blue-collar whites, married people and rural residents—are declining as a
share of the electorate, Mr Ayres notes. In 2012 Mitt Romney, the
Republican presidential candidate, picked up 59% of white votes. But he won
just 17% of non-white votes. In 2016 America will be still less white, so
that even if Republicans match Mr Romney’s performance among whites, they
will need 30% of non-white votes to take the White House—a feat the party
did not achieve in 2012, 2008 or even in 2004, when George W. Bush, trading
on his popularity in Texas, enjoyed the backing of Hispanics in his
re-election.

Yet Democrats have serious weaknesses, too. Put bluntly, Mrs Clinton is
their only serious candidate for the presidency. The crowd at Mr O’Malley’s
launch was neither large nor confident that Maryland’s ex-governor has any
chance of overtaking Mrs Clinton. Indeed, many in attendance did not want
Mrs Clinton stopped, instead expressing hopes that Mr O’Malley’s entry into
the race might simply tug the front-runner a bit to the left. Mr O’Malley
drew most applause when he cited claims that big bank bosses would be happy
to see Mrs Clinton or Jeb Bush, the former Republican governor of Florida
(and a son and brother to presidents) win the White House. “Well, I’ve got
news for the bullies of Wall Street,” Mr O’Malley declared. “The presidency
is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal
families.” The cheers were mostly venting: a CNN poll on June 2nd showed
60% of Democrats backing Mrs Clinton for the presidential nomination. Her
nearest rival, Vice-President Joe Biden, was on 14%, though (especially
since the death on May 30th of his son Beau) he shows no signs of running.
Mr O’Malley was on 1%.

The CNN poll gives Mr Sanders 10% of the Democratic vote. But activists at
Sanders rallies are indulging in a holiday from political reality when they
cheer his calls for state-run universal health care, free tuition at public
universities and taxpayer-funded elections. That might be a fine platform
in France. It is unserious in America (as is the proposal of Lincoln
Chafee, a former Republican senator and independent governor of Rhode
Island, who launched a Democratic presidential bid on June 3rd, to switch
America to the metric system).

Mrs Clinton’s dominance worries even supporters, who know they have few
options if she stumbles, or is overtaken by scandals related to her
family’s charitable foundation or her use of a private e-mail server as
secretary of state, to name just two possibilities. Weeks of news reports
probing the finances of Mrs Clinton and her husband, Bill, have already
left a mark. Two new polls show sharp falls in the number of Americans who
trust her.

In part, Mrs Clinton’s stature explains the Democrats’ lack of a deep bench
of swing-state governors or senators with eyes on the presidency. But in
part their thin bench reflects a broader weakness in recent
non-presidential elections. The reasons are complex. The Obama coalition
includes many sporadic voters who skip state and local contests. Lots of
Democratic votes are packed inefficiently into super-safe urban districts
(many with gerrymandered boundaries). The results are simply brutal. In
Washington Republicans enjoy their largest majority in the House of
Representatives since 1946, while the elections of 2014 were a bloodbath
for Democratic senators in conservative states. Republicans control 69 of
99 state legislature chambers, and 31 of 50 governors’ mansions.

If Democrats are united by their strengths, and on how to woo the Obama
coalition, they disagree about how to tackle their weaknesses and win back
Middle America. Mr O’Malley and Mr Sanders propose a sharp left turn. Mrs
Clinton, by contrast, has been cagey about her views on the policies that
divide Democrats. She is right to be cautious. Many numbers favour her
party; but many do not.

*Iowans Always Complain The Caucuses Are Getting Less Important. This Time
They Have a Point.
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/05/_iowa_caucus_2016_the_real_reason_the_state_should_be_worried_that_it_s.html?wpsrc=fol_tw>
// Slate // Josh Voorhees – June 5, 2015 *

here’s handwringing in the heartland. Iowa’s political and chattering
classes—and, to a lesser extent, its actual voters—are fretting that their
first-in-the-nation nominating contest has lost its luster. Dave Price, the
political director for NBC’s affiliate in Des Moines, is the latest to give
voice to the angst, writing in this week’s Politico Magazine cover story
that there’s a “palpable anxiety in political circles—and even rumblings
that Iowa’s king-making days might be over, or at least that the national
media, and the rest of the country, will pay less heed this cycle.”

Iowa politicos—like their colleagues in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and
Nevada—are a particularly nervous breed. They know better than anyone that
their early-nominating status translates directly into political chits and
campaign cash for themselves and their state party, and that every minute
and dollar a presidential candidate spends elsewhere is one that they
aren’t spending in the Hawkeye State. Still, their fears don’t need be
altruistic to be accurate.

For Iowans craving the type of caucus clashes that keep candidates and the
political press corps camped out in their state for months, there really is
reason to worry. Hillary Clinton’s continued polling dominance suggests the
Democratic frontrunner will probably be able to keep playing things safe in
Iowa, as well as everywhere else. Likewise, GOP establishment favorites
like Jeb Bush may decide against slugging it out with more conservative
candidates in a nominating contest that is dominated by values voters and
tea partiers. As the first-in-the-nation nominating contest, Iowa will
still matter, but not as much as it did in decades past.

Such campaign cycle-specific headaches, though, are nothing new in Iowa,
particularly among Republicans. “Politically speaking, this state is in
something of an existential crisis,” the Washington Post declared at this
point in the last presidential cycle, when it appeared as though Mitt
Romney had forgotten where Iowa was on the map. Four years before that, the
Hawkeye State’s harrumphing was directed at eventual GOP nominee John
McCain and his decision to focus the lion’s share of his resources
elsewhere, an Iowa-ignoring strategy he had deployed with even greater
force in the 2000 cycle.

Iowa’s real reasons to worry, though, go well beyond 2016. Two long-term
game-changers loom large on the horizon. The first is the decision by the
Republican and Democratic parties to rein in the number of primary debates.
By allowing network execs to use national polls to decide who makes it onto
the debate stage and who doesn’t, the national parties have effectively
created a series of mini-national primaries that will winnow the field long
before Iowans have a chance to. The second is the continued rise of super
PACs and their dark-money brethren, which have the ability to keep
otherwise doomed campaigns afloat far longer than they have any right to
be. In primaries past, a poor performance in Iowa or one of the other
early-nominating contests would make it mighty difficult for a candidate to
raise the type of small-dollar donations he needed to soldier on. That’s no
longer the case now that a single deep-pocketed patron can cut a seven- or
eight-figure check. Iowa, then, might not have the chance to weed out the
presidential pretenders in the field, nor the power to force any contenders
from the race.

Iowans, though, have little reason to complain. They might be watching
their political influence wane, but they and their fellow early-nominating
states are still showered with a disproportionate amount of attention and
campaign cash. Clinton may be playing hard to get, but Martin O’Malley and
Bernie Sanders have already made more than two dozen visits apiece.
Meanwhile, the state still has enough of a Republican draw that Rand
Paul—Rand Paul!—felt it necessary to find something to love about its
government-subsidized ethanol industry. There is no divine right of
kingmakers that will preserve the Iowa Caucus forever, but as long as it
remains the first contest on the calendar, it will always get to hold court.

*GOP*

*BUSH*

*Jeb readies for upcoming road trips
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jeb-bush-road-trips-before-announcement-118681.html>
// Politico // Eli Stokols – June 5, 2015*

Jeb Bush’s coy game of pretending there’s still doubt as to whether or not
he’ll run for president is ending with a bang — two weeks of aggressive
travel and campaigning.

After releasing a new website Thursday morning signaling a June 15 campaign
launch, Bush will spend his final week as an unofficial candidate meeting
with European leaders in Germany, Poland and Estonia in a trip designed to
bolster his foreign policy credentials and give greater definition to his
argument that the U.S. should be doing more to help its allies.

The expected announcement would make Bush the 10th declared candidate in
the Republican primary.

From Miami, Bush will depart for what’s being billed as the “Jeb
Announcement Tour.” He’ll spend the week cycling through the early voting
states: Tuesday in Derry, New Hampshire; Wednesday in Pella, Iowa; and
Thursday in Charleston, South Carolina.

Bush’s oldest son, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush, will hold an
event Saturday in Henderson, Nevada; while Jeb Bush will not be there,
he’ll make his first official campaign stop in the Silver State on June 27.
The last time Bush visited Nevada, in mid-May, he accidentally stated
during an interview with a local TV station that he’s running for president
— before correcting himself.

While national polls show Bush near the top of the deep GOP primary field,
polls in the early states show that he has work to do, especially in Iowa,
where he’s only made two trips so far this year and currently polls in
seventh place.

*Memo to Jeb Bush: Avoid foreign quagmires
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/05/politics/jeb-bush-election-2016-travel/> //
CNN // Stephen Collinson – June 5, 2015*

Jeb Bush is Europe bound. High on the travel agenda: steering clear of the
pesky foreign quagmires that have engulfed his GOP brethren on recent trips
abroad.

The former Florida governor will visit Germany and also tour Estonia and
Poland -- two former Soviet states that offer an easy platform for
criticism of the Obama administration's policy towards Russian President
Vladimir Putin.

It should be an easy mission for an accomplished politician -- a quick flit
across the pond to bolster foreign policy credentials ahead of a likely
presidential campaign.

But Bush should choose his words with care if he is to avoid extending a
dubious streak that has seen Republican candidates tumble into controversy
overseas.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 presidential nominee, endured a disastrous trip to
Europe three years ago and committed a huge gaffe by questioning Britain's
readiness to host the London Olympic Games on the eve of their taking place.

Romney tried to roll back his criticism but was openly mocked in front of a
huge crowd by London Mayor Boris Johnson in unflattering video footage that
was beamed back to the United States.

Romney also went to Poland and suffered the indignity of reporters yelling
at him to answer for his missteps -- before a top campaign aide was caught
on camera telling the press pack to "kiss my a**."

Romney's disastrous sojourn earned him the unwelcome headline "Mitt the
Twit" in the merciless British tabloid press.

This election cycle has not been kind to potential presidential candidates
who venture across the Atlantic either.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also managed to irk Johnson when he claimed in
January that some areas of Europe, including parts of Britain, had become
Muslim "no-go zones."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, meanwhile, found out earlier this year that
answering questions abroad about boiling political issues back home can
also get you into trouble.

Christie said that parents should have a "measure of choice" about whether
to vaccinate their kids, drawing charges that he was equivocating to
appease evangelical conservatives.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made his own trip to London this year and
dodged a question on whether he believed in evolution -- and managed to
steer clear of deeper distractions by avoiding questions on pretty much
everything else.

Perhaps wisely, Bush is avoiding London, where journalists like nothing
more than tripping up visiting American presidential candidates.

Had he braved the wrath of the British media, Bush would likely have faced
unwelcome questions about his brother, former president George W. Bush, and
the Iraq war, both of which remain deeply unpopular in the U.K.

His visit to Germany will recall then-Sen. Barack Obama's trip to Europe
during the 2008 presidential campaign, which saw him deliver a soaring
speech before a crowd of hundreds of thousands euphoric Germans in downtown
Berlin.

But even Obama, who was wildly popular in Europe, didn't escape
controversy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was apparently annoyed at his
campaign's request for him to speak before the iconic Brandenburg Gate,
where President Ronald Reagan once cried, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this
wall!"

Obama did not get that privilege until his second term, in 2013, by which
time he was much less popular in Europe and, as a consequence, drew a much
smaller crowd.

*Jeb Bush’s struggle with conservatives
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-struggle-conservatives> // MSNBC //
Chuck Todd & Mark Murray – June 5, 2015 *

Jeb is struggling with conservatives more than Romney did at this same
point four years ago: Our colleague Dante Chinni notes in the Wall Street
Journal that Jeb’s standing with conservatives is WORSE than Mitt Romney’s
in the 2012 cycle. Consider:

Jeb’s fav/unfav with conservatives:  33%-28% (April 2015 NBC/WSJ poll)

Romney’s fav/unfav with conservatives: 40%-14% (June 2011 NBC/WSJ poll)

Jeb’s poll position with conservatives: 3rd (April 2015 NBC/WSJ poll)

Romney’s poll position with conservatives: 1st (June 2011 NBC/WSJ poll)

*Jeb Bush Facing Crucial Two-Week Stretch
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-05/jeb-bush-facing-crucial-two-week-stretch>
// Bloomberg News // Michael Bender – June 5, 2015 *

When Jeb Bush returns next week from Estonia, the tiny, technologically
advanced country that shares a border with Russia, he’ll have about 48
hours to shake off the jet lag before a June 15 rally in Miami, where he
formally announces his decision to enter the race for the Republican
presidential nomination.

That will be the midpoint of a crucial two weeks in which Bush will first
try to establish his foreign policy credentials, and then introduce himself
to voters. The week before his campaign launch, the former Florida governor
travels to Germany, Poland and Estonia; the week after, he will be stumping
in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

In case there's any doubt what Bush will be announcing later this month,
his spokeswoman Kristy Campbell offered this Thursday: "Governor Bush is
thankful for the support and encouragement he's received from so many
Americans, and is excited to announce his decision."

“The Bush kids have had a chance to have a front-row seat in history.”

Bush's "decision" will come just two days after Hillary Clinton holds her
much-ballyhooed first campaign rally in New York City. But if there were
any concerns about sharing the spotlight with the other political dynasty
in the race—or about the quick transition from Europe to a campaign
announcement at Miami Dade College’s Theodore Gibson Health Center (a
complex that includes a 3,200-seat gymnasium)—they may have been overridden
by other scheduling issues.

The fact is, Bush has waited so long to make it official that he's running
into a bit of a calendar crunch: The last week of June is expected to bring
highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay
marriage, both decisions that have the potential to dominate the political
news cycle and force candidates off message as they respond. Then comes the
long Independence Day holiday weekend and the start of family vacation
season. And then, the first Republican presidential debate in Cleveland on
August 6. To have any chance of getting a ticket to be on stage, a
candidate has to be officially in the race.

Before Bush becomes the 11th major Republican candidate in the race, he’ll
have a chance to polish his foreign-policy résumé with a week in Berlin,
Warsaw and Tallinn, Estonia. It’s the kind of opportunity that some of his
potential Republican rivals haven’t been able to seize, especially the
governors among them.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has curiously claimed that President
Reagan’s firing of air-traffic controllers who went on strike in 1981 was
the most important foreign policy event of the past five decades (and
wrongly said the move influenced U.S.-Russian relations).

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie refused to answer questions about
foreign policy issues while traveling to England in February. Asked by a
Washington Post reporter during the trip about the terrorist threat from
Islamic State, Christie said, “Is there something you don’t understand
about ‘no questions’?”

Foreign policy prompted Bush’s one major gaffe in the seven months since he
served notice in December that he was serious about running for president.

In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on May 9, Bush said he’d have
authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq even knowing the intelligence was
faulty. Bush struggled for the next week to give a clear answer, finally
saying on May 14 that he “would not have engaged” in Iraq, knowing what he
knows now.

“That’s one that shook a lot of people,” a Bush fundraiser who requested
anonymity to speak about private conversations told Bloomberg. “That’s a
question you know was coming. It should have been a slam dunk and gone, and
it didn’t happen that way. But even the most professional of these guys
stumble from time to time.”

Bush has also incorrectly claimed that the Islamic state didn’t exist when
his brother, George W. Bush, was president, and that al-Qaeda had been
wiped out.

But expectations for Bush should be high.

A fluent Spanish speaker who lived in Venezuela before entering politics,
Bush led trade and advocacy missions to at least 18 countries as governor,
including Peru and Israel, as well as a six-day trip in 2005 that included
stops in Dusseldorf and Munich, two of Germany’s largest cities.

As a former senior advisor to London-based Barclays PLC, Bush says he
traveled overseas 89 times to 29 countries in the eight years after leaving
office. Last year, Bush started an investment fund with backing from a
Chinese conglomerate. He has said he had been traveling about four times a
year to China, where his father, George H.W. Bush, served as U.S.
ambassador before being elected the nation's 41st president.

"The Bush kids have had a chance to have a front-row seat in history,” Bush
said at a Republican National Committee rally during his father’s 1992
re-election bid. “We’ve seen the tumbling of the Berlin Wall, the hammer
and the sickle going down from the Kremlin on Christmas Day just a few
years ago. We’ve seen so many incredible things happen.”

In Berlin, Bush will participate in a question-and-answer session during an
economic conference on June 9, where he'll have a prime speaking slot
sandwiched between Google Inc. Chairman Eric Schmidt, and German Chancellor
Angela Merkel.

Merkel supports the nuclear negotiations with Iran that Bush opposes, but
Bush’s father remains very popular in the country because of the role he
took promoting German reunification while he was in the White House.
Outside the former president's library in College Station, Texas is a
statue of horses leaping over pieces from the Berlin Wall, a Cold War relic
that came down during his term in the White House. Germany unveiled its own
monument in Berlin in 2010, known as the "Fathers of German Unity," that
includes bronze busts of Bush, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev,
and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

That legacy may help Bush counter the one left by his brother. The nation's
43rd president remains generally disliked in Europe because of his
aggressive foreign policy and unpopular war in Iraq, said Alexander
Privitera, a senior fellow at at the Johns Hopkins American Institute for
Contemporary German Studies.

While Europeans are "going to be looking for signs of whether he's similar
to his brother," Privitera predicted that “there won’t be thousands
protesting against Jeb Bush. A lot of people will associate him with
memories that are overcharged with emotions."

In Poland, Bush will participate in a roundtable with the Polish-American
Freedom Foundation, a pro-democracy, free-market group, and meet with
senior members of the Polish government about efforts to support Ukraine.

In Estonia, where the Internet phone service Skype was born and where
residents can vote and pay their taxes online, Bush will participate in a
roundtable discussion about transatlantic security with the International
Center for Defense and Security, a group focused on cyber attacks, social
cohesion and energy policy in the Baltic-Nordic region. Bush will also tour
NATO’s Cyber Defence Center of Excellence, and meet Estonians from the
e-Estonia Showroom, a briefing center that highlights the country's digital
successes.

Bush called Estonia “this really cool, tiny country” during a speech in
Florida on Wednesday. He held up the Baltic nation, population 1.3 million,
as an example of a relatively simple tax code.

“You can fill out your tax return in Estonia online in five minutes,” Bush
said. “That should be a worthy aspiration for a great nation.”

*RUBIO*

*Rubios on the Road Have Drawn Unwanted Attention
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport & Steve Eder – June 5, 2015*

Senator Marco Rubio has been in a hurry to get to the top, rising from
state legislator to United States senator in the span of a decade and now
running for president at age 44.

But politics is not the only area where Mr. Rubio, a Republican from
Florida, has an affinity for the fast track. He and his wife, Jeanette,
have also shown a tendency to be in a rush on the road.

According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the
Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for
incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless
driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had
a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four
separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a
violation.

Mr. Rubio’s troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics. In
1997, when he was cited for careless driving by a Florida Highway Patrol
officer, he was fined and took voluntary driving classes. A dozen years
later, in 2009, he was ticketed for speeding on a highway in Duval County
and found himself back in driver improvement school.

Things got more complicated in 2011 when Mr. Rubio was alerted to the fact
that his license was facing suspension after a traffic camera caught him
failing to stop at a red light in his beige Buick. His lawyer, Alex Hanna,
paid a $16 fee to delay the suspension and eventually it was dismissed.

County records show Senator Marco Rubio and his wife, Jeanette, have been
cited for numerous driving incidents over the years.

“Senator Rubio’s license has always been in good standing,” Mr. Hanna said
in a statement provided by Mr. Rubio’s campaign. “This matter was resolved
by the court system and at no point was the license suspended by the D.M.V.”

That was not the last time Mr. Rubio was ticketed. In 2012 he was caught
failing to obey a stop sign, but the infraction was dismissed.

Ms. Rubio’s driving record is even messier.

According to the records, her driver’s license faced suspension on three
occasions, including after a 2009 episode where she was driving a white
Cadillac at 58 miles per hour on a road in West Miami with a speed limit of
35 m.p.h. She paid a $302 fine and agreed to attend a four-hour course at a
local traffic school.

However, Ms. Rubio, who also took a four-hour basic driver improvement
course after a careless driving incident in 2000, failed to complete the
class and had to pay another $34 penalty.

The lessons apparently did not stick. A year later, in 2010, she was
stopped for driving 23 m.p.h. in a school zone where the speed limit was 15
m.p.h. She was fined $185.

It is not clear how the numerous infractions have affected the Rubios’ car
insurance policy or premiums. On at least one occasion, Ms. Rubio was cited
for lacking documentation that her car was insured.

The Rubios have spent more than $1,000 paying traffic penalties over the
years, but after Mr. Rubio was elected to the Senate in 2010 they took a
different approach to handling their tickets.

Mr. Rubio hired Mr. Hanna, a Miami-based lawyer and donor, whose website
sales pitch says, “Have you received a traffic ticket? Don’t pay it.” With
Mr. Hanna’s help, Mr. Rubio’s last two citations were dismissed and seven
of Ms. Rubio’s last eight were cleared.

Mr. Rubio’s campaign had no comment on the traffic violations or whether
Ms. Rubio’s license was ever actually suspended.

And not all accidents become police matters. Earlier this year, Ms. Rubio,
a former cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins, sideswiped a Porsche Panamera
while driving her husband’s Ford F-150 truck to a donor event at the Delano
Hotel in Miami Beach. According to the Miami Herald, the police declined to
take a report on the incident because it was a “minor” fender bender.

If Mr. Rubio is fortunate to make it as far as the White House, there will
be many perks that come with the job. Chief among them, however, might be
having a driver.

*Marco Rubio’s Iraq quagmire deepens: This is what a foreign policy wonk
looks like?
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/05/marco_rubios_iraq_quagmire_deepens_this_is_what_a_foreign_policy_wonk_looks_like/>
// Salon // Simon Maloy – June 5, 2015 *

For someone who is running for the White House based on his supposedly
sterling foreign policy credentials, Marco Rubio seems to have trouble
forming coherent thoughts when it comes to Iraq. A few weeks ago, Rubio
offered up a thoroughly nonsensical answer to whether he’d have supported
the 2003 invasion of Iraq, explaining that he would have done it, but also
that he wouldn’t have done it, but also that the invasion was totally worth
it. And just yesterday on Fox News, he served up this beautiful nugget of
incoherence on what he’d like to see happen in Iraq (courtesy of Business
Insider):

Here’s the transcript:

RUBIO: The most immediate responsibility we have is to help them build a
functional government that can actually meet the needs of their people in
the short and the long term. And then ultimately, from that we would hope
it would spring—

FOX NEWS HOST: That sounds like nation-building.

RUBIO: Well, it’s not nation-building. We are assisting them in building
their nation. We have a vested interest in doing that.

The nice part about this is that you don’t have to go through the trouble
of refuting it – Rubio did that himself. He wants the U.S. to help build a
functional government in Iraq, but it’s not nation-building, it’s just
helping them build a nation. That’s not his Iraq strategy, it’s just the
strategy he’s formulated for Iraq. It’s brilliant.

Rubio is a straight-up neocon, but usually he is a bit slippier when it
comes to endorsing George W. Bush’s foreign policy without actually copping
to its many, many failures. What he said on Fox News yesterday doesn’t make
sense on any level, but it does undermine his foreign policy vision. By
calling for a renewed commitment to nation-building (or whatever he wants
to call it) he’s acknowledging that the many lives, years, and billions of
dollars we devoted to our last nation-building effort didn’t work. But
President Rubio will do it better this time because he’s not
nation-building, he’s “assisting them in building their nation,” or
whatever.

So that was bad, but Rubio wasn’t quite done stomping all over his own
foreign policy views. Like most Republicans, Rubio believes that we had
actually “won” the war in Iraq by the time Bush left office, but then
Barack Obama came in and withdrew all the troops and snatched defeat from
the jaws of victory. He tried making that argument yesterday on Fox News
and said something dumb:

RUBIO: What happened in Iraq under this administration is they rallied
around Maliki. Maliki was the Shia leader who used his power to go after
Sunnis. And that created the environment that was conducive for ISIS to
come back in and create all these problems.

It was actually the Bush administration that first “rallied around” Nouri
al-Maliki as prime minister of Iraq and propped him up as the country
spiraled out of control. The troop “surge” that Rubio and his allies are so
enamored of was implemented so that Maliki would have political space to
promote reconciliation between warring factions within the Iraqi
government. Maliki squandered that opportunity and instead used it to
consolidate his own power and crack down on his rivals.

In the Rubio worldview, however, the fault for Maliki’s abuses lies solely
with Obama. He argues that Obama should have left behind a small residual
force of U.S. troops (that the Iraqi government refused to accommodate) to
intimidate Maliki into not being the corrupt, petty despot that he was.
That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, given that Maliki wouldn’t be
brought to heel even when U.S. troop presence in his country was at its
height and he was under intense diplomatic pressure from the Bush White
House.

But that’s the heart of the Rubio foreign policy position: the neocon dream
of nation-building works, just so long as you don’t call it nation-building
and completely disregard all the very recent evidence of it not working.

*Ted Cruz Labels Walker, Rubio And Jeb As ‘Moderate’
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/ted-cruz-labels-walker-rubio-and-jeb-as-moderate/>
// The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – June 5, 2015 *

Ted Cruz, describing political strategy in a recent newspaper interview,
labeled Republican presidential frontrunners Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and
Jeb Bush as “moderates” in the primary contest.

Speaking to the Raleigh News & Observer ahead of a weekend visit to North
Carolina, Cruz said: “I think Walker and Rubio will become the chief
moderate rivals for Jeb Bush in that bracket.”

Walker of Wisconsin and Rubio and Bush of Florida would all contest the
characterization that they aren’t conservative. That’s the bracket the
Texas senator says he best represents.

“I think my natural bracket is the conservative/Tea Party bracket which is
about 25 percent of the typical Republican primary,” Cruz said.

Cruz also told the paper that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and South
Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham also fit into the “moderate” bracket.

*Same-sex marriage advocates pose 'real and present danger' to
Christianity, Sen. Marco Rubio warns
<http://www.christiantoday.com/article/same.sex.marriage.poses.real.and.present.danger.to.christianity.sen.marco.rubio.warns/55436.htm>
// Christian Today // Marvie Basilan – June 5, 2015 *

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has denounced supporters of same sex-marriage,
saying they pose a "real and present danger" to Christianity.

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network last week, Rubio
said gay marriage advocates are bound to attack the tenets of the Christian
faith to justify their cause.

"Today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support
same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater," said Rubio, a
Republican Party candidate for president in the 2016 election.

"After they [same-sex marriage supporters] are done going after
individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream
Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That's
a real and present danger," Rubio said.

Rubio contended that his Catholic faith is the one driving his policy
positions on social issues, including gay marriage. He said he and his
family once dabbled in Mormonism and the Baptist church but later felt the
call to revert back to Catholicism.

Rubio's view on same-sex marriage appeared to be tied to his views on
traditional families.

"The family is the original cell of society," Rubio said. "It is the first
and most important government. It is the first church. The family is the
singular most important institution in society. It existed before
government. It existed before laws."

In a separate interview last month, Rubio said same-sex marriage has "no
federal constitutional right." Nevertheless, he said he would be present at
a gay wedding of someone dear to him.

Much earlier, Rubio said during a CNN interview that if the Supreme Court
grants same-sex marriage in all states, "that would be the law of the land
that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed."

Since then, Rubio appeared to have sided more firmly with those opposed to
same-sex marriage.

Though his move may bring him closer to the evangelicals of Iowa and South
Carolina, some political pundits said his apparent change of heart could
have little effect on his candidacy as it came at a time when the
Republicans appeared to be losing hope in winning the battle over gay
marriage as more states in the US are joining the bandwagon to legalise
same-sex marriages.

Nevertheless, Rubio said he is ready to oppose same-sex marriage not only
in the United States but worldwide. "If America doesn't lead, what happens?
Well, what happens is chaos," he said.

Regardless of his views on gay marriage and other issues, Rubio said he is
leaving everything to God and the American people in choosing the next
president of the United States.

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul: "We Shouldn't Do Things to Prevent People from Voting"
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-06/rand-paul-we-shouldn-t-do-things-to-prevent-people-from-voting->
// Bloomberg News // David Wiegel – June 5, 2015 *

On Thursday, at a speech in Texas, Democratic presidential frontrunner
Hillary Clinton made her first sustained attacks on her potential
Republican opponents. She wanted to make voter registration basically
automatic, to extend 20 days of early voting in all 50 states, and for
Republicans to "stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election
fraud." Among others, she singled out Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and
former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for, respectively, making registration
harder and overseeing a flawed purge of voter rolls.

On Friday, some of Clinton's targets swatted her right back. "I don't want
to expand [registration] and increase the opportunities for fraud," New
Jersey Governor Chris Christie told CBS News during his latest New
Hampshire trip. "Maybe that's what Mrs. Clinton wants to do."

Yet hours later, also in New Hampshire, a Republican presidential candidate
who rarely passes up a chance to scorch Hillary Clinton took a softer tone
on her voting rights pitch.

In a scrum with reporters after opening the first New Hampshire campaign
office of any 2016 GOP candidate, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said he had
not seen Clinton's speech, but noted that he had "tried to make it more
inclusive so more people can vote." Paul, who has co-sponsored legislation
that would lower the bar for ex-felons who want to vote, recounted how he'd
testified to restore some Kentuckians' rights. "I've actually lobbied for
allowing people to get their right to vote back."

Asked specifically about Clinton's early voting and automatic registration
ideas, Paul did not push back. Rather, he suggested that the states need to
lead the way.

"I'm not against early voting," Paul told Bloomberg. "I grew up in Texas,
where we have early voting, and we're a dominant Republican state -- so I
don't think it necessarily favors one party over the other. Each state
should decide that. The Constitution and the history of the legal cases has
been pretty clear that each state gets to determine the time and manner of
the elections. I wouldn't have the federal government interfere and tell
any state how to do it. The Fourteenth Amendment, I think, allows the
government to get involved if there is a racial bias. I am fine with the
federal government intervening in those cases."

Automatic registration, said Paul, was "sort of [up to] time and manner" of
the states, as well. "I think each state has their own registration -- and
I think Oregon just mails it to you, which I think is a bad idea," said
Paul. "You ought to confirm who you are. I'm not against there being a
little bit of effort, but we shouldn't make it hard. We shouldn't do things
to prevent people from voting, but we shouldn't do things that encourage
lapses in the system that allow people who aren't legitimate voters."

Paul had been tripped up by this topic before. In 2014, he suggested that a
Republican push for voter ID requirements was "offending" some non-white
voters. He has not used that language since. In April, he told an
interviewer that "motor voter" laws were problematic because they might let
non-citizens get ID cards, usable at the polls. "People tell me that once
you get a driver's license you can vote," he said. "That’s a problem. The
federal government is funding some of this motor voter stuff, so we’re
looking at ways that we could actually restrict federal funds and say you
don’t get it unless you’re doing the cross tabs on this data."

Pressed by NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser at his Manchester campaign
headquarters opening, Paul refused to say whether his party was making
voting more difficult. "I don't know," he said. "All I know is what I'm
trying to do, and I think it's a good idea for the Republicans to be a
party that is for the vote, that is for allowing people to vote."

*WALKER*

*Is Gov. Scott Walker putting the University of Wisconsin system in
jeopardy?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/05/is-gov-scott-walker-putting-the-university-of-wisconsin-system-in-jeopardy/>
// WaPo // Valerie Strauss – June 5, 2015 *

Are Gov. Scott Walker and the Wisconsin legislature on their way to doing
serious harm to the respected University of Wisconsin system?

Let’s review.

Walker, who is expected to soon announce his candidacy for the 2016
Republican presidential nomination, has laid out a series of proposals for
the system over the next two years, including budget cuts as well as
changes to tenure and the governance structure. He calls the package of
changes “the Act 10 of higher education,” a reference to a 2011 law that,
among other things, slashed the power of public employee unions, cut the
take-home pay for many public workers and eliminated tenure for teachers.

The governor proposed slashing $300 million over the next two years from
the University of Wisconsin system, which is comprised of 13 four-year
universities and 13 two-year campuses. A legislative committee went along
with his idea to cut higher education funding, but only by $250 million —
not much of a reprieve. It is worth noting that Wisconsin is already
spending less on higher education than all of its Midwestern neighbors and,
according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is one of only six states that
have approved or are considering reducing higher education funding for the
next fiscal year.

Walker had also sought to create a new “quasi-governmental” body that would
run the university system rather than have it under direct state control,
but lawmakers nixed that. They are, however, supporting his proposed
changes to tenure and the long-successful University of Wisconsin shared
governance structure  that critics say could turn the system into a pariah
in academia.

Specifically, the Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee has
approved a bill that would move tenure from state statute into the purview
of the governing Board of Regents.  University administration would be able
to fire or lay off faculty or academic staff not only for financial
emergencies and just cause, as it now the case, but also “when such an
action is deemed necessary due to a budget or program decision regarding
program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.” Not
only would it be much easier to lay off faculty but administrators would
also have control over decisions involving academic programs and curricula
that are now accorded to faculty.

While members of the governing Board of Regents have said publicly that
they would still “uphold tenure,” faculty say that the law would take
precedence over any board policy. On Thursday night, a board panel voted to
go along with the proposed tenure change, and it is likely to be approved
by the full legislature in June, the Journal Sentinel reported.

The newspaper quoted Tony Evers, a regent and State Superintendent of
Public Instruction, saying that if the legislature approves the broad
language in the proposed change, “Tenure will be gone as we know it and I
think it’s a step backward for our relationship with faculty members.” Just
like for K-12 teachers.

A statement Tuesday issued by the Public Representation Organization of the
University of Wisconsin Faculty Senate said:

“If such language is passed by the full Wisconsin legislature, it will
cripple the UW’s ability to attract and retain quality employees, devalue
the educational credentials of future UW graduates, and create new
financial challenges for the UW System.”

The University of Wisconsin system has long enjoyed shared governance among
faculty, students and administrators, a dynamic that these changes would
shatter.  The New York Times wrote in this story:

Yet in academic circles nationwide, there was concern this week that the
proposed changes in Wisconsin could bolster the forces pushing universities
to operate more like businesses, eliminating departments or courses that do
not attract many students or much research money.

“Increasingly, the excuse of financial difficulty has been used as a reason
to overpower the faculty, with a lot of people in administration saying we
need to be flexible,” said Henry Reichman, vice president of the American
Association of University Professors. “If you just took the Wisconsin
language on eliminating tenure, and moved it from the statute into board
policy, you could argue that there would be no problem. But the shared
governance change seems to undermine the whole structure.”

This Journal Sentinel story on the controversy quoted Rudy Fichtenbaum,
president of the American Association of University Professors, as saying
that many politicians don’t understand tenure:

“Tenure is about protecting academic freedom, not a guaranteed job for
life. Protecting academic freedom is important to protecting the public
interest. … Without academic freedom, the university will be there to serve
the interests of whichever political party is in power. The regents are
appointed by the governor, and they determine priorities.”

Earlier in the year Walker created a related controversy when he submitted
a budget proposal that included language that would have changed the
century-old mission of the University of Wisconsin system — known as the
“Wisconsin Idea” and embedded in the state code — by removing words that
commanded the university to “search for truth” and “improve the human
condition” and replacing them with “meet the state’s workforce needs.”
Walker was recently sued by a nonprofit watchdog group alleging that he is
refusing to make public documents relating to the mission change effort.

The fierce debate over Republican plans for higher education in Wisconsin
dovetail with changes in K-12 education that the state superintendent said
will decimate public schools by refusing to spend more money on public
education for the first time in more than 20 years while giving millions of
dollars more to expand a private voucher program, slashing higher education
funding, and weakening licensing rules for teachers.

*Walker would sign budget with no borrowing for roads
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/5/budget-committee-co-chair-calls-road-funding-stare/>
// AP // Scott Bauer – June 5, 2015 *

Gov. Scott Walker, who steadfastly opposes raising taxes or fees to pay for
roads, would sign a state budget that includes no borrowing for highways
and other transportation needs in Wisconsin, resulting in significant
delays to ongoing and planned projects, his spokeswoman said Friday.

While that is not his preferred option, Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick
said if the Legislature decides to remove $1.3 billion in borrowing the
governor proposed, Walker would sign it.

That’s a “pretty stark concept,” said Rep. John Nygren, co-chairman of the
Legislature’s budget-writing committee.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos first publicly voiced the possibility of doing
away with the borrowing on Wednesday, saying that would be an option since
Walker refuses to consider raising the gas tax or vehicle registration
fees. Vos offered the idea to Walker in a private meeting that day, which
was also attended by Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald.

“When Speaker Vos floated the idea of the Legislature removing all bonding
for transportation from the state budget, it was communicated that this
would have a devastating impact on the transportation fund and
transportation projects across the state as a ripple effect,” Patrick said
in an email.

Without the $1.3 billion, every road project would likely be affected: from
megaprojects like the Zoo Interchange in Milwaukee, the Interstate 39/90
expansion from Madison south to Illinois, the I-94 expansion from Milwaukee
south to Illinois, as well as other state highway work, bridge repairs and
freight rail maintenance, according to information provided by Walker’s
office.

Nygren, a Republican from Marinette and co-chairman of the Joint Finance
Committee, said he doesn’t want to delay roads projects because that will
only put greater pressure on lawmakers in two years to figure out a way to
deal with the pent-up demand.

Nygren and other Republicans have talked about reducing the level of
borrowing by between $300 million and $800 million.

Republican lawmakers and Walker are at an impasse, and the budget remains
stalled over it. Nygren described negotiations on transportation funding as
“a little bit of a stare off at this time.”

Another outstanding issue is whether to repeal of the state’s prevailing
wage law - which sets salaries for workers on public works jobs - or just
scale it back. And a financing deal to pay for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena
reached with Walker, Milwaukee officials, Republican legislative leaders
and team owners was just released Thursday.

Both the prevailing wage and arena issue could be decided outside of the
budget, but transportation funding must be included in the two-year
spending plan.

Regarding the Bucks deal, Nygren and other Republicans have said they want
to give the public, and lawmakers who must approve it, time to understand
it before rushing to a vote.

“There’s no real big sense of urgency to get this to Joint Finance,” Nygren
said.

The Joint Finance Committee originally planned to complete its work last
Friday, but the Republican-controlled panel did not meet this week and it
has no meetings scheduled for next week.

*Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker fires up NC GOP
<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article23251845.html>
//The News & Observer //Taylor Knopf – June 5, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker kicked off the North Carolina GOP state
convention Friday night in a packed Raleigh Convention Center ballroom.

Walker spent most of the day in Raleigh, speaking to a Civitas Institute
donor crowd, doing TV media interviews at the state legislative building
and celebrating National Doughnut Day with Lt. Gov. Dan Forest at Raleigh’s
downtown Krispy Kreme.

During his speech at the convention, Walker gave his pitch for why he would
be a good candidate for president.

The governor said that of the large number of great Republican candidates
there are two groups: fighters and winners.

The fighters he defined as those in the U.S. Senate who fight hard but have
yet to win anything. The winners he defined as current and former
governors, who are good at winning elections but have not consistently
fought the big fights.

“If we were to get into this race, it would be because I think there is a
yearning in America for someone who can fight and win for hardworking
taxpayers,” Walker said.

“We have fought the good fight and won those fights, not just at the ballot
box three times in four years in a blue state, but more importantly we have
won every single one of those fights we engaged in.”

Walker has not formally declared his candidacy but said he would announce
his intentions after Wisconsin passes its state budget.

Walker hit on his usual three-point vision for the future of the United
States – growth, reform and safety – while sharing some of his
accomplishments as governor of the Badger State.

Economic growth occurs when government steps aside and empowers the people,
Walker said.

“People like Hilary Clinton think the way you grow the economy is by
growing Washington,” he said. “The rest of us in reality need to tell
Washington that true growth happens in cities and towns and villages all
across this great country. People create jobs, not the government.”

Since Walker took office, he said unemployment went from 9.2 percent in
2010 to 4.6 percent this spring.

He said reform should be measured by how many people are no longer
dependent on the government. And safety is how Walker refers to issues of
national security.

“National security is something you read about in the newspaper, safety is
something you feel,” he said.

Walker said that the biggest safety threat is radical Islamic terrorists
and that it is only a matter of time before there is another attack on
American soil. The nation needs a leader who has the courage to take the
fight to the enemy before it comes here, he said, receiving standing
applause from the 600-plus members of the dinner crowd.

With front-row seats, Alex Kehayes, a commissioner on the Chowan County
Board, said he favors Walker because of “his record to get a lot done with
massive opposition.”

“It’s early in an open race, but the fact that someone shows up, looks me
in the face and talks to me goes a long way,” Kehayes said, showing a
picture of himself with Walker from earlier.

Ed Higgins, from New Hanover County, said he hopes Walker becomes the
Republican nominee.

“Governorships better prepare individuals for the hard decisions presidents
make, unlike being a senator,” Higgins said. “He stands up to unions and
takes the hard fight to them, but at the same time he carries the favor of
his constituents, as shown when he was re-elected after they recalled him.”

An expected 1,800 to 2,000 Republicans from around the state traveled to
the capital to hear the N.C. GOP’s speakers.

Saturday will feature U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and a few Tar Heel
speakers including Gov. Pat McCrory, Forest, House Speaker Tim Moore, Sen.
Thom Tillis and Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry.

The convention will wrap up Sunday morning with a prayer breakfast and Dr.
Ben Carson.

Carson and Cruz are officially running for president in 2016, and Walker is
widely expected to run as well. Recent media reports suggest Trump may
enter the crowded field for the GOP nomination.

The N.C. GOP will also elect new state-level leadership, which occurs every
odd year. The party will vote in a new state chairman who will represent
the state at the Republican National Convention.

At the state convention, candidates are nominated and voted on by county
delegates, which will take place after the 2 p.m. speakers Saturday. The
three candidates who ran campaigns for state chairman are Craig Collins, AJ
Daoud and Hasan Harnett.

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz Wonders About Jeb Bush’s Viability
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/04/ted-cruz-wonders-about-jeb-bushs-viability/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman & Kitty Bennett – June 5, 2015 *

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has said he will not take shots at his Republican
rivals for the presidency, but on Thursday he questioned descriptions of
Jeb Bush as a “front-runner” and wondered whether Mr. Bush could win an
early state in the nominating contests.

Mr. Cruz, who declared his 2016 presidential candidacy in March, made the
comments in an interview with the Fox News host Neil Cavuto. Mr. Cavuto
asked if Mr. Cruz had to win one of the first three states — Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina — to be viable.

“If you look historically since World War II, no one has ever won the
nomination without winning at least one of those first three,” said Mr.
Cruz, who was a policy adviser on George W. Bush’s first presidential
campaign in 2000.

“That has certainly been history. You know, I think it’s an interesting
challenge for a number of other of these candidates.”

He continued: “The media describes, for example, Jeb Bush, frequently, as
the front-runner. It becomes an interesting question when you ask, which of
those states does he win?”

Mr. Cruz added that he would compete “vigorously” in all of those states.
He did not directly answer a question about whether he would compete in
Florida, home to both Mr. Bush and another contender, Senator Marco Rubio.
But he said he was competing nationwide.

The remarks about Mr. Bush come as he is on the cusp of becoming a formal
candidate, after months of a sometimes-difficult exploratory phase. Mr.
Cruz has raised large sums for the “super PAC” supporting him, but he has
been standing in place in most of the polls.

*Ted Cruz's problems with Latinos run deeper than his policy positions
<http://www.businessinsider.com/r-why-ted-cruzs-candidacy-isnt-catching-fire-with-us-latinos-2015-6>
// Reuters – June 5, 2015 *

n a less diverse Republican presidential field, Ted Cruz, the make-good son
of a Cuban immigrant, would be viewed more for what he is — a candidate
with a legitimate shot at making U.S. history as the nation’s first Latino
president in 2016.

Instead, the senator from Texas finds himself in a strange position as he
sees himself eclipsed both by Senator Marco Rubio, also a Cuban-American,
and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a
Mexican-American, as early favorites among Hispanic Republicans who could
play an increasingly influential role in the nomination process.

To Latinos, Cruz often feels more like an afterthought. And while that’s
largely attributed to his hard-right stance on immigration reform,
prominent Hispanic conservatives offered insight as to why his problems
with Latinos run deeper. Rubio, they said, has embraced his ethnic identity
in a way that Cruz, who speaks little Spanish, has not or will not.

“At times, Senator Cruz finds it difficult to identify or engage with his
Latino heritage,” said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic
Christian Leadership Conference, a key conservative group that Bush
addressed in April.

"He does not elevate or magnify his Latino voice in the same way Marco
Rubio does."

Said Javier Palomarez, the CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, an
organization of Hispanic business leaders. "Rubio speaks the language. Both
are sons of immigrants, but one has held onto the culture and language.”

A SHIFTING ELECTORATE

Hispanic voters could matter in this year’s Republican presidential race
like never before. Nevada, with a one-quarter Latino population, holds the
third Republican primary on the calendar, with contests in Colorado and
Texas not far behind.

Because no clear front-runner has yet to emerge, the nominating process
could stretch longer than usual and involve more states, meaning that the
traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which
largely have white Republican electorates, will hold less sway.

More than that, it's critically important for the party to attract Hispanic
voters, something it failed to do in 2012, when Mitt Romney garnered a
meager 27 percent of the vote in the general election.

Rubio's pollster, Whit Ayres, estimates the party will need to garner at
least 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2016 to win, as the share of
America's white electorate declines.

That's one reason Cruz’s campaign insists it is not ceding any ground in
the effort win over Latinos.

“Hispanic outreach is going to be very important to him,” said Catherine
Frazier, Cruz’s spokeswoman.

Cruz, in fact, has released Spanish-language ads and has a Spanish-language
website. He has said his message will be built around "faith, family,
patriotism, and hard work."

His campaign told Reuters that it has hired one staffer dedicated to
Hispanic outreach and will be using Cruz's Cuban father, Rafael, as a
surrogate to speak to Hispanic faith groups.

CULTURAL CRITIQUE

Cruz isn’t the first minority candidate to face questions from his
community about his cultural bona fides. In 2007, at just this stage of the
race, Barack Obama’s campaign endured a bevy of stories centered on the
question of whether the Hawaii-born son of a Kenyan father and white
American mother was “black enough” to be the first African-American
president.

Obama ultimately transcended those doubts and drove black voter turnout to
record levels. Cruz may face a tougher road in garnering Hispanic support,
not only because of the presence of Rubio and Bush in the field, but
because of his arms-length approach to his cultural identity.

While Rubio stayed in Miami immersed in the Spanish-speaking Cuban exile
community, Cruz, born in Canada, settled in Houston with his father and
mother of Irish-Italian descent, Eleanor, and quickly was assimilated into
American culture.

Rafael Cruz strongly believed his family should speak English. Cruz, whose
first name is also Rafael, went by Ted, and attended evangelical schools.
“I’m Cuban, Irish and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern
Baptist,” Cruz has joked.

Unlike Rubio, who has made his Cuban-American heritage a centerpiece of his
campaign, Cruz seems more comfortable presenting himself instead as a
blunt-talking Texan — down to the cowboy boots he wears with his suits —
than as a self-identified Hispanic.

“When people in Texas think of Ted Cruz, they don’t immediately think
Hispanic,” said Hector de Leon, a lawyer in Austin, Texas active in
Republican politics. “When people in Texas think of Hispanic, they think
south of the border, not someone with a Cuban father, an Anglo mother, who
was born in Canada.”

Despite the Spanish-language ads by Cruz's campaign, Hispanic activists say
his inability to directly speak to the estimated 35 million U.S. Hispanics
who speak primarily Spanish is a major disadvantage in this race.

“Jeb Bush and Rubio — they can be on Univision one minute and CNN the
next,” said Daniel Garza, executive director of the conservative LIBRE
Initiative in Miami.

Cruz’s campaign rejects the idea he is limited by language in connecting to
Latino voters. “Many first and second-generation Hispanics grew up in
similar households,” Frazier said.

Mexican Illegal Immigrant Holding CellJohn Moore/Getty ImagesUndocumented
immigrants wait in a holding cell at a U.S. Border Patrol processing center
for people detained near the U.S.-Mexico border on September 8, 2014 in
McAllen, Texas. The sign, written by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), reads 'Keep Calm and Wash Your Hands.'

IMMIGRATION WORRIES

Garza, like many Hispanic conservatives who spoke to Reuters, was quick to
praise Cruz’s intellect, but it was clear that Rubio or Bush was their
first choice. And, to be sure, the major reasons are political, not
cultural. Cruz’s stance on immigration is viewed by many Hispanics across
the political spectrum as unduly harsh and inflexible.

“You get the sense that there is very little room for persuading Ted Cruz
on anything,” Garza said. “There is some room where Ted could soften up a
little and you get the sense that he won’t.”

Cruz was an ardent opponent of the 2013 immigration bill co-sponsored by
Rubio. And although Rubio, under pressure from conservatives, eventually
turned against the bill as well, he appears to be getting credit from
Latinos for trying to push toward a solution to the nation’s immigration
crisis.

As part of his outreach effort, Cruz addressed the U.S. Hispanic Chamber in
April, arguing that the Republican Party is the natural home for voters who
value entrepreneurship, family, and self-reliance.

But that approach belies polls that show a majority of Hispanic voters
favoring a path to legal status for illegal immigrants, support for Obama’s
signature healthcare plan, and government social programs. That means that
whoever the Republican nominee is, be it Cruz, Rubio, Bush, or someone
else, they will face an uphill battle in convincing Hispanics to defect
from the Democrats, who enjoy a large monopoly on their vote.

The chamber’s Palomarez gives Cruz credit for coming before his group. But
he adds, “I think he’s got a long way to go to convince people that he
understands the Hispanic experience and that he understands the Hispanic
voter.”

*Ted Cruz: Campaign and super PAC have raised more than $40 million
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/5/ted-cruz-campaign-and-super-pac-have-raised-more-4/>
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 5, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this week there is now more than $40 million
raised between his presidential campaign and a group of super PACs
supporting his candidacy.

Mr. Cruz, who became the first major Republican candidate to jump into the
2016 presidential race back in March, said candidates will need both
grassroots support and money to win the nomination.

“I think for anyone to be a serious candidate, he or she is going to need
to raise at least $50 million between now and South Carolina, and I think
there are only a handful of candidates who have a prayer of doing so,” he
said on Fox News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto.” “Right now, between our
campaign and the super PAC, we’ve raised over $40 million, we have
shattered records.”

He said in the first week of the campaign, the campaign itself raised $4.3
million with more than 50,000 contributions from all 50 states and said
that the collection of super PACs supporting him have already raised more
than $37 million.

Mr. Cruz predicted former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has set a June 15 date
for an announcement on his 2016 plans, is going to “shatter” fund-raising
records and raise “way north” of $100 million.

“Among the donors, he is Mick Jagger and the Beatles roiled into one,” Mr.
Cruz said. “But you got to get actual, real [live] primary votes, and in my
experience, grassroots plus money will beat a whole lot more money just
about every day of the week.”

“When you get beyond Jeb Bush, there are only a couple other candidates who
I think have the potential to raise the funds it’s [going to] take to run a
nationwide campaign — not a Hail Mary in one or two states — but a
nationwide campaign,” Mr. Cruz said. “That’s what we’re doing, and that
combination of grassroots plus donor support, small dollar, large dollar,
the business community, all coming together fed up with the corruption in
Washington and wanting to get back to basic free market principles and our
constitutional liberties.”

*CHRISTIE*

*Chris Christie: Hillary Clinton is clueless on voter fraud
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-hillary-clinton-is-clueless-on-voter-fraud/>
// CBS News // Jake Miller – June 5, 2015 *

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn't think much of Hillary Clinton's
recent proposals to expand access to the ballot box.

Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in
2016, accused Republicans in a speech on Thursday of trying to depress
turnout among voting blocs that typically side with Democrats by passing
restrictive voter identification laws and other measures. She singled out
Christie for vetoing a bill that would have expanded early voting hours in
his state.

"She doesn't know what she's talking about," Christie told CBS News' "Face
the Nation" in an interview that will air on Sunday. "In New Jersey, we
have early voting that are available to people...I don't want to expand it
and increase the opportunities for fraud. And maybe that's what Mrs.
Clinton wants to do. I don't know. But the fact is that the folks in New
Jersey have plenty of an opportunity to vote."

Christie then pivoted to take a dig at Clinton for limiting her
interactions with the media. "Maybe, you know, if she took some questions
some places and learned some things, maybe she wouldn't make such
ridiculous statements," he said.

Clinton has argued that the "voter fraud" Republicans claim they're trying
to prevent simply doesn't happen - that Republicans are proposing solutions
in search of a problem.

"She's never been to New Jersey, I guess," Christie said in the interview,
which will air in full on Sunday.

In her speech, Clinton said the recent push for voting restrictions is part
of a "sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color,
poor people and young people from one end of our country to the other." She
called for automatic voter registration and at least 20 days of in-person
early voting time in states across the country.

Clinton declared her 2016 candidacy in April. Christie has said he'll make
a final decision on a bid by the end of June.

*Gov. Christie attacks Hillary Clinton on voter registration
<http://www.northjersey.com/news/gov-christie-attacks-hillary-clinton-on-voter-registration-1.1350071>
// The Record // Salvador Rizzo – June 5, 2015 *

Governor Christie went on the attack against Hillary Clinton on Friday,
saying the Democratic presidential candidate is calling for an expansion of
voter registration because “she just wants an opportunity to commit greater
acts of voter fraud.”

Christie was responding to comments Clinton made Thursday in a speech in
Houston. A Republican likely to announce a presidential run this month,
Christie began the day greeting breakfast patrons at a New Hampshire diner
and spoke briefly with reporters afterward, saying he “was not worried
about her opinion.”

Former Secretary of State Clinton called for same-day voter registration
across the country and said Republican governors including Christie were on
“a crusade against voting rights,” blocking minorities from being able to
vote. She mentioned that the New Jersey governor had vetoed a bill to allow
early voting 15 days before an election at designated polling places, and
also criticized GOP officials in Florida, Texas and Wisconsin.

“Secretary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about voting rights in New
Jersey or in the other states that she attacked,” Christie said. “My sense
is that she just wants an opportunity to commit greater acts of voter fraud
around the country.”

Christie will be in Franklin, N.H., later on Friday for a roundtable
discussion about drug rehabilitiation with local officials. It is his
seventh trip to New Hampshire this year. Christie told reporters he plans
to announce whether he's running for president this month.

*Chris Christie rips Rand Paul, critics of Patriot Act
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/06/chris_christie_rips_rand_paul_critics_of_patriot_act>
// The Boston Herald // Chris Cassidy – June 5, 2015 *

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ripped Sen. Rand Paul and other Patriot Act
critics last night as self-serving, opportunistic grandstanders during a
town hall here last night.

“What you’re being told about these programs is flat out wrong, and they’re
being told to you because the folks that are telling you have an agenda to
promote themselves politically,” said Christie, who’s considering entering
the crowded GOP presidential field. “If they had any experience, like I do,
they’d know, we’re not violating anyone’s civil liberties.”

Christie has frequently touted himself as the only potential candidate who
has used the Patriot Act to prosecute and convict terrorists when he was
U.S. attorney of New Jersey.

“They’d make you believe there are people every day listening to your
conversation between you and your mother. Unless your mother is a
terrorist, I don’t care,” Christie said. He argued that Congress made
America “weaker and more vulnerable” by passing the USA Freedom Act and
ending the government’s bulk collection of data.

After the town hall, Derry Republicans presented Christie with a
commemorative plastic potato, in honor of the town’s claim to be the first
place in North America the starchy crop was planted.

Christie attempted to sign it but dropped it instead.

“I can’t believe after all those questions, I fumbled the potato,” said
Christie.

Here on a two-day trip, Christie also spoke at a fundraiser for Manchester
Mayor Ted Gatsas. Today, he will greet patrons at the Corner View
Restaurant in Concord followed by a roundtable at a recovery center in
Franklin.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Maryland Gov. Bob
Ehrlich are all due in New Hampshire today. Paul will continue with events
all weekend, while Democratic contender Bernie Sanders will hold a town
meeting Saturday, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — who just launched his
campaign yesterday — will attend a series of cookouts on Sunday.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced yesterday he will make “an
announcement” — likely a campaign launch — on June 15 in Miami. He will
then set out on the “Jeb Bush Announcement Tour” with New Hampshire as his
first stop the next day.

*PERRY*

*Rick Perry promises to ‘do something’ about student debt. But what did he
do in Texas?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/05/rick-perry-promises-to-do-something-about-student-debt-but-what-did-he-do-in-texas/>
// WaPo // Danielle Douglas-Gabriel*

In announcing his bid for president Thursday, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry
made a play for the millions of Americans contending with the high cost of
college.

"I know you face rising health care costs, rising child care costs,
skyrocketing tuition costs, and mounting student loan debt. I hear you, and
I am going to do something about it," Perry told a crowd of supporters
Thursday.

Perry's record on this subject as governor was mixed. He called on colleges
to set tuition caps, and broadened access to higher education for
undocumented immigrants. But some education officials in Texas say Perry's
policies did more to add to the burden of student debt than relieve it.

As governor of the Lone Star state for 14 years, Perry supported hundreds
of millions of dollars in spending cuts for public universities. To offset
lower funding from the state, colleges in Texas raised tuition, leading
more students to borrow to cover expenses.

"His overall record on accessibility to higher education was poor," said
Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, which
fought Perry's cuts to education budgets. "And primarily poor because of
the cuts in funding and financial aid."

When Perry became governor in 2000, Texas provided about $7,791 per college
student, below the national average of $8,717 but largely in line with many
other states, according to data from the State Higher Education Executive
Officers Association.

Three years later, state appropriations started to slip in Texas, just as
college enrollment crept up. Rather than set aside more money for the
universities, Perry opted to deregulate college tuition, taking away the
legislature's power to set prices and giving it to the schools. The average
cost of tuition and fees at Texas public universities increased by 90
percent within a decade of that decision, according to the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board.

While other states slashed higher education budgets during the 2008
economic recession, Texas, buoyed by a strong energy sector, made marginal
increases in student spending. That ended around 2011 as years of tax cuts
caught up with state and led to an $18 billion deficit.

Although the state had $6 billion in reserves to help plug that shortfall,
Perry left the money untouched and imposed across the board cuts. He signed
off on $1.2 billion in cuts to higher education in the 2012 budget.

Still, the governor did call on universities to lock in tuition at a flat
rate for four years and cap the cost of degrees at $10,000. Perry spokesman
Travis Considine pointed out that 13 schools adopted the pricing cap.

"Governor Perry led the charge in making higher education more accessible
and affordable for more Texans," Considine said, in an e-mail. "During Gov.
Perry's leadership, enrollment in Texas colleges and universities increased
by 50 percent, with Hispanic enrollment increasing by 118 percent."

Perry took a lot of heat from his party when he backed a law allowing
undocumented college students in Texas to pay in-state tuition. The law
still stands and has been credited with an increase in enrollment.

While Robison of the teachers association applauds Perry for taking a stand
on the issue, he said it does not negate the fact that under Perry, college
in Texas has become less affordable.

"Many of those Hispanic students who have enrolled in school are
first-generation college students, who are heavily dependent on student
aid. The cuts have really hurt their prospects," he said.

Over the course of Perry's tenure, state higher education spending per
student fell 11 percent, which is less than the national average drop of 24
percent during that time. Texas upped its spending by $350 per student
before Perry left office, but critics say it was too late to reverse the
pricing trends.

Nearly two-thirds of Texas students in 2013 were borrowing to pay for
school and graduating with an average $25,244 in debt, a little below the
national average but much higher than the prior generation, according to
data from the Institute for College Access & Success.

It has become politically advantageous for presidential hopefuls to at
least acknowledge the burden that $1.3 trillion in student debt has placed
on millions of Americans.

Republican contenders, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco
Rubio (Fla.) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have framed the issue as a
barrier to economic mobility. And Democratic candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are advocating for
debt-free public college, a plan party front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton
has yet to weigh in on.

There are 40 million people with education debt in this country. Almost
two-thirds of student loans are held by people younger than 39, while
Americans age 40 to 59 hold another 30 percent, according to the New York
Federal Reserve. That's a pretty significant part of the electorate.

*Rick Perry Borrows Elizabeth Warren's Message, but Does It Fit?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-05/rick-perry-borrows-elizabeth-warren-s-message-but-does-it-fit->
// Bloomberg News // David Weigel – June 5, 2015 *

Toward the middle of former Texas Governor Rick Perry's presidential
announcement speech, a listener could be forgiven for thinking the
TelePrompTer had been switched out. All of a sudden, Perry was speaking the
language of populist critics of Wall Street, people like Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

"The American people see a rigged game, where insiders get rich, and the
middle class pays the tab," said Perry. "There is something wrong when the
Dow is near record highs, and businesses on Main Street can’t even get a
loan. Since when did capitalism involve the elimination of risk for the
biggest banks while regulations strangle our community banks? Capitalism is
not corporatism. It is not a guarantee of reward without risk. It is not
about Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."

Just seconds later, Perry had moved on to the need for tax cuts–"we have
the highest corporate tax rate in the western world"and the big guy/little
guy paradigm was shunted aside. Yet it was not new. Perry had been grasping
for a message like this since leaving the governor's office. In an April 6
speech at the Citadel, in South Carolina, Perry said cryptically that "we
need to reduce taxes and regulations, and bring prosperity to Main Street
and not just Wall Street."

“When corporate leaders make bad mistakes, they need to be held
accountable.”

How far was he going to go? On Morning Joe Friday, co-host Mika Brzezinski
tried to figure out Perry's message by starting with its political risk.
(The green rooms of cable news are overflowing with wealthy people who will
predict doom for anyone criticizing finance.)

"You're not saying anything right now that is, you know, going to insult
anybody that you need politically?" asked Brzezinski.

"You're talking about, like Wall Street?" Perry asked. "I think–I don't
think–I hope I don't insult anybody.  I hope what I say is, here's what
needs to change. If Wall Street–I don't believe there's anybody too big to
fail.  I think we made a huge mistake when we passed too big to fail.  I
said that with GM publicly back in–whenever that was like in 2009, when
they were trying to get their deal through and I said I'm not for that. And
GM's got a manufacturing facility in Texas.  But use the bankruptcy laws.
When corporate leaders make bad mistakes, they need to be held accountable,
whether they're on Wall Street or whether they're on Main Street."

Co-host Joe Scarborough gave that an approving "yeah." Yet Perry had
criticized TARP -- what he appeared to be referring to as "too big to fail"
-- before. And before, it had been pointed out that as co-chairman of the
National Governors Association, Perry called on "Congress to leave
partisanship at the door and pass an economic recovery package." Since
then, he has insisted that this was not an endorsement of the bill before
Congress, but a statement of support for doing something-or-other in a
tough time.

Since 2009, jujitsu-ing the TARP vote to portray Democrats as the party
that does Wall Street's bidding has been a reliable Republican tactic. In
the Tea Party wave of 2010, it helped tremendously that voters often
confused the 2009 stimulus package with the 2008 TARP bill, thinking of
them as one monstrous giveaway that did not benefit them personally. In
2015, Warren and Sanders et al argue that the largest banks should be
broken up. Perry won't or can't go that far, so he ends up stuck in 2009.

With one difference. Elsewhere in the launch speech, Perry made a short
reference to reports that community banks were reeling under the
regulations of the 2010 financial reform bill. "For small businesses on
Main Street struggling to just get by, smothered by regulations, targeted
by Dodd-Frank: I hear you, you’re not forgotten," said Perry. "Your time is
coming." Not unlike Hillary Clinton, Perry was trying to speak the language
of populism without saying anything that would convince a Wall Street donor
that he was truly under threat.

*Rick Perry hits back at Hillary Clinton over voter ID
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/5/rick-perry-hits-back-hillary-clinton-over-voter-id/>
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 5, 2015*

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday hit back at former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who criticized Mr. Perry and several other of
her potential 2016 GOP rivals on Thursday over the issue of voting rights.

“I think it makes sense to have a photo ID to be able to vote,” Mr. Perry,
who announced Thursday he is running for president in 2016, said on “Fox
and Friends.” “When I got on the airline to come up here yesterday I had to
show my photo ID.”

In a speech at Texas Southern University, Mrs. Clinton, the 2016 Democratic
presidential front-runner, had called Mr. Perry out by name on the issue,
as well as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

“Here in Texas, former Governor Rick Perry signed a law that a federal
court said was actually written with the purpose of discriminating against
minority voters,” she said. “He applauded when the Voting Rights Act was
gutted and said the law’s protections were outdated and unnecessary.”

Mr. Perry contended that Mrs. Clinton was taking on the people of the state
of Texas with her remarks.

Asked if he’s discriminatory, Mr. Perry said: “No, not at all.”

“And actually, the people of the state of Texas is who she’s taking on,
because that was a law that was passed by the people of the state of
Texas,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton went into his home state and “dissed every person who supports
having identification to either get on an airplane or to vote,” he said.

Mr. Perry also said any insinuation that he doesn’t want minorities to vote
is untrue.

“As a matter of fact, when you look across the state of Texas and you see
what [we’ve] done in that state to really empower minorities — as a matter
of fact, the highest high school graduation rate for African-Americans in
America is in the state of Texas,” he said. “The highest Hispanic
graduation rate is in Texas. Those are empowerments … and they want to be
protected when they get on an airplane as well.”

*Perry Kickoff Generates Buzz, But Not in Key States
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/05/perry_kickoff_generates_buzz_but_not_in_key_states__126873.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Matthew Disler – June 5, 2015 *

During this period, 422,000 people generated 763,000 interactions, a term
Facebook defines as likes, posts, comments, or shares. These numbers
represent a substantial rise in interest for Perry; over the previous 90
days, an average of only 32,000 unique Facebook users have discussed the
Texas governor each day.

However, compared to other candidates, traffic for the former Texas
governor is only in the middle of the pack (based on post-kickoff numbers).
On the low end, in the day after their respective announcements, George
Pataki drew 81,000 interactions from 59,000 unique users; Rick Santorum
received 266,000 interactions from 169,000 unique users; and Carly Fiorina
recorded 515,000 interactions from 304,000 unique users. Similarly to
Perry, 458,000 people generated 814,000 interactions for Mike Huckabee.

However, Perry created less social media buzz than Ben Carson, Marco Rubio,
Rand Paul, and even Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who each enjoyed
more than 1 million interactions in the 24 hours after they formally
declared their candidacy. Ted Cruz had 5.5 million interactions, and
Hillary Clinton had 10.1 million.

The Facebook data also indicate that Perry may encounter some difficulty in
early primary states, none of which were in the top five regarding
interactions about the governor. Rather, the states with the most
discussion of his candidacy were his home state, three bordering states
(Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas), and Washington, D.C. (which Facebook
includes as a state in its measurements). Perry, like most other
candidates, will likely need to perform well in the early-voting states of
Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina if he hopes to stay in the race and
ultimately secure the nomination.

In his announcement speech, the Texan sought to highlight his economic and
foreign policy goals, and social media users appear to have picked up on
those priorities. Perry stated that he would freeze Obama-era regulations
and lower corporate taxes to increase job creation, adding that in Texas,
“we were the engine of growth because we had a simple formula: control
taxes and spending, implement smart regulations, invest in an educated
workforce, and stop frivolous lawsuits.” He also said he would pursue a
more aggressive strategy against Iran and ISIS and declared that the
president’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq was a mistake. In
accordance with these emphases, the top two themes regarding Rick Perry
mentioned by Facebook users in the past week were foreign policy and the
state of the economy.

The social media trends underscore the uphill battle Perry faces, as
already evidenced by his poor showing in national polls: Not only did
several of his opponents generate more interest when they announced, his
national image still smarts from the gaffes that ended his 2012 campaign.
His support among Republican primary voters currently stands at 2.7 percent
in the RealClearPolitics average, placing him below most of his opponents
but narrowly qualifying him – at this time – for the first GOP presidential
debate on Aug. 6, which is only open to the top 10 candidates.

*Welcome Back, Rick Perry: Will 2016 Be Different Than 2012?
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilassur/2015/06/05/welcome-back-rick-perry-will-2016-be-different-than-2012/>
// Forbes // Neil Assur – June 5, 2015*

About four years ago, when Rick Perry initially declared himself a nominee
for the United States presidency, he immediately vaulted onto the scene as
a Republican front runner. Polls reflected Mr. Perry’s popularity: his
favorability numbers surpassed that of his chief competitor, Mitt Romney,
and by late August, Mr. Perry had taken a decisive lead in “vote share”
(the share of the vote each candidate can expect to gain). This rapid
success was to prove equally ephemeral, however. Within months, Mr. Perry’s
vote share numbers had declined precipitously, and, by the time of the Iowa
caucus, Mr. Perry was all but dead. He finished fifth in Iowa and last in
New Hampshire before dropping out of the race entirely.

Although that chapter may have closed, apparently the story is not yet over.

Yesterday, Rick Perry officially declared himself, once again, a candidate
for president. Although the move is not shocking, it nonetheless begets the
question: can Mr. Perry actually win this time around?

The consensus across the media seems to be one of skepticism. After all,
the Perry campaign’s complete obliteration in 2012 was nothing short of
historic: no other candidate has ever lost a lead the size of Mr. Perry’s
in so short a period of time. Many, understandably so, have focused on Mr.
Perry’s poor debate performance and gaffe-riddled campaign as the basis of
this collapse. Indeed, a highlight reel of Mr. Perry’s campaign would be
littered with cringe-worthy material, starting with a nonsensical, rambling
criticism of Mitt Romney in a debate(Mr. Romney’s response: “Nice Try”) and
ending with perhaps the most disliked YouTube video of all time in which
Mr. Perry compared homosexuals serving in the military with children
celebrating Christmas. Of course, in between would be the most famous, and
perhaps most representative moment of Rick Perry’s campaign summed up in
one word: Oops.

Clearly, if Mr. Perry hopes to achieve any form of success in this
campaign, he will have to be more savvy with the way he handles debates and
public appearances. However, obscured by Mr. Perry’s solecisms is a more
deep-seated, pressing issue: are Mr. Perry’s views compatible with America?
Little attention has been paid to the fact that, last time around, Mr.
Perry alienated voters with his beliefs as well as his blunders. By the end
of his campaign, only 7% of voters identified Mr. Perry’s views as most
similar to their own. When Mr. Perry proclaimed Social Security a “Ponzi
Scheme,” almost three times as many people believed that view would hurt
his chances of being elected president rather than help it. Among social
issues, such as religion and abortion, Mr. Perry scored even worse: a
woefully low 6% of voters thought Mr. Perry would do a good job reflecting
their social views. By comparison, Mitt Romney, who many claimed lost the
presidential election because of his stance on social issues, scored more
than three times better.

What does this mean for the Rick Perry of 2016?

The good news is, voters can be fickle. As it stands right now, Mr. Perry
trails only Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, and Jeb Bush in awareness among
Republicans, and has cause for optimism with a relatively solid 0.73
Favorability-Awareness ratio. Mr. Perry, unlike his 2012 campaign, has also
had a lot of time to prepare himself  for this race. Finally, Mr, Perry has
assembled an impressive staff, including Forbes opinion editor Avik Roy,
that should prepare him for a deep run.

That said, Mr. Perry does face a significant challenge in re-inventing
himself. If he is to appeal to mainstream American voters, he must do more
than avoid the gaffes: he must tone down his religious zeal and focus more
on issues, such as health care, jobs, and entitlements, which
moderate-conservative voters seem to care about. Although this will not be
easy–especially given his very conservative, religious background–it is
likely the only way Mr. Perry can reverse his fortunes from 2012.

*GRAHAM*

*Ronald Perelman Puts Financial Clout Behind Lindsey Graham
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/04/ted-cruz-wonders-about-jeb-bushs-viability/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 5, 2015 *

When Hillary Rodham Clinton left the State Department in 2013, one of the
earliest meetings she held was with an old friend, Ronald O. Perelman, the
cosmetics billionaire and a major political donor.

Yet Mr. Perelman has emerged on the national finance committee list rolled
out by Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator seeking the Republican
nomination for president.

Mr. Perelman, a frequent boldface name in gossip columns and philanthropy,
was also a major supporter of Senator John McCain, the Republican
presidential nominee in 2008. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham are close allies.

“Lindsey Graham understands America’s leadership role in promoting an
enduring peace on the global landscape,” Mr. Perelman said in a statement
released by the senator’s campaign. “With conflicts raging in the Middle
East and around the world that threaten the security of America and our
allies, we need leaders with strategic purpose and moral clarity to
confront these crises.”

Mr. Perelman’s backing gives some noteworthy validity to the long-shot
campaign of Mr. Graham, a party establishment figure who is also a foreign
policy hawk.

Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, is
also listed as a co-chairman of the Graham finance committee.

Mr. Perelman has given to Mr. Graham in the past. But other potential
candidates have been courting him over the last year. In August 2014, Mr.
Perelman hosted Mr. McCain and Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey
and a likely presidential candidate himself, at his home in Wainscott,
N.Y., in the Hamptons.

A person briefed on Mr. Perelman’s decision, who requested anonymity to
speak about private discussions, said that Mr. Perelman wasn’t simply
donating to Mr. Graham out of friendship.

He wants to “ensure a robust discussion on critical foreign policy issues,”
the person said, referring to negotiations with Iran on its nuclear energy
program and to the United States’ relationship with Israel.

*Lindsey Graham Offers Straight Talk With a Southern Twang
<http://time.com/3911055/lindsey-graham-straight-talk/> // TIME // Phillip
Elliott – June 5, 2015 *

Sen. Lindsey Graham was a frequent travel buddy on John McCain’s Straight
Talk Express. The South Carolina Republican hopped on and off buses, jumped
into motorcades and was among the 2008 GOP nominee’s most trusted advisers
on his plane. He was such a frequent voice inside the McCain inner-circle,
he was endearingly lumped in with Sen. Joe Lieberman as one of the Three
Amigos.

As his own his White House hopeful now, it should come as no surprise that
Graham sounds a bit like his pal McCain. The hawkish retired Air Force
officer is cracking jokes, taking all unscripted questions from anyone who
shows up and is challenging even his own party’s orthodoxy. The 59-year-old
Republican is polling in single digits and is running as though he’s
perfectly fine there, as long as he can run a campaign as his own man. He
is trying to build support in the early-nominating states even though the
first debate’s cast will be chosen by national polls. As one Republican who
is not working for a White House bid brands it: “Straight Talk. With a
Southern Twang.”

Graham launched his campaign this week with a pitch to Republican voters
that promises a strong military, defense of social safety nets and
unflinching honesty. He is sharing the story about raising his teenaged
sister after both parents died. He is running his campaign as a referendum
on President Barack Obama’s tenure as the leader of the U.S. military.
“They deserve a Commander in Chief better than they have today,” Graham
said Friday as he met with GOP activists in West Des Moines, Iowa.

But he has challenges far steeper than McCain. For one, no one knows Graham
outside the cable networks’ booking departments. He is competing for the
nomination against candidates who have run before, such as Rick Santorum
and Mike Huckabee, or have dynastic help, such as Jeb Bush and Rand Paul.
He struggled to attract national attention and he lacks a national
fundraising machine. “Help me pay for it,” Graham joked after an audience
watched a promotional video. And, like McCain, he backed overhauls to the
nation’s immigration system that drew a backlash from conservatives in his
party, earning him the name “Lindsey Grahamnesty,” as he relates, chuckling.

On a personal level, there are also similarities. The same flashes of
impatience break through, such as Friday when Iowa Gun Owners challenged
him on his procedural vote on background checks and pressed him on a
donation to his political machine from gun control advocate Mike Bloomberg.
His acerbic one-liners mirror McCain, who repeatedly said in 2008 that he
looked into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw his former spy
agency’s acronym: KGB. Graham tweaks that line: “I’ve been telling Putin
‘you’re a thug’ and he’s never let me down.” And he has unflinching faith
in the military’s ability to crush the United States’ enemies: “I am going
to unleash the American military and I am going to kick their ass.”

Graham is betting his campaign can tap into the same constituencies that
powered McCain to the nomination in 2008. He is campaigning with veterans
groups this weekend and announced military advisers to a packed room in
Iowa on Friday. He is hoping seniors turn out for him, based on promises to
defend Social Security for older Americans. And he is casting himself as an
everyman, the first in his family to graduate from college and the son of
small business owners. “Please understand who you are voting for,” Graham
says.

Graham is even looking at McCain’s pals, turning to McCain’s new
configuration of the Three Amigos. When Lieberman retired, McCain and
Graham swapped him for Kelly Ayotte, a first-term Senator from New
Hampshire. She, Graham is telling audiences, would be his Attorney General.

*Why Lindsey Graham matters
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21653629-long-shot-2016-shows-how-talk-about-immigration-why-lindsey-graham-matters>
// The Economist – June 6, 2015 *

THE really inspiring thing about Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,
who on June 1st announced a bid for the Republican presidential nomination,
is “his message that the whole world is going down the tubes”. That was the
slightly bleak endorsement offered by Stephen Young, a retired
business-owner looking on when the senator launched his campaign in
Central, the blink-and-you-miss-it country town where he grew up.

Mr Graham’s ability to project gloom about American weakness in a nasty
world resonates with a lot of folks, Mr Young and his wife Linda explained.
More important, the couple hopes that the senator’s hawkish foreign-policy
views rub off on Republican rivals, because they do not actually believe
that their hero can win his party’s nomination. “We’re with him all the
way,” Mr Young beamed, before adding: “It may be a very short run.”

There was a lot of that sort of double-edged praise in Central. Mr Graham
offered rhetorical red meat to fans gathered in front of the tiny former
pool hall and bar where his parents brought him up. He thundered that
“radical Islam is running wild”. He charged both President Barack Obama and
some Republicans with wanting to disengage from the world, rather than
heeding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength”. His audience,
full of snowy-haired pensioners and flag-clutching military veterans,
cheered. Yet an unscientific straw poll found just one person who believed
that the senator could win the Republican primary in South Carolina, let
alone his party’s nomination. A broad consensus was that Mr Graham was a
fine man doomed by his habit of working with Democrats on issues such as
immigration.

Many in Central placed themselves to the right of the senator on the
subject of the 11m people thought to be in the country without legal
papers. Since being elected to the Senate in 2002, Mr Graham has backed
several immigration bills that would bring such migrants from the shadows
and offer a path to citizenship. He was accused of proposing a
“Grahamnesty” for illegal immigrants, and more than once hardliners mounted
primary challenges for his seat. Each time Mr Graham survived, beating back
Tea Party types who call him an establishment sell-out and libertarians who
think him a war hawk (his best friend in the Senate is another
interventionist, John McCain).

On a national level Mr Graham barely registers in early presidential
polling. Yet fans at the Graham launch were only half-right when they call
him a long shot for the White House, whose distinctive role will involve
speaking out on foreign policy. He is a long shot. But the Republican field
is full of security hawks quoting Reagan. Though it might seem paradoxical,
Mr Graham’s really distinctive contribution could involve teaching more
timid rivals how to advance sensible views on immigration, without being
driven from office by the far right.

Mr Graham’s survival in South Carolina offers several lessons. The first is
that even deeply conservative places are not monolithic. South Carolina
peach-farmers, for instance, are both powerful and desperate for migrant
labour, because their delicate fruit cannot be picked by machine (and
locals dislike the work). In recent years some evangelical Christian
pastors have joined business leaders in publicly backing immigration
reform, citing biblical injunctions to welcome strangers and preserve
families. Most voters in South Carolina hate the idea of rewarding
law-breakers. But most also know that 11m people cannot be rounded up and
deported without turning the country into a “concentration camp”, says Dale
Sutton, a Southern Baptist pastor who has spoken out for reform. Thus they
know that some sort of compromise is unavoidable.

A second lesson is that Mr Graham has never run from his beliefs, being
certain that voters hate hypocrisy more than a difference of opinion. That
makes him both braver and cannier than such rivals as Jeb Bush, a former
governor of Florida who is also expected to run for the presidency. In 2012
Mr Bush supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants, then
in 2013 called the granting of citizenship an undeserved “reward” for bad
conduct. More recently Mr Bush has started saying that migrants need a path
to some kind of legal status, “not necessarily” involving the status of
citizen. Mr Graham shuns such flip-flopping. Without any chance of
citizenship, millions would be left living out their lives as “the hired
help”, he told USA Today in May. “That’s not who we are.”

Bolder and blunter

Mr Graham is more outspoken than another rival for the presidential
nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who was a Senate ally on
immigration until he faced a conservative backlash. Now Mr Rubio says that
voters cannot tolerate even a “conversation” about legalisation until they
believe the border is impregnable. Mr Graham calls Mr Rubio’s
“enforcement-first” stance impractical. Comprehensive immigration reform
cannot be done by one party alone, he has told interviewers: and
Republicans will struggle to win the White House if they continue to sound
hostile to Hispanic voters. Yet in Mr Graham’s (persuasive) analysis,
congressional Democrats will never give Republicans what they want on
border security without knowing what is on offer for those 11m migrants in
limbo.

Mr Graham’s bluntness points to a final lesson. For a vocal minority of
Republicans, his candour about immigration disqualifies him. But most
voters weigh politicians in the round. Because they know the senator has
very conservative views on foreign policy, gun rights, abortion and more,
most Republicans in South Carolina forgive him when they disagree. That is
probably not enough to sustain Mr Graham outside his home state, where he
is more vulnerable to attacks based on sound-bites. But if he emboldens Mr
Bush or Mr Rubio to face down the anti-immigrant hard right, he may yet do
his party historic service.

*Iowans question Graham's gun rights history
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/06/05/lindsey-graham-gun-rights-west-des-moines/28549999/>
// The Des Moines Register // Linh Ta – June 5, 2015*

At U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham's first town hall meeting since announcing his
run for president, Graham assured the audience he was in favor of gun
rights, after Aaron Dorr, director of Iowa Gun Owners questioned his past
votes.

"Check me out. Check my rating with the NRA. Come to my house. I will show
you my AR-15," Graham said.

At the Sheraton Hotel in West Des Moines Friday, Graham was questioned
about his vote approving Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch in April
2015 and confirming Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in August 2010. He
was also questioned about confirming Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
in 2009, as well as a $250,000 contribution from Michael Bloomberg in 2014,
who has long been an advocate for gun control.

"We have grave concern about his history of supporting and sponsoring gun
control legislation," Dorr said. "He knows how to take a question and spin
it. None of what he says changes what he did."

Graham said he has a history of supporting gun rights, including a vote to
continue allowing assault rifles and no magazine limits following the Sandy
Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown in 2012.

"If you think we can get all the people we want and we can't get any of
their's, you're making a mistake," Graham said. "If you want a conservative
judge, you better elect a conservative president."

Graham also touched on his military background. Graham served active duty
in the United States Air Force between 1982 and '88, and he said his
experience makes him the best-suited Republican in the field to serve as
commander-in-chief. He said the United States needs to invest more into its
military and into combat groups like the Islamic State.

"You may be tired of fighting radical Islam," Graham said. "They are not
tired of fighting you."

Graham also introduced the members of his veterans coalition for his
campaign, including Lt. General Ron Dardis, Aviation Command Sgt. Major
Chris Fox, Brigadier General J. Daniel McGowan, Brigadier General Steve
Bogle, Col. Ron Randazzo and Lt. Col. Mike Olson. Bob Holliday, chairman of
the board for the Iowa Gold Star Military Museum in Johnston, is also on
the committee.

*Presidential candidate compares Hillary to Kim Jong Un
<http://nypost.com/2015/06/04/presidential-candidate-compares-hillary-to-kim-jong-un/>
// NY Post // Marisa Schultz – June 4, 2015  *

Hillary Clinton found herself compared Thursday to North Korean dictator
Kim Jong Un, a despot who has never had to worry about an election result.

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham made the comparison during a
Fox News Channel appearance, where he criticized Clinton for running a
campaign where she routinely shuns questions from the press.

“Well, it’s easier to talk to the North Korean guy than it is to her,”
Graham said.

“At the end of the day, when 57 percent of people don’t trust you, you’ve
got a problem.”

Clinton faces 10 official Republican challengers — and counting — who have
wasted no time going after the Democratic front-runner.

She hit back in Houston Thursday afternoon in a fiery speech calling for
automatic universal voter registration at age 18, a 20-day window for early
voting and restoration of Voting Rights Act protections to make it easier
to vote.

The former secretary of state also criticized Republican competitors for
their “crusade against voting rights,” citing several by name, but not
Graham.

*HUCKABEE*

*Huckabee: Hack exposes Obama’s weakness on China
<http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244151-huckabee-hack-exposes-obamas-weakness-on-china>
// The Hill // Cory Bennett – June 5, 2015 *

The pilfering of 4 million federal workers' personal data highlights
President Obama’s inability to defend America from overseas powers,
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said Friday.

"What will it take for the White House to do its job?” asked the former
governor of Arkansas. “What will it take for the Obama administration to
wake up and defend America?”

Huckabee made his remarks the day after the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) revealed it had suffered a massive data breach, at least the second
at the agency over the last year.

U.S. officials have said they suspect China is involved, seeking
information for a broad cyber espionage campaign targeting high-ranking
officials.

Huckabee thinks Obama’s inability to stand up to China has allowed the
Asian power to assault the U.S. at will online. China is also widely
believed to steal commercial secrets from U.S. businesses.

"Enough is enough,” Huckabee said. “China cheats, rips off American
products, abuses its people, taunts our allies, and now they're crawling
through our federal government stealing sensitive personal information from
millions of people.”

Huckabee has also criticized Obama for seeking trade agreements with China,
arguing that “we have surrendered to the Chinese market.”

“The lack of common sense in this White House is beyond breathtaking,” he
said Friday. “As president, I will stop Chinese cheating, hold China
accountable, and never, ever apologize for protecting Americans."

*Duggars' Endorsements Go Missing From Mike Huckabee's Website
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/duggars-endorsements-missing-mike-huckabees-website/story?id=31556844>
// ABC News // Ben Gittleson – June 5, 2015 *

Endorsements of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee by members
of the Duggar family disappeared from the former Arkansas governor's
campaign website this week just prior to Josh Duggar’s parents’ revealing
details of his sexual misconduct. But the Huckabee campaign said they were
always meant to come down.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar's photographs and words of endorsement had
appeared prominently on the homepage of Mike Huckabee's campaign website
since the beginning of his run for president last month. The couple, who
along with their 19 children starred in TLC's reality show "19 Kids and
Counting," have defended themselves amid harsh criticism over allegations
their eldest son, Josh Duggar, 27, molested five underage girls when he was
a teenager.

Their photos had been at the top of seven that appeared on the right side
of Huckabee's homepage under the label, "I Like MIKE."

"America needs Governor Huckabee for president!" Jim Bob Duggar was quoted
as saying.

"Governor Huckabee is a man of faith who is very wise, and will help get
our nation back on track," read Michelle Duggar's endorsement.

A campaign spokesperson told ABC News that the website's developers "always
intended for the graphics to rotate out at the first of each month." The
photos appeared on the site as recently as Monday, June 1, according to an
archived version of the page on the Internet Archive.

"The old ones were routed out on June 1," the spokesperson said. "That has
always been the plan."

The endorsement's disappearance was first reported by Talking Points Memo.

When allegations of Josh Duggar's behavior first surfaced last month,
Huckabee issued a statement expressing his full-throated support of the
family, saying, "Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even
disgusting things."

The Duggars endorsed Huckabee's first presidential run in 2008, and Rick
Santorum's in 2012.

But as more details have emerged, TLC pulled the Duggars' popular show, and
Santorum, one of Huckabee's opponents for the 2016 Republican presidential
nomination, said he was "sickened" by the allegations.

During an interview with Fox News this week, Jim Bob Duggar said Josh
Duggar had fondled four of his sisters and a babysitter.

Huckabee's campaign did not respond to questions today from ABC News about
whether his view of the Duggar family had changed following this week's
revelations, if he still accepted their endorsement, and if they would
appear at his future campaign events.

When asked on Wednesday by ABC affiliate KATV whether the Duggars would
join him on the trail, Huckabee said, "I don't know. It will be up to them.
Ask them, I don't know."

*KASICH*

*John Kasich blasts Clinton on voting ‘demagoguery’: ‘Come on, Hillary, you
know better than that’
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/5/john-kasich-blasts-hillary-clinton-voting-demagogu/>
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 5, 2015 *

Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Friday took former Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton to task for comments she made Thursday on voting rights, and
also blasted legal action against his state’s voting laws her campaign
lawyer has joined.

“Today, Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop
millions of American citizens from voting,” Mrs. Clinton, the frontrunner
for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, said Thursday at Texas
Southern University.

“First of all, I think it’s demagoguery, and secondly, if she wants to sue
somebody, let her sue New York,” Mr. Kasich, who is weighing a run for
president in 2016, said on Fox News. “In Ohio, we got like 27 days of early
voting, OK? Twenty-seven days, a couple hundred hours, and in New York, the
only early voting — there is none. The only voting that occurs is on
election day — what is she talking about?”

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, is part of lawsuits against
voting laws in Ohio and Wisconsin. The Clinton camp itself is not a party
two them, though aides have said her team supports them, according to The
New York Times.

“I like Hillary, but I got to tell you, the idea that we’re going to divide
Americans and we’re going to use demagoguery, I don’t like it,” Mr. Kasich
said. “Now I haven’t said a word about Hillary, but to come into the state
of Ohio and say we’re repressing the vote when New York has only election
day and we have 27 days … come on, that’s just silliness, you know? I’m
disappointed in her, frankly.”

Mr. Kasich said he likes Mrs. Clinton personally but obviously is not
supporting her for president — and went on to addressed her directly.

“Don’t be comin’ in and saying we are deliberately trying to keep people
from voting when her own state has less opportunity for voting than my
state, and she’s [going to] sue my state?” he said. “I mean, come on —
that’s just silly … come on, Hillary, you know better than that.”

In her speech on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called out by name former Texas
Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on the issue.

Mr. Perry hit back on Friday, and Mr. Walker’s team released a statement
from the governor late Thursday: “Hillary Clinton’s rejection of efforts to
make it easier to vote and harder to cheat not only defies logic, but the
will of the majority of Americans. Once again, Hillary Clinton’s extreme
views are far outside the mainstream.”

*Kasich Sees Presidential Pathway After Jeb Bush Doesn’t Dominate
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/kasich-sees-presidential-pathway-after-jeb-bush-doesn-t-dominate>
// Bloomberg News // Mark Niquette – June 5, 2015*

Jeb Bush has failed to lock in front-runner status for the Republican
presidential nomination, opening a door for other candidates, Ohio Governor
John Kasich said.

That includes him.

“I really thought that Jeb would blow it out, and he hasn’t,” Kasich said
Friday during a luncheon at a Concord, New Hampshire, law office. “I look
around and I say, ‘OK, I’ve got more experience than anybody, I’ve got a
record, so why shouldn’t I get out there?’”

Kasich, 63, a two-term governor and former congressman who also was a
managing director for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and a Fox television
host, said he is getting “closer and closer” to making a decision about
running. While he’s optimistic about his efforts to raise money and to
build an organization for 2016, he hasn’t made a final decision, he said.

“Is there anything jumping out right now that says, ‘No’? No, nothing yet,”
Kasich said in an interview.

During stops in New Hampshire on Thursday and Friday, Kasich, who also
briefly ran for president in 1999, said he never imagined he would consider
another run. He thought Bush, a former Florida governor expected to
announce his presidential plans June 15, would ‘just suck all of the air
out of the room,’’ and that hasn’t happened.

“This isn’t a criticism of Jeb; it’s just, I look at the facts,” Kasich
said in the interview. “I may be the only one who says this, but look at
everybody else’s actions -- they think it’s wide open.”

Breakout Performance

That’s true in New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary and
where Kasich would need a strong performance if he ran.

Typically, a candidate must finish in the top three in New Hampshire to
have momentum heading into other contests, said Steve Duprey, a national
Republican committeeman from the state and who was a senior adviser to
Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid.

With no clear front-runner, there could be five or six candidates bunched
at the top, he said.

Compared with other governors expected to run, Kasich has a record that
would appeal to the state’s fiscally conservative voters and independents
if he puts in the time to court them, Duprey said.

“This is going to be one of those primaries where it’s one of those battles
fought living room to living room and coffee shop to coffee shop,” Duprey
said. “This will be the most hard-fought, grassroots primary that I’ve ever
seen.”

Kasich has created a so-called 527 organization, New Day For America, and a
website to raise money for travel and other costs as he explores a bid. The
officers include former U.S. Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Sour Grapes

The Ohio governor has so far spent most of his time in New Hampshire and
South Carolina, though he has scheduled his first Iowa trip June 24 after
being frustrated by the caucus system there in the past.

“The system was odd to me, and maybe a little of that was sour grapes, but
they’ve changed the system,” he said.

Kasich said no front-runner has emerged because voters are trying to
determine who can win and has “real experience.”

“It’s really interesting for a Republican Party and exciting for the
Republican Party to kind of take its time,” Kasich said. “Normally, we play
‘Whose turn is it next,’ and I don’t think that’s what’s happening.”

*CARSON*

*Ben Carson’s Speaking Career Turned Lucrative Fast, Filing Shows
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/04/ben-carsons-speaking-career-turned-lucrative-fast-filing-shows/>
// NYT // Trip Gabriel – June 5, 2015 *

A speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013 that started rumblings
about a Ben Carson presidential campaign also began a lucrative speaking
career.

Mr. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, earned $4.1 million from 141 speeches
from early 2014 to last month, according to a personal financial disclosure
he filed on Thursday afternoon with the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. Carson planned to continue accepting speaking fees after he announced
he was running on May 4, which risked putting him afoul of campaign finance
laws.

He said on Sunday he would give four more speeches, booked before he
entered the Republican primary race. “When people have gone through a lot
of trouble getting sponsors and selling tables, you don’t just walk,’’ Mr.
Carson said on ABC’s “This Week.’’

Mr. Carson’s total reported income, along with his wife, Candy, was from
$8.9 million to $27 million in the 16 months preceding his announcement,
according to the disclosure.

Beside speeches, he reported income from $1.1 million to $6 million from
book royalties, and from $2 million to $10 million from serving on the
boards of two corporations, Kellogg and Costco. He has since resigned those
seats. He was also paid from $100,000 to $1 million by the Fox News Network.

Mr. Carson, who in a Quinnipiac poll last week was in a five-way tie for
first place for the Republican nomination, has captured voters’ attention
with conservative views and a personal story of climbing from poverty to
the heights of the medical field.

After criticizing President Obama at the 2013 Prayer Breakfast, while the
president sat nearby, Mr. Carson retired from Johns Hopkins and took
advantage of the flood of speaking offers.

He joined the Washington Speakers Bureau, where his fees ranged from
$16,500 to address Dayspring Christian Academy in Lancaster County, Pa., to
$44,500 for a speech at the University of the Southwest in Hobbs, N.M.

Another prolific speaker, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who typically earned
about $200,000 a speech, far more than Mr. Carson, delivered her last paid
address on March 19, a month before announcing her candidacy.
​

*Ben Carson’s campaign faces turmoil after staff exits and super PAC chaos
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carsons-campaign-faces-turmoil-after-staff-exits-and-super-pac-chaos/2015/06/05/ce08f9b2-0ba8-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html>
// WaPo // Robert Costa & Philip Rucker – June 5, 2015*

The presidential bid of Ben Carson, a tea party star who has catapulted
into the top tier of Republican contenders, has been rocked by turmoil with
the departures of four senior campaign officials and widespread disarray
among his allied super PACs.

Carson’s associates described a political network in tumult in interviews
Friday, saying the retired neurosurgeon’s campaign chairman, national
finance chairman, deputy campaign manager and general counsel have all
resigned since Carson formally launched his bid last month in Detroit. They
have not been replaced, campaign officials said.

The moves gutted the core of Carson’s apparatus and left the 63-year-old
first-time candidate with only a handful of experienced aides at his side
as he navigates the fluid, crowded and high-stakes contest for the
Republican nomination.

Carson is a hot commodity on the right-wing speaking circuit and has fast
become a leading candidate, winning straw votes at conservative gatherings
and rising in public polls.

But his campaign has been marked by signs of dysfunction and amateurism,
alarming friends and supporters who privately worry that Carson’s sprawling
circle of associates and boosters is fumbling his opportunity. And, they
argue, the candidate has been nonchalant about the unrest.

“Every campaign goes through growing pains as it puts together a leadership
team that has to work together and live together through the trying times
of a presidential election,” said Larry Levy, an attorney who has worked
with Carson.

Two independent super PACs designed to help Carson are instead competing
directly with Carson’s campaign for donations and volunteers, while
campaign chairman Terry Giles resigned last month with the intention of
forming a third super PAC.

Giles said he intends to try to convince the other two super PACs, called
Run Ben Run and One Nation, to cease operations so that all outside efforts
would be coordinated through the new group. But with Carson’s brand a
galvanizing force on the right, there are potentially millions of dollars
to be raised off his name and the other super PACs are said to be reluctant
to shutter.

“They are going after the same small donors and we’ve simply got to figure
this out or else we are going up against each other the whole time,” Giles
said. “I’m planning to sit down with them and explain that.”

Before the exodus, Carson’s operation was mostly controlled by Giles and
conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who for decades has been
Carson’s business manager, gatekeeper and friend. Giles’ exit to the super
PAC side, where he will be prohibited from directly coordinating with
Carson or his campaign, leaves Williams as the candidate’s chief confidant

“Things happen, man,” Williams said of the changes. “That’s the way life
works. You start out with one idea, hoping it all works out, and then you
get a better understanding of what needs to happen. Remember, we’re not a
necessarily a group of political people.”

The overlapping super PACs have confused Carson supporters about where to
give money. Doug Watts, a Carson campaign spokesman, described Run Ben Run
as a rogue operation: “We spend a great deal of time explaining to our
supporters, ‘They’re them, we’re us.’”

Watts insisted that “there’s no dissatisfaction” with the group’s
activities and he credited it with helping Carson win a Republican straw
poll last month in Oklahoma City after Carson spoke to the Southern
Republican Leadership Conference.

“We had Dr. Carson and two staff people,” Watts said. “We did not spend a
dime on the straw poll. But Run Ben Run, unbeknownst to us, made
organizational activity there.”

Still, Watts said the “unofficially sanctioned” super PAC is One Nation and
that Carson invites supporters to “make their excess contributions there.”

Initially, Giles planned on joining One Nation, but Watts said he
“abandoned that plan prior to his resignation and talked about the
anticipation of a new organization.”

Watts said that Carson gave Giles his blessing to leave the campaign,
noting that Giles sat in the front row at Carson’s May 3 announcement event
in Detroit and that the candidate publicly acknowledged his service as
chairman.

Federal election laws require a 120-day cooling off period between
someone’s departure from an official campaign and involvement in any super
PAC activities.

Leaving with Giles last month were deputy campaign manager Stephen Rubino,
a longtime Giles associate, as well as national finance chairman Jeff
Reeter and general counsel Kathy Freberg.

Rubino, a part-time lawyer and farmer, longed to return to his farm, Watts
said. “He said to me many times personally, ‘I’m not sure I’m cut out for
this in Washington, D.C.,’” he said. As for Freberg, he said she grew tired
of the political game. “She’s now in Africa on a safari,” Watts said.

Giles said that Carson believes a lightly-staffed campaign would suffice
through this summer and fall. “The Carson campaign, that’s now mostly about
ballot access, communications, social media, and getting Dr. Carson around
the country,” he said. “That’s about it. It’s all part of the plan.”

But Kellyanne Conway, a GOP pollster who is friendly with Carson’s inner
circle, said Carson would need “a strong, in-house campaign team. You can’t
off-load everything to a super PAC or onto the shoulders of grassroots
supporters and live off the land. Those are the fundamentals.”

Giles and Rubino have not been replaced, Watts said, because “it seemed
superfluous.” Asked whether there were other lawyers still advising the
Carson operation in her absence, he said, “Give me a break. Yeah, there are
campaign attorneys coming out of my ears.”

Barry Bennett, a former strategist for Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), will
continue to serve as Carson’s campaign manager, largely taking up the
duties once delegated to Giles and Rubino. Ed Brookover, a longtime GOP
hand, runs the policy shop.

Williams portrayed Carson as a candidate who is still learning the nuances
of politics. He said Carson is studying up on policy issues and is
uninterested in campaign mechanics.

On the road, Carson receives hearty receptions, but his associates said he
is most content after public events to retreat to a pool table, where he
touts the hand-eye coordination that made him a renowned surgeon. He also
likes to do brain teasers or play golf.

Carson occasionally drops by his Alexandria campaign headquarters, but his
main interaction with staff comes just once a week, at 10 a.m. on Sundays,
when he participates in a conference call to go over his schedule for the
coming week.

“Dr. Carson doesn’t get involved in the minutia of things,” Williams said.
“You have to understand his personality. He’s informed, but this whole
process is new to him, and he’s relying on the judgment of others.”

*JINDAL*

*Jindal Slams GOP-Led Congress For Waving ‘White Flag Of Surrender’ On
Amnesty, Broken Promises
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/jindal-slams-gop-led-congress-for-waving-white-flag-of-surrender-on-amnesty-false-promises-audio/>
// The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – June 5, 2015 *

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal took the GOP-controlled Congress to task Friday
for their first five months in power, blasting them for their actions on
President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration and Obamacare.

In an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, Jindal slammed
GOP leadership in both chambers for waving the “white flag of surrender” on
amnesty, adding that the Congressional GOP is “setting ourselves up for
defeat again” by not offering up an alternative to Obamacare.

Jindal made the comments on the heels of news that he will be announcing
his 2016 intentions on June 24.

“Here’s my concern and skepticism about just getting any Republican in
there,” Jindal said when asked if Jeb Bush could make big changes if
elected in 2016. “Look at what happened when we took the Senate back. I
remember these great, soaring campaign promises last year, it wasn’t that
long ago.”

“‘Give us the Senate and we’ll repeal Obamacare. Give us the Senate we’ll
stop illegal amnesty. Give us the Senate, we’ll reduce government spending
and balance the budget,'” Jindal said imitating those promises. “You know,
look what’s happened: White flag of surrender on amnesty. They passed a
toothless bill on this Iran bill — actually makes it worse not better in
terms of Congressional oversight.

“When you look at Obamacare, they’ve not even passed, they’ve not even
shown the American people how they would repeal and replace it, and I’m
worried,” Jindal said. “I think the Supreme Court’s going to rule the way
that it should. That these states — there there should not be mandates on
these states that have a federal exchange, but what I worry about is
Republicans in Congress are setting ourselves up for defeat again going out
there again with a plan to repeal Obamacare and replace it, and they’re
going to put themselves in a corner. That’s why you already hear
Republicans saying ‘well, maybe we need to put a band-aid or a patch on it.”

Jindal went on to liken the outset of the 114th Congress to when the GOP
controlled the legislative branch during President George W. Bush’s tenure
in office.

“At the same time period, when we had a Republican president, a Republican
Congress. Thats when we got No Child Left Behind. That’s when we got Part D
in Medicare without Medicare reform, without premium support,” Jindal said.
“It is absolutely right to criticize President Obama for $18 trillion of
debt, but it didn’t just start under President Obama. I think, in part, we
have Republicans in D.C. who have just become part of the problem. They
want to go along to get along. Boy, I think that’s why we need
conservatives.”

*Bobby Jindal Keeps Heat on '16 Hopefuls - Lincoln Chafee This Time
<http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bobby-jindal-lincoln-chafee-rand-paul-twitter/2015/06/05/id/648949/>
// Newsweek // Melissa Clyne  - June 5, 2015 *

Though admonished last month by the Louisiana Inspector General’s Office
about using his office to launch attacks on presidential candidates, Gov.
Bobby Jindal chided former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee on Thursday for
advocating that America convert to the metric system, The Times-Picayune
reports.

"Typical Democrat — wants to make America more European," Jindal spokesman
Mike Reed told a reporter who asked about Jindal’s thoughts on Chafee’s
support for the metric system. "Gov. Jindal would rather make the world
more American."

Chafee, whose political affiliation has evolved from Republican to
independent to Democrat, announced this week that he was running for
president.

His announcement included the championing of the metric system as a "bold
embrace of internationalism" that would "help our economy," according to
Politico.

Jindal, who will announce June 24 whether he plans to seek the Republican
nomination for the White House, has been an outspoken critic of the field
of candidates.

Last month, he fired off a series of attacks on Twitter against Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul, a declared GOP presidential candidate who had pointed his
finger at Republican hawks for being behind the rise of the Islamic State
(ISIS) jihad group.

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave
arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe."

"They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks
in my party loved — they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just
wanted more of it."

Jindal took Paul to task, posting on Twitter:

In another, Jindal tweeted:

According to a May 29 article in the Times-Picayune, the state Inspector
General's office issued its report after receiving complaints alleging that
Jindal’s criticisms of Paul had violated the state constitution.

"The Governor's office could have easily avoided such questions by issuing
the statement through means that did not involve the use of public funds or
employees," the Inspector General's office wrote.

Jindal told the newspaper that he spoke out against Paul’s comments because
"national security matters are important to people of Louisiana, and I
thought it was important for me to share my views on keeping our country
safe from the threat of radical terrorists — Islamic terrorists."

*OTHER*

*Republican Candidates Assail Hillary Clinton on Voting Rights
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/republican-candidates-assail-hillary-clinton-on-voting-rights/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 5, 2015 *

In a speech Thursday, Mrs. Clinton said that some in the Republican field
were “deliberately trying to stop” young people and minorities from
exercising their right to vote.

On Friday, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey seemed to relish the fight.

“Secretary Clinton doesn’t know the first thing about voting rights in New
Jersey or in the other states that she attacked,” Mr. Christie said,
according toThe Record newspaper of New Jersey. “My sense is that she just
wants an opportunity to commit greater acts of voter fraud around the
country.”

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said in a statement: “Hillary Clinton’s
rejection of efforts to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat not only
defies logic, but the will of the majority of Americans. Once again,
Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are far outside the mainstream.”

His response represented one of the few times that any of the many
Republican candidates in the 2016 field have described Mrs. Clinton’s views
as so far left as to be outside mainstream politics. For Mrs. Clinton it is
familiar territory: “Liberal” was a tag that was often affixed to her as a
criticism in the 1990s and when she ran for the United States Senate from
New York in 2000.

Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who was also named by Mrs. Clinton,
went on Fox News and suggested that being able to vote was no different
than needing travel documents.

“She just went into my home state and dissed every person who supports
having an identification to either get on an airplane or vote,” Mr. Perry
said on Friday.

A spokesman for Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, did not respond to
an email request for comment.

Mrs. Clinton’s no-holds-barred speech on voting rights, calling for
automatic registration and sweeping changes to early voting nationally, was
a rare time she has invoked her potential rivals, especially by name.

But, just as when she said she would go even further than President Obama
has on executive changes to the immigration system, Mrs. Clinton could be
putting Republicans in a politically delicate position, since their
responses on both issues are unlikely to please Hispanic, African-American
and younger voters.

*GOP says Clinton dividing Americans over voting rights
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=K7R8jEzy>
// AP // Ken Thomas – June 5, 2015 *

Republicans struck back Friday against Hillary Rodham Clinton's suggestions
that they have attempted to disenfranchise voters systematically. They
accused the Democratic presidential front-runner of running a divisive
campaign and favoring lax controls on voting.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a potential GOP presidential candidate,
said in Concord, New Hampshire, that Clinton didn't know "the first thing
about voting rights in New Jersey," and simply wanted to have an
opportunity to "commit greater acts of voter fraud" around the nation.

Another potential Republican rival, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, told Fox News
that Clinton was "dividing America" and overlooking the fact that Ohio has
28 days of early voting while her home state of New York doesn't have any.
Ohio had 35 days of early voting until he signed a law last year lopping
off a week.

"What is she talking about?" Kasich asked. "Don't be running around the
country dividing America."

Clinton said Thursday in Houston that a group of current and former
Republican governors pursuing the White House has "systematically and
deliberately" tried to prevent millions of Americans from voting. Clinton
said the changes were aimed at making it more difficult for minority and
low-income voters to cast a ballot and outlined steps to expand access to
early voting and allow universal, automatic voter registration for young
people.

It was the first time as a presidential candidate that Clinton singled out
her potential Republican rivals by name, criticizing voting policies of
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Texas
Gov. Rick Perry and Christie.

Clinton cited Christie for vetoing a bill in New Jersey to extend early
voting. She said Bush had conducted a "deeply flawed" purge of eligible
voters in Florida by having the names of people who were mistakenly thought
to be felons removed from voting rolls.

And she accused Walker of cutting early voting, making it harder for
college students to vote, while she said Perry approved laws in Texas that
discriminated against minority voters.

Democratic attorneys recently filed legal challenges to voting changes in
the presidential battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin. One of the
attorneys involved in the lawsuits is Marc Elias, who is also serving as
the Clinton campaign's general counsel. Clinton's campaign is not
officially involved in the lawsuits.

Walker, whose state has passed voter ID laws, said in a statement late
Thursday that Clinton's "rejection of efforts to make it easier to vote and
harder to cheat not only defies logic, but the will of the majority of
Americans."

Christie vetoed legislation in 2013 that would have allowed in-person early
voting at polling places and he's criticized same-day registration. New
Jersey does have a mail-in early-voting system.

Democrats contend that Republicans overstate the incidence of fraudulent
voting to justify steps that depress turnout from minority and other
hard-to-reach voters, many of whom would support Democratic candidates.

Republicans say Democrats overlook fraud because they want those votes.

Clinton will deliver what her team considers her first major speech next
week, in New York, opening a new stage of her campaign. Clinton intends to
paint the large Republican field as monolithic on policy in coming months.

Her team bills the New York speech as a campaign kickoff, although she
launched her candidacy in April.

*Going Negative
<http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/05/the-2016-presidential-race-is-going-negative>
// US News // Kenneth Walsh – June 5, 2015 *

The negative phase of the 2016 presidential race has begun. And with the
first debates approaching, the contest is likely to turn even more harsh
and sharp-edged as the candidates of each major party try to undermine each
other and stand out on their own.

On the Republican side, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is drawing increasing
contrasts between himself and both of his dynastic rivals, Republican Jeb
Bush and Democrat Hillary Clinton. "No one is entitled to the presidency,
and no candidate has the right to skip the process of laying out a vision
simply because he or she has the deepest connections in Washington or the
most money in big-dollar donations," Rubio, an announced candidate, wrote
recently on his campaign web site. "In this country, what your last name
is, what life you were born into, and how much money you have does not
determine who you can be, where you can go or what opportunities you can
enjoy."

In response, Bush says he is a pragmatic conservative with a strong record
of accomplishment as former governor of Florida. Clinton also points to her
record of achievement as former first lady, ex-U.S. senator from New York
and former secretary of state.

And Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is becoming a political piñata, regularly
battered by his opponents, because he has criticized a central tenet of GOP
orthodoxy – that the United States must be more interventionist abroad and
willing to intervene militarily in other countries. Among Paul's critics is
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who is considering a Republican
presidential run and says Paul is weak on national defense. In fact, Jindal
has hurled against Paul one of the worst epithets available within the GOP
– that Paul is like Democratic President Barack Obama as an ambitious
first-term senator seeking the White House but lacking the requisite
toughness and understanding of America's adversaries to be an effective
commander in chief.

This criticism of Paul is echoed by newly announced GOP candidate Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina, one of the Senate's leading hawks. In fact,
Graham and Paul are immersed in a feud over U.S. foreign policy. "Those who
believe we can disengage from the world at large and stay safe by leading
from behind, vote for someone else – I am not your man," Graham said during
his announcement speech this week in a pointed reference to Paul. "Those
who believe the best way to defend ourselves is to lead the world, to make
history rather than be overwhelmed by it, I ask for your support."

And former Gov. George Pataki of New York, another announced candidate,
blasted Paul for forcing the temporary expiration of some government
surveillance programs under the Patriot Act. Pataki said Paul engineered
the expiration to impress libertarians and was "simply putting Americans at
risk for political reasons."

Paul's response is that his critics are on the wrong side of history and
are advocating discredited policies of the past.

On the Democratic side, former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland is needling
Clinton and Bush, sounding a theme similar to Rubio's. At the official
announcement of his candidacy this week, O'Malley tried to stake out the
left wing of his party, arguing that he is more progressive than Clinton,
the front runner. O'Malley said he would be more confrontational with Wall
Street. "Recently the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he'd
be just fine with either Bush or Clinton," O'Malley said. "I bet he would!"
He told a rally: "Well, I've got news for the bullies of Wall Street. The
presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth, by you, between two
royal families. It is a sacred trust to be earned from the American people
and exercised on behalf of the people of these United States."

O'Malley is adopting some of the rhetoric used by his mentor, former Sen.
Gary Hart, D-Colo., in Hart's future-vs.-past bid for the Democratic
nomination in 1984. The Colorado senator nearly upset front runner and
former Vice President Walter Mondale, and O'Malley says voters are eager
for another insurgency today. O'Malley told the Washington Post, "I think
in our own party there is a desire for a new generation of leadership
that's more connected to the values of our country and where we're headed."

O'Malley advisers also say he is more of a purist on liberal issues than
Clinton is. The former governor supported same-sex marriage and
comprehensive immigration reform earlier and more aggressively than Clinton
did, and he demonstrated an ability to get things done as governor by
signing into law bills allowing same-sex marriage and increasing the
minimum wage.

Also criticizing Clinton has been Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a
socialist who is seeking the Democratic nomination. Sanders says the wealth
accumulated by Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton makes it more
difficult for her to understand the problems of everyday Americans. "That
type of wealth has the potential to isolate you from the reality of the
world," Sanders told CNBC.

Both O'Malley and Sanders complain that Clinton has stayed mum on
controversial legislation to give Obama fast-track authority to facilitate
passage of a huge trade agreement with nations in the Asia-Pacific region.
And O'Malley and Sanders say Clinton also should take a position on the
trade deal itself, which both of them oppose.

The first Republican presidential debate is scheduled for early August and
is sponsored by Fox News. This encounter will give the candidates a
high-visibility forum to hammer each other even more. The Democrats will
probably hold their first debate in August or September, with the same
likelihood of internecine warfare.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*U.S. Economy Added 280,000 Jobs in May; Unemployment Rate 5.5%
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/business/economy/jobs-report-hiring-unemployment-may.html?smid=tw-nytimes>
// NYT // Patricia Cohen –June 5, 2015 *

Employers added 280,000 jobs in May, the Labor Department reported on
Friday, blunting worries about the American economy’s momentum after a
stretch of lackluster growth earlier this year.

The official unemployment rate ticked up to 5.5 percent, while hourly wages
rose 0.3 percent for private sector workers last month.

Although the report provides just a snapshot of the economy and is subject
to revision, analysts are looking at this freshest set of figures to help
pierce the confusion over whether the economy’s contraction of 0.7 percent
during the first quarter of 2015 was a blip, partly a casualty of the harsh
winter, or evidence of a more fundamental slowdown.

Part of the reason for the mixed assessments is that the recovery from the
recession, now reaching its sixth anniversary, has been uneven, lifting the
fortunes of some Americans while others languish. As a survey in October on
families’ financial well-being by the Federal Reserve showed when it was
released recently, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they were either
“doing O.K.” or “living comfortably,” with the rest reporting they were
“just getting by” or struggling.

“It’s a tale of two economies, the economy of the unskilled, and the
economy of the semiskilled and the skilled,” said Robert A. Funk, chairman
and chief executive of Express Employment Professionals, a staffing agency
based in Oklahoma City that operates in 49 states.

There is pent-up demand for those with skills, like machinists, engineers
and information and technology workers, he said, but those without that
edge are continuing to have a tough time.

“We’re out here on Main Street, not Wall Street,” said Mr. Funk, former
chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. “We get a feel of
medium and small companies and their attitudes. They are reticent to hire
because they are not sure which way the economy is going to go.”

For those looking for progress, this week brought evidence of modest, if
plodding improvements.

A roundup of reports compiled from each of the Federal Reserve’s 12
district banks suggested that the overall economy expanded over the
previous two months. The survey, known as the Beige Book, found:
“Employment levels were up slightly over the reporting period, with some
reports of layoffs. Wages rose slightly.”

The trade balance also improved in April. The deficit, though still sizable
at $40.9 billion, shrank from $50.6 billion in the previous month.

The number of people applying for unemployment insurance also dropped last
week, the 13th week in a row that new claims have been below 300,000.
Although the four-week moving average edged up slightly to 275,000, it is
still near a 15-year low.

Despite low gasoline prices, which leave more money in people’s wallets,
consumers have remained guarded, choosing to bank their savings rather than
spend them. The one exception seems to have been car sales. American
automakers sold more than 1.6 million vehicles in May, or 17.8 million on a
seasonally adjusted annualized basis. That is the largest single-month
total in nearly 10 years.

Wall Street was paying particular attention to the report on Friday because
of its potential impact on the Fed’s decision about when to raise interest
rates above their near-zero levels. This week, James B. Bullard, president
of the St. Louis Fed, said that while he expected the economy to improve
enough to justify a rate increase this year, the frail first quarter has
made everyone doubly cautious.

“We should be and are appropriately talking about how to normalize monetary
policy,” Mr. Bullard said. “On the other hand, you’ve got near-term
concerns — the first-quarter negative G.D.P. number and maybe some
consumption numbers, including retail sales — that look weaker than we had
anticipated. I think that will all be transient, and it will turn out that
we’ll have stronger data later in the year, and that will enable us to get
going on the normalization process.”

On Thursday, the International Monetary Fund asked the Fed to hold off
raising rates until the first half of 2016 because of disappointing growth
and a lack of inflation.

Most Americans are increasingly optimistic about their economic future,
according to the Fed’s survey on economic well-being. Still, daily
financial challenges manifest themselves in small ways and large. Nearly
half of those surveyed, for example, said they lacked the resources to
cover an unexpected emergency that cost $400. Nearly one-third said they
had skipped some form of medical care because they could not afford it.

And many would increase their incomes if they could: More than one-third of
all workers and 49 percent of part-timers said they would prefer to work
more hours at their current wage.

Wage stagnation also remains a blot on the recovery’s record. “Even a
slight increase in year-over-year wage growth would be new and something
different,” helping to lure back people who had abandoned the work force,
said Tara M. Sinclair, an associate professor of economics at George
Washington University and an economist at Indeed.com.

*Pressure Rises for Higher Taxes
<https://myaccount.nytimes.com/mobile/wall/smart/index.html?campaignId=&EXIT_URI=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2FloginReturn%3Furl%3D%2F2015%2F06%2F05%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fpressure-rises-for-higher-taxes.html>
// NYT // John Harwood – June 5, 2015 *

The Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley wants to raise
capital gains taxes. His rival Bernie Sanders seeks to tax stock trades and
increase personal income tax rates.

Indeed, Mr. Sanders’s plan harks back to the Eisenhower-era top rate of
over 90 percent — more than twice today’s level. Asked whether that rate is
obviously too high, Mr. Sanders responded simply, “No.”

Their stances partly reflect attempts to outflank Hillary Rodham Clinton in
the Democratic race for the presidential nomination. Mrs. Clinton herself
is considering a friendly think tank’s advice to raise taxes on inherited
wealth and close loopholes to collect more from affluent Americans.

But they also reflect a broader shift in tax politics that is rippling
through the Republican world, too. Pressure to raise taxes, at least on the
wealthy, is rising.

Several developments are fueling that pressure. The Tea Party push to slash
spending has lost steam and generated a backlash. Defense hawks want more
money for the Pentagon, while other Republicans seek additional cash for
highway projects. The largest potential targets for further cuts, Social
Security and Medicare for the elderly, are hardly politically inviting.

At the same time, Republicans’ growing emphasis on reducing debt and
deficits has curbed the appeal of supply-side tax cuts. So has the decline
in the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent, from the 70 percent level when
Ronald Reagan won the presidency on a tax-cutting platform.

Moreover, both parties, at least rhetorically, have embraced the need for
Washington to address stagnant middle-class wages and rising income
inequality. Enacting significant remedies — whether through new
middle-class tax benefits or spending programs — requires cash Washington
doesn’t have.

“All those things point in the direction of revenues,” said Senator Sheldon
Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island.

Mr. Whitehouse is a co-sponsor of “Fair Share” tax legislation that would
collect an additional $70 billion from wealthy taxpayers by closing
loopholes. He also backs a new tax on carbon emissions, though his
motivation is environmental rather than budgetary; he would return tax
proceeds to businesses through lower corporate rates and to individuals
through tax rebates and other benefits.

Recent history suggests the carbon tax faces a steep uphill fight, even as
climate change assumes a larger role on the political stage. Nor is there
much prospect of massive increases in marginal tax rates, though Thomas
Piketty, the French economist whose recent book accelerated the income
inequality debate, argues that top rates could reach 80 percent without
harming the economy.

Yet Mrs. Clinton has not ruled out an increase in the 39.6 percent rate
that her husband and President Obama both signed into law.

A recent economic report from the Center for American Progress, the think
tank founded by her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, lays out other
options, like increasing “effective” tax rates by curbing tax shelters for
the affluent.

Antipathy toward taxes remains a core tenet of Republican economic policy.

When Republican Senate candidates in last year’s midterm elections shied
away from tax-cutting proposals, the conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist
explained that they would revive the issue as “tax reform” after winning
full control of Congress.

But there's no sign of serious movement on the issue.

Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate, has cast deficit concerns
aside by advocating tax cuts for average families and high earners alike —
including the elimination of capital gains and estate taxes. But he has not
yet attempted to enact his plan.

Another Republican candidate, Lindsey Graham, says his party needs to back
higher taxes as part of a budget deal with Democrats. A third, Jeb Bush,
promises a tax reform plan but has drawn attention to the issue in a
different way.

Mr. Norquist has long goaded Republican politicians, including Mr. Bush's
older brother George W. Bush, to formally “pledge” opposition to all tax
increases. Jeb Bush refuses to sign the pledge.

*Senate Rejects Extending Veterans Benefits To Married Gay Couples And
Their Kids
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/veterans-benefits-gay-couples_n_7514584.html?1433454909>
// HuffPo // Jennifer Bendery – June 4, 2015 *

The Senate quietly rejected legislation Thursday that would have extended
certain veterans' benefits to married same-sex couples and their children
who live in states where their marriage isn't recognized.

During debate on the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, Sen. Jeanne
Shaheen (D-N.H.) proposed amending the federal statute that prevents the
Department of Veterans Affairs from granting comprehensive benefits to
same-sex couples in states that don't recognize a same-sex marriage that
was legally performed in a different state.

Her amendment failed 53-42, seven votes shy of the 60 votes needed to pass.
None of the Senate Republicans running for president voted for it. Sens.
Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) opposed it, while Sens. Marco Rubio
(Fla.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) did not vote.

Shaheen called it "tremendously disappointing" that the Senate would deny
benefits to people who put their lives on the line for their country.

"Veterans served their country bravely, and yet some are deprived of the
very rights they risked their lives to protect," she said in an email. "The
impact of this discrimination is real. Monthly benefits are less; spouses
and children are not eligible for medical care at the VA; and families are
not eligible for the same death benefits."

Because of restrictions in federal law, veterans in same-sex marriages who
live in states that don't honor their marriage receive smaller monthly
disability payments and aren't eligible to qualify for a VA home loan with
their spouse. In some cases, these veterans' spouses and kids are also
ineligible for VA medical care.

It's not the first time the Senate has voted to change this law. Shaheen
introduced the same amendment in March, during debate on the budget, and
the amendment passed 57-43. Only 51 votes were required to attach
amendments to that bill. But the budget resolution is non-binding, meaning
those votes were about making a statement on an issue rather than affecting
law.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a major decision later this month on
whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. If they rule
yes, then all states will be required to offer marriage licenses to gay
couples and all states will have to recognize same-sex marriages performed
in other states.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*U.S. Was Warned of System Open to Cyberattacks
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/us/chinese-hackers-may-be-behind-anthem-premera-attacks.html>
// NYT // David e. Sanger, Julie Hirschfeld Davis & Nicole Perlroth – June
5, 2015 *

The inspector general at the Office of Personnel Management, which keeps
the records and security clearance information for millions of current and
retired federal employees, issued a report in November that essentially
described the agency’s computer security system as a Chinese hacker’s dream.

But by the time the report was published, Chinese hackers had already
cleaned out tens of thousands of files on sensitive security clearances,
and were preparing for a much broader attack that ultimately obtained
detailed personal information on at least four million current and former
government employees. Even today, the agency is struggling to patch
numerous vulnerabilities.

A number of administration officials on Friday painted a picture of a
government office struggling to catch up, with the Chinese ahead of them at
every step.

The agency did not possess an inventory of all the computer servers and
devices with access to its networks, and did not require anyone gaining
access to information from the outside to use the kind of basic
authentication techniques that most Americans use for online banking. It
did not regularly scan for vulnerabilities in the system, and found that 11
of the 47 computer systems that were supposed to be certified as safe for
use last year were not “operating with a valid authorization.”

Workers outside the Office of Personnel Management. Its computer system was
hit by attackers. Credit James Lawler Duggan/Reuters

The problems were so severe for two systems that hosted the databases used
by the Federal Investigative Service, which is responsible for the
background investigations for officials and contractors who are issued
security clearances, that the inspector general argued for temporarily
shutting them down because the security flaws “could potentially have
national security implications.”

Hackers in China apparently figured that out months before the report was
published. Last summer a breach was detected that appeared aimed directly
at the security clearance records — information that could help a
determined hacker gain access to email or other accounts belonging to those
entrusted with the nation’s secrets.

While upgrades were underway, a much broader attack occurred, apparently
starting in December. Before it was detected, personal information on at
least four million people was apparently downloaded by a patient,
well-equipped adversary — and the number is likely to grow.

As one senior former government official who once handled cyberissues for
the administration, who would not speak on the record because it could
endanger the person’s role on key advisory committees, said on Friday, “The
mystery here is not how they got cleaned out by the Chinese. The mystery is
what took the Chinese so long.”

Researchers and government officials have determined that the Chinese group
that attacked the office was probably the same one that seized millions of
records held by the health care firms Anthem and Primera. Based on the
forensics, experts believe the attackers were not part of the People’s
Liberation Army, whose Third Department oversees much of the military’s
cyberintelligence gathering. Rather they believe the group is privately
contracted, though the exact affiliation with the Chinese government is not
known.

For the Obama administration, which came to office holding East Room events
on cybersecurity and pressing Congress, for years, to pass legislation that
would allow the private sector to share information with the government,
what has happened at the Office of Personnel Management can only be
described as a case study in bureaucratic lethargy and poor security
practices.

In the most egregious case cited by the inspector general, outsiders
entering the system were not subjected to “multifactor authentication” —
the systems that, for example, require a code that is sent to a cellphone
to be entered before giving access to a user. Asked about that in an
interview, Donna Seymour, the chief information officer at the Office of
Personnel Management, said that installing such gear in the government’s
“antiquated environment” was difficult and very time consuming, and that
her agency had to perform “triage” to determine how to close the worst
vulnerabilities.

The agency now plans to install two-step authentication across its network,
Ms. Seymour said. A longtime data security official, she also defended the
decision to ignore the inspector general’s advice to shut down two systems
that contain the security clearance information. Ms. Seymour said that the
investigators were using an outdated assessment of the security measures —
and that the agency was in the process of getting tighter controls when the
intrusion happened. Another senior official said that with the agency under
pressure to clear a huge backlog of security clearances, halting the
process was “a nonstarter” with Congress.

During the installation of new security scanning software, officials said,
they found evidence of the broad downloading of millions of files.

But administration officials said a lack of management focus on the
problems contributed to the slow response — combined with a lack of focus
on protecting systems that are not part of the national security
infrastructure but that contain large amounts of data. And a number of
administration officials in interviews on Friday painted a picture of
Chinese adversaries who appear to be building huge databases of information
on American citizens, useful for intelligence gathering and other purposes.

“They didn’t go to sell the data, which is what criminal groups usually
do,” said James Lewis, an expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. “It’s biographic databases that really give an
intelligence benefit — and that get into an opponent’s skin.” Such
databases indicate where a government official was posted, and security
clearance information would list their foreign contacts — useful if there
was an effort to track down Chinese citizens in contact with Americans.

The chronology of attacks against American targets matches China’s stated
economic and strategic objectives, members of Congress were told in
briefings held by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.
“I’m angry and frustrated that we are at a place where this kind of attack
can be successful,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat who
sits on both a subcommittee on cyberissues and the Armed Services
Committee. The attackers, he said, “could have been inside the systems for
weeks or months.” In fact, investigators believe they were there for at
least three months, before being detected in April.

Government officials in the United States have been tracking several such
privately contracted Chinese groups since 2008 and believe they operate at
the behest of the state. One, based out of Guangzhou in southern China, has
been tied to thousands of attacks on victims in the United States, Britain,
Canada, Europe, Russia and Africa that develop missile, satellite, space
and nuclear propulsion technology.

At the White House, officials were struggling to explain on Friday how the
breach could have happened after warnings from the inspector general and
others. Michael Daniel, the White House’s top cyberofficial, declined to
speak on the record about the attack, and Lisa Monaco, who has been
handling cyberissues as one of Mr. Obama’s top national security officials,
declined to be interviewed.

“The threat that we face is ever-evolving,” said Josh Earnest, the White
House press secretary. “We understand that there is this persistent risk
out there. We take this very seriously.”

Mr. Earnest said Mr. Obama’s efforts to push legislation would bolster the
nation’s data.

“We need the United States Congress to come out of the Dark Ages and
actually join us here in the 21st century to make sure that we have the
kinds of defenses that are necessary to protect a modern computer system,”
he said.

*U.S. Airstrikes Whack One Thousand Islamic State Fighters a Month, Air
Force General Says
<http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/05/u-s-airstrikes-whack-one-thousand-islamic-state-fighters-a-month-air-force-general-says/>
// Foreign Policy // Paul MCleary – June 5, 2015 *

The top U.S. air commander in the Middle East said Friday that the
American-led coalition bombing Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria are
“removing over 1,000 enemy fighters a month from the battlefield” — adding
yet another voice to the string of military and civilian leaders who have
put a body count on a war where body counts aren’t supposed to matter.

“The number is significant, but it’s also only a single indicator,” Lt.
Gen. John Hesterman told reporters by phone from his headquarters in Qatar.

The number of dead extremists isn’t as important as reforming Iraqi
governance or strangling the finances of the Islamic State, he said,
falling more closely in line with the White House. “But we’re taking the
enemy off the battlefield at a great rate, and you can count on that,”
Hesterman said.

Critics say one of the biggest failures of Washington’s war plan is the
refusal to put U.S. forward air controllers on the ground with Iraqi troops
to more effectively call in airstrikes on Islamic State positions.
Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain have made a cottage
industry out of calling for the deployment of joint terminal attack
controllers — or JTACs — to Iraq, and some retired military officials have
also grumbled about the lack of eyes on the ground.

JTACs are operating in air command centers spread throughout Iraq,
Hesterman said, where they watch live feeds piped back from drones and
fighter jets circling enemy positions instead of embedding with Iraqi
troops.

Speaking to CNN on Friday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said
while JTACs are most important in urban fights where more precise
airstrikes are essential to avoid civilian casualties, persistent aerial
surveillance coverage is effective in the more open areas of Iraq and Syria.

Hesterman also downplayed reports of an air strike near the city of Kirkuk
on Wednesday that flattened a jihadi car bomb-making factory. He said U.S.
aircraft dropped a “fairly small weapon” on the building, located in an
industrial area, which triggered a secondary explosion from the bomb-making
material stored inside. While that second explosion essentially flattened
the entire industrial area — and the boom was heard dozens of miles away —
so far there is no evidence of civilian casualties, Hesterman said.

Initial reports said dozens of civilians were killed and injured. And a
U.S. Central Command spokesperson on Thursday told FP it had received
reports of civilian casualties near the site and was prepared to
investigate if they could be confirmed.

The overall bombing campaign shows few signs of letting up anytime soon.
After 10 months and $2.6 billion spent by Washington, Islamic State forces
continue their ground war against Iraqi troops and Shiite militias in a
bloody struggle around the edges of Anbar province, which the jihadis own
almost completely.

Hesterman and other U.S. officials insist the daily airstrikes are key to
buying the Iraqi Army time to regain footing after a string of humiliating
defeats in Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi. The strikes also create space for
the estimated 3,000 U.S. troops on the ground to retrain demoralized Iraqi
Army units they originally trained just a few years ago.

But even a former fighter pilot like Hesterman admitted that “air power
doesn’t hold and govern territory — Iraq will have to do that” with troops
on the ground.

“Some competent ground forces are going to have to go peel” the jihadis out
of the towns and villages in which they’re hiding, he said.

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*Jeb Bush and the campaign money fountain
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/05/opinions/louis-campaign-spending/> // CNN //
Errol Louis – June 5, 2015 *

Just as reformers have often warned and long feared, money has swamped the
American political system, placing a critical amount of the 2016
presidential campaign in the hands of private interests, outside of
regulation and largely beyond accountability. More than a year away from
the 2016 election, it seems clear the new cash-driven strategies are bad
for democracy.

The sums involved are staggering -- we'll look at some of the numbers in a
minute -- but to understand the profound transformation of politics we're
watching, consider the recent maneuvering of Republican ex-Gov. Jeb Bush of
Florida, who appears hell-bent on maximizing the amount of political money
in his corner.

For months, Bush has been holding political fundraisers, delivering
speeches and hiring advisers, but also coyly denying he's made a decision
about whether to seek the White House in 2016. In one case, he slipped up
and acknowledged the ruse: "I'm running for president in 2016, and the
focus is gonna be about how we — if I run — how do you create high,
sustained economic growth, where more people have a chance at earned
success?" he said on NBC.

Note the way Bush immediately tried to clean up the gaffe -- "if I run" --
as if anybody seriously doubts that this son and brother of two presidents
plans to make his own bid for the White House. The verbal contortions --
and the entire structure of Bush's nascent campaign -- are built around the
new rules that allow candidates to raise unlimited funds for so-called
super PACs, political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited
amounts of money supporting and attacking candidates without disclosing
who's behind the activity.

So we've seen Bush crisscrossing the country raising money for a super PAC
called Right to Rise that's believed to have raised $100 million that will
likely get spent helping likely candidate Bush and attacking his enemies.
Bush isn't alone: Virtually every serious Republican candidate for office,
including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Rand Paul, ex-Sen. Rick
Santorum and Dr. Ben Carson is affiliated with one super PAC or another.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has called for strong campaign
finance limits, by constitutional amendment if necessary -- but then gave
in to reality and is expected to connect with Priorities USA, a super PAC
created by supporters of President Obama.

There's a catch to these potentially bottomless money fountains. By law,
they can't coordinate with campaigns after a candidate has officially
declared he or she is running. There's also a convoluted restriction on
what an official candidate can do for his or her super PAC: Candidates can
meet with donors, but not ask for more than $5,000. Such pitches can be
made to the donors, but not in the candidate's presence.

The first problem with this system is that it encourages, and even rewards,
a kind of dishonesty by candidates. "What we're seeing is effectively a
farce being played out here, where each of these candidates — in every
sense of the word — is avoiding the longstanding requirements of federal
election law," is how Trevor Potter, who served as a high-ranking official
in the two presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain, put it to National
Journal. "It's very much a wink and a nod, we all know this, this is a
game."

The game was created by a string of Supreme Court rulings that unraveled
legal restrictions on political donors. Since the most important of these
decisions, the 2007 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, money has gushed into
American politics.

In 2008, the year after Citizens United, more than $300 million from PACs
and individual contributions was spent on the race for president. Four
years later, that number more than tripled to over $1 billion and some
predict spending for 2016 could edge toward $10 billion. The overwhelming
majority of these new dollars will be from super PACs.

The flood of money and wink-and-nod rules have led, predictably, to
corruption. Some of it is old-fashioned and obvious: Earlier this year, the
U.S. Justice Department announced its first criminal conviction of a
political consultant for violating the rule requiring separation of PACs
and official campaign activity. Tyler Harber, who was working for a
congressional campaign in Virginia, created a super PAC, then directly
coordinated its activities with the campaign. Harber also spent over
$300,000 in PAC money with a printing firm that kicked a fat percentage
back to him personally, and lied about the whole matter when the FBI came
knocking.

Harber, set to be sentenced this month, may be the first of many campaign
operatives to abuse the money flood the Supreme Court set off. There's also
a broader corruption taking place. The spectacle of candidates lining up to
kiss the ring of Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson at an event earlier
this year is being repeated by the Koch brothers, industrialists with a
deep, vested interest in limiting taxes and regulation on their empire. The
Kochs and some of their big-donor allies reportedly plan to spend $889
million on the 2016 election.

In the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "the
appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the
electorate to lose faith in our democracy."

Every indication suggests Kennedy's prediction has turned out to be dead
wrong. Last fall, even as more money than ever poured into the political
system, America saw the lowest voter turnout level in 72 years, and 84% of
Americans say money has too much influence over politics, according to a
recent CBS News-New York Times poll. And 85% say the campaign finance
system needs a complete overhaul.

Voters know, even if the Supreme Court doesn't, that we need to contain,
control or scrap the current PAC-driven system. What should be a time for
national debate about the pressing issues facing the country is turning
into a kind of cattle auction. America deserves better.

*Clinton goes bold on voting rights
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-goes-bold-voting-rights>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 5, 2015*

Before Hillary Clinton’s speech on voting rights yesterday, the political
world already had some sense that she intended to endorse a pretty
progressive vision. The Democratic campaign told reporters in advance, for
example, that Clinton would back a 20-day early-voting window for every
state in the nation.

But as Rachel noted on the show last night, the Democratic frontrunner
ended up going much further than expected. That’s true on policy grounds,
where Clinton endorsed a plan for universal registration …

“So today I am calling for universal, automatic voter registration.
Everyone, every young man or young woman, in every state in the union
should be automatically registered to vote when they turn eighteen – unless
they actively choose to opt-out.”

… and it’s true on political grounds, where Clinton blasted Republicans, by
name, for their ugly national voter-suppression campaign.

“Here in Texas, former Governor Rick Perry signed a law that a federal
court said was actually written with the purpose of discriminating against
minority voters. He applauded when the Voting Rights Act was gutted, and
said the lost protections were ‘outdated and unnecessary.’

“But Governor Perry is hardly alone in his crusade against voting rights.
In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker cut back early voting and signed
legislation that would make it harder for college students to vote. In New
Jersey, Governor Christie vetoed legislation to extend early voting. And in
Florida, when Jeb Bush was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply
flawed purge of voters before the presidential election in 2000. […]

“What part of democracy are they afraid of?”

You could almost hear voting-rights advocates nationwide applauding in
unison. Automatic, universal registration, for example, is seen as one of
the most consequential of all possible reforms – and voting-rights
opponents on the right have yet to come up with an argument against it.

But stepping back and looking at this in the broader context, it’s worth
appreciating just how often Clinton has exceeded expectations lately.

In Houston yesterday, voting supporters expected Clinton to deliver
encouraging remarks, but she went much further, throwing her support behind
a bold national agenda.

In Las Vegas last month, immigration-reform proponents expected Clinton to
express support for reform, but she went beyond their expectations and
endorsed a far more ambitious approach.

As we talked about at the time, the fear among many on the left was that
Clinton, without any real pressure from a primary challenger, would aim for
the center and effectively run a general-election campaign for a year and a
half. No one would pull the former Secretary of State to the left, so she
simply wouldn’t bother.

But as her candidacy takes shape, note how consistently she’s positioned
herself as a progressive champion of late. Clinton delighted much of the
left, for example, with her remarks on criminal-justice reform in April The
Democratic base was equally pleased to hear about Clinton’s 50-state
strategy, her willingness to buck Wall Street, and her consideration of a
constitutional amendment on campaign financing.

And now Clinton has done it again on voting rights.

Some critics on the left will likely note, with cause, that she’s adopted a
far more progressive vision than the one she used to espouse. There’s some
truth to that, though where she is arguably matters more than where she
was. President Obama has helped shift the national debate to the left a bit
on many of these key issues; the Democratic coalition has become more
unified around a progressive agenda; much of the American mainstream is far
more likely to embrace the left’s proposals than it was eight years ago;
and Clinton has clearly evolved on these issues, ending up right where most
of her party – and much of her country – want her to be.

*Hillary Sides With Democracy
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-05/hillary-sides-with-democracy>
// Bloomberg News // Jonathan Bernstein – June 5, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s call for universal automatic voter registration is a
major positive development in the voting wars. She puts the national
Democratic Party squarely behind Oregon’s recent innovative registration
law.

As Cass Sunstein says at View, Americans don't need to register with the
government to be entitled to other rights; voting shouldn't be any
different.

It’s pretty simple: If we want everyone to participate, then voting should
be easy. Voter registration in the U.S. is a real, and unnecessary, hurdle.
That’s no coincidence: Registration was originally set up around the turn
of the previous century in part by those concerned that the wrong kinds of
people (mostly recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe) would
vote.

There are plenty of ideas to make voting easier, but removing registration
as a hurdle is the big one, on both a practical and theoretical level.

As a practical matter, political scientists have repeatedly found that
making registration easy will increase turnout. Indeed, the evidence when
it comes to some voting reforms (early and absentee voting, making Election
Day a holiday) is mixed. Some political scientists find “substitution”
effects -- in many cases, early voting just allows people who would vote
anyway to do so at more convenient times, but it doesn’t encourage new
voters to participate (for a review of the evidence, see this new paper).
But automatic or simpler registration works.

To me, however, the strongest arguments are based on democratic theory.
Democracy, a system of government in which people rule themselves, is
extremely difficult even with the best intentions. A core problem is that
people have different resources -- money, of course, but also skills that
are politically valuable, time available for political action, and even
interest in government. Universal suffrage is a partial remedy, but that
only works if voting is easily and equally accessible.

That’s why registration is so corrosive. Even if it’s not much of a
barrier, those who are deterred are almost certainly the same people who
lose out in a system that cannot (and in my view should not) help but
reward those with more resources. Voting itself should be easy for the same
reasons, but registration holds a special status as the entryway to
politics.

Granted, there is a partisan component to voting as an issue. Democrats
favor easier voting because they think it will help them, which is why
Republicans oppose it. The evidence is that evencompulsory voting wouldn’t
make much of a difference (see Jamelle Bouie and Greg Sargent for the
politics of automatic registration as an election issue).

Is fraud a concern? I don't think so. Yes, people could find ways to beat
an automatic system, but they can find ways to beat the current system,
too. Fraud is an unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct. If we want a bigger
military, we're going to get more procurement fraud; if we want to make it
easy to vote, some may try to abuse that.

To me, it’s simple. Policies that make it easy to vote are good for
democracy; policies that make it hard aren't. I’ll support anything, even
selective measures, that make it easier to vote. After all, if both parties
reduce voting barriers for their supporters, eventually we’ll get to the
right place. Universal automatic registration has the virtue of not being
selective. It’s the right reform, and kudos to Clinton for moving her
once-indifferent party in that direction.

*Why Hillary Clinton Must Back a LGBT Full Civil Rights Law for Her Own
Sake
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/hillary-clinton-must-back-a-lgbt-full-civil-rights-law_b_7518610.html>
// HuffPo // Michelangelo Signorile – June 5, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), running for the Democratic nomination for the
presidency, wants to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gay and
transgender people, assuring a federal law that would ban discrimination in
employment, housing, public accommodations, education and all spheres of
American life, with no broad religious exemption. In 1996, he was one of
only 67 House members to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),
which President Bill Clinton signed into law.

Sanders' fellow Democratic presidential contender and former Maryland
governor, Martin O'Malley, was at the vanguard of gubernatorial leadership
on marriage equality, one of the few governors to spearhead and sign a
marriage equality bill into law in 2012, and then fervently campaign in a
statewide referendum to ratify it.

Lincoln Chafee, the former U.S. senator and Rhode Island governor, who has
now announced a run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency,
supported marriage equality as far back as 2004 -- when he was a
Republican! -- and similarly pushed and signed a marriage bill into law in
his state in 2013. Chafee also said this week that the Pentagon's ban on
open transgender military service should be lifted.

And what are we hearing from Hillary Clinton nowadays? Well, she finally
said in her own words that marriage for gays and lesbians is a
constitutional right -- just two months back -- having previously left that
to a campaign spokesperson, while just last year she was still saying it
was a state issue, in line with what many Republican candidates say now.
And she issued a vague LGBT Pride Month proclamation that said that the
work toward equality "is far from finished" without offering any specifics
-- like amending the Civil Rights Act, or fully lifting the ban on trans
service or creating a whole new civil rights law for LGBT people that does
both and more.

It's true that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, gave an important,
groundbreaking speech in Geneva in 2011, pronouncing that LGBT rights are
human rights, taking on brutal anti-LGBT regimes abroad. But that was then,
and while we all deeply care about our brothers and sisters overseas, there
is so much that needs to be done in the U.S. for LGBT people that an
American presidential candidate could promise right now.

And at a time when Clinton's Democratic rivals are exploiting a dip in her
approval numbers, Clinton should be going on the offensive as the candidate
fighting for full equality during a civil rights movement of our time. That
would not only energize progressives in the party, it would speak to
younger voters, including independents, who she'll surely need. And it's in
stark contrast to just about every GOP candidate, most of whom have
supported discriminatory "religious freedom" laws and surely do not back
anti-discrimination legislation for LGBT people.

It's baffling that Clinton hasn't done this, considering the full force
with which she's taken on the issue of immigration, promising to sign
executive orders more far-reaching than even the controversial ones
President Obama has signed, and the way she took on the voting rights issue
yesterday, calling for 20 days of early voting nationwide.

It's likely true that Clinton's slowness on LGBT rights in the past was
because, as secretary of state, she couldn't get ahead of the president,
who had to be pushed himself on the issue. But even long after President
Obama decided not to defend DOMA in court and came out for marriage
equality, and after she left the administration, Clinton was still late to
the game on marriage.

More than that, Hillary Clinton, rightly or wrongly, carries the baggage of
her husband, Bill, who signed both "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and DOMA into
law. She has to be twice as good on LGBT rights as everyone else just to
counter that past, as unfair as that may seem. Instead, she has been
defensive of Bill Clinton on the issue rather than distancing herself.
While Hillary, like Bill, came to oppose DOMA and called on the Supreme
Court to overturn it, for example, she, like Bill, has defended the signing
of the bill into law in 1996, spinning out a narrative about how it was
believed DOMA would satisfy the anti-gay crowd and blunt a possible
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

As I've pointed out before, this is false, as there was no talk of a
constitutional amendment that early on. Certainly I don't expect Hillary
Clinton to say, as I have, that DOMA was a stain on Bill Clinton's
presidency. But surely she can be more forceful in being out front on LGBT
rights now. And, again, that's doubly true if she wants to stand out from
her opponents.

It's likely that Clinton's campaign is taking advice from Beltway gay
operatives. That's a mistake because many were wrong the last time around
as well, only to see LGBT energy and support shift to Obama, because he
spoke more forcefully on the issues. She needs a difference course this
time. She could begin by giving a speech putting her full support behind a
comprehensive federal LGBT civil rights bill, like the one that Sen.
Merkley (D-Ore.) is set to introduce that would ban discrimination in
housing, employment and public accommodations, including in the 29 states
that have no statewide protections without broad religious exemptions. She
could explain how she's going to fight for it in a Republican-dominated
Congress that will surely beat such a bill back for years to come. Or she
can call for amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act as Sen. Sanders has, and a
go a few steps better, calling for lifting the ban on transgender service,
pushing for passage of anti-bullying legislation and getting a law passed
that end "ex-gay" therapy.

Most of all, Clinton has got to get away from empty platitudes. Things have
moved at light speed, and we're way beyond the time when having a gay
couple or two in your campaign video is enough, or where a vague Pride
proclamation with no teeth suffices. We should be hearing concrete details
from Hillary Clinton on how she is going to be a forceful champion of LGBT
rights, both for the sake of equality and for the sake her own campaign.

*Republicans' revisionist history on Iraq
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/244100-republicans-revisionist-history-on-iraq>
// The Hill // Diana Ohlbaum – June 5, 2015*

In the wake of former Gov. Jeb Bush's (R-Fla.) bungled responses to
predictable questions about Iraq, Republican strategists are rolling out a
specious new argument: In essence, that all was well in Iraq at the end of
the George W. Bush administration, and President Obama messed it up.
Charles Krauthammer calls it "the abandonment of 2011," blaming the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria's (ISIS) recent advances on the withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Iraq at the end of 2011.

This argument flies so completely in the face of history and logic that it
rivals the way Vice President Cheney intentionally misled Congress and the
American public with false, exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims that
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Those
misrepresentations led us into a war that 75 percent of the American public
now says was not worth fighting. The hawks' new line is designed to get us
back into it.

Let's start by remembering that the 2007 surge was intended as a temporary
build-up to buy time, not as a prelude to permanent occupation. It was
President George W. Bush who signed the security agreement with Iraq that
set a date of Dec. 31, 2011 for all U.S. forces to withdraw from the
country. And despite the U.S. success in holding up its side of the bargain
— reducing levels of violence in order to create space for political
progress — the Iraqi government remained unwilling or unable to do its part.

Second, we must acknowledge our own role in giving rise to ISIS. Almost all
of its higher-ups were members of Hussein's security forces, disbanded
under the de-Baathification policy of the Bush administration. Set loose in
society with arms, training and grievances, but no jobs or income, these
sacked officers formed the core of the Iraqi insurgency. And it was in
U.S.-run detention camps that terrorist leaders like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
the head of ISIS, did their best recruiting.

Third, it is clear that leaving U.S. troops in for longer, or returning
them now, would not essentially change the fundamentals of the conflict.
ISIS and other extremist forces are expanding, not for lack of powerful
enemies, but because those enemies are themselves so abhorrent. The
repressive, violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran are the chief
antagonists and targets of ISIS. By inserting ourselves into this fight, we
unavoidably strengthen the very regimes we find so repugnant and so
threatening to U.S. interests in the region.

Strengthening Iran was, in fact, our principal achievement by invading Iraq
in the first place. Before considering another ill-advised move in the
region, we ought to consider the secondary and tertiary impacts of the
application of military power. For instance, even if we had the ability to
crush ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which is doubtful, it might only have the
effect of splintering and scattering extremists across the globe, making a
coordinated effort against them far more complicated.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said in his
testimony before Congress last fall, "there is no military solution" to
ISIS; they "will only be defeated or destroyed once they are rejected by
the population in which they hide." It may be difficult for us to
understand why, as Defense Secretary Ashton Carter admitted, the Iraqi army
lacks the will to fight, but if $26 billion and nearly a decade of effort
didn't work, then it's time to step back and reexamine our assumptions.

The fact that the Iraqi army isn't standing up to ISIS doesn't mean that
the United States can or should do the job for them. In fact, precisely the
opposite: All we can reasonably do is help the Iraqis build a state worth
fighting for.

*Hillary Clinton's call for easier voting is self-serving, but so what?
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-hillary-clinton-republicans-voting-20150605-story.html>
// LA Times // Michael Mcgough – June 5, 2015 *

Was Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s call this
week for radically more convenient voting self-serving? Yes, in two ways.

If you believe that it should be easier to vote, the fact that Democrats
would benefit is irrelevant.

If Clinton’s proposals for expanded early voting, automatic voter
registration for 18-year-olds and a return to preclearance were adopted,
she and other Democrats likely would be the beneficiaries. But so what? If
you believe that it should be easier to vote, the fact that Democrats would
benefit is irrelevant. The challenge for Republicans is to try harder to
court the young and minority voters who are disproportionately discouraged
from voting by current election laws.

Clinton’s speech was self-serving in another, subtler way. By accusing
Republicans of “systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of
American citizens from voting,” Clinton arguably guaranteed that
Republicans would react in an equally partisan way -- as they promptly did.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie suggested that Clinton “wants an opportunity
to commit greater acts of voter fraud around the country." Former Texas
Gov. Rick Perry suggested that, in criticizing his state’s requirement that
voters show photo IDs, Clinton “dissed every person who supports having an
identification to either get on an airplane or vote.”

Portraying access to the ballot box as a partisan issue arguably undermines
the effort to win bipartisan support for the measures Clinton proposed. It
also could lead some independent voters to shrug cynically over what seems
to be a battle between vested interests, not a matter of principle.

But enactment of the reforms Clinton endorsed is unlikely in the near
future, either in the Republican-controlled Congress or in states where the
GOP holds sway. By picking a fight with Republicans, Clinton probably
galvanized Democratic voters, including the “people of color, poor people
and young people” she accused the Republicans of disenfranchising. Changes
in the law can come later.

*Alexandria Phillips*

*Press Assistant | Communications*

Hillary for America | www.hillaryclinton.com