Subject: H4A News Clips 6.11.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:19 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*June 11, 2015*

*LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS*

ABC and CBS did not report on 2016 issues. NBC had a brief segment on Jeb
Bush’s campaign staff shakeup. Bush tries to downplay the changes in top
campaign positions. He remains a favorite among many Republicans; however,
he is not the front runner anymore. Reporters claim that changes to
campaign staff is symbolizing campaign weaknesses.

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

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES.....................................................................................
**5*

*Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choice: Her First Instagram Post* // NYT // Amy
Chozick – June 10, 2015..... 5

*Hillary Clinton win could mean an end to paid speeches by Bill* // WaPo //
Rosalind S. Helderman – June 10,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
5

*Clinton far out front of rivals from both parties in fielding army of
organizers across US* // AP // Lisa Lerer – June 10,
2015......................................................................................................................................
6

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

*Scott Wong (6/10/15, 9:43 am)* - House will vote Friday on #TPA, say Rs
emerging from GOP conf meeting     8

*Reid Epstein (6/10/15, 9:52 am)* - Inbox: Whole slew of NH Republicans
send an open letter to Fox & RNC calling for wholesale changes to 2016
debate
format................................................................................
8

*Lis Smith (6/10/15, 10:51 am)* - Corrigan Brothers, who penned song about
@BarackObama, now on the @GovernorOMalley train. Listen here:
https://soundcloud.com/the-irish-times/martin-omalley-song …       8

*Azi (6/10/15, 4:27 pm)* - attending @HillaryClinton’s rally? Bill de
Blasio: "No .. I’m waiting to hear … her larger vision to addressing income
inequality.”......................................................................................
8

*Azi (6/10/15, 4:28 pm)* - "I’ve always liked what i heard from Bernie
Sanders” — @BilldeBlasio...... 9

*Maggie Haberman (6/10/15, 9:42 pm)* - Meanwhile, as the turmoil-in-Jebland
stories roll on ........ 9

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE.............................................................................
**9*

*How the $15 minimum wage could become a new dividing line in the 2016
primary* // WaPo // Max Ehrenfreund & Lydia DePillis – June 10,
2015..................................................................................................
9

*Hillary’s lurch to the left has been greatly exaggerated* // WaPo // Greg
Sargent – June 10, 2015.. 10

*Bill Clinton Likely to Stop Accepting Pay for Speeches If Hillary Clinton
Is Elected President* // WSJ // James V. Grimaldi – June 10,
2015...........................................................................................................
12

*Clinton Foundation Helps the Poor* // WSJ // Donna Shalala – June 10,
2015............................... 14

*Clinton student loan reform plan has Warren stamp* // Politico // Annie
Karni – June 11, 2015...... 14

*Hillary’s Game-Changing Voting Reform* // Politico // Michael Waldman –
June 10, 2015............. 17

*Hillary digital push highlights organizing before NYC rally* // Politico
// Gabriel Debenedetti – June 10,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
19

*J Street poll: Jewish Americans favor Hillary over Jeb* // Politico //
Nick Gass – June 10, 2015...... 21

*Every wedding should have a Hillary Clinton Bible reading* // Politico //
Kate Glassman Bennett – June 11,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
21

*Domestic Worker Groups Announce Alliance At Clinton Global Initiative
Conference* // HuffPo // Samantha Lachman – June 10,
2015..........................................................................................................
22

*Journalists Meet With Clinton Campaign Officials Over Access Concerns* //
HuffPo // Michael Calderone – June 10,
2015....................................................................................................................................
24

*New York's Forgotten Island Shrugs At Hillary Clinton's Big 2016 Debut* //
HuffPo // Scott Conroy – June 10,
2015................................................................................................................................................
25

*The selective liberalism of Hillary Clinton* // VOX // Jonathan Allen –
June 10, 2015................... 27

*Bill Clinton Says He'll Nix Paid Speeches If Hillary Wins* // NBC News //
Andrea Mitchell and Cassandra Vinograd – June 11,
2015..........................................................................................................................
31

*Hillary Clinton and the New Politics of $15* // The Nation // John Nichols
– June 10, 2015............ 31

*Bill Clinton Says Hillary Win Could Change His Philanthropy Role* //
Bloomberg // Margaret Talev – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
34

*Hillary Clinton Needs a Do-Over* // RealClearPolitics // Jonah Goldberg –
June 10, 2015.............. 35

*Check Out Hillary Clinton’s First Instagram* // TIMES // Olivia Waxman –
June 10, 2015............. 36

*Hillary Clinton launches Instagram account* // CBS News // Hannah
Fraser-Chanpong – June 10, 2015           37

*Hillary Clinton joins Instagram with a photo of her red, white and blue
pantsuits* // Mashable // Bryian Ries – June 10,
2015............................................................................................................................
37

*Parties set events; Democrats draw Clinton to dinner* // North West
Arkansas Gazette // Michael R. Wickline - June 11,
2015............................................................................................................................
38

*It’s official: Hillary Clinton’s logo is actually perfect* // Quartz //
Annalisa Merelli – June 10, 2015 39

*Hillary to be honored at Wildlife gala after making* // NY Post // Geoff
Earle – June 10, 2015........ 41

*Bill Clinton contradicts Hillary on email claims* // Fox News – June 10,
2015................................ 41

*De Blasio likely to skip Hillary Clinton's campaign launch* // Crain’s New
York // Andrew Hawkins – June 10,
2015................................................................................................................................................
42

*Democrats Line Up Hillary Clinton For Jefferson-Jackson Dinner* // Talk
Business – June 10, 2015 43

*Clinton Has Edge Among Mass. Voters; Gov. Baker Remains Popular* // WBUR
// Fred Thys – June 10, 2015 44

*No blueprint on cutting college debt* // Boston Globe // Tracy Jan – June
11, 2015....................... 45

*Clinton plans ‘Launch Party’ in Concord during Monday visit* // WMUR //
John DiStaso – June 10, 2015         48

*How Huma Abedin became Hillary Clinton's confidante and 'translator'* //
Fortune // Nina Easton – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
49

*Clinton Foundation donors have a bribery problem* // The Washington
Examiner // Sarah Westwood – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
50

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **52*

*O’MALLEY...................................................................................................
**52*

*Martin O'Malley Backs Controversial Cybersecurity Bill* // US News // Tom
Risen – June 10, 2015 52

*2016 hopeful O’Malley steps out on cybersecurity* // The Hill // Cory
Bennett – June 10, 2015...... 53

*SANDERS....................................................................................................
**55*

*Bernie Sanders Denies Internet Claim on Dual Israeli Citizenship* // NYT
// Gerry Mullany – June 10, 2015   55

*De Blasio to Skip Clinton Rally, Praises Rival Sanders* // WSJ // Erica
Orden – June 10, 2015....... 56

*Sanders wants war spending paid for* // The Hill // Jordain Carney – June
10, 2015..................... 57

*Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut* // Slate // Mark Joseph Stern – June 10,
2015...................................... 58

*Lead, follow or get out of the way: Bernie Sanders opts for latter in
Islamic State fight* // The Washington Times // S.A. Miller – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................
59

*CHAFEE......................................................................................................
**60*

*Chafee: Hillary is 'more like the Republicans'* // The Hill // Jesse
Byrnes – June 10, 2015............ 60

*The hidden history behind Lincoln Chafee’s metric proposal* // MSNBC //
Alex Seitz-Wald – June 10, 2015    61

*OTHER........................................................................................................
**64*

*Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders and Webb to attend Iowa dinner* // AP – June
10, 2015...................... 64

*Warren shames both parties on college affordability* // Politico // Allie
Grasgreen – June 10, 2015 64

*GOP.................................................................................................................
**67*

*BUSH...........................................................................................................
**67*

*How Jeb Bush’s campaign ran off course before it even began* // WaPo // Ed
O'Keefe and Robert Costa – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
68

*Jeb Bush’s ‘It’s June!’ argument has two major flaws* // WaPo // Philip
Bump – June 10, 2015..... 72

*Jeb Bush says U.S. bank rules may have contributed to systemic risks* //
Reuters // Reuters – June 9, 2015   73

*Jeb Bush After Shake-Up: 'I Don't Read the Polls'* // NBC News // Benjy
Sarlin – June 10, 2015.... 74

*Jeb: It's too early for poll-watching* // The Hill // Jonathan Easley -
June 10, 2015....................... 75

*Jeb Bush is a compassionless conservative: His “Scarlet Letter” law was
even worse than it sounds* // Salon // Katie McDonough – June 10,
2015.............................................................................................
76

*Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush: A Boring Disaster Waiting to Happen* // The
Blaze // Chris Markowski – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
78

*Tom Coburn on Jeb Bush: 'His last name will kill 47 percent of the votes'*
// The Washington Examiner // Philip Klein – June 10,
2015................................................................................................................
80

*Shaming Unwed Moms Was the Law in Jeb Bush’s Florida* // The Daily Beast
// Betsy Woodroff – June 10,
2015................................................................................................................................................
80

*Jeb Bush to visit Jimmy Fallon on 'Tonight Show' next week* // LA Times //
Meredith Blake – June 10, 2015 81

*RUBIO.........................................................................................................
**82*

*Florida Poll: Rubio Gaining on Jeb* // The Weekly Standard // Michael
Warren – June 10, 2015.... 82

*PAUL...........................................................................................................
**83*

*At GOP fundraiser in Maryland, Rand Paul decries racial injustice,
champions diversity* // WaPo // Ovetta Wiggins – June 10,
2015............................................................................................................
83

*WALKER.....................................................................................................
**84*

*Walker makes case for education reforms nationwide* // AP – June 10,
2015................................ 84

*Walker: We changed broken education system* // The Des Moines Register //
Scott Walker – June 10, 2015   86

*Scott Walker Courting Mitt Romney Donors After Slamming Candidate Romney*
// Bloomberg News // John McCormick – June 10,
2015.......................................................................................................
87

*A teacher central to Scott Walker's education pitch would like him to stop
using her story* // Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 10,
2015.................................................................................................
89

*Wisconsinites Blast Scott Walker’s Stadium Deal As ‘Outrageous’* // Think
Progress // Alice Ollstein – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
90

*Scott Walker To Remove Waiting Period For Wisconsin Gun Purchases* //
Breitbart // Awr Hawkins – June 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
91

*CRUZ...........................................................................................................
**92*

*“If you live by the pen, you die by the pen”* // WaPo // James Hohmann –
June 10, 2015............. 92

*Ted Cruz team looks beyond Iowa, New Hampshire* // Politico // Katie
Glueck – June 10, 2015..... 94

*Ted Cruz Going After the Libertarian-Hawk Vote* // Reason // Matt Welch –
June 10, 2015........... 96

*Ted Cruz And The False Narrative Of Christian Persecution* // Forbes //
Rick Ungar – June 10, 2015 96

*CHRISTIE...................................................................................................
**98*

*In Washington Speech, Chris Christie Sounds Like He’s Ready to Run* // NYT
// Nick Corasaniti – June 10,
2015................................................................................................................................................
98

*Court Ruling Removes a Bump From Chris Christie’s Path* // NYT – June 10,
2015........................ 99

*N.J. Gov. Chris Christie Uses Court Pension Win in Fundraising Pitch* //
WSJ // Heather Haddon – June 10,
2015..............................................................................................................................................
100

*Christie faults GOP for sounding unwelcoming to Latinos* // AP // Luis
Alonso Lugo & Jill Colvin – June 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
101

*For Chris Christie, ‘good’ news is relative* // MSNBC // Steve Benen –
June 10, 2015................... 102

*PERRY.......................................................................................................
**103*

*Perry’s cherry-picked claim that America would have lost 400,000 jobs
without Texas* // WaPo // Michelle Ye Hee Lee – June 10,
2015..........................................................................................................
103

*Rick Perry Tries Again* // HuffPo // Chris Weigant – June 10,
2015............................................. 105

*The Legal Trouble That Could Haunt Rick Perry's Presidential Campaign* //
Mother Jones // Patrick Caldwell – June 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................
108

*Perry Switches On Trade: TPP’s Become ‘An Animal’ That ‘Needs To Go Away’*
// The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – June 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................
109

*GRAHAM...................................................................................................
**110*

*The most interesting candidate you’re not paying any attention to* // WaPo
// Chris Cillizza – June 10, 2015  110

*Lindsey Graham to Sean Hannity: Knock it off* // Politico // Nick Gass –
June 10, 2015................ 112

*Lindsey Graham’s abortion push could imperil fellow GOPers* // Politico //
Burgess Everett – June 10, 2015  113

*SANTORUM...............................................................................................
**116*

*Rick Santorum is getting lost in the growing GOP pack* // LA Times //
David Horsey – June 10, 2015 116

*HUCKABEE................................................................................................
**117*

*Co-Author Of Mike Huckabee Books Was Accused Of Child Molestation In Two
Legal Cases* // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – June 10,
2015........................................................................................................
117

*Huckabee: Fox News Staff Thought I Was A “Psychopath” For Owning An AR-15*
// Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 10,
2015.............................................................................................................
119

*KASICH.....................................................................................................
**120*

*Kasich Leads Field In Ohio* // Public Policy Polling – June 10,
2015........................................... 120

*CARSON.....................................................................................................
**121*

*Ben Carson: Let’s spy on government workers* // MSNBC // Jane Timm – June
10, 2015.............. 121

*Carson: Gay rights aren't the same as civil rights* // CNN // Alexandra
Jaffe – June 10, 2015........ 122

*Carson identifies as 'pragmatic dove' for conservative voters* // The Des
Moines Register – June 10, 2015        123

*FIORINA....................................................................................................
**125*

*Fiorina's campaign-trail attacks leave out her own ties to Clinton Carly
Fiorina* // LAT // Joseph Tanfani – June 11,
2015...................................................................................................................................
125

*Carly Fiorina Steps Up Campaign Against Hillary Clinton* // NYT // Amy
Chozick – June 10, 2015 127

*TRUMP......................................................................................................
**128*

*OTHER......................................................................................................
**128*

*Republicans Still Playing Catch-Up on the Digital Campaign Trail* // NYT
// Ashley Parker – June 10, 2015    128

*New Hampshire Republicans Urge Networks to Alter Debate Criteria* // NYT
// Alan Rappeport – June 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
131

*Their state economies may lag, but Republican hopefuls still brag* //
Reuters // Andy Sullivan – June 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
131

*Polling Memo: Clinton ‘Clearly Unpopular’ Among Battleground State
Independents* // GOP.com – June 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
131

*GOP ready to counter Hillary Clinton's speech* // The Washington Examiner
//David Drucker – June 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
133

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**135*

*DOMESTIC.................................................................................................
**135*

*Senate GOP denies funds for lawyers for immigrant children* // AP //
Andrew Taylor – June 10, 2015                135

*Republicans take aim at IRS budget* // Politico // Rachael Bade – June 10,
2015........................ 136

*EPA takes crucial step toward climate rules for airplanes* // Politico //
Alex Guillén – June 10, 2015 138

*Senate shows Ex-Im support in test vote* // The Hill // Kevin Cirilli –
June 10, 2015................... 142

*INTERNATIONAL......................................................................................
**142*

*Hackers May Have Obtained Names of Chinese With Ties to U.S. Government*
// NYT // - David Sanger & Julie Davis – June 10,
2015..............................................................................................................
142

*U.S. Expands ISIS Involvement, Sending Up To 450 Military Personnel To New
Training Site In Iraq* // Huffington Post – June 10,
2015................................................................................................................
145

*American Keith Broomfield killed fighting in Syria* // CNN // Elise Labott
– June 10, 2015.......... 147

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**147*

*Jeb Bush’s Learning Curve on Russia* // NYT // Carol Giacomo – June 10,
2015........................... 147

*Jeb Bush’s recipe for a better society: Shame* // WaPo // Catherine
Rampell – June 10, 2015...... 149

*Back Clinton for voting rights* // The Quad-City Times // Elaine Baxter -
June 10, 2015............... 151

*Bernie Sanders Was Just Another Hippie Rummaging Through My Mom’s Fridge*
// The New Republic // Chelsea Summers – June 10,
2015.........................................................................................................
151

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choice: Her First Instagram Post
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/10/jeb-bush-in-berlin-says-west-is-confronting-a-more-aggressive-putin/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – June 10, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first post on Instagram isn’t a picture of her on
the campaign trail or of supporters gathered at a house party. It’s a play
on her memoir, “Hard Choices.”

The “hard choice” in this case? What to wear. The photo features a rack
full of red, white and blue jackets of the pants suits Mrs. Clinton is
known for.

The clothes hang in front of a sunny window presumably in Mrs. Clinton’s
home in Chappaqua, N.Y. A needlepoint pillow and oil painting appear in the
background.

Mrs. Clinton has had some fun with social media since she joined Twitter in
2013. Then her avatar featured her image as secretary of state, in dark
sunglasses on a military aircraft. Her bio, until she declared her
candidacy, read “TBD.” (Now it reads “Wife, grandma, women + kids advocate,
FLOTUS, Senator, SecState, hair icon, pants suit aficionado, 2016
presidential candidate.”)

The tongue-in-cheek Instagram debut, like most things Mrs. Clinton does,
prompted a divisive reaction. In four hours, the post had more than 6,600
“likes.” But some commentators used the post as an outlet to attack Mrs.
Clinton over her handling of the 2012 attacks on the American mission in
Benghazi and her personal wealth.

*Hillary Clinton win could mean an end to paid speeches by Bill
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/10/hillary-clinton-win-could-mean-an-end-to-paid-speeches-by-bill/>
// WaPo // Rosalind S. Helderman – June 10, 2015 *

Former President Bill Clinton might quit his lucrative career as a paid
speaker -- if his wife is elected president.

In an interview conducted with Bloomberg TV Wednesday on stage at a meeting
of the Clinton Global Initiative in Denver, Clinton said he would likely
step off the lecture circuit that has earned him more than $100 million
since he left the White House in 2001 if Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the
presidency.

"I don't think so," he said when asked if he would continue to give paid
speeches. "Once you get to be president, then you're just making a daily
story."

He also offered a robust defense of the foundation that has been his life's
work since his presidency ended, and which has been under intense scrutiny
during the first phase of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Clinton said he would like to remain involved with the organization as long
as possible during the campaign, to ensure it raises the money necessary to
fund its global charitable work, but it would up to his wife whether he
would stay with the foundation if she is elected.

"I believe if you have been president, and the current president of either
party asks you to do anything, if in good conscience you can do it, you
should do it. Now that's the truth, quite apart from our being husband and
wife," he said. "That will be not an easy decision, should she be elected
president. And she will have to decide what's my highest and best use,
including being around to buck her up every morning."

Clinton blamed political reporters for the increase in attention on donors
to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and whether they may
have been trying to curry favor with the former president and his wife
through their contributions. He said the organization has turned down money
and avoided work in some areas because of its anti-corruption policies.

"If you're a political reporter primarily, or you're a business reporter
you tend to see -- tend to see the world through that lens. And it's hard
to imagine that there are businesses and individuals that contribute money
for things that have nothing to do with politics," he said.

"Has anybody proved that we did anything objectionable? No. Have we done a
lot of good things with this money? Yes," he said.

*Clinton far out front of rivals from both parties in fielding army of
organizers across US
<http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/06/10/clinton-building-vast-network-of-campaign-staff-volunteers>
// AP // Lisa Lerer – June 10, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton has launched a sweeping national jobs program — for
her presidential campaign.

In the eight weeks since she announced her run for the White House,
Clinton's campaign has deployed roughly 100 organizers nationwide and
opened 15 offices in early-voting states. That's far more than any other
candidate of either party in the 2016 contest.

In Iowa, Clinton now has at least 27 paid organizers — three times as many
as any of the roughly dozen Republicans in the race. Her campaign has hired
at least one staff member in every state, the District of Columbia and the
U.S. territories.

She has two regional directors in the reliably Democratic state of
California and even put one person on the payroll in Wyoming, a state that
has not voted for a Democratic nominee in more than 50 years.

The overwhelming favorite for her party's nomination, Clinton doesn't
necessarily need the volunteers now. But her team, worried she will lack
the power of a competitive primary to energize the core group of supporters
she will need for the general election, has gone on an early hiring spree
rare in presidential politics.

"You can't get to a point where the polls are tight and say, 'Oh, wow, we
need to do some organizing,'" said Marlon Marshall, Clinton's director of
state campaigns and political engagement. "These organizing relationships
will create a sense of urgency to let people know why we have to do this
work now."

The effort isn't cheap: Senior campaign aides have set a goal of raising
$100 million to pay for Clinton's primary campaign.

Her campaign has organized 320 house parties, attracting almost 11,000
people. This weekend, her appearance at an event in Iowa will be streamed
to a gathering in every congressional district nationwide. "At this point,
it's more about finding people and getting them involved then convincing
them to back Clinton," said Scott Hogan, a former gun control activist
hired by Clinton's campaign to organize voters in deeply Democratic
Minnesota.

At a meeting in Mankato on Tuesday, Hogan wanted to know why his batch of
potential volunteers was "ready for Hillary." He didn't get the answer he
wanted, but it was enough to get the conversation started.

"To tell you the truth, I like Bernie Sanders for just his honesty, but I
don't think he's electable," said Gina Casey, 59, sitting at a conference
table at a Democratic Party office. "So, I'm trying to love Hillary and I
need to know more."

Hogan made the pitch for his boss over Sanders, the independent Vermont
senator mounting a longshot challenge for the Democratic nomination.

"This campaign is about you," Hogan told Casey and other Democrats in the
small group gathered on a hot night. "It's not about me. It's not about
Hillary."

Clinton's campaign staff takes great pains to keep a focus on the primary
campaign, despite her crushing advantage. Should the Democratic race
somehow become competitive, Minnesota — voting in the first big set of
primaries after the first four states — could be decisive.

But if Clinton runs away with the Democratic prize, and if Minnesota votes
for the Democratic nominee as it has done since 1972, the supporters Hogan
is organizing now will become valuable for raising money, making calls and
traveling to neighboring battleground states such as Iowa and Wisconsin.

The staff working in reliably Democratic states will be redeployed to
battleground areas at the end of this month. The goal is to leave behind
engaged volunteer networks to organize small-dollar fundraisers and make
sure Clinton is represented at local events.

Clinton aides said the early investment will pay dividends in the final
weeks of the campaign. Data analyzed by President Barack Obama's campaign
showed a direct correlation between supporter enthusiasm in the last six
weeks before the election and when local operations began in their area,
according to former staffers.

"The earlier you start, the larger your volunteer structure will be the
last two weeks or last month of the campaign, which is ultimately when that
investment pays off," said Mitch Stewart, who oversaw battleground states
for Obama's campaigns and advised the pro-Clinton super PAC Ready for
Hillary.

In Mankato, the gathering was half political strategy session, half
team-building retreat.

They each wrote a word that described her candidacy on a Post-it note and
stuck it to a handmade poster of her campaign logo. Hogan encouraged them
to post their support on social media, directed them to Clinton's website
and promised to follow up. The meeting ended with a group photo.

At one table, a group of women had a suggestion for Hogan: Farmfest.

Before the meeting, they hadn't thought seriously about putting together a
booth for Clinton at the three-day agricultural trade show in August, a
must-attend event for political candidates in this part of the state.

"Next year will be the more important time to be out there," said Lori
Sellner, 46, of Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. "This is just earlier than we've
seen before."

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Scott Wong (6/10/15, 9:43 am)*
<https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/608630556167970816>* - House will
vote Friday on #TPA, say Rs emerging from GOP conf meeting*

*Reid Epstein (6/10/15, 9:52 am)*
<https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/608632824581586947>* - Inbox: Whole
slew of NH Republicans send an open letter to Fox & RNC calling for
wholesale changes to 2016 debate format*

*Lis Smith (6/10/15, 10:51 am)*
<https://twitter.com/Lis_Smith/status/608647585776152576>* - Corrigan
Brothers, who penned song about **@BarackObama*
<https://twitter.com/BarackObama>*, now on the **@GovernorOMalley*
<https://twitter.com/GovernorOMalley>* train. Listen here: *
*https://soundcloud.com/the-irish-times/martin-omalley-song …*
<https://t.co/T1tUS70snS>

*Azi (6/10/15, 4:27 pm)* <https://twitter.com/Azi/status/608732186334871552>*
- attending @HillaryClinton’s rally? Bill de Blasio: "No .. I’m waiting to
hear … her larger vision to addressing income inequality.”*

*Azi (6/10/15, 4:28 pm)* <https://twitter.com/Azi/status/608732420586762240>*
- "I’ve always liked what I heard from Bernie Sanders” — @BilldeBlasio.*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*How the $15 minimum wage could become a new dividing line in the 2016
primary
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/10/how-the-15-minimum-wage-could-become-a-new-dividing-line-in-the-2016-primary/>
// WaPo // Max Ehrenfreund & Lydia DePillis – June 10, 2015 *

An unexpected thing happened over the weekend. Activists and union members
convening in Detroit to rally for a $15 hourly minimum wage got an
unexpected call from Hillary Rodham Clinton, who addressed the crowd by
phone.

The former secretary of state did not endorse a $15 minimum wage. But she
suggested her allegiance is with the efforts of the rallying workers. "All
of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but
thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage," she said.

Two of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, Martin O'Malley and Bernie
Sanders, have already embraced a $15 minimum wage. And so Clinton's
decision to call the fast-food workers shows not only the potential power
of organized labor in the 2016 campaign, but the way that the $15 minimum
wage may become a kind of litmus test for Democratic candidates.

Asked about Clinton's position, the campaign provided the following
statement: "She strongly supports workers in the fast-food industry in
cities across the country mobilizing to fight for a living wage. In the
coming weeks, she will lay out her specific plans for increasing wages."

The level of the minimum wage could prove to be an important theme in the
Democratic primary.

"We need more cities and states to follow the lead of Los Angeles and St.
Louis and New York," Clinton told the fast-food workers. The Los Angeles
City Council recently voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The
mayors of New York and St. Louis have proposed eventually raising the
minimum wage to $15, as well. Other successes for the movement include San
Francisco and Seattle.

Workers at the convention were gratified by Clinton's measured support but
said they were aware of the political constraints she confronts as a
candidate.

"I honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is trying to use her voice to back
up her campaign more than she is to back up our campaign," said Ashona
Osborne, 23, an Arby's employee from Pittsburgh. "It's great that she's
supporting our movement, but we have to keep in mind that she's willing to
do whatever she can to get more votes."

The minimum wage is not the only major economic issue on which Clinton has
not outlined a clear position. As Dan Balz reported for The Washington Post
over the weekend, Clinton has said little about banking regulation and free
trade.

Labor activists oppose the trade deal the Obama administration is
negotiating in the Pacific, which Clinton supervised and advocated for as
secretary of state. Recently, though, she's stuck to generalities about
fairness, workers' rights and economic growth.

Sanders said in a statement that he thought the federal minimum wage of
$7.25 an hour was "a starvation wage." He's argued it should eventually be
raised to $15 an hour. "That is what I believe every candidate for
president should say," he said.

"We don't know where Secretary Clinton stands on the minimum wage," said
Haley Morris, a spokeswoman for O'Malley. She noted that O'Malley signed a
bill raising Maryland's minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2018 while he was
in office.

There are reasons that Clinton might hesitate to support a minimum wage of
$15 an hour. Most economic research on the minimum wage has focused on the
small changes that states and cities have made in the past. No one is sure
what will happen if the federal minimum wage more than doubles from its
current level. Dylan Matthews has argued in Wonkblog that a $15 minimum
wage would be too risky, while Demos's Matt Bruenig gave a rebuttal.

According to some experts, dealing with the issue on a local level might be
best anyway, since the cost of living and the average wage vary from city
to city.

Clinton is expected to give a series of substantive speeches on policy
beginning Saturday in New York.

*Hillary’s lurch to the left has been greatly exaggerated
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/10/hillarys-lurch-to-the-left-has-been-greatly-exaggerated/>
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – June 10, 2015 *

For days now, a noisy battle has reverberated throughout the Beltway Pundit
Thunderdome. Is Hillary Clinton’s campaign too focused on winning Obama
coalition voters, at the exclusion of everyone else? Could that endanger
her candidacy? Wouldn’t winning that way imperil her ability to govern and
tear the country asunder?

The New York Times kicked things off with an article quoting anxious Dems
(is there any other kind?) floating these frightful questions. David Brooks
and Ron Fournier added to the hand-wringing. In response, Ed Kilgore, Paul
Waldman, Jonathan Chait, Ruth Marcus and others noted that due to deeper
polarization and demographic change, the electorate and map are vastly
different today.

I thought I’d go through Clinton’s stances on the issues, to see if that
sheds more light on what she’s really up to. Short version: Clinton is
indeed ministering to Obama coalition voter groups — minorities,
millennials, college educated whites.  But nonetheless, she’s thus far
campaigning like a mainstream Democrat. In fact, those things are now two
sides of the same coin. Meanwhile, very few of her positions thus far
preclude reaching beyond those groups.

Immigration: Clinton supports a path to citizenship. That has majority
support nationally. While many note she suggested she’d go further than
Obama’s executive actions on deportations, in reality she has only proposed
building on them very modestly, if at all. Would that alienate other voter
groups? Maybe, but national polling is mixed on executive action.

Even so, because the Democratic Party is far more unified on immigration
than ever, partly because of its increased reliance on Latinos, backing
executive action is a must in a nominee. (Indeed, Martin O’Malley is
attacking her from the left on immigration.) On this issue, she’s a
mainstream Dem.

Gay rights: Clinton’s shift in favor of gay marriage occurred relatively
late. But so did that of many, many other leading Dems. It would now be
unthinkable for a Dem nominee not to support marriage equality. Yes, former
president Clinton was a relative troglodyte on the issue. But this only
underscores how rapid the cultural shift on it has been — forcing both
parties to play varying degrees of catch-up. Indeed, it now has broad
majority support across the country and may soon receive protection as a
Constitutional right. So it’s hard to see how favoring gay marriage
precludes reaching beyond the core Dem coalition.

Criminal justice reform: It’s true that Clinton called for an end to the
era of mass incarceration that her husband helped usher in. While that is
partly about speaking to minority voters, the cultural shift among the
broader electorate since the 1990s on crime has been so pronounced that
criminal justice reform is now a bipartisan issue.

Voting rights: Clinton’s embrace of automatic, universal voter registration
is certainly an example of her speaking directly to the Obama coalition. In
fairness, this could alienate some groups outside that coalition. But
absent good polling on this, it’s hard to know for sure. It’s possible, for
instance, that a key Hillary target, non-college white women — particularly
single ones, who tend to vote more sporadically — might support it.

Climate change: Yes, Clinton has pledged to protect Obama’s climate
actions. It’s also true that some Dems in more conservative states have
balked at his climate agenda. But even this is starting to change: Gary
Peters won a Michigan Senate seat last year with an aggressive climate
message. It’s also true her stance might alienate some blue collar whites
in the Rust Belt. But we still have no idea how much of an emphasis Clinton
will put on climate issues. Meanwhile, Clinton actually is seen by
advocates as insufficiently hawkish on climate.

It’s hard to see a Dem winning the nomination without adopting an agenda
that acknowledges global warming as a major challenge, making this yet
another area where Clinton is basically a mainstream Dem.

Minimum wage: Clinton supports hiking the federal minimum wage to $10.10
per hour, another mainstream Dem position that has majority support. But
she has refrained from endorsing the $15-per-hour goal of a burgeoning
lefty movement.

Other economic issues: Clinton has not yet said whether she backs a
financial transaction tax or breaking up the big banks, or whether she
opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership — three of the most important
priorities of the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party. There are reasons to
think she could stop short of embracing the first two. She very well might
back the TPP, if its labor and environmental protections are given the
thumbs up by experts.

On taxes, Clinton may mostly stick to supporting the sort of
loophole-closings and tax hikes on inherited wealth and capital gains that
Obama has called for. She may well stick to a slate of policies she’s
already come out for — ones that strengthen the safety net, foster
family-friendly workplace flexibility, and invest in education and job
creation — without backing quite the kind of far-reaching economic agenda
some on the left want. This, too, would put her in the Democratic
mainstream.

Conclusion: Clinton has shifted to the left on some cultural issues, and
that is partly about speaking to the Obama coalition. But this reflects the
changing nature of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the party’s growing
reliance on the Obama coalition is the very reason she’s speaking more
directly to those voters in the first place. Does that mean the party has
moved leftward? Maybe, but on many of these issues, the rest of the country
has, too. So none of this necessarily precludes broadening beyond that
coalition.

Meanwhile, on economic issues, she has not embraced the Warren-wing agenda
in key areas, and the key economic prescriptions she has adopted have broad
majority support. Have I mentioned that based on her campaign thus far,
Clinton is essentially a mainstream Democrat?

*Bill Clinton Likely to Stop Accepting Pay for Speeches If Hillary Clinton
Is Elected President
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-clinton-likely-to-stop-accepting-pay-for-speeches-if-hillary-clinton-is-elected-president-1433971365>
// WSJ // James V. Grimaldi – June 10, 2015 *

Bill Clinton on Wednesday said he likely would stop accepting money for
speeches if his wife was elected president, and he gave his most forceful
defense to date of fundraising by the Clinton Foundation.

Mr. Clinton’s comments, made at a foundation-related event, addressed two
of the controversies that have followed the former president and his wife
recently: the large sums the Clintons have received for speeches while
Hillary Clinton was a likely presidential candidate, and foreign donations
to the family’s foundation.

Asked by Bloomberg Television whether he would make paid speeches if his
wife was elected, Mr. Clinton said, “No, I don’t think so…because once you
get to be president, then you are just making the daily story.”

“I will still give speeches, if I’m asked to do so,” without accepting
honoraria for them, he said.

Earlier this year, Mr. Clinton said he would continue to make paid speeches
during the time his wife is a candidate for office. “I gotta pay our
bills,’’ he told NBC News. ”I also give a lot of it to the foundation every
year. You know, we’ve got a lot to do.’’

Mr. Clinton on Wednesday said that no donors to the Clinton Foundation ever
asked for favors from Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state.

“Has anybody proven that we’ve done anything objectionable? No,” said Mr.
Clinton, answering his own question. “Have we done a lot of good things
with this money? Yes.”

He said Mrs. Clinton’s future wasn't an issue when the Clinton Foundation
was created or when he launched the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the
foundation’s projects, 10 years ago. “It wasn’t like we were working on the
presumption that one day Hillary would be running for president,” Mr.
Clinton said.

Mr. Clinton cited a $500,000 donation from Algeria that breached a promise
not to accept certain foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton served in the
state department. He said it was true that Algeria was lobbying the State
Department at the time of the donation, but that the two events weren’t
related.

Mr. Clinton said the foundation was a “pass-through’’ for the donation,
which went to help aid efforts after the 20120 earthquake in Haiti, and
that no overhead was deducted for the foundation.

“There are very few countries in the world I would not accept for help to
Haiti,” Mr. Clinton said.

He said there were only a couple of countries from which the foundation
turned down money and overall he believes the foundation has performed
well. “There may be a thing or two that I would change, but the basic idea
is right. I still think it is the right thing to do to solve as many
problems a possible” by working with foreign governments, corporations,
nongovernmental organizations and charities.

Mr. Clinton’s defense of his charitable work came in media interviews at
the fifth Clinton Global Initiative America meeting.

Mr. Clinton also answered questions about what he would do if Mrs. Clinton
was elected.

“I believe that if you have been president, and the current president of
either party asks you to do anything, you should do it,” Mr. Clinton said.
“That will not be an easy decision if she’s elected. She’ll have to decide
what is my highest and best use, including to be around to buck her up in
the morning.”

However, Mr. Clinton said his wife might not accept all of his advice. “If
there is one thing she knows more about than anybody on earth, it is on
what subjects I should be listened to and what subjects I shouldn’t,” he
said.

He didn't say what would happen to the Clinton Foundation if Mrs. Clinton
was serving as president, though he has said in the past that he wanted it
to keep operating and raising money. On Wednesday, he said he would stay on
the foundation board “for this year, as long as I can.”

“She’s got better judgment about what is the highest and best use for me
is,’’ Mr. Clinton said.” She’s been stuck with it for 40 years.”

*Clinton Foundation Helps the Poor
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-helps-the-poor-1433879913>
// WSJ // Donna Shalala – June 10, 2015 *

I’m just finishing my first week as president of the Clinton Foundation,
but I’ve worked here long enough to know that Kimberley Strassel’s “The
Clinton ‘Charity’ Begins at Home” (Potomac Watch, June 5) misses the mark
about the foundation and its dedicated, professional staff who any
organization in the world would be proud to have.

The foundation is a unique organization that has created a partnership
model to tackle our world’s biggest challenges. Our senior leadership
reflects this collaborative approach, with more than 200 years of
management experience in diverse fields including global logistics,
international development and finance.

It’s true that some at the foundation have worked with President Clinton or
Secretary Clinton at other points in their long careers. These are good
people, and I am honored to count myself among them. I know from my own
experience that people are drawn to positions in public service for the
same reason they are drawn to nonprofits like the foundation—they want to
make a difference in others’ lives. That’s what they do every day at the
foundation.

To claim that we are only interested in “the occasional good deed” is
demonstrably false. The foundation and its affiliates have helped 9.9
million in 70 countries access HIV/AIDS medicines; more than 16 million
kids in America get healthier meals at school; and more than 85,000 farmers
in Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania increase their incomes.

Helping people is not only our full-time job—it’s a deep passion that burns
within everyone who works here.

*Clinton student loan reform plan has Warren stamp
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/clinton-student-loan-reform-plan-has-warren-stamp-118865.html#ixzz3ckNWpZnc>
// Politico // Annie Karni – June 11, 2015*

On a litmus test issue for liberals, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sought
out policy experts with ties to the Massachusetts senator.

In weekly calls and meetings over the past few months, Hillary Clinton’s
policy team has been soliciting input from policy experts with ties to Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, with the goal of making student loan reform the core of
Clinton’s economic mobility agenda.

The effort to make college more accessible — a litmus test for liberals and
key to attracting grassroots support on the left — comes as the Clinton
campaign finds itself under increasing pressure to accommodate progressive
demands. Yet it also could provide Clinton with a signature domestic policy
issue, similar to healthcare for Barack Obama in 2008. With a student debt
crisis climbing upwards of $1.2 trillion, Clinton’s camp views the issue as
one where the former secretary of state could drive the conversation and
create a mandate for reform

In one of the clearest signs of the importance the policy team — headed by
senior adviser Ann O’Leary — is placing on the issue, student loan reform
is expected to be one of the earliest policy roll-outs after Clinton’s
campaign kick-off Saturday. The campaign is expected to unveil its student
loan plans in detail in mid-July, multiple sources said.

To the great relief of restive progressives, Clinton’s campaign has sought
out policy experts with strong ties to Warren, who has crusaded on the
issues of making college more affordable and refinancing student loans so
that students get the same interest rates on federal loans as banks do on
theirs.

Heather McGhee, president of the liberal think tank Demos, has discussed
the issue directly with Hillary Clinton, sources said. McGhee’s think tank
is aligned with Warren, whose daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, serves as
chairman of the board.

The Clinton campaign has also been seeking advice from Rohit Chopra, the
top student loan official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who
was hired by Warren when she launched the agency. Chopra remains close with
Warren, who recently endorsed him as her top candidate to replace Ben
Lawsky as the next New York state superintendent of financial services,
after his name was floated in the press.

Other experts who have also been speaking regularly with O’Leary and her
team, sources said, include Mark Huelsman, a senior policy analyst at
Demos; economist Gene Sperling; James Kvaal, who was Obama’s policy
director in the 2012 election; and longtime Clinton advisor Neera Tanden,
president of the Center for American Progress.

None of the policy details have been finalized, and it’s still unclear how
Clinton plans to pay for any of the proposals currently being discussed.

But on the table is a plan to support debt-free college — including
reducing the cost of attendance. That goes beyond what either of Clinton’s
Democratic opponents, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley, have discussed when addressing the issue of debt-free
college. Sanders has used it to mean simply covering the cost of tuition,
and O’Malley has focused more on capping student loan payments.

It’s not clear yet exactly what form Clinton’s debt-free college proposal
will take — whether students will pay based on a percentage of their
income, or carry some obligation based on their ability to pay.

But covering the cost of attendance is appealing to the progressive policy
makers advising Clinton. “The total cost of attendance is a more expansive
view of the actual cost of higher education,” said Huelsman. “We and other
groups have encouraged Clinton to include the cost of attendance as the
definition of debt-free college. That would be a big deal.”

Also under discussion is allowing students to refinance their loans, an
issue that Warren championed in a bill that was defeated last year by
Republican opposition. “It would help a lot of middle class families with
student debt,” said Huelsman.

Outside experts are also pitching the campaign on a bill of rights for
student loan carriers, and risk-sharing for colleges, which would mean a
school would be penalized if a student defaulted on his or her loans. Both
of those are currently under discussion with campaign officials.

“It doesn’t hurt to have had a lot of people in the more progressive side
of the Democratic party say we want this to be a key issue going into
2016,” Huelsman said. “It seems like they want to do something big on this.
I’m extremely encouraged.”

O’Leary has invited a group of experts to an hours-long briefing in
Washington, D.C. on Thursday, at the Center for American Progress, to
discuss these issues.

A campaign spokesman declined to comment about the meeting or the policies
under review.

But Clinton officials have made clear even in the ramp up phase of her
campaign that the issue is at the forefront of their planned agenda. “What
voters are looking for in this election is someone who is going to be a
champion for everyday people,” campaign manager Robby Mook said in a CNBC
interview in May. “For young people, that’s debt-free college, that is
finding that job after you graduate.”

Clinton herself has addressed it in her limited forays on the campaign
trail. “We have to deal with the indebtedness — to try to move toward
making college as debt-free as possible,” she said last month in Iowa.

Clinton’s most engaged moment during the roundtables she has participated
in so far was with Bryce Smith, a 23-year-old Iowan who owns a bowling
alley, who told her student loans were harming his ability to access credit
for his small business. “I’ve never heard anyone so persuasively link it to
the slowdown in business start-ups,” Clinton told him.

She has also complimented Obama’s $60 billion community college plan, which
would provide students with two years of free community college. Her plan,
however, is expected to be more expansive and influence more institutions
than just community colleges.

*Hillary’s Game-Changing Voting Reform
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-2016-voting-reform-118761.html#.VXi9ZVzBzGc>
// Politico // Michael Waldman – June 10, 2015 *

last week, in Houston, Texas, Hillary Rodham Clinton denounced the wave of
restrictive new voting laws enacted by Republican legislatures around the
country. Those of us who aren’t wild about disenfranchising eligible
citizens welcomed Clinton’s passionate defense. It’s been years since a
major candidate made democracy reform a central issue. But the most
important thing about the speech was her embrace of a transformative policy
innovation: automatic, universal registration of voters once they turn 18.
It’s an idea that’s already begun to gain ground across the country,
building on reforms with bipartisan support. Now we have a chance to take
it even further.

In a campaign season criticized for a dearth of big new ideas, this one’s a
doozy.

Why is it so important? Between a third and a quarter of all eligible
Americans remain unregistered and therefore cannot cast a ballot.
Automatic, permanent registration as Clinton proposes would add up to 50
million to the rolls. It would cost less than today’s paper-clogged system.
And it would curb the potential for fraud. Amid rising political inequality
and declining voter interest, this could give the ailing political system a
much-needed jolt of citizen energy.

Our ramshackle voter registration system disenfranchises more people by
accident than even the harshest new laws do on purpose. To be sure, some
people just don’t want to register and never will. Call them the “Don’t
vote—it will only encourage them” caucus. But many others fall off the
rolls, or become tangled in the mess of the current system. According to a
2012 Pew Center on the States study, 24 million entries are either invalid
or inaccurate. Many eligible voters are under the impression that when they
file a change of address form with the U.S. Postal Service, their voter
registration information automatically updates. And, yes, plenty of dead
people have stayed registered. All these flaws risk undermining election
integrity.

While we deposit checks on our iPhones and push a button to start our cars,
many states and localities still rely on piles of paper records to maintain
their voting lists. Civil servants who perform data entry from paper-based
applications must interpret citizens’ chicken scratch handwriting. Typos
are common. And today’s system poorly reflects today’s hypermobile society.
More than 26 million voting-age Americans move each year, and because of
residency requirements, many of them fall off the rolls, even if they move
within the same state.

These glitches are a chief cause of polling place confusion and delay—which
lead to long lines on Election Day. In all, according to the definitive
study by Cal Tech and MIT, some 3 million eligible citizens were unable to
vote in 2008 because of registration problems. Many took time from their
families or jobs, only to learn they were nowhere to be found in the voter
rolls. The problems aren’t going away: The 2012 election saw a 40 percent
jump in the number of in-person voters who experienced registration
problems.

Other democracies do it better than we do. In 2009, the Brennan Center
studied voting systems in 16 democratic countries. The United States was
one of only four that put the responsibility for registering solely on the
voter. Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France all boast registration rates
above 90 percent. Ours were as much as 30 percent lower. That’s one kind of
American exceptionalism we don’t want to boast about.

Tinkering won’t suffice. It’s time to modernize the way we run elections,
and bring them into the 21st century. That’s where a system of universal,
automatic registration would come in.

So how would Clinton’s proposal work? From now on, the government rather
than the voter would be responsible for making sure all eligible citizens
are registered to vote and that rolls are accurate and complete. Citizens
would register at 18 and stay on the rolls for their entire lives. All
would be given the chance to opt out; nobody would be registered against
their will.

Clinton has not released details of her plan, so we don’t know for sure
what she’d enact, but there are several innovative reforms that could
achieve complete and accurate voting logs through collaboration between
various government agencies. Universities, for example, could automatically
register 18 year olds, Medicare could do the same for seniors. And the U.S.
Postal Service could let the voter registration agency know when someone
has moved.

Some states are ahead of the curve. Ever since the Brennan Center published
its proposal for Voter Registration Modernization in 2007, a package that
included permanent and portable registration, at least two dozen states
have implemented voter registration reforms—moving to online registration,
for example. High school “pre-registration” programs, in which young people
register as future voters and are automatically signed up when they turn
18, are already in place in at least 10 states.

The biggest breakthrough on this front—and one that Clinton mentioned in
her speech—came in March in Oregon, when Gov. Kate Brown signed a law that
automatically registered to vote anyone 18 and up who obtained a driver’s
license (unless that person chose to opt out). The move is likely to add at
least 300,000 voters to the rolls right away, and could end up giving
Oregon the highest registration rate in the country. Other states could
expand on the model, moving beyond the DMV. When someone receives Social
Security benefits, pays state taxes or applies for disability benefits, her
information could be passed along for registration or updates to an
existing record.

States should keep pressing forward with initiatives like these on their
own. But, as Clinton suggested, there needs to be one national standard—a
mandate to ensure that all eligible voters are registered no matter where
they live. A comparable proposal from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. John
Lewis would set core federal standards while giving some flexibility to
states. In 2002, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) took such an approach. It
required states to move to electronic voting, and provided federal funds to
help them do it. This would be a similar technological upgrade—voting
2.0—this time applied to registration.

What are the risks? Some worry non-citizens would inadvertently find
themselves registered, even voting, without realizing they cannot—putting
them at risk of deportation. So it’s hugely important to make sure that the
lists omit non-citizens.

Others might worry about cost. So far, the move to digital records has
proved very cost efficient in states that have tried it. Every so often,
someone will grumble that this plan would—somehow—open the way to fraud.
But that rationale quickly crumbles. After all, digital government lists,
checked and rechecked, are likely to be more accurate than the names
submitted by voter registration groups or private citizens. For those
really worried about “Mickey Mouse” registering to vote, don’t worry—he’s
not on the government list, even in Orlando (where he lives).

In fact, automatic voter registration gives both left and right what they
demand. It enfranchises more people. And it protects better against fraud.
The bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration,
co-chaired by Mitt Romney’s top attorney and Obama’s counsel, has endorsed
key registration reforms.

The biggest reason for opposition to a proposal like Clinton’s, if
unstated, is the notion that maybe we don’t really want everyone to be able
to vote. But we all know that idea runs afoul of our most fundamental core
precepts. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote that
government is legitimate only if it rests on the “consent of the governed.”
That consent becomes muddied by missing data, illegible lists and long
lines of voters. Last year, turnout fell to its lowest level in seven
decades.

One leading candidate has already spoken up. As 2016 approaches, let’s hope
that all candidates from both parties will tell us what they would do to
improve our democracy.

*Hillary digital push highlights organizing before NYC rally
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-2016-digital-push-before-nyc-rally-118815.html#ixzz3cfTNKb5j>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – June 10, 2015 *

Days before Hillary Clinton will take the stage on New York City’s
Roosevelt Island to headline her presidential campaign’s first full-scale
rally, her political team is ratcheting up an effort to swing the spotlight
away from the candidate, framing the first two months of Clinton’s
candidacy as an organizational victory beyond just the early-voting states
she has visited so far.

The former secretary of state has faced no shortage of scrutiny during the
‘ramp-up’ phase of her presidential effort — a two-month period during
which she has focused on small round tables and political meetings rather
than open speeches or traditional events, often facing charges of running a
distant campaign. But Wednesday will see a concerted online effort to
highlight the inroads made by volunteers and organizers working on her
behalf.

A memo from the campaign’s top organizing official, a series of images from
volunteer meetings across the country, and a handful of maps and
hand-picked supporter quotes will pepper Clinton’s online presence.

The note from Director of State Campaigns and Political Engagement Marlon
Marshall points to the fact that the Clinton camp has hired 50 organizers
in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South
Carolina, and has brought on 51 more staffers in the other states,
Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the territories. It also notes that the
campaign — which frequently says it is taking the Democratic primary
seriously despite Clinton’s commanding lead in national polls, and in this
kind of organizing — has opened 15 offices between the four early states,
and that it has held nearly 4,000 one-on-one meetings with early-state
voters.

The effort comes at a delicate moment for the Clinton camp, as it
transitions from a relatively quiet period for the candidate to a more
public phase, while Bernie Sanders emerges as her primary liberal
antagonist. The front-runner has seen her poll numbers slip slightly while
she continues to receive fire from Republicans and Democratic critics for
not interacting more with voters or the press, and all eyes are on her
Saturday rally, which will seek to energize her Democratic base after being
pushed back by a few weeks.

After the speech she will quickly hit all four early-voting states, and
will then start holding more public appearances at open events.

While Clinton has recently started to deliver more policy speeches, like
her Houston address on voting rights last week, she has been primarily
focused on gathering money across the country before the end of the
fundraising quarter as part of her broader goal of raising $100 million by
the end of 2015, a circumstance that factored into her campaign’s decision
to move the rally to mid-June after it was originally planned for May.
Aides say the rally was moved to separate it from the onslaught of
presidential announcements that came at the end of last month, but it now
sits just two days before Jeb Bush’s launch.

Nonetheless, Wednesday’s digital push is an effort to underscore the rapid
construction of the campaign’s organizing infrastructure, which in some
ways mirrors the 50-state strategy made famous by former presidential
candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.

The Clinton campaign is similarly trying to bolster Democratic operations
in states where the party has been decimated in recent years, in some cases
holding meetings in states that have not voted for a Democratic president
in decades. The campaign says it has held or scheduled 320 such
get-togethers outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

And Marshall’s memo notes that nearly 11,000 people have attended
organizing meetings outside of the four early-voting states, on top of
nearly 12,000 commitments to volunteer within the first four.

While the campaign had no formal infrastructure when it officially launched
in April, it did have the benefit of being able to informally build off
work done by the Ready For Hillary PAC that was active in the early-voting
states during 2013 and 2014. In late May the campaign got access to the
PAC’s email list of roughly 4 million Clinton supporters.

*J Street poll: Jewish Americans favor Hillary over Jeb
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-jewish-voters-favor-hillary-clinton-118831.html#ixzz3cgPPzAje>
// Politico // Nick Gass – June 10, 2015 *

American Jewish voters have a clear favorite between Democratic
front-runner Hillary Clinton and likely Republican candidate Jeb Bush,
according to a new national survey.

According to a poll commissioned by the left-leaning J Street Group,
Clinton beats Bush in a hypothetical matchup by a count of 68 percent to 30
percent, with 2 percent undecided.

The Democratic Party also fared well in the poll, with a 46 percent
favorability rating, compared to 20 percent for the Republican Party.

Asked whether they would “favor or oppose an agreement that would ease some
of” the economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its
nuclear program without ending it and submit to greater international
inspection standards, 59 percent said they would support such a deal, while
53 percent of all Americans responded that way to a similar CNN/ORC
question in April.

At the same time, just 22 percent in the J Street poll said that they have
heard “a great deal” of information about the agreement, compared to 45
percent who said “some,” 25 percent who said “not much,” and 9 percent who
said “no information at all.”

Republicans have repeatedly clashed with President Barack Obama over his
administration’s stance toward Israel, especially with regard to ongoing
nuclear talks with Iran. The president, for his part, has said that Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu puts his country’s credibility at risk
with shifting comments about a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

In 2012, Obama defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney among Jewish
Americans by 39 points, according to exit polls — down from a 57-point
advantage over John McCain in 2008.

The J Street poll, conducted by the Democratic-leaning GBA Strategies, was
conducted May 31-June 3 among 1,000 self-identified Jews in the United
States. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

*Every wedding should have a Hillary Clinton Bible reading
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/every-wedding-should-have-a-hillary-clinton-bible-reading-118855.html#ixzz3ckRqds36>
// Politico // Kate Glassman Bennett – June 11, 2015*

You know you’re tight with the boss when she attends your wedding, but it’s
a whole other level of closeness when she takes part in the ceremony. Such
was the case this past weekend as Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s
steadfast foreign policy adviser, married Maggie Goodlander on Saturday at
Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

The Democratic presidential front-runner was on the program at the couple’s
evening wedding, reading from the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, as the
duo tied the knot at Battell Chapel on the Yale campus, where Goodlander
attended law school and Sullivan has been teaching. (Clinton’s was a bigger
role than that of U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who gave a toast at the
couple’s barbecue rehearsal dinner the evening before, which was also
attended by Bill Clinton.) Hillary Clinton, for her part, squeezed the
wedding into a busy week of East Coast fundraisers that included stops in
Greenwich, Rhode Island, Boston and D.C.

Clinton’s gesture signals the devotion she has to Sullivan, who political
watchers say may be poised to become the youngest national security adviser
in history should she take the White House in 2016. Sullivan, 38, was one
of Clinton’s most trusted confidants when she served as secretary of state.
Before starting his teaching post at Yale Law School last August, he was
Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser. Goodlander, 28, is no
stranger to politics either, having worked as a national security and
foreign affairs adviser to Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Wonky Washington CVs aside, Sullivan and Goodlander—who could not be
reached for comment as they are reportedly unplugged on a Caribbean
honeymoon—evidently hope to spend a portion of their married lives
exploring destinations far away from our nation’s capital. Aside from the
standard Crate & Barrel stuff, Sullivan and Goodlander registered for
wanderlust funding via Traveler’s Joy, a website that collects cash from
friends wishing to donate to an adventure kitty, in lieu of candlesticks
and Cuisinarts. According to the couple’s profile, “Maggie wants to travel
to the front lines of freedom,” and “Jake wants to visit the places that
shaped the course of history (and also hit some of the obscure,
out-of-the-way countries he missed while he was at the State Department).

*Domestic Worker Groups Announce Alliance At Clinton Global Initiative
Conference
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/clinton-global-initiative_n_7546826.html>
// HuffPo // Samantha Lachman – June 10, 2015 *

The growing social movement advocating for domestic workers and Care.com,
which calls itself the world's largest online care marketplace, will
announce a new partnership Wednesday afternoon at the Clinton Global
Initiative America conference in Denver.

The collaboration, called the Fair Care Pledge, joins the website, the
National Domestic Workers Alliance and Hand in Hand, a network of domestic
employers. The alliance is an “exemplary approach to addressing critical
domestic challenges," according to the Clinton initiative, an offshoot of
the foundation founded by former President Bill Clinton in 2005. Clinton
and his daughter, Chelsea Clinton, are serving as the conference hosts.

According to a press release on the announcement, Care.com will promote the
pledge by inviting hundreds of thousands of its members to affirm that they
will make an effort to be fair and respectful when they hire a provider to
work in their home cleaning or caring for children or seniors. The pledge
asks families to commit to fair pay, clear expectations and paid time off
for their care providers.

“We believe that care jobs will be the jobs of the future. It’s in all of
our interest to ensure that the quality of these jobs reflects the value
and importance of the work," Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic
Workers Alliance, said in a press release. "Fairness and quality care go
hand-in-hand and we’re thrilled to be able to work with Care.com to promote
these values."

Poo has been a leading advocate for re-conceptualizing domestic work. The
United States appears unprepared for an impending crisis as the "Baby
Boomer" generation ages. Twenty-seven million Americans will need some form
of long-term care by 2050.

“As a member of the ‘sandwich generation,’ I’ve relied on a slew of
caregivers to help me juggle caretaking of my mother during her decline
from Alzheimer's, caring for my two daughters and pursuing my legal
career," Julie Kay, a Hand in Hand leader, said in the release. "While I’m
so appreciative of the work these women do, many times I've asked myself
whether I was doing right by them. The Fair Care Pledge provides me with
guidance, information, and the assurance I’ve been looking for."

The domestic worker industry has traditionally been difficult to organize
and advocate for, given the isolating nature of the work. Ninety-five
percent of domestic workers are women, and nearly half are immigrants.
Because domestic workers are excluded from many protections guaranteed by
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, many in the industry are paid below
the minimum wage and are denied overtime, sick pay and vacation pay.

The Department of Labor released regulations in 2013 that would cover some
home health care workers under those federal minimum wage and overtime
compensation laws. But a lawsuit filed by home care companies has tied up
those regulations.

Care.com members and pledge-takers will be able to display an online badge
on their profile allowing care providers to know they're "fair employers,"
according to the press release.

“Just as care impacts families, enterprise, policy and government in
various ways, so must all those groups be involved in the solution,” said
Sheila Lirio Marcelo, the founder, chairwoman and CEO of Care.com. “One key
to driving real change is the professionalization of the caregiver
industry. We believe it’s critical to attract and retain skilled
caregivers. Families who employ full-time domestic workers should pay fair
and legal wages, and provide vacation, overtime, and other critical
protections that every professional deserves.”

The groups' partnership comes as debates about gender and workplace
standards are gaining increased scrutiny. Democratic presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton, who is not at this year's CGI conference, has advocated
for Democratic Party-backed legislation that would promote gender parity in
pay. Clinton has also spoken about how the United States is one of just
three countries to not require paid maternity leave for new parents.

*Journalists Meet With Clinton Campaign Officials Over Access Concerns
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/journalists-clinton-campaign_n_7555732.html?1433970296>
// HuffPo // Michael Calderone – June 10, 2015*

Two top communications officials with Hillary Clinton’s presidential
campaign met Monday in Washington with representatives from the traveling
press corps to discuss journalists' frustrations over access.

The journalist-campaign détente followed a nearly two-hour meeting last
week in which about 17 reporters covering the campaign, from outlets
including The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, privately
aired grievances.

As The Huffington Post reported last week, journalists expressed concerns
over issues including not receiving enough advanced notice about public
events, being kept too far from Clinton at campaign stops, and not being
permitted inside to cover fundraisers. Journalists also have taken issue
with the campaign reflexively providing information “on background,” or on
a not-for-attribution basis, even when it may not appear particularly
sensitive.

Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and press secretary Brian
Fallon represented the campaign at the meeting, which included three
journalists: McClatchy’s Anita Kumar, The Washington Post’s Anne Gearan and
Politico’s Gabriel Debenedetti.

In emails to The Huffington Post, Gearan and Kumar confirmed the meeting
happened, but both declined to get into specifics.

“Our conversations are ongoing -- a work in progress -- so I don't feel
comfortable sharing the details right now,” Kumar wrote.

Fallon declined to comment on behalf of the campaign.

The group appeared to make progress Monday on some issues. For instance,
the campaign seemed amenable to providing more advance notice for events,
perhaps a week ahead, according to a source familiar with the discussions
who was not authorized to comment. Still, the two sides aren't completely
on the same page. The campaign still expects to keep fundraisers closed to
the press for now.

There was also talk during Monday's breakfast about eliminating background
briefings like one that recently took place at the campaign’s Brooklyn
headquarters. CNBC’s John Harwood, an attendee, later mocked the campaign's
request that top officials not be named in reports or even quoted blindly.
A later tour of the headquarters, he noted, was off the record.

On Friday, Palmieri and campaign manager Robby Mook will be speaking on the
record at a Politico-sponsored function in Manhattan, a day before Clinton
holds her first campaign rally on Roosevelt Island.

As Clinton ramps up her campaign this weekend, she's expected to begin
engaging more with the press. Though Clinton has answered some questions at
campaign events, she has still not given an interview during her two months
as a presidential candidate. The campaign has yet to announce any scheduled
interviews as Clinton heads in the coming weeks to Iowa, New Hampshire,
South Carolina and Nevada.

*New York's Forgotten Island Shrugs At Hillary Clinton's Big 2016 Debut
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/hillary-clinton-roosevelt_n_7547602.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016>
// HuffPo // Scott Conroy – June 10, 2015*

It’s easy to understand why Hillary Clinton is holding her first 2016
campaign rally at Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on Saturday. The
symbolism is about as subtle as a yellow-cab driver caught behind a
slow-moving vehicle with the windows rolled down.

Her midday speech will take place in the city where her family’s
multibillion-dollar Clinton Foundation is based in the state she
represented in the Senate for eight years and at a park that honors one of
the most famous speeches delivered by America’s most revered Democratic
president.

"She has long been inspired by FDR’s belief that America is stronger when
we summon the work and talents of all Americans,” said Clinton spokesperson
Kristina Schake. “Her fight, like his, is to work to ensure that everyday
Americans can achieve not just a sense of economic stability, but lasting
prosperity."

Though the park's namesake will be a fundamental element of Clinton’s
speech, less central to her unofficial campaign kickoff is Roosevelt Island
itself -- a quirky sanctuary of inner-city suburbia, which bisects the East
River between Manhattan and Queens.

To the people who live here, though, that’s not much of a surprise. This is
a place that is used to getting overlooked.

A 2-mile by 800-foot sliver of land that is currently inhabited by about
14,000 people in a city of more than 8 million, Roosevelt Island remains a
peaceful hamlet by New York City standards. It is perhaps best known for
the aerial tramway that offers a mobile addition to the Upper East Side’s
skyline and was featured in a memorable fight scene in the 2002
"Spider-Man" film.

By and large, in a city famous for its islands, this particular
needle-shaped landmass -- which falls under the jurisdiction of Manhattan
-- has long been largely anonymous outside (and sometimes inside) the city.

“When I was growing up and through high school, you’d tell kids, ‘I live on
Roosevelt Island,’ and it was like, ‘Where?’” said Mike Babcock, whose
family was one of the pioneering families to move to the island in 1975,
when the first residential building opened. “And these were kids who lived
in the city.”

But that undistinguished image has been changing quickly.

Over the last couple of decades, Roosevelt Island has experienced a
demographic evolution and construction explosion that has left it a more
diverse and heavily urbanized place than it was decades ago -- a lot like
the American electorate that the Clinton campaign believes will propel her
to the White House.

“On the tram, you used to pretty much know everyone by sight,” said Lillian
Kirkman, who has lived on Roosevelt Island since 1982. “Now it’s pretty
much like riding the subway.”

It’s possible to traverse Roosevelt Island on foot in under a minute, but
this is no longer a parochial place.

Take a stroll down Main Street, and it can feel like you’re walking the
halls of the United Nations just across the river, as more than 40 percent
of the population here was born in a different country.

The modern incarnation of Roosevelt Island was founded as a place where
small-town charm could be found within spitting distance of the most
exciting city on earth, but its enduring legacy has long been that of a
place in constant transition.

Back in the 19th century when it was known as Blackwell’s Island, it was
home to a prison, the nation’s first hospital for treating smallpox
sufferers, and the New York City Lunatic Asylum where investigative
reporter Nelly Bly faked insanity and later reported in the New York World
her groundbreaking investigation of the facility’s wretched conditions.

After a long period of decline, the island was rechristened Roosevelt
Island in 1973 in honor of the nation’s 32nd president, and a dramatic
revitalization effort began that turned it into a thriving community
intended primarily to offer subsidized housing to young families with a
wide range of income levels.

An increasingly Democratic slice of a heavily Democratic city, it’s not
just the Starbucks and Duane Reed, both of which opened a few years ago,
that has signaled Roosevelt Island’s absorption into the modern urban
aesthetic that has taken hold from coast to coast since Clinton’s husband’s
presidency.

The Octagon -- a relatively imposing structure presiding over the northern
end of the island -- originally served as the asylum’s main entrance. Now
it is the entranceway for a pair of solar panel and fuel cell-equipped
high-rise apartment buildings.

And in 2011, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that Roosevelt Island
would be the site of a more than $2 billion science graduate school for
Cornell University -- likely the single most transformational development
in the island’s recent history. The “Four Freedoms” Park, where Clinton
will speak on Saturday, opened the year after that.

Still, unlike just about every other corner of New York, even as it has
changed rapidly, Roosevelt Island has resisted some of the allures of its
neighboring localities. Here, $16 cocktails and ironic handlebar mustaches
remain as scarce as they are common to the Instagram-saturated streets not
far from the Clinton campaign’s Brooklyn Heights headquarters.

You will, however, find some of the same generally unimpressed attitudes
that prevail in the hipper parts of town.

“We’ve had lots of local politicians -- senators and congressmen -- no one
like Hillary,” said Judy Berdy, president of the Roosevelt Island
Historical Society and a lifelong resident. “But I just shrug. It’s part of
living in New York. You get used to it.”

Just four days before the big rally, there were few signs that anything
particularly special was on the horizon, as residents prepared for
Saturday’s Roosevelt Island Day -- an annual, family-friendly event that
will take place concurrently with the Clinton rally.

At Piccolo Trattoria on Main Street on Tuesday, a sparse lunchtime crowd
ordered pizza slices and deli sandwiches, as employees mopped the floor and
took some run-of-the-mill verbal abuse from one woman, who wasn’t
especially impressed by the yellow sign that warned her to watch her step.

“Seriously, it’s very slippery in here,” she said. “If I fall, you’re
screwed!”

After Jesus Alvarez, 19, took the woman’s order from behind the counter, a
reporter approached to ask what he thought about Hillary Clinton coming to
the neighborhood.

Alvarez, who has been working at Roosevelt Island’s lone pizza slice joint
for about a year, offered a perplexed look along with a reminder that for
the vast majority of Americans, the 2016 election remains far from the
forefront of their minds.

“There’s a rally here?” he asked. “I hadn’t heard about it.”

*The selective liberalism of Hillary Clinton
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760287/Hillary-Clinton-selective-liberal-trust>
// VOX // Jonathan Allen – June 10, 2015 *

There's a term for the way Hillary Clinton has handled policy in the early
stages of her campaign: Clintonian.

That is, on the issues that most divide the Democratic base from its
centrist wing, she refuses to box herself into a position. She'd rather
wait to see how things play out — a tendency that reinforces the often
asserted (but sometimes unfair) criticism that she doesn’t have core
convictions.

1.   She’s thrilled that fast-food workers are fighting for a $15 minimum
wage, but she won’t say whether she’ll fight for it — or even whether she
thinks that's the right level.

2.   She’s decidedly undecided on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal,
even though she called it "the gold standard in trade agreements" when she
was secretary of state.

3.   And her campaign has completely dodged the question of whether she
thinks her husband’s welfare reform law was the right policy.

It's true that Clinton has rolled out a string of positions that please
constituencies on the left, from support for LGBT rights and voting rights
to repudiating the results of her husband's 1994 anti-crime law and vowing
to enhance President Obama's executive action on immigration. These are
important issues, perhaps more important than the exact level of a wage
increase that surely won't be $15 an hour as long as Republicans control
either the House or 41 seats in the Senate. But Clinton has been very
selective about how she's courted her party's progressive base, speaking as
much to identity politics as to actual policy. On some of the more
controversial policy questions, she's taking a pass.

As Ruth Marcus put it in the Washington Post Wednesday morning, "The
left-leaning positions she isn’t taking are as significant as the ones she
has endorsed."

In keeping her powder dry, she is reminding voters — Democrats,
Republicans, and independents — that it's hard to pin down a Clinton. Her
husband was famous for practicing political "triangulation," letting others
stake out their positions and then standing in the middle. Clinton's
unwillingness to commit to either side on the minimum wage, trade, and
welfare reform (Jeb Bush is calling for a new round of it) leaves everyone
wondering what she really believes on those issues. That feeds an existing
narrative that she's less than trustworthy. And that's not good for Clinton.

Clinton's honesty problem

Most adults say the label "honest and trustworthy" doesn't apply to her.

Nearly two-thirds of men think Clinton isn't trustworthy, compared with
about half of women.

The CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month is one in a series that show
Americans have greater faith in her ability to lead than in her willingness
to tell the truth. The problem is particularly acute with men and whites —
two subcategories that lean more Republican and that have been problematic
for Clinton.

The silver lining: almost three-fifths of nonwhite adults do believe she's
honest and trustworthy, and about half of women say the same. The positions
she's taken on voting rights, immigration, and ending the "era of mass
incarceration" should bolster those numbers. She still leads all Republican
challengers in head-to-head matchups.

But if voters don't trust what Clinton says, it will be harder for her to
persuade them to vote for her. Pew polling suggests honesty is an essential
leadership trait.

The $15 head fake

Clinton's main rivals in the Democratic field, Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, have both taken firm
stands in favor of a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Clinton gave a head fake
this weekend.

Clinton seemed to be taking a stand on Sunday when she called in to a
fast-food workers convention to say she stood behind them in their push for
a $15-per-hour wage floor. The Washington Post noted that Clinton used
language mirroring labor's campaign for the higher pay standard and ran a
headline suggesting she was endorsing the $15 level. At first, her aides
declined to say whether she meant that she backs a $15 minimum wage. And
then, after a couple of days, they still declined to say.

One campaign spokesperson said Tuesday night that Clinton will eventually
have a position.

"As Hillary Clinton expressed this weekend, she strongly supports workers
in the fast-food industry in cities across the country mobilizing to fight
for a living wage. In the coming weeks, she will lay out her specific plans
for increasing wages."

That leaves open the question of whether she might back something other
than the most often cited figures, $15 an hour and $10.10 an hour. It's a
little reminiscent of the scene from There's Something About Mary that
revolves around one-upsmanship on whether six-, seven- or eight-minute abs
is the most effective workout routine.

O'Malley spokesperson Haley Morris made the point that her boss raised the
wage floor in his state (to $8.25 an hour).

"We don't know where Secretary Clinton stands on the minimum wage, but
Governor O'Malley's stance couldn't be clearer: he supports efforts to
raise it to $15 an hour. This is another issue where he doesn't just talk
-- he's gotten things done. Last year, Maryland was just the second state
to raise its minimum wage."

Trading places

For years, it would have been hard to find a more ardent advocate for a
Pacific Rim trade deal than Clinton. As Obama's secretary of state, she was
a leader of the US "pivot" to Asia, which was later recoined a
"rebalancing." She wrote about the benefits of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership and spoke publicly about them. As White House Communications
Director and former State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki put it on MSNBC
this week, Clinton spent a "great deal of time" extolling the virtues of
the deal when she was a member of the administration.

And then, in April, with pressure bearing down on Democrats to take a
position, Clinton backpedaled — through a spokesman.

"Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests:
first, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise
wages, and create more good jobs at home," Nick Merrill said in a
statement. "Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We
should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these
tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families,
not trade for trade’s sake."

Senior aides have since said that she doesn't need to take a position until
the deal is finalized and the fine print can be analyzed. If she's lucky,
the House will reject Trade Promotion Authority for Obama this week,
mooting TPP. But as it stands, the vast majority of House Democrats — and
party activists — oppose the deal. If Clinton supports it, she'll
disappoint them and give more fuel to Sanders and O'Malley, both of whom
oppose the pact. If she opposes it, she'll have flip-flopped and turned her
back on Obama.

Welfare reform

There's also distance between Clinton and her rivals on welfare reform.

When she said she wanted to end the "era of mass incarceration" — which was
spurred by Bill Clinton's anti-crime law — the next logical question was
whether she would seek to reverse another major social policy law from his
presidency: welfare reform. As first lady, she had praised it.

It became a more pressing matter when Bush, in the wake of violence in
Baltimore, called for new welfare reforms.

So far, Clinton and her aides have refused to address repeated questions
about where she stands with regard to the 1990s law, which largely
addressed government benefits and work requirements for women. As with
other issues, they say she'll have more policy to detail over the summer.

Sanders voted against the 1996 welfare reform law, which split Democrats
almost evenly.

In 2000, O'Malley signed a document expressing appreciation for the Clinton
law but calling on government to "finish the job" by creating more
employment opportunities for people moving off of government assistance.

On this, too, Democrats are anxious to hear what Clinton thinks in this
presidential run.

Time to choose

It's tempting to think that Clinton has plenty of time because it's early
in the presidential election cycle or because her Democratic rivals
probably don't have what it takes to beat her in a primary. But by
sidestepping important policy questions, she's giving oxygen to doubts
about her sincerity. That's a character question that should be familiar to
Clinton fans who watched Barack Obama turn honesty into a weapon against
her in 2008, and it's one that crosses party lines.

Ultimately, Clinton is going to have to choose a side on these issues. The
longer she takes, the more it looks like she's afraid of commitment.

*Bill Clinton Says He'll Nix Paid Speeches If Hillary Wins
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/prominent-new-hampshire-republicans-want-debate-open-all-candidates-n373421>
// NBC News // Andrea Mitchell and Cassandra Vinograd – June 11, 2015*

Former President Bill Clinton said he will most likely stop giving paid
speeches if his wife Hillary is elected president.

The Clintons have been dogged by questions about potential conflicts of
interest around their foundation and the amounts they've earned from
high-profile speaking engagements.

When asked by Bloomberg Television whether he would continue to give paid
speeches if Hillary Clinton is elected president, Bill Clinton replied: "I
don't think so."

"I will still give speeches though on the subjects I'm interested in," he
added. "I've really enjoyed those things."

Clinton said "it would be a very good thing for America" if his wife
Hillary Clinton wins the presidency.

"She'll have to decide what’s my highest and best use — including being
around to buck her up every morning," he said.

While Hillary Clinton has begun her second campaign for president by
casting herself as a champion for middle-class voters, she's long drawn
criticism from Republicans about the wealth she and Bill Clinton have
generated since he left the White House.

In May, Federal Election Commission filings showed that the couple earned
more than $25 million for more than 100 paid speeches between January 2014
and May 2015 — an average fee of about $250,000 per speech.

*Hillary Clinton and the New Politics of $15
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/209585/hillary-clinton-and-new-politics-15>
// The Nation // John Nichols – June 10, 2015 *

Fast-food workers and their allies in the “Fight for 15” movement who were
gathered Sunday in Detroit to plan strategy for action in the streets and
at the ballot box got an unexpected call from the frontrunner for the
Democratic presidential nomination and, perhaps, the presidency.

Declaring, “I want to be your champion,” Hillary Clinton told the
activists, “We need you out there fighting against those who would strip
away Americans’ right to organize, to collectively bargain, to fair play.
No man or woman who works hard to feed American families should have to be
on food stamps to feed their own family.”

The Sunday morning phone call by the former secretary of state to the
national gathering in Detroit was a breakthrough moment for the movement to
raise pay for fast-food and retail workers, as it signaled that their
issues are going to be a major part of the 2016 debate. It was also
something of a breakthrough moment for Clinton, who has been seeking since
announcing her candidacy to distinguish herself as a more progressive and
populist contender.

But how much of a breakthrough remains to be seen. Clinton did not talk
numbers in her call. Indeed, as CNN noted, ” Just how high a wage hike
Clinton supports, however, remains a mystery. The candidate has not
provided a figure yet. Her campaign did not return a request for comment
Sunday night.”

Specifics are going to matter.

Facing a spirited economic-populist challenge from Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders, who has long championed wage hikes, and prodded by former Maryland
governor Martin O’Malley, who has a track record of work on living-wage
issues, Clinton could not avoid the debate about hiking wages; she had to
offer the party’s base voters some economic populism. A recent Politico
headline sums the circumstance up. “Hillary Clinton Camp Fears Bernie
Sanders,” read one, while another declared, “Wall Street Fears Leftward
Swerve By Clinton.”

To Clinton’s credit, her referencing of the Fight for 15 movement was not a
mild reference. It was laudatory. “I hope that every one of you will
continue to raise your voices until we get all working Americans a better
deal,” the candidate told the fast-food workers who had come to Detroit
from across the country. “I want to be your champion. I want to fight with
you every day. I’m well aware that the folks on top already have plenty of
friends in Washington, but we together will change the direction of this
great country.”

Yet Clinton has not, as have Sanders and O’Malley, announced support for a
$15-an-hour wage. And as with her relatively strong statements on trade
policy—strong on principles, weak on precise stances—the specifics are what
will matter.

Clinton is a savvy politician. She recognizes that the “Fight for 15”
movement has traction—and that major labor unions and grassroots activists
are starting to measure candidates according to their commitment to the
fight. She has made a good statement, and gotten some good headlines. Now
she must provide a sense of where exactly she stands on a federal
$15-an-hour wage, on state and local fights, and on a host of other wage
and work concerns. And, frankly, she needs to fill-in-the-blanks on related
issues, such as the fight for a Retail Workers Bill of Rights and efforts
to make it easily to organize and maintain unions.

Clinton’s formal launch of her candidacy this coming Saturday at the
Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park in New York City will be a key
test. Will she reference the Fight for 15 movement? Will she make this
struggle a clear, and constant focus of her campaign?

The pressure will only increase for Clinton and the other 2016 candidates.
Following the lead of Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other cities
across the country have moved to implement $15 wage floors, and states such
as New York are starting to explore the prospect.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who announced last month that he will
convene a special wage board to review and recommend higher wage rates for
fast-food workers, explains why this is the case. “Nowhere is the income
gap more extreme and obnoxious than in the fast-food industry,” wrote Cuomo
in a New York Times opinion piece. “Fast-food C.E.O.s are among the
highest-paid corporate executives. The average fast-food C.E.O. made $23.8
million in 2013, more than quadruple the average from 2000 (adjusting for
inflation). Meanwhile, entry-level food-service workers in New York State
earn, on average, $16,920 per year, which at a 40-hour week amounts to
$8.50 an hour. Nationally, wages for fast-food workers have increased 0.3
percent since 2000 (again, adjusting for inflation).”

As Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry says, ”
Powerful people around the world are listening to this movement to change
our world.”

This is the context in which Clinton’s statement comes. Fast-food workers
are organizing, and they are winning. Retail workers are organizing, and
they are winning. Home-care workers are organizing. A movement has taken
shape. It is real. And it has specific “asks” of candidates.

“We’ve got unstoppable momentum,” said LeTonya Wilson, 41, a Richmond,
Virginia, McDonald’s worker who is paid $8.25 an hour. “Fifteen dollars is
sweeping the country and we’re going to build off victories in places like
Los Angeles, New York and St. Louis to win $15 in Richmond and all across
the country. Everyone said we had no chance, but we’ve shown when we stick
together and speak out, we get life-changing results.”

Wage hikes are life-changing for workers who are struggling to get by.

And the movement for wage hikes is changing American politics.

Presidential candidates are taking notice.

Indeed, the front-runner in the race for the White House is saying to
LeTonya Wilson and her fellow workers: “There’s a lot we can do together
and you’re showing us what that route is. You’re on the streets, your
voices are being heard. We need you.”

That’s right. But that’s not enough. Getting a presidential front-runner to
“call in” is not an indication that a corner has been turned on the “Fight
for $15.” Rather, it is a signal that the 2016 contest could, with
continued pressure on all the candidates—Democrats and Republicans and
third-party contenders,; liberals and centrists and conservatives—be the
moment when that turn is made.

*Bill Clinton Says Hillary Win Could Change His Philanthropy Role
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-10/bill-clinton-says-hillary-win-could-change-his-philanthropy-role>
// Bloomberg // Margaret Talev – June 10, 2015 *

Former President Bill Clinton said if his wife is elected the next U.S.
president, he will consider stepping aside from leading his global
philanthropy, and that while he intends to keep delivering speeches on
issues he cares about he will stop accepting money for them.

“I believe if you have been president, and the current president of either
party asks you to do anything, if in good conscience you can do it, you
should do it,” Clinton said in an interview Wednesday with Bloomberg’s
Betty Liu, when asked about his role in a potential Hillary Clinton
administration. He suggested he may step away from his role as head of the
foundation he established after his presidency in favor of his daughter,
Chelsea.

“That will be not an easy decision,” Clinton said in the most direct
acknowledgement to date that he's considering stepping away from the
foundation to avoid conflicts of interest. “If she wins, and I think it
would be a very good thing for America if she did win," he said, referring
to his wife, "we’ll have to talk about it. But I don’t know.”

“We’ll have to talk about it.”

In a wide-ranging interview on the final day of the Clinton Global
Initiative America meeting in Denver, Clinton also defended donations to
his tied to foreign governments and corporations, which have come under
scrutiny by news organizations as Hillary Clinton’s campaign ramped up. He
said his organization operated for years without the presumption his wife
would run. In particular, he defended the decision to accept $500,000 from
Algeria to pass on to international efforts in Haiti after the devastating
2010 earthquake.

"I’d take the money from Algeria again," Clinton said. "There are very few
countries in the world I would not accept for help to Haiti." Clinton said
there were a couple of donations the foundation did not accept because "we
have a strict no-corruption policy." He also suggested the scrutiny of the
foundation was driven by cynical political journalists for whom "it’s hard
to imagine" that businesses and individual would give money for anything
other than political purposes.

Clinton said if his wife is elected president "she will make good
decisions" and "she’ll consult widely and be inclusive."

As for his own role, he said he would be interested in working to restore
the middle class and a sense of "inclusion" in communities. But he
suggested that what he does as a first spouse would be up to his wife.

"If there’s one thing she knows more about than anybody on earth, it’s on
what subjects I should be listened to and what subjects I shouldn’t,"
Clinton said, prompting a guffaw from the audience.

*Hillary Clinton Needs a Do-Over
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/10/hillary_clinton_needs_a_do-over_126923.html>
// RealClearPolitics // Jonah Goldberg – June 10, 2015 *

Almost exactly two months after Hillary Rodham Clinton’s official
announcement that she’s running for president, she will give her first
“official campaign announcement speech,” on June 13, according to her
Twitter account.

In other words, the Clinton campaign wants a do-over. Her first rollout was
the most disastrous nonfatal presidential campaign debut in modern memory,
so she wants another.

Her initial announcement video in April — which most outlets accurately
reported as her official announcement — was well done. After that,
everything went downhill; a steady stream of news stories and damning
allegations about her family foundation and tenure as secretary of state
has dogged her almost daily.

Her best moment since announcing was when she was captured on grainy
security video at an Ohio Chipotle franchise buying a burrito bowl. ABC
News and MarketWatch dubbed it an “adventure.” Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin
explained that Clinton’s excellent adventure was “fun” and “new.” “We’ve
never seen her get a burrito before.”

Put “Burrito Day” in the win column.

In the loss column: plummeting poll numbers. In March she enjoyed a
15-percentage-point lead over Jeb Bush, according to a CNN poll. She had
roughly similar double-digit leads over Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Scott
Walker.

Those leads have nearly evaporated. Bush, whose rollout has also been less
than stellar, now trails Clinton by eight percentage points, according to
CNN (but only by three, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll).
Walker and Rubio are three percentage points behind her and Paul is one.

Worse, the public is souring on her, like a carton of milk left out in the
sun. More Americans now view her unfavorably rather than favorably (50
percent to 46 percent), her worst polling performance in 14 years.
Fifty-seven percent believe she is untrustworthy, and fewer than half (47
percent) said she cares about people like them. Remember back in 2008 when
her image took a beating in her bruising primary fight with Barack Obama?
Her image is worse today.

She reminds me of Fred Thompson in 2008 or Rick Perry in 2012. Her best day
in the polls was the day before she announced.

But fear not, the Clinton campaign has conveniently found a strategy that
says none of this matters very much.

Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman report in the New York Times that the
Clinton team has turned its back on a “nationwide electoral strategy,”
opting instead to reassemble the Obama coalition of 2008 and 2012. To do
that, Clinton needs to run to the left and pick polarizing fights that
galvanize low-information and hard-to-motivate voters.

The days of trying to win swing voters and independents are apparently
over. Today it’s all about that base. “The highest-premium voter in ’92 was
a voter who would vote for one party some and for another party some,”
James Carville, a longtime adviser to the Clintons, told the New York
Times. “Now the highest-premium voter is somebody with a high probability
to vote for you and low probability to turn out. That’s the golden list.
And that’s a humongous change in basic strategic doctrine.”

Carville’s right that it is a big change in doctrine, but it’s unclear
whether the doctrine is right. So far the entire theory rests on the
precedent of one candidate: Obama. “If she won,” Martin and Haberman write,
“it would suggest that the so-called Obama coalition of young, nonwhite and
female voters is transferable to another Democrat.”

As I’ve been writing for a while, I’m extremely dubious. Here are four
reasons. First, Obama didn’t really run as a polarizing figure in 2008. He
ran as a post-partisan reformer who would end gridlock and fix the failures
of the two-term incumbent (as did George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before
him).

Second, Obama was a very good politician without much baggage (that the
media were willing to report on). Clinton is a mediocre politician with
mountainous baggage. Third, Obama’s coalition has never been transferable
to any other cause or politician, despite the president’s best efforts. And
last, Clinton is running to stay the course.

The Obama veterans around Clinton boast of their willingness to break with
the practices of the past. But it looks more like they can’t break out of
their own Obama bubble, running the same plays for a very different
quarterback.

*Check Out Hillary Clinton’s First Instagram
<http://time.com/3916627/hillary-clinton-first-instagram/> // TIMES //
Olivia Waxman – June 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential
election, launched an Instagram account Wednesday. Her first post is a
photo of red, white and blue pantsuits with the caption “Hard Choices” —
which is also the title of her memoir. The former Secretary of State
modestly describes herself as a “Doting grandmother, among other things.”

The account already racked up more than 32,000 followers at the time of
publication — more than any of the other 2016 candidates with verified
accounts on the social network, such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY),Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Marco Rubio
(R-FL), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), retired neurosurgeon
Ben Carson (R).

Having a presence on Instagram is an opportunity to engage with
college-aged and 20-something voters, as “53% of young adults ages 18-29
now use the service,” according to Pew Research Center’s Jan. 2015 report
on the demographics of social networking platforms. The study also says
“women are particularly likely to be on Instagram, along with Hispanics and
African-Americans, and those who live in urban or suburban environments.”

*Hillary Clinton launches Instagram account
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-hillary-clinton-launches-instagram-account/>
// CBS News // Hannah Fraser-Chanpong – June 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton has joined Instagram.

Clinton posted her first photo to the social media site Wednesday. It does
not show Clinton but, instead, red, white and blue outfits hung on a
garment rack, highlighting a sartorial choice that the presidential
candidate has become well known for: the pantsuit.

"Hard choices," the caption reads.

Many of the other presidential candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Jeb
Bush (and his wife, Columba Bush), Rand Paul and Marco Rubio already have
Instagram accounts. Clinton's account was private until Wednesday morning.

Since the launch of her bid, Clinton's campaign has relied mostly on
Twitter and Facebook to share photos of Clinton on the campaign trail,
share news and highlight organizing events, and she recently joined
LinkedIn. Clinton chimes in herself on Twitter on occasion -- both on
policy and nonpolitical events like the Women's World Cup -- and signs her
tweets with the letter "h." Clinton campaign officials say that the
Instagram account will more regularly show a more candid, personal side of
their candidate and her supporters. The campaign also plans to use it as
another way to engage with her fans.

Clinton, the former senator, first lady and secretary of state whose
colorful Twitter bio includes both "hair icon" and "pantsuit aficionado,"
highlights only one of her titles on her Instagram page. "doting
grandmother, among other things." It includes a link to Clinton's campaign
website.

*Hillary Clinton joins Instagram with a photo of her red, white and blue
pantsuits
<http://mashable.com/2015/06/10/hillary-clinton-joins-instagram/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss>
// Mashable // Bryian Ries – June 10, 2015*

Hillary Clinton exploded onto the Instagram scene Wednesday morning with an
unfiltered photo of the things she knows best: her red, white and blue
pantsuits.

"Hard choices," wrote the self-described "doting grandmother, among other
things" in the photo's caption, which appeared days ahead of the former
first lady's official 2016 campaign launch. Clinton first announced her
second bid for the presidency in April.

The account, @HillaryClinton, was confirmed as hers by an Instagram
spokesperson. So far, the reception toward the account is warm; one user
called it "iconic," while another gave her the Broad City-inspired rebel
yell, "YAAS QUEEN." Thirty minutes after creating the account, Clinton
already attracted more than 5,000 followers.

Clinton joins 300 million Instagrammers — including many fellow 2016
candidates — who share a reported 70 million photos and videos each day.

*Parties set events; Democrats draw Clinton to dinner
<http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/jun/11/parties-set-events-democrats-draw-clint-1/>
// North West Arkansas Gazette // Michael R. Wickline - June 11, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the
keynote speaker at the Democratic Party of Arkansas' annual fundraiser July
18 in North Little Rock, party Chairman Vince Insalaco said Wednesday.

Arkansas Republicans will hold their annual Reagan-Rockefeller fundraising
dinner in Hot Springs on July 17, party Chairman Doyle Webb said Wednesday.
Details and speaker information will be announced soon, he said.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is a former Arkansas
first lady, U.S. senator and U.S. secretary of state.

"As Arkansas' first lady, Hillary worked tirelessly to secure a better
future for our children and families -- a responsibility that she continued
as the first lady of the United States, a U.S. senator and as secretary of
state," Insalaco said in a written statement. "We are excited to welcome
her to an Arkansas homecoming that celebrates both that progress and looks
toward a hopeful future."

Clinton moved to Arkansas in 1974 shortly after serving as an attorney for
the congressional committee that investigated President Richard Nixon. She
taught students at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville before
marrying Bill Clinton, who later won elections for governor and the
presidency.

She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and led
multiple campaigns to improve children's health and education in Arkansas,
according to the state Democratic Party.

State Democratic Party Executive Director Candace Martin said the party
hasn't endorsed Clinton for president.

Others who've said they're running for president as Democrats are former
Rhode Island Gov. and U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, former Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Webb, the state GOP chairman, said Arkansas Republicans are trying to get
the party's presidential candidates to help raise money at party events.

"Our Reagan-Rockefeller dinner, the RPA's largest annual fundraiser, will
be held at the Hot Springs Convention Center in Horner Hall on July 17,"
Webb said in a written statement. "The RR dinner is the opening event of
our state Republican Leadership weekend, which includes our summer State
Committee meeting and workshops. The announcement of details and the
speaker will be forthcoming."

Webb declined to say whether the keynote speaker will be former Arkansas
Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is among at least 10 Republicans who have said they
are running for president in 2016.

Both Clinton and Huckabee ran unsuccessfully for their parties'
presidential nominations in 2008.

Arkansas Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson last month signed into law a bill
moving the state's 2016 primary elections from May 24 to March 1 to allow
Arkansas to participate with several other Southern states in what its
supporters call the SEC presidential primary.

Other states that plan to hold a March 1 primary include Alabama, Georgia,
Texas, Tennessee and Virginia.

The SEC is the Southeastern Conference, an intercollegiate athletic
conference that includes many Southern states.

The party filing period will be from noon Nov. 2 until noon Nov. 9 in the
state Capitol, said Chris Powell, a spokesman for Arkansas Secretary of
State Mark Martin.

Webb said his party's 2016 filing fees will be decided July 17 by the
party's executive committee, but he doesn't expect any change, including in
the $25,000 fee for presidential candidates.

The state Democratic Party State Committee will determine the party's 2016
filing fees during its Aug. 15 meeting, Candace Martin said.

*It’s official: Hillary Clinton’s logo is actually perfect
<http://qz.com/423037/its-official-hillary-clintons-logo-is-actually-perfect/>
// Quartz // Annalisa Merelli – June 10, 2015 *

As soon Hillary Clinton announced her presidential bid, commentators began
dissecting each and every aspect of her communications strategy. Despite a
few critics, many noted that the launch video successfully installed
Clinton’s campaign as a collective effort rather than emphasizing that
Clinton was “destined” for the presidency.

What instead provoked nothing but bad reviews was the logo design—a
patriotically blue, red and white “H” with an arrow pointing right at the
center. Why is the arrow red (the Republican color in the US), some asked,
and why is it pointing toward the right? Were voters going to interpret it
as an imminent shift towards more conservative positions? Others plainly
stated that the logo didn’t say anything at all. Quartz’s Anne Quito
weighed in with the following:

As unoriginal and clunky as it may appear, Clinton’s logo is perfectly
functional. It’s unique enough, with utility that holds up across print,
broadcast, and digital platforms. On Twitter, the red arrow is even a
nifty, albeit unnecessary, device that directs the eye right to the
messenger.

Clinton’s new logo builds upon Obama’s “O,” which was much closer to a
corporate brand than a traditional political logo.

The style informed both of Obama’s campaigns, and forever changed the
visual language of American politics, adding modern typography and design
to an otherwise trite political visual vocabulary. Learning from that
lesson, Clinton’s 2016 one-letter logo is highly recognizable: Like a
brand, the “H” is the complete logo and not accompanied by the full name
nor the year—as to indicate a timeless commitment, and to separate this
campaign from Hillary’s bid in 2008.

Besides being bold, the one-letter logo is, as  exceptionally social media
friendly—no small quality, since compared to 2008 (and to an extent even
2012), social media channels have now become a campaign requirement.

“In the past, you got a lot of stars for being on a platform,” Jon Jones,
chief digital officer at the Incite Agency who worked as the first digital
strategist for Obama’s 2008 campaign, told Quartz. Now, he explained, it’s
much less about whether a platform is used, and why, and more about how it
reflects on the candidate’s image.

In this light, the square design is strategically sound: The strongest
attribute of this design—what makes it particularly functional in the time
of memes—is its flexibility which, unlike with Obama’s “O,” does not appear
to be a lucky accident.

In the past two months the logo has already appeared in a number of avatars
both on Twitter and Facebook, including the ones below:

It is through all these iterations that Clinton’s logo fully displays its
iconic value: It is highly recognizable despite the changes, and the
much-criticized right-facing red arrow is now appears as it was likely
meant to: pointing the way forward. The different backgrounds aren’t just
an innovative graphic solution—they are the visual embodiment of the values
Clinton is building her campaign around. It vehicles a leadership based on
collectivity and inclusiveness rather than the elitist individualism
Clinton is often accused of.

“The real Hillary is what they are trying to get out there, as opposite to
a top-down Clinton force,” Jones explained.

The logo is young, modern, colorful. And the strategy of inclusiveness goes
beyond the design, extending to the offline campaign (with campaign workers
traveling by bus under the eyes of surprised reporters). Thus far, the best
example has been Mary Jo for Hillary: In an unprecedented exercise in
relinquishing control, Clinton handed her official campaign Twitter handle
to Mary Jo Brown, a small business owner from New Hampshire, who posted
tweets about a day in her life (and work) in support of the grassroots
initiative of “small business owners for Hillary.”

This, said Jones, is something 2008 Clinton would have stayed away from
but, as other elements of her campaign—such as the pop merchandising,
including items such as the pantsuit-printed t-shirt—is “a page of the
Obama book.”

Indeed, like Obama’s 2008, Clinton’s 2016 looks like a campaign designed to
be remembered—not just to win.

*Hillary to be honored at Wildlife gala after making
<http://nypost.com/2015/06/09/hillary-to-be-honored-at-wildlife-gala-after-making-25k-donation/>
// NY Post // Geoff Earle – June 10, 2015*

There will be an elephant in the room Thursday when Hillary Rodham Clinton
is an honored guest at the Wildlife Conservation Society’s annual gala in
New York: a big-bucks contribution the Clinton Family Foundation gave to
the organization.

The group works to protect endangered elephants from ivory poaching and
threats, among other wildlife projects.

The foundation gave the society a $25,000 grant in 2013 for its efforts,
foundation records show.

The good feelings appear to be mutual.

The following year, at the 2014 gala — called “An Elephant’s Tale” —
Hillary and Chelsea Clinton were honored by the group for “their commitment
to conservation and protecting wildlife and wild places.”

An official release said they “have been tremendous allies in the fight to
save the African elephant.” and work “tirelessly” for the cause.

Hillary Clinton is listed as an “honorary chair” at Thursday’s black-tie
event, to be held at the Central Park Zoo, which this year is called
“Turning Tides.”

Meanwhile, Renee Ring, the group’s corporate relations director, donated
$5,000 to the pro-Clinton PAC Ready for Hillary in 2013, according to
campaign records.

*Bill Clinton contradicts Hillary on email claims
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/10/bill-clinton-contradicts-hillary-on-email-claims/>
// Fox News – June 10, 2015 *

Bill Clinton appeared Wednesday to contradict his wife's claims about their
personal email use, saying he's only sent two emails in his life -- despite
Hillary Clinton saying some of the private messages on her personal server
were from her and her husband.

The former president addressed his very sparing email use at a Clinton
Global Initiative meeting in Denver.

He said the "only time" he got on the Internet was to do "two emails" and
order Christmas presents.

"Otherwise I found people said embarrassing things on emails. I didn't want
to be one of them," Clinton said, to laughter.

The statement echoes what a spokesman told the Wall Street Journal in March
-- that the ex-president had only sent two emails in his life, one to U.S.
troops and the other to astronaut John Glenn.

Yet, when Hillary Clinton held a press conference in March explaining her
personal email use, she said her private server "contains personal
communications from my husband and me."

The now-Democratic presidential candidate gave this detail in asserting
that she would not turn over her personal server for examination -- as
Republican lawmakers have requested.

Her office, though, has turned over thousands of pages of emails to the
State Department, which has started to release some of them.

*De Blasio likely to skip Hillary Clinton's campaign launch
<http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150610/BLOGS04/150609865/de-blasio-likely-to-skip-hillary-clintons-campaign-launch>
// Crain’s New York // Andrew Hawkins – June 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to formally launch her presidential campaign
on Roosevelt Island Saturday, but Mayor Bill de Blasio's office would not
say Tuesday whether her friend, former campaign manager and erstwhile
supporter will attend.

A spokesman for the mayor did not respond to numerous requests for comment
on Ms. Clinton's rally, the second major event of her presidential campaign
to take place in New York City. Even so, the mayor of the city, a stalwart
progressive Democrat, is unlikely to attend. He was absent from her speech
on criminal justice at Columbia University in April. And despite numerous
questions, the mayor has steadfastly declined to endorse her campaign,
asserting that he wants to hear more "vision" from the candidate on income
inequality and other such matters.

"Each of the candidates is beginning to address these issues," he said on
CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. "I'm waiting to hear a fuller vision from
each on how we’ll actually tackle income inequality." Asked if that
included Ms. Clinton, whom he has known for several decades and whose 2000
Senate campaign he managed, the mayor said, "Absolutely."

When questioned about whether an invitation had been extended to Mr. de
Blasio to Saturday's rally, a spokesman for Ms. Clinton's campaign said he
had no information. Some supporters were perplexed by the mayor's behavior.

"It strikes me as surreal and bizarre that de Blasio will be missing in
action this Saturday when the presumptive candidate of his party has chosen
to launch her candidacy in his city and host her campaign headquarters in
his home borough," said a New York City-based operative close to the
Clinton campaign.

Letitia James, the public advocate and Clinton supporter, plans to be
there, but not City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who has yet to
endorse a candidate. A spokesman for Comptroller Scott Stringer did not
reply.

Much of the mayor's waffling has to do with his own national ambitions,
namely his 13-point Progressive Agenda and his plans to host a presidential
debate on income inequality later this year. As Mr. de Blasio sees it, he
has to withhold his endorsement in order to remain a credible, unattached
and authoritative voice in the national debate surrounding the politics of
poverty.

Also, the mayor might lose credibility with his liberal fan base and lose
leverage to move Ms. Clinton to the left if he were to endorse her before
she takes a strong stand on his priorities, such as a much higher minimum
wage and more taxation of the wealthy.

"Since she's appearing as a candidate and he's still neutral in the race,
it would be strange for him to show up," said Kenneth Sherrill, professor
of political science at Hunter College. "Showing up would be taken to be an
endorsement. In this case, not showing up is good manners."

*Democrats Line Up Hillary Clinton For Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
<http://talkbusiness.net/2015/06/democrats-line-up-hillary-clinton-for-jefferson-jackson-dinner/>
// Talk Business – June 10, 2015 *

Arkansas Democrats are getting ready for Hillary.

The Democratic Party of Arkansas announced Wednesday that former First
Lady, U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the
keynote speaker at its Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in July.

The 2016 Presidential contender will speak to state Democrats on Saturday,
July 18 at Verizon Arena in North Little Rock.

“We are very excited to officially announce our 2015 Jefferson-Jackson
Dinner, featuring special guest Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton,” said DPA
Chairman Vince Insalaco. “I know you’re as excited as I am that the former
First Lady of Arkansas and the United States and now candidate for
President of the United States will be coming to our state to join us for
this incredible evening.”

“As Arkansas’s first lady, Hillary worked tirelessly to secure a better
future for our children and families – a responsibility that she continued
as the First Lady of the United States, a U.S. Senator, and as Secretary of
State. We are excited to welcome her to an Arkansas homecoming that
celebrates both that progress and looks towards a hopeful future,” Insalaco
added in the statement.

*Clinton Has Edge Among Mass. Voters; Gov. Baker Remains Popular
<http://www.wbur.org/2015/06/10/wbur-poll-clinton-baker> // WBUR // Fred
Thys – June 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in the
Massachusetts Democratic primary in 2008, but Massachusetts voters do not
have a very high opinion of her currently, a new WBUR statewide poll
(topline results, crosstabs) shows.

Of 502 registered Massachusetts voters surveyed late last week, only 48
percent of respondents have a favorable view of Clinton. That’s compared to
38 percent of poll respondents who view her unfavorably.

Clinton is least popular among Republicans, as only 24 percent of
Republicans view her favorably. But she’s also relatively unpopular among
the state’s largest group of voters, the unenrolled: Only 42 percent of
unenrolled voters view her favorably, compared with 43 percent who view her
unfavorably. It’s only among Democrats that Clinton enjoys a favorable
image, with 66 percent of Democrats responding positively.

How voters view Clinton varies greatly depending on their race, the survey
found. Only 44 percent of white voters view her favorably, compared with 73
percent of voters of all other races.

Clinton is most popular in the Boston area, with 54 percent of voters in
Boston and surrounding cities and towns viewing her favorably. Clinton is
in the Boston area Wednesday, attending a fundraiser in Newton.

She is least popular in western and central Massachusetts, where only 43
percent of voters view her favorably.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., listens to testimony on Capitol Hill in
February. Warren has publicly declared she will not be running for
president. (Susan Walsh/AP)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., listens to testimony on Capitol Hill in
February. Warren has publicly declared she will not be running for
president. (Susan Walsh/AP)

Still, by a large margin, most Democrats and unenrolled voters who say they
are more likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary than in the
Republican primary say they would vote for Clinton (58 percent).

Although U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren remains well liked in Massachusetts —
53 percent of respondents view her favorably — she comes in a distant
second to Clinton, with 16 percent, among voters who say they are more
likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.

Warren has said she’s not running, and 67 percent of poll respondents say
they do not expect her to run.

The WBUR live phone survey was conducted by the MassINC Polling Group.
Voters were interviewed last Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The poll’s
margin of error is 4.4 percent.

The poll also finds that Gov. Charlie Baker continues to be highly popular
among Massachusetts voters.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents view Baker, a Republican, favorably,
compared with just 10 percent who view him unfavorably.

He’s most popular among Republicans. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans
view Baker favorably. But he’s also extremely popular among unenrolled
voters, as 72 percent of these voters view him favorably. And even
Democrats view him favorably. Sixty-three percent of Democrats have a
favorable view of him.

Among women, 64 percent have a favorable view of the governor. But Baker is
more popular among men, with a 75 percent favorability.

Among the state’s over-60 voters, Baker remains popular with a 76 percent
favorable rating. His rating is lowest among the youngest voters, 18-29,
though still relatively popular among them at 57 percent favorable.

The poll, as we reported earlier Wednesday, also finds 49 percent of voters
opposing Boston hosting the Olympics in 2024, with only 39 percent
supporting the idea.

*No blueprint on cutting college debt
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/06/10/democrats-calls-for-debt-free-college-are-next-frontier-social-programs-but-lack-realistic-funding-plan/vPHHKWMQdNnNBbs83qXmmM/story.html>
// Boston Globe // Tracy Jan – June 11, 2015*

WASHINGTON — Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is calling for zero tuition
at public colleges. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley says he will
fight to erase debt for college graduates. Hillary Rodham Clinton, at a
recent campaign event in Iowa, endorsed the goal of slashing such debt.

Promises to reduce, or even eliminate, the financial burdens of higher
education represent the newest frontier in Democrats’ call for
taxpayer-sponsored social programs. The anxiety-inducing $1.3 trillion in
student debt has quickly become a focus of the 2016 Democratic presidential
primary contest.

But while the concept is attracting attention from financially challenged
middle-class families, details are scarce on how government should pay for
potentially the costliest initiatives since President Obama’s health care
overhaul.

The one concrete source of funding comes from Sanders, who proposes a new
tax on Wall Street transactions. While that idea draws cheers from his
populist fan base, it would be a political long shot for passage in today’s
Washington.

Sanders also has produced the only guess at the huge costs: three quarters
of a trillion dollars over the first decade.

“This is a politically popular idea, but the solutions are hard and
expensive,” said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American
Council on Education, a nonpartisan policy and lobbying group in Washington
for colleges and universities. “How you pay for it very quickly becomes a
seriously complicating issue.”

Meanwhile, the effect of student debt on the national economy — frequently
cited on the campaign trail as a key reason to ease the burden — is hard to
measure. While politicians often link higher student debt to lower rates of
homeownership, entrepreneurship, and retirement savings, no one can point
to a reliable figure quantifying the effect of the debt on the overall
economy.

‘This is a politically popular idea, but the solutions are hard and
expensive.’

Quote Icon

“I would say it’s overreaching given the current landscape of research to
suggest a link between student debt and a drain on the economy,” said Beth
Akers, a Brookings fellow whose research focuses on the economics of higher
education.

The squishiness of the candidates’ proposals is giving conservative critics
easy ammunition to denounce the ideas as nothing more than liberal talking
points.

“This has quickly become a rallying cry for Democrats and advocates and
also somewhat of a litmus test for candidates: Are you with us or against
us on this?” said Andrew Kelly, director of the Center on Higher Education
Reform at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank
based in Washington. “I see why it’s enticing as an election- year slogan,
but there are some serious flaws.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, got out front on the
issue in 2013 when her first bill as senator called for reducing the
interest rates that government charges student borrowers. Since then, goals
have become far more sweeping.

Nudged along by liberal Democrats, party members in both the Senate and
House are also looking for greater access to debt-free higher education.
Warren, along with Senators Brian Schatz of Hawaii, and Chuck Schumer of
New York, introduced a nonbinding resolution in April calling for states to
reduce tuition at public schools; for the federal government to increase
financial aid; and for a program that allows students to refinance loans at
lower rates.

But the resolution has no teeth, and it makes no mention of how to pay for
any of its lofty goals.

Warren, in an interview Wednesday, said the idea for the resolution is to
“push us in the right direction.”

“We should be doing more as a country to leverage our federal dollars to
give the schools incentives to drive down costs and to encourage states to
invest more in their flagship schools,” Warren said. “We need resources and
incentives to bring down costs. This is a one-two punch.”

Representative Katherine Clark, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a
parallel resolution in the House, along with Representatives Raul Grijalva
of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats.

Clark, in an interview, acknowledged that without money attached to the
resolution, it is simply a political guidepost, a “first step” in a
national conversation.

So far, the resolution has garnered more than 70 cosponsors among Democrats
in Congress, including Senators Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Richard
Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.

“Our ultimate goal is to make debt-free college central to the 2016
election and signal to the candidates that if they embrace the idea, they
won’t be out on a limb,” said Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee, which lobbied Congress on the resolutions.

Borrowers owe an average of $28,400 in federal and private loans combined,
according to the Project on Student Debt by the Institute for College
Access & Success.

A May poll by Rasmussen Reports found that Democrats, women, and younger
voters were more likely to believe that the government should pay for
college. But among the 800 adults surveyed, Americans were nearly evenly
split — 43 percent agreed with the government paying for college and 40
percent disagreed.

Marv McMoore Jr., former president of College Democrats of Massachusetts,
who graduated from Northeastern University last month, recently moved back
home with his parents on Long Island to save money while he attends
graduate school at Fordham University in New York City.

The son of an auto mechanic, McMoore is the first in his immediate family
to graduate from college. The 21-year-old estimates that he will have
$60,000 of student loan debt by the time he receives his master’s degree
next year. He views the debt-free college campaign as a way to energize a
new generation of voters. “With voter apathy among young folks, this is a
way to attract them back to the polls,” McMoore said.

The recent push goes further than President Obama’s proposal in January to
make two years of community college free — which the White House estimated
would cost the federal government $60 billion over 10 years but which
stands little chance of passing. A White House official said the president
is encouraged that Congress is engaged in the conversation but would not
say whether Obama supports the debt- or tuition-free proposals.

Sanders’ bill, which was introduced last month and has yet to draw
supporters in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, would cost $750 billion
over 10 years, according to his office.

Under the legislation, two-thirds of the cost of tuition and fees would be
borne by the federal government and the rest by the states. The federal
share would come from a tax on Wall Street. The bill would also eliminate
federal profits on loans, build on existing work-study programs to defray
costs, and offer incentives for colleges to keep tuition down.

Making public colleges free, said Sanders, an independent running for the
Democratic nomination, is the most efficient way to “create the
best-educated workforce that we can have.” But critics say they fear the
plans to inject more federal money to ease college debt would only prompt
college costs to balloon and leave taxpayers on the hook.

Said Lindsey Burke, a fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation: “We
need to think of policies that actually fix the college cost problem, not
take taxpayer dollars filtered through government programs and increased
subsidies.”

*Clinton plans ‘Launch Party’ in Concord during Monday visit
<http://www.wmur.com/politics/clinton-plans-launch-party-in-concord-during-monday-visit/33512302>
// WMUR // John DiStaso – June 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton will host her first New Hampshire event that is open to the
general public on Monday, WMUR has learned.

The Democratic presidential candidate will make her third visit to the
state since announcing her candidacy in mid-April and will hold a “Launch
Party with Hillary” in Concord at a venue and time to be announced, the
campaign said. Those attending must RSVP and register on the Clinton web
site.

The Concord event, which is free, will be among at least three stops she
will make in the state that day.

She will also appear at the ticketed Manchester Democratic City Committee
Flag Day Dinner at the Puritan Backroom Conference Center at 5 p.m. At
least one other stop is being planned, the campaign said.

The visit will take place two days after her formal presidential campaign
announcement rally in New York City.

In her prior two visits to the state, Clinton has held roundtables and
gatherings with invited guests and what the campaign said were members of
the public who expressed an interest in attending. She also met with
Granite Staters at a quick stop at an ice cream stand in Derry.

*How Huma Abedin became Hillary Clinton's confidante and 'translator'
<https://fortune.com/2015/06/10/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-aide/> //
Fortune // Nina Easton – June 10, 2015 *

Huma Abedin started as an intern at the Clinton White House. Now she is
Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, even in controversies.

When Huma Abedin first joined the Clinton White House in the 1990s, she
hoped to be assigned to the press office. Growing up in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, she had longed to be a journalist—specifically Christiane Amanpour
who “looked purposeful—and glamorous.” Instead, she was assigned to Hillary
Clinton’s chief of staff, Melanne Verveer.

“Take a chance,” her mother counseled her disappointed daughter, according
to Abedin. “Don’t be afraid of what you don’t know. And don’t fall in love
with Plan A.” Plan B paid off–big time. Two decades later, Abedin is at the
center of Clinton’s presidential bid, with a title of campaign vice chair.
And by most accounts, she is candidate Clinton’s closest aide—“Hillary’s
translator,” as one insider puts it.

Abedin is the high-fashion figure glued to Clinton’s side—passing notes,
whispering in her ear, working her cell phone. During Clinton’s 2008
campaign–when Abedin served as the candidate’s “body woman”— Clinton
communications aide Mandy Grunwald told Vogue: “I’m not sure Hillary could
walk out the door without Huma. She’s a little like Radar on M*A*S*H. If
the air-conditioning is too cold, Huma is there with the shawl. She’s
always thinking three steps ahead of Hillary.”

Two years ago, Abedin and her disgraced congressman husband Anthony Weiner
were emerging from the carnage of his sexting scandal. The New York Times
described the young couple’s life with their toddler as “in retreat.” She
served as deputy chief of staff under Secretary of State Clinton while he
planned his (ultimately unsuccessful) political comeback running for New
York mayor.

As deputy chief of staff under Secretary of State Clinton, Abedin has spent
hundreds of air-travel hours with Hillary, developing a relationship that
colleagues describes as familial–along with an encyclopedic knowledge of
the people and projects that populate the complicated global tangle of
Clinton-world. A master of the “velvet no,” Abedin calmly manages time
demands on her candidate with apologetic grace.

But her tightness with Clinton also has costs. She’s been caught up in
questions about the propriety of the then-Secretary of State’s private
email server, and she is the target of an inspector general
inquiry—prompted by a Senate Republican– into whether Clinton acted
properly in hiring Abedin for government work even while she was employed
by the private consulting firm Teneo Holdings. Abedin is also among the
State Department aides on the list to be called as witnesses in a House
committee investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been the sun of Abedin’s solar system ever
since she joined the White House as an intern at age 21. Her late father,
of Indian descent, was a university lecturer and her mother a sociology
professor; both received their PhD’s from the University of Pennsylvania.
Born in Kalamazoo, Michigan before moving to Saudi Arabia, Abedin speaks
fluent Arabic. She graduated from George Washington University.

At a 2012 Fortune dinner, Abedin said she has learned to take the advice of
her mother, and the value of Plan B. “Sixteen years later, I wouldn’t
change a thing,” she said at the time. “And I got to meet Christiane
Amanpour.”

Read more profiles of the top women behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign
operation. Next up: Women behind the GOP candidates.

*Clinton Foundation donors have a bribery problem
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-donors-bribery-problem/article/2565919>
// The Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – June 10, 2015 *

Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury's connections to the Clintons have
come under scrutiny following revelations that State Department policy may
have benefited him personally while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of
state.

A pair of Clinton Foundation donors with financial ties to the former first
family have both been at the center of major corruption cases, raising
questions about why they chose to give millions to the Clintons' charity.

Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury's connections to the Clintons have
come under scrutiny following revelations that State Department policy may
have benefited him personally while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of
state.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has repeatedly pressed the State Department for
documentation of Hillary Clinton's decision not to place Boko Haram on the
terrorist watch list while serving as secretary of state.

"Disturbingly, while the department was refusing to make the [foreign
terrorist organization] designation, former President Bill Clinton, also
the head of the Clinton Foundation and account owner of the Clinton email
domain, participated in events with a long-time donor and major Nigerian
land developer, Gilbert Chagoury, who previously agreed to a $66 million
plea deal during international investigation into corruption charges
against him," Vitter wrote in a March letter to Secretary of State John
Kerry.

"We need to know if Mr. Chagoury had any influence in the decision not to
designate Boko Haram a [foreign terrorist organization], or had any other
influence with Secretary Clinton's foreign policy decisions," Vitter added.

Chagoury's financial support of the Clintons has raised red flags in the
past. In 1996, he was reportedly prodded by a Democratic National Committee
fundraiser to give $460,000 to a nonprofit voter registration group that
later won the DNC's business.

The group, Vote Now 96, drew attention "from congressional investigators
because of its connections to the DNC and indications that in some cases,
at least, donors ineligible to give to the party were steered to the voters
group," the Washington Post reported in 1997.

Chagoury was one such ineligible donor whose gift to the supposedly
nonpartisan organization nonetheless earned him a seat at a White House
dinner for top DNC donors months later "although he is not a party
contributor and could not legally give to the Democrats," according to the
same Washington Post report.

Chagoury's donation was solicited by Mark Weiner, a top Democratic bundler
who will co-host a fundraiser for Clinton's presidential campaign in Rhode
Island Wednesday.

Chagoury was an adviser to Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, who held power in
Nigeria from 1993-98. He reportedly paid the incoming Nigerian government
$300 million to avoid prosecution after Abacha's death.

Chagoury was "believed to have acted as a middleman for the late and
corrupt Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha," according to the American Criminal
Law Review.

Nigerian media outlets reported Chagoury and his brother, Jack, were among
80 local officials who were indicted in the Halliburton bribery scandal in
2010. The case alleged the Chagoury brothers were involved in a series of
bribes to Nigerian officials that preceded Halliburton's acquisition of
lucrative oil contracts in the country.

In April 2011, a Lebanese media outlet reported Fouad Siniora, prime
minister of Lebanon, "suggested that the U.S. deliver to Chagoury a stern
message about the possibility of financial sanctions and travel bans
against those who undermine Lebanon's legitimate institutions."

Siniora's call for sanctions against Chagoury came after his ties to
Lebanese officials gave the impression that he was interfering in Lebanese
politics.

Chagoury did not return a request for comment.

But Chagoury isn't the only international businessman whose checkered past
has raised questions about the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of generous
donations from foreigners accused of bribery.

Victor Dahdaleh, a Canadian businessman and trustee of the Clinton
Foundation, was arrested in October 2011 for his alleged role in a bribery
scheme that funneled kickbacks from aluminum conglomerate Alcoa to
Aluminium Bahrain.

Dahdaleh reportedly traveled with Bill Clinton through Europe in 2009,
shortly after Hillary Clinton took office, and arranged speaking
engagements for the former president dating back to 2005.

The U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office dropped its case against Dahdaleh in
December 2013 after key witnesses backed down, Reuters reported.

The British agency had tapped lawyers from Akin Gum Strayss Hauer and Field
to probe the bribery allegations, the same lawyers representing Aluminium
Bahrain in "a 'hotly contested' U.S. civil lawsuit against Dahdaleh," which
raised "a potential conflict of interest between their assistance to the
[Serious Fraud Office] and their own interests in the U.S. legal action."

Akin Gump is also a Clinton Foundation donor.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*O’MALLEY*

*Martin O'Malley Backs Controversial Cybersecurity Bill
<http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/10/martin-omalley-backs-controversial-cybersecurity-bill>
// US News // Tom Risen – June 10, 2015 *

Cybersecurity is getting heightened attention in the wake of what could be
the largest hack of government networks ever, and former Maryland Gov.
Martin O'Malley is presenting himself as the best Democratic presidential
candidate to confront the issue.

In an op-ed published Tuesday in Foreign Policy, O'Malley blamed
congressional gridlock for delay of legislation he said could protect U.S.
networks. Touting his work supporting cybersecurity investment as governor
and as co-chairman of the Council of Governors, he said the data breach of
the Office of Personnel Management shows "the urgent need to advance a new
agenda to improve our nation's cybersecurity."

The Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building that houses the Office of Personnel
Management headquarters is shown June 5, 2015 in Washington, D.C. U.S.
investigators have said that at least 4 million current and former federal
employees might have had their personal information stolen by Chinese
hackers.

The hack that affected up to 4 million current and former government
workers originated in China, federal investigators have determined, but it
is unclear whether the country's Communist government was involved.
O'Malley called on the Senate to respond to the data breach by passing the
Protecting Cyber Networks Act, which would offer legal protections to
companies and enable them to share with the government more information
about threats to their networks.

The White House backs the cybersecurity legislation, which passed the House
in April, but it also wants changes made in the Senate. Along with calling
for amendments to limit the collection and sharing of unnecessary consumer
data, the administration said giving companies too much legal protection
for failing to protect consumer privacy or to act on hacker threat data
"may weaken cybersecurity writ large." Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., announced on Wednesday that he wants to expedite passage
of the Senate version of the bill, called the Cybersecurity Information
Sharing Act, by attaching it to the National Defense Authorization Act now
on the Senate floor.

Cybersecurity professionals, however, remain convinced both pieces of
legislation could damage privacy rights and endanger networks by sharing
unnecessary information.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who are both
presidential candidates, reportedly oppose the Senate bill because of the
similar concerns about privacy, U.S. News has learned. O'Malley noted these
concerns in his op-ed when he talked about his support for the Protecting
Cyber Networks Act.

"After making changes to protect consumer data and ensure the appropriate
level of legal protection for companies, Congress should pass this
legislation," O'Malley said in the op-ed. "We need to ensure that privacy
issues are directly and adequately addressed in order to build the trust
necessary for businesses and other organizations to work with the
government on the safeguards we need to protect both."

McConnell's move to attach cybersecurity legislation to a must-pass defense
funding bill would damage the process to address privacy concerns, the
Center for Democracy & Technology said in a blog post on Wednesday. The
advocacy group warned that the Senate cybersecurity bill could enable the
expansion of government surveillance and would not address the conduct of
the National Security Agency and other agencies. The advocacy group wants
the bill to discourage government conduct that could damage cybersecurity,
including the stockpiling of "zero day" vulnerabilities in consumer
software that could allow intelligence agencies to monitor or hack networks.

"This move would almost certainly stifle necessary debate on the privacy
and civil liberties problems in the bill and thwart amendments that
Senators have been crafting to address those problems," the blog post said.

A group of engineers from firms including Twitter and Cisco on April 16
sent a letter opposing the bill to House and Senate lawmakers, adding that
security professionals already share threat data while complying with
federal law.

"We do not need new legal authorities to share information that helps us
protect systems from future attacks," the letter reads.

Strong national cybersecurity is a bipartisan issue likely to be advocated
by all presidential candidates, but Congress has failed to pass a
comprehensive bill on the issue in recent years because of concerns related
to privacy protection. Support for stronger privacy on the issue could be a
way for a candidate to stand apart in the 2016 election.

*2016 hopeful O’Malley steps out on cybersecurity
<http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244504-2016-hopeful-omalley-steps-out-on-cybersecurity>
// The Hill // Cory Bennett – June 10, 2015 *

Martin O’Malley is trying to make his mark as the Democratic presidential
candidate most focused on cybersecurity.

The former Maryland governor on Tuesday penned an essay for Foreign Policy
that laid out his cyber agenda in the wake of the recent breach that
exposed 4 million federal workers’ records at the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM).

“A new agenda is urgently needed to improve our nation’s cybersecurity,”
O’Malley said.

The OPM hack has suddenly thrust cybersecurity into the 2016 election.

GOP hopefuls have used the breach to lambaste President Obama’s policy on
China, chastising him for not standing up to the Asian power.

But candidates seeking the Democratic nomination have been mostly mum on
cybersecurity. Neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the
presumptive front-runner, nor Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made an
issue of the OPM breach.

O’Malley’s essay wasn’t directly critical of Obama, but he did argue the
government needs to better promote collaboration between the public and
private sector, while also boosting funds for state-level initiatives to
bolster the nation’s cyber defenses.

“Greater security requires greater investment,” O’Malley said. “Investing
more resources in cybersecurity is an economic and national security
priority.”

He pointed to the stalled cyber bill in Congress that would shield
companies from legal liability when sharing data with the government about
hackers. By enhancing this information exchange, the bill’s backers believe
the country can better understand and defend against cyber threats.

But concerns the measure will simply shuttle more private data to
intelligence agencies have caused it languish in the upper chamber. Senate
Republicans are now trying to attach the offering to the annual defense
spending bill in an effort to speed up its timeline.

“We need to ensure that privacy issues are directly and adequately
addressed in order to build the trust necessary for businesses and other
organizations to work with the government on the safeguards we need to
protect both,” O’Malley said.

O’Malley also promoted state-level cyber investment, recalling his time as
co-chairman of the Council of Governors.

“We pushed for every state’s National Guard to develop cybersecurity units,
which could be established quickly and affordably, and tap the skill sets
of civilians,” he said. “The federal government should support these
efforts with financial and technical assistance.”

He contended that he applied all of these agenda items during his time as
Maryland governor. He pointed to CyberMaryland, “an initiative to attract
and convene new cybersecurity firms.”

“We targeted more than 40,000 state employees for cybersecurity training
and conducted vulnerability assessments to test resilience to attacks,” he
said. “We also created a cybersecurity tax credit and launched a program to
train 1,000 workers for the industry.”

Cybersecurity was not a major campaign issue in the 2014 cycle, so it
remains to be seen whether this flare-up lasts into the heat of the 2016
election season.

“Our digital information and networks are critical to our economic might
and national security,” O’Malley said. “We should treat them like the
precious resources that they are.”

*SANDERS*

*Bernie Sanders Denies Internet Claim on Dual Israeli Citizenship
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/10/bernie-sanders-denies-internet-claim-on-dual-israeli-citizenship/>
// NYT // Gerry Mullany – June 10, 2015*

Senator Bernie Sanders declared in a radio interview on Wednesday that “I
do not have dual citizenship with Israel,” batting away an incorrect
assertion that has cropped up on the Internet.

The Democratic presidential hopeful was appearing on the Diane Rehm Show on
public radio when the topic came up. At one point, Ms. Rehm said to Mr.
Sanders, “Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.”

To which Mr. Sanders replied, “I do not have dual citizenship with Israel.”
He then added, “I’m an American.”

“I don’t know where that question came from,” he said

“I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of
occasions,” Mr. Sanders continued. “No, I’m an American citizen, period.”

Mr. Sanders, who is Jewish, blamed the misinformation on “the nonsense that
goes on in the Internet.”

Mr. Sanders then noted that his father came to the United States from
Poland “at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket.”

Ms. Rehm, who herself comes from an ethnic Arab heritage of Greek Orthodox
Syrian background, also asked Mr. Sanders if there were “members of
Congress who do have dual citizenship or is that part of the fable?” Mr.
Sanders replied that he did not know.

Internet searches provide numerous lists incorrectly showing scores of
members of Congress and high-level members of the Obama administration
holding dual American-Israeli citizenship. Ms. Rehm did not say where she
got her information.

*De Blasio to Skip Clinton Rally, Praises Rival Sanders
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/10/de-blasio-to-skip-clinton-rally-praises-rival-sanders/>
// WSJ // Erica Orden – June 10, 2015 *

One of Hillary Clinton’s rivals for the 2016 Democratic presidential
nomination received an informal boost Wednesday from a curious source: Mrs.
Clinton’s former campaign manager, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Mr. de Blasio, who managed Mrs. Clinton’s winning 2000 campaign for Senate
and supported her 2008 presidential bid, said at an unrelated news
conference that “I’ve always liked what I heard from Bernie Sanders,” the
independent Vermont senator who is running for the Democratic 2016
nomination.

“I think Bernie Sanders is a great senator, is a great voice for a fair
society and a fair economy,” he said.

Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, also said that he wouldn’t attend Mrs. Clinton’s
campaign rally on Saturday in New York City, on Roosevelt Island.

“I’m waiting to hear, as I’ve said, her larger vision for addressing income
inequality,” Mr. de Blasio said when asked if he would attend her June 13
event. “I look forward to that.”

Mr. de Blasio has sought lately to cast himself as a national voice for
liberalism.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton didn’t immediately respond a question about
whether Mr. de Blasio was invited to the rally, nor to a request for
comment on the mayor’s remarks about Mr. Sanders.

The mayor also praised Mrs. Clinton more extensively on Wednesday than he
has since the start of her campaign.

“I’ve been very impressed by the comment she’s given so far on a host of
issues,’’ he said.

“I saw her speech on voting rights — it was very powerful,” he said. “I
thought her vision for that was exactly right. I’m very impressed by her
criminal justice reform speech. What I am waiting to hear about is the
fight against income inequality, how we raise wages and benefits.”

Mrs. Clinton last week proposed that Americans be automatically registered
to vote when they turn 18, unless they opt out, and called for an expansion
of early-voting opportunities across the country.

Mr. de Blasio has had a lengthy relationship with both Mrs. Clinton and
former President Bill Clinton, in whose administration he worked as an
official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This isn’t the first time Mr. de Blasio has distanced himself from Mrs.
Clinton’s campaign or expressed reservations about her platform. In recent
months he has said repeatedly that he hasn’t decided whether to endorse her
2016 presidential bid.

In April, Mr. de Blasio said in an interview on NBC that he wouldn’t
endorse her “until I see an actual vision of where they want to go.”

“She’s a tremendous public servant,” he told NBC. “I think she is one of
the most qualified people to ever run for this office. And by the way,
thoroughly vetted, we can say that. But we need to see the substance.”

*Sanders wants war spending paid for
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/244587-sanders-wants-to-pay-for-war-fund>
// The Hill // Jordain Carney – June 10, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to require Congress to pay for any
spending in the Pentagon's war fund.

Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, is offering
an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would
require that lawmakers offset spending in the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) fund by raising new revenues.

Congress isn't currently required to pay for any spending through OCO. The
war fund also isn't subjected to the congressionally mandated budget caps
under the sequester.

Sanders has long criticized Congress for not paying for wars, and a fact
sheet from his office says that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars "were put on
the nation's credit card while the president cut taxes for millionaires and
billionaires at the same time."

The 2016 contender's amendment to the defense policy bill comes after he
called for a "war tax" earlier this year.

Sanders wanted to include a new tax on millionaires to finance the
country's wars as part of a budget resolution.

Critics argue that the fund, meant to pay for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and now financing operations against the Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria, has turned into a slush fund for the Pentagon.

Sanders faces an uphill path to getting his amendment approved as part of
the defense policy bill. Though Democrats have taken aim at an additional
$38 billion in war funding included in the defense policy bill, they failed
to gain enough support to fence off the money until Congress reaches a deal
on the budget caps under the sequester.

*Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html>
// Slate // Mark Joseph Stern – June 10, 2015 *

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he
was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal
wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said
Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted
FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should
remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one
issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control.
During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control
bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent
memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit
against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much
about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture
of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the
interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted
against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun
purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders
supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and
block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed
Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun
violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the
strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a
profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some
modest gun control measures.)

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative:
Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun
laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his
constituents’ firearms enthusiasm. And a close friend of Sanders once said
that the senator “thinks there’s an elitism in the anti-gun movement.”

The act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded.

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and
profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect
gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and
importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National
Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from
most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the
most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders
voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

Because the PLCAA deals with tort law—not a topic of great interest for
most Americans—it didn’t stir much outrage when first passed. But the act’s
primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes
liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale
of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I
can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child
dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently
leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager
with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who
illegally sold a knife to a minor.

Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun
makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could
slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its
victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could
foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a
customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer
opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently
providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state
differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence
and their families could recover financially from the people and companies
who negligently enabled gun violence.

The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability
laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of
narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims
of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a
wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions,
victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic
weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury
decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its
verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and
fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received
Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and
2005 (when it finally passed).

Every few years, the families of mass shooting victims take gun makers to
court for creating a weapon seemingly designed to kill as many people as
possible in as short a time as possible. Every time, they run headfirst
into the PLCAA. Right now, the families of Sandy Hook victims are searching
for a loophole in the law, so they can sue Bushmaster for making the gun
that sent 154 bullets through 20 children and six adults in 264 seconds.
They will probably fail.

Several liberal congressional representatives have recently spoken out
against the PLCAA, and if Democrats retake both houses of Congress, they
may make repealing the law a priority. Hillary Clinton, who voted against
the act as a senator, would almost certainly sign a repeal bill. Would a
President Bernie Sanders? Until he says otherwise, we have every reason to
believe the ostensible progressive hero would stand behind the vile
legislation he championed just a decade ago.

*Lead, follow or get out of the way: Bernie Sanders opts for latter in
Islamic State fight
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/10/bernie-sanders-opts-us-get-out-way-islamic-state-f/>
// The Washington Times // S.A. Miller – June 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders said Wednesday that
the United States should not take a leading role in the war against the
terrorist army known as Islamic State.

He said Middle East countries should “step up” and lead the fight to turn
back the advancing Islamist terrorists in Iraq.

“At the end of the day … I do not believe the United States can or should
lead the effort in that part of the world. What is taking place now is a
war for the soul of Islam,” Mr. Sanders said on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show.

Mr. Sanders, an avowed socialist from Vermont, said that countries such as
Saudi Arabia, which has the third-largest defense budget in the world,
Turkey, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates should “step up to the plate
and lead.”

He said the United States and Western countries would play a supporting
role.

Mr. Sanders‘ comments come as President Obama is considering a Pentagon
proposal to send 400 more U.S. troops to beef up the training of Sunni
forces in Iraq, hoping to turn back advances by the Islamic State, which is
also known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL.

The proposed build-up follows criticism of Mr. Obama saying Monday that he
doesn’t yet have a “complete strategy” to combat the Islamic State.

“I think everyone understands ISIS is a barbaric organization and that they
must be defeated,” said Mr. Sanders, though he added it wasn’t worth the
cost of getting the U.S. drawn into another Middle East war.

“But here is my nightmare, and I see it moving forward every day,” he said.
“You have a lot of Republicans who apparently did not learn anything from
the never-ending war in Afghanistan, learned nothing from what happened in
Iraq and want us in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. I’m strongly
opposed to that.”

Mr. Sanders‘ is waging a long-shot campaign to overtake front-runner
Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

*CHAFEE*

*Chafee: Hillary is 'more like the Republicans'
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/244532-chafee-hillary-is-more-like-the-republicans>
// The Hill // Jesse Byrnes – June 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee on Wednesday likened
Hillary Clinton to a Republican, citing her hawkish positions on foreign
policy.

"Really the main difference is our approach to the world," Chafee said in
an interview Wednesday on "Fox and Friends," mentioning ongoing conflicts
in the Middle East.

"She's more like the Republicans," Chafee said. "My argument is, you won't
have a choice if Secretary Clinton is the Democratic nominee because she's
so similar to the Republicans."

He echoed that sentiment in another interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe,"
suggesting his party nominate "someone that differs from the Republican
approach to the world."

"Where we're going in the world — her tenure as secretary of State, her
vote for the Iraq war — kind of indicates a similarity to the Republican
candidates that are running," he said on MSNBC.

The former Rhode Island governor is mounting a long-shot bid against
Clinton, who is running well ahead of all her rivals for the Democratic
presidential nomination.

Chafee has dished up relentless criticism of Clinton's 2002 vote as a
senator authorizing the Iraq war, and has described her muscular approach
to foreign policy as similar to the neo-conservatives who were part of the
George W. Bush administration.

Last week he also discussed "questionable ethics practices" that have
followed Clinton over the years.

"I think that our candidates should stick to the ideas that draw a contrast
between our party and our party's agenda and the Republicans," Democratic
National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) said on CNN
when pressed whether Chafee's comments were appropriate.

Chafee somewhat doubled down Wednesday over his criticism of Clinton.

"Well obviously she has a credibility problem over a long history of
ethical questions, most recently with the emails and the Clinton Foundation
donations," he said on MSNBC.

"But really my main criticism, if I could, is in her approach to the world.
And that's really what I want to talk about in the campaign."

*The hidden history behind Lincoln Chafee’s metric proposal
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-hidden-history-behind-lincoln-chafees-metric-proposal>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – June 10, 2015 *

When Democrat Lincoln Chafee told a group of mostly young journalists and
even younger college students that if elected president he would convert
the U.S. to the metric system, the response in the room was laughter.

Virtually every other country in the world uses the metric system. But for
this millennial audience, the idea of the U.S. making a switch seemed on
par with the moon colonies of Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential campaign.

For critics who have followed Chafee’s political career more closely in
Rhode Island, it was entirely in character. “He is very consistent in his
bizarro world. That was not a bad day. It’ll come up every day,” said Steve
Laffey, who challenged Chafee in the 2006 Republican Senate primary.
(Chafee was a Republican until 2007.) “He’s a good guy, he’s just odd,”
Laffey added.

Chafee framed his push for a switch to metric as a way for the U.S. to
improve its status in a world where every country except Liberia and
Myanmar uses the metric system. Despite that goal, it’s hard to find anyone
— including metric advocates — taking Chafee’s proposal seriously.

That’s because measurement is woven into to the most fundamental parts of
life, from how Americans cook our food (in Fahrenheit), commute to work (in
miles), build our homes (in feet), and clothe ourselves (in inches). It
would take an enormous psychological change and a huge expenditure of
political capital to convert a country of 315 million people to metric.

That was, in fact, the argument against converting made in the 1970s by
former Rhode Island Sen. John Chafee, Lincoln Chafee’s father, who said the
government had far more important issues to tackle than metrication, as the
conversion is known.

In addition, even advocates for the metric system concede that American
exceptionalism and its cultural identity are bad fits for a francophone
international measurement system.

“We have this thing where the metric system is seen as un-American. It’s a
really emotional issue for some people,” said Paul Trusten of the U.S.
Metric Association, which has been leading the charge for metrication for
the past 99 years.

When the Federal Highway Administration announced in 1977 that it was going
to start putting kilometers on signs, it was inundated with 6,000 public
letters, many from people who saw the system as communist plot. “This
change to the Metric System is just part of the Communist Diversionary to
keep our country in an uproar,” wrote a man from Kansas City.

Conservatives and even anti-establishment liberals clubbed Jimmy Carter
with metric, and when Reagan essentially killed the conversion in 1982, the
board responsible for pushing metrication conceded there was “overwhelming”
opposition.

Still, Trusten is glad Chafee is raising the issue. ”It’s been silent for
so long, and now people are talking about it,” he said.

For those familiar with the history of the metric system in the U.S.,
Chafee’s idea is both more and less serious than it might appear.

Technically, but only technically, metric has been the official U.S.
measurement standard for more than 100 years. In 1893, after a fire in
London damaged the original British Imperial Yard — the physical metal bar
that determined for the world how long three feet should be — the U.S.
federal agency in charge of measuring stuff started defining U.S.
measurements in relation to their metric counterparts.

Since then, a foot is officially defined as 0.3048 of a meter. A pound is
453.59237 grams. “We’ve actually been on the metric system since 1893, in a
sense,” Trusten said.

For American metric advocates, widespread adoption seemed tantalizingly
just over the horizon for decades or more. The closest the U.S. came to
conversion was in 1975, as other countries were going metric and trade
groups, scientists, engineers and others successfully lobbied Congress to
follow suit. Two days before Christmas that year, President Gerald Ford
signed a law making metric “the preferred system of weights and measures
for United States trade and commerce.”

“To say that this legislation is historic is an understatement,” Ford
declared. But there were warning signs, even then.

The next four presidents offered lip service instead of real action to move
forward with metric. Finally, in the face of political opposition and
status quo bias, momentum petered out to almost zero kilogram meters per
second (the metric measure for momentum).

The U.S. Metric Association maintains a tally every time metrication is
mentioned in the press and academic journals. The graph elegantly shows the
rise and fall of the metric movement in America. Like a cartoon mountain,
discussion of metrication starts near zero around the turn of the 20th
century, then peaked in the mid-1970s, before falling back towards zero by
the turn of the turn of the next century.

In 1982, Reagan defunded and abolished the U.S. Metric Board, which was
supposed to spearhead conversion. That signaled the beginning of the end
for metric conversion, even though Reagan six years later signed an omnibus
law that, tucked deep inside, contained a measure stipulating the metric
system “be used, to the extent economically feasible, in Federal agency’s’
procurements, grants, and other business-related activities.”

So some parts of the federal government have adopted metric, others still
use the old system. A federal law requires consumer products packages to
list both.

That helps explain why wine comes in 750-milliliter bottles, while beer
comes in 12-ounce cans. Nyquil comes in 8-ounce bottles, but its active
ingredients are measured in milligrams. Soda is available in both customary
and metric, with 20-ounce and 2-liter bottles.

But widespread adoption never regained momentum, even after a conversion
error between inches and centimeters was blamed for the crash of NASA’s
$125 million Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999.

Adam Toobin, who founded Students for Chafee at Brown University in Rhode
Island, Chafee’s alma mater and the school where he taught classes between
stints as senator and governor, acknowledged metric may not be the most
obvious way to fire up young people.

“I support it in theory, totally,” he said. “It’s not the perfect issue.
The Internet would make a lot of fun with that one.”

*OTHER*

*Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders and Webb to attend Iowa dinner
<http://www.kwwl.com/story/29288800/clinton-omalley-sanders-and-webb-to-attend-iowa-dinner>
// AP – June 10, 2015 *

Four Democratic presidential hopefuls will appear at an Iowa Democratic
Party event next month.

The state party organization announced Wednesday that their "Hall of Fame"
dinner will be attended by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. All but Webb have officially announced
they are running for president.

The event will be held July 17 in Cedar Rapids. Clinton's Iowa spokeswoman
Lily Adams confirmed that this is the first announced multi-candidate event
for Clinton, the front-runner in the field. Some other Democratic
candidates have previously appeared together.

Iowa Democrats have seen less big candidate round-ups than Republicans,
given the smaller field of declared and potential contenders.

*Warren shames both parties on college affordability
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/elizabeth-warren-college-affordability-democrats-republicans-118824.html>
// Politico // Allie Grasgreen – June 10, 2015 *

Progressive hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday hammered both
Republicans and Democrats in an urgent call to make college more affordable.

Warren, a divisive figure who so far has had little success with her own
legislative proposal to allow borrowers to refinance their federal student
loans, seized the momentum of an issue that is resonating on the campaign
trail to tell her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get past their
own hang-ups.

Story Continued Below

Warren spread around the blame, hitting states for divesting in higher
education, Congress for letting resources taper off while the feds profit
off student debt, and the Education Department for lax enforcement of
troublesome loan servicers and for-profit colleges.

“It starts with courage — the courage of both Democrats and Republicans to
admit how much is wrong and that the other side has a real point,” she
said, according to prepared remarks to be delivered at the headquarters of
the American Federation of Teachers. “We can do it if Republicans admit
that we will never have affordable college without investing more resources
in education, and if Democrats admit that we will never have affordable
college without demanding real accountability in exchange for those
investments.”

Warren’s comments are a clear indicator that Democrats plan to keep pushing
college affordability in Congress and in the presidential race — an issue
that Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager recently called “what voters are
looking for.”

Warren also pointed, aggressively, at colleges and universities for
exacerbating the nation’s student debt problem, which is about $1.2
trillion and climbing.

She’s struck a similar tone at Senate education committee hearings of late,
grilling college presidents who want Congress to ease regulations or
increase federal aid, but won’t commit to lowering tuition in return.

“Resources matter — but so do incentives,” Warren said.

Following the economic recession, higher education bore the brunt of public
funding cuts. Even now, colleges in almost every state are spending less
per student than they were in 2008 — leading to program cuts, tuition
increases and a heightened reliance on federal aid.

But colleges can’t blame governments for their problems, Warren said. She
took a swing at schools that “have doubled down in a competition for
students that involves fancy dorms, high-end student centers, climbing
walls and lazy rivers — paying for those amenities with still higher
tuition and student fees.”

Although Warren came down hard on the department — nothing new for the
consumer watchdog, a seasoned critic of the agency’s contracts and
oversight — much of it will likely ring true. Just this week, Ted Mitchell,
the top higher education official at the department, noted the risk of
states supplanting their own funds with federal dollars through initiatives
designed to increase college access and completion.

President Barack Obama’s free community college proposal, for example,
requires states to pick up part of the tab.

It’s less clear how an increasingly popular “debt-free college” movement —
of which Warren is a part — would have states contribute.

But with a move in that direction, Democrats are taking their focus on
student debt from the 2014 midterm elections to an even broader, more
progressive level.

High-profile Republicans have yet to come up with a proposal for reducing
college costs that stands up to Democrats’ sweeping campaign promises: 2016
contender Sen. Marco Rubio has offered several plans for reforming the
student loan system, for example. And Republicans in Congress worked with
Democrats in 2013 to strike a bipartisan deal that has reduced student loan
interest rates in recent years.

But none of their proposals have the allure of Democrats’ plan for college
with no student debt at all.

Some Republican candidates, including Rubio, meanwhile, have track records
of supporting for-profit colleges that could become liabilities. Rubio
wrote the Education Department in the summer of 2014 to ask the department
to show “leniency” towards the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges after the
department placed the for-profit under strict oversight.

Jeb Bush also addressed the for-profit trade group Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities in 2014, telling the crowd that “we must
empower people to make choices about their education.”

Warren reiterated today that she wants to tighten the rules on for-profits.

In other cases, potential Republican candidates such as Scott Walker have
proposed slashing state higher education budgets — another liability on the
campaign trail.

Earlier Wednesday, Warren appeared with other members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus to highlight the growing interest from Democrats in the
debt-free college idea. Senate and House resolutions supporting the concept
have a combined 62 co-sponsors including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Bobby
Scott, the ranking Democrat on the House education committee.

There, Rep. Keith Ellison told a crowd of debt-free advocates to “get ready
to get your marching shoes on.”

Democratic presidential hopefuls are raising the issue on the campaign
trail. Though Clinton hasn’t offered any specifics, liberals swooned when
she said last month in Iowa, “We have to deal with the indebtedness — to
try to move toward making college as debt-free as possible.”

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley recently told supporters nationwide
that “every student should be able to go to college debt-free.”

And Sen. Bernie Sanders actually issued a concrete proposal, in the form of
legislation that would make tuition free at public colleges.

Warren’s remarks come just days after the department offered a long-awaited
plan to help thousands of students at shuttered for-profit college giant
Corinthian Colleges deal with millions in student loan debt. More than a
dozen congressional Democrats pushed the agency to forgive the debt of
those students and others whose colleges may have committed fraud. (The
department found that Corinthian falsified job placement rates, and the
now-bankrupt company is also under investigation by several federal
agencies and state attorneys general.)

But taxpayers will be stuck with the bill, to the tune of anywhere from
more than $500 million, in the case of Corinthian students whom the
department has already deemed eligible for loan forgiveness, to upward of
$3.5 billion, the total loan portfolio of students who attended one of the
college’s campuses in the last five years.

Warren also delivered the speech as work is heating up on reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act, the massive bill governing federal financial
aid and other college regulations.

In her speech, the Massachusetts senator endorsed some policies that are
being considered in a process that Senate education committee Chairman
Lamar Alexander insists will be bipartisan.

For example, Warren plugged her legislation that would require colleges to
reimburse some portion of defaulted student loans, in theory encouraging
institutions to “pay attention to rising costs and failing students.” Such
risk-sharing concepts have gained traction from congressional Republicans,
too.

The federal government should simplify the application process for federal
student aid, she said — as Alexander and other members from both parties
have said. Even the White House is on board with that one.

Other ideas are less likely to find broad support.

Warren floated a maintenance of effort rule for states, requiring them to
maintain minimum investments in schools. That idea emerged at a
reauthorization hearing last week — but Alexander shot it down, fast.

And, unsurprisingly, Warren touted her student loan refinancing
legislation, which the Senate has blocked twice. Republicans have staunchly
opposed lowering interest rates for existing borrowers, though Warren notes
some states — like North Dakota, under Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple —
have done so on their own.

Some research has argued student loan debt is dragging down the economy,
preventing borrowers from starting businesses and buying homes, cars and
the like.

But that notion has its critics. At a hearing last week, for instance,
Alexander asked why nobody’s panicking about the comparable cumulative
level of car loan debt.

It’s more familiar and less intimidating, witnesses said.

*GOP*

*BUSH*

*How Jeb Bush’s campaign ran off course before it even began
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-jeb-bushs-campaign-ran-off-course-before-it-even-began/2015/06/10/386331e6-0eb6-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html>
// WaPo // Ed O'Keefe and Robert Costa – June 10, 2015 *

When asked to pinpoint where Jeb Bush’s presidential effort began running
into trouble, many confidants utter a single word: Dallas.

Mike Murphy, Bush’s political alter ego, decided early on to hold regular
senior staff meetings at an unusual location: a Hyatt hotel inside the
terminal at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The idea was that it
was a central and relatively inexpensive gathering place for a team
scattered from Los Angeles, where Murphy lives, to Miami, where the
would-be candidate resides.

It went fine at first but quickly became an awkward routine. Donors and
other Republicans found the setup ungainly for a campaign-in-waiting that
was supposed to be based in Florida.

Older Bush hands also grew unhappy with rapid hiring by new advisers, and
relationships frayed, according to Bush associates. And as the former
Florida governor began to founder on the trail and in the polls, the
discussions flared into arguments about how to divvy up money and resources
between Bush’s allied super PAC and his official campaign.

“These things are always tug of wars,” Thomas D. Rath, a Bush family friend
in New Hampshire, said of the initial sessions. “It’s almost like the first
day of school, everyone trying to get to the right place and find the right
seats.”

Bush talks to the media after attending a house party in March in Dover,
N.H., in March. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

The airport huddles were just one sign among many of a political operation
going off course — disjointed in message and approach, torn between
factions and more haphazard than it appeared on the surface. Bush’s first
six months as an all-but-declared candidate have been defined by a series
of miscalculations, leaving his standing considerably diminished ahead of
his formal entry into the race on Monday.

In interviews this week, dozens of Bush backers and informed Republicans —
most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to comment
candidly — described an overly optimistic, even haughty exploratory
operation. Strategic errors were exacerbated by unexpected stumbles by the
would-be candidate and internal strife within his team, culminating in a
staff shake-up this week.

The original premise of Bush’s candidacy — that a bold, fast start would
scare off potential rivals and help him overcome the burden of his last
name — has proved to be misguided.

His operation’s ability to rake in large checks also fueled inflated
expectations. Supporters acknowledged this week that an allied super PAC
was likely to fall short — perhaps substantially — of predictions that it
would bring in $100 million in the first half of the year.

On the stump, Bush has stuck to his pledge not to shift to the right to win
the primary, but his middle-of-the-road positions on immigration and
education have come off more as out of step with the base of his party than
shrewdly pragmatic. His wonky question-and-answer exchanges with voters
sometimes resemble college lectures rather than a friendly appeal for votes.

The troubles have eroded the image Bush has sought to present as the one
Republican uniquely ready for the presidential stage. He has slipped in
polls from presumed front-runner to one of several candidates jumbled
toward the top of an increasingly crowded field.

“We’ve learned that the prospect of a big financial advantage is not going
to keep people out of the race and that the notion of a new face is
stronger than we might have thought,” Vin Weber, an outside Bush adviser,
said in an interview. “That requires modest adjustments in strategy, not
wholesale changes.”

After weeks of bad press, “donors were getting a little edgy,” Weber said.
“No one is ready to jump ship. Nobody has lost heart. But they have watched
other candidates rise in the polls.”

Speaking Wednesday in Berlin during an overseas trip, Bush expressed
confidence. “It’s June, for crying out loud, so we’ve got a long way to
go,” he said, adding later: “I’m going to compete everywhere. If I’m a
candidate, there’s no fifth-place, you know, kind of mentality in my mind.”

Forced to make up lost ground, Bush, his aides and his super-PAC allies are
now preparing plans to attack the records and experience of his GOP
competition, especially Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. A summer originally envisioned as a season of
slow and warm introductions to voters is now poised to be a battle as Bush
tries to recapture his place atop the field.

“The Bushes have always underestimated the depth of the base’s
dissatisfaction with their policies, and they take the criticism
personally,” Laura Ingraham, a conservative talk-radio host, said in an
interview. “Jeb has to try to understand the reasons why conservatives have
problems with him instead of crowing about how principled he is.”

Aides bristle at what they consider the media’s relentless focus on Bush’s
personal and professional past. They say that out on the campaign trail, in
visits to more than a dozen states, he has been doing exactly what he
should.

“Interacting with people on the road who deal with real issues . . . that’s
what brings true joy to Jeb,” Sally Bradshaw, a longtime consultant, said
in a recent e-mail.

Bush started with an aggressive series of steps late last year and early
this year— a kind of “shock and awe” entry that caught fellow contenders by
surprise. The moves were designed to send an unambiguous signal to
fundraisers and party activists and to reinforce a natural advantage Bush
had with establishment donors.

At the same time, Bush’s inner circle operated on the theory that there was
little that could be gained by trying to speed up the political clock and
that most voters in early states would not begin paying attention until
later in the year.

Bush revived a 650-member alumni network of aides who worked for him as
governor and recruited 21 veterans of his father and brother’s
administrations to advise him on foreign policy. He hired state directors
in the first four early states, aides for outreach to evangelicals and
Hispanics, and a spokeswoman dedicated to fielding questions from the
Spanish-language press.

As Bush travels the country, he has fielded more than 900 questions from
donors, reporters and voters, according to aides. He has maintained a busy
schedule that stretches from the early-voting states of Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — where conservative Republicans
remain skeptical — to places visited less frequently at this early stage by
presidential candidates, including Denver, Seattle and Puerto Rico.

Despite those efforts, recent surveys put Bush in a five-way tie for the
lead. Recent polls touted by his advisers give him a wide lead in New
Hampshire, but others taken nationally and in the early states put him
behind Rubio and Walker.

Sensing Bush’s vulnerabilities, Ohio Gov. John Kasich this week hired two
veteran GOP operatives as he prepares to launch a bid and make a play for
the same donors Bush has already wooed.

“I didn’t think I was going to be back up here again, because frankly I
thought Jeb was just going to suck all the air out of the room, and it just
hasn’t happened,” Kasich told New Hampshire business leaders last week.

Bush dispatched one possible rival early when Mitt Romney decided not to
run again. His fast entrance also bruised the chances of New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie, who is still pondering a bid. They did not regard Rubio as
a likely opponent but were proved wrong when the young, telegenic Cuban
American jumped in the race.

Early on, there were signs that Bush’s ability to command huge amounts of
cash for his allied Right to Rise super PAC was emerging as the dominant
characteristic of his potential candidacy. His team laid out
presidential-style goals for fundraisers, asking them to hit goals of
$50,000, $100,000, $250,000 or $500,000 by April 17. The money was flowing
into the super PAC so rapidly that his advisers issued an edict — no
contributions of more than $1 million, for now.

“He was more of a super-PAC candidate than a retail candidate,” said one
Republican close to the Bush operation. “The candidate hasn’t been out
stumping for a while. When was the last time he’s asked anyone for a vote?
It’s been quite a few years.”

Those concerns, simmering under the surface, finally boiled over one week
in mid-May with a series of interviews focused on the most obvious issue
imaginable for a Bush: the Iraq war.

Starting with an interview aired on Fox News on Monday, May 11, Bush
struggled over four days to answer whether he would have authorized the war
begun by his brother given what is known now about bad intelligence. He
first said yes, then said “maybe,” and then refused to answer altogether.

Finally that Thursday he attempted to settle the issue at a campaign-style
event in Arizona. “Here’s the deal,” he said. “If we’re all supposed to
answer hypothetical questions — knowing what we know now, what would you
have done — I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq.”

The episode served to crystallize some of the key concerns about Bush — his
reluctance to criticize or distance himself from the unpopular policies of
George W. Bush, and his tendency toward prickliness if pushed.

“We should have had that answer nailed down,” one donor said. “There were
people who were really shaken by that.”

By the time major party donors gathered in Dallas in late May for a meeting
of the Republican Governors Association’s executive roundtable, the
overwhelming sentiment was that Jeb Bush was less formidable than many
thought he was going to be, according to several participants. Some flatly
stated that they did not believe he could win the nomination.

People close to Bush started getting anxious, according to a top party
fundraiser with close ties to his advisers — and things began to
deteriorate inside the Bush team.

David Kochel, an Iowa-based strategist and former Romney aide, had been
brought aboard in January as a de facto campaign manager. As the months
wore on, Bradshaw and Murphy became jittery about Kochel’s concentration on
staffing issues rather than deflecting the shots being thrown Bush’s way.

Meanwhile, Bush was growing chummy with Danny Diaz, a 39-year-old
Washington native and onetime plumber, who was spotted several times on the
trail while Kochel ground away at headquarters near the Miami airport.

By late May, Kochel’s grip on power had eroded. Bradshaw and Murphy moved
with the candidate’s blessing to push Kochel into a lesser role and ensure
they alone had final say about the allocation of resources. The candidate,
urged on by his allies and donors, suggested that a more aggressive
approach was necessary.

On Monday, just as Bush prepared to leave for Europe, Diaz was named the
campaign manager.

Friends and donors are hopeful that Bush has corrected course and that his
substantial resources will carry him further than others.

“He’s going to try to do it his way without acting with every change in the
wind, without doing full face-plants on the pandering,” said Tallahassee
lobbyist John “Mac” Stipanovich, a Bush ally.

*Jeb Bush’s ‘It’s June!’ argument has two major flaws
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/10/jeb-bushs-its-june-argument-has-two-big-flaws/?wprss=rss_the-fix&tid=sm_tw_pp>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – June 10, 2015*

"It's June, for crying out loud," Jeb Bush said with apparent exasperation
on Wednesday, "so we've got a long way to go." Bush was responding to a
question about his standing in the polls, which, given the size of the
field, really isn't that bad.

But he was also responding to the strain of running a presidential campaign
and to questions about the state of his campaign team, given prominent
staff changes this week. His cry of "it's June!" was more a cry of 'it's
too early for much of this to make a difference, so calm down.'

There's truth to that. If you look at how candidates did relative to polls
from June of the year prior, the ones that ended up in the upper echelon
usually didn't see a whole lot of up and down movement until the debates
and primaries began in earnest. In 2011, Newt Gingrich started to spike
toward the end of the year; Rick Perry came and went. But Gingrich, Mitt
Romney and Rick Santorum were pretty flat until November. The middle part
of the year didn't make much of a difference.

But in 2007, things looked a bit different. Fred Thompson pulled a Rick
Perry, arriving and departing. Rudy Giuliani's slide began in March and
continued unabated until October, at which point he was all but finished.

It's that Giuliani thing that offers an asterisk to Bush's "it's early"
declaration. Usually, candidates hold pretty steady through the end of the
year before the election. As Rudy showed, not always.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as daytime infomercials
are legally obligated to remind us. So Bush's steadiness is by no means
guaranteed, and questions about the state of his campaign are very much
warranted.

And then we get to the other thing.

An April editorial in the Post decried candidates that "mock the law" by
running for president without declaring that they are presidential
candidates. There are legal (read: financial) reasons they don't, but by
now most of the big names have accepted reality. They're running.

Bush's campaign launch is still a few days away. While he filed paperwork
suggesting that he is a candidate, he hasn't filed with the Federal
Election Commission.

In other words, most of the analysis about and machinations of Bush's team
over the past few weeks related to someone who wasn't even technically
running for president. So were we not all playing this game about how Bush
isn't a candidate even though he's a candidate, he might have pointed out
that before his campaign became subject to its death notice, perhaps it
should actually begin.

His exclamation works the other way, too. It's June, for crying out loud,
months after Bush started running and should have had things sorted out.
There is a messy, subpar campaign that he's been running, despite the legal
lines set by the FEC. The odds are good that the not-campaign won't fall
apart more between now and December, it's true. But not-yet-campaigns have
doomed candidates before.

*Jeb Bush says U.S. bank rules may have contributed to systemic risks
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/09/usa-election-bush-banks-idUSL1N0YV1XK20150609>
// Reuters // Reuters – June 9, 2015 *

Likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Tuesday criticized the
2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street oversight law, saying it did not stop banks
from becoming "too big to fail" and may have contributed to new risks in
the U.S. financial system.

Bush, the former governor of Florida, is expected to formally launch his
bid for the White House on June 15, after he completes a five-day European
trip.

Speaking in Berlin on Tuesday, Bush said reforms enacted in response to the
2007-2009 economic meltdown led to bigger banks and may have heightened
risk in the U.S. financial system.

"We have more banks with more concentrated assets in the United States, and
the systematic risk is perhaps greater now than it was when the law was
signed," Bush said.

"And so I would beware of regulations in general. I think they need to be
thoughtful," he said.

During the crisis, the biggest banks received government bailouts because
regulators worried they were so big it would threaten financial market
stability if they went under, a concept that came to be known as "too big
to fail."

The 2010 Wall Street law made a wide variety of changes to financial
oversight, such as forcing banks to rely less on debt for funding, in order
to bolster financial firms and prevent them from needing bailouts in the
future.

Critics of the White House administration of Bush's brother, George W.
Bush, say tougher oversight of banks and the U.S. housing market could have
prevented the crisis or lessened its impact.

But many critics of the 2010 law argue that instead of eliminating the "too
big to fail" problem, the cost of complying with tougher rules forced
smaller banks to shut down or sell themselves, resulting in fewer, more
concentrated banks than before the meltdown.

Jeb Bush, who had long been expected to seek the presidency in the November
2016 U.S. election, said regulation was needed "around bad banks" to
prevent another crisis that would hurt the middle class, but he said
Dodd-Frank did not have the effect Congress desired.

Some seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency, including former
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, take the
opposite view. They say Congress should go even further than it did with
Dodd-Frank and break up the largest U.S. banks.

*Jeb Bush After Shake-Up: 'I Don't Read the Polls'
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/jeb-bush-after-shake-i-dont-read-polls-n372746>
// NBC News // Benjy Sarlin – June 10, 2015*

Days before his presidential launch, Jeb Bush told reporters on Wednesday
that his decision to replace his campaign-manager-in-waiting was a
strategic move rather than a response to his tepid position in the polls.

"I don't read the polls," he told reporters outside the Pestana Hotel in
Berlin, where he is on the first leg of a trip through Germany, Poland and
Estonia. "It's fun to see them when you're winning, not so fun when you're
not. Doesn't really matter, though, its June for crying out loud, so we got
a long way to go."

Bush said that he had chosen Florida Republican Danny Diaz as campaign
manager over David Kochel, who was tapped for the role initially, to allow
Kochel to take a different role masterminding the campaign's efforts in
early states.

"You have a real focus on four states in February then you have an
avalanche of states after that and you think about how to organize all
that, how to develop the messaging part of this, the scheduling part of it,
it's a pretty overwhelming challenge and so I decided to kind of split up
the duties," Bush said. "David has got great success in these early states,
particularly Iowa, he's also got a great strategic mind and Danny's a
grinder."

He added that he was "confident that the team in place will do their job
and I got to do my job as well."

Responding to a reporter's question about his early expectations, Bush
pushed back against the idea that he should be in a more dominant position
by now given his fundraising strength and high-profile name brand.

"I know I'm going to have to earn this," he told reporters. "It's a lot of
work and I'm excited about the prospects of this. It's a long haul. You
start whenever you start and you end a long, long way from today. I just
urge everybody to be a little more patient about this."

Turning to his European tour, Bush repeated his call for a harder line
against Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he called a "ruthless
pragmatist" in Berlin on Tuesday at a conference hosted by Chancellor
Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union party.

"He's a bully and you enable bad behavior when you're nuanced with a guy
like that," Bush told reporters, urging America and its allies to make
clear that he would face specific consequences if he continued his
aggression in Ukraine or expanded it to other neighboring states.

As part of that effort, Bush said he supported a "more robust" American
troop presence in Poland and Baltic countries that he would decide based on
military leaders' recommendations.

Bush said he had not seen reports that President Obama is considering
sending hundreds of American troops to Anbar province in Iraq to help
advise and train local forces working to retake Ramadi, but that he hoped
they would play a more active role in combat than the administration has
allowed so far.

"I think our advisers, if that's what they are, ought to be embedded in the
[Iraqi] military," he said. "It helps us with our intelligence gathering,
it certainly helps with morale and their ability to train the troops."

*Jeb: It's too early for poll-watching
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/244518-jeb-its-too-early-for-poll-watching>
// The Hill // Jonathan Easley - June 10, 2015 *

Jeb Bush on Wednesday expressed frustration with the press over its
obsession with the horse race aspect of the presidential race, telling
reporters that it’s too early to be poll-watching and encouraged them to
focus on more important matters.

Speaking to a gaggle of reporters on a sidewalk in Germany, Bush said he
was “not at all concerned” by expectations from some Republicans that he
should have further separated himself from the field of GOP contenders by
now.

“I just encourage people to be a little more patient about this,” Bush
said. “Ya’ll cover this kind of in the here and now, and who is winning and
who is losing. It’s important, and I have to respect that, but if you have
a strategy and you think about it over the long haul is a better approach,
at least for me."

“Anybody have any questions about Germany?” Bush asked, nodding to the
surrounding environment.

Bush has not officially entered the race for the Republican presidential
nomination, but he’s widely expected to make it official on Monday in Miami.

Bush has spent the past six months building a political team, amassing a
huge campaign fund for his super-PAC, giving policy speeches, attending
Republican cattle calls and seeking to curry favor with party leaders.

His name recognition and deep political ties have buoyed him in the early
polls, but some conservatives question whether that support is durable.
Bush faces deep skepticism from many in the party’s base, and stiff
competition from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Marco Rubio.

“I don’t read the polls,” Bush said Wednesday. “Polls are, you know, it’s
fun to see them when you’re winning, not as much when you’re not. It
doesn’t really matter though. It’s June for crying out loud, so we have a
long way to go.”

The state of Bush’s campaign came into focus this week when he reshuffled
his staff ahead of a five-day trip to Germany, Poland and Estonia.

Earlier this year, Bush brought on David Kochel, an Iowa GOP operative, for
a leading role in his super-PAC, Right to Rise, with the intent of moving
him over to campaign manager once he launched.

But this week, the Bush team announced that instead, Kochel would serve as
chief strategist to the campaign, and Danny Diaz, an aggressive 39-year-old
opposition researcher and conservative media consultant, would be the
campaign manager.

The move stoked stories of struggle within the campaign and provoked
questions over whether the Bush team was hitting the panic button at an
early stage.

The former Florida governor downplayed the staff changes on Wednesday.

“This is an adjustment based on the skills of people that I’ve gotten to
know over the past few months,” Bush said.

“Nothing other than just the magnitude of the journey [provoked this
change],” he continued. “You have the real focus on four states in
February, and you have the avalanche of states after that, and you think
about how to organize all of that, how to develop the messaging part of
this, the scheduling part of this. It’s an overwhelming challenge. So I
decided to split up the duties, and David has great success in these early
states, particularly Iowa, and he has a great strategic mind, and Danny is
a grinder.”

*Jeb Bush is a compassionless conservative: His “Scarlet Letter” law was
even worse than it sounds
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/jeb_bush_is_a_compassionless_conservative_his_scarlet_letter_law_was_even_worse_than_it_sounds/>
// Salon // Katie McDonough – June 10, 2015 *

In Jeb Bush’s 1995 book, “Profiles in Character,” the likely Republican
presidential contender wrote that Americans have dropped the ball on public
humiliation and called for a return to a time when “public condemnation”
was used to deter people from “irresponsible conduct.”

Public condemnation — and in the criminal justice system, sentencing
intended to humiliate — never actually went anywhere, so Bush wasn’t really
calling for a return to humiliation — he just wanted more of it. Here’s the
excerpt on single parenting, which Huffington Post political reporter Laura
Bassett unearthed on Tuesday:

One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and
more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that
there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel
shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their
friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and
neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to
this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown
on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a
stimulus for one to be careful.

Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” as a reference
for how this kind of thing might work, writing: “Infamous shotgun weddings
and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ‘Scarlet Letter’ are reminders that public
condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots.”

Bush wasn’t just riffing, he was setting up policy prescriptions for his
future tenure as governor. As Bassett points out, Bush waived his veto
power after the state legislature passed a 2001 law requiring single women
who wanted to put a child up for adoption to publish their sexual histories
in a newspaper. The ads included women’s names, ages, physical descriptions
including her hair, weight and eye color. Women were also required to
provide details about their sexual encounters — including names of sexual
partners, dates and locations.

From the bill:

The notice… must contain a physical description, including, but not limited
to age, race, hair and eye color, and approximate height and weight of the
minor’s mother and of any person the mother reasonably believes may be the
father; the minor’s date of birth; and any date and city, including the
county and state in which the city is located, in which conception may have
occurred.

Women were required to pay for the ads, which ran once a week for the
duration of a month. The law included no exceptions for victims of rape or
minors. Bush expressed reservations about publishing these details, but
declined to veto the law while it wound its way through the courts for two
years.

Florida adoption lawyer Charlotte Dancui challenged the law in the Palm
Beach County Circuit Court, representing six plaintiffs, including a
14-year-old girl and a rape victim. Dancui told the New York Times that in
addition the women and girls she was representing in the lawsuit, others
had come forward feeling terrorized by the law.

”I had a woman come to me who had a child 10 years ago while in college and
now her husband of five years wants to adopt her child and in order to do
that she had to put her name, her daughter’s name and all the men she slept
with in college in her college newspaper,” she said.

But the law wasn’t just being criticized by women’s rights groups and the
left — many conservatives opposed the law, arguing that violating women’s
privacy and subjecting them to public shame for choosing adoption would
incentivize abortion and decrease adoption rates.

In 2003, after the law was declared unconstitutional, Bush signed a repeal.
As the Times reported after the original law was overturned, the repeal
replaced the provision to humiliate women with a new provision allowing men
to electively enter into a confidential parental registry. Bush’s was
apparently satisfied with the change, according to a spokesperson for his
office:

This was an important bill to sign and it has been two years in coming. It
not only streamlines the adoption process by outlining specific steps for
the unwed biological father but it also balances and protects the privacy
rights of the mother and child.

But opponents of the bill were unimpressed that Bush acted only after the
courts struck down the law. ”Only a male-dominated legislature could
possibly pass a law that facilitates adoptions by requiring public
humiliation of women,” Howard Simon, executive director of ACLU of Florida,
told the Times.

”You’ve got to have a real narrow vision to congratulate the governor for
signing a repeal of a statute that, as a result of a lawsuit we were
involved in, the courts struck down as unconstitutional,” he continued.
”The legislature shouldn’t have passed it in the first place.”

One of the women involved in the lawsuit against the law told the Times
that she welcomed the repeal and was relieved that other women wouldn’t
have to be subjected to that kind of humiliation. ”They don’t have to put
their names in the paper in this barbaric gesture,” she said. ”They don’t
have to be afraid anymore.”

Add this to the list of Bush’s credentials as a compassionate conservative.

*Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush: A Boring Disaster Waiting to Happen
<http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-vs-jeb-bush-a-boring-disaster-waiting-to-happen/>
// The Blaze // Chris Markowski – June 10, 2015 *

Some people have enough “celebrity status” that even announcing an
announcement garners media coverage.

Jeb Bush recently proclaimed that on June 15 “an announcement will be
made,” and it’s now all the media can talk about. “Another Clinton vs. Bush
election?” is plastered across the headlines.

But Americans are clearly bored with these families.

While there are plenty of candidates who don’t have family ties to the
White House, those are not the candidates soaking up all the press. With
Bush’s announcement this year’s presidential campaign is sure to be one for
the books, but we certainly don’t need another boring Clinton vs. Bush
election. We’re not being run by a monarchy here – even the Kennedy’s
couldn’t pull it off. That snoozer of an election would bring the lowest
voting turnout in ages.

We’re bored with these families. Two Bush’s in the past 20 years, a Clinton
as well, and now one of each is running for president. If a Clinton or Bush
is elected again, that says something about the United States. The media
and Wall Street elites love it, but they’re the only ones excited about it.
We “peasants” cannot continue to allow the same families to have power over
our country year after year, even if they have a longstanding record of
holding office.

A great example of this is the Kennedy’s, one of America’s most loved and
well-known political families. The family had at least one member in
elective office in Washington for 64 years, yet only John Fitzgerald was
able to reach the Oval Office. While many family members have been in
Washington since Kennedy’s assassination, none since have served as
president.

Even great political families leave Americans feeling bored after a while.
The country as a whole has decided to stop electing members of these
families, so when will they decide to stop running altogether?

Furthermore, we don’t need another Clinton vs. Bush election. Neither of
these candidates are been doing well in the polls, and while they both have
recognizable names and families, American voters are not fans. Although the
candidates are from different parties, they are virtually interchangeable.
Taking money from the same big Wall Street companies, having a well-known
name, and engaging in shady political practices are all common factors for
these two. These are not “rock the boat” kind of candidates, and what we
really need here is a change.

In addition to being one and the same, these candidates aren’t the type
that will bring voters to the polls. While Barack Obama was able to bring
out people who may have never voted before, a Clinton vs. Bush election
will leave people wanting to stay inside on voting day. After advertising
on MTV and social media, voters came out of the woodwork to place their
votes for Obama, because it was made “cool.” Neither Clinton nor Bush has
that same kind of pull or appeal, and they definitely won’t be able to make
themselves seem “hip” or “cool” to the masses.

These candidates aren’t able to generate any excitement with voters,
because we’ve seen it all before. For these candidates and their families,
the elections are all about power and being a part of the “dynasty” that
their families have had in the past.

American’s are understandably tired of these families, and I predict that
it will show when it comes time to vote. We’ve had an “old boys club” in
Washington for far too long. It’s time that we have a new,
non-establishment candidate in office.

*Tom Coburn on Jeb Bush: 'His last name will kill 47 percent of the votes'
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tom-coburn-on-jeb-bush-his-last-name-will-kill-47-percent-of-the-votes/article/2565997>
// The Washington Examiner // Philip Klein – June 10, 2015 *

Former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn had a blunt assessment of Jeb Bush's
chances of capturing the White House: "I don't think another Bush can get
elected."

In an interview with the Washington Examiner Coburn said, "I think there's
Bush fatigue and I think you automatically lose a large percentage of the
electorate."

He explained, "I like Jeb Bush. But the fact is his last name will kill 47
percent of the votes for him — potential votes in this country. That's a
big deal to get over."

Though he said that he thought George W. Bush was a "great president," he's
said he remained a polarizing figure.

"Why would you run a candidate that is going to have trouble with 47
percent of the electorate?" Coburn asked.

He made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with the Examiner. Stay
tuned for more.

*Shaming Unwed Moms Was the Law in Jeb Bush’s Florida
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/shaming-unwed-moms-was-the-law-in-jeb-bush-s-florida.html>
// The Daily Beast // Betsy Woodroff – June 10, 2015 *

Remember that time when Gov. Jeb Bush allowed a bill to become law that
required unwed, pregnant women to publish their sexual history in the
newspaper in order to give their babies up for adoption?

But this was just the beginning of the weird parental follies of Florida in
the early 2000s.

In 2001, Bush didn’t veto adoption-overhaul legislation that included a
provision making it harder for unwed mothers to put their children up for
adoption, as The Huffington Post recently reported.

And by taking a pass, he allowed a particularly offensive provision to
become law.

This provision required any woman who wanted to put her child up for
adoption, but who didn’t know who the father was, to take out an ad in a
local newspaper listing her name and description, as well as the name and
description of each possible father and the locations where the baby could
have been conceived.

In other words, women had to broadcast her sexual histories to, well,
pretty much everybody before attempting to find stable homes for her
children.

The law’s sponsor, state Sen. Walter Campbell, said the provision was
designed to keep “potential biological fathers from coming back and taking
children out of adoptive parents’ hands.” And the law didn’t include an
exception for women who became pregnant because of rape.

“You cannot just allow someone to say they were raped and use that as an
excuse not to provide a name,” said Deborah Marks, who helped draft the
law, at the time.

Alvin Coen, a veteran adoption lawyer, told the New Pittsburgh Courier at
the time that concerns about birth fathers interfering with adoptions were
baseless.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state house and by a 30-8 vote in the
state senate. Bush said he decided not to veto it because Campbell told him
the newspaper-reporting language would get fixed. That didn’t happen. What
did happen? More abortions. The Orlando Sentinel reported there were almost
2,000 more abortions in the first six months of 2002—after the legislation
went into effect—than in the first six months of 2001.

After state courts declared the law unconstitutional, Bush signed
legislation repealing it. The bill that took its place put the
fathers-rights onus on potential fathers. The law still exists today.

“In place of the publication requirement, the new law establishes a
‘’father registry’ through which men who believe they may be fathers must
provide the name, address, and physical description of the mother and the
date and place where conception took place to protect their parental
rights,” The New York Times reported.

This wasn’t the only time children’s issues have gotten the former governor
in trouble. As governor, Bush drew sustained criticism for his adamant
opposition to gay adoption. And Bill O’Reilly leveled harsh criticism at
him after a young girl’s disappearance from the state’s foster-care system
went unnoticed for years. Her death led to an overhaul of how the state
handled foster care.

Basically, Florida men have some major issues when it comes to dealing with
vulnerable children. And in the early 2000s, it appears Jeb Bush was no
exception.

*Jeb Bush to visit Jimmy Fallon on 'Tonight Show' next week
<http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-jeb-bush-to-appear-on-tonight-show-20150610-story.html>
// LA Times // Meredith Blake – June 10, 2015 *

Pesidential aspirant Jeb Bush will visit "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy
Fallon" on June 16, the day after he is expected to formally announce his
candidacy.

It will be the first appearance by the former Florida governor — brother of
George W., son of George H.W. — on a late-night talk show. Under Jay Leno,
"The Tonight Show" was an all-but-required stop for presidential candidates
and was considered a friendlier venue for Republicans than David
Letterman's "Late Show" or either of Comedy Central's late-night shows.

Since Fallon took over the reins of "The Tonight Show" in February 2014, he
has welcomed several politicians, including frequent guest Gov. Chris
Christie of New Jersey and former GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

Bush is considered a frontrunner in the race for the White House and has
been busy in Europe this week burnishing his foreign policy credentials. He
faces stiff competition in the polls from fellow Floridian Sen. Marco
Rubio, but he may get a leg up as the first declared candidate in the
ever-expanding GOP field to make a visit to "Tonight."

*RUBIO*

*Florida Poll: Rubio Gaining on Jeb
<https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/florida-poll-rubio-gaining-jeb_968688.html>
// The Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – June 10, 2015 *

A new poll of Florida Republican primary voters finds a tightening race
between the Sunshine State's two favorite sons in the 2016 GOP presidential
primary. According to St. Leo University's Polling Institute, former
governor Jeb Bush has 30 percent support among likely Republican primary
voters in Florida, while Marco Rubio, the state's sitting junior senator,
has 24 percent support. That's a surge of eight points for Rubio since St.
Leo's last poll of the GOP primary in March, when the younger Republican
had 16 percent support to Bush's 31 percent.

It's worth noting that since the March poll, Rubio has declared his
candidacy, while Bush remains in the exploratory phase and is not
officially a candidate.

Rubio continues to do well in Florida as a second choice for primary
voters, with a field-high 29 percent calling him their second choice. Bush
comes behind with 12 percent listing him as their second choice. And in a
head-to-head matchup with no other Republican candidates? Rubio beats Bush
by 8 points, 48 percent to 40 percent.

There was not much movement from March to June for the non-Florida
Republican candidates in the poll. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker comes in
at 7 percent, down from 10 percent in March, and retired neurosurgeon Ben
Carson is at 7 percent as well, down from 9 percent in March. Kentucky
senator Rand Paul stayed steady at 7 percent support while former Arkansas
governor Mike Huckabee is up to 6 percent in June from 4 percent in March.

Florida's presidential primary usually follows the first three contests of
Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Given the state's large population
and numerous (and expensive) media markets, Florida has often been a test
of a campaign's big-money viability given the state's numerous and
expensive media markets. This year, however, the Florida primary will occur
two weeks after the "Super Tuesday" March 1 primaries taking place in 12
states, including several in the GOP-heavy south.

*PAUL*

*At GOP fundraiser in Maryland, Rand Paul decries racial injustice,
champions diversity
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/10/at-maryland-fundraiser-rand-paul-decries-racial-injustice-champions-diversity/>
// WaPo // Ovetta Wiggins – June 10, 2015 *

Speaking at a Maryland Republican fundraiser less than 15 miles from West
Baltimore, where Freddie Gray was taken into police custody and rioting
took place two months ago, Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul told
an audience made up mainly old white men about the recent suicide of a
young black man who spent three years imprisoned without a trial.

Paul said he has relayed the story of Kalief Browder's imprisonment for
more than a year, including a March visit to the historically black college
Bowie State University. He said he considered not mentioning it since
Browder's death last weekend.

Browder was accused of stealing a backpack and waited three years at
Riker's Island for a trial.

"He wasn't even convicted," the Kentucky senator. "So when I see people
angry and upset — and I'm not here to excuse violence in the cities — but
when I see anger I understand where some of the anger is coming from. ...
Imagine how [Browder's] classmates feel about American justice, imagine how
his parents feel."

Paul's speech Tuesday night was a collection of his stances on not only
criminal justice reform, but on the Patriot Act and NSA data collection,
and party inclusion. He took swipes at Democratic presidential front-runner
Hillary Clinton, saying her handling of Benghazi should "forever preclude
her from being president."

Paul told the crowd that the Republicans must expand beyond its base.

"If we want to win elections we have to be a big party," Paul said. "I tell
people that we've got to have people with tattoos, without tattoos, with
long hair, without, with earrings, black, white, brown, rich, poor, working
class. We've got to be a more diverse party."

Paul's appearance in Maryland is part of two days of events sponsored by
the Maryland Republican Party in the Baltimore area. On Wednesday, the
state party will partner with the Baltimore City NAACP for a panel
discussion to discuss criminal justice reform.

The party is trying to make some strides in Maryland, where where Democrats
outnumber Republicans by more than a 2-to-1 margin but Gov. Larry Hogan (R)
captured a surprise win in November.

D. Bruce Poole, the chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party, said in a
statement prior to Paul's appearance that the Republican candidate's
message does not resonate in the deeply Democratic state.

"If Rand Paul wants to convince Marylanders and Americans that he is going
to be a champion for the issues that matter most,

then he will have to abandon his destructive policies that only help those
at the very top. Unfortunately for Paul and the Republican Party, that
train has already left the station," Poole said.

Since the libertarian Kentucky senator declared his candidacy in April,
Paul has struggled to gain ground among rank-and-file Republicans, whose
support he will need to win the nomination.

Many Republicans have expressed unease over Paul's stance on various
issues, including security, criminal justice reform, and recent
high-profile cases involving police conduct.

Paul has taken a hard-line stance on the NSA, leading the charge to block
the renewal of the anti-terrorism law used to justify domestic spying
programs. He has spoken forcefully about police officers who have killed
unarmed African Americans, and has sponsored legislation to address
inequities within the prison system.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Paul and Gov. Scott Walker of
Wisconsin with each capturing 11 percent of the vote among Republicans and
Republican-leaning independent registered voters. But, with a margin of
error of plus or minus six percentage points, the contest remains wide
open, with former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida
with 10 percent each. The rest of the field received single digits.

*WALKER*

*Walker makes case for education reforms nationwide
<http://fox11online.com/2015/06/10/walker-makes-case-for-education-reforms-nationwide/>
// AP – June 10, 2015 *

Scott Walker touted changes he’s made to K-12 education as governor in
Wisconsin in a newspaper column published Wednesday, saying there’s “no
reason” what he’s done in the state can’t be matched nationwide.

Walker, expected to announce a run for the Republican presidential
nomination within weeks, inflamed teachers across Wisconsin four years ago
when he pushed for a law that took away their collective bargaining rights,
while also forcing them to pay more for health and pension benefits, as
part of an effort to balance the state budget.

“Now, more than ever, we need to push big, bold reforms to improve our
schools,” Walker wrote Wednesday in a column published by The Des Moines
Register in Iowa. “If we can do it in Wisconsin, there is no reason we
can’t push positive education reforms across the country.”

Walker’s education policies have included expanding school choice efforts
and cutting funding for public schools. His call to take such efforts
nationwide elicited anger from his opponents in Wisconsin, who also
vehemently opposed his efforts on union rights.

“When it comes to the damage Gov. Walker has inflicted on Wisconsin
students, it’s hard to come up with a short list,” said Betsy Kippers,
president of the statewide teachers union, the Wisconsin Education
Association Council.

Walker’s first state budget cut funding for public schools by $1.2 billion,
the largest reduction in state history. This year, Walker proposed cutting
public school funding by $127 million in the first year of a two-year
budget, a move rejected by the Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget
committee.

Walker has also successfully expanded Wisconsin’s private school voucher
program statewide after it debuted in Milwaukee. Walker’s pending budget
proposal would gradually remove the program’s enrollment caps and use tax
dollars currently provided to public schools to pay for it.

Walker has argued the state, and schools specifically, are better off under
the collective bargaining law, which affected nearly all state employees
and led to his recall election in 2012. He renewed that argument in
Wednesday’s column, saying he fixed a “broken” system.

“Today, the requirements for seniority and tenure are gone,” Walker said.
“Schools can hire based on merit and pay based on performance. That means
they can keep the best and the brightest in the classroom.”

Walker also pointed to higher graduation rates, improved third-grade
reading scores and the fact that Wisconsin’s high school student ACT scores
are the country’s second best.

He did not note that Wisconsin’s graduation rates were increasing for years
before he took office and the recent growth is not as strong as the
national average. Wisconsin’s ACT scores were also consistently among the
nation’s best prior to his election.

Walker also wrote that he opposes the Common Core academic standards. When
he took office in 2011, Walker called for creating tests that were tied to
the standards. He first objected to the standards during his re-election
campaign last year.

His pending budget reiterates that school districts can’t be forced to
adopt the standards, a protection they already have under current state law.

In the column, Walker also mentions Megan Sampson, a teacher who was laid
off after being named the outstanding first-year teacher by the Wisconsin
Council of Teachers of English in 2010. Collective bargaining agreements in
place at the time, since eliminated, protected those with more seniority
from losing their jobs.

Walker often tells the story, and Sampson has repeatedly asked him to stop.
She did so again Wednesday.

“I do not enjoy being associated with Walker’s political campaign,” Sampson
said.

*Walker: We changed broken education system
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2015/06/10/walker-changed-broken-education-system/28778201/?utm_content=16075932&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter>
// The Des Moines Register // Scott Walker – June 10, 2015 *

Megan Sampson was named the outstanding first-year teacher by the Wisconsin
Council of Teachers of English in June of 2010. A week later, she received
another certificate: a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools
system.

Why would they get rid of a new teacher like Sampson — especially in
Milwaukee, which was one of the most troubled urban school districts in the
nation? Well, under the old union contracts, the last hired was first fired.

In 2011, we changed that broken system in Wisconsin. Today, the
requirements for seniority and tenure are gone. Schools can hire based on
merit and pay based on performance. That means they can keep the best and
the brightest in the classroom.

Best of all, the reforms are working. Schools are better. Graduation rates
are up. Third grade reading scores are higher. Wisconsin students now rank
2nd best in the country for ACT scores in states where more than half the
students take the exam.

In addition to improving traditional public schools, like the ones my own
sons attended, we increased the number of quality education choices all
over Wisconsin. Over the past four years, we expanded the number of charter
schools, lifted the limits on virtual schools and provided more help for
families choosing to home school their children.

We also dramatically expanded the 25-year-old Milwaukee Parental School
Choice program to add more students, more schools and working class
families. Then, we expanded school choice across the state.

Last fall I had a chance to meet a mom by the name of Dana from Appleton.
Her son and daughter were two of the first students to participate in the
statewide school choice program.

Dana told me that her son was doing poorly in a public school a few years
ago. He was being bullied and he hated going to school each day. Now, after
Dana signed him up for the voucher program, his school scores had doubled,
he plays the trumpet in the band and he signed up for the football team.
Dana’s son loves school. She thanked us for giving her son a chance to
succeed.

Now, more than ever, we need to push big, bold reforms to improve our
schools. If we can do it in Wisconsin, there is no reason we can’t push
positive education reforms across the country.

Nationwide, we want high standards but we want them set by parents,
educators and school board members at the local level. That is why I oppose
Common Core.

Money spent at the local and state level is more efficient, more effective
and more accountable. That is why I support moving money out of Washington
and sending it to states and schools. Students deserve a better education.

And every student in the our nation’s capital should have access to a great
education. Therefore, we should expand the options for families in the
District of Columbia to choose the school that is best for their children.

As a father, an uncle and a governor, I believe that every child deserves
access to a great education — be it at a traditional public, charter,
choice, private, virtual or home school environment. We need leaders who
value quality choices and who trust parents to put the interests of their
children first.

*Scott Walker Courting Mitt Romney Donors After Slamming Candidate Romney
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-10/walker-courting-romney-donors-after-slamming-candidate-romney>
// Bloomberg News // John McCormick – June 10, 2015 *

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker makes clear in his political memoir that he
thinks Mitt Romney did a lousy job of running for president in 2012.

That isn’t keeping Walker from traveling to the mountains of Utah Thursday
to gain favor with the former Massachusetts governor -- and potentially tap
his robust donor network.

“Instead of offering a big, positive vision for the future, Romney was
working to make the campaign a referendum on President Obama,” Walker wrote
in his book, noting that Romney was trying to mimic the 1980 presidential
run of Republican icon Ronald Reagan. “The problem was, the Romney team got
the 1980 Reagan campaign all wrong.”

“The problem was, the Romney team got the 1980 Reagan campaign all wrong.”

Walker, 47, is among at least six declared or likely Republican
presidential candidates scheduled to attend Romney’s third annual retreat
in Park City. The E2 Summit, mostly closed to the media, is meant to bring
together influential business, political and policy leaders to discuss the
U.S. leadership.

Roughly 250 guests can also play flag football with Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida, skeet-shoot with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and
ride horses with Romney’s wife, Ann.

Walker, of course, isn’t the only Republican critical of Romney’s 2012
missteps. Others have routinely knocked him for gaffes such as standing
before rich campaign donors and asserting that 47 percent of voters are
dependent on government assistance.

Misreading Wisconsin

Of the potential candidates attending the Romney gathering, Walker has been
among the most outspoken about those failings, arguing the party’s 2012
nominee didn’t do enough to connect with voters or present his own positive
vision.

In his book, “Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge,”
Walker fills most of a chapter entitled “Misreading the Message of
Wisconsin” with Romney criticism.

Walker writes that shortly after his June 2012 victory in Wisconsin’s
recall election, he realized Romney could lose the state in November. He
recalled Romney saying the message of his victory was that Americans didn’t
want more police, firefighters and teachers, as Obama had asserted.

“Unfortunately, it was Romney who did not get the message of Wisconsin,”
Walker writes. The rollback of union power, he said, was meant to avoid
mass layoffs of such public employees.

The chapter also provides a window into Walker’s own likely presidential
campaign, which he’s expected to announce in early July after Wisconsin’s
two-year budget is completed.

47 Percent

Walker repeatedly suggests that Reagan had dealt with similar campaign
situations more effectively.

“Reagan did not dismiss 47 percent of the country as a bunch of moochers,”
Walker writes. “Quite the opposite: At the Republican convention in Detroit
he appealed to those who wanted nothing more than to get off government
assistance and find work.”

While Walker praises Romney’s decency and compassion in the book, about the
only thing he gives him credit for doing right in the campaign is picking
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate.

Obama ultimately won Wisconsin, carrying it with 52.8 percent of the vote,
about the amount Walker won in his recall.

Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist in 2012, said he doesn’t think
criticisms from Walker or others bothered Romney during or after the
campaign. “It’s just not in his DNA,” he said.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Walker’s political committee, Our American
Revival, said in a statement that Romney and Walker are friends.

“While Governor Walker has said he may have made some different campaign
tactics in 2012, he has tremendous respect for Governor Romney as a leader
and what he has done for the Republican Party,” Strong said. “Governor
Walker believes that had Mitt Romney been elected in 2012, the U.S. would
have restored its leadership position in the world and would be safer
today.”

CEO Turnout

Besides Walker, Rubio and Graham, other declared or likely 2016 Republican
candidates expected to attend the Utah gathering will be New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie, Ohio Governor John Kasich and former
Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina.

Some Democrats also will be there, including David Axelrod, Obama’s
longtime strategist, and Lawrence Summers, a former U.S. Secretary of
Treasury. Corporates leaders attending include General Electric Co. CEO
Jeffrey Immelt and Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard’s CEO.

Walker is expected to meet privately with the Romneys. He’ll spend much of
Thursday at their gathering and will join them for barbecue that evening.
He’ll speak on Friday before departing on an almost week-long trade mission
to Canada.

In his run-up to a campaign, the Wisconsin governor is trying to present a
more working-class image than the one offered by Romney, a former private
equity executive worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Last weekend, Walker rode a rented Harley Davidson motorcycle in Iowa and
talked about his modest family upbringing. And he’s fond of highlighting
his frugality: from clipping coupons to tweeting photos of the
ham-and-cheese sandwiches he brings to work.

“My brother and I did not inherit fame or fortune from our family,” Walker
said in Iowa. “What we got was more important, and that is the belief that
if you work hard and you play by the rules you can do and be anything you
want in America.”

*A teacher central to Scott Walker's education pitch would like him to stop
using her story
<http://www.businessinsider.com/teacher-wants-scott-walker-to-stop-using-her-story-2015-6>
// Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 10, 2015 *

Likely presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) regularly
touts his education policies by citing a local teacher who long ago asked
him to stop including her in his speeches and writings.

The teacher, Megan Sampson, repeated her opposition to Walker using her
name in an email to Business Insider on Wednesday.

"I would like Walker to stop using my story as a political narrative for
his campaign," the English teacher wrote.

Walker's most recent Sampson reference came Tuesday night in a Des Moines
Register op-ed that began by mentioning her.

"Megan Sampson was named the outstanding first-year teacher by the
Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English in June of 2010. A week later, she
received another certificate: a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public
Schools system," Walker wrote. "Well, under the old union contracts, the
last hired was first fired."

This part of the piece is almost identical to the opening of Walker's 2011
op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. The day that article was published,
Sampson strenuously objected to being cited as part of the governor's
policy advocacy, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Sampson told the newspaper's education reporter, Erin Richards, that the
attention was unwelcome and resulted in "stress."

"My opinions about the union have changed over the past eight months, and I
am hurt that this story is being used to make me the poster child for this
political agenda," she said then. "Bottom line: I am trying to do my job
and all this attention is interference and stress for me."

Business Insider reached out to Walker's government office and campaign
team on Wednesday inquiring about why they decided to continue using
Sampson's name; both have yet to respond.

*Wisconsinites Blast Scott Walker’s Stadium Deal As ‘Outrageous’
<http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2015/06/10/3667600/wisconsinites-blast-scott-walkers-stadium-deal-outrageous/>
// Think Progress // Alice Ollstein – June 10, 2015 *

Depending on who you ask, building a new, publicly financed basketball
stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks is either a horrendous example of corporate
welfare and official corruption, or a chance to reinvigorate an
economically depressed city.

With the fate of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s plan up in the air — hit
by criticism from progressives and conservatives alike — the county held
its first public meeting Tuesday night to discuss the proposal to use tens
of millions of taxpayer dollars to keep the team in the city.

The large crowd took issue with many aspects of the deal, which would sell
public land valued at nearly $9 million for $1 dollar to the team’s
billionaire owners.

Earlier this month, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, a key architect
of the deal, promised the plan to build a brand new stadium close to the
27-year-old existing venue would “create jobs, generate millions of dollars
in economic activity and property value, and provide a great return on
investment for taxpayers.”

Local Milwaukee blogs have raised questions about whether it would also be
a great return on investment for Abele personally, given that he recently
purchased a $2 million condo directly next to the site of the proposed
arena and the restaurants and stores slated to surround it.

“The appreciation for that condo will go sky-high,” Milwaukee economics
professor Michael Rosen told ThinkProgress. “I’m not saying that’s why he
bought it, but the fact is that will appreciate like crazy if the stadium
gets built. He has an interest in this, even though his job as public
official is to look out for this community.”

Abele’s office did not respond to an interview request from ThinkProgress.

Several local officials are also speaking out against the county’s promise
to collect $4 million per year in unpaid debts from residents, plus a
penalty fee of 15 percent, to contribute to the stadium. For example, a
woman who owed $1,000 for an old traffic ticket would be charged $1,150.

Milwaukee County Supervisor John Weishan, Jr. called the proposal to go
after unpaid ambulance rides, delinquent property taxes and court fees
“crony capitalism.”

“This plan shifts the cost of the new arena from the state and the
Milwaukee Bucks’ new wealthy owners to the poorest in our community,” he
said. “I will not foreclose on someone’s home or shake down a senior for
unpaid medical bills in order to build an arena for millionaires and
billionaires.”

Whether or not it’s morally right to collect these debts to pay for the
stadium, some county officials say it may not be possible, because most of
the residents that owe that money are indigent.

County comptroller estimated in an official report that the county could
only collect about 2 percent of the money they’re promising — in part
because much of the unpaid court fees would go to restitution for victims
of crimes if they ever got collected.

“This is phony money. This is hocus-pocus,” Rosen told ThinkProgress. “They
won’t be able to collect it, and if they do, it’s going to come from our
poorest citizens, and that’s outrageous.”

The scramble to find a source of revenue for the stadium is exacerbated by
Governor Scott Walker’s pledge not to create any new taxes to pay for the
project. But many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle remain critical of
the plan, and say it’s inappropriate to tuck it into the must-pass state
budget. A growing bloc of lawmakers are demanding a separate vote.

*Scott Walker To Remove Waiting Period For Wisconsin Gun Purchases
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/scott-walker-to-remove-waiting-period-for-wisconsin-gun-purchases/>
// Breitbart // Awr Hawkins – June 10, 2015 *

Republican lawmakers passed a bill to do away with the 48-hour waiting
period on gun purchases in Wisconsin, and Gov. Scott Walker is expected to
sign it.

Spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said Walker supports laws which “make it easier
for law-abiding citizens to access firearms and difficult for criminals to
obtain illegal firearms.”

According to the UK Independent, Wisconsin Democrats are already claiming
that a repeal of the waiting period will lead to more gun violence. State
representative Fred Kessler (D-12th) said taking away the 48-hour wait is
“just going to result in more violence in our urban communities.”

But Kessler is countered by Republicans who argue that women can more
quickly acquire guns with which to protect themselves if they do not have
to wait 48 hours before taking the gun home. For example, Rep. Samantha
Kerkman (R-61), argued that removing the waiting period “would curb
domestic violence against women” and she pointed out that “[she] purchased
her own handgun to protect her own family.”

The point is simple: A woman under threat from a former boyfriend or
husband may not have 48 hours to wait for a gun. Any delay in getting a
firearm simply provides her would-be attacker with a safe period in which
he can come after her.

On June 3, Carol Bowne’s former boyfriend allegedly stabbed her death while
she was waiting on state’s permission to buy a gun in New Jersey. Although
New Jersey requires residents to wait much longer than 48 hours, the
principle is the same — time spent waiting is time spent in a vulnerable
condition.

*CRUZ*

*“If you live by the pen, you die by the pen”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/10/if-you-live-by-the-pen-you-die-by-the-pen/>
// WaPo // James Hohmann – June 10, 2015 *

Ted Cruz would spend his first day in office trying to undo some of Barack
Obama’s biggest achievements via executive order.

In a wide-ranging interview about how he’d spend his first 100 days as
president if he won, the Texas GOP senator pledged to roll back more than
just the president’s controversial orders related to immigration.

“If you live by the pen, you die by the pen,” Cruz said by phone Tuesday,
as he traveled from Dallas to an afternoon tour of the Southern border.
“Everything put in place by executive order can be undone by executive
order.”

Cruz said he would use the transition to bring a team together “to engage
in a careful, systematic review of each executive action and to rescind
every one of them that exceeds the Constitutional and legal authority of
the president.”

Cruz’s comments underscored the tenuousness of some of Obama’s biggest
second-term accomplishments, enacted by executive order because of a
Republican-dominated Congress. He’s the first of several presidential
candidates to outline his governing priorities in an interview with
PowerPost, a new Washington Post site that will focus on the intersection
of policy and politics.

Other highlights from the interview:

Cruz promised to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon, which he calls “the single greatest national security threat to the
United States.”

“On day one, I would expect to convene the national security team for a
serious, careful, sober assessment of where Iran stands – how close they
are to acquiring nuclear weapons – and to review every tool at our
disposable to assure that under no circumstances does Iran acquire nuclear
weapons,” he said.

On Israel, he responded to this week’s Supreme Court decision by saying
that he would allow Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their
birthplace on passports. Though Republicans and Democrats have promised in
the past to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Avis to the contested city, Cruz
pledges that he would actually follow through.

The senator, who was the first major party candidate to formally announce
his candidacy back on March 23, said he’s running to try “to get a mandate
from the electorate” to push far-reaching tax and regulatory reform. He
really wants to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, which he believes
would be possible with a flat tax, but he recognizes how politically
challenging such a proposition would be. So he would want to get the public
behind it through the primary and general election.

“I intend to do everything possible to make 2016 a referendum on repealing
Obamacare and adopting a flat tax,” he said.

Asked about his legislative priorities, Cruz said he would focus on tax and
regulatory reform first. He would also push for Congress to “repeal every
word of Obamacare.”

He described himself as “cautiously optimistic” that the Supreme Court will
side against the government in King vs. Burwell on the grounds that the
federal government has “illegally collected billions of dollars in taxes
from Americans who do not owe them.” If the court invalidates coverage for
millions now receiving health subsidies, Cruz said he wants legislation
that would let states “opt-out of Obamacare” altogether.

Cruz promises on the trail to repeal the Common Core state standards.

“This administration has used Race To The Top funds to pressure states to
adopt Common Core standards,” he said. “At the very outset, if I’m elected,
the administration would no longer use federal authority to coerce states
into adopting Common Core.”

Asked who he might appoint to his Cabinet if he were elected, Cruz said
that engaging with that question in a detailed way would be like telling a
woman on a first date what he would like to name his children.

“One step at a time,” he said.

But Cruz said he could definitely see picking some of his GOP rivals in the
2016 race for prominent posts.

“Any Republican president would be a fool not to look very seriously at the
men and women who will be on that debate stage as very serious and even
likely members of a Republican cabinet and even a Republican dream team,”
he said.

*Ted Cruz team looks beyond Iowa, New Hampshire
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ted-cruzs-2016-iowa-new-hampshire-118799.html#ixzz3cfJGUtZE>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – June 10, 2015 *

He’s stuck in the middle of the pack in Iowa, lags in polls, and much of
the GOP donor class views him with disdain.

But Ted Cruz is embracing a novel strategy for winning the nomination: He’s
lowering expectations in the early states while investing in later-voting
states that hardly see a candidate before March.

In the past week or so alone, the Texas senator has taken his presidential
campaign to Michigan and Massachusetts, staffed up in New Jersey and
Tennessee, and skipped an Iowa cattle call to stump in North Carolina — all
states expected to vote in March, with the exception of New Jersey, which
has a primary slated for June 2016.

It’s a risky bet that defies the usual wisdom — and historical precedent —
that a candidate must achieve an early-state victory to stay in the game.
But Cruz’s team is bracing for a long fight based on picking up delegates —
a battle they plan to stretch all the way to the convention, where, the
theory goes, he’ll be the last conservative standing — though a contested
convention hasn’t happened in nearly 40 years.

“Our strategy is taking it to the convention, which is why you’ve seen us
announcing chairmen in California and New Jersey, as well as Iowa and New
Hampshire,” said Mark Campbell, Cruz’s political director. “There are 2,470
[delegates] total, and you need 1,236 of them to win. None of these can be
accumulated at any one time, which is why it’s a marathon more than a
sprint. So we are methodically going state by state, focusing on grass
roots and party activists.”

Campbell said they expect Cruz to place “in the top three” in Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina, and Cruz is spending time there as well — but
he made clear that the real strategizing is, already, built around delegate
counts.

“We expect to do well in all of the early primary states, which will give
us sufficient momentum to do extremely well in the March 1 primaries … and
caucuses,” he said. “Obviously Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and
Nevada are important, but then there are many large states that will be
distributing their delegates starting March 1.”

Betting big on later contests has little track record of success. There’s
often talk of a contested convention — as there was, briefly, in 2012 — but
the last time that actually happened was in 1976, when Gerald Ford narrowly
beat out Ronald Reagan over a contest for delegates at the Republican
National Convention. And it’s almost as rare for a nominee to clinch the
title without winning at least one of the first two nominating contests.
Bill Clinton and George McGovern failed to win Iowa or New Hampshire in
1992 and 1972, respectively, but both clocked in as strong second-place
finishers in the Granite State, ultimately propelling them to the
nominations. On the Republican side, no candidate has won the nomination
without winning either state going back to when the Iowa caucuses gained
prominence in the 1970s — a dynamic, Cruz’s team notes, the senator himself
has acknowledged.

“Candidates who play down the importance of a strong showing among early
primary states do so out of necessity, not choice,” said Chris Maloney, a
senior vice president at Black Rock Group who worked for Mitt Romney and is
well-versed in presidential campaign logistics. “While super PACs now carry
the potential to sustain candidacies in place of early victories, it’s
difficult to envision a scenario where the eventual nominee does not
possess a first-place finish in an early nominating contest. Campaign
capital — donations, personnel — flows with momentum, not against it, and
makes recruiting delegate slates, notaries and attorneys well-versed in
onerous and often costly ballot-access requirements that much easier among
states with later contests.”

But there is a scenario, note people who have observed Cruz’s strategy, in
which three different candidates win Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina
— which wouldn’t necessarily be a surprise, given how crowded and fluid the
GOP field is at this point. Then all of a sudden, delegates start to
matter. So even in places where Cruz is highly unlikely to be the favorite
of the bulk of the state’s Republican primary voters — moderate
Massachusetts, for example — in the states where delegates are allotted
proportionally, he could still rack up some points.

“If essentially there becomes no clear front-runner, then it becomes
important for a particular candidate to start looking at raw counts,” said
a Texas Republican operative. “The traditional focus on Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina becomes less important, and it becomes more
important to deal with raw delegate counts.”

Cruz’s potential targets, where he has either campaigned or hired staff,
include Massachusetts, Georgia, Oklahoma (where he will return this
weekend), Tennessee and Cruz’s home state of Texas — all of which are
tentatively planning to vote on March 1. Then, on March 8, comes Michigan,
where Cruz also visited last week, and North Carolina Republicans are
hammering out details but are also eyeing March dates. But other places
where he’s investing resources — New Jersey, for example — aren’t expected
to have primaries till June, and party leaders hope and expect that there
will be a nominee long before then.

In the meantime, Cruz — and, to some extent, Rand Paul, who has also
maintained a relatively unorthodox campaigning schedule — is able to boost
his name ID by soaking up the free media that accompanies visits to states
where there are fewer candidates traipsing through.

“My guess is … he’s doing a solo media strategy, going where he can get 100
percent of the attention while the others are fighting for the attention in
Iowa,” said conservative radio host Erick Erickson, who is based in
Georgia, where Cruz visited recently. He noted that over the weekend, Cruz
was in North Carolina instead of at Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst’s Roast and Ride
(Campbell said the trip was long-planned and was an opportunity to pick up
state co-chairs). “So none of the other guys got the media coverage he got
by just going to North Carolina, which I guess if you’re trying to do a
free media campaign, that’s the way to do it.”

*Ted Cruz Going After the Libertarian-Hawk Vote
<https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/10/ted-cruz-going-after-the-libertarian-haw>
// Reason // Matt Welch – June 10, 2015 *

At National Review, Joel Gehrke reports that the Ted Cruz campaign "thinks
it has identified a way to begin" to "pick off enough libertarian votes to
hobble Rand Paul." How? By running to the right of Paul on national
security:

Perhaps surprisingly, Cruz's [analytics] team discovered that national
security is a prominent and growing concern among libertarian voters.
"There is a plurality of libertarians whose top issue is national security
today," [Cruz campaign director of research and analytics Chris] Wilson
says, pegging the figure in the mid-30s. "Now, I doubt that was the case in
2008. It may not have been even in 2012. But today it is." Consequently, he
believes that Cruz's support for the USA Freedom Act, which Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell backed begrudgingly after failing to pass a bill
reauthorizing the Patriot Act, hit the sweet spot in terms of appealing to
libertarians who dislike the NSA but fear ISIS.

Are libertarian-leaning Republicans really worried that Rand Paul is too
soft on ISIS? Color me doubtful. While there's no doubt that Americans as a
whole, Republicans especially, are more anxious about national security and
more willing to send out American bombers than they were in 2013, hawks in
my estimation have been wishful in their thinking that those numbers has
made re-palatable notions like pre-emptive war and American boots on the
ground in the Middle East. Being worried about ISIS is not the same as
endorsing whatever Marco Rubio thinks we should do about the Islamic State.
If interventionism was really back in vogue GOP candidates wouldn't have
spend a week in mid-May stumbling over the Iraq War.

It's more likely here that analytics are being bent to fit a strategic
reality and imperative. Which is to say, Ted Cruz is going after the
libertarian vote (in addition to the overlapping Tea Party vote and
especially the social conservative bloc), and he is more hawkish than Paul,
so he's going to continue heightening the contrasts while looking for
positions and rhetoric that don't totally alienate people who distrust the
National Security Agency. I'm no Cruz fan, but I'd rather have two of the
party's top five or six candidates vying for the libertarian vote than just
one.

*Ted Cruz And The False Narrative Of Christian Persecution
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/06/10/ted-cruz-and-the-false-narrative-of-christian-persecution/>
// Forbes // Rick Ungar – June 10, 2015 *

If you ask Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) about the state of religious freedom
in America, you are likely to get an earful on how Christians in this
country are being forced to live through some terrible era of religious
persecution.

Speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Iowa, Cruz told his
audience that “There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after
believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage,” and
that there is “no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party.”

Really?

Last I checked—which was about five minutes ago—all but 30 (28 Jewish and 2
Muslim) Democrats serving in the United States House of Representatives and
Senate identify as Christians.

These numbers might lead a more rational and less politically motivated
observer to conclude that there is still quite a bit of room for Christians
to be a part of the Democratic Party and its leadership.

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the
logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve
disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief
structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act
of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our
founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves,
Christian believers.

It is possible that Senator Cruz’s inability to distinguish between legal
disagreements and religious persecution may rest in his inability to
recognize what persecution in America really looks like?

As Paul Waldman so aptly wrote a few years ago in The American Prospect,

“The impulse to jam that crown of thorns down on your head is a powerful
one in politics. It means you’ve achieved the moral superiority of the
victim, and the other side must be the victimizer. The problem is that
these folks don’t seem to have much of a grasp on what second-class
citizenship actually looks like. Last time I checked, nobody was forbidden
to vote because they’re a Christian, or not allowed to eat in their choice
of restaurants, or forced to use separate water fountains, or even be
forbidden by the state to marry the person of their choice. That’s what
second-class citizenship is. Having somebody on television call your views
retrograde may not be fun, but it doesn’t make you a second-class citizen.”

It seems unlikely that a victim of religious persecution would be permitted
to make the statements we hear Ted Cruz utter—in his effort to rally the
religious right to his cause —without suffering some form of personal
repression or punishment. Can anyone testify to the effort being made by
our government to silence Senator Cruz? So far as I can see, he remains
completely free to say and do what he wishes, including publicly making fun
of a grieving father who has just suffered the loss of his eldest son. Has
he been forced to change his religious practices under threat of penalty?
Has Ted Cruz’s life or status in society been altered in any way merely
because he is a Christian believer?

Further, is it unfair to ask why the cries of religious persecution pouring
forth from those now claiming great offense are missing in action when a
person of color, or one with a different sexual orientation, is treated
with less respect or opportunity? Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither
Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.”

Is it not, therefore, a violation of Christian belief to allow a black man
in America to be treated differently than a white man in America? Would it
not be a violation of Christian belief to view a gay American as something
‘lesser’ than a straight American?

Let me be clear that I sympathize with the Christian baker or flower
supplier who feels that being forced to provide their products to a gay
wedding violates their religious convictions. Indeed, I agree that nobody
should be required by law or otherwise to affirmatively perform an act that
is in conflict with a religious conviction that can be legitimately traced
to the roots of the religion in question.

I would, however, raise for the discussion the case of a religious Jew
whose religion prohibits work, driving, or  even speaking on the phone
during the sabbath, being forced to do one or all of the same when his or
her employer demands. I can’t help but wonder where the cries of religious
persecution are when this type of an event takes place.

In my view, there is a difference between the law providing same sex
couples the equal opportunity to marry, which I anticipate the Supreme
Court will soon confirm is a right in compliance with our Constitution, and
forcing those who do not believe in the same to actively participate in
that wedding. While I certainly agree that our Constitution protects the
right of a same-sex couple to marry in the same way that I am entitled to
such protection, I disagree with the notion that people should be required
to commit an act that is in violation of their religious convictions. The
decision of a local baker to politely decline to provide a cake for the
wedding reception hardly constitutes a denial of a same sex couple’s
Constitutional right to marry as they please.

*CHRISTIE*

*In Washington Speech, Chris Christie Sounds Like He’s Ready to Run
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/10/jeb-bush-in-berlin-says-west-is-confronting-a-more-aggressive-putin/>
// NYT // Nick Corasaniti – June 10, 2015 *

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey told reporters on Tuesday that his family
was completely supportive of a potential presidential run; his decision
hinged on his will to do it.

Speaking in Washington on Wednesday, he seemed ready to make the jump as
well.

“I want to be a part of that discussion, I want to be a part of that
debate, and I want to be part of the leadership that brings our country to
new heights through the power and the goodness of each individual that
makes up this country,” he said at the Latino Coalition Small Business
Summit.

Indeed, Mr. Christie seemed like someone ready to make his case to the
country. To showcase his coalition-building potential, he ticked off the
gains he made in his 2013 re-election effort, noting that he drew the
support of a majority of Latinos in the state and doubled his support among
African Americans. He plans to continue that outreach effort, he said, in
contrast to some of his fellow Republicans.

“My party, quite frankly, has been guilty in some respects of speaking in a
way that doesn’t sound very welcoming to new members,” he said, arguing
that if “a club doesn’t sound like it’s welcoming you, you’re not going to
come, no matter how much you might agree with them.”

He weaved in broad platitudes about his successes as a governor, speaking
at length about Goya, the Latin American food purveyor, opening its
headquarters in Jersey City in April, and he made few specific policy
statements, aside from calling for the end of the Dodd-Frank financial
regulatory law and for providing more choices in education.

He was reserved, at times even somber, invoking phrases like “the goodness
of their heart” and “the goodness of the soul.” But his trademark bluster
emerged at the end of the session, when he responded to a question
regarding education that recalled his battles with the teachers’ unions.

Mr. Christie tore through a list of critiques of the unions, while calling
on the need for “raw politics” to deal with them, and concluded with yet
another indication that he’s ready to run.

“If you’re ready to start offending people in order to achieve a greater
goal, you’ve found the right guy,” he said. “I’m here to help offend people
with you.”

*Court Ruling Removes a Bump From Chris Christie’s Path
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/10/jeb-bush-in-berlin-says-west-is-confronting-a-more-aggressive-putin/>
// NYT – June 10, 2015 *

New Jersey’s highest court handed Mr. Christie a victory on Tuesday when it
allowed him to skip the pension payments he promised to make in a signature
law.

That means he won’t have to find the $1.58 billion a lower court had wanted
him to restore to this year’s state budget, and it will make balancing next
year’s budget a lot easier. He can decide whether to run for president, a
call he has promised to make this month, spared of any “fiscal crisis”
headlines.

The court sided with him against public employee unions, which may help
remind Republican primary voters that the governor was willing to take on
those powerful interests – a fight that spurred his rise to national
stardom. But the decision could also reinforce doubts among Republicans
about his fiscal management of New Jersey. Mr. Christie couldn’t make the
payments because the state’s job growth has lagged well behind neighboring
states and the nation. The missed payments resulted in a record nine credit
downgrades.

While Mr. Christie has been selling himself as a straight shooter, the
court, despite its ruling for him, didn’t make him seem like a man of his
word.

“The loss of public trust due to the broken promises” in the law, the court
wrote in its decision, “is staggering.”

Mr. Christie speaks at a Latino Coalition event on Wednesday in Washington.
He won a majority of Latino voters in his re-election two years ago and
presents that victory as the kind that can help a Republican win the White
House. But that was so many problems ago.

*N.J. Gov. Chris Christie Uses Court Pension Win in Fundraising Pitch
<http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2015/06/10/n-j-gov-chris-christie-uses-court-pension-win-in-fundraising-pitch/>
// WSJ // Heather Haddon – June 10, 2015 *

One day after New Jersey’s highest court delivered Gov. Chris Christie a
victory on a pension-funding fight, the potential 2016 Republican
presidential candidate is using the issue to fundraise.

Mr. Christie’s political-action committee, Leadership Matters for America,
sent a fundraising email to supporters Wednesday that touted the court’s
decision as a sign of the governor’s leadership abilities. It concluded by
asking for donations to the PAC, according to a copy of the email.

“The greatest leaders in our history weren’t afraid to fight for what was
right, even if it was unpopular. Do you want a leader like that in
Washington?” the email read. “If your answer is yes, donate $5 or more
today and help us support the fight to send courageous leaders to D.C. once
again!”

Mr. Christie’s willingness to take on public-sector unions has helped raise
his profile among Republicans nationally.

The fundraising solicitation came from Mike DuHaime, a senior advisor to
Mr. Christie’s PAC and a longtime strategist for the governor. Mr. DuHaime
didn’t respond to a request for comment.

On Tuesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Christie
administration could slash funding to pensions for state workers, even
though the governor signed a law requiring escalating payments into the
underfunded benefit system.

If the court had ruled against Mr. Christie, it would have been another
obstacle for the governor as he pursues the possibility of entering the
presidential race. On Tuesday, state Democrats and the public-sector unions
denounced the court’s ruling

In a statement, Mr. Christie said the court’s decision was a victory for
state taxpayers who can’t “afford these unsustainably high costs” and that
all parties needed to resume discussions about how to make public-employee
benefits more affordable.

Mr. Christie spoke before Hispanic leaders at a Washington D.C. luncheon
Wednesday, where he attacked teachers unions for being more interested in
the comfort of their members than doing more to improve student learning.
The governor has spoken about the need to extend the school day and year.

On Thursday, Mr. Christie leaves for Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation
presidential caucus, for two days. Mr. Christie has said he’ll announce a
decision on whether he’s running at the end of the month.

*Christie faults GOP for sounding unwelcoming to Latinos
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-faults-gop-for-sounding-unwelcoming-to-latinos/2015/06/10/0f62db70-0fba-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html>
// AP // Luis Alonso Lugo & Jill Colvin – June 10, 2015 *

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie faulted his party Wednesday for its
unwelcoming tone at times to minority voters.

In a speech to a Latino Coalition small business conference, the potential
Republican presidential contender also boasted about getting 51 percent of
the Hispanic vote in his re-election as governor.

Christie portrays himself as the kind of Republican who can attract
females, blacks, Hispanics and other voters who are normally drawn to
Democrats.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, won just 27 percent of the Latino vote
in his contest against President Barack Obama — a disconnect that
intensified interest among some Republicans in expanding the party’s appeal
to a broader spectrum of people, especially the growing Hispanic vote.

The GOP “has been guilty in some respects of speaking in a way that does
not sound very welcoming to new members,” Christie said. “If you want to be
a leader in this country, you have to first reach your hand out and change
the tone of our national conversation.”

If Christie chooses to run for the nomination, he will face challengers who
have already begun an aggressive outreach to Hispanic voters. One of them
is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who speaks Spanish. And another is Florida
Sen. Marco Rubio, who is Cuban American.

Christie credited his meetings with communities across New Jersey for his
gains with Latinos and others in his re-election campaign. He was riding
high in opinion polls in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and faced an
opponent who gained little traction.

He said his experience “tells you that if we change the way that we hear
each other, if you treat each other with respect, even when we disagree, we
can bring people together.”

Christie says he will decide this month whether to run for the Republican
nomination.

*For Chris Christie, ‘good’ news is relative
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chris-christie-good-news-relative-0>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 10, 2015 *

The headline on the front page of The Hill yesterday was, for the most
part, accurate: “NJ Supreme Court gives Christie a win on pensions.” And
insofar as the Republican governor hoped the state court would rule his
way, yesterday offered Chris Christie some welcome news.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Gov. Chris Christie (R) can
move ahead with his proposed $1.57 billion cut to the state’s public
employee pensions system to clean the state’s fiscal house.

The decision came as much-needed good news for Christie, who is expected to
announce whether he’ll run for president in the coming weeks.

When it comes to political, economic, and legal developments, the Garden
State governor hasn’t had it easy lately, and I don’t doubt that Christie
and his political team were delighted by the 5-2 ruling from the state
Supreme Court.

But with Christie, “good news” is relative. As the New York Times reported
this morning, “While Mr. Christie has been selling himself as a straight
shooter, the court, despite its ruling for him, didn’t make him seem like a
man of his word. ‘The loss of public trust due to the broken promises’ in
the law, the court wrote in its decision, ‘is staggering.’”

In other words, in Christie’s “win,” the same judges who agreed with his
legal argument also concluded that the governor broke his word and violated
the public trust.

For those hoping for a refresher in this story, this 2014 column from the
Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran on New Jersey’s pension reform efforts is worth
another look.

[Christie] did only the easy part. He made public workers pay more for
skimpier benefits, and froze cost-of-living adjustments for current
retirees. That tough medicine was justified to deal with the emergency.

But the other half of the deal was just as important. For his part,
Christie promised to ramp up state payments into the pension funds
gradually, over seven years, to make up for the scofflaw governors in both
parties who shorted these funds over two decades.

The point is that both sides had to absorb their share of pain. Public
workers did their part. Now Christie is saying he will not do his, that he
will short the funds by a whopping $2.4 billion through next year.

The GOP governor said he’d boost investments in the pension funds, but
Christie was counting on increased job creation and improved economic
growth to help provide additional resources. When New Jersey’s economy
lagged, the money wasn’t there, and Christie didn’t follow through.

A record nine debt downgrades soon followed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Christie, effectively saying he
could legally pursue his preferred course: investing far less in the
pension funds than he said he would. Whether or not this should be
considered a Christie “victory” is a matter of perspective.

*PERRY*

*Perry’s cherry-picked claim that America would have lost 400,000 jobs
without Texas
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/10/perrys-cherry-picked-claim-that-america-would-have-lost-400000-jobs-without-texas/>
// WaPo // Michelle Ye Hee Lee – June 10, 2015 *

“In the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs.
As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs.”

–Former Texas governor Rick Perry (R), presidential announcement speech,
June 4, 2015

In declaring his second bid for the presidency, Perry touted one of his
favorite talking points: job growth in Texas. Perry, the state’s governor
from 2000 to 2015, frequently makes references to the state’s economic
accomplishments, and this topic likely will be repeated through the
campaign.

The Fact Checker recently examined separate claim from Perry about job
creation in Texas, which earned him Two Pinocchios. Despite that rating,
however, he unfortunately repeated the claim in his presidential campaign
announcement. The Fact Checker has long urged readers to be wary of
politicians using jobs numbers to highlight their success in office, as
much of what happens in the economy is out of a politician’s control and
jobs data are subject to manipulation.

Is Perry’s often-repeated statement correct?

The Facts

Texas’ workforce as a whole, indeed, has grown since 2000. Texas has had
noteworthy economic recovery compared to other states, for many reasons
that cannot all be tracked to the decisions of a single policymaker or the
state’s chief executive.

Perry’s staff cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population
Survey, a monthly survey of about 60,000 households. This is used to track
changes of unemployment rates and labor force activity. It measures the
number of people who are employed, unemployed and are unemployed but
looking for work. Perry’s figure comes from the survey’s total civilian
employment numbers, which includes agricultural, self-employed and unpaid
family workers.

In December 2007, there were 10,997,356 employed residents in Texas and
total U.S. employment was 146,273,000. (The U.S.-without-Texas employment
was 135,275,644). In December 2014, there were 12,570,050 employed Texas
residents, and 147,442,000 total employed residents in the United States.
(The U.S.-without-Texas employment was 134,871,950).

So while Texas gained 1,572,694 jobs between December 2007 and December
2014, the United States gained 1,169,000 in the same period. The difference
between the two (i.e., U.S.-without-Texas employment in December 2014 minus
U.S.-without-Texas in December 2007) was 403,694 — essentially the figure
Perry used.

But that is not the same as the number of “jobs” that would have been
“lost” without Texas. In fact, the BLS warns against aggregating
state-level data and adding them up to the national total, as state figures
are adjusted at the state level.

The standard measure for job gains or losses is a different data set: BLS
Current Employment Statistics, also called establishment survey or payroll
survey. This is a monthly survey of about 588,000 worksites in the country
and is an estimate of non-farm wage and salary jobs, not of employed
Americans. It does not include agriculture, self-employed or unpaid family
workers.

Economists, the BLS and the Federal Reserve use the establishment survey
when measuring job growth. Perry’s staff did not respond when we asked why
he used the household survey instead of the more commonly cited
establishment survey.

The establishment survey shows a much different picture. The seasonally
adjusted non-farm payroll data show that between December 2007
(138,350,000) and December 2014 (140,592,000), there were 2.2 million net
new jobs in the United States. During the same period, there were 1.2
million net new jobs in Texas (10,529,900 in December 2007 to 11,749,500 in
December 2014).

Let’s see what happens when you apply Perry’s logic to the establishment
survey, despite the BLS’s warning that this is not kosher math: Without
Texas, America still would have gained 1,022,400 jobs.

There’s more, still applying Perry’s logic. (BLS officials can close their
eyes for the next few paragraphs.)

If you pick the month of December during any other year Perry was governor
of Texas, and compare it to December 2014 employment numbers, it begins to
become clear why he picked 2007. If you compare December 2000 to December
2014, or compare December 2001 to December 2014, and so on, the only two
years he can use to say that America would have “lost jobs” “without Texas”
are December 2006 and December 2007.

As the graph shows, if Perry picked December 2001 to compare to December
2014, he would have to say: “Without Texas, America still would have gained
8.8 million jobs.” If he picked December 2006 to compare to December 2014,
he may have said: “Without Texas, America would have lost 240,000 jobs.”

Last one, using the Perry logic: From January 2000 to December 2014 —
Perry’s entire tenure as governor — the United States gained 8.2 million
net new jobs without Texas.

Further, the BLS establishment survey shows that after a bump in the number
of jobs in Texas from December 2014 to January 2015, the number is
decreasing — potentially due to the plummeting oil prices that affect
states such as Texas more than others.

The Pinocchio Test

This is a classic case of politicians manipulating or cherry-picking
numbers to put their state’s performance in the best possible light. Perry
used a BLS dataset used to measure unemployment rate, not job growth. He
added up state employment numbers in the way that BLS says you shouldn’t.
And he picked a baseline year (December 2007) that over-inflates Texas’
share of total U.S. employment and deflates what is happening to the rest
of the country.

Perry has made similar claims in the past (FactCheck.org examined one
earlier this year) and may repeat them as he launches his campaign. We
wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but his raw numbers were rooted
in accurate BLS data, so it tipped his claim, just barely, to Three.

*Rick Perry Tries Again
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/rick-perry-tries-again_b_7557480.html>
// HuffPo // Chris Weigant – June 10, 2015*

I've been giving each of the major candidates for president a serious
overview, right after they officially announce their candidacy. Today,
we'll take a look at Rick Perry, who made his formal announcement last week.

Perry is the tenth Republican to throw his hat in the 2016 ring, joining
Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, George
Pataki, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum. There are at least five
other Republicans who will also likely make a run for their party's
nomination, but they have yet to formally announced their candidacies.

Rick Perry served the longest term as Texas governor in the state's
history, taking over the office from George W. Bush (when Bush left to
become president), and Perry only stepped down from this post earlier this
year. He, obviously, wants to follow the trail Bush blazed from the Texas
governor's office to the Oval Office. However, this will be the second run
for Perry, and he'll have to improve significantly on his previous
performance to even have a chance of doing so.

This is likely the biggest obstacle Perry faces. In an incredibly crowded
Republican field, there are only three men who are not making their first
run for the presidency: Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Perry. None of
these three have exactly caught fire in the polls yet (although it is
early, and anything could still happen). But it does seem that this time
around the Republican electorate is looking for a completely new face to
head their ticket, which could spell doom for the three also-rans.

Perry's 2012 run was impressive, at least at first. Right after he
announced, he leapt to the top of the polling, beating out Mitt Romney and
all the rest of the Republican field. Unfortunately for Perry, he didn't
stay on top of the heap for very long, and his chances all but evaporated
after a disastrous debate performance. When asked to name the three federal
government departments he would work to abolish as president, Perry
infamously could only name two of them. After hemming and hawing for a
while, Perry just threw in the towel and replied: "Oops." This "oops
moment" absolutely torpedoed whatever chance he might have had to beat
Romney and the rest of the field, and his poll numbers quickly sank like a
stone.

A plausible explanation for his disastrous debate performance was revealed
later: Perry had undergone back surgery mere weeks before he announced his
candidacy, and was on some serious painkillers during the debates (indeed,
during his whole campaign). Anyone who has ever been on such painkillers
can easy attest that they don't exactly go hand-in-hand with coherent
thinking or clear-headedness. If Perry was popping pills before walking on
the debate stage, it's a little more understandable that his memory wasn't
fully in working order, in other words. Perry's big problem, however, is
that you rarely get a second chance to make a first impression.

Perry falls somewhere in the middle of the conservative ideological
spectrum. He's taken a very hard line on some issues dear to the Republican
base, but then he's also championed some rather unorthodox positions as
well, which might cause him problems if he does rise to the frontrunner
ranks of the Republican pack (where his positions will get much more
scrutiny from his fellow Republicans).

Perry, as governor, slashed the state's safety net to the bone, and pushed
a conservative version of health care reform, which consisted mostly of
"tort reform." But Texas is now the number one state in the country when it
comes to the rate of uninsured citizens, meaning this panacea didn't
exactly work wonders. Perry is a hardliner on abortion, and opposes it in
almost all cases -- including for rape or incest victims -- and would only
carve out an exception if the life of the mother is at risk. Perry is
counting on the religious right's support (he announced his 2012
presidential candidacy at a prayer rally), and is stridently
anti-gay-rights. He has expressed support for a constitutional amendment
limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Perry is an Eagle Scout, and
strongly supported the Boy Scouts banning gays from their ranks. He is (no
surprise, for a Texas Republican) very pro-gun and presided over the
executions of hundreds of Texas prisoners -- more than any other state by
far. All these things are pretty standard Republican positions, well within
the mainstream of his party.

Perry, however, has broken ranks with Republican orthodoxy in several
notable ways. He signed a law in Texas to give undocumented immigrants
in-state tuition rates at state colleges, which is much more liberal than
most conservatives' position. Unlike some of the other Republicans running
for president (Marco Rubio, chiefly), Perry actually stood behind this
action and defended it, rather than running away from it in an effort to
pander to Republican voters. Perry also championed mandatory HPV vaccine
shots for young women, which raised eyebrows among many Republicans (and
not only the anti-vaccine crowd). Perry has one further issue that has long
been a bugaboo among the more conspiracy-minded Republicans (and
libertarians). Perry supported the "Trans-Texas Corridor" project which
would have created a major transportation route from Oklahoma to Mexico, in
an effort to boost trade through his state. But this soon became the stuff
of conspiracy theory, supposedly being just a preliminary to some sort of
merger of Canada, Mexico and the United States into a
supposedly-nightmarish regional government which would destroy life as we
know it in America. Or something. This likely won't hurt Perry all that
much, however, because so few people have heard about it, and because the
project never really got off the ground.

Perry's strong point -- the foundation of his campaign, if last time is any
indication -- is the explosive growth in Texas during his time in office.
Perry likes to refer to this as the "Texas miracle," on the campaign trail.
Texas showed an enormous amount of growth in jobs and population over the
past 15 years, and (just as one indicator) the state added a whopping four
seats in the House of Representatives in the last reapportionment (after
the 2010 census) -- far more than any other state (California, by
comparison, added zero seats, while New York and Ohio both lost two seats).
Perry is running as the man who made such spectacular growth happen, in
short. How much of the credit is his is debatable, as is much of the "Texas
Miracle" itself, but politicians aren't exactly shy about claiming such
credit, so Perry's claims are really just par for the course.

Perry may be weak on the actual fiscal record of Texas, however -- a point
so far not being made by his opponents in the Republican field, but one
which could gain traction if Perry starts doing better in the polls. While
Perry was governor, the state began financing such basic services as roads
(and other infrastructure) and unemployment benefits, by borrowing an
enormous amount of money. The total state debt essentially tripled during
his term as governor, due largely to his refusal to raise taxes. This may
not go over very well with the fiscal conservatives in the Republican base
-- again, if any of his opponents actually uses it to attack Perry.

Perry is also running as a strong proponent of beefing up border security,
an issue where he's got more experience than most of his Republican
opponents (Texas shares the longest border with Mexico of any state). He's
hoping to defuse the immigration issue by being the strongest voice for
increasing border patrols and stopping illegal entry on America's southern
border.

Could Perry's candidacy catch fire the way it did the last time around?
Well, anything's possible, especially this early in the race. But so far,
it just hasn't happened. He has received a small bump in the polling, but
he's still in tenth place overall -- right behind Donald Trump. If he's
going to be considered a viable candidate, he'll have to get his poll
numbers out of the bottom tier of candidates. Unfortunately for Perry,
there are a lot of other people who will be attempting to do exactly the
same thing.

If Perry does surprise everyone and start moving up, he's got as good a
chance as most of the candidates to break into the top rank (currently
occupied by Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker). At the present time,
however, there are no indications that this is going to happen. But perhaps
one very good debate performance (to finally bury the notoriety of his
previous debate performances) could move him up to challenge the
frontrunners.

Perry's Texas swagger probably wouldn't go over all that well in a general
election, though, if he were somehow to become the Republican nominee. In
the first place, the last Republican who was president also had a
pronounced Texas swagger, and look what that got us all. Perry will have a
similar problem to Jeb Bush's, in separating himself from the man he took
over the Texas governor's office from: George W. Bush. My guess is that if
it came down to a race between Hillary Clinton and Rick Perry, Clinton
would beat him pretty easily. But I would be very surprised if Perry got
that far. I think his "oops moment" is going to be remembered by too many
voters for him to recreate his image (glasses or not). I also think that
the Republican electorate truly is looking for something new in their
candidate of choice this year, and as a direct result Perry isn't even
going to merit much attention from most Republican primary voters.

*The Legal Trouble That Could Haunt Rick Perry's Presidential Campaign
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/rick-perry-president-indictment>
// Mother Jones // Patrick Caldwell – June 10, 2015 *

Rick Perry's recently launched presidential campaign is off to a relatively
smooth start. Sure, unlike his 2012 bid, he's entering the field far, far
behind in the polls—he's trailing Donald Trump!—but he's been getting good
press. "Rick Perry's still got it," proclaimed Politico's Katie Glueck over
the weekend, noting that "when it comes to glad-handing and working a
crowd, Perry still sets the gold standard even if he trails in the polls."

But as he launches his second run for the White House, Perry faces ongoing
legal trouble back home in Texas stemming from his time as governor. Last
August, a grand jury indicted Perry for abusing his power as governor.
Perry has repeatedly requested that judges dismiss the case, only to be
rebuked as the allegations progress toward a trial—one that could play out
during the heat of the GOP primaries.

The case is a bit convoluted, but it stems from Perry's 2013 effort to oust
a county district attorney who investigates public corruption.

Texas has an unusual system of keeping politicians in check. There's no a
state-level commission that scrutinizes political malfeasance. Instead, the
Travis County DA—based in Austin—is responsible for conducting these
investigations.

Texas Republicans had never been huge fans of a system that entrusts this
liberal county with that power (especially after the Travis DA charged
former US House majority leader Tom DeLay with violating election law in
2005). Nevertheless, the status quo had hummed along until April 2013, when
police arrested Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg for drunk driving.
Lehmberg, a Democrat, was caught on videotape the night of her arrest
threatening police officers.

Republicans, including Perry, immediately called on Lehmberg to resign. But
she refused, managing to hold onto her job despite various legal maneuvers
to remove her from office. So Perry attempted a more creative method to get
rid of Lehmberg. In 2013, he used the governor's line item veto power to
cross out $7.5 million in funds allocated to the Public Integrity Unit, the
subsection of the Travis County DA's office that investigates political
corruption. Perry directly linked the veto to Lehmberg's arrest, saying he
couldn't allow the funds to go to this outfit "when the person charged with
ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public's confidence."

That raised the ire of Texans for Public Justice, a left-leaning good
government outfit. It filed a complaint alleging Perry had abused his
office's powers. "The governor overstepped his authority by sticking his
nose in Travis County's business," the group's executive director said in a
statement at the time. This led to a judge tasking a special prosecutor to
look into the case, and that led to a grand jury and felony indictment for
Perry on one count of abusing his official capacity and another count of
coercing a public servant.

Perry has been dismissive of the case, turning his mugshot into a
fundraising t-shirt. And a number of legal commentators, even liberal ones,
have agreed, questioning the seriousness of the charges leveled against
Perry. University of California, Irvine law professor Rick Hasen termed it
"the criminalization of ordinary politics."

Yet judges in Texas aren't ready to shelve the charges. San Antonio Judge
Bert Richardson has repeatedly turned down motions from Perry's lawyers to
dismiss the case. In April, the case was assigned to a three-judge panel in
Texas' 3rd Court of Appeals. No date has been set for initial hearings, so
the case might not get fully aired until the peak of presidential primary
season later this fall. If Perry he ends up getting convicted on both
counts, he would face a maximum sentence of over 100 years of jail time.

No matter the outcome of the case, Perry soon might get his wish to see
Lehmberg off the public corruption beat: The state house and senate both
recently passed bills to reassign corruption cases to the Texas Rangers—a
law enforcement agency that is overseen by the governor's appointees.

*Perry Switches On Trade: TPP’s Become ‘An Animal’ That ‘Needs To Go Away’
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/10/perry-switches-on-trade-tpps-become-an-animal-that-needs-to-go-away-audio/>
// The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – June 10, 2015 *

After initially offering up support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
deal, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has withdrawn his backing ahead of a
House vote to potentially approve a deal Friday.

In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” Wednesday, the 2016 candidate
argued that much like the Ex-Im Bank, which Perry also supported until
recently, the TPP has now become “an animal” that “needs to go away” at
this point and time.

Perry had signaled his potential opposition to the TPP in May based on his
lack of trust in President Barack Obama negotiating a trade deal.

“As you find out information, I don’t mind — just like the Ex-Im Bank, I
believe that America has to be a competitor out there. I think we have to
do everything we can to well our products around the world. But like the
Ex-Im Bank, when it came to be abundantly clear of the fraud and corruption
that was going on there, I finally said ‘listen, I can’t support you
anymore,” Perry told Hewitt. “At this particular point and time, this thing
needs to go away. And the TPP has now become that kind of an animal, if you
will.”

“When you will not tell Congress and when you will not tell the American
people what is in a trade agreement — Washington has a real issue with
trust as it is, and when you try to pull that on the American people and we
start hearing some of the things that are in there — with this president’s
record of pulling some of the things he has done, we have to pass the bill
so we’ll know out what’s in it type of rhetoric,” Perry continued. “If you
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you pass Obamacare, the
costs are going to go down…With that kind of record and not being honest
and transparent with the American people, I think it’s just easier —  well,
I wouldn’t say easier, I think the wise thing to do is to say Mr.
President, if you don’t trust the American people to know what’s in this
trade deal, we don’t trust you enough to pass it.”

Perry had previously signaled reservations about a potential deal, as
reported on May 19 by the Texas Tribune.

“I would rather Barack Obama not be negotiating for me right now, but he’s
going to be there for about 20 more months, and this deal needs to be
transparent, and that’s my greatest concern — is the lack of transparency
in this piece of legislation,” Perry said. “Until the public and Congress
are comfortable that they know what’s in this trade agreement, I’m not
going to recommend that they sign it, and if we have to wait until there’s
a new president, then that’s okay.”

*GRAHAM*

*The most interesting candidate you’re not paying any attention to
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/10/the-most-interesting-candidate-youre-not-paying-any-attention-to/?postshare=1651433962579040>
// WaPo // Chris Cillizza – June 10, 2015 *

When Lindsey Graham talks, the political world, generally, yawns.  Graham,
while a very well-regarded figure from his Senate perch, is not
particularly regarded at all in the 2016 presidential race that he recently
joined.

Graham is an asterisk -- or close to it -- in polling in every early state
(except for his home state of South Carolina) and nationally.  He's not
even close to making the stage in the first Republican debate set for
August. He's generally regarded as a cause candidate, with that cause being
to represent the most hawkish views on foreign policy and national security
against attacks by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Ok, fine.  But, if you stop and actually listen to some of what Graham is
saying -- particularly on the subject of bipartisanship -- you realize that
he's one of the most interesting candidates in the field and one of the few
who can genuinely sell himself as a change agent.

Here's Graham answering a question from "Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd
about how he would address political polarization in Washington:

I think there's a market for a better way. When I talked to that young guy
there, I said, you're going to have to work a little longer, pal. If I'm
president, I'm going to ask you to work a little bit longer. What do people
do between 65 and 67, they work two years longer. Ronald Reagan and Tip
O'Neil showed us what to do. I'm making a bet here. I'm making a bet that
you can talk about problem-solving in a Republican primary and still get
the nomination. I'm making a bet that you can openly embrace working with
Democrats and still get the nomination. I'm making a bet that with a
war-weary public, you can rally them to go over there and keep the fight
over there before it comes here. Now, if I lose those bets it doesn't mean
America is lost, it just means I fell short. To a young person in politics,
listen to what I'm doing here and see if it makes sense to you. There is a
growing desire by the public at large to stop the BS. I feel it, I sense
it, and I'm running on the idea that if you elect me, I'll do whatever is
necessary to defend the nation. I'm running not as a candidate for a single
party but for a great nation.

If you believe the American people when they say they want leaders who are
willing to work with one another and take positions because they believe in
them not because the policies are popular, it's hard for me to imagine a
better message than that paragraph from Graham above.

And, not for nothing, Graham's recent life in politics suggests he actually
walks some of his talk.  Graham was one of the leading voices in support of
the comprehensive immigration reform proposal that passed the Senate in
June 2013 only to die in the House. Unlike most of the Republican Senators
involved in that effort *** cough *** MARCO RUBIO *** cough ***, Graham
stood steadfastly behind his support for immigration reform -- despite the
fact that it drew him five primary challengers who cited it as exhibit A
that he simply wasn't conservative enough for South Carolina.

Graham won that primary last June with 56 percent of the vote. How? Here's
how The Atlantic's Molly Ball diagnosed it: "Graham talked about his
support for a path to citizenship at nearly every campaign stop, touting
his work with Democrats on the issue as evidence of his willingness to
solve tough problems in Washington. By his calculus, voters would accept a
difference of opinion, but they wouldn't accept insincerity."

That's pretty compelling stuff, right? A guy who not only says he is
committed to work across the aisle but actually has done it -- and owned it?

And yet, Graham is where he is: An asterisk in the polls, classified,
already, in the "also-ran" pile of GOP presidential candidates.

There's a case to be made that it's early in the process and Graham still
has plenty of time to rise above his currently meager station in the polls
and so on and so forth. True, if unlikely based on the history of these
sorts of races.

To me though, Graham's candidacy is a sort of campaign thought experiment:
What if politics produced a candidate that had lots and lots of what the
public said it wanted but in a somewhat unlikely package (a
southern-drawling lifetime politician) and without the buzz and fanfare
that surrounds the so-called "top tier"?

Could a candidate like that possibly hope to break through?

*Lindsey Graham to Sean Hannity: Knock it off
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lindsey-graham-sean-hannity-knock-it-off-118813.html>
// Politico // Nick Gass – June 10, 2015 *

Fox News host Sean Hannity went after presidential candidate Lindsey Graham
on Tuesday night, responding to the South Carolina Republican’s recent
remarks that blamed both him and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for the role they
play in polarizing American politics.

“I’ve come to conclude that the Republican Party and the country as a whole
needs to knock off some of this stuff,” Graham told Hannity.

Story Continued Below

Graham’s initial comments, aired June 2 in an interview with NBC News’
Chuck Todd, imagined what the two political commentators from opposite ends
of the spectrum might have said to Benjamin Franklin.

“You know, Ben Franklin comes outside and Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity
jump on him, ‘Don’t give in, Ben.’ Just think how hard it is in today’s
24/7 news cycle [with] talk radio, cable television and money,” Graham told
Todd. “There is a group telling you to say no about everything.”

Hannity ticked through his policy positions available on his website,
touting his own solutions.

“Absolutely, you have solutions,” Graham responded. “But so does Rachel
Maddow. And the problem is that we can’t blend these solutions.”

“Wasn’t Martin Luther King Jr. polarizing in a good way for justice?”
Hannity asked. “He was a polarizing figure, right?”

Ronald Reagan was also described as “polarizing” when he took on sitting
President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976, Hannity said.
The Fox News host also brought up Graham’s own support of President Bill
Clinton’s impeachment while he was a member of the House, as well as his
support of the troop surge in Iraq.

At times, Graham acknowledged he has been polarizing, but told Hannity that
his solutions don’t work. Shutting down the government over the Affordable
Care Act, for example, Graham said, “made zero sense to me.”

*Lindsey Graham’s abortion push could imperil fellow GOPers
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lindsey-grahams-abortion-push-could-imperil-fellow-gopers-118849.html>
// Politico // Burgess Everett – June 10, 2015 *

Sen. Lindsey Graham is renewing a GOP push for a 20-week abortion ban — a
bid that could boost his long-shot presidential campaign but spell trouble
for vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection in swing states next year.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) earlier promised a vote on
the hot-button bill, which already passed the House. Abortion foes say a
vote in the Senate would be a historical milestone, the most consequential
vote on the issue in more than a decade.

But Graham’s effort threatens to hand political ammunition to Democrats
trying to knock off GOP senators in purple and blue states that will decide
Senate control after the 2016 election. Among them are Rob Portman of Ohio,
Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.

Democratic leaders, cognizant of the damage that social issues like
abortion have done to Republican candidates in the recent past, practically
dared McConnell to take up the ban.

“They can do whatever they want. We’re ready for them,” said Minority
Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the party’s top electoral strategists,
was slightly more measured.

“I don’t think it’s the right thing to do and I don’t think it helps them
politically,” said the Democratic leader in waiting.

In an interview, the South Carolina Republican called his legislation “good
policy” and “acceptable politics.” He waved away the possibility that he is
imperiling some of his GOP colleagues running in tough states — in a year
that’s expected to favor Democrats with Hillary Clinton at the top of the
ticket.

Ayotte, Portman and Johnson have backed the 20-week ban in the past, and
said they would do so again if it came to a vote. But they did not urge its
speedy consideration on the Senate floor.

“Late-term abortions are obviously something that the American people don’t
agree with. So I am looking at the bill and it’s up to the leader whether
he brings it to the floor. But I’ve previously been against late-term
abortions,” said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who in 2014 worked with Graham
to pressure then-Majority Leader Harry Reid in putting the bill up for a
vote, citing polls that show support for a 20-week abortion ban.

Graham asserted that the measure, which he plans to introduce formally at a
news conference Thursday, would be tricky even for some Democrats who back
abortion rights to oppose.

“A lot of pro-choice people would say, ‘Hey, that late in the pregnancy we
probably should not allow wholesale abortion,’” Graham said.

Graham’s rivals for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 uniformly
endorse a ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy. And some governors running for
president have overseen enactment of strict abortion legislation or, like
Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.), are in the process of doing so.

But Graham would be leading the charge from the stage of the Senate floor,
possibly in the thick of the 2016 primary season. Graham is running as a
bipartisan pragmatist who’s strong on national defense; a high-profile
anti-abortion campaign could raise his profile among social conservative
activists, some of whom will stand aside him on Thursday morning when he
makes his push for Senate action on the bill. Little known outside his home
state and far behind in the polls, Graham is looking to jump-start his
fledgling campaign.

“It’s a good debate to have. We’re one of seven countries I believe that
allow wholesale abortion on demand five months into the pregnancy. I’d like
to get out of that club,” Graham said. “This is a reasonable position to
take.”

The abortion push is already causing some grumbling among some Republican
senators who say the party should steer clear of a pitched battle over
social policy that will never get past President Barack Obama’s veto pen
even if it somehow managed to break a filibuster.

“I don’t think that should be the priority,” said Sen. Susan Collins
(R-Maine). Asked if she could support such a bill, she demurred: “I don’t
think it is good policy for us to turn to that issue, period.”

For Graham personally, though, there’s little downside to pressing
McConnell follow through on his pledge a year ago to put the abortion bill
on the floor if he became majority leader. Graham has long been a staunch
anti-abortion advocate, taking up the charge to pass the 20-week ban two
years ago and successfully pushing through a law that legally recognized in
utero children killed in crimes.

But the 20-week bill’s political complexity has confounded GOP leaders. In
the House, GOP leaders were forced to pull the bill and rewrite it to
assuage concerns of Republican women who objected to rape-reporting
requirements in the bill. After four months of work, the legislation
eventually passed the House last month. McConnell has said little about it
since, giving no indication when it will come up for a vote in the Senate.

Graham said McConnell isn’t backing away from his pledge to have a vote.

“I have no reason to believe he’s changed his mind,” Graham said. But GOP
leaders and senior aides suggested McConnell is no rush to bring the bill
to the floor.

Democrats involved in 2016 Senate races indicated that they’re prepared to
pounce if McConnell takes up the abortion measure.

“In 2016, voters across the country – men and women alike – will remember
that Senate Republicans were more interested in playing politics with
women’s health than in moving our country forward,” said Sadie Weiner of
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Republican leaders are defending 24 Senate seats next year, including in
several states that President Barack Obama carried twice. Privately, some
Republicans groused that putting the legislation up for the vote would
revive “war on women” broadsides from Democrats and hurt the GOP in purple
states. But several vulnerable GOP incumbents said they would likely
support the 20-week bill.

“It’s pretty important to so many people that are pro-life, as am I. I
think at some point in time it’s just reasonable to say that we should
protect life,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), whom former Democratic Sen.
Russ Feingold is planning to challenge in what’s expected to be a close
race.

From right to left: Sen. Rob Portman, Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Kelly Ayotte
| AP Photo

Polls are mixed on abortion. The 20-week ban frequently garners a plurality
or majority of support in polls, most of which were conducted in 2013. But
last week a Gallup survey showed Americans self-identifying as “pro-choice”
for the first time since 2008.

Republicans are reading the supportive polls for the 20-week bill as a
reason to forge ahead. But Democrats remember their previously successful
efforts to portray the GOP as insensitive on women’s healthcare.

“It’s yet another proof point of them being out of touch,” said Jess
McIntosh of EMILY’S List. “They were elected to create jobs.”

National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Roger Wicker of
Mississippi brushed off that attack.

“It’s a fully formed baby at this point. The pregnancy is halfway over,” he
said of the abortions the bill seeks to end.

A vote could help other Republicans politically.

Backing the the 20-week bill could allow Republican senators such as John
McCain of Arizona, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Portman to flex their
conservative muscles in primary races. And pro-abortion rights Sen. Mark
Kirk (R-Ill.) could tout his opposition during a general election.

“That’s going to be an issue that probably works for our candidates,” said
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 3 Senate Republican. “The politics of the
life issue has changed dramatically in the past few years and the way that
Lindsey’s approaching it is pretty good ground for us to stand on.”

But nobody may benefit more than Graham, who stands out among many of his
conservative rivals for the Republican nomination as a lawmaker willing to
compromise.

On Thursday morning he’ll stand aside leaders from social conservative
groups that say a vote on his bill is the most important abortion action in
the Senate since former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) managed to pass a
partial-birth abortion ban a dozen years ago.

“This moment is tailor made for him,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president
of the Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion rights.

*SANTORUM*

*Rick Santorum is getting lost in the growing GOP pack
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-rick-santorum-lost-in-pack-20150609-story.html>
// LA Times // David Horsey – June 10, 2015 *

Within days after Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election, I began
to receive emails from Rick Santorum’s media relations staff. At the time,
I thought to myself, "This guy is still running for president." And, of
course, I was right.

Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, finished No. 2 in the 2012
Republican primaries, so it made sense that he might want to have another
go at it. The unceasing flow of emails on his behalf did not mention the
next election, of course. They were merely updates on Santorum’s speaking
schedule and statements about major issues arising in the news -- part of a
coordinated effort to signal he remained a player in the political game.

Many of the news releases arrived under the banner of Patriot Voices, an
organization formed by Santorum and his wife, Karen, in 2012 with a stated
mission to "fight to protect faith, freedom, family and opportunity." The
unstated, but rather obvious, underlying mission was to maintain a
political organization Santorum could mobilize for another White House run.
It also allowed him to avoid having to take a real job.

Santorum probably hoped his good showing in the last round of primaries and
his unceasing effort to sustain grass-roots support would give him the
inside track to the 2016 GOP nomination, but it has not turned out that
way. In polls, he is now languishing near the bottom in the most crowded
field of candidates in his party’s history. Instead of fighting for first
place with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, Santorum is stuck
between Carly Fiorina and George Pataki.

Still, there is no reason to give up. The Iowa caucuses are still eight
months away and, as yet, no candidate holds a commanding position in an
ever-expanding group of candidates that is splitting the polling numbers
into smaller and smaller fractions. Anything could happen.

The uncertain nature of the Republican race at this point has made it easy
for just about anyone to announce his or her candidacy and expect to be
taken at least halfway seriously. Politically speaking, there are no
heavyweights in the GOP ring in this election cycle, no prohibitive
favorites. If you were a Republican with even a modest resume as a senator
or governor or Fox News analyst (or, if you were Donald Trump, with an ego
the size of Manhattan), it would be easy to look around at the competition
and think, "Really? I’m at least as worthy as the rest of these guys."

And even though most of the announced and soon-to-be-announced candidates
must know their chances are slim, they have also learned there are
consolation prizes for also-rans. Mike Huckabee turned his failed candidacy
in 2008 into a lucrative TV career that is paying for a gaudy mansion in
Florida. A turn as a vice presidential nominee elevated Sarah Palin from a
boring job as governor of Alaska to a glitzy celebrity career at the
crossroads of politics and entertainment. For others, being a presidential
candidate at least earned them frequent appearances on the Sunday morning
political news shows.

Santorum may face more meager rewards if and when he loses again. Still,
considering that Pennsylvania voters booted him out of the Senate in 2006,
by November 2016, he will have spent much of a decade as a presidential
candidate or candidate-in-waiting with all the perks and attention that go
with that role. That's not nearly as good as getting the keys to the White
House, but, for a politician, it is sure better than obscurity.

*HUCKABEE*

*Co-Author Of Mike Huckabee Books Was Accused Of Child Molestation In Two
Legal Cases
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/co-author-of-mike-huckabee-books-was-accused-of-child-molest#.grVmrAx63>
// Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – June 10, 2015*

John Perry, a prolific author who co-wrote two books with former Arkansas
governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and co-wrote one with
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, was accused of child molestation
in two separate lawsuits, BuzzFeed News has found.

A 2012 police investigation of Perry’s alleged offenses found that “the
allegations of sexual battery were sustained” but that the statute of
limitations had expired.

Perry co-wrote Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing
Common Sense Back to America about Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign.
He also did research and writing for Huckabee’s 2007 book Character Is the
Issue, a memoir of his early time as governor. Perry also co-wrote So Help
Me God, Moore’s autobiographical account of fighting to keep a monument to
the Ten Commandments at Alabama’s Supreme Court.

Those books are just a few of the titles produced with Perry’s help: He
wrote For Faith & Family: Changing America by Strengthening the Family with
Richard Land, the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, a book with
former Southern Baptist Convention president James T. Draper, as well as a
book with Frank Page, the president and CEO of the Southern Baptist
Convention Executive Committee. Perry even co-authored The Vow, the book
made into a feature film starring Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum. Perry
also lists writing two books for prominent pastor John F. MacArthur on his
website.

In a sworn affidavit submitted during divorce proceedings, Perry’s ex-wife
attests that she “filed for divorce as a result of Mr. Perry’s
inappropriate marital conduct, to which he admitted to in his Response to
Interrogatories numbers 1 and 2.” Throughout the court documents,
“inappropriate marital conduct” appears to be a euphemism for the alleged
molestation.

Perry’s responses are not included in the case file.

Another filing, submitted by Perry’s ex-wife’s attorney earlier in the same
proceedings, refers to Perry’s “admitted sexual abuse” of a minor child.
Perry’s response to that filing — also submitted prior to his ex-wife’s
affidavit — does not deny the abuse, or that Perry admitted it. Instead,
Perry claims that “there was never any testimony or other evidence of any
kind presented” to the court, “or any orders or findings of fact […]
regarding any alleged sexual abuse of any minor child relative to the
parties’ divorce or any other legal proceeding.”

This claim is not, however, necessarily incompatible with Perry’s ex-wife’s
claim that Perry “admitted to” the alleged “inappropriate marital conduct”
during the discovery process, because it appears that those findings were
not technically “presented” to the court.

Likewise, a police investigation launched in 2012 found the allegations
against Perry “were sustained,” according to a police department
spokesperson, but that statute of limitations had passed.

“The alleged sexual battery was reported to have occurred when the victim
was between the ages of 11 and 14,” said Nashville police department
spokesperson Don Aaron in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

“As a result of the investigation, the allegations of sexual battery were
sustained, but it was determined that the statute of limitations had
tolled, barring prosecution. The victim was age 18 when she first disclosed
the allegations to non-law enforcement and said at that time she did not
want the matter reported to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services
or the police.”

In a second series of lawsuits brought in a county court in Tennessee, and
related to the same alleged acts of child molestation, Austin Davis, a
former parishioner of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville, claims
that the church covered up Perry’s alleged acts of child molestation and
launched a campaign to silence and harass Davis.

Inquiries to Covenant Presbyterian were forwarded to their attorney. Autumn
Gentry, a lawyer for Covenant Presbyterian, told BuzzFeed News they can’t
comment on ongoing litigation.

The individual Perry allegedly molested told BuzzFeed News that she
believed that the church reacted appropriately, and did not cover up
Perry’s alleged offense. Perry has not returned multiple requests for
comment from BuzzFeed News.

In an affidavit submitted as part of his case, Austin Davis claims the
accuser told him that she had been molested between the ages of 11 and 13.

In Davis’s court case, he presents what he alleges are minutes from
Covenant Presbyterian Church meetings that show Perry resigning from the
church’s diaconate in 2008, and minutes from 2010 showing Perry was
excommunicated from the church because he “has confessed to committing
heinous and repetitive sin […] and has not shown evidence of repentance.”
The minutes appear to have been introduced as evidence in one of Davis’
lawsuits against the church. The church does not appear to have objected to
the introduction of the minutes or contested their authenticity.

BuzzFeed News spoke to a longtime church member, who said he had obtained
the minutes for Davis and vouched for their authenticity. The minutes are
accessible to any church member. The individual Perry allegedly molested
also told BuzzFeed News that Perry was excommunicated from the church as a
consequence of the alleged abuse.

Catherine Davis, the wife of Austin Davis, likewise wrote in a sworn
affidavit that during the summer of 2012, she spoke to the accuser, who
confirmed the abuse occurred numerous times when the individual was a
minor. Davis said the accuser told her that she broke her silence in 2007
and began telling friends, family members, church leaders, and school
officials about what had allegedly occurred.

Spokespeople for Huckabee did not return a request for comment.

*Huckabee: Fox News Staff Thought I Was A “Psychopath” For Owning An AR-15
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/huckabee-fox-news-staff-thought-i-was-a-psychopath-for-ownin#.yoVA5QxGv>
// Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 10, 2015 *

Former Arkansas Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee
said earlier this year that the staff of his Fox News show was “scared to
death” and reacted like he was a “psychopath” when he told them he owned
“several” AR-15 rifles.

“I’ll never forget sitting around with my own staff at Fox News, New
Yorkers all, and something came up about guns, and they were saying about
how nobody should ever own an AR-15, ‘Well, there’s just no reason to own
an assault weapon,’” Huckabee said, speaking at the Destiny Worship Center
in Destin, Florida in January.

Huckabee said he challenged his staff’s definition of the term ‘assault
weapon,’ telling them that even “a pencil is an assault weapon if you poke
it in someone’s eye,” before making them “really shocked when I said
‘AR-15s, I got several of them.’”

“They were scared to death,” Huckabee said. “I thought they were gonna dive
under the table. I really did. It was like they were, ‘Huh!’ He’s a
psychopath.’”

Huckabee said he explained to his staff that the AR-15 rifles were less
powerful “than the rifles that I deer hunt with” and that the features that
make them look intimidating are “all practical functional features of the
rifle to make it lighter, to make cooler, to make it easier to hold so that
a woman as well as a man who is short or tall can use these.”

“‘You’re just looking at it and you think because you saw it on a Rambo
movie that it must be more lethal than anything else,’” Huckabee said he
told his team. “And I said that’s nonsense.”

*KASICH*

*Kasich Leads Field In Ohio
<http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/kasich-leads-field-in-ohio.html>
// Public Policy Polling – June 10, 2015 *

PPP's new Ohio poll finds that John Kasich would be the first choice of
Republican primary voters in his home state- more than a lot of the other
GOP hopefuls can say in theirs. Kasich polls at 19% to 13% for Ben Carson
and Scott Walker, 12% for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, 9% for Rand Paul, 6%
for Mike Huckabee, 5% for Ted Cruz, and 4% for Chris Christie.

Kasich is pretty universally popular with Republican voters in the state-
72% approve of the job he's doing to only 17% who disapprove. But he still
performs unspectacularly with voters on the right in the primary- among
'very conservative' voters he manages just a tie for third place with Marco
Rubio at 12%, behind Ben Carson's 19% and Scott Walker's 17%. But he leads
the field among the more centrist ideological groups within the Republican
electorate. Among 'somewhat conservative' voters he gets 24%to 14% for
Rubio, 11% for Carson, and 10% each for Walker and Rand Paul. And among
moderates he ties Jeb Bush for the top spot at 23% with Walker at 11% and
Rubio at 10% also in double digits.

Rubio has the highest favorability rating among GOP voters in Ohio, as we
have found to be the case many places lately, at 58/16. Ohio makes yet
another state where Christie is outwardly disliked by GOP voters- his
favorability is 34/44- to put into perspective how poor that is the next
least popular Republican we tested- Jeb Bush- is still at +16 at 48/32.

Hillary Clinton remains as dominant as ever on the Democratic side- she
polls at 61% to 13% for Bernie Sanders, 7% for Michael Bloomberg, 2% each
for Lincoln Chafee and Martin O'Malley, and 1% for Jim Webb.

We threw in Bloomberg because of the fascination of the New York media with
a potential bid from him. We found that 1) Bloomberg isn't actually that
well known- 54% of primary voters have no opinion about him and 2) he is
not that well liked- only 22% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of him
to 24% with a negative one.

This is the first poll we've conducted since O'Malley and Chafee formally
got into the race and their 2% showing suggests neither has gotten much of
an initial bump from his announcement. Neither has a positive favorability
rating among Democratic primary voters in the state either.

Clinton is polling over 70% with African Americans, over 60% with liberals,
women, and seniors, and over 50% with moderates, men, and younger voters.
There's no major demographic group within the Democratic electorate she
fails to receive majority support from.

The general election match ups in Ohio are generally close with one
exception- Kasich leads Clinton 47/40 in a hypothetical contest. Kasich
boasts a solid 49/35 approval rating following his resounding reelection
victory last year. The key to Kasich's advantage is that 89% of Republicans
support him, compared to 75% of Democrats for Clinton.

The only other Republican who Clinton trails in Ohio is Rand Paul at 44/41.
She also ties Marco Rubio at 44. She has small advantages over the rest of
the GOP field- it's 44/43 over Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker,
45/43 over Jeb Bush, 44/41 over Chris Christie, and 45/42 over Mike
Huckabee.

Clinton may not be polling great against the Republicans in Ohio but
there's still a huge gap between how she fares and how any other Democrat
does in a general election match up. In match ups against Scott Walker,
Bloomberg trails 40/32, Sanders 40/30, O'Malley 41/26, Chafee 39/24, and
Webb 41/25.

*CARSON*

*Ben Carson: Let’s spy on government workers
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-lets-spy-government-workers> //
MSNBC // Jane Timm – June 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential contender Ben Carson said Wednesday that if elected
next year he might implement a “covert division” of government workers who
spy on their coworkers to improve government efficiency.

The pediatric neurosurgeon-turned-candidate told a crowd of Iowa
Republicans he is “thinking very seriously” about adding “a covert division
of people who look like the people in this room, who monitor what
government people do.”

Carson suggested people would work harder if they suspected their coworkers
of monitoring their work. “And we make it possible to fire government
people!” he said to loud cheers.

Conservatives often criticize government employees as bureaucrats who live
off public money and aren’t accountable to taxpayers. Still, Carson’s
suggestion that such workers should spy on each other is the latest in a
string of unusual — and often bizarre — ideas he’s floated that win cheers
from far-right crowds and raised eyebrows from everyone else.

It’s true that firing government employees who underperform can be
notoriously complicated – so much so that most agencies don’t even try to
do it, a Government Accountability Office report found earlier this year.

Campaign communications director Doug Watts tried to clarify Carson’s
comments in an email to msnbc. “Covert division? More like Secret Shopper,
a quality control strategy used worldwide to improve customer service and
customer care,” Watts said.

While Carson is considered to be a long shot for the GOP nomination at
best, his polling numbers and fan base are strong and active, indicating
that Republicans can’t count Carson – or his covert division – out just yet.

*Carson: Gay rights aren't the same as civil rights
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/politics/carson-gay-rights-civil-rights/index.html>
// CNN // Alexandra Jaffe – June 10, 2015*

Ben Carson said Wednesday night that he was "irritated" by the comparison
between the fight for same-sex marriage rights and the Civil Rights
Movement because there's no overt segregation against gays.

Speaking on Fox News' "Special Report", Carson elaborated on his remarks on
CNN in March that he believes being gay is a choice because people "go into
prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."

The GOP presidential contender told host Brett Baier that he "shouldn't
have allowed my emotions" into the conversation, but was reacting to CNN
host Chris Cuomo's line of questioning on the issue.

"I was a little bit irritated that he was equating the whole [gay marriage]
issue with the Civil Rights movement. Because, quite frankly, I didn't
remember any times when there were signs up that says, you know, 'everybody
else here and gay people have to drink at this fountain,'" he said.

"I was a little irritated, but I shouldn't have allowed that to enter into
the discussion," Carson said.

During his March interview on "New Day," Cuomo had pressed Carson on his
assertion that the marriage issue should be left up to the states to
decide, drawing a comparison to segregation against blacks.

"What if people of a state vote for a law, 100 to zero, that winds up
infringing on the rights of a minority -- like happened very often with
slavery? Like many would argue is happening now with people who are gay?"
Cuomo asked.

Carson replied that "the Constitution was followed and we corrected those
things" in the case of segregation against blacks, but suggested the case
with gay marriage was different because being gay is a choice. His
subsequent line of reasoning -- that it's a choice because some people come
out of prison gay -- sparked a firestorm of criticism and eventually Carson
apologized for the comments, admitting his words were "hurtful and
divisive."

But on Wednesday night, Carson expressed satisfaction with how the
controversy played out.

"They saw that as the opportunity to finally knock this guy out -- and they
thought that they had done it. Stick a fork in him, he's gone. They were
jubilant," he said of critics. "And now they're saying, I can't believe
this guy's still here, are you kidding me?"

Carson came in seventh place in a late May CNN/ORC survey of the GOP
presidential field, taking 7% support.

*Carson identifies as 'pragmatic dove' for conservative voters
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/10/carson-calls-pragmatic-dove-urbandale-conservative-breakfast/71012298/>
// The Des Moines Register – June 10, 2015 *

Ben Carson identified himself as a "pragmatic dove" with a declaration
against ISIS Wednesday morning.

The retired neurosurgeon's "only choice is to destroy them" stance won a
round of applause near the end of a 30-minute speech at the Westside
Conservative Club breakfast gathering in Urbandale.

"Pragmatic doves do not allow themselves to be destroyed. They will do what
they need to do to preserve themselves," Carson said to nearly 200
captivated faces packed into a side room at the Machine Shed Restaurant.

He added that he disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The Republican presidential candidate shared his biography in brief,
including an early desire to become a missionary doctor that faded with an
"I'd rather be rich" realization in high school.

"Lord, what are you up to?" was a recurring question as he achieved
success, influence and fame, he said. Carson was the youngest physician to
head a major division at Johns Hopkins Medical Institution. He also sat on
major corporate boards and got invited twice (1997 and 2013) to speak at
the National Prayer Breakfast.

Carson said he heard the answer to his question when people started telling
him to run for president, prompted largely by his harsh criticism of the
Obama administration at the 2013 prayer breakfast.

"It was the good Lord giving me a lot of experience," Carson said before
diving into a range of issues.

His speech depicted an America that is slipping away with special interest
groups and intentional "purveyors of division" at the helm. He quoted
Jesus, stating that a house divided cannot stand and how he will only
answer to citizens.

"I would much rather lose than get involved with a special interest group,"
Carson said.

Lack of political experience was the first concern on the mind of David
Stilley, a 59-year-old physician at the Wednesday event.

"Are we going to get right back where we were with someone who doesn't
understand how government works on the day-to-day," Stilley said,
highlighting Barack Obama's short political career prior to the White House.

Carson resolved some of those fears with anecdotes about overseeing
finances on corporate boards and travel to 50-some foreign countries during
his career.

"He's definitely stepped up a couple notches for my support based on his
comments," said Stilley, who owns DoctorsNow Walk-in Care with three
clinics in the Des Moines metro. "Fixing the economy fixes everything else."

Several Wednesday attendees – in an audience nearly 100 percent white and
mostly above the age of 50 – pointed to the economy as their chief concern.

Kim Hiscox, owner of a West Des Moines real estate company, asked Carson
about his solution for illegal immigration.

Carson said he would seal "all the borders, which we can do within a year …
and turnoff the spicket that's dispensing all the goodies."

Hiscox, a 60-year-old Republican voter, called the response brilliantly
thought-out. Carson won her over as a top choice, tied with Rick Perry, for
a GOP candidate.

"Perry knows how to handle himself in public, fielding questions. Now I can
see Carson also is a very capable public speaker," Hiscox said. "I don't
respect canned, tele-prompted speeches."

SETTING: Machine Shed Restaurant in Urbandale for Westside Conservative
Club breakfast

CROWD: Captive audience of nearly 200

REACTION: Many laughs and several rounds of applause paused Carson's
30-minute speech; several hands went up after and Carson answered five
specific questions.

WHAT'S NEXT: This is part of a two-day visit for Carson. His schedule
called for a busy Wednesday after the breakfast club: volunteering at a
food bank in Waterloo, a meet-and-greet in Cedar Falls and an ice cream
social visit in Eldora. He also plans to attend a coffee-with-residents
gathering Thursday morning in Fort Dodge.

*FIORINA*

*Fiorina's campaign-trail attacks leave out her own ties to Clinton Carly
Fiorina
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fiorina-clinton-ties-20150611-story.html>
// LAT // Joseph Tanfani – June 11, 2015*

In a crowd of Republican presidential contenders hammering away at Hillary
Rodham Clinton, no one has been more relentless than Carly Fiorina.

In speeches and media interviews, some of them while shadowing Clinton on
the campaign trail, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive has attacked
the Clintons’ family foundation for a lack of transparency amid reports
that it accepted money from foreign governments. “She is not trustworthy,”
Fiorina says in a video on her website, itself named ReadytoBeatHillary.com.

In a Facebook post, Fiorina excoriated the Clintons for accepting donations
from foreign governments “while making promises about transparency that
they never intended to keep.”

“What else don’t we know? What don’t we know about your donors?” she asked
Wednesday on Fox News about the Clintons’ charitable efforts. “What don’t
we know about the conflicts of interest that those donors represent?”

But in Fiorina’s own philanthropic ventures, one of the key points of her
resume as a White House hopeful, she has had a friendlier relationship with
the Clintons and their foundation than she highlights on the campaign
trail. And, in pressing for help for women around the globe, Fiorina is
more similar to Hillary Clinton than she admits.

The discrepancies show how personal and professional ties can complicate
life on the campaign trail for well-connected people like Fiorina, who also
unsuccessfully ran for Senate in California in 2010.

One Fiorina charitable effort, a campaign to fund women’s empowerment
projects around the globe, went forward with help from the State Department
when Clinton was secretary.

And Fiorina has roles in two charities that participated in projects that
became commitments with the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the
organizations in the Clintons’ worldwide philanthropic network in which
charities and companies announce partnerships to pledge action on social
projects.

She has also twice participated in Clinton Global Initiative events. In
2013, she spoke on a small panel that discussed how to boost female
entrepreneurship. Last year, she appeared with former President Clinton and
three other people on a televised panel discussion on how best to pull
people out of poverty.

Fiorina at times sparred with the former president and criticized
Democratic economic policies, saying that the Obama administration “made
the rich much richer.” But she also argued for the role of small business
and praised the organization's work. “Seed capital, support, tools, energy
-- all of the initiatives that the Clinton Global Initiative invests in to
try and build Main Street entrepreneurship -- it has always been the hope
of this country,” Fiorina said.

A spokeswoman for Fiorina said she was “delighted” to participate in a
session advocating for women who are entrepreneurs, and characterized the
second discussion as “a debate with Bill Clinton.”

Fiorina has contrasted her belief in transparency with Clinton’s, saying
last month: “Unlike Hillary Clinton, I am not afraid to answer questions
about my track record or beliefs.” She did not respond to follow-up
questions about her involvement with the foundation or her work with the
State Department.

Bill Clinton, speaking at a Clinton Global Initiative conference on
Wednesday, said the foundation had always considered itself nonpolitical
and had hosted a number of Republican politicians, including Mitt Romney
and John McCain. He didn’t mention Fiorina.

Fiorina helped spark a charitable drive in 2008 called the One Woman
Initiative, targeting women’s empowerment groups, mostly in Muslim
countries. According to the organization, she set it up with help from the
State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and
then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

It took about a year to raise the money. By the time the approximately
$500,000 in grants was released, in June 2009, President Obama was in the
White House and Clinton was secretary of State. The initiatives included a
microfinance program in Pakistan, a conflict-resolution program in the
Philippines and an economic development program in India.

The initiative aimed to distribute grants with the help of corporate
sponsors, and with support from the Department of State and USAID. The
agencies also declined to comment on the initiative.

The Clinton Global Initiative draws together corporate and charity leaders
for networking and to announce commitments to complete projects together.

Fiorina is connected to two groups that participated in such programs. She
is board chairman of Good360, a Virginia-based group that connects
companies who want to donate goods with charities that need them. Hilton
Worldwide made that program a Clinton Global Initiative commitment in 2013.

Fiorina also is on the advisory board of the National Center for
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, a group that wants to open a center
celebrating inventors and entrepreneurs on the National Mall in Washington.
That too was announced as a Clinton initiative commitment in 2013. But the
plans have stalled, in part because the Smithsonian decided it couldn’t
devote resources to the project, said Philip Auerswald, the group’s board
chairman.

The advisory board and Fiorina didn’t play a role in the decision to
announce the project as a Clinton initiative commitment, he said, adding:
“Carly has been nothing but supportive throughout this process.”

*Carly Fiorina Steps Up Campaign Against Hillary Clinton
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/09/carly-fiorina-steps-up-campaign-against-hillary-clinton/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – June 10, 2015*

Carly Fiorina does not always seem entirely comfortable in her role as the
Republican Party’s designated Hillary Rodham Clinton attacker.

But that has not stopped the former Silicon Valley executive from doubling
down on her strategy of trying to catapult her long-shot candidacy by
focusing on attacking Mrs. Clinton in more aggressive and pointed ways than
her male Republican rivals. The most recent instance: Ms. Fiorina is
pushing traffic to ReadyToBeatHillary.com.

A play on the pro-Clinton group Ready for Hillary, the website, financed by
the Fiorina campaign, does not have Ms. Fiorina’s name or image on its
homepage. Instead, a series of photos of Mrs. Clinton highlight the State
Department’s handling of the 2012 attack on a United States mission in
Benghazi, Libya, when she was secretary of state; her family foundation’s
acceptance of foreign donations; and other criticism of the Clintons over
the last couple of decades. If one clicks on the image and video of Ms.
Fiorina criticizing Mrs. Clinton, a request for donations appears.

“So far, Hillary’s been running one of the shadiest campaigns in
presidential history,” reads an email from Ms. Fiorina announcing the new
website, which plays on the Clinton campaign’s red arrow logo.

A Clinton campaign spokesman did not immediately reply to a request for
comment.

Ms. Fiorina has drawn large crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, and her
candidacy, while hardly registering in national polling, has drawn
increasing attention. For now, Ms. Fiorina’s biggest task it building her
name recognition and poll numbers so she can qualify for the first
Republican debate on Fox News in August. The attacks on Mrs. Clinton, her
campaign says, can only help get Ms. Fiorina a coveted spot on the debate
stage.

*OTHER*

*Republicans Still Playing Catch-Up on the Digital Campaign Trail
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/us/politics/republicans-still-playing-catch-up-on-the-digital-campaign-trail.html>
// NYT // Ashley Parker – June 10, 2015*

The criticism after the 2012 presidential election was swift and harsh:
Democrats were light-years ahead of Republicans when it came to digital
strategy and tactics, and Republicans had serious work to do on the
technology front if they ever hoped to win back the White House.

Now, with the 2016 campaign already underway, Republicans are eager to show
they have learned the lessons of past cycles and are placing a premium on
hiring top digital talent to build the tools they deem necessary to compete.

But their immediate problem is slightly more low-tech: the basics of supply
and demand.

“Shopping around for a digital data firm was already difficult — and when
you’re one of 20 possible candidates in a party that has yet to establish
its own expertise in this area, it’s even harder,” said Sasha Issenberg,
author of “The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.”

This type of work — often described in political circles as digital, data
and analytics — encompasses many areas, from building email systems for
small-dollar fund-raising to generating buzz on social media to analyzing
data to help direct ads at specific groups of voters.

Using data to determine the most efficient and effective way to target
voters, considered by many to be a crucial advantage for President Obama’s
campaign in 2012, could prove particularly important in a crowded
Republican primary in which every dollar counts. But it is another area in
which only a handful of Republican companies specialize.

The lack of experience among Republican operatives and companies is
captured in a coming study by Daniel Kreiss, an assistant professor of
political communications at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, and Christopher Jasinski, a graduate student there.

Using the Federal Election Commission and other data sources, including
LinkedIn, the two identified 626 political operatives with experience in
digital, data and analytics on every presidential campaign since 2004. The
breakdown was stark: 503 of those staff members were hired by Democratic
campaigns, 123 by Republicans.

They also found that 75 different political companies or organizations were
founded by those former campaign workers on the Democratic side, but only
19 on the Republican side.

“Historically, the one thing that’s pretty clear is that the Democrats,
over the course of three cycles, have been investing much more in creating
a deeper pool of talent that can do things like work in digital, data and
analytics, and that runs from top to bottom in the party,” Mr. Kreiss said.

The study also found that Democrats have done a better job of actively
recruiting and attracting employees from places like Silicon Valley who
bring innovative thinking and new technologies from the commercial sector
into the political arena.

Though the imbalance seems to stem largely from recruitment efforts, Mr.
Issenberg added that Republicans suffer from a cultural disadvantage as
well. Many who work in technology have a somewhat libertarian worldview
that, especially on social issues, more closely aligns with Democrats.

The limited number of Republican companies and the pressure to attract
premium talent has added a new dimension to the so-called invisible
primary, where candidates vie for expertise and money, and created
unexpected opportunities for operatives with digital experience.

For instance, Targeted Victory — one of the largest companies on the
Republican side, which ran Mitt Romney’s 2012 digital operation — has
signed on with former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, but also plans to split
itself off into distinct parts to take on one or two other campaigns or
outside groups.

“This is the first time there have been more campaigns that view digital as
an actual weapon, as opposed to a box they have to check,” said Michael
Beach, co-founder of Targeted Victory.

Vincent Harris and his company, Harris Media, which handled Ted Cruz’s 2012
Senate bid in Texas, is running the digital operation for the 2016
presidential campaign of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Senator Marco
Rubio of Florida has hired both Optimus, one of the few Republican
analytics companies, and Push Digital to lead his digital effort.

Other likely campaigns, including those for Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin
and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, are solving the problem by building
in-house teams. Mr. Walker, for example, hired staff members who worked on
Senator Joni Ernst’s successful 2014 campaign in Iowa and from the Silicon
Valley office of the Republican National Committee.

Republicans say they are optimistic this cycle will help usher in a true
cultural change, much as the 2008 Obama campaign did — with its emphasis on
data and analytics that helped create a pipeline to recruit and nurture
tech talent.

But the party faces a difficult path to building the vast operation that a
general election requires, said Patrick Ruffini, founder of Engage, a
Republican digital strategy company. “There is going to be a real challenge
in terms of finding people who were at the level the Obama campaign people
were four years ago,” he said.

Still, Republicans say they see progress. Anton Vuljaj, chief revenue
officer for IMGE, a digital advocacy agency whose political clients are
Republicans, said that after the 2012 cycle, companies like his have more
leverage because campaigns now see the value in the work they do.

“We’ve had a lot more conversations with campaign managers and general
consultants who know at least the very basics of what questions to ask us,
like how are you segmenting and amplifying your email lists or how are you
measuring the impact of your advertising,” he said.

Brian Stobie, a partner at Optimus, also said there were signs of change —
even in the sheer number of campaigns willing to take a meeting. “Now
everyone wants to have the meeting,” he said. “They may not sign on the
dotted line, but they want to have the meeting. Before 2012, it was like,
‘Analytics? We don’t need that.’ ”

The digital firms are also getting to be increasingly choosy about just
which candidate they work for — a perk of their elevated stature in the
party hierarchy.

“Who we sign on with is very much tied to how much they buy into our
worldview,” said Zac Moffatt, co-founder of Targeted Victory. “I don’t know
that you would want to spend a year just running into a wall, so I think
everyone we sign up with cares about the cost of efficiency and wants to
have a plan for how we turn out 40,000-plus folks in Iowa.”

But some Republican operatives with digital experience privately wonder how
much the emphasis on digital and analytics is simply for public image
purposes. Will the digital team, they worry, still be the first item cut
when the budget gets crunched?

“There’s a difference between having a seat at the table, because there are
seats at the table, and then there’s the back room where all the decisions
get made, and there’s who does the candidate call at 11 p.m. at night,” Mr.
Ruffini said.

How much the Republican digital field evolves may not truly be known until
after Election Day.

“If one of the campaigns that actually uses data to make decisions wins,
then the culture changes,” Mr. Stobie said. “If one of the campaigns that
uses data as a hood ornament wins, then nothing changes.”

*New Hampshire Republicans Urge Networks to Alter Debate Criteria
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/10/jeb-bush-in-berlin-says-west-is-confronting-a-more-aggressive-putin/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 10, 2015 *

Republicans in New Hampshire are urging Fox News and party leaders to
reconsider its plans to limit participation in presidential debates based
on performance in polls.

The group of local lawmakers and activists argued in a letter to Roger
Ailes, president of Fox News, and Reince Priebus, chairman of the
Republican National Committee, that limiting the number of candidates who
can participate in debates would supplant the role that early nominating
states such as New Hampshire play in allowing voters to narrow the field.

“Historically, it has been the responsibility of early primary and caucus
states to closely examine and winnow the field of candidates, and it is not
in the electorate’s interest to have TV debate criteria supplant this
solemn duty,” they wrote.

The letter comes as Iowa is fighting to retain the significance of its
straw poll and other traditional early contest states are increasingly
fearful of losing their status as springboards for those who eventually
capture the nomination.

Fox and CNN have said they would limit the number of candidates on the
debate stage, basing the criteria on performance in national public
polling. Lesser-known candidates like Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson have
criticized this plan, and some political analysts have said that it will
alter the way candidates campaign early on, as they focus on television
exposure instead of retail politicking in hopes that they will get noticed.
Bigger names, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Gov.
John Kasich of Ohio, who is mulling a run, could also struggle to qualify
to debate.

The New Hampshire Republicans suggested that Fox consider dividing the
debate into two panels and use a random drawing to determine who will
participate in each.

“The New Hampshire primary, as well as the contests in Iowa, South
Carolina, and Nevada, exist to afford every candidate – regardless of money
and polling – a level playing field and the opportunity to personally share
their message and experience with as many voters as possible,” they wrote.

Craig Benson and Stephen Merrill, former governors of New Hampshire, are
among the more than 50 people who signed the letter.

Fox is scheduled to broadcast the first debate on Aug. 6.

*Their state economies may lag, but Republican hopefuls still brag
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-usa-governors-idUSKBN0OQ2RK20150610>
// Reuters // Andy Sullivan – June 10, 2015 *

Various Republican governors with an eye on the White House can point to
tax cuts and other business-friendly policies they spearheaded as they
enter the crowded 2016 presidential contest. But many of them can't
highlight robust economic growth.

Among the handful of governors and former governors competing for the
Republican presidential nomination, only one - former Texas Governor Rick
Perry, who declared his candidacy last week - can say that his state has
outpaced the national economy over the past four years.

Economic growth lagged in other states whose governors are expected to run
for president, according to U.S. government figures released on Wednesday.

"Only Perry can really brag," said George Mason University economist
Stephen Fuller. "The other guys just haven't been there long enough and
don't have anything to show for it, anyway."

The Texas economy grew by 17.8 percent between 2011 and the beginning of
2015, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, well above the
national pace of 6.3 percent during that period. The state's economy,
however, has begun to show signs of weakness recently as oil prices have
plunged.

In Ohio, Governor John Kasich, who has been mulling a White House run,
presided over a state that grew by 6.0 percent over those four years,
slightly less than the national average. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker,
considered a likely Republican contender, oversaw growth of 4.3 percent in
his state.

In New Jersey, the state economy under Governor Chris Christie grew by 3.8
percent, while Louisiana grew by only 1.2 percent during that period under
Governor Bobby Jindal. Both Christie and Jindal are eyeing White House bids.

Governors have a limited ability to shape a state's economy in the short
term, economists say.

Investments in education and highways can take years to bear fruit, while
tax cuts must be offset by spending cuts to keep budgets in balance,
resulting in little overall stimulus in the short term.

"If you shift state tax policy to make it more inviting for businesses to
expand here, that can increase employment," said Dale Knapp, research
director at the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. "But that's a
long-term impact."

The dynamics of the particular industries that dominate in a region play a
significant role as well. Economists say that manufacturing-heavy
Wisconsin, for example, is more susceptible to recession than an oil state
like Texas.

Experts say the true impact of any governor often isn't apparent until
years after the person leaves office.

But that has not stopped potential candidates from talking up their
economic track records on the campaign trail as they criticize Democratic
President Barack Obama for presiding over sluggish growth at the national
level.

Walker, for example, argues that tax cuts and weakened labor laws have
helped Wisconsin climb out of recession, even if he fell far short of his
promise to create 250,000 jobs by the beginning of 2015.

In Texas, Perry's spokeswoman said growth was boosted by Perry's focus on
low taxes, business-friendly regulations and limits on lawsuits.

In Louisiana, Jindal's administration cites a growing population, rising
income and favorable ratings by business magazines to argue that the
economy has improved, despite the tepid growth of recent years.

In New Jersey, Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said Democrats have slowed
his efforts to cut taxes and implement other changes. New Jersey's economy
also suffered when Hurricane Sandy devastated much of the coast in 2012.

No matter the facts on the ground, White House hopefuls will find a way to
argue that they are leaving their states in better shape than when they
arrived, said James Pethokoukis of the conservative American Enterprise
Institute.

"For these guys there's only two kinds of situations: a booming economy or
a turnaround economy, and in both situations they get the credit," he said.

*Polling Memo: Clinton ‘Clearly Unpopular’ Among Battleground State
Independents
<https://gop.com/polling-memo-clinton-clearly-unpopular-among-battleground-state-independents/>
// GOP.com – June 10, 2015 *

The Republican National Committee (RNC) today released the following
polling summary memo from American Viewpoint, showing Hillary Clinton's
clear shortcomings in voter perception of her character, trust, and
decision-making.

To: Chairman Reince Priebus

From: Linda DiVall, Randall Gutermuth

Re: Independent Battleground States Survey Key Findings

Date: June 9, 2015

The following are the key findings from a survey conducted on behalf of the
RNC by American Viewpoint in 10 key battleground states with Independent
voters, which provide 137 electoral votes.  Interviews were conducted May
3-7, 2015, using mix-mode interviewing.  The margin of error for the entire
sample, N=1500, is +/- 2.5% at the 95% confidence level.   N=600 interviews
were conducted with a landline sample, N=600 interviews were conducted with
a cell phone sample and N=300 interviews were conducted online in the
following states:

Hillary Clinton is clearly vulnerable and already has a net unfavorable
rating with these Independents.

·         Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratio is 44:49 and she trails
the generic Republican candidate 40%-36% in these key battleground states.

Hillary Clinton’s supposed superior strength with women is a myth with
these battleground state Independent women.

·         Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratio with these Independent
women is barely a net favorable (49:43) and she only leads the generic
Republican by 3-points among them. Conversely, she trails among
battleground state Independent men by 11-points (45%-34%) and her favorable
to unfavorable ratio is an abysmal 39:56.

·         The Party, its candidates and its surrogates need to be very
careful in their tone and demeanor towards Hillary Clinton to ensure she
isn’t able to turn the gender gap back in her favor.

The most significant driving factor to Hillary Clinton’s perceptual issues
is a question of trust.

·         Throughout the data, this was the most unprompted hesitation
voters gave and is the attribute that she scored the lowest on. This is all
before an attack ad has run this cycle.

·         Messages tested dealing with her email scandal and the influence
peddling of her brothers underscore her untrustworthiness, but were not in
the top tier overall because this perception is already established and
doesn’t move Independents as much as other issues.

Hillary Clinton’s own personal problems are only further magnified by
President Obama’s poor ratings. However, this shouldn’t be a race about the
incumbent President.

·         President Obama has a net unfavorable rating with these
battleground Independents (45:50) and his job approval is a similar 43%
approve, 52% disapprove. This is problematic for Clinton’s candidacy as her
favorable to unfavorable ratio is only 21:74 among those who disapprove of
the job the President is doing.

When discussing Hillary Clinton’s speeches, the focus needs to be less
about her getting rich and more about how this hurts working families.

·         Making tens of millions, flying in private jets and the
outrageous demands she made of those giving her six figures for speeches
may work well with the base, but for swing voters in these essential
battleground states, it’s more important to tie the millions taken from
public universities to tuition rate increases and budget cuts.

To further drive down Hillary Clinton’s support with Independent women, her
hypocrisy on equal pay can be highlighted.

·         The fact that Hillary Clinton only paid her female Senate staff
72 cents on the dollar raises real questions as to her claims of being a
champion of equal pay.

The most important case to prosecute against Hillary Clinton is her
mismanagement of the State Department as Secretary of State. This severely
undercuts her perceived strength of resume.

·         Specifically, the most persuasive message tested in this survey
states “as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved
the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company to a Russian state atomic
energy agency. This action allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to
control 20% of American uranium and poses a grave threat to U.S. national
security.”

Character, trust and decision-making are all key tests voters have for a
candidate running to be President and Commander and Chief, and this survey
clearly indicates a pattern of Hillary Clinton failing all three of these.
Further conveying her problems on these tenets will prove to be very
problematic for her.

*GOP ready to counter Hillary Clinton's speech
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-ready-to-counter-hillary-clintons-speech/article/2565945#.VXhRe6uLwyk.twitter>
// The Washington Examiner //David Drucker – June 10, 2015*

The Republican National Committee is ratcheting up its "Stop Hillary"
campaign, planning a flurry of political hits on presumptive Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton to accompany her first major speech since
announcing for president in April.

Clinton on Saturday will deliver a speech from Roosevelt Island in New York
that her campaign is promoting as the former secretary of state's official
2016 launch event. The site is named for President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, the Democratic icon who was first elected in 1932 and was
responsible for the creation of Social Security (FDR died in office during
his fourth term.)

The RNC plans an aggressive response on traditional and social media, and
on the ground in New York and in the early primary states where Clinton has
spent the bulk of her time campaigning since kicking off her second
presidential bid in mid April. This effort is part of the GOP's plan to
offer public opposition to Clinton while the party's crowded field of
presidential contenders focuses on themselves in their battle for the 2016
nomination. According to information shared with the Washington Examiner,
the party's activities include:

— New web ad pushed nationwide with higher emphasis placed on targeting IA,
SC, NH and NV

— Statements/Op-eds

— Releasing Hillary oppo book

— Bracketing Hillary's events in NYC, IA, SC, NH, NV.

— New gimmicks will be delivered to news outlets

— Surrogates booked on radio/TV.

— Staff on the ground for her state visits.

Additionally, the RNC commissioned a poll of independent voters that it
claims proves Clinton's vulnerability with independents in 10 battlegrounds
states, most of which the GOP has not won in a presidential race since at
least 2004, if that. The states polled included Virginia, Florida, North
Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado and
Arizona. Arizona is the only state in the group that is solid red.

Among the poll's findings:

Hillary Clinton is clearly vulnerable and already has a net unfavorable
rating with these independents.

• Clinton's favorable to unfavorable ratio is 44:49 and she trails the
generic Republican candidate 40%-36% in these key battleground states.

Hillary Clinton's supposed superior strength with women is a myth with
these battleground state Independent women.

• Clinton's favorable to unfavorable ratio with these Independent women is
barely a net favorable (49:43) and she only leads the generic Republican by
3-points among them. Conversely, she trails among battleground state
Independent men by 11-points (45%-34%) and her favorable to unfavor*able
ratio is an abysmal 39:56.*

• The Party, its candidates and its surrogates need to be very careful in
their tone and demeanor towards Hillary Clinton to ensure she isn't able to
turn th*e gender gap back in her favor.*

The most significant driving factor to Hillary Clinton's perceptual* issues
is a question of trust.*

• Throughout the data, this was the most unprompted hesitation voters gave
and is the attribute that she scored the lowest on. This is all before a*n
attack ad has run this cycle.*

• Messages tested dealing with her email scandal and the influence peddling
of her brothers underscore her untrustworthiness, but were not in the top
tier overall because this perception is already established and doesn't
move Indepe*ndents as much as other issues.*

Hillary Clinton's own personal problems are only further magnified by
President Obama's poor ratings. However, this shouldn't be a race* about
the incumbent President.*

• President Obama has a net unfavorable rating with these battleground
independents (45:50) and his job approval is a similar 43% approve, 52%
disapprove. This is problematic for Clinton's candidacy as her favorable to
unfavorable ratio is only 21:74 among those who disapprove of the job the
President is doing.

The survey was conducted by American Viewpoint May 3-7, 2015, using
"mix-mode" interviews: 600 via land line telephone, 60 via cellphone, 300
via the Internet. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage *points.*

Disclosure: The author's wife works as an adviser to Scott Walker.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Senate GOP denies funds for lawyers for immigrant children
<http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:fa2c4b8b6830408696c1b3009001252f>
// AP // Andrew Taylor – June 10, 2015 *

A GOP-controlled Senate panel on Wednesday blocked President Barack Obama's
request for $50 million to pay for legal help for unaccompanied immigrant
children coming to the United States after fleeing violence in Central
America.

Responsible for the move was Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama,
chief author of a spending bill funding the Justice Department's budget.
The measure won initial approval on Wednesday but has a long way to go
before becoming law.

The flow of children fleeing gangs and other dangers in Guatemala, Honduras
and El Salvador and finding their way to the U.S. is down significantly
from last year, when an influx created a humanitarian crisis, in states
along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Without lawyers, children are much more likely to be sent back to their
home countries. Under federal law, immigrant children have two options to
seek legal status, including requesting asylum for fear of returning home
to face gang violence.

Without legal help, the maze of documentation and legal requirements is far
more difficult for a child to maneuver.

Republicans opposed to people who are in the United States illegally have
greater priorities in the $51 billion measure, which also funds the
Commerce Department and science-related agencies such as NASA.

The measure is one of 12 annual appropriations bills covering the
day-to-day operations of government agencies. Such discretionary spending
gets reviewed and funded annually unlike mandatory programs such as
Medicare, Social Security and food stamps.

The 12 spending bills are at the center of a fight between Obama and
Republicans, who have given the Pentagon almost $40 billion in relief from
automatic spending curbs but are resisting Obama's demands for equal
treatment for domestic agencies facing a funding freeze.

The battle is particularly bitter in the tea party-driven House.
Republicans pressed ahead Wednesday with bills seeking to force further
cuts to the agencies they particularly dislike, the IRS and the
Environmental Protection Agency.

The House measures are full of provisions aimed at blocking various Obama
policies, including implementation of the Affordable Care Act by the IRS
and environmental regulations, including protections for the endangered
sage grouse that are opposed by Western energy interests.

*Republicans take aim at IRS budget
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-irs-budget-118835.html> //
Politico // Rachael Bade – June 10, 2015 *

Ever since the IRS tea party scandal broke two years ago, House Republicans
have redoubled their efforts to gut the agency’s budget — year after year
after year.

But now — for the first time since Lois Lerner’s infamous 2013 apology —
they’re finally getting their moment to impose serious financial
constraints on the tax-collecting agency they love to hate.

House GOP appropriators on Wednesday proposed chopping IRS resources almost
8 percent, reducing the agency budget to $10.1 billion. It would be a huge
hit to the agency responsible not only for overseeing tax collections but
administering Obamacare’s health care subsidies.

And those cuts are bound to balloon even more once the bill hits the House
floor. Republicans are eager to offer further amendments snipping at the
IRS — especially amid headlines about the IRS targeting conservative
groups, giving rogue employees bonuses and falling short of protecting
taxpayer rights and privacy.

While House Republicans in past years have had to negotiate with the
Democratic-controlled Senate — which was often able to restore the IRS
budget or at the very least, ease proposed cuts — this time around, GOP
allies are behind the wheel in the Senate.

That means President Barack Obama — who requested an 18 percent increase
for the IRS — could be forced to sign a spending bill later this year that
would add new hardships for the agency, which already is reeling from
scandal and begging for more money to boost taxpayer services and protect
taxpayers’ information. Holding up a broader spending bill in the name of
the IRS, after all, is a political no-no with an American public deeply
skeptical of tax collectors. If the president were to refuse to sign a
spending bill only because of cuts to the IRS, he’d risk serious political
backlash.

“This will hold the agency’s budget below the sequester level and below the
fiscal year 2004 level,” a House Appropriations Committee news release
boasts. “This funding level is sufficient for the IRS to perform its core
duties, but will require the agency to streamline and better prioritize its
budget.”

The bill would cut $838 million from the current IRS budget, bringing the
agency’s funding $2.8 billion below what Obama requested.

The bill, as in years past, would also block the IRS from proposing a
controversial, much-awaited regulation aimed at reining in the political
activities of 501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups like Crossroads GPS. Such groups
are supposed to limit their campaign activity under law, but the IRS got in
trouble during the tea party hubbub for holding up the approvals of
conservative groups that weren’t engaging in politics but advocacy.

Still, the IRS says it needs clarity for itself and for taxpayers about
what is and isn’t allowed.

Another thing it can’t do under the GOP bill: Collect penalties under
Obamacare’s individual mandate. That would potentially save hundreds if not
thousands of dollars for Obamacare protesters who refuse to buy coverage.

The agency argues that such cuts would only hurt taxpayers and leave a
threadbare IRS unable to help people address their tax problems. The IRS
also administers the core of Obamacare — health care tax credits — and
recently experienced cybersecurity lapses that amounted to people’s
personal information being hacked.

The bill specifically gives the IRS a $75 million boost for taxpayer
services, in an effort to prevent any cuts from hurting Americans who need
their tax questions answered.

The cuts are part of a $20.2 billion financial services bill filled with
political red meat designed to appeal to GOP lawmakers. While Republican
appropriators have decried spending caps for other appropriations bills,
leaving them in a tough spot cutting key priorities, they’re more than
happy to make reductions on this measure.

“While making good use of limited tax dollars, this legislation also makes
great strides in reining in wasteful spending, and stopping harmful and
unnecessary bureaucratic over-reach,” House Appropriations Chairman Hal
Rogers (R-Ky.) said in a statement.

Overall, the bill is about $1.3 billion below last year’s level and $4.8
billion below what the president wanted.

The legislation makes cuts to prized Democratic agencies, including a
proposal to bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the
congressional appropriations process. Currently, it’s funded through the
Federal Reserve, but the change would give Congress — namely, Republicans —
more power over the agency.

The bill is also packed with conservative policy provisions like one
requiring the administration to “report to Congress on the cost and
regulatory burdens of the Dodd-Frank Act,” and another to bar the SEC from
mandating political-donation disclosures in filings.

*EPA takes crucial step toward climate rules for airplanes
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/epa-airplane-emissions-118829.html>
// Politico // Alex Guillén – June 10, 2015 *

The Obama administration took the first step Wednesday toward regulating
airplanes’ greenhouse gas emissions, adding yet another major industry to
the roster of businesses falling under the crosshairs of President Barack
Obama’s environmental and climate agenda.

The EPA said it was proposing to declare that planes’ carbon pollution
threatens public health and welfare by significantly contributing to
climate change. The agency’s “endangerment finding” comes amid a flurry of
activity by the EPA, which is also pushing ahead with a contentious
regulation for wetland and waterways, preparing to tighten fuel efficiency
standards for heavy trucks and nearing a midsummer launch for a landmark
greenhouse gas rule for power plants.

But the aircraft rules — which will likely take years to write — may not
reach the altitude that environmentalists are hoping for. They could also
face pushback from the airline industry, which enjoys hefty lobbying power
in Washington, particularly among lawmakers who jet home each weekend — and
the Republican Party that rules the Capitol is always skeptical of EPA
regulations.

“Just when I thought the EPA couldn’t get more ridiculous,” Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-Ark.) said on Twitter, linking to POLITICO’s coverage of the proposal.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science Committee,
predicted that the rules would increase the price of air travel and harm
domestic airlines. “The sky is the limit when it comes to how much of the
U.S. economy the EPA wants to control,” he said in a statement.

But the Sierra Club said both airlines and travelers would save money as
the regulations yield more efficient, less-polluting planes.

“President Obama is taking an important step on climate once again by
finding that carbon pollution from airplanes poses the same danger to our
climate as carbon pollution from other sources,” Sierra Club attorney
Joanne Spalding said. The World Wildlife Fund’s Brad Schallert called the
move “common sense,” and urged EPA to “take the next step and close a major
loophole that allows the airline industry to emit unchecked amounts of
carbon into our atmosphere.”

“Since today’s announcement will likely cause a fight in Congress, we hope
the president makes this a fight worth having by requiring real cuts in
airplane pollution,” said Heather Leibowitz, director of Environment
America’s New York chapter. “Bold action on climate should solve the
problem of pollution from airplanes, not just acknowledge it.”

Air travel is undeniably an international industry, and a growing one to
boot. While airplanes are used more extensively in the U.S. than in many
other nations — American air travel makes up 29 percent of global aviation
emissions — getting cooperation from Europe, China and other major
manufacturing centers and plane purchasers will be key to making the global
effort work.

Green groups and the administration are already debating one key issue:
whether the U.S. climate rules for airlines should match those being
developed worldwide — or be even tougher.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations body, plans
to set international targets to limit airline emissions in 2016. The U.S.,
through the EPA and FAA, is contributing to that process, and many in the
air travel industry maintain that a global setup would be a better bet than
individual nations taking action that could create a regulatory patchwork
across the planet.

Wednesday’s proposal is “part of preparing for a possible subsequent
domestic rulemaking process to adopt standards that are of at least
equivalent stringency as the anticipated ICAO CO2 standards,” EPA says in
its proposed rule. Member nations must adopt standards at least as
stringent as what the international body approves, the agency adds.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said relying on an international
standard is “common sense.”

“Obviously these airplanes operate in a variety of different countries in
many cases,” Earnest said.

Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, also called for the U.S. and the international body to cooperate.
“It is critical that EPA and the rest of the world, through the
International Civil Aviation Organization, move quickly and seek meaningful
greenhouse gas emission reductions,” he said.

But environmentalists fear that the international targets will lead to only
small reductions in global aviation emissions, particularly given that ICAO
is generally considering only changes to newly designed aircraft engines,
not retrofits to the existing fleet or designs already in production. Since
aircraft remain in service for decades, emissions reductions would come
slowly under that approach.

One environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed
unhappiness about the EPA’s attachment to the international standards.

“Passing the buck to an international organization that’s virtually run by
the airline industry won’t protect our planet from these rapidly growing
emissions,” said senior counsel Vera Pardee, whose group had previously
sued and threatened to sue EPA for its slowness to regulate planes’
greenhouse gas emissions. “We’re disappointed that the Obama administration
remains sufficiently captive to the airline industry to consider allowing
unlimited aircraft carbon emissions for what could be decades to come.”

Airlines for America, the U.S. airline industry’s lead trade group, said it
supports the international efforts to develop a carbon standard. It
interpreted EPA’s action Wednesday as showing the agency’s “commitment to
the ICAO process.”

“Aviation is a global industry, making it critical that aircraft emissions
standards continue to be agreed upon at the international level,” A4A Vice
President for Environmental Affairs Nancy Young said in a statement.

The U.S. already has a history of implementing the international aviation
body’s standards. Twice in the last decade, the group has issued standards
limiting emissions of acid-rain-causing nitrogen oxides from new planes —
and both times, EPA has followed suit with rules conforming to those
standards.

Environmentalists worry that the U.S. government may take a similar path
when it comes to carbon emissions from planes. They hope to persuade EPA to
set stronger standards that could serve as a runway to guide other nations
toward tougher standards as well. Meanwhile, manufacturers fear that U.S.
standards tougher than the rest of the world’s will only encourage engine
makers to move overseas.

Along with the proposed endangerment finding, EPA issued an advanced notice
that it is considering how to regulate the planes’ emissions under the
Clean Air Act — under provisions that are both relatively untested and
broader than the statutes used to write other pollution regulations.

EPA must consult with the FAA and cannot set standards that decrease safety
or increase noise, but otherwise appears to face fewer limits in its
authority than in the sections of the Clean Air Act regarding pollution
from other sources. FAA is charged with writing separate rules to ensure
compliance with EPA’s standards.

In its call for input, EPA is taking comment on when carbon standards
should take effect, how stringent they should be and whether standards
should apply only to newly designed aircraft or to designs already in
production.

Any future regulations would almost certainly apply to manufacturers of
planes and engines — specifically, jets with a maximum takeoff mass of at
least 6.3 tons and prop planes with maximum takeoff mass of at least 9.3
tons. That range that would cover everything from smaller jets to jumbo
liners such as the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747. (Smaller recreational
craft and military planes are not covered by the proposal.)

But given that any price increase will be borne by carriers, the U.S.’
major airlines are sure to weigh in on the climate rules, if not the
endangerment finding itself.

Boeing spokesman Tim Neale told The Associated Press that the industry is
already shrinking its carbon footprint. “We’re hard at work on lighter
airplanes, and GE is hard at work on more efficient engines,” he said. “And
we’re working a lot of these operational issues with the carriers so they
operate the planes more efficiently.”

The administration has already weathered one flap over international
emissions efforts.

In 2012, U.S. carriers balked when the European Union instituted an
emissions trading scheme that would apply to flights that arrived at or
departed from member airports. Congress passed legislation that allowed the
Transportation Department to block U.S. airlines from having to comply, and
the issue moved to the back burner for several years after the EU put that
program on hold.

Legally speaking, EPA may be on solid footing with its proposed
endangerment finding.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases
like carbon dioxide so long as it determines those emissions threaten
public health, and it upheld EPA’s 2009 finding that cars pose such a
threat. EPA later extended that finding to emissions from power plants, the
greatest source of U.S. carbon pollution.

While critics will have a chance to weigh in via public comments, few
expect EPA to alter course significantly in its final decision.

One potential argument against the endangerment finding is the fact that
U.S.-related airplane emissions make up just 0.5 percent of global
human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But in the ramp-up to this
December’s international climate talks in Paris, every action helps build
support, no matter the size.

EPA expects to finish the endangerment finding next year. While that would
trigger a requirement to subsequently issue greenhouse gas regulations for
planes, the timing means that the next president will oversee those
efforts. Regardless of who wins the White House next year, a positive
endangerment finding would legally require EPA to write the carbon
regulations.

Environmentalists are pushing for the U.S. to set stricter goals and become
a standard-bearer on the issue, but it remains unclear whether any
administration would go beyond ICAO’s eventual plan.

“President Obama has a unique and extremely important opportunity to
demonstrate leadership not only domestically but, around the world,” said
Becker.

*Senate shows Ex-Im support in test vote
<http://thehill.com/policy/finance/244608-senate-shows-ex-im-support-in-test-vote>
// The Hill // Kevin Cirilli – June 10, 2015 *

Supporters of the Export-Import Bank showed they have the support to break
a filibuster against its renewal on Wednesday in a test vote highlighting
the bank’s support.

In a 31-65 tally, the Senate voted against tabling an amendment to
reauthorize the bank.

The amendment was offered by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Sen. Kelly Ayotte
(R-N.H.), who supports the bank, then removed the amendment.

“What we're trying to do here is basically show support for the Ex-Im
Bank,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a bank supporter who is one of
five senators running for president. “This is not the last vote we'll take
on the Ex-Im Bank.”

Twenty GOP senators joined 45 Democrats to support the bank.

Presidential candidates Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
voted against the bank. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), another presidential
candidate and outspoken bank critic, did not vote.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running as a Democratic presidential
candidate, also voted against the bank.

The Export-Import Bank will expire unless its charter is extended by the
end of this month, and conservative Republicans in the House have mounted
an effort to kill it.

Despite the show of support in the Senate, it appears unlikely the bank
will be extended before June 30. Supporters will likely attach an amendment
extending its charter to a transportation bill, but that legislation would
not move until July.

Those opposed to the bank argue it is a form of crony capitalism in which
favored companies get advantages. The bank finances overseas investments
intended to boost U.S. exports.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Hackers May Have Obtained Names of Chinese With Ties to U.S. Government
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/world/asia/hackers-may-have-obtained-names-of-chinese-with-ties-to-us-government.html>
// NYT // - David Sanger & Julie Davis – June 10, 2015 *

Investigators say that the Chinese hackers who attacked the databases of
the Office of Personnel Management may have obtained the names of Chinese
relatives, friends and frequent associates of American diplomats and other
government officials, information that Beijing could use for blackmail or
retaliation.

Federal employees who handle national security information are required to
list some or all of their foreign contacts, depending on the agency, to
receive high-level clearances. Investigators say that the hackers obtained
many of the lists, and they are trying to determine how many of those
thousands of names were compromised.

In classified briefings to members of Congress in recent days, intelligence
officials have described what appears to be a systematic Chinese effort to
build databases that explain the inner workings of the United States
government. The information includes friends and relatives, around the
world, of diplomats, of White House officials and of officials from
government agencies, like nuclear experts and trade negotiators.

“They are pumping this through their databases just as the N.S.A. pumps
telephone data through their databases,” said James Lewis, a cyberexpert at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It gives the Chinese
the ability to exploit who is listed as a foreign contact. And if you are a
Chinese person who didn’t report your contacts or relationships with an
American, you may have a problem.”

Officials have conceded in the briefings that most of the compromised data
was not encrypted, though they have argued that the attacks were so
sophisticated and well hidden that encryption might have done little good.

The first attack, which began at the end of 2013 and was disclosed in the
middle of last year, was aimed at the databases used by investigators who
conduct security reviews. The investigators worked for a contracting firm
on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management, and the firm was fired in
August.

The broader attack on the personnel office’s main databases followed in
December. That attack, announced last week, involved the records of more
than four million current and former federal employees, most of whom have
no security clearances.

White House and personnel office officials have provided few details about
the latest breach. But the Department of Homeland Security has been telling
outside experts and members of Congress that it regards the detection of
the attack as a success, because it made use of new “signatures” of foreign
hackers, based on characteristics of computer code, to find the attack.

In a statement, the personnel office said Wednesday that “it was because of
these new enhancements to our IT systems that O.P.M. was able to identify
these intrusions.” But the detection happened in April, five months after
the attack began.

The list of relatives and “close or continuous contacts” is a standard part
of the forms and interviews required of American officials every five years
for top-secret and other high-level clearances, and government officials
consider the lists to be especially delicate.

In 2010, when The New York Times was preparing to publish articles based on
250,000 secret State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks, the newspaper
complied with a request by the department to redact the names of any
Chinese citizens who were described in the cables as providing information
to American Embassy officials. Officials cited fear of retaliation by the
Chinese authorities.

Officials say they do not know how much of the compromised data was exposed
to the Chinese hackers. While State Department employees, especially new
ones, are required to list all their foreign friends, diplomats have so
many foreign contacts that they are not expected to list them all.

But other government officials are frequently asked to do so, especially in
interviews with investigators. The notes from those interviews, conducted
by a spinoff of the personnel office called the United States Investigative
Service, were obtained by hackers in the earlier episode last year.

Intelligence agencies use a different system, so the contacts of operatives
like those in the C.I.A. were not in the databases.

But the standard form that anyone with a national security job fills out
includes information about spouses, divorces and even distant foreign
relatives, as well as the names of current or past foreign girlfriends and
boyfriends, bankruptcies, debts and other financial information. And it
appears that the hackers reached, and presumably downloaded, images of
those forms.

“I can’t say whether this was more damaging than WikiLeaks; it’s different
in nature,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat who
is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, which was briefed by
intelligence officials, the Department of Homeland Security and the
personnel office on Tuesday. Mr. Schiff, who declined to speak about the
specifics of the briefing, added, “But it is certainly one of the most
damaging losses I can think of.”

Investigators were surprised to find that the personnel office, which had
already been so heavily criticized for lax security that its inspector
general wanted parts of the system shut down, did not encrypt any of the
most sensitive data.

The damage was not limited to information about China, though that
presumably would have been of most interest to the hackers. They are likely
to be particularly interested in the contacts of Energy Department
officials who work on nuclear weapons or nuclear intelligence, Commerce
Department or trade officials working on delicate issues like the
negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and, of course, White
House officials.

In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Senator Angus King, an
independent from Maine on both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed
Services Committee, called for the United States to retaliate for these
kinds of losses. “Nation-states need to know that if they attack us this
way, something bad is going to happen to their cyberinfrastructure,” he
said.

But Mr. King said he could not say if the attacks on the personnel office
were state-sponsored, adding, “I have to be careful; I can’t confirm the
identity of the entity behind the attack.” The Obama administration has not
formally named China, but there has been no effort to hide the attribution
in the classified hearings.

The scope of the breach is remarkable, experts say, because the personnel
office apparently learned little from earlier government data breaches like
the WikiLeaks case and the surveillance revelations by Edward J. Snowden,
both of which involved unencrypted data.

President Obama has said he regards the threat of cyberintrusions as a
persistent challenge in a world in which both state and nonstate actors
“are sending everything they’ve got at trying to breach these systems.”

The problem “is going to accelerate, and that means that we have to be as
nimble, as aggressive and as well resourced as those who are trying to
break into these systems,” he said at a news conference this week.

The White House has stopped short of blaming Katherine Archuleta, the
director of the personnel office, for the breach, emphasizing that securing
government computer systems is a challenging task.

*U.S. Expands ISIS Involvement, Sending Up To 450 Military Personnel To New
Training Site In Iraq
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/obama-troops-iraq_n_7553908.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016>
// Huffington Post – June 10, 2015 *

The United States will send another 450 military personnel to Iraq to help
forces there combat the extremist Islamic State group, the White House
announced Wednesday, signaling a shift in focus for the U.S. and a tacit
acknowledgement that the extremists have not been weakened as much as the
Obama administration has claimed.

The additional personnel will establish a new U.S. training site -- the
fifth in Iraq -- at Taqaddum military base in Iraq's Sunni-majority Anbar
province, according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

Earnest said that President Barack Obama made the decision following
requests from Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and recommendations from
top military commanders and national security advisers. But the
announcement also suggests a possible resolution to an ongoing struggle
within the Obama administration about how best to move forward in Iraq, as
military commanders have previously said that sites in Anbar province --
such as the provincial capital, Ramadi, which was captured by the Islamic
State last month -- are less important than potential offensives elsewhere.

The additional U.S. forces will not play a combat role, administration
officials emphasized Wednesday afternoon in a call with reporters. Instead,
they are intended to bolster Iraqi forces' morale in the embattled
province, help the Iraqis respond more promptly to Islamic State advances
and eventually strengthen them to the point where they can retake Ramadi
and other towns like Fallujah. The officials tried to strike an optimistic
tone, citing prior success at the al-Asad air base, an already-established
U.S. training camp in Anbar province.

But that is a difficult message to sell in light of a Monday report from
The Hill indicating trouble at the air base. U.S. military officials there
are frustrated, according to the report, because the central Iraqi
government has not sent new recruits to al-Asad for at least the past four
weeks.

Officials on Wednesday's call said that recruitment for the new training
mission will be facilitated by the Iraqi government's commitment to move
closer to Sunni tribal fighters in Anbar province, something Iraqi leaders
have made a priority following the fall of Ramadi. Ben Rhodes, the deputy
national security adviser, told reporters that Baghdad's decision to audit
its military rolls -- removing soldiers who have fled or defected -- would
free up Iraqi cash to pay more soldiers, particularly Sunni tribal recruits.

Administration officials also emphasized that Wednesday's decision had been
made in response to what the Iraqis said they needed. Abadi had sought a
U.S. training presence with Sunni tribesmen for some time and reiterated
the request after Ramadi fell, according to Rhodes.

"The Iraqis want to be in the lead themselves," he said.

The statements came one day after Salim al-Jabouri, speaker of the Iraqi
parliament and a prominent Sunni politician, told Foreign Policy that he
blames the Islamic State's success in Anbar province not only on problems
in the Iraqi forces but also on a lack of urgent U.S. attention to the
problem.

The White House also announced Wednesday that it will speed up the delivery
of heavy equipment, notably anti-tank missiles, to its Iraqi partners on
the ground. The administration did not say whether it would directly supply
the Kurdish peshmerga forces in the north or the Sunnis already battling
the Islamic State, although those communities have said they desperately
need supplies because they claim Baghdad is slow to distribute equipment.

The White House did not indicate how Wednesday's development will affect
previously announced plans to retake Mosul, Iraq's second largest city and
a key prize for the Islamic State. Military officials controversially
predicted in February that Mosul would be liberated in the spring,
prompting vocal criticism from Iraq and a struggle to temper expectations.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Mosul might not be retaken
until next year.

Asked about the change in policy, Rhodes did not mention whether it will
affect Mosul, where residents are reportedly living in fear of the
militants. Rhodes said the administration is constantly revising its
approach based on reports from the ground in Iraq and Syria showing what
has and hasn't worked for the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State.

"I wouldn't think of it as a formal review process," he said.

He added that Obama is constantly thinking about force protection as he
continues to approve an expansion of the U.S. military footprint in Iraq.

Elissa Slotkin, a top defense official, said on the call with reporters
that the 450 additional troops for the new U.S. training camp will be built
up beginning immediately, first by redeploying forces already within Iraq
and then by sending U.S. troops there from elsewhere.

*American Keith Broomfield killed fighting in Syria
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/politics/american-killed-fighting-syria-keith-broomfield/index.html>
// CNN // Elise Labott – June 10, 2015*

American citizen Keith Broomfield was killed fighting in Syria, a State
Department official confirmed Wednesday.

The official said the State Department was in touch with Broomfield's
family.

Jennifer Broomfield, a woman who identified herself on Facebook as Keith
Broomfield's sister, shared an image of a text message conversation on the
social medium, which she said were the "Last words I had with my brother."

"My unspoken prayers and tears for those in the Middle East were answered
when he left to fight," she wrote. "I didn't think I would lose him."

The State Department said in its press briefing Wednesday that additional
details on Broomfield's death were not immediately available.

Idris Nassan, Kurdish co-deputy foreign minister of the Kobani district,
also confirmed to CNN Broomfield had been fighting alongside the Kurds
against ISIS.

"Broomfield was fighting alongside the Kurdish People's Protection Units in
the Kobani countryside when he was killed battling against ISIS," Nassan
said. "It is unclear how long Broomfiled had been fighting with the Kurdish
forces, but he had become well acquainted with the militiamen, even earning
the Kurdish nom de guerre Damhad (meaning: it's the time to do something)."

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*Jeb Bush’s Learning Curve on Russia
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/jeb-bushs-learning-curve-on-russia/>
// NYT // Carol Giacomo – June 10, 2015 *

Few world leaders are easier to criticize these days than President
Vladimir Putin of Russia. There can be no defense of his decision to annex
Crimea, worsen Ukraine’s civil war by sending troops and weapons to the
eastern region and threaten nuclear responses if NATO tries to deter his
aggression.

So it was no surprise that Jeb Bush, an all-but-declared Republican
presidential candidate, used Mr. Putin as a target during a visit to Berlin
on Tuesday and Wednesday that was intended to burnish his non-existent
foreign policy credentials.

“Ultimately to deal with Putin you need to deal from strength – he’s a
bully and … you enable bad behavior when you’re nuanced with a guy like
that,” Mr. Bush said. He called for a “more robust” approach and asked,
“Who can doubt that Russia will do what it pleases if its aggression goes
unanswered?”

It was also no surprise that Mr. Bush took the opportunity to fault
President Obama, saying the administration’s attempt to “reset” relations
with Russia had failed.

Despite the venue, his most important audience was not Germans or even
Europeans but Republican voters who are eager to blame Mr. Obama for
everything that goes wrong in the world.

It has sometimes been hard to watch the Europeans waffle over imposing
sanctions on Russia. But they and the Americans have done just that, and
the sanctions seem to be holding even if they don’t seem to have altered
Mr. Putin’s outrageous behavior.

So what would Mr. Bush do differently? Nothing, it seems. He proposed a
beefed-up presence of NATO troops along Russia’s border with the Baltic
states and said the allies should signal what further sanctions Russia
could face if it persists in its aggression – things the United States and
its allies are already doing.

Mr. Bush coupled his exhortations about strength with caution, insisting,
“I’m not talking about being bellicose.” That suggests the kind of nuance
that Mr. Obama has tried to bring to his Russia policy. Getting the balance
right is complicated by the fact that Mr. Putin’s help is still needed to
solve other challenges, including in Syria and Iran.

What Mr. Bush failed to offer is a detailed plan for ending the presence of
Russian-backed troops in Ukraine.

He apparently saw no irony in the fact that while he faulted Mr. Obama for
trying in 2009 to reset relations with Russia, his own brother, President
George W. Bush, famously declared on meeting Mr. Putin in 2001 that he had
gotten “a sense of his soul” and found him “trustworthy.”

President Bush obviously went overboard with his naïve and cloying
assessment. But like Mr. Obama, he was serving the national interest in
trying to establish a working relationship with the leader of a major
country that controls thousands of nuclear weapons.

As Jeb Bush correctly noted, Mr. Putin has changed and is far more
aggressive than in the past. If he wants to be taken seriously as a
presidential candidate, Mr. Bush will have to come up with more thoughtful
explanations of what Mr. Obama’s failings are and how he will tackle the
world’s most thorny problems differently.

*Jeb Bush’s recipe for a better society: Shame
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeb-bushs-recipe-for-a-better-society-shame/2015/06/10/9c28ecd4-0f92-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html>
// WaPo // Catherine Rampell – June 10, 2015 *

Judge a little more, blush a little more, and all of society’s ills will be
cured.

So posited now-presidential hopeful Jeb Bush in a book published shortly
after his unsuccessful first run for Florida governor in 1994.

“Profiles in Character” (which Bush co-authored with Brian Yablonski) is
part compilation of platitudes about community, religiosity and integrity;
part series of inspirational biographies (the “profiles” of the title); and
part diatribe about bloated government. The juiciest and weirdest bits,
though, are in a subchapter about the need to revive “shame.”

“Society needs to relearn the art of public and private disapproval and how
to make those who engage in undesirable behavior feel some sense of shame,”
Bush writes.

The book argues that the diminishment of dishonor has contributed to all
sorts of depravity. If only we as a populace were a bit more judgmental,
the poor would stop being so poor, the promiscuous would learn restraint,
deadbeats would pay their bills, criminals would keep to the straight and
narrow, school shooters would lay down their arms and bastard children
would finally start getting “legitimize[d]” (their term, not mine) through
marriage.

To contrast today’s shamefully shameless culture with the past, the book
waxes wistful about ye olden times: “There was a time when neighbors and
communities would frown on out-of-wedlock births and when public
condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful. Infamous
shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter are reminders
that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong
historical roots.”

His priceless Andover education notwithstanding, Bush may be a little
confused about one of the great American literary classics. Hawthorne’s
unforgiving, shame-wielding Puritan Salemites were not exactly portrayed as
worthy of imitation.

But no matter; scarlet A’s for all sluts, please. In fact, after Bush won
the governorship, Florida’s legislature passed a measure nicknamed the
“Scarlet Letter” law because it required single women to publish
information on their past sexual partners in a newspaper before they could
put children up for adoption. The law was repealed after being struck down
as unconstitutional.

Bush also pines for the days of “pillories and public dunkings,” and
regrets that “much of today’s criminal justice system seems to be lacking
in humiliation.” He endorses one idea, proposed by a Miami Herald
columnist, that juvenile offenders should be shamed by dressing them “in
frilly pink jumpsuits and making them sweep the streets of their own
neighborhoods.” This sounds a lot like the infamous pink underwear inmates
wear in Arizona’s Maricopa County, but apparently even that would be
insufficiently emasculating.

Perhaps most astonishingly, Bush advocates using corporal punishment in
public schools, because he says the humiliation involved (rather than the
physical pain) is so effective.

Kids These Days “do not care if the teacher yells at them or if their test
results are less than stellar,” Bush writes. In most districts, teachers
have few available tools to adequately humiliate delinquents — but in some
lucky districts, such as Florida’s Walton County, educators were still able
to practice corporal punishment. (This was true when the book was
copyrighted, in 1995; last year, the county school board voted to ban
paddling.) “Profiles in Character” quotes an anonymous student who
declares, “We feel ashamed when it happens to us, but when you’re in that
classroom and you want to learn and somebody else won’t let you learn,
well, they are dealt with.”

Bush then implies that spankings are the key to preventing more egregious
forms of school violence: “To date, Walton County has never experienced a
shooting at any of its schools.”

Yes, and I have an amulet that keeps away tigers.

Bush has some other strange and/or relatively retrograde things in the
text, including some histrionics about the rise of no-fault divorce (as
well as “no-fault psychotherapy”) and fierce objections to the fact that a
criminal defendant’s childhood and life circumstances are ever taken into
consideration before passing judgment.

The book was written 20 years ago, around the time that Hillary Clinton
wrote an entire book about her pets (fun fact: rejected names for Clinton’s
dog Buddy include “Arkanpaws” and “Clin Tin Tin”). So it’s hard to know
which, if any, of these specific policies he still favors. (His
spokesperson did not respond to questions about Bush’s current views on
shame and corporal punishment, saying only that people should look to his
record as governor.)

But even if Bush no longer directly embraces, say, corporal punishment, his
underlying philosophy is clear, and it’s consistent with attitudes we’ve
seen among conservatives now in power in places such as Kansas and
Wisconsin: that the main reason people are broke, unmarried, in prison or
unemployed is because it’s all just too much gosh-darn fun.

*Back Clinton for voting rights
<http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/back-clinton-for-voting-rights/article_662e7c7f-47a6-53c8-b1ce-d86800c048a9.html>
// The Quad-City Times // Elaine Baxter - June 10, 2015 *

In Iowa, we take voting seriously. Every four years, presidential
candidates make Iowa their first stop on the road to the White House. In
cities from Burlington to Council Bluffs, Iowans listen, carefully consider
their options and then turn out on caucus night for their preferred
candidate. Voting isn’t just a civic duty here - it’s a core part of what
makes us Iowans.

When more people vote, it’s better for our state, our country and our
democracy. In Iowa, we have made it easier than most states. From same day
registration to in-person absentee voting, we have eliminated barriers to
the ballot box. Hillary Clinton agrees with us and offered concrete,
common-sense policy proposals to increase participation in our elections
for the entire country

Hillary is calling for no fewer than 20 days of early voting in every
state, has called for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons
and she believes it’s time for all eligible citizens to be registered to
vote automatically when they turn eighteen in every state in the union.

When I was Secretary of State, making it easier for Iowans to vote was a
primary goal of mine. My service convinced me more than ever that more
people voting is never a bad thing. I applaud Hillary Clinton for her bold
call to expand access to the ballot. Her solutions will strengthen our
democracy and ensure that our leaders are accountable to the greatest
number of citizens. That’s just the way we like it in Iowa.

*Bernie Sanders Was Just Another Hippie Rummaging Through My Mom’s Fridge
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122005/he-was-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-was-radical>
// The New Republic // Chelsea Summers – June 10, 2015*

One hot night in July 1972, I walked into my family’s kitchen to see my
mother brandishing a broom at a skinny man who had his head stuck deep
inside our refrigerator.

“You get out!” my mom yelled, hitting the man on his skinny ass. “Out,
out!” Under her tan skin, my mother’s face was red with indignation. We
didn’t have much in our fridge, but my mom would fiercely defend it. The
man pulled his head out of the fridge, dropping the food on the shelf. His
hair was curly; a cherub’s full-bodied curls framed his startled face.
Chagrined, he loped off to the other apartment housed in my family’s
converted two-room schoolhouse in Huntington, Vermont, the site of a
late-night mock-up session for The Vermont Freeman, the alt-weekly my
parents published. Years later, I’d find out that man was Bernie Sanders.

Standing on the waterfront park of Burlington, Vermont, on Tuesday, May 26,
2015, Sanders announced his candidacy for president. Shortly thereafter,
Mother Jones published “How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real
Politician,” an article detailing Sanders’ decades-long shift from scruffy
radical to hirsute politician. While the article delineates much of
Sanders’ early history, including his time with the doomed Liberty Union
party, his multiple failed political bids, and his hardscrabble
hippie-adjacent life, the media fixated on one element: The “50 Shades”
satiric erotica that Sanders wrote for the Freeman in October 1972.

“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man,” goes the most quoted portion of
the essay, “she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.” Called
“Man—and Woman,” the short piece originally appeared in the “China” issue
of the Freeman. You’d likely imagine that an underground Vermont newspaper
would have a hard time drumming up enough copy to fill a China issue—and
you’d be right. The piece is bad, but it speaks to the gendered zeitgeist
of the time, the ’70s confusion about who humans are when we can’t rely on
the gender roles we grew up in with. It’s a confusion that lingers,
suggesting that though his prose is execrable, Sanders is posing questions
that were valid for the time, questions that the anger of Men’s Rights
Activists and fourth-wave feminist divisions suggest are still relevant.

“It is very bad,” Frank Kochman, my father and co-publisher of the Vermont
Freeman, said of Sanders’s 1972 piece. “But it has a wonderful graphic.”

“We were probably hard up for copy,” Jennifer Kochman, my mom, another
co-publisher, added.

Distancing himself from the piece, even Sanders called it “bad writing,”
but this was the text that the media fixated on; from NPR to the Washington
Post and beyond, the media glommed onto Sanders’s semi-salacious prose. It
certainly was the first time that The Vermont Freeman was featured on "Meet
the Press." From 1971-1974, the Freeman, with a circulation of about 1,500
ranging across the state of Vermont and into New Hampshire, lived and
breathed in our converted two-room schoolhouse. My dad calls the Freeman a
“heavy duty, Hanoi Jane, anti-war, people’s revolution sort of thing—short
of violent revolution; the Freeman never advocated actual revolution.”

The newspaper’s pages detailed the vicissitudes of the Vietnam War, local
politics, labor strikes, generalized feminism, and whatever other food
co-op–fed hobby-horses my parents and their friends were riding that
particular week. Printed on newsprint with type laboriously cut and pasted
by hand, illustrated by pictures my mom drew or found in clip-art, the
Freeman looks like a forerunner to 'zines, and its copy often reads a lot
like late-night posts to LiveJournal. Sometimes experienced journalists
placed pieces too hot to publish anywhere else, but most of the paper had
the feel of earnest kids doing everything they could to pretend to be real.

When I was a nine-year-old girl, I saw Sanders as just another one of the
mop-haired, rangy hippies crowding my house. However, unlike all those
other Freeman writers, Sanders was a radical who never left the political
scene. While my parents left the Freeman to pursue other ventures—my dad
became a lawyer and my mom did public relations for non-profits—Sanders
didn’t abandon his politics. Instead, he made a career out of them, running
unsuccessfully for Vermont governor and U.S. Senate multiple times as a
Liberty Union candidate before being elected as an independent to the House
of Representatives in 1991 and to the Senate in 2007. (Sanders has always
caucused with the Democrats.)

And it was as a candidate that Sanders first came into contact with the
Freeman. In its identity as the liberal alternative to the
then-conservative Burlington Free Press, the Freeman covered the nascent
anti-war Liberty Union Party. Starting as early as October 1971, the
Freeman covered the Liberty Union Party and its candidates, including a
photo of a very young Senate hopeful Bernie Sanders with his son. Everyone
looks so fluffy and soft, their children on their laps and nary a necktie
to be seen.

By the next year, Sanders had grown disillusioned with the coverage of the
Freeman, and he penned a letter to the editor. Beginning with a churlish
charge that the paper “virtually ignored” his campaign, Sanders continued
to lay out a three-point campaign platform consisting of “a radical
revision of the state’s regressive tax structure,” an end to the Vietnam
War, and an amorphous call to “abolish all laws which attempt to impose a
particular brand of morality.” Rather than an ethical argument, Sanders
used finances as the basis for ending the Vietnam War and suggested that
this money fund universal health care, low-cost housing, and environmental
cleanup.

It’s a three-point policy that’s remarkably similar to Sanders’ current
presidential platform, which consists of income and wealth inequality,
getting big money out of politics, and working against climate change and
for environmental causes.

As Sanders’ trademark truculent tone hasn’t changed, so too has his
political position remained notably consistent. The 1972 senatorial
candidate who somewhat hazily pledged to “abolish all laws dealing with
abortion, drugs, sexual behavior” in his letter to the Freeman became a
U.S. representative who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and just
as he opposed the Vietnam War as a candidate, he voted against the use of
force in Iraq in 1991, 2001, and 2003.

In that 1972 letter, Sanders opposed the “gradual erosion of freedoms and
the sense of what freedom really means” in the Nixon administration—a
loosey-goosey, hippie-dippy expression that, forty-plus years later, makes
it hard to know what freedoms Sanders is referring to, exactly. However,
the passage of time has solidified Sanders’ vague understanding of personal
freedoms—or it has given him a well-defined foe, and he vociferously
decried the Patriot Act and other “Orwellian surveillance,” as he called
it. His voting record stands against big banking but usually with the NRA,
necessary if you want to get elected in hunter-heavy Vermont.

“Bernie really is not much different now than he was then,” my dad says.
“His ties and suits are way better—of course, he had no ties or suits, but
he has been boringly consistent for 44 years.”

In 1981, my first election as a voter, I voted for Sanders’s first
successful bid to be mayor of Burlington. It was the cool thing to do, and
I did it to wear the button and prove my loyalty to the collective cool.
Forty years later, it’s an uncanny thing to see this person I’ve known
since childhood become a viable candidate for president. It’s like seeing
my childhood validated, slapped on a campaign button, dissected by the
press, and turned into a slogan.

My family moved out of that converted schoolhouse decades ago, but my mom
loves telling the refrigerator story. She says she forgives him. “He was
probably just hungry,” she says. “We all were.”

*Alexandria Phillips*

*Press Assistant | Communications*

Hillary for America | www.hillaryclinton.com