Subject: H4A News Clips 6.20.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:22:34 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*June 20, 2015*

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

*Hillary Clinton Says No to Granting ‘Fast Track’ Authority on Trade Deal*
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19,
2015.............................................................................................................................................
5

*Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders dominate on Facebook* // Politico //
Hadas Gold – June 19, 2015..... 7

*Inside Hillary Clinton’s Grassroots Campaign* // TIME // Sam Frizell –
June 19, 2015............................ 7

*SOCIAL
MEDIA................................................................................................
**10*

*Martin O’Malley (6/19/15, 3:22 PM)* – It’s time we recognize this is a
national crisis.  It’s time we say what we’re all thinking: that this is
not the America we want to be living
in................................................. 10

*Olivia Nuzzi (6/19/15, 12:34 PM)* – Candidates to acknowledge racism
behind #CharlestonShooting: Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham,
Martin
O’Malley................................................................ 10

*ABC News (6/19/15, 4:54 PM)* – White House: Pres. Obama “has said before
that he believes the Confederate flag belongs in museums”
-@ABCPolitics...........................................................................................
10

*Mike Allen (6/19/15, 8:21 AM)* – Charleston, S.C. (AP) – South Caroline
governor tell NBC Charleston church shooter should get the death
penalty................................................................................................
10

*Sam Stein (6/19/15, 10:31 AM)* – Per source, Side Blumenthal faced 3x as
many qs on Clinton foundation and Brock empire than Benghazi w/
@srlevine2.......................................................................................
10

*Sarah Kliff (6/19/15, 12:04 PM)* – No matter how you score it, CBO says
Obamacare repeal increases the deficit.
http://1.usa.gov/1LnEATF................................................................................................................
10

*Nick Minock (6/19/15, 2:13 PM)* – Mayor Riley, who usually doesn’t side
with the death penalty, said he’s open to it in this case #cbsnews
#Charleston..............................................................................................
10

*Matt Katz (6/19/15, 7:42 PM)* – At Christie Family meeting 2 weeks ago,
his wife & kids gave him the green light to run for prez, @GovChristie
tells Fox
News..............................................................................
10

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................................................
**10*

*Changing Views on a Female President* // NYT // Lynn Vavreck – June 19,
2015.................................. 10

*Hillary Clinton’s Hampton’s Quandry* // NYT // Amy Chozick – June 19,
2015..................................... 12

*Log On and Hit ‘Like’…Facebook Measures the Candidates* // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – June 19, 2015. 17

*Hillary Clinton confidante is confident that release of full Benghazi
deposition would absolve him* // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – June 19,
2015...........................................................................................................
17

*Hillary Clinton’s trade fiasco* // Politico // Ben White – June 19,
2015................................................. 18

*Hillary Clinton fundraising off Treasury putting woman on $10 bill* //
Politico // Nick Cass – June 19,
2015........................................................................................................................................................
19

*Judge reopens FOIA case on Hillary Clinton aide Abedin* // Politico //
Josh Gerstein – June 19, 2015... 19

*Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s racial rhetoric ‘not acceptable’* //
Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................................................
20

*Clinton criticizes predatory lenders during veterans forum* // AP //
Michelle Rindels – June 18, 2015.. 22

*Hillary Clinton Is Trouncing Everyone in the Facebook Primary* //
Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – June 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
22

*Hillary Clinton Wants Woman on $10 Bill But Won’t Say Which One* //
Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19,
2015............................................................................................................................................
23

*Lawyer for Clinton Confidant Wants Congress to Release Testimony* //
Bloomberg // Billy House – June 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
24

*Clinton: Stop For-Profit Colleges From Targeting Veterans* // TIME // Sam
Frizell – June 18, 2015....... 25

*Hillary Clinton sees a different California than her husband once did* //
LA Times // Kurtis Lee – June 19,
2015........................................................................................................................................................
26

*Hillary Clinton hitting three $2,700-per-person Westside fundraisers today*
// LA Daily News // June 19,
2015........................................................................................................................................................
27

*Ex-charity exec who helped expose $500G Clinton Foundation donation faces
legal threats* // Fox News // Adam Shaw – June 19,
2015..............................................................................................................
28

*Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need the Media…Yet* // National Journal // S.V.
Date – June 19, 2015............ 30

*The Great 2016 Foreign Policy Gamble* // National Journal // Josh
Kraushaar – June 18, 2015............. 32

*EMILY’s List Already Raising Big Bucks for Hillary Clinton* // HuffPo //
Paul Blumenthal – June 19, 2015 34

*Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Address* // HuffPo // Bill Moyers and
Michael Winship – June 19, 2015.... 35

*Sidney Blumenthal’s Benghazi Testimony Focuses More on Domestic Politics
Than The Attack* // HuffPo // Sam Levine and Sam Stein – June 18,
2015........................................................................................
38

*Voters Generally Support Clinton Voting Push* // Public Policy Polling //
- June 20, 2015..................... 40

*Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s speech drives Charleston-like violence* //
Breitbart // Ben Shapiro – June 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
41

*Hillary Clinton alludes to Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric as fuel for
hateful acts like the Charleston shooting* // NY Daily News // Cameron
Joseph – June 19,
2015............................................................................
42

*How Hillary Clinton will raise gobs of cash from Wall Street while
trashing the industry in public* // Business Insider // Linette Lopez –
June 19,
2015............................................................................................
43

*How Hillary Clinton thanked a pizza place that’s been feeding her campaign*
// Business Insider // Hunter Walker – June 19,
2015.....................................................................................................................
44

*Hillary Clinton Talks First Term To H’wood Donors At Tobey Maguire’s House*
// Deadline // Dominic Patten – June 20,
2015...................................................................................................................................
45

*Hillary Clinton Woos Young Hollywood Democrats at Fundraisers in L.A.* //
Hollywood Reporter // Tina Daunt – June 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................
46

*Harassment Complaints Tripled at State Department Under Clinton, Kerry* //
Free Beacon // Joe Schoffstall – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
46

*Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor*
// Free Beacon // Brent Scher – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
47

*Hillary Clinton’s 24-hour fundraising jaunt in Hollywood expected to net
$1 million* // Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – June 19,
2015........................................................................................................
48

*Hillary Clinton stressing support for immigration reform* // AZ Central //
Dan Nowicki – June 19, 2015 49

*Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?* // FactCheck.Org // Robert Farley
– June 19, 2015........... 53

*A note from Jorge Ramos* // Fusion // Jorge Ramos – June 19,
2015.................................................... 57

*Judicial Watch Statement in Reponse to Federal Court Reopening Lawsuit
Seeking Information on Top Clinton Aide Huma Abedin* // Digital Journal //
June 19, 2015........................................................... 58

*I’m A Republican Woman & I’m Voting For Hillary* // Refinery 29 // Asma
Hasan – June 19, 2015........ 59

*These Women Probably Don’t Fit the Bill: Fans Suggest Hillary, Beyoncé and
Taylor for #TheNew10* // People // Tierney Mcafee – June 19,
2015.....................................................................................................
61

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE.................................................. **61*

*DECLARED...........................................................................................................
**61*

*O’MALLEY.........................................................................................................
**61*

*An Angry O’Malley Calls for an Assault Weapons Ban* // NYT // Maggie
Haberman – June 19, 2015...... 61

*O’Malley’s Two-Word Response to Charleston Shooting: ‘I’m Pissed’* //
Bloomberg // Sydney McNeal – June 19,
2015............................................................................................................................................
63

*O’Malley: ‘I’m pissed’ about gun climate* // CNN // Theodore Schleifer –
June 19, 2015........................ 64

*Martin O’Malley is ‘Pissed About Gun Control* // TIME // Sam Frizell –
June 19, 2015.......................... 65

*O’Malley says he won’t be deterred from criticizing Clinton* // Baltimore
Sun // Michael Dresser – June 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
65

*Martin O’Malley Launches Major Post-Charleston Gun Control Push With “I’m
Pissed”* // Buzzfeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro – June 19,
2015.....................................................................................................
67

*SANDERS..........................................................................................................
**68*

*Bernie Sanders hits the Las Vegas strip, takes aim at billionaire Sheldon
Adelson* // WaPo // Philip Rucker – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
68

*Bernie Sanders and immigration? It’s complicated* // Politico // Seung Min
Kim – June 19, 2015.......... 69

*Sanders gains with blunt talk of rich vs. poor* // AP // June 19,
2015.................................................... 72

*Bernie Sanders Faces Awkward Issues for His Liberal Allies: Immigration
and Guns* // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19,
2015....................................................................................................................
74

*Clinton, Sanders, Paul top Facebook chatter in key early presidential
states* // McClatchy // David Lightman – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
76

*Bernie Sanders Calls for Broader End to Deportations* // TIME // Philip
Elliot – June 19, 2015............. 77

*Where Bernie Sanders disappoints liberals* // CNN // Dan Merica – June 19,
2015............................... 79

*Bernie Sanders wants to talk about guns. But not right now.* // CNN // Dan
Merica – June 19, 2015..... 81

*Why Sanders is a good fit for Warren Backers* // CNN // Erica Sagrans and
Charles Lenchner – June 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................................................
83

*Sanders has favored a lighter touch on gun control than Clinton, O’Malley*
// Boston Globe // Anne Linksey and Tracy Jan – June 19,
2015...........................................................................................................
84

*Ready for Warren Sets Up Outlet for Members to Back Bernie Sanders* //
National Journal // Eric Garcia – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................................................
87

*Sanders denounces ‘billionaire class’ outside GOP donor’s Vegas casino* //
The Hill // Jonathan Easley – June 19,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
88

*Ready for Warren endorses Sanders* // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19,
2015.................................. 89

*Bush, Sanders and the long, slow death of the GOP* // The Hill // Bernie
Quigley – June 19, 2015........ 89

*Democrats May Keep Bernie Sanders Off New York Primary Ballot* //
Gothamist // Emma Whitford – June 18,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
91

*Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a
good fight* // Guardian // Paul Lewis – June 19,
2015.......................................................................................................................
92

*CHAFEE..........................................................................................................
**100*

*Only Lincoln Chafee Knows Which Woman Should Be on the $10 Bill* //
Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – June 19,
2015.................................................................................................................................
100

*UNDECLARED....................................................................................................
**102*

*WEBB..............................................................................................................
**102*

*Jim Webb to speak to Clinton County Democrats* // Des Moines Register //
Jason Noble – June 19, 2015 102

*OTHER............................................................................................................
**102*

*‘Ridin’ With Biden’ in 2016, but So Far the Vice President’s Not Aboard*
// NYT // Peter Baker – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
102

*Chasing Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley Court Teachers Unions // US News and
World Report* // Allie Bidwell – June 19,
2015..................................................................................................................................
104

*What Did O’Malley and Sanders Tell the NEA?* // Ed Week // Alyson Klein –
June 18, 2015............... 106

*GOP...............................................................................................................
**108*

*DECLARED.........................................................................................................
**108*

*BUSH...............................................................................................................
**108*

*Voodoo, Jeb! Style* // NYT // Paul Krugman – June 19,
2015............................................................. 108

*Jeb Bush Pledges Debate on Gay Marriage After Court Ruling* // NYT //
Jeremy Peters – June 19, 2015 109

*Jeb Bush’s slam against Washington, D.C.* // WaPo // Glenn Kessler – June
19, 2015......................... 110

*Like grandfather, like father, like son: Jeb Bush Jr. joins the campaign
fray* // WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
113

*Five myths about Jeb Bush* // WaPo // Brian E. Crowley – June 19,
2015........................................... 115

*Jeb Bush Emphasizes Anti-Abortion Record as Florida Governor* // Bloomberg
// Sahil Kapur – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
118

*Jeb Bush Makes Surprise Pick for Political Director* // WSJ // David James
– June 19, 2015................ 119

*Jeb Bush might have a big problem on his hands if he wins the White House*
// AP // Annie Greene – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
119

*Jeb Sells Catholicism to Evangelicals* // Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff –
June 19, 2015...................... 121

*Jeb Bush demonstates the opposite of economic wonkery* // MSNBC // Steve
Benen – June 19, 2015. 123

*Paul Krugman: Jeb Bush’s economic policies could turn the entire country
into a failed Kansas-style “experiment”* // Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman –
June 19, 2015............................................................
124

*Jeb Bush’s pathetic Charleston dodge: “I don’t know” if white supremacist
suspect was motivated by racism* // Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19,
2015.....................................................................................
125

*Jeb Bush already a winner – when it comes to campaign logos* // Dallas
News // Christy Hoppe – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
125

*Jeb Bush changes tune, calls Charleston shooter ‘racist’* // Tampa Bay
Times // Kirby Wilson – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
127

*Bush makes his case vs. Walker, Rubio, minus criticism* // Des Moines
Register // Jennifer Jacobs – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
127

*As Florida Governor, Jeb Bush Bought Land from Timber Company That Later
Paid Him $1 Million* // IB Times // Andrew Perez – June 19,
2015............................................................................................
130

*Jeb! Bush isn’t sure what motivated the killer who ‘wanted to start a race
war’* // Daily Kos // Barbara
Morrill......................................................................................................................................................
133

*RUBIO..............................................................................................................
**134*

*Marco Rubio’s supply-side problem: Why anti-tax fanatics have it in for
him* // Salon // Simon Maloy – June 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
134

*PAUL................................................................................................................
**135*

*Rand Paul Names Hedge Fund Chief Mark Zpitznagel as Economic Advisor* //
NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – June 19,
2015..................................................................................................................................
135

*Rand Paul taps hedge-fund manager as senior economic advisor* // Politico
// Daniel Strauss – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
136

*A New ‘Rand Paul’ Super PAC is Making Paul’s Official Super PAC Nervous*
// Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 19,
2015..................................................................................................................................
137

*Rand Paul Pitches Plan to ‘Blow Up’ Tax Code* // AP // June 19,
2015................................................. 139

*Rand Paul’s First Two Books Are Full Of Fake Founding Fathers Quotes* //
Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper – June 18,
2015..........................................................................................................
141

*CRUZ................................................................................................................
**144*

*Ted Cruz: Democrats using Charleston as ‘excuse’ to take away gun rights*
// WaPo // Katie Zezima – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
144

*Cruz commits to ‘full Grassley’ in caucus run* // Des Moines Register //
Matthew Patane – June 19, 2015 145

*PERRY.............................................................................................................
**147*

*Rick Perry calls Charleston church shooting an ‘accident’* // WaPo //
Patrick Svitek – June 19, 2015.... 147

*Rick Perry Says Obama Administration Always Overreacts to ‘Accidents’ Like
Charleston Shooting* // Think Progress // Kay Steiger – June 19,
2015............................................................................................
148

*GRAHAM.........................................................................................................
**148*

*Returning Home to Console, Lindsey Graham Joins the Mourning* // NYT //
Ashley Parker – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
148

*Lindsey Graham: Confederate Flag Is a “Part of Who We Are”* // Mother
Jones // Inae Oh – June 19, 2015 150

*CARSON...........................................................................................................
**151*

*‘Crazy’ Ben Carson Is The GOP’s Voice of Sanity on Charleston* // Daily
Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
151

*Ben Carson Not for Traditional Marriage* // Real Clear Politics // Rebecca
Berg – June 19, 2015.......... 153

*TRUMP............................................................................................................
**155*

*Carl Icahn politely declines Trump Cabinet offer //* Politico // Adam B.
Lerner – June 19, 2015........... 155

*Carl Icahn Says He’ll Never Be Trump’s Treasury Secretary* // Bloomberg //
Ben Brody – June 19, 2015 155

*Trump slams Hillary Clinton, calls her ‘pathetic’* // CNN // Theodore
Schleifer – June 19, 2015........... 156

*Donald Trump ‘felt bad’ for bashing Jeb Bush* // CNN // Tom LoBianco –
June 19, 2015..................... 156

*Trump campaign responds to Hillary linking him to South Carolina shooting:
‘She must be nervous’* // Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – June 19,
2015..........................................................................................
157

*Charleston: Hillary Clinton says Trump-like comments can spark race
attacks* // Telegraph // Rob Crilly – June 20,
2015.................................................................................................................................
158

*UNDECLARED....................................................................................................
**159*

*WALKER.........................................................................................................
**159*

*Scott Walker unveils new Web site as he stockpiles money for unlikely
presidential bid* // WaPo // Matea Gold – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................
159

*ScottWalker.com goes live* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 19,
2015..................................................... 161

*How Scott Walker dismantled Wisconsin’s environmental legacy* // Salon //
Siri Carpenter – June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
162

*Scott Walker’s Wisconsin job agency gave out $124 million without review*
// Chicago Tribune // June 19,
2015......................................................................................................................................................
166

*CHRISTIE........................................................................................................
**168*

*Chris Christie rips Rand Paul on the Patriot Act* // Politico // Daniel
Strauss – June 19, 2015.............. 168

*KASICH............................................................................................................
**169*

*Operation replace Jeb Bush* // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 19,
2015........................................... 169

*OTHER.............................................................................................................
**171*

*GOP Presidential Candidates: The More the Scarier* // RealClearPolitics //
Jonathan Riehl & David B. Frisk - June 20,
2015..................................................................................................................................
171

*Republican candidates struggle to talk about race, guns* // Politico //
Eli Stokols and Daniel Strauss – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
174

*GOPers road-test their religious messages* // Politico // Kyle Cheney,
Katie Glueck, and Eli Stokols – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
176

*Top Repulican Candidates Tread Lightly on Gay marriage at Evangelical
Summit* // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur and Josh Eidelson – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................
179

*Post-Charleston, Republicans Urge Prayers But No Action* // Real Clear
Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
181

*Wilmore: Santorum, Fox News on Charleston ‘Makes My F**king Head Explode’*
// TPM // Brendan James – June 19,
2015..................................................................................................................................
182

*RNC raised $9.3M in May* // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19,
2015................................................ 183

*OTHER 2016
NEWS.......................................................................................
**184*

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**184*

*DOMESTIC..........................................................................................................
**184*

*Today in Politics: Charleston Shooting Leads to a Campaign Pause* // NYT
// Maggie Haberman – June 19,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
184

*NRA board members blames pastor for Charleston deaths* // Politico // Nick
Gass – June 19, 2015..... 184

*McConnell promises Senate vote on late-term abortion bill* // AP // Alan
Fram – June 19, 2015.......... 185

*Iowa court allows remote dispensing of abortion pill* // AP // June 19,
2015....................................... 186

*The Left and Right Try to Lobby Pope Francis Months Ahead of U.S. Visit*
// Bloomberg // Melinda Henneberger – June 19,
2015..........................................................................................................
187

*Cashing In* // US News and World Report // Kenneth T. Walsh – June 19,
2015................................. 190

*Iowa Supreme Court: Ban on telemed abortion unconstitutional* // Des
Moines Register // Tony Leys – June 19,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
192

*INTERNATIONAL...............................................................................................
**194*

*Iran Still Aids Terrorism and Bolsters Syria’s President, State Department
Finds* // Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt – June 19,
2015...................................................................................................................
194

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**197*

*The opacity of Hillary’s Clinton’s e-mail* // WaPo // Rick Morris – June
19, 2015................................. 197

*Hillary Clinton is playing the “woman card” too early* // WaPo // Ed
Rogers – June 19, 2015............... 197

*Hillary Clinton wants to take us back to yesterday, not the future* // Fox
// Cal Thomas – June 18, 2015 198

*ASU suckered by Clinton Foundation* // AZ Central // Laurie Roberts – June
19, 2015....................... 200

*MISCELLANEOUS ADDED BY
STAFF............................................................ **201*

*Marriage Equality Is Only Step One* // Medium // Gavin Newsom – June 18,
2015............................. 201

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary Clinton Says No to Granting ‘Fast Track’ Authority on Trade Deal
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-says-no-to-granting-fast-track-authority-on-trade-deal/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would “probably not” vote for fast-track
authority for the trade deal that President Obama is seeking, but she
acknowledged that she once said positive things about “the potential” for
the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Mrs. Clinton made the comments in an interview with Jon Ralston, a Nevada
journalist, after spending Thursday in the state, which holds early
caucuses.

Mrs. Clinton, who has not taken a yes-or-no position on the trade deal,
which is strongly opposed by labor groups, is in a bind over an agreement
she once praised as a potential “gold standard” for trade deals when she
was secretary of state.

“I said positive things about the process and the potential,” said Mrs.
Clinton, who occasionally called Mr. Ralston “Joe” during the interview.

“Some people don’t like any trade agreement, and some people are willing to
take any trade agreement,” she said. Asked whether she would vote in favor
of fast-track authority if she were still in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton
replied, “Probably not, because that’s a process vote, and I don’t want to
say that’s the same as T.P.P.”

Mrs. Clinton has been criticized for not taking a clear position on the
issue since becoming a candidate. Her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, indicated this week that trade deals, on balance, tend to work, a
position consistent with his views when he was president.

Mrs. Clinton also spoke again about the shooting death of nine people at a
black church in South Carolina; a 21-year-old white man, allegedly fueled
by racial hatred, is accused of opening fire after sitting through a prayer
study.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about
discrimination, prejudice, hatred,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Unfortunately the
public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be.”

She then turned her comments to Donald J. Trump, the real estate mogul who,
in kicking off his presidential campaign this week, accused Mexico of
allowing rapists and other criminals to sneak into the United States.

Without naming Mr. Trump, she said that a recent candidate had “said some
very inflammatory things about Mexicans — you don’t talk like that” in
political campaigns.

“I think he is emblematic,” Mrs. Clinton said.

But there’s another culprit, she said.

“Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns. We have to have a better
balance,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton noted that there was widespread support for background checks
for gun buyers, but that Congress had failed to act “in the face of
tremendous pressure from the gun lobby.”

She said she witnessed it first-hand when her husband fought for the
assault weapons ban as president in the 1990s. She did not say whether she
would now support such a measure herself. An assault weapons ban is far
more politically contentious than background checks.

*Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders dominate on Facebook
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-dominate-on-facebook-119207.html>
// Politico // Hadas Gold – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are dominating the Facebook
conversations among all the presidential candidates in some of the most
important early primary states, data provided by Facebook for the past
month shows.

From May 13 to June 13, Clinton dominated the conversation in Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina. Sanders came in second in Iowa and New
Hampshire, while Rand Paul came in second in South Carolina.

In Iowa, Clinton had 66,000 Iowans make 289,000 interactions (which
Facebook defines as likes, comments, posts, and shares) about her. Sanders
had 30,000 Iowans make 153,000 interactions about him for the same time
period. Paul had 24,000 people make 98,000 interactions about him in Iowa
during that time period.

In New Hampshire during the same time period, Clinton had 32,000 people
make 145,000 interactions about her, while Sanders had 23,000 people make
123,000 interactions about him and Paul had 12,000 people make 59,000
interactions about him.

Clinton makes the largest mark in South Carolina, far outpacing any other
candidates. From May 13 to June 13 she had 104,000 people make 460,000
interactions about her. In second place was Paul, with 34,000 people making
132,000 interactions about him. Ben Carson comes in third, with 24,000
people making 120,000 interactions about him. South Carolina’s own Lindsey
Graham comes in fourth, with 43,000 people making 100,000 interactions
about him.

Martin O’Malley barely registers on Facebook in these early states, making
the bottom three in each state, never going above 3,000 people or 5,000
interactions.

The data for the early primary states is more or less in line with Facebook
data nationwide on the candidates. For example, From June 3 through June 9,
Clinton topped Facebook interactions nationwide with 2.1 million people
making 5.7 million interaction about her. Sanders followed with 999,000
people making 3 million interactions about him with Rick Perry close behind
at 1.1 million people making 2.2 million interactions about him (Perry
announced his candidacy on June 4).

It’s important to note that this data includes any mentions, both positive
and negative, and is current only up until June 13, before one candidate
who makes a lot of noise on Facebook hadn’t announced: Donald Trump. Trump,
who announced his candidacy on Tuesday, had 3.4 million people on Facebook
in the U.S. generate 6.4 million interactions about him in the 24 hours
after his announcement, according to data provided by Facebook earlier this
week.

See the full data sets, courtesy of Facebook, below.

*Inside Hillary Clinton’s Grassroots Campaign
<http://time.com/3927384/hillary-clinton-grassroots-campaign/?xid=tcoshare>
// TIME // Sam Frizell – June 19, 2015 *

At first, there was nothing on the screen, just the hum of a distant,
crowded room. Then Hillary Clinton appeared, peering out of a television
into Liz and Tom Nash’s bedroom on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

The former Secretary of State looked into the camera and gazed directly, it
seemed, at the sixteen everyday Americans gathered in the Nashes’
apartment. “I wish I could be everywhere,” Clinton said, “but I’m very
happy to be right here.”

This was the latest technological trick from the Democratic candidate’s
campaign: a live videostream that beamed Clinton out of corn country in
Iowa and into an elegant bedroom with ninth-floor views of Manhattan
rooftops.

As part of Clinton’s broader push to build a far-reaching 50-state
grassroots campaign, she rallied supporters on Saturday evening via
videostream in more than 650 house parties in all 435 congressional
districts stretching across the country.

The Upper East Side party had gathered in the Nashes’ in a prewar apartment
one block from Central Park. Still-life paintings of pears and flowers and
photos of the family skiing dotted the rooms. Biographies of Franklin D.
Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson and two copies of Robert Caro’s The Power
Broker sat on the bookcases, and a framed print of the American painting by
Ammi Phillips of a girl in a red dress holding a cat hung on the dining
room wall.

During the call, Clinton rallied her supporters in Manhattan and elsewhere
to get organized. “I want to ask each and every one of you at all the house
parties that are taking place all over our country: please get involved in
this campaign,” she said from a living room in Sioux City. “Please go to
hillaryclinton.com, sign up to be a volunteer, to knock on doors and to
talk to your friends. We have a lot for people to do.”

The guests applauded when the broadcast ended after about 10 minutes, and
then they headed for the dining room, where guacamole and tortilla chips,
San Pellegrino and white wine lay on the table beside three white “Clinton
2016” paper napkins. The group munched and praised the campaign launch on
Roosevelt Island that day, where framed by the Manhattan skyline, Clinton
had rolled out a lengthy wish list of Democratic proposals before promptly
flying to Iowa.

“It wasn’t just a good speech. It was from the heart and articulate and
hard-hitting,” said Gale Brewer, Manhattan’s borough president, former New
York City councilwoman and friend of the hosts. “I think it was a real
turning point.”

“She’s had a busy day,” Peter Slusser, an older man in a blazer and
sneakers said, stretching his legs.

“We feel so launched,” launch-day host and Clinton volunteer Liz Nash said,
summing up the mood. “The beginning of the rest of my life is looking
really good based on this morning’s performance. And yes, I have had one
glass of wine, but I love the woman, I really do.”

Nash’s party was one of many incubators for Clinton’s new campaign, which
plans to build on events like this one to mobilize supporters. The
435-congressional-district simulcast was partly a marketing stunt showing
the Clinton juggernaut is ubiquitous and raring to go. But Clinton’s staff
also believes that parties like the Nashes’ will eventually convert all
those flakey spinach pockets and glasses of white wine into votes and
campaign dollars.

“It’s events like this, and the more-than-650 others we held around the
country that night, that are really the building blocks and the lifeblood
of this campaign,” Marlon Marshall, the Clinton campaign’s director of
state campaigns and political engagement told TIME. “You don’t build
something that big in one fell swoop—you build it state by state, community
by community, house party by house party.”

Clinton already has staff in all 50 states, as well in Puerto Rico, the
District of Columbia, and the territories. In the early primary states,
Clinton has nearly 12,000 committed volunteers and 15 offices as part of
what will amount to a $100-million primary effort, according to a campaign
tally from last week.

There’s little immediate value to paying a Clinton staff member for
territories like Guam, which has no votes in the Electoral College and a
population little bigger than Fargo, North Dakota. But then-Sen. Obama
defeated Clinton in the 2008 Guam primary against Hillary Clinton by a
margin of just seven votes, and Guam may actually someday be up for grabs.
“We take nothing for granted,” campaign manager Robby Mook likes to say.

Many people at the Nashes’ apartment on Saturday had helped out on
political campaigns before.

Gerrie Nussdorf, a retired psychologist from the West Village who wore a
baseball cap and T-shirt from the 2008 campaign bearing Clinton’s name,
recalled how she had volunteered for in seven states for the candidate
eight years ago. She began listing them: “New York, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Montana—that’s the only one where we lost the primary—”

“You had a good record,” Brewer, the Manhattan borough president
interjected.

Brewer has endorsed Clinton already, as have other New York politicians
like congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and city public advocate Letitia James.
But Bill de Blasio, the city’s progressive mayor who ran her first Senate
campaign, has notably not yet backed Clinton.

“I don’t think that matters,” said Brewer of the mayor, sitting in the
Nashes’ warmly lit living room. “I don’t know what he’s waiting for. Some
comment on inequality, maybe.”

Few left the party with firm commitments to organize for Clinton. But they
had some rough ideas. Caroline Converse, an Upper East Side resident,
canvassed for President Obama in 2012 and plans to pitch in this year, too.
Haleigh Collins, a 20-year-old junior at Bowdoin College who saw Clinton
speak in Portland, Maine, says she’ll sit in the student union and sign up
voters. Liz Nash said she’ll continue volunteering regularly at the
Brooklyn campaign headquarters, where she recently met Clinton.

The sheer size of Clinton’s campaign infrastructure leaves little room for
other candidates to take on talent and even enthusiastic volunteers. Even
with Bernie Sanders hiring staff in Iowa and New Hampshire as he gains in
the polls, it’s all aboard the Clinton campaign train for most.

And Clinton seems happy to include the willing, no matter where they live.
“Obviously, Iowa is particularly important because it is the first state,
but I think the entire country is important too,” Clinton had said earlier,
live from the Hawkeye State. “I don’t want anybody to feel left out.”

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Martin O’Malley (6/19/15, 3:22 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/GovernorOMalley/status/611962227365650432>* – It’s
time we recognize this is a national crisis.  It’s time we say what we’re
all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in.*

*Olivia Nuzzi (6/19/15, 12:34 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/611919867684487168>* – Candidates
to acknowledge racism behind #CharlestonShooting: Ben Carson, Bernie
Sanders, Lindsey Graham, Martin O’Malley*

*ABC News (6/19/15, 4:54 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/ABC/status/611985326609862656/photo/1>* – White House:
Pres. Obama “has said before that he believes the Confederate flag belongs
in museums” -@ABCPolitics*

*Mike Allen (6/19/15, 8:21 AM)*
<https://twitter.com/mikeallen/status/611856203858214913?s=03>* –
Charleston, S.C. (AP) – South Caroline governor tell NBC Charleston church
shooter should get the death penalty.*

*Sam Stein (6/19/15, 10:31 AM)*
<https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/611889035309617152>* – Per source,
Side Blumenthal faced 3x as many qs on Clinton foundation and Brock empire
than Benghazi w/ @srlevine2*

*Sarah Kliff (6/19/15, 12:04 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/611912498393018368>* – No matter how
you score it, CBO says Obamacare repeal increases the deficit. *
*http://1.usa.gov/1LnEATF*  <http://t.co/qDaFT4KU0x>

*Nick Minock (6/19/15, 2:13 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/NickMinock/status/611944942336897024/photo/1>* – Mayor
Riley, who usually doesn’t side with the death penalty, said he’s open to
it in this case #cbsnews #Charleston*

*Matt Katz (6/19/15, 7:42 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/mattkatz00/status/612027637448445952>* – At Christie
Family meeting 2 weeks ago, his wife & kids gave him the green light to run
for prez, @GovChristie tells Fox News.*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Changing Views on a Female President*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/upshot/changing-views-on-a-female-president.html?abt=0002&abg=1>*
// NYT // Lynn Vavreck – June 19, 2015*

On Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton told thousands of people at a rally on
Roosevelt Island in New York City that she wanted the United States to be a
place “where a father can tell his daughter yes, you can be anything you
want to be, even president of the United States.” It was a line she used in
her concession speech in 2008 and one that highlights what could happen if
she or, less likely, Carly Fiorina win her party’s nomination and
ultimately the presidency. Nearly 100 years after women were given the
right to vote, Americans may send their first woman to the Oval Office.

The role that female candidates will play in 2016 — and probably in most
future presidential campaigns — helps highlight how attitudes have changed
over the last 80 years. The changes over the decades can be described in
one word: gradual. But the state of opinion today, about the possibility of
a female president, demands a different word: accepting.

It wasn’t always so.

Only two years after the “you’ve come a long way, baby” Virginia Slims ad
campaign was this stark reminder from a poll the company commissioned in
1970: Two-thirds of Americans agreed that there wouldn’t be a female
president for a “long time” and that it was “just as well.” The marketers
at Virginia Slims turned this skepticism about a female president into a
print ad showing a campaign button for “Rosemary for President” above the
tagline “Someday.”

For 40 years the American National Election Study has asked a random sample
of adults a question about whether women and men should be equals in the
workplace. The question asks: “Some people feel that women should have an
equal role with men in running business, industry and government. Others
feel that women’s place is in the home. Where would you place yourself … or
haven’t you thought much about this?”

In 1972, the first year the question was on the survey, 29 percent of the
population thought a woman’s place was in the home. Only 47 percent of the
population thought women should have an equal role to men at work; another
24 percent placed themselves squarely in the middle or didn’t know what to
think about the question. By 1980, 20 percent of Americans thought women
should stay at home, and a decade later nearly 15 percent felt this way.

The last time the question was asked in 2008, 7 percent of Americans still
thought a woman’s place was in the home, 10 percent couldn’t take a side,
and 83 percent backed equality and work.

Still today, a small portion of the electorate is unsure about whether
women and men should have equal roles in government or business — and this
has implications for whether a woman can win the Oval Office.

Another series of questions from the Gallup Organization sheds light on
beliefs about a female president more specifically — and the trends look
familiar: very low levels of support for a female president at the start of
the 20th century and steady movement toward support into the 21st century.

In 1937, Gallup asked approximately 1,500 adults if they would vote for a
woman for president if she were qualified “in every other respect.” The
wording of the question reveals a lot about the nature of opinions about
women in the White House at that time. And there were clear reservations in
the responses: 64 percent of Americans said no, they would not vote for a
woman for president if she were qualified in “every other” way.

Being a woman was a deal-breaker.

By 1945, Gallup had changed the question’s wording: “If the party whose
candidate you most often support nominated a woman for president of the
United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the
job?” More than half (55 percent) of Americans said they would not vote for
that woman. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, support grew slowly, edging
just past 50 percent near the end of the 1960s.

During the 1970s, people became increasingly comfortable saying they would
vote for a qualified woman for president, and by 1978, nearly
three-quarters of the population said they would do so if their party gave
them that choice. There are obvious differences between saying you would
vote for a woman and actually doing so, but the change in responses to this
question over time is compelling.

In this decade, nearly all Americans (95 percent via the Roper Center) say
they would vote for a woman if she were qualified and were a party nominee,
and although there are differences by age, education and income, the pace
of change on this topic has been roughly the same across all these groups
over the decades. There are very few differences based on gender.

And nearly everyone in America also believes that men and women should play
equal professional roles.

When Mrs. Clinton said to supporters on Saturday that she may not be the
youngest candidate in the race, but she would be the “youngest woman
president in the history of the United States,” she was reminding
generations of Americans of a time, not so long ago, when girls only
dreamed of striking out on their own, without a man, and independently
contributing to the world around them. Most Americans over 40 remember
those days.

*Hillary Clinton’s Hampton’s Quandry
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/style/hillary-clinton-hamptons-vacation.html?_r=1>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – June 19, 2015 *

For the past several summers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have done what New
York City’s moneyed residents have done for decades: They spent their
vacation amid the prime beachside real estate of Long Island.

In 2011 and 2012, there was the eight-bedroom, 12,000-square-foot East
Hampton rental with a heated pool that the couple took for part of August,
the kind of house that typically goes for $200,000 per month, according to
local real estate listings.

Then, in 2013, they opted for an equally pricey six-bedroom mansion in
Sagaponack with a private pathway to the beach. (Mrs. Clinton worked on her
memoir, “Hard Choices,” from a sunny office with an ocean view.)

Last year, when speculation about Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run reached a
fever pitch, the former first couple chose the comparatively lower-key town
of Amagansett, just up Montauk Highway from the lobster shacks and
fishermen at the end of Long Island. The seven-bedroom bluffside estate
with sweeping views of Gardiners Bay, the kind of house in that area that
rents for $100,000 for the month of August, was next door to the home of
the Clinton friend and donor Harvey Weinstein.

In the more than 20 years that the Clintons have been in the public eye,
much of that time on one campaign trail or another, the couple’s choice of
vacations spots has been well chronicled and exhaustively debated, going
back to the first presidential summer, at the moneyed enclave of Martha’s
Vineyard.

1993 On his first extended vacation as president, Bill Clinton chose Vail,
Colo., where he golfed twice with former President Gerald R. Ford, jogged,
entertained friends with a sax rendition of “My Funny Valentine” and
attended an outdoor performance of the Bolshoi Ballet Academy. That same
summer, the Clinton family also spent time on Martha’s Vineyard, coaxed
there by his friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr.

1995 Nicknamed the “vacationer in chief,” Mr. Clinton and family chose
horseback riding and hiking in Jackson, Wyo. By then the Clintons were a
mainstay on Martha’s Vineyard, where they went that fall to attend the
wedding of their friends Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson.

1998 At the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Clinton family
retreated to a 12-day vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. “This is a family that
has some healing to do,” Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary,
said as they boarded Air Force One to the island.

1999 With Hillary Clinton expected to run for the United States Senate in
New York, the Clintons spent a weekend in the Hamptons and five days in the
low-key Finger Lakes region, in the previously little-known village of in
Skaneateles, N.Y. They also returned to Martha’s Vineyard.

2000s The Clintons keep the Vineyard in the mix but also become fixtures in
the Hamptons, with Mr. Clinton raising money for his philanthropic
foundation there and Mrs. Clinton finding a welcome vacation from her
Senate work. During the heated 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Mrs.
Clinton found some of her most devoted backers behind the hedges of their
Hamptons estates.

2011-12 The Clintons spend two summer vacations in the East Hampton, N.Y.,
home of the developer Elie Hirschfeld, which they rented for prime
late-August days. The oceanfront house has a large heated pool, eight
bedrooms and 12,000 square feet of space where the Clintons’ extended
family could stay. They did not continue to rent the home after the
expenses associated with it ate up the bulk of their security deposit,
according to several people with knowledge of the transaction.

2013 With the grueling travel of the State Department behind her and a book
to write, Mrs. Clinton and husband relaxed in a rented $11 million house on
3.5 acres of prime real estate in Sagaponack, N.Y., with six bedrooms, four
fireplaces, ocean views and a private path to the beach.

2014 Mrs. Clinton stopped at a bookstore in East Hampton to sign copies of
her latest memoir, “Hard Choices,” but she chose to vacation slightly
farther east in the comparatively laid-back town of Amagansett.

But the Clintons’ go-to vacation spot for the last several summers now
seems problematic, as Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic
nomination for president, delivers a populist economic message that the
deck is stacked in favor of the wealthiest Americans and that she plans to
“reshuffle the cards.”

Thus, it may not be ideal for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to be photographed
mingling at summer cocktail parties with the likes of Jerry Seinfeld, Alec
Baldwin, Steven Spielberg and other wealthy Hamptons regulars.

The Clintons looked into renting another home in the Hamptons, but they
have hesitated to sign a lease, said several real estate agents in the
Hamptons, who could discuss the Clintons only on condition of anonymity for
fear of jeopardizing their client list.

Campaign aides have said Mrs. Clinton will take a vacation in August, but
they declined to comment on the specifics of when or where.

Whether they rent there or not, the couple are expected to spend much of
their vacation on the shores of Long Island, where their circle of New York
friends and donors own luxe houses.

The Clintons will also spend at least one weekend in their old vacation
haunt of Martha’s Vineyard, likely alongside President and Michelle Obama,
to celebrate the 80th birthday of their friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. (Mr.
Jordan and other friends lured Mr. Clinton to the island in the early years
of his presidency, and it quickly trumped his previous leisure spot in
Arkansas. A White House spokesman said it was too early to confirm Mr.
Obama’s August plans.)

Another presidential candidate, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who on
Monday declared that he was seeking the Republican nomination, has already
drawn criticism for his summer vacations in Maine. The Boston Globe
reported that Mr. Bush is getting his own four-bedroom, 3,000-square-foot
cottage on the Bush family oceanside compound in Kennebunkport.

Donors who did not want to talk on the record offering Mrs. Clinton
unsolicited advice said they hoped she could avoid the inevitable claims of
elitism by not renting a Hamptons home again, given the optics of a
presidential campaign and the still-sluggish economy. (One donor advised
she should at least opt for the less-flashy Sag Harbor.)

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton and her allies, under intense pressure to
raise money for both her campaign and Priorities USA Action, a super PAC
supporting her bid, will need to woo the country’s wealthiest Democrats
this summer, wherever the 0.001 percent happen to be. “There is only going
to be one fund-raiser for Hillary in the Hamptons this summer: it starts on
Memorial Day and ends on Labor Day,” said Robert Zimmerman, a fund-raiser
for Mrs. Clinton with a home in Southampton.

With her kickoff rally in New York last Saturday and a week of campaigning
in early nominating states behind her, Mrs. Clinton will dive into a
breakneck schedule of fund-raisers across the country.

“The fund-raising for Hillary has been easier than other fund-raising, but
it’s never easy,” said Jay Jacobs, a Nassau County Democrat and longtime
Clinton friend.

Many of Mrs. Clinton’s most devoted backers, including the Washington
lobbyist Liz Robbins and Alan Patricof, a New York-based investor, have
homes in the Hamptons and have hosted fund-raisers for the Clintons’
various charitable and political causes in the past.

The hyperkinetic Clintons tend to work on their vacations, squeezing in
fund-raisers for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. In 2013,
Mr. Patricof hosted a high-dollar gala at the Topping Rose House in
Bridgehampton. Guests included Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the publisher of The
Daily News, and the real estate executive Peter S. Kalikow, who each
donated $25,000.

“Some of us will go into catastrophic withdrawal if we’re not tapped to
raise money for one of the Clintons,” said Ken Sunshine, a veteran
Democratic activist and public relations executive with a home in
Remsenburg.

But this year, it’s not so simple.

As she mounts a campaign built on lifting the middle class and alleviating
the growing gap between rich and poor, Mrs. Clinton has come under
criticism for her family’s wealth.

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have earned more than $125 million in paid speech
income since leaving the White House in 2001, according to financial
disclosures. That level of income “shows how out of touch they’ve truly
become,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The attack appears to have made inroads.

A CNN poll released June 2 showed that 47 percent of voters believed Mrs.
Clinton “cares about people like you,” down from 53 percent last July.

Mrs. Clinton’s allies said the issue was less about perception and more
about practicality. The excruciating pace of a presidential campaign, even
in its infancy, doesn’t allow for two consecutive weeks of downtime, much
less the long walks on the beach and clambakes the Clintons have come to
enjoy in previous years. “They probably won’t have the time to spend out
there, so why spend the money?” Mr. Patricof said.

But it could pay for Mrs. Clinton to have a presence in the Hamptons.
Already, some of the women who move to vacation homes for the season and
are active in charitable causes have inquired about hosting fund-raisers
and luncheons to raise money for Mrs. Clinton, said Alison Brod, a public
relations executive and Hamptons hostess.

“It’s a time for people to show their allegiance and show off their houses
at the same time,” Ms. Brod added.

The parties won’t exactly feature the poolside glamour the area is known
for. Campaign finance rules dictate that a married couple may spend $2,000
on expenses like cocktails and appetizers. That doesn’t go far in an
enclave where a party tent can cost tens of thousands of dollars, not
including the band, passed hors d’oeuvres and Veuve Clicquot that go in it.

“Let’s face it, none of the people coming to my event on Monday are coming
for the coconut shrimp,” Mr. Jacobs said ahead of the June 1 fund-raiser at
his family home in Laurel Hollow, N.Y., a Long Island enclave with a very
distinct vibe from the Hamptons. “They’re coming to see Hillary.”

Republican presidential hopefuls will also find ripe fund-raising ground in
the Long Island hamlets, where conservative, deep-pocketed donors will open
their wallets, and their beach houses, in droves.

In 2012, the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, picked up $3 million in a
single weekend in the Hamptons, with back-to-back events at the sprawling
East End estates of Ronald O. Perelman, the Revlon chairman; David H. Koch,
the billionaire conservative; and Clifford M. Sobel, a donor and ambassador
for George W. Bush. (The Obama campaign used the weekend blitz to reinforce
its charge that Mr. Romney was out of touch, despite Mr. Obama’s own
Hamptons fund-raising.)

“There’s such a great amount of wealth here,” said Samantha Yanks, editor
in chief of Hamptons Magazine. But, she added, “It’s tricky for politicians
to be associated with that for too long.”

“It’s a place you come, you visit and fund-raise, but, as a politician, you
don’t necessarily want to be living in,” she said.

The Clintons’ summer vacation plans have always jelled at the last minute
and been wrought with political symbolism. In 1999, when Mrs. Clinton was
close to running to be a senator from New York, the Clintons tacked on five
days in the Finger Lakes region upstate, in addition to time on Martha’s
Vineyard and fund-raising in East Hampton.

Indeed, for the last several summers, the Clintons have been a part of the
fabric of the Hamptons. Mr. Clinton takes his young niece and nephew for
miniature golf and his 9-year-old arthritic chocolate Labrador, Seamus, for
walks on the beach.

The family dines at Babette’s, a casual French bistro with an outdoor
patio, and Almond, the Bridgehampton restaurant partly owned by Jason
Weiner, the brother-in-law of Mrs. Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin. Mr.
Clinton celebrated his 67th birthday in the Hamptons at a dinner party that
included Paul McCartney and Jimmy Buffett as guests.

Some Hamptons-based donors said it was too early to tell whether Mrs.
Clinton’s Secret Service detail would become a mainstay on the narrow farm
roads near Long Island Sound.

“Summer starts after July Fourth,” Mr. Patricof said.

*Log On and Hit ‘Like’…Facebook Measures the Candidates
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/log-on-and-hit-like-facebook-measures-the-candidates/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 19, 2015 *

If elections were won based on Facebook chatter, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Rand Paul would be the front-runners in
early primary season states.

The social media company has released figures on how the candidates — and
presumed candidates — fared in terms of Facebook interactions in Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina from mid-May to mid-June. Interactions
represent likes, posts, comments and shares about a candidate.

Mrs. Clinton is leading all candidates in the three states, and is
generating the most interest in South Carolina, where she has 460,000
interactions from 104,000 people.

Mr. Sanders, the independent from Vermont running for the Democratic
nomination, trails Mrs. Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, but leads all
the other Republicans in those states. Mr. Sanders, a socialist who rails
against the influence of corporate money in politics, has an enthusiastic
cadre of followers on Facebook and Twitter.

Mr. Paul, who has also invested in a sophisticated social media strategy
and likes to “troll” his opponents online, comes in third place in Iowa and
New Hampshire, after Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders. He is doing even better
in South Carolina, where he is in second place.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush, of Florida has some ground to make up on the Facebook
front. He ranks fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire (following Senator
Ted Cruz of Texas) and seventh in South Carolina.

The social media dynamics in South Carolina are somewhat different than
Iowa and New Hampshire, as Senator Lindsey Graham, who hails from the
state, is generating more discussion there and Ben Carson ranks third.

Some White House hopefuls such as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov.
Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who has yet to declare, have landed in the
middle of the pack despite national polls that label them as “top tier”
candidates.

But social media chatter is no substitute for formal surveys, as interest
in a candidate, such as Donald Trump, can overshadow how seriously voters
take them as a potential president.

*Hillary Clinton confidante is confident that release of full Benghazi
deposition would absolve him
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-confidante-is-confident-that-release-of-full-benghazi-deposition-would-absolve-him/>
// WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – June 19, 2015 *

Details from Tuesday’s Benghazi committee deposition of Hillary Clinton
friend Sid Blumenthal have leaked out in bits and pieces, but the full
eight-hour exchange remains unavailable to the press and public.

Now Blumenthal’s attorney is demanding a transcript of the interrogation be
released.

“Leaks like these are distorting the truth by mischaracterizing facts and
circumstances,” Attorney James Cole wrote Friday in a letter to Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R-S.C.), the Republican charged with leading Benghazi investigation.
“They are creating an incomplete and unfair narrative about the deposition,
Mr. Blumenthal’s knowledge about Libya, and the tragedy that occurred in
Benghazi.”

The letter, obtained by the Loop from a Democratic committee aide, followed
one sent by Democrats on Wednesday also calling for the full transcript be
made public to “provide important background and context to his emails.”

Blumenthal sent memos to Clinton when she was secretary of state about the
security situation in Libya before and after the attacks on the diplomatic
compound in September 2012 that killed four Americans, including U.S.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Gowdy has said he plans to make those
e-mails public.

A Gowdy spokeswoman declined to comment.

Democrats on the committee, who have long argued that the Republicans have
slow walked the investigation to coincide with Clinton’s run for the White
House, say the deposition transcript will show that most of the GOP
questions were politically motivated.

By their count, Blumenthal’s interactions with Clinton were brought up 160
times. The Clinton Foundation was mentioned more than 50 times. And
Blumenthal’s own business interests in Libya were cited more than 270 times.

But the Benghazi attacks themselves were only specifically referenced 20
times, the Democrats say. The four people who died, including Stevens, were
not mentioned once.

We’d love to confirm those stats ourselves. But we don’t have the
transcript…

*Hillary Clinton’s trade fiasco <http://www.politico.com/morningmoney/> //
Politico // Ben White – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is an absolute mess on trade right now. She was a strong
advocate of TPP as Secretary of State and in her pre-campaign book “Hard
Choices.” But now says there is stuff in it she doesn’t like. She’s backed
Nancy’s Pelosi’s approach, which was to torpedo TAA in order to stop TPA.
But without TPA there is no TPP, which Clinton once supported. Many of her
comments on the topic lately have made no logical sense whatsoever.

This is probably the most bizarre: “The TPA is a process issue. The issue
for me is what’s in the deal,” she said this week in New Hampshire. “I
think this is a chance to use this leverage so that the deal does become
one that more Americans and members of Congress can vote for.” Where to
start? TPA is not a process issue. Without it there is no TPP. And what
kind of leverage was she talking about? TPA is designed to give the
administration leverage to get the best trade terms possible. Blocking it
would take that leverage away.

Clinton might as well have said: “I can’t anger the left or feed Bernie
Sanders’ momentum by backing my former boss on TPA so an advisor told me to
dismiss it as a ‘process issue’ so that’s what I’m doing even though it
makes no sense and everyone knows it.”

The heat is only going to rise if the current legislative gambit to get TPA
done works, which it probably will. Which means Obama could finish TPP and
send it to Congress. Perhaps Clinton’s need to tack so nakedly and
embarrassingly to the left will be over by the time that happens and she
can return to her previous support for TPP. But she will not have covered
herself in glory (or consistency or trust-worthiness) by the time that
happens.

*Hillary Clinton fundraising off Treasury putting woman on $10 bill
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-2016-fundraising-woman-10-bill-119227.html>
// Politico // Nick Cass – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is fundraising off news this week that the
Treasury Department will put a woman on the newly redesigned $10 bill in
2020.

“Women are too often erased from our nation’s history — putting a woman on
a major piece of currency is a first step toward fixing that,” reads the
email that went out to supporters on Friday. “Let’s celebrate this historic
event by chipping in $10 to Hillary for America — because we’ve still got
barriers left to break.”

A spokeswoman for Clinton’s campaign did not elaborate on which woman
Clinton would like to see on the new $10 bill, telling Bloomberg Politics
that “there’s no doubt they have a long list to choose from.”

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced the change on Wednesday, while also
noting that he is considering keeping Alexander Hamilton on some of the
bills.

*Judge reopens FOIA case on Hillary Clinton aide Abedin
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/06/judge-reopens-foia-case-on-hillary-clinton-aide-abedin-209186.html>
// Politico // Josh Gerstein – June 19, 2015 *

Reacting to the disclosure that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private
email account during her tenure as secretary of state, a federal judge
agreed Friday to reopen a conservative group's Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit seeking details about the employment arrangements of top Clinton
aide Huma Abedin.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan declined — for now — to
address claims from Judicial Watch that Clinton's use of the private
account and server led State Department officials to commit a fraud on the
court by certifying they had turned over all responsive records.

"In view of revelations that then-Secretary of State Clinton and members of
her staff used personal email accounts to conduct State Department
business, and that emails from those accounts may not have been covered by
State Department searches for documents responsive to the FOIA request at
issue in this case, the plaintiff seeks to reopen this case for further
proceedings," Sullivan noted in an order Friday. "The newly discovered
information is a changed circumstance regarding the prior judgment in this
case--i.e. the stipulated dismissal in 2014."

The State Department agreed to reopen the case, but rejected Judicial
Watch's claims of fraud. Sullivan said he was re-opening the case under the
"changed circumstances" in federal court rules "rather than spilling ink to
resolve [the parties'] dispute as to whether Judicial Watch has submitted
clear and convincing evidence of fraud by the State Department."

The FOIA lawsuit seeks information about Abedin's continued employment at
State as a "special government employee" after she stepped down from her
role as deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 2012. Critics have said the
arrangement, first reported by POLITICO in 2013, courted conflicts of
interest because Abedin was also working for the consulting firm, Teneo, at
the same time.

The State Department inspector general is conducting a review of State's
"special government employee" program, according to a letter the IG sent to
Senate Judiciary Committee in April.

A spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign had no immediate comment on
the development.

Clinton publicly acknowledged in March that she solely used a private email
account as secretary. In response to a request from the State Department
last year, she turned over to her former agency in December about 30,000
emails totaling roughly 55,000 printed pages. She also acknowledged having
about 32,000 emails erased after her lawyers determined they were private
or personal in nature.

Judicial Watch has said it wants relevant information from Clinton's
emails, as well as any Abedin or other Clinton aides kept on private
accounts. Abedin is known to have maintained an account on the same
clintonemail.com domain her boss used.

Sullivan is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

*Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s racial rhetoric ‘not acceptable’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-racist-speak-119210.html#ixzz3dWRyY8gL>
// Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton took a swipe at Donald Trump on Thursday, saying — without
mentioning the New York real estate tycoon by name — that his presidential
launch speech was offensive to Mexicans and “emblematic” of the kind of
rhetoric that cannot be tolerated in the wake of the tragic South Carolina
shootings.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about
discrimination, prejudice, hatred,” Clinton said in an interview with
KNPB’s Jon Ralston. “But unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes
hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion,
trigger people who are less than stable.”

“For example,” the former secretary of state added, “a recent entry into
the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things
about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.
You don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the
kind of political campaigns.”

“You can name him,” Ralston responded, but Clinton refused to use Trump’s
name.

“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not
about him, it’s about everybody.”

“We should not accept it,” Clinton said of hateful speech in national
political conversation. “Decent people need to stand up against it.”

Trump fired back at Clinton’s remarks on Friday in a post to Instagram.

“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the
horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina. This is why
politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble,” he said.

Hillary’s comments referred to a line from Donald Trump’s discursive
Tuesday announcement speech, in which he claimed that Mexico is sending
criminals to the United States.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump told
the audience. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re
sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those
problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re
rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”

Other Republican presidential candidates have not yet spoken out against
Trump. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina told a conservative radio
host that Trump is “endlessly entertaining” and his campaign pitch is
“tapping into the frustration of the American people with the professional
political class.”

Hillary Clinton did not just condemn Trump’s speech — she also reiterated
President Obama’s assertion that gun policy should be included in a
national discussion of how to combat mass murders.

The Democratic 2016 frontrunner called the president’s speech Thursday
“very moving” and agreed with his sentiment on the relevance of guns in
creating tragedies.

“Let’s just cut to the chase: It’s guns,” she said, adding that state and
local politicians need to join in a national effort to combat “tremendous
lobbying pressure from the gun lobby.”

The interview also touched on Clinton’s earlier assertion that whether to
grant President Obama fast-track authority on trade “is a process issue,”
not a substantive question that requires her to take a position. She has
declined to take a firm stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a
massive 12-country trade deal that many Democrats oppose.

Clinton told Ralston that, given what she knows now, she would not vote for
fast-track authority if she were still in the U.S. Senate without greater
aid to workers.

“At this point, probably not because it’s a process vote and I don’t want
to say it’s the same as TPP,” Clinton said. “Right now I’m focused on
making sure we get trade adjustment assistance and I certainly would not
vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get trade
adjustment assistance.”

The former secretary of state also sought to explain why she promoted the
TPP while serving in the Obama administration, but refuses to take a
position on it now.

“When [TPP] began to be negotiated I said it holds out the promise to be
the gold standard” of trade deals, Clinton said. “I said positive things
about the process and the potential.”

“If we could get the right kind of agreement that was good for workers,
good for wages, good for the environment, labor, safety, health and good
for our national security, that would be great for America,” she said.

*Clinton criticizes predatory lenders during veterans forum*
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8ed331ac1f58454283942cd66203bb9b/clinton-criticizes-predatory-lenders-during-veterans-forum>*
// AP // Michelle Rindels – June 18, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday vowed
to protect veterans from aggressive for-profit colleges and predatory
lenders while preserving the dominance of the U.S. military.

The former secretary of state spoke at a historic VFW post in Reno before
about 200 people and five panelists from the military community. She said
her top priorities as president would include taking care of veterans when
they return home.

Clinton argued for continuing the post-9/11 G.I. Bill and promised to veto
any efforts to pare down its benefits. She said her plan to get veterans
into school and the workforce included cracking down on for-profit colleges
that can saddle former servicemembers with heavy debts.

Her plan called for closing the "90-10 loophole," which prevents colleges
from deriving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal financial
aid. The 90 percent cap doesn't count Defense Department grants or VA
benefits, which entices for-profit colleges to market to veterans.

Clinton also said she supported strengthening the Military Lending Act to
prevent payday lenders from victimizing servicemembers.

Nevada's caucuses are a key early event in the path to the Democratic
nomination, and the state is also expected to be one of a narrow range of
swing states in the November 2016 election. Several presidential candidates
scheduled campaign appearances in the state this week, including Republican
Ben Carson and Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders.

*Hillary Clinton Is Trouncing Everyone in the Facebook Primary
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/hillary-clinton-is-trouncing-everyone-in-the-facebook-primary>
// Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – June 19, 2015 *

It's not even close—Hillary Clinton has been far and away the presidential
candidate with the most Facebook buzz.

According to data from Facebook collected May 13, 2015 to June 13, 2015,
Clinton leads in all of the first three primary states when it comes to
likes, posts and views. In fact, she has about twice as many interactions
as the second place candidate in both Iowa and New Hampshire and more than
four times the online interaction of the closest candidate in South
Carolina.

The charts below illustrate two metrics: unique people and total
interactions. Interactions include likes, posts comments and shares. Unique
people measures the number of unique individuals that contributed to the
interactions of a given candidate.

Senator Bernie Sanders is holding second place with a firm grip, however,
with his online outreach excelling in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders'
populist message has resonated with younger audiences who tend to spend
more time using social media, and on sites like Reddit, where Sanders has
an active "subreddit" page. Sanders' strength showed up in Facebook
interaction data from both Iowa and New Hampshire, but he sits in fourth
place in South Carolina behind two Republicans.

Rand Paul holds second place in South Carolina but has only generated about
a quarter of the interactions created by the Clinton campaign.
Libertarian-leaning candidates have traditionally done well online. One of
the most striking examples comes from Paul's father's bid for the White
House in 2008. According to the New York Times, independent supporters of
Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign raised $4 million online in a single
day.

Democrats have historically performed better than Republicans online, which
helps explain Clinton's dominance and Sanders' strength. The disparity
between the parties online was demonstrated by a study published by the
Harvard University Institute for Politics. In 2014, researchers at Harvard
found that Democrats between the ages of 18 to 29 are more likely to use
almost every social media platform than Republicans of the same age group.
Moreover, even if the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats in that
age group use a given service, there are almost twice as many Democrats as
Republicans in that age group, according to a 2014 Gallup Poll.

Trump, the missing variable

Donald Trump announced his candidacy outside of Facebook's dataset, but the
level of online interaction he is generating may reach that of the
frontrunners depending on how long his candidacy lasts.

According to Facebook, Trump's announcement generated 6.4 million
interactions from 3.4 million people. In comparison, Hillary Clinton
generated 10.1 million interactions from 4.7 million unique people, and
Rand Paul generated 1.9 million interactions from 865,000 unique people.
Data on Trump from the early primary and caucus states was not available.

*Hillary Clinton Wants Woman on $10 Bill But Won’t Say Which One
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/hillary-clinton-wants-woman-on-10-bill-but-won-t-say-which-one>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19, 2015 *

There's a long list of women who could join Alexander Hamilton on the $10
bill, Hillary Clinton's campaign said Friday, endorsing the Treasury
Department's plans to redesign the currency.

“Putting a woman on the $10 bill is a long overdue step toward recognizing
the tremendous impact women have had on the history of our country," senior
policy advisor Maya Harris said in a statement to Bloomberg.

While suggestions for the bill have ranged widely, including many
ineligible options like Beyonce and Clinton herself (though some of those
came as jokes from the right
<https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%2410%20bill%20hillary>, since the
winning woman cannot be a living person), the campaign declined to weigh in
on who the candidate might want to see on the bill.

"We’re looking forward to seeing which woman is selected by U.S. Department
of Treasury – but there’s no doubt that they have a long list to choose
from," Harris said.

The Treasury Department this week announced plans to modernize the $10
bill. As part of that process, some of the new bills will carry the image
of a woman of historic importance, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced.
Hamilton's image will remain on other $10 bills. It will mark the first
time that a feminine face has appeared on paper U.S. currency since the
19th century.

*Lawyer for Clinton Confidant Wants Congress to Release Testimony
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/hillary-clinton-wants-woman-on-10-bill-but-won-t-say-which-one>
// Bloomberg // Billy House – June 19, 2015 *

A lawyer for Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal says House
Republicans are leaking pieces of his closed-door testimony before the
House committee investigating the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi.

James Cole, in a letter dated Friday to the Benghazi panel's chairman,
Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, requests the immediate release
of Blumenthal's full testimony transcript and related emails because, he
writes, these selective leaks are  "distorting the truth."

Blumenthal was called to give a closed-door deposition Tuesday about memos
and advice on Libya he sent then-Secretary of State Clinton prior to the
attacks on the U.S. facilities in which four Americans were killed.

"There have been numerous leaks and about his emails and testimony many of
which have given an inaccurate account of what occurred in the deposition,"
says Cole's letter. The emails refer to nearly 60 messages produced for the
committee by Blumenthal regarding Libya and Benghazi.

Cole adds that "it is unfair to my client" to let this inaccurate record
persist of his testimony, which was given behind closed doors on Tuesday.

Cole cites several specific press accounts carrying such "selective
details" he says were released by members or staffers of the committee. The
list includes one story published by Bloomberg News the day after
Blumenthal's testimony.

Stories by the National Review, Politico, and Fox News were also cited by
Cole.

Gowdy and committee Republicans had no comment about the letter, which was
released by a spokesman for committee Democrats, Paul Bell.

Cole's letter comes as Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi
have themselves been calling for release of the complete transcript of
closed-door testimony, along with related e-mails.

The panel's top Democrat—Elijah Cummings of Maryland—said in a statement
earlier Friday the committee has, since Blumenthal's testimony on Tuesday,
"become a sieve, with anonymous 'sources' repeatedly leaking selected
excerpts of Mr. Blumenthal's emails out of context."

Cummings said the transcript reveals exactly how Republicans are spending
taxpayer dollars -- investigating Clinton "and her personal relationships
rather than the attacks in Benghazi," he said in the statement.

"It's time to end this circus," Cummings said. "The Committee should
immediately release all of Mr. Blumenthal's emails and his full deposition
transcript together."

Earlier this week, all five Democrats on the panel said they want
Republicans to release publicly the full transcript of the committee's
hours-long deposition Tuesday with Blumenthal.

In a letter to committee Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina released
Wednesday, the Democrats said, “Rather than selectively leaking only
certain information about Mr. Blumenthal, the American people deserve the
benefit of Mr. Blumenthal's responses to the hundreds of questions that you
and other Select Committee Members asked him, including questions about
these same emails.”

*Clinton: Stop For-Profit Colleges From Targeting Veterans
<http://time.com/3927668/hillary-clinton-veterans-college/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell – June 18, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday a new plan intended to stop
for-profit colleges from fleecing veterans who use federal G.I. Bill funds
to attend school.

Speaking before a roundtable with veterans in Reno, Nevada, Clinton focused
her remarks on the so-called 90-10 rule. The rule requires for-profit
colleges to accept at least 10% of their money from private dollars rather
than federal financial aid and loans, with the idea of holding the schools
more accountable to the open market.

But an unintended loophole in the 90-10 rule means that federal military
benefits like the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill can count toward schools’ 10%. That
leads for-profit schools to aggressively target veterans in search of
federal dollars, often deceptively. Proponents of a new bill say that
veterans at many for-profit schools have high dropout rates and leave badly
in debt.

Clinton would plan to close the loophole.

It’s hardly a sweeping vision for the country of the tenor that Clinton
laid out in her campaign launch speech on Saturday. But in the coming
months, advisers say Clinton will continue to roll out policy proposals at
the rate of about one per week.

Two bills similar to Clinton’s proposal introduced in the House and Senate
have foundered without gaining much momentum.

Clinton also said on Thursday she would plan as President to address
predatory lending to veterans, healthcare and expanding job options after
service.

She sang the praises of bipartisan compromise, too. “In a democracy, nobody
has all the answers,” Clinton said. “You have to get up everyday and say,
‘I’m willing to work for anyone whose willing to work for the good of
America and in particular the good of our veterans.'”

*Hillary Clinton sees a different California than her husband once did
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clintons-in-california-20150617-story.html>
// LA Times // Kurtis Lee – June 19, 2015 *

When Bill Clinton arrived in California for the state's 1992 Democratic
primary he was a considerable underdog.

He had a commanding delegate tally and was well on his way to securing the
party's presidential nomination, but faced a political titan in the state:
the former and future governor, Jerry Brown.

The result? He beat Brown by 7 percentage points.

Now, more than two decades after that June 1992 primary victory, his wife,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, has embarked on her second White House run.

On Friday, she arrives in Los Angeles for three Westside fundraisers,
including one at the home of actor Tobey Maguire and his wife, Jennifer
Meyer.

Unlike the opponents her husband faced, Hillary Clinton's rivals are
longshots at best and have no substantial ties to California. Rather than
worry about a contested primary, this Clinton can focus on California's
other role in Democratic politics, the cash machine.

For both parties, California has proven a fertile place for raising money.
But for Democrats, that's particularly true. During the last presidential
cycle, President Obama raised almost $63 million from people who listed a
California residence, as opposed to just over $41 million for Mitt Romney,
the Republican nominee, according to a compilation by the Center for
Responsive politics, which tracks campaign fundraising.

But California's position as a Democratic stronghold wasn't always so
steadfast.
Before Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, in which he beat incumbent President
George H.W. Bush 46% to 32% in the state, California had a healthy track
record of electing Republican candidates. Four years earlier, Bush defeated
Democrat Michael Dukakis by 3 percentage points. Two of the last five
Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, were Californians.

While Bill Clinton raised cash in the Democratic money belt of the
Westside, he also spent time in Southern California actively campaigning.
In the 1992 election, it was not uncommon to see the Arkansas governor
travel to South Los Angeles to meet with African American voters. He even
addressed Orange County Republicans on a visit in December 1991.

"There really has been this bond between California and the Clintons that
is interesting," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist, who worked in
the Clinton administration. "Californians have given their support and the
Clintons have embraced this state."

Lehane notes several Clinton administration officials, including Leon
Panetta, who served as chief of staff and John Emerson, who worked as
deputy director of Intergovermental Affairs, had histories in California
politics. Panetta, a former member of Congress, went on to serve as
Secretary of Defense and head of the CIA in the Obama administration.
Emerson is ambassador to Germany.

Such connections have stuck with the Clintons. "Just look at 2008," said
Lehane. "Hillary won California by a wide margin over President Obama."

At least on this trip, however, Hillary Clinton does not have plans for
retail politicking of the sort her husband displayed in 1992. After a day
of fundraising, she plans to travel north to San Francisco on Saturday to
address the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

*Hillary Clinton hitting three $2,700-per-person Westside fundraisers today
<http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150619/hillary-clinton-hitting-three-2700-per-person-westside-fundraisers-today>
// LA Daily News // June 19, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to conduct
three $2,700-per-person fundraisers on Los Angeles’ Westside today to
benefit her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The series of fundraisers will begin with a 12:30 p.m. luncheon at the
Beverly Hills home of Westfield Corp. co-CEO Peter Lowy and his wife Janine.

Organizers said “a couple dozen people” plan to conduct a protest outside
the home over Clinton’s refusal to definitively oppose the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. Opponents of the trade agreement say it will serve to export
millions of high-paying jobs to low-wage countries, reduce wages for 90
percent of American workers, lower food safety and environmental standards,
and increase human rights abuses.

The Obama administration says the partnership will boost economic growth by
increasing American exports, support the creation and retention of American
jobs, and promote innovation.

In an interview Thursday with Nevada radio host Jon Ralston, Clinton said,
“I was willing to wait until I could see what’s in it before I took a
decision, like when I was a senator.”

The luncheon will be followed by a 5 p.m. event at the home of HBO
executive Michael Lombardo and husband Sonny Ward; and a 7 p.m. event at
the home of actor Tobey Maguire and his wife Jennifer Meyer.    The ticket
price is the maximum individual contribution for a candidate seeking his or
her party’s presidential nomination.

The 67-year-old Clinton, who is seeking to be the nation’s first female
president, also conducted a fundraiser Thursday at the Balboa Bay Club in
Newport Beach, with tickets priced from $1,000 to $2,700.

Clinton’s stump speech, which she is expected to deliver at the
fundraisers, discusses her commitment “to being a champion for everyday
Americans” and outlines “the four fights that are the focus of her campaign
-- building the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday; strengthening families
and communities; fixing our dysfunctional political system; protecting our
country from threats,” an aide said.

The visit to the Southland is Clinton’s second since declaring her
candidacy on April 12. She also conducted three fundraisers on the Westside
on May 7.

*Ex-charity exec who helped expose $500G Clinton Foundation donation faces
legal threats
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/19/ex-charity-exec-who-helped-expose-500g-clinton-award-stands-firm-in-face-legal/>
// Fox News // Adam Shaw – June 19, 2015 *

A former charity executive who helped expose a questionable $500,000
donation to the Clinton Foundation is now being threatened by her old
bosses with a lawsuit seeking tens of thousands of dollars, FoxNews.com has
learned.

Sue Veres Royal, former executive director at the Happy Hearts Fund, was
initially quoted in a May 29 New York Times article that said the charity
lured Bill Clinton to a 2014 gala only after offering a $500,000 donation
to The Clinton Foundation. His office previously had turned down the
charity's invitations, but this time he accepted; the accompanying donation
amounted to almost a quarter of the gala's net proceeds.

Veres Royal, who spoke to FoxNews.com about the fallout from that report,
is now embroiled in a legal battle with the charity. She filed a formal
complaint June 4 with the New York attorney general's Charities Bureau, as
the charity itself threatened her with legal action for allegedly breaking
her confidentiality agreement.

The Times report gave several behind-the-scenes details, including that
founder Petra Nemcova explicitly told Veres Royal to offer the $500,000
"honorarium."

The Happy Hearts Fund’s legal team fired off a cease-and-desist order to
Veres Royal the same day the Times report was published. The charity
claimed she had breached a confidentiality agreement and gave “numerous
falsehoods, inaccuracies and disparaging statements” about the organization
to the Times. The letter demanded she no longer speak to the media or else
they would seek damages.

A Happy Hearts Fund spokesman said they are unable to discuss the situation
concerning Veres Royal as they, too, are bound by a confidentiality
agreement, but defended the 2014 award to Clinton.

"Because we know the strong impact of working together and because the
Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation have a shared goal of
providing meaningful help to Haiti, we proposed a joint educational project
with the Clinton Foundation. Any suggestion that this joint project is some
kind of ‘honorarium’ or ‘fee’ is unequivocally false," the spokesman told
FoxNews.com in a statement. According to the group, such partnerships have
allowed the charity to build 113 schools since 2006 in nine different
countries, with more opening this month.

However, Veres Royal said she was appalled not only by the 2014 Clinton
donation but by details she had not known before the Times report was
published -- most notably that the $500,000, which was supposed to go to
causes in the ravaged country of Haiti, still had not been earmarked for
any particular project by The Clinton Foundation.

“It’s disgusting to me that this organization is being used in this way,”
Veres Royal said. “I have been to Haiti three times. I’ve seen how
desperate the need is, and it’s disgusting to me that people are trying to
do good while they’re sitting on half-a-million dollars. I think that’s a
disservice to those people who have donated the money, and to the people of
Haiti.”

The threat of legal action comes as the Happy Hearts Fund tries to limit
the damage already caused to the organization's reputation after the
revelations. Veres Royal said two conservative-leaning board members
already have resigned after finding out about the exorbitant donation
which, to Veres Royal’s knowledge, was never voted on by the board.

Veres Royal responded to the Happy Hearts Fund legal demand by claiming she
was not in breach of her confidentiality agreement. She says she was not
the source of the report, but was merely quoted on what she called a matter
of public interest. It was at that point she then filed the formal
complaint about HHF’s actions with the New York attorney general.

In the complaint, Veres Royal alleges the gala was used to shore up the
rocky political fortunes of Haitian President Michel Martelly, a close ally
and friend of Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe, who was then dating Nemcova,
a Czech model.

Martelly was at that time dealing with a number of corruption allegations,
specifically over the location of education funds, Veres Royal said.

The complaint claims that Nemcova, who was an ambassador at-large for
Haiti, “specifically instructed Veres Royal to ‘find a reason’” to honor
Martelly and then pushed to get Clinton’s staff to agree for Martelly to be
honored as well. Consequently, she claims, a “totally concocted” award --
for “Leadership in Education” -- was also presented to Martelly at the
Clinton gala.

Bill and Hillary Clinton -- now a Democratic presidential candidate -- have
been heavily involved in the reconstruction of Haiti after the 2010
earthquake, though their role in the country’s recovery has come under
scrutiny amid accusations of running a pay-to-play operation with Haitian
reconstruction.

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to FoxNews.com’s request for comment.

Veres Royal’s complaint also alleges improper financial oversight and gross
misrepresentation to the public about fundraising.

After she filed the complaint, HHF sent an email, seen by FoxNews.com,
arguing again that Veres Royal was breaching a confidentiality agreement,
and that HHF was entitled to over $30,000 in payments Veres Royal received
as part of the agreement, as well as unspecified “injunctive relief and
monetary damages."

Despite being under fire, and not having an attorney of her own, Veres
Royal says she is going to keep pursuing her complaint, and will not back
down under the threat of legal action:

“Although it’s been nerve-wracking to me, I feel it’s my ethical
responsibility to do so.”

*Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need the Media…Yet
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-hillary-clinton-20150619?utm_content=buffer5c120&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
// National Journal // S.V. Date – June 19, 2015 *

Two months since she officially became a presidential candidate again, a
favorite topic of reporters covering Hillary Clinton has been: how
reporters are covering Hillary Clinton.

Clinton doesn't engage with the journalists covering her, the complaint
goes. She doesn't take enough of their questions. She hasn't been
accommodating about her day-to-day schedule. She isn't forthcoming about
the private email server she used as secretary of State or about the
fundraising at the Clinton Foundation.

All of which is true—and none of which is likely to change any time soon.

Because while these political reporters' goal is to provide their audiences
as much information about Clinton as possible, Clinton has a different
goal: to win. And while those two goals may at some point coincide, now is
not one of those times.

Today, more than 200 days before the first ballots are cast for the
Democratic nomination, one Clinton objective is to first build teams of
organizers and volunteers in the early voting states and then in the likely
battleground states in the general election. Another is to ramp up the
fundraising grind in $2,700-chunks. Neither makes for compelling news
coverage, which is why the national media instead focus on the emails and
the foundation and the attacks they've drawn from Republicans—or,
alternatively, on the campaign's general disinclination to engage with the
media at all.

While some polling suggests Clinton's image has suffered because of the
foundation fundraising questions, it's not at all clear what effect her
campaign's treatment of the media is having or will ever have.

Gallup Poll's Frank Newport said only 24 percent of the public has
confidence in newspapers, while 21 percent trust TV news. "That's pretty
not good," he said. "She's not harming an institution that Americans have a
lot of confidence in right now."

"My instincts are that voters don't particularly care," said Peter Brown,
assistant director of Quinnipiac University Poll. "Journalists are not
exactly held in great admiration by the public."

What's more, he said, Clinton's long history in national politics means
that those most likely to vote in Democratic primaries are the least likely
to be put off by her strategy. "If they're going to be for Hillary, they're
going to be for Hillary," Brown said.

Clinton holds large leads over her Democratic rivals in most polls and is
likely to show substantially better fundraising when the first reports are
filed next month. And the eight years she spent as first lady, another
eight years in the Senate, including two on the 2008 presidential campaign
trail, and then four as secretary of State relieve her of the necessity of
treating every press query as an opportunity for free publicity.

In any case, Clinton's treatment of the political press is hardly
unprecedented, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at
the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.

"Front-runners routinely minimize their contact with reporters early in the
campaign season without serious penalty," she said. "Experienced reporters
grouse about the behavior but know enough about history to expect it."

The Clinton campaign says it understands the various complaints and is
considering changes to some of its policies. At a panel sponsored by
Politico on the eve of Clinton's kickoff speech in New York City last
weekend, campaign manager Robby Mook said he does expect Clinton to engage
more with the media but said there were still eight months until Iowa and
18 months to November 2016. "We've got to pace this thing," he said.

Days later, Clinton held an impromptu press conference in Concord, New
Hampshire, where she took questions from reporters covering her visit. Of
course, that availability also served the purpose of generating competing
news in the same hour that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced his entry
into the Republican presidential race.

Bush and his aides are quick to note that he takes numerous media questions
on any given day, even dozens—just as he did during his two terms as
Florida governor.

Ari Fleischer, longtime spokesman for Jeb Bush's brother, former President
George W. Bush, said Clinton takes a heavy-handed approach with the media
at her own peril.

"One day, something significant will go wrong, and if you mistreat the
press and ignore the press, the press will make whatever goes wrong into a
bigger explosion than it otherwise would have been," he said. "Payback is
inevitable."

George W. Bush and his campaign staff treated journalists better than
Democrat Al Gore and his staff did, Fleischer said. And when it came out
that Gore had claimed to have visited parts of wildfire-ravaged Texas when
he had not, reporters were ready to portray it as a reflection of Gore's
honesty and tendency to exaggerate, rather than merely misremembering a
detail, Fleischer said.

Eight years later, in contrast, reporters gave presidential candidate
Barack Obama a pass on misstatements, like saying there were 57 states,
rather than questioning his intelligence, because they liked him and his
campaign, Fleischer said.

"It may not matter at this early stage," he said about the current Clinton
campaign, "but it will matter eventually."

Of course, not all media is getting equally shut out. Like many past and
current campaigns of both parties, the Clinton campaign is providing local
outlets in the early voting states upgraded access. On the same day she
gave dozens of national reporters about 20 minutes to ask questions,
Clinton afforded 10 minutes to a single newspaper: the Concord Monitor,
with a circulation of less than 20,000.

It squeezed in six questions in its allotted time—not a single one
concerned email servers or the Clinton Foundation.

*The Great 2016 Foreign Policy Gamble
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/the-great-2016-foreign-policy-gamble-20150618>
// National Journal // Josh Kraushaar – June 18, 2015 *

When it comes to the politics of national security, Republicans and
Democrats are worlds apart. Not only do they differ on the threat posed by
Islamic terrorism and the appropriate tactics to defeat it, but they don't
even agree—at least publicly—on how significant an issue it will be in the
presidential election.

Hillary Clinton barely touched on foreign affairs in her lengthy campaign
relaunch last week, while her advisers are confidently proclaiming that
2016 won't be a national security election. Meanwhile, nearly every
Republican presidential candidate emphasizes the emerging threats abroad in
their stump speeches. The approach mirrors where the party's supporters
are: Republicans ranked fighting terrorism as more important than the
economy in January's Pew Research Center polling. Slightly more Democrats
rated income inequality and wage equity as more significant issues than
"the situation with Islamic militants," which ranked only sixth among top
priorities in a fall 2014 Gallup survey.

This disconnect between the two parties' strategies on the subject is
remarkable. Even when partisans deeply disagree on policy prescriptions,
there's often a general consensus when it comes to political tactics. But
on national security, Republicans are convinced that Hillary Clinton will
have trouble answering for the Obama administration's persistent weaknesses
on the issue, while Democratic strategists believe that voters are much
more focused on bread-and-butter economic issues, and those most alarmed
about the rise of ISIS would be voting Republican anyways.

In her sparse comments referencing terrorism in New York last weekend,
Clinton focused on backing legislation that guarantees health care coverage
for 9/11 victims, and optimistically outlined the ways the Obama
administration used "smart power" to challenge foreign enemies. The GOP
presidential candidates' speeches regularly warn audiences about growing
threats from abroad. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for one, gave an
entire speech in New Hampshire about national security last week, to an
audience normally focused on fiscal issues.

"It's a much more important issue for the Republican base than the
Democratic base. That may give the Republicans a distorted picture of the
general election," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said. "But there's also
no question that there's momentum behind national security and terrorism
issues. If present trends continue, the issue for 2016 is going to be
whether people think this next president can keep the world in order."

There's a lot of risk for both sides in their reading of the environment.
Clinton is downplaying her record as secretary of State because it's not
the political asset she expected it to be. Like Mitt Romney's tortured
relationship with his Massachusetts health care reforms during the 2012
campaign, she doesn't want to have to answer for the controversies that
have emerged since she left office. She'll be criticized for several
high-profile blunders that occurred under her tenure—including post-Qadaffi
Libya becoming an outpost of global mayhem, the administration's ill-timed
"reset" in relations with an emboldened Russia, and the failed security of
the American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.

Clinton advisers maintain that she starts the campaign with a significant
advantage because voters already view her as tough and experienced. As
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta told The Washington Post: "She
doesn't need to go to England to prove she knows the difference between the
queen and the prime minister." But to believe her experience will
automatically translate into voters approving of her judgment is an awfully
cocky assumption to make, especially given the opposition material
Republicans already have to use against her.

Republicans, meanwhile, recognize that it's a lot easier to sound a
muscular tone on foreign policy than to advance specific policies requiring
American military engagement in the Middle East. Even some of the more
hawkish Republican candidates, such as Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, have
avoided calling for more American troops to fight the Islamic State. Many
haven't gone much further than President Obama in calling for training
other countries' fighters to join the fight against ISIS. They know that
while there's intense dissatisfaction over the passive manner Obama has
handled foreign policy, there's still widespread resistance for another
American military incursion in the Middle East.

"Here's the dilemma: People agree with the policies Obama supports, but
they dislike the results. There's a general sense that the world is not
under control," Mellman said.

The burden for Clinton is that she'll need to offer a more plausible
defense for the decisions she made as secretary of State. She can't simply
say she "stood up to Putin," when evidence shows that the Obama
administration was pursuing better relations with the Russians. It won't
pass the plausibility test. For Republicans, they'll need to nominate
someone who's credible in speaking about foreign policy. There's a reason
why several Republican governors, without much national security
experience, have been going to school—literally—to bulk up on their
knowledge. Clinton's experience argument on foreign policy would play
better against an untested governor like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker than a
Rubio or Bush.

Democrats generally believe that, absent a large-scale war involving
American military casualties, the public won't change their votes over
foreign policy. Republicans think Obama's approval ratings are so weak on
the subject are enough for nearly any of Clinton's challengers to exploit
the party's weaknesses. Both are wrongheaded.

The reality is there's not much optimism that the national security outlook
will get noticeably better by the next presidential election; Obama's
advisers, in calling the fight against ISIS a long war, have acknowledged
as much. There's little doubt that the next president will be inheriting a
chaotic environment abroad. If voters care a lot about those worrisome
trends, Republicans will start out with an advantage. But if it's politics
as usual, Clinton's strategy of playing to her base will look prescient.

*EMILY’s List Already Raising Big Bucks for Hillary Clinton
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-emilys-li_n_7623324.html>
// HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is already seeing a windfall in contributions from EMILY's
List, a group dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women that
endorsed her campaign in April.

EMILY's List donors donated more than $200,000 to Clinton during the first
month and a half of her campaign, according to Federal Election Commission
filings. That is nearly half of the $550,689 the group raised during the
entirety of Clinton’s first presidential bid in 2008, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics.

The donations to Clinton's 2016 campaign were split close to evenly between
contributions of $1,000 or more, which totaled $111,400, and those of $500
or less, which added up to $84,356. The larger contributions included
donations from EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock, EMILY's List
founder Ellen Malcolm, longtime Democratic donors Nancy and Reinier
Beeuwkes, philanthropist Anne Hess and Democratic Party strategist Mary
Beth Cahill.

Following a string of tough losses in the 2014 election and amid the
continued rollback of abortion rights at the state level, EMILY's List is
putting increased weight behind its efforts to put the first woman in the
White House.

“Our network of over 3 million members are fired up about 2016. We are
ready to elect the first woman president -- and more Democratic women
up-and-down the ballot, from coast-to-coast," EMILY's List Executive
Director Jessica O'Connell said in a statement.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United opened the door
to unlimited independent spending by corporations, unions and, ultimately,
individuals, EMILY's List has ramped up its independent spending. In the
2014 cycle, the group reported more than $8 million in federal election
spending to the FEC.

The organization plans to spend even more than that to boost women
candidates in the 2016 cycle. EMILY's List says it anticipates that it will
benefit Clinton indirectly by supporting candidates further down the ballot
in battleground states like Nevada, where Catherine Cortez Masto is seeking
to fill the open seat being vacated by Sen. Harry Reid (D), and New
Hampshire, where Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) may run for Senate.

Schriock has longstanding ties to the former secretary of state. Before
Clinton named Robby Mook as her campaign manager, Schriock was under
consideration for the post.

Schriock was also briefly served on the board of Priorities USA Action, the
pro-Clinton super PAC, but stepped down in order to be able to work more
closely with the campaign through EMILY's List. EMILY's List Political
Director Denise Feriozzi, who is in charge of the group’s presidential
campaign spending, replaced Schriock on the super PAC’s board.

The Ready for Hillary super PAC -- now simply called Ready PAC -- has
ceased most operations since Clinton announced her candidacy. The PAC is
expected to transfer its social media followers over to EMILY's List ahead
of the election. This would include Ready PAC’s 2.2 million Facebook and
145,000 Twitter followers.

*Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Address
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/hillary-clintons-wall-str_1_b_7622148.html>
// HuffPo // Bill Moyers and Michael Winship – June 19, 2015 *

"Perfect! Perfect!" exclaimed a woman looking around at the Four Freedoms
Park on New York City's Roosevelt Island as a large crowd waited for
Hillary Clinton to announce her presidential candidacy last weekend.

And so it was. Secretary Clinton had chosen an ideal setting to link her
destiny to the founding father of the modern Democratic Party, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, the political giant whose famous proclamation in 1941 of
the Four Freedoms -- freedom of speech and worship, freedom from fear and
want -- defined the essence of American ideals after a devastating economic
disaster and as we prepared to enter a great world war.

"Perfect! Perfect!" Except for one thing -- something the exultant
spectator packed in the crowd at ground level might not have been able to
see. As the camera pushed in toward the horizon behind Clinton, there it
was, beyond the island and across the water: the skyline of Wall Street,
the embodiment of financial might and its moguls and barons -- "the
malefactors of great wealth," as his cousin Teddy called them -- that FDR
took on in his fight to save democracy from unbridled greed, and capitalism
from itself.

As Clinton spoke -- "Prosperity can't be just for CEOs and hedge fund
managers" and "Democracy can't be just for billionaires and corporations,"
-- you could imagine the juxtaposition to have been deliberate, staged by
her managers to superimpose her rhetorical defiance of plutocracy against
its glass and steel castles off in the distance. No doubt she had thrown
around herself this cloak of populism because it is the current fashion --
a superb and timely one -- among many Democrats, especially progressives
battling the oxymoronic Wall Street Democrats who in the past thirty years
hijacked FDR's party and severed it from its working class roots.

So it was refreshing to see her sally forth to do battle with the hyenas of
Wall Street (as one noted hedge fund manager candidly described his ilk)
proclaiming that:

The financial industry and many multinational corporations have created
huge wealth for a few by focusing too much on short-term profit and too
little on long-term value, too much on complex trading schemes and stock
buybacks, too little on investments in new businesses, jobs, and fair
compensation.

Her loyalists were presenting her to us as the reincarnation of the young
woman she was in the '70s and '80s, the student who wrote her senior thesis
on the organizer Saul Alinsky, interned at a fearless and controversial
civil rights law firm, worked as an attorney for the Children's Defense
Fund, investigated the treatment of migrant workers and chaired the board
of the Legal Services Corporation.

Yet, you could also wonder if they had been unaware of another possible
reading of the metaphor presented by the sight of Roosevelt Island against
the skyline of Wall Street -- something her handlers didn't intend: A
mockery of the words she was speaking at that very minute.

She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds
she now was castigating. Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top
twenty donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan Chase, Morgan
Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has invested in
Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge fund. These donors are, as the
website Truthout's William Rivers Pitt notes, "The ones who gamed the
system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the
economy down to dust and ash while making a financial killing in the
process."

They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid for speeches and
appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more of more than
$125 million since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly
escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island, catching a glimpse of the
towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone so
deeply tethered to the financial and business class -- who moves so often
and so easily among its swells -- to fight hard to check their predatory
appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and stand up for the
working people who are their prey?

Consider the two Canadian banks with financial ties to the Keystone XL
pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary
Clinton. Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech sector. Or the
more then $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying
for fast-track trade. According to TIME magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, in 2014:

Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements came
from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the
same time... In all, the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke
to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress that same year.

Then look at David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business
Times, especially the revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary
of State, her department:

Approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose
governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an
IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data... nearly double
the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved
by the State Department during the same period of President George W.
Bush's second term.

Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab
Emirates, Oman and Qatar, each of which "gained State Department clearance
to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them
out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil
liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."

Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold
those arms and their delivery systems also shelled out heavily to the $2
billion Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota:

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by
Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141
million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of
dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and
State Department records.

The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual
contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

The Washington Post reports that among the approximately 200,000
contributors there have also been donations from many other countries and
corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders, the odious Blackwater
Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame.

Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center,
told David Sirota: "The word was out to these groups that one of the best
ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this
foundation."

We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as
others have written, at least we know who was doling out the cash, in
contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling millions in "dark
money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich. In The Atlantic,
Lawrence Lessig, campaign finance reform activist and director of Harvard's
Safra Center for Ethics put it well:

The question is not whether Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Of course she is
not. The question is whether she can carry the mantle of a reformer. Can
she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington -- filled not with
criminals but with decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do
what they think is good -- and say, this system must change.

And does she really see the change that's needed, when for the last 15
years, she has apparently lived a life that seems all but oblivious to
exactly Washington's problem.

We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill
Clinton became the willing agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a
collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually cost millions of
Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions.

Thanks to documents that came to light last year (one even has a
hand-written note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you
have read this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of
insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton to support repeal of the New
Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from being
victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a
wave of Wall Street mergers.

As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in The Guardian and Pam and Russ
Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury
Robert Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal
and soon left office to join Citigroup, the bank that turned out to be the
primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed,
Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S.
finance. Rubin, meanwhile, earned $126 million from the bank over ten years.

According to The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in
Democratic policy circles" and, as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play
an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president..."

Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois,
was weaned on the social ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and
a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we have her word for it and
the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying
goes, "in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the
people you can, as long as ever you can."

But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's
acculturated class -- that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our
capital who may have come from the hinterlands but can hardly resist the
seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing
mindset is: It's important to do good but more important to do well.

Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer - "which is precisely
why she might be a particularly effective one." But her way of life has
marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and
power -- and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one
in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy
itself.

It will take a conversion worthy of John Wesley to wrest free of that
mindset, but God forbid we should have to live with another White House
eclipsed by the skyline of Wall Street.

*Sidney Blumenthal’s Benghazi Testimony Focuses More on Domestic Politics
Than The Attack
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/sidney-blumenthal-benghazi-deposition_n_7617974.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067>
// HuffPo // Sam Levine and Sam Stein – June 18, 2015 *

The 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, have been
investigated by congressional Republicans for years. Increasingly, however,
they've resembled a vehicle for probing the actions of one player in that
tragedy: then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic
presidential candidate.

The most recent evidence of a narrowed, singular focus came this week, when
Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi called a longtime
Clinton confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, to testify in private.

Blumenthal has Benghazi ties himself. He provided informal consultation to
Clinton while she was at the State Department and apparently had business
interests in Libya at the time.

But according to sources familiar with his testimony, including one who was
in the room, committee members placed far more attention on Blumenthal's
domestic political role for Clinton and how he will help her presidential
ambitions than in understanding the nature of the attack that killed four
U.S. officials, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Those sources told The Huffington Post that it was several hours into
Blumenthal's deposition before Republicans actually asked about the
attacks. Blumenthal's congressional inquisitors posed roughly three times
as many questions on his associations with the Clinton Foundation -- the
charitable organization tied to the former first family for which he was a
paid consultant -- as well as his work for Democratic-campaign institutions
such as Media Matters and Correct the Record, than on the Benghazi attacks.

Requests for comment to the committee's chair, Rep Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) were
not returned. But the recollections of those sources mirror a Politico
report on Wednesday, which asserted that Republicans spent much of
Tuesday's nearly nine-hour deposition asking Blumenthal about his political
and philanthropic work. Blumenthal has publicly said that the deposition
was political and that he knows nothing about the attacks.

“My testimony has shed no light on the events of Benghazi, nor could it,
because I have no firsthand knowledge of what happened,” Blumenthal told
reporters after his deposition. “It seems obvious that my appearance before
this committee was for one reason and one reason only, and that reason is
politics.”

Republicans have defended these lines of inquiry on grounds that they need
to further understand the role Blumenthal was playing in the Clinton
universe in order to assess the advice he gave her about Libyan
intelligence while she was secretary of state. According to the sources
familiar with Blumenthal's testimony, many of the questions posed about his
work at Media Matters focused on whether he authored, edited, or provided
materials for that organization to use in defending Clinton's role during
the Benghazi attack.

Despite it all, the source in the room called the deposition civil, and
said "nobody yelled or screamed."

Blumenthal sent Clinton at least 25 memos in 2011 and 2012 that contained
intelligence about Libya. Clinton forwarded several of the memos to top
State Department aides for review, but she and her colleagues expressed
skepticism that the memos contained accurate information -- and they
sometimes didn't. Blumenthal did not write the memos himself, both he and
Gowdy have said.

The extensive questioning of Blumenthal's political association will
undoubtedly further fuel Democratic criticism of Gowdy and his committee.
Those critics say that the committee, charged with understanding all of the
"policies, activities and decisions" that led to the attack on the U.S.
compound, has become a not-so-subtle vehicle for badgering Clinton as she
begins her campaign. And they point to the lethargic pace of the
investigation as evidence that the election, not Benghazi, is at the
forefront of its concern.

Despite pledges from Gowdy otherwise, the committee appears unlikely to
release its final report until 2016.

*Voters Generally Support Clinton Voting Push
<http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/voters-generally-support-clinton-voting-push.html>
// Public Policy Polling // - June 20, 2015*

Americans strongly support the premise that it would be a good thing for
the country if everyone voted- 67% share that view, compared to 19% who
think that it would be a bad thing. There is bipartisan agreement on that
point with majorities of Democrats (86/6), independents (60/21), and
Republicans (52/34) all saying they believe it would be good.

There's more division on a specific proposal Hillary Clinton has made
toward that end- automatic voter registration. 48% of voters support that
to 38% who are opposed. Democrats (72/17) are strongly in favor of it while
Republicans (28/59) are mostly opposed.

-As the Supreme Court decision looms the once unpopular Affordable Care Act
now has Americans at least pretty evenly divided. 42% say they support it
to 43% who opposed. When we last asked the question nationally last winter,
there was only 39% support and 48% of voters who were opposed. Obamacare
may still not exactly be popular, but it's not the big albatross it might
have been for Democrats in the past either.

-2 of the big recent policy debates in Washington have Americans largely
saying 'meh.' 53% of voters have no opinion on the Trans Pacific
Partnership. Among those who do have one 18% are supportive and 29% are
opposed. The 18% support is the same we found a month ago, the 29%
opposition has ticked up a little bit from 25% in May. Democrats (23/24)
are pretty closely divided on it while both Republicans (15/35) and
independents (15/29) are mostly opposed to the extent they even have a
take. It's a similar story when it comes to attitudes toward the USA
Freedom Act. 61% have no opinion about that but it's more popular with
voters who do have one- 26% support it to 14% who are opposed. That one
meets with support across party lines from Decembers (32/11), Republicans
(23/14), and independents (21/17) alike.

-Last week's gun news was the legality of bringing your gun into the
airport- only 23% of voters nationally think you should be allowed to do
that, compared to 64% who are opposed. Democrats (12/81), independents
(25/57), and Republicans (34/50) are all firmly against guns in airports.
This is one issue where the elected officials who decided to allow it are
way out of line with how their constituents feel about the issue.

-Much is made of Barack Obama being unpopular- 45% of voters approve of the
job he's doing to 50% who disapprove. But his numbers are positively
stratospheric compared to where the leaders of Congress and the body itself
stand with the public. John Boehner has only a 22% approval rating with 62%
of voters disapproving of him, and Mitch McConnell is even less popular
with just a 16% approval rating and 61% of voters disapproving of him. It's
a given that Boehner and McConnell are disliked by Democrats but what's
really striking is the extent to which even voters in their party don't
like them. Boehner has a 31/50 approval rating with Republican voters, and
McConnell's is 24/50.

Congress itself has a 12/77 approval rating. That does at least make it
more popular than some of the things we polled on though. Chris Brown has a
10/52 favorability rating and Justin Bieber is even more unpopular at
10/67. And Congress does outpoll ISIS, which comes in at a 5/81
favorability rating.

-We tested a bunch of prominent performing artists that we had also polled
on in 2013 to see how their numbers had changed since then. The most
popular folks we looked at were Taylor Swift and Justin Timberlake, each of
whom came in at 54/15. In 2013 Swift was at 53/27 and Timberlake was at
52/24 so their negatives have dropped while their favorability numbers have
basically stayed in place.

Only two of the people we polled have seen their numbers shift
significantly in the last couple years. Lady Gaga has become a good deal
more popular, going from a 29/50 favorability rating to 42/32. Justin
Bieber, already unpopular, has headed even further in the wrong direction
going from 20/54 to 10/67.

*Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s speech drives Charleston-like violence*
<http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-speech-drives-charleston-like-violence/>*
// Breitbart // Ben Shapiro – June 19, 2015*

Speaking with host John Ralston, she explained, “Public discourse is
sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my
opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.” She continued, “I think
we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the
Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about
Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”

Presumably, Hillary was referencing Trump’s comments during his
announcement speech in which he said Mexico was sending people across the
border: “They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re
not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and
they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re
bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Dylann Roof murdered nine people at a historically black church. There are
no reports he was a fan of Donald Trump, or that Roof shot six black women
and three black men after being inspired by Trump’s rhetoric about Hispanic
illegal immigrants.

But facts have no bearing on such nonsensical arguments. This hatred for
the First Amendment – the European notion that freedom of speech must be
curtailed in order to avoid triggering the unstable or evil – has become a
hallmark of the left. Whether the left blames Pamela Geller for the
violence of radical Muslims who try to murder people for drawing cartoons
of Mohammed, blames Sarah Palin for Jared Loughner’s shooting of Gabrielle
Giffords, or mistakenly blames the Tea Party for James Holmes, right wing
speech has become their bugaboo.

Of course, the same does not hold true for the left, according to the left.
When Mayor Bill De Blasio shut down New York police use of stop and frisk,
sending crime skyrocketing, then followed up that botchery by blaming
racist cops for the death of Eric Garner while invoking his biracial son
(he said he and his wife “have had to talk to Dante for years about the
dangers that he may face” from police) – and when two NYPD officers were
then murdered in cold blood — the NYPD turned their backs on him. The left
promptly blamed the NYPD for the rift.

When Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said on national television,
“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that” with regard to
rioters, the left said she had been taken out of context. When the
president of the United States spoke in the aftermath of the Ferguson
verdict and railed that “there are still problems and communities of color
aren’t just making these problems up… there are issues in which the law too
often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion,” and when
violent riots broke out, the left insisted that the president had forwarded
race relations.

As for Hillary Clinton herself, the former Secretary of State is no
stranger to inflammatory rhetoric. In her campaign relaunch announcement,
she accused Republicans of wanting to “take away health insurance from more
than 16 million Americans… sham[ing] and blam[ing] women… put[ing]
immigrants who work hard and pay taxes at risk of deportation… turn[ing]
their backs on gay people who love each other.” She has accused Republicans
of attempting to stop black people from voting. She has insisted that
religious people must be forced to abandon their religious beliefs on
social issues. When she was in the Senate, Clinton screamed from the floor
regarding the Bush Administration’s intelligence before 9/11, “What did
Bush know and when did he know it?”

But naturally, that’s just politics. It always is, when leftists are
participating in it. When right-wingers engage in First Amendment-protected
speech, however, they’d best watch themselves: you never know when the next
evil maniac is around the corner. Perhaps the only safe course would be to
curtail the First Amendment to prevent such rhetoric. After all, if only we
can save one life, is that so high a price to pay?

*Hillary Clinton alludes to Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric as fuel for
hateful acts like the Charleston shooting
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-slams-donald-trump-inflammatory-speech-article-1.2264389>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – June 19, 2015 *

The type of “inflammatory” rhetoric Donald Trump uses can "trigger people
who are less than stable to do something" like the Charleston shootings,
Hillary Clinton said Friday.

"The people who do this kind of dastardly horrible act are very small
percentage, but unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and
more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people
who are less than stable to do something like what we've seen," Clinton
said during an interview with journalist Jon Ralston in Las Vegas,
referring to the murders of nine black churchgoers earlier this week.

Donald Trump, who canceled a campaign event in South Carolina in the wake
of the massacre, fired back.

Clinton then took aim at Trump, who during his presidential announcement
speech earlier this week said many of the immigrants who come here
illegally from Mexico are “rapists” who are “bringing drugs” and “bringing
crime.”

“For example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said
some very inflammatory things about Mexicans,” Clinton said, refusing to
name the bellicose businessman. “Everybody should stand up and say that's
not acceptable. You know, you don't talk like that on talk radio.”

Trump, who canceled a campaign event in South Carolina in the wake of the
massacre, fired back.

“It’s pretty pathetic that Hillary just blamed me for the horrendous attack
that took place in South Carolina,” he said in an instagram video. “This is
why politicians are just no good.”

*How Hillary Clinton will raise gobs of cash from Wall Street while
trashing the industry in public
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-and-wall-street-2015-6#ixzz3dWey7Pow>
// Business Insider // Linette Lopez – June 19, 2015 *

Here's how a politician would normally get money from Wall Street to
finance their campaign.

Stop by the office and visit the CEO, like Marco Rubio did with Blackstone
founder Steve Schwarzman.

Throw some public events for younger donors and then have a private dinner
with the heavy hitters at night to collect the big checks, like Jeb Bush
did with Goldman Sachs.

Do something that billionaire hedge fund manager Carl Icahn has pointed out
President Obama hasn't been able to do: Make nice with the Hamptons crowd.

Hillary Clinton is not likely to do these things.

If Clinton wants to keep her base happy and be a champion against income
inequality and for the middle class, she can't be seen hobnobbing with Wall
Street's elite.

So how does a candidate in Clinton's position still get Wall Street's elite
money?

Very, very quietly, and through back channels.

That's what we learned from speaking to a number of bundlers, donors, and
political insiders.

Dinners with Wall Street will be private and small. And, likely, you will
not see Clinton visiting any banks, hedge funds or private equity firms.

There will be a number of industry leaders collecting checks for her
quietly too, like Marc Lasry, the billionaire founder of Avenue Capital. He
sent out emails to friends in an attempt to raise $270,000 within the first
week of Clinton's campaign.

That kind of stuff works. The reality of political bundling is that
donations are given not because of some PR stunt or because of some swanky
party.

Donors give money to campaigns when the right people ask them for that
money.

Lasry, for one, is on that list of "right people." He runs a huge hedge
fund and people want to be able to do business with him. Lots of those
people will donate to whichever candidate Lasry wants them to, just to stay
on his good side.

Meanwhile, Clinton will go out to the world with her populist, anti-Wall
Street rhetoric.

Every once in a while, this will upset some of her donors. That sensitivity
has already become apparent in the campaign. In an interview with CNN,
billionaire Leon Cooperman complained that Clinton "hangs out with these
people in Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons and the very first thing
she does is criticize hedge funds."

This was in response to Clinton pointing out that "the top-25 hedge fund
managers making more than all of America's kindergarten teachers combined.
And often paying a lower tax rate."

She added, "So you have to wonder: 'When does my hard work pay off? When
does my family get ahead? When?'"

See? Sensitive.

Another way insiders expect Clinton to raise cash from Wall Street is
through Wall Street's lawyers. Lawyers tend to lean more liberal than their
Wall Street clients do, and Clinton can rally their support so that they
can approach clients who might be able to sign a check or two.

The approach will work if only because, as everyone knows, Wall Street owes
its lawyers a debt of gratitude or two.

The question is, then, will the Clintons still summer in the Hamptons?

*How Hillary Clinton thanked a pizza place that’s been feeding her campaign
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-pizzeria-thank-you-note-2015-6>
// Business Insider // Hunter Walker – June 19, 2015 *

Monty Q's, a pizzeria located near Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign
headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, has become a favored source of food for
her staff. Clinton checked out Monty Q's for herself on May 14. Afterwards,
she sent the restaurant a note thanking them for a "warm welcome to the
neighborhood."

"My campaign staff has been raving about Monty Q's for weeks now so I just
had to stop by for lunch — and they were right. The salad was delicious,"
Clinton wrote. "Thank you for your friendly and courteous service and for
keeping our staff and volunteers well-fed."

Clinton's letter, which was dated May 20, is now framed and hanging in the
pizzeria along with a picture she took with the staff.

A Clinton staffer told Business Insider the restaurant's offerings, which
include more than standard pizzeria fare, have definitely become quite
popular with the campaign team.

"The made-to-order salad and pasta stations are only topped by the
chocolate chip cookies - a definite fan favorite," the staffer said.

Check out Clinton's letter to Monty Q's and her picture with the staff
below.

*Hillary Clinton Talks First Term To H’wood Donors At Tobey Maguire’s House
<http://deadline.com/2015/06/hillary-clinton-fundraisers-hollywood-tobey-maguire-michael-lombardo-1201450763/>
// Deadline // Dominic Patten – June 20, 2015*

The former Secretary of State told a sold-out fundraiser of more than 200
Tinseltown supporters tonight that she isn’t running for Bill Clinton or
Barack Obama’s third terms but her own first term. Hillary Clinton’s
remarks were made in the backyard of Tobey Maguire and his wife Jennifer
Meyer’s Brentwood home on Friday. Long time supporters Leonardo DiCaprio,
Pitch Perfect 2 director and Hunger Games star Elizabeth Banks and Homeland
EP Howard Gordon were among the well-heeled crowd nibbling on a low-key
spread of hors d’oevres and sipping wine and soft drinks.

The once and potentially future White House resident also talked about
growing the economy for the middle class and expanding opportunities for
the LGBT community if she becomes America’s first female
Commander-in-Chief. The threat of ISIS, clean energy and reaching across
the aisle to pass legislation with the likes of now GOP candidate Sen.
Lindsey Graham were among the other topics Clinton touched on in what one
attendee described as “a stump speech.” In contrast to President Obama’s
remarks at his own set of DNC L.A. fundraisers on Thursday, Clinton did not
mention the fatal shootings in Charleston, S.C. that occurred earlier this
week.

Meyer, hostess and daughter of NBCUniversal Vice Chairman Ron Meyer,
introduced Clinton on Friday night. Jennifer Meyer told the gathering about
how the 42nd President of the United States told her in 2004 that no one in
America was more qualified to be President than his wife. Expected to raise
more than $500,000 for her 2016 Presidential bid, the 7 PM $2,700 a ticket
event was Clinton’s third fundraiser of the day. With a $1 million total
haul, today’s visit to the Hollywood ATM was the ex-New York Senator’s
second set of L.A. donorfests in less than 2 months.

Earlier Friday, Clinton was feted at another $2,700 per ticket fundraiser
at the home of HBO’s president of programming Michael Lombardo and his
partner Sonny Ward. Before that 5 PM event, the candidate attended a donor
lunch at the BevHills home of Westfield co-CEO Peter Lowy and his wife
Janine. That event was also $2,700 a ticket, which is the maximum an
individual can contribute during the primary season.

No word yet on when Hillary will be back in L.A. but, as with Obama this
week, expect frequent fundraisers over the next year and a half and beyond
if she wins. Also, other Democratic contenders like former Maryland
Governor Martin O’Malley are coming to town soon with cup in hand. Can
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders be far behind?

*Hillary Clinton Woos Young Hollywood Democrats at Fundraisers in L.A.
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-woos-young-hollywood-803846>
// Hollywood Reporter // Tina Daunt – June 19, 2015 *

By the time Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton leaves Los Angeles
Saturday, she hopes to have added well over $1 million to her campaign war
chest and to have cemented her family’s famous Hollywood ties to a new
generation of entertainment industry donors.

The lynchpin of her two-day swing through Southern California is Friday
evening’s gathering at the home of Spider-Man star Tobey Maguire and his
wife, Jennifer Meyer Maguire. All 250 places at that event are sold out at
$2,700 apiece. Attendees are expected to include Leonardo DiCaprio,
Elizabeth Banks, singer Sia Furler, ID PR founder Kelly Bush and an array
of other "young" Hollywood types, one insider told The Hollywood Reporter.
The event, which was organized by Greg Propper and Mark Daley of social
advocacy firm Propper Daley, is slated to raise more than $500,000.

California, and Hollywood in particular, always have been Clinton country.
When Bill Clinton first sought the Democratic presidential nomination, he
raised funds and campaigned relentlessly in the state and ultimately
defeated California's favorite son, the once and future governor Jerry
Brown, in the primary. In 2008, Hillary Clinton bested Barack Obama in
California's Democratic primary.

Friday’s schedule demonstrated just how wide the Clinton’s entertainment
industry reach remains. Earlier in the day, she was the star attraction at
a $2,700-per-person event hosted by Westfield Corp. co-CEO Peter Lowy and
his wife, Janine. That was followed by a $2,700-per-person conversation
with the former First Lady and Secretary of State at the home of HBO
president of programming Michael Lombardo and his husband, Sonny Ward.

On Thursday, Clinton was in Newport Beach to scoop up presidential campaign
cash. Supporters at Balboa Bay Club paid between $1,000 and $50,000 to
mingle with the Democratic front runner.

Clinton will continue her California tour with a Saturday visit to San
Francisco, where she’ll address the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

*Harassment Complaints Tripled at State Department Under Clinton, Kerry
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/harassment-complaints-tripled-at-state-department-under-clinton-kerry/>
// Free Beacon // Joe Schoffstall – June 19, 2015 *

Harassment complaints nearly tripled at the State Department under the
watch of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, according to a State Department
watchdog report released Thursday.

The Washington Times reports that harassment complaints hit 88 formal
claims during Clinton’s third year at State in 2011. This number jumped to
248 formal claims just three years later in 2014 with Kerry serving as
secretary. Hundreds more informal harassment complaints were also filed
during this time.

Last year, more than one-third, or 38 percent of complaints filed by
employees, dealt with sex discrimination or reprisals. An additional 43
percent of complaints were made up of alleged harassment dealing with
unfair hiring or promotions.

Despite the spike in harassment claims at the State Department, there is no
mandatory training program in place dealing with the issue.

“A significant increase in reported harassment inquiries in the Department
of State over the past few fiscal years supports the need for mandatory
harassment training,” the department’s inspector general said.

Due to the department’s non-existent mandatory harassment training
programs, one of the biggest recommendations includes periodic training for
every employee at the State Department.

“The Office of Civil Rights, in coordination with the Bureau of Human
Resources and the Foreign Service Institute, should mandate periodic
harassment training for all Department employees,” the report stated.

*Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-to-fundraise-at-l-a-house-of-tax-evading-clinton-foundation-donor/>
// Free Beacon // Brent Scher – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700-a-plate luncheon on Friday at the
Beverly Hills home of a man who was investigated by the Senate for hiding
$68 million in assets in an offshore tax haven.

Peter Lowy, who was born in Australia but is a U.S. citizen, is chief
executive officer of the Westfield Group, one of the world’s largest owners
of shopping malls. The company was founded by his father, Frank Lowy, and
is controlled by the Lowy family.

The family came under fire in 2008 when a report from then-Sens. Carl Levin
(D., Mich.) and Norm Coleman (R., Minn.) alleged that the Lowys were hiding
$68 million in a Lichtenstein tax haven called the LGT Group.

The relationship between the Lowys and the LGT Group began in 1997 when the
family started a Lichtenstein foundation worth $54 million. It grew to $68
million by 2001 when the foundation was dissolved.

The information came during an investigation by the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations into LGT Group and others that were being
used as tax shelters.

“LGT was aware that Mr. Lowy and his sons were hiding assets in the new
foundation,” according to the report.

Lawyers for Lowy maintained that he did nothing against the law and that
“businesses all over the world use a variety of tax structures to
legitimately protect their assets.” He said all the money was given to
charity.

Lowy, however, refused to cooperate with the Senate investigation. He
invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during a hearing
held by the committee.

“Senator, I’m sorry, I mean no disrespect. But on the advice of my counsel
I assert my rights under the 5th Amendment of the United States
Constitution not to answer any questions,” said Lowy.

His lack of cooperation did not end there. Levin said the Lowy family
refused to hand over documentation of the charitable donations to his
subcommittee.

Lowy was also accused during the hearing by Coleman of taking “a red-eye
flight to Australia” to avoid a subpoena.

An investigation into the Lowy finances carried out by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) led to further efforts in Bermuda to hide assets that should
have been taxed by the United States.

The Friday fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is not the beginning of the Lowy
relationship with the Clinton family. The earliest recorded instance came
in 1995, when Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign received donations from
multiple Lowy family members.

Both Lowy and his wife Janine Lowy also made the maximum allowed
contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. They also
both donated to Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign. The couple’s political
giving to federal candidates totals over $1 million and remains active.

Lowy has also given between $50,001 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation,
and made donations as recently as last year. His company, the Westfield
Corporation, has also made Clinton Foundation donations in the same range.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the Friday
event.

*Hillary Clinton’s 24-hour fundraising jaunt in Hollywood expected to net
$1 million
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/19/hillary-clintons-two-day-fundraising-jaunt-hollywo/>
// Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton made her grand public debut before American voters only a
week ago in New York City, then rushed off for some quick grassroots stops
in Iowa and New Hampshire. And at week’s end came the big stop in
California, land of Hollywood fundraising. Mrs. Clinton is expected to do
exceptionally well.

“By the time Democratic front-runner leaves Los Angeles Saturday, she hopes
to have added well over $1 million to her campaign war chest and to have
cemented her family’s famous Hollywood ties to a new generation of
entertainment industry donors,” says The Hollywood Reporter, an industry
source which tracks the stars and the business.

On Friday night, Mrs. Cinton appeared at the home of Tobey Maguire, he of
“Spiderman” fame, for an elite gathering of 250 which included Leonardo
DiCaprio, Elizabeth Banks, and singer Sia Furler. The event will raise
$500,000.

Mrs. Clinton appeared in two more fundraisers in the Beverly Hills area and
Newport Beach, bringing the total haul up to a cool $1 million, the
Hollywood Reporter said, basing the figure on an unnamed source.

But wait, there’s more. On Saturday, it’s on to San Francisco for a fourth
event - a swank brunch in the Mission District, with admission prices
rising as high as $50,000. It is of note that President Obama was also on
the West Coast at the same time - also raising money in Los Angeles and San
Francisco, this primarily for the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Obama
is scheduled to play golf in Palm Springs for the rest of the weekend - his
fifth visit to the area’s links in two years. This one came with a little
local warning.

“President Barack Obama’s weekend visit will close roads near the Palm
Springs airport from Friday afternoon until Monday morning. According to a
notice from Palm Springs police, both Kirk Douglas Way and Airport Center
Drive will be closed from 1 p.m. Friday until 7 a.m. Monday,” noted a terse
dispatch form The Desert Sun, a local paper.

In the meantime, talk that Mrs. Clinton could raise $1 billion for her
White House campaign may not be pure conjecture. When the weekend is over,
she will have completed her 26th fundraiser for the year.

*Hillary Clinton stressing support for immigration reform
<http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-backing-comprehensive-immigration-reform/28966917/?hootPostID=%5B%27add4acb41b1cfc2fd7d8101c7d8d5706%27%5D>
// AZ Central // Dan Nowicki – June 19, 2015 *

As the 2016 Republican presidential field toughens its tone on border
security and enforcement, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has drawn
a sharp distinction on immigration by embracing comprehensive reforms such
as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers already in the United
States.

Speaking Thursday before the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials, Clinton, a former secretary of State, reiterated
promises she made during a May 5 roundtable in North Las Vegas.

That she would fight for comprehensive immigration reform that includes "a
real path to citizenship" for the more than 11 million undocumented
immigrants who have settled in the United States.

That she would oppose any move to deport the young immigrants known as
"dreamers" or to undo President Barack Obama's executive actions that are
shielding millions of immigrants from enforcement action.

And that if Congress continues to balk at acting on immigration reform, "as
president I will do everything possible under the law to go even further
than what President Obama has attempted to achieve," she said.

"There are so many people with deep ties and contributions to our
communities, like many parents of dreamers, who deserve a chance to stay,
and I will fight for them, too," Clinton said to applause from a
standing-room-only crowd inside the Aria Resort & Casino. "But I don't have
to wait to become president to take a stand, right here and right now,
against divisive rhetoric that demonizes immigrants and their families.
It's wrong and no one should stand for it."

The contrast between Clinton and the Republican White House prospects grew
sharper this week with the entry into the race of celebrity real-estate
developer Donald Trump, who announced his candidacy with a speech bashing
Mexican immigrants as "rapists" and vowing to build a border wall at
Mexico's expense.

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some,
I assume, are good people," Trump said of immigrants from Mexico.

While Trump is viewed by many political handicappers as a novelty
candidate, others said his anti-immigrant rant could tarnish the Republican
brand with Latino voters, a fast-growing demographic that is increasingly
influential in key swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New
Mexico and Virginia.

Despite warnings from national GOP leaders after the loss of 2012 nominee
Mitt Romney to Obama, in which Romney was shellacked among Latino voters,
most of the Republican presidential contenders continue to stake out
hard-line positions on immigration and border security.

Trump's comments were a noisy distraction from the official entry into the
race of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a more moderate GOP presidential
candidate who supports immigration reform. But even Bush didn't appear
inclined to take up the issue during his Monday announcement until he was
interrupted by pro-citizenship hecklers.

"By the way, just so that our friends know, the next president of the
United States will pass meaningful immigration reform so that that will be
solved, not by executive order," Bush said.

Later in the week, Bush called for immigration reform while campaigning in
Iowa, which hosts the first presidential caucuses.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., another GOP 2016 candidate, also sparred
this week with immigration activists who interrupted a speech he was giving
in Washington, D.C.

Ben Carson, a conservative retired neurosurgeon seeking the Republican
nomination, was the only GOP hopeful to make an appearance at the NALEO
conference. His remarks on Wednesday largely avoided immigration and
instead highlighted the economy and the need for global U.S. leadership. He
did say national-security concerns dictate the need to seal the borders.

"What we should do, I believe, is provide them a way that they don't have
to hide in the shadows," Carson said of the millions of undocumented
immigrants already in the country. "Give them an opportunity to become
guest workers. They have to register. They have to enroll in a back-tax
program. And if they want to become citizens, they have to get in the line
with everybody else and do what's necessary."

Clinton spent less than five minutes of her 30-minute speech to the NALEO
conference focusing explicitly on immigration policy. She also discussed
other issues that resonate with Latino voters, including early-childhood
development, preschool, jobs, education and voting rights. She also
addressed the mass shooting Wednesday in Charleston, S.C., which killed
nine people at a historic Black church.

Clinton's efforts to secure the Latino vote are fueled, in part, by anxiety
among some Democrats that Obama's winning coalition might not be as
motivated to turn out to the polls if Obama is no longer on the ticket.

"Because this is what this community wants and needs to hear, it's what
it's going to take to energize that community to actually show up in this
election," said state Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, who attended the
NALEO conference. "If we don't, I think she's going to be in trouble. It's
going to be a tough race anyway, so she needs this community to turn out
next year and this is one way to really motivate them to do that."

One political scientist said that while the Republicans must finesse
immigration-related issues so as not to alienate anti-"amnesty"
conservatives who are influential in the GOP primary, Clinton's pro-reform
stance appeals not only to Democratic primary voters but also to less
partisan general-election voters.

Clinton so far has a few opponents in the Democratic race, including U.S.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is expected to address the NALEO conference
on Friday.

"A Democrat on an issue like this can run for the broad center from the
beginning and doesn't have to worry that she'll pay a big price for that in
the primaries, whereas on the Republican side, even nominal immigration
moderates like Jeb Bush have to say they're against the executive action,"
said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science and Chicano/Latino
studies at the University of California-Irvine.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee suggested Clinton's efforts to
appeal to Latinos is merely cynical politics.

"Latinos deserve to know that Hillary Clinton is looking out for her own
political ambition instead of their interests," Reince Priebus, the RNC
chairman, said Thursday in a written statement. "As she has proven time and
again, Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected — making big
promises she won't and can't keep, just like President Obama."

Still, Clinton's all-out endorsement of immigration reform so early in the
presidential campaign has immigrant-rights activists applauding.

"I don't doubt whether she is deeply committed to it, but what I respect is
that she understands the power of our movement, the importance of the
Latino vote, and therefore she feels like it's in her interest to say what
she's saying," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's
Voice, a liberal national group that advocates for comprehensive
immigration reform. "To me, it's a movement victory that she's saying what
she's saying. And for me, it's slow-motion political suicide for the
Republicans to be saying what they're saying, with a few notable
exceptions."

Even so, Clinton's expansive pro-immigration agenda is a recent development
for her and a sharp break from the policies of her husband, former
President Bill Clinton, who served two terms in the White House from 1993
to 2001.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for the
border-fence-authorizing Secure Fence Act of 2006, although she distanced
herself from it as early as her 2008 presidential race. Also during the
2008 campaign, when she lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, Clinton
came out against issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, a
position she reversed this year.

"Hillary seemed tone-deaf and rusty when she was on her book tour (for her
2014 memoir 'Hard Choices') and she was asked a couple of questions about
immigration, and both times she fumbled it," Sharry said. "But now, as a
candidate, she has really leaned into it, taken ownership of the issue and
made it clear that she's going to draw sharp distinctions with whoever the
Republican nominee is, including if it's Jeb Bush."

Her husband's legacy could follow her as the campaign rolls on.

Bill Hing, a University of San Francisco law professor and
immigration-policy expert, said that from the standpoint of
immigrant-rights advocates, Bill Clinton "has one of the worst immigration
records" of any president in modern history.

Under his administration, the United States started the "big militarization
of the border" through Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping
illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by
deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground
sensors, lights and other technology, Hing said.

Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the
Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on
undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included
barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up
to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants
could be stripped of their status and deported.

However, Hing doubts Bill Clinton's old positions on border security and
immigration enforcement will hurt Hillary Clinton with Latinos.

"Latino voters are giving her a pass because the Republicans have been so
intransigent on immigration reform," Hing said, pointing out that in recent
years conservative Republicans have consistently foiled attempts by
moderate Republicans and Democrats to pass immigration reform.

Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
System during the Clinton administration, said it's unfair to tie Bill
Clinton's record to Hillary Clinton.

The border-security and immigration-enforcement measures launched under
Bill Clinton's administration were badly needed, Meissner said. But what
distinguishes Hillary Clinton from her Republican rivals is that she
believes it is time to move beyond border security and immigration
enforcement, she said.

"She's talking about now what needs to be done in addition and that is very
different from what all the Republicans are saying," Meissner said. "They
are just saying more of the same and they are in a time warp. ... We just
don't have the same issues at the border."

*Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?
<http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/>
// FactCheck.Org // Robert Farley – June 19, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of
the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to
charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent
of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton
Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton
Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent
philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and
concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private
foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations
to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It
conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

Fiorina Attacks

Fiorina has been shadowing Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in order
to contrast herself with her Democratic rival. In a Fox News interview,
Fiorina was asked about a New York Times story about Sen. Marco Rubio’s
finances, and Fiorina responded that she wished the New York Times would do
more to investigate the Clintons’ finances, and particularly “what they’ve
been doing with their donors’ money to the Clinton Global Initiative.”

Fiorina, June 10: I mean, honestly, the question, I think, now for the
Clintons is, ‘What else don’t we know? What don’t we know about your
donors? What don’t we know about the conflicts of interest that those
donors represent when Mrs. Clinton is serving as Secretary of State?’ We
are now finding out that so little of those charitable donations actually
go to charitable works.

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton
Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million
in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see
page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants.
And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything
that can be categorized as charitable.”

That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work
itself.

Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High
Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the
Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”

“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a
non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating
foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be
used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear
‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either
case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether
to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the
intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods,
improving health, etc.).”

Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation,
said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”

“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a
difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate
change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email.
“Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation
so that our staff can implement the work.”

Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton
Foundation listed these:

Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help
them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.

Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the
Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help
develop renewable energy projects.

Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated
entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine,
scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through
life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.

Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in
the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation
spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of
its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks
out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program
service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising
purposes.

For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013
went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general
expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a
programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension
plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to
program service expenses.

“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities
are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact
Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us
via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate
that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of
foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any
event. But as I understand it, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity,
despite the name. Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be
confusing, as they might seem like private foundations.

“The organization carries out programs,” Stehle said. “I am not intimately
familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be
considered charitable activities.”

Charity Evaluators

Fiorina isn’t the only one making this charge about the Clinton Foundation.
Fox Business Network’s Gerri Willis, for example, also claimed only 6
percent of the Clinton Foundation’s 2013 revenue “went to help people.”
Willis claimed that charity experts have looked into whether the Clinton
Foundation “wisely spen(t) charitable dollars” and weighed in with a
“resounding no.”

“Charity Navigator … [has] placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list,”
Willis said. “They think there are problems with this nonprofit. They don’t
like the way it runs itself. They say the money is not spent wisely.”

She said Charity Navigator concluded the Clinton Foundation “does not meet
their criteria as an organization that does charitable work.”

But that’s not what Charity Navigator said.

Here’s what the Charity Navigator site actually states:

Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have
since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be
accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The
Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an
endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for
The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that
appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of
a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity
Navigator.

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told
us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the
foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative)
and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into
the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she
said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its
analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for
several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.

The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the
Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only
the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on
charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.

She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation.
When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would
look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of
the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent
of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a
CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti
said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”

Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and
salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the
charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses
related to charity.

It’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton
Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about
insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch
list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the
foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was
secretary of state. The site also linked to a story about the abrupt
resignation earlier this year of the foundation’s CEO. (Go here to see a
full list of articles that led to the decision by Charity Navigator to
place the foundation on its watch list.)

According to the Charity Navigator site, it “takes no position” on the
allegations raised in the media reports, nor does it “seek to confirm or
verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised.”
Minuitti said the watch list was more like “news to know” for potential
donors.

None of the articles cited by Charity Navigator has anything to do with a
low percentage of funding going to charitable work.

Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American
Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone
that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its
affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on
programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the
industry standard.

By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants,
Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,”
Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private
foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money
from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities.
The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly
does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.

“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other
groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may
as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”

In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he
said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which
includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health
Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton
Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget
is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he
said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and
calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going
toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported
expenses.

We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in
the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only
steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a
misunderstanding of how public charities work.

*A note from Jorge Ramos
<http://fusion.net/story/153677/a-note-from-jorge-ramos/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=desktop+top>
// Fusion // Jorge Ramos – June 19, 2015 *

As journalists the most important thing we have is our credibility and
integrity. We maintain that, in part, through transparency with our
audience, our colleagues and our critics. That is why I am disclosing that
my daughter, Paola, has accepted a position working with Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign.

As a father, I am very proud that she has decided to actively participate
in our democratic process. I hope that more young people get involved,
regardless of political parties or ideological preferences. Our democracy
and our future depend on that.

I completely support and respect Paola’s decision. In our family we have
always cherished tolerance, dialogue and active participation in what you
believe.

Like many reporters who have parents, siblings or other family members that
are active in politics, this will not change how I approach my duty as a
journalist. I will continue to report with complete independence and ask
the tough questions, the same way I have done for the last 30 years.

*Judicial Watch Statement in Reponse to Federal Court Reopening Lawsuit
Seeking Information on Top Clinton Aide Huma Abedin
<http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2590379> // Digital Journal // June 19,
2015 *

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding
today's decision by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to reopen a
Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that sought
records about Huma Abedin, the former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:13-cv-01363)).

Hillary Clinton's massive email cover-up is unraveling. We welcome Judge
Sullivan's decision to reopen this lawsuit. Hillary Clinton and the Obama
administration concealed records and lied to obstruct federal courts and
Judicial Watch from finding out about the secret emails.

The court battle to get to the truth about Huma Abedin's "special
government employee" (SGE) privileges at State is underway. The reopening
of this case brings Judicial Watch one step closer to forcing the State
Department to ensure that the government records in Hillary Clinton's
"secret" email system are properly preserved, protected and recovered as
federal law requires. Ms. Abedin is part of the Clinton cash raising
operation and was even involved in the Benghazi scandal, so this lawsuit
could not be more timely.

This is the second Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that has been reopened
because of Hillary Clinton's hidden email records. Judicial Watch is aware
of no prior instances of Freedom of Information lawsuits being reopened by
federal courts.

Judge Sullivan ruled that the "changed circumstances" of the discovery that
Hillary Clinton and members of her State Department staff used secret email
accounts to conduct government business warranted "reopening" the lawsuit.

In asking Judge Sullivan to reopen the lawsuit, Judicial Watch cited a
federal court rule (Rule 60(b)(3)) that allows a party to reopen a case due
to "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party:"

The State Department had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to
properly preserve, maintain, and make available for retrieval records of
its official functions. In fact, it is the obligation of the head of every
federal agency to do so. Secretary Clinton plainly violated her own legal
obligations. Doing so was misconduct.

The State Department originally agreed with Judicial Watch's request but
later changed its mind and asked the court to reopen the lawsuit because of
"newly discovered evidence." In today's ruling, Judge Sullivan simply
reopened the case, rather than "spilling ink" on whether Hillary Clinton
and the State Department committed fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct.

Huma Abedin left the State Department in February 2013, and in May 2013,
Politico reported that, since June 2012, she had been double-dipping,
working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top
adviser at State. Abedin's outside clients included Teneo, a strategic
consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band.
According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant to Teneo, in
addition to her $135,000 SGE compensation.

Teneo describes its activities as providing "the leaders of the world's
most respected companies, nonprofit institutions and governments with a
full suite of advisory solutions." [Emphasis added] Outside of the U.S., it
maintains offices in Dubai, London, Dublin, Hong Kong, Brussels,
Washington, and Beijing. Teneo was also the subject of various
investigative reports, including by the New York Times, which raise
questions about its relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

In February 2014, the State Department assured Judicial Watch that it had
searched the Office of the Executive Secretary, which would have included
the offices of the Secretary of State and top staff. Relying upon the State
Department's misrepresentation that the agency conducted a reasonable
search, Judicial Watch agreed to dismiss its lawsuit on March 14, 2014.

*I’m A Republican Woman & I’m Voting For Hillary
<http://www.refinery29.com/2015/06/89426/republican-woman-voting-hillary-clinton-for-president>
// Refinery 29 // Asma Hasan – June 19, 2015 *

Since I was 18 years old, Hillary Clinton has punctuated my life. As I grew
up, she’s been a compass for me — a woman I looked to as a model of female
leadership and strength. I often listen to my inner Hillary Clinton as she
urges me, in a gracious but all-knowing tone, to be a strong woman who
picks her fights wisely.

That’s why I hope to vote for her for president — even though I’m a
lifelong Republican.

I started at Wellesley College in the fall of 1993 — the same year Clinton,
our most famous graduate, became First Lady. My fellow first-years and I
(at Wellesley, we do not call them "freshmen") watched her be vilified in
the press — for working, for playing too large a role, just for being.
Dozens of major magazine articles that first year compared her to Lady
MacBeth (who, as you'll remember, nagged her husband until he killed
himself).

But, in a way, that vilification was a great gift to us. Everyone goes off
to college thinking they will change the world, but my classmates and I may
have felt it more than most — a real sense we’d make a contribution on our
own terms. If people criticized us in the process, like they did Hillary,
that criticism became a badge of honor. Criticism, it seemed, was a sign of
success, not its antithesis.

Watching Hillary, I also learned how important it is to support your fellow
women, even if you disagree with them. Too many men, then and now, would
rather stick together than promote a woman.

It was in college that I learned from my advisor (incidentally, he was also
Hillary’s advisor) never to apologize for being “bossy.” I learned not to
turn down more work or a new experience because, if I did, there would be a
man who would take it for himself, even if he was less qualified than I. To
be a woman growing into herself, in the time of Hillary, has been a
powerful experience — one that probably would have been very different if
Hillary had never existed.

I was still an undergrad when Hillary gave her amazing speech at the U.N.
Conference on Women, where she stated the (obvious, but until then
unrecognized) aphorism that women’s rights are human rights, and human
rights are women’s rights. It was such a simple sentiment, it may have
changed the world.

Now, 20 years later, I’ve graduated, set up a law practice, and settled
into a more conservative set of political views. And yes, through that
lens, the past decades of Hillary Clinton’s public life give me doubt.

I questioned how, as Hillary's husband was leaving the Oval Office, she
carefully selected a state in which to run for Senate. I felt like she was
a reverse carpetbagger — a woman born in Illinois, first lady of Arkansas,
then of Washington, cherry-picking New York simply because it was a
northern state she had the best chance of winning. This reeked of the
elitist privilege that I, as a feminist, seek to untangle.

During the 2008 election primaries, I was irritated at some of Hillary’s
backhanded insults against Obama, her sly allusions to racism and
Islamophobia. And yes, more recently, I was shocked to learn that she had
both maintained her own email server as Secretary of State and also deleted
what are essentially government records. We’re both attorneys, and if
there’s one thing a lawyer knows, it’s the importance of document
retention. Why then, would she do something so bizarre if she didn’t have
something to hide? It seems sloppy at best and incriminating at worst.

While I try not to wonder why she stayed with Bill despite his obvious
chicanery (since it’s impossible to know what goes on in someone else’s
marriage), I do wish she’d address the issue in an honest way. If only to
clearly establish there is a real love there that stretches beyond his
misdeeds — not just the mere opportunism from being part of a political
power couple.

Are these foibles, gaffes, and, perhaps illegalities enough for me to say I
can’t vote for her? While I would love to be an idealist, no, they’re not.

It’s too important to have a woman president.

Haven’t men done these sorts of things for centuries? Made decisions for
women and the populace at large from smoky back rooms? Promoted their
fellow undeserving men over hard-working women? Stolen or destroyed
records? Fixed elections (all over the world)? How can I be a feminist who
stands for the improvement and promotion of women and not support Hillary’s
machinations? Isn’t this what it will take to accomplish some measure of
female success in what is still a male-dominated society?

I’d put my chips on Hillary as the woman who could shut down the
roadblocks, whether via a more gracious approach or by simply dismissing
them as she did in her GIF-worthy Benghazi testimony. Watching her sit in
front of a panel of mostly men as they tried, time after time, to latch
onto her, was inspiring. She was masterful in her bottled disdain, and many
of us — Republican me included — could identify.

Strange as it may seem, I’m still a Republican. The GOP is in accord with
my feminist spirit — believing in individualism, judging one on one’s own
merits, and not feeding my hard-won gains back into a system that benefits
mainly men. I know this line of argument, culminating in a vote for HRC,
won’t win me any arguments among Republicans, but I don’t need to. Other
groups can speak up for themselves, and we can see where we all end up.

*These Women Probably Don’t Fit the Bill: Fans Suggest Hillary, Beyoncé and
Taylor for #TheNew10
<http://www.people.com/article/celebrity-women-new-ten-dollar-bill> //
People // Tierney Mcafee – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton might become the first woman president in U.S. history, but
she probably won't become the first woman to appear on a U.S. bank note in
more than a century.

Ever since the U.S. Treasury Department announced Wednesday that a woman
will grace the face of the new $10 note in 2020, fans have been taking to
Twitter to suggest candidates who fit the bill.

The last woman to be featured on U.S. paper currency was Martha Washington,
who was on the $1 Silver Certificate between 1891 and 1896.

Now historical figures including Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosa
Parks have become frontrunners for #TheNew10 on social media and in a poll
conducted by the group Women on 20s. But it seems that for every Harriet
vote, there's a Hillary vote; for every Parks, a Beyoncé; for every
Roosevelt, a Taylor Swift.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*An Angry O’Malley Calls for an Assault Weapons Ban
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/an-angry-omalley-calls-for-an-assault-weapons-ban/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015 *

Using an off-color word to describe his anger, Martin O’Malley, a
Democratic candidate for president, called for a new national assault
weapons ban and other gun control measures in an email sent to supporters
after the shooting deaths at a South Carolina church this week.

Mr. O’Malley is the only candidate so far to call for reinstating the
assault weapons ban, a politically charged topic.

Mr. O’Malley repeatedly used a word that is sometimes invoked to accentuate
anger, and appeared to take an oblique swipe at his leading party rival,
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Instead of “jumping to act,” he said, people are
choosing to “sit back and wait for the appropriate moment to say what we’re
all thinking: that this is not the America we want to be living in.”

He chastised Congress for failing to pass stronger gun control laws in
early 2013 after the deaths of nearly two dozen children at a school
Newtown, Conn., and highlighted his record as the governor of Maryland
passing laws “that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing
standards and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers.”

“It’s time we called this what it is: a national crisis,” he wrote in his
email. “I proudly hold an ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A., and when I worked to
pass gun control in Maryland, the N.R.A. threatened me with legal action,
but I never backed down.”

The gun control bill that died in Congress more than two years ago was a
blow to President Obama, and began a longer-term drop in his popularity.

*Martin O’Malley: ‘I’m pissed’ at lack of action on gun control*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/omalley-im-pissed-at-lack-of-action-on-gun-control/>*
// WaPo // John Wagner – June 19, 2015 *

Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley sent a tartly worded e-mail
to supporters Friday saying he is "pissed" by congressional inaction on gun
control and asking them to stand with him in an effort to toughen laws
after this week's massacre at a Charleston, S.C., church.

"It's time we called this what it is: a national crisis," O'Malley said in
the e-mail, which carried the subject header "I'm pissed" and included
links to a Web page to provide contact information to his campaign. He used
the word "pissed" four more times in the e-mail.

O'Malley's choice of words -- more common among teenagers than presidential
candidates -- seemed a gambit to attract attention to a campaign mired in
the low single digits in early-state polls. But a spokeswoman said the tone
was a true reflection of how the former Maryland governor, who has used
salty language on other recent occasions, feels about the issue.

In the e-mail, O'Malley pointed to his record as governor, which included
passage in 2013 of a wide-ranging gun-safety bill. On the national level,
he is calling for an assault weapons ban, stricter background checks and
efforts to prevent "straw purchases" of guns, such as fingerprinting
requirements, which Maryland implemented.

O'Malley's proposals are more specific than anything his Democratic rivals,
including former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), have suggested in recent days. In the past, Clinton has
supported banning assault weapons and other measures favored by gun-control
advocates. Sanders has a mixed record that includes voting against the
landmark Brady bill that required background checks and a waiting period
before buying a firearm.

"I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real
gun control — laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing
standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers — Congress
continues to drop the ball," O'Malley wrote.

He also knocked Republicans running for president, saying none of them have
been "even close to being right on this issue."

O'Malley's e-mail followed an appearance earlier Friday on MSNBC's "Morning
Joe," in which he said -- in less colorful terms -- that the shootings this
week should be a call to action on gun control and mental health issues.

In late April, O'Malley raised eyebrows when during an interview on
National Public Radio, he referred to a Republican economic argument as
"patently bulls---." Afterward, he sent an email to supporters with the
subject header, "Yeah, I said it." O'Malley used the same epithet in a
conversation with reporters during a recent trip to the early nominating
state of New Hampshire.

*Martin O’Malley not worried about retribution for Hillary Clinton attacks*
<http://www.politico.com/p/pages/2016-elections?ml=na>* // Politico // Nick
Gass – June 19, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley says he is not worried
about retribution from fellow Democrats in going after Hillary Clinton.

“No, I do not,” the former Maryland governor said Friday in response to a
question on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” pertaining to Wall Street Journal
columnist Peggy Noonan’s latest column.

“The Democrats have an enforcement mechanism to keep all their candidates
in line. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley know without being told that
the party will kill them if they tear apart the assumed nominee,” she wrote
in the op-ed published Thursday. “Their careers will be over if they go at
her personally.”

O’Malley’s reply: “Well my career ended when I was elevated to the rank of
citizen about three months ago, so I don’t have a career to kill. He added,
“I’m the only candidate in this race with 15 years of executive experience
as the mayor of a very great but a very challenged city and as a governor.”

*O’Malley’s Two-Word Response to Charleston Shooting: ‘I’m Pissed’
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/bernie-sanders-faces-awkward-issues-for-his-liberal-allies-immigration-and-guns>
// Bloomberg // Sydney McNeal – June 19, 2015 *

In the aftermath of Thursday’s shooting in Charleston, everyone from
President Obama to those campaigning to succeed him expressed shock,
sorrow, and frustration about the tragedy, and also the government’s
inability to end gun violence.

On Friday, Martin O’Malley, who is trailing Hillary Clinton and Senator
Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination, went even further
in an impassioned e-mail to supporters with the subject line, “I’m pissed.”

I'm pissed that we’re actually asking ourselves the horrific question of,
what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or
tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving
to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?

I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real
gun control—laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing
standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers—Congress
continues to drop the ball.

He did not mention the nine victims, their families, or the African
Methodist Episcopal church community in the message, though he did express
condolences on Twitter on Thursday.

As governor of Maryland, he passed legislation that banned assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines, toughening some of the most restrictive gun
laws in the nation.

*O’Malley: ‘I’m pissed’ about gun climate*
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/omalley-pissed-gun-control/>* //
CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 19, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley is "pissed" about the
nation's unwillingness to pass gun control, he told supporters in an email
Friday.

O'Malley, who is looking to galvanize the left in order to mount a credible
primary challenge to frontrunner Hillary Clinton, looked to build his email
list with an "I'm pissed" subject line and boasted about his poor grades
from the gun-rights lobby.

"I proudly hold an F rating from the (National Rifle Association), and when
I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the NRA threatened me with legal
action, but I never backed down," O'Malley said in the email. "What we did
in Maryland should be the first step of what we do as a nation."

The former Maryland governor called for a national assault weapons ban,
stricter background checks and fingerprint requirements that could reduce
straw-buying.

After the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in
late 2012, President Barack Obama spent the first months of his second term
pushing for a package of gun-control legislation, but Republicans, backed
by the NRA, successfully thwarted those bills on Capitol Hill. Few
Democrats or gun-control advocates are hopeful that much will change after
a white gunman killed nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina
this week.

"I'm pissed that we're actually asking ourselves the horrific question of,
what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or
tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving
to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?" O'Malley asked
supporters.

*Martin O’Malley is ‘Pissed About Gun Control
<http://time.com/3928841/martin-omalley-gun-control-pissed/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell – June 19, 2015 *

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley told supporters in the wake of this
week’s South Carolina shooting that he’s “pissed” Congress is not passing
more stringent gun control measures.

“I’m pissed that after an unthinkable tragedy like the one in South
Carolina yesterday, instead of jumping to act, we sit back and wait for the
appropriate moment to say what we’re all thinking: that this is not the
America we want to be living in,” the Democratic presidential candidate
said in an email.

Nine people were shot dead in a historically black church in Charleston on
Wednesday. A 21-year-old white man, Dylann Roof, has been charged for the
crime.

O’Malley passed broad gun control measures as governor that included
banning weapons, limiting handgun magazines to 10 rounds, and requiring gun
owners to provide their fingerprints as part of their weapons licenses.

The presidential candidate is now advocating nationally for a national
assault weapons ban, stricter background checks, and fingerprint
requirements. “I proudly hold an F rating from the NRA,” O’Malley said.

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Thursday also called for new
actions to curb gun violence. “How many people do we need to see cut down
before we act?” she said, but didn’t lay out specific proposals.

On Friday morning, O’Malley spoke on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program and
advocated coupling mental health programs with stricter gun control.

*O’Malley says he won’t be deterred from criticizing Clinton*
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-omalley-says-he-wont-be-deterred-from-criticizing-clinton-20150619-story.html>*
// Baltimore Sun // Michael Dresser – June 19, 2015*

Former Gov. Martin O"Malley said Friday that he won't be deterred from
vigorously criticizing front-runner Hillary Clinton in his race for the
2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

O'Malley, appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, told co-host Mika
Brzezinski that he isn't concerned about damage to his career or
retaliation by party leaders if he criticizes Clinton too harshly.

"My career ended when I was elevated to the rank of citizen about three
months ago," he said." I don't have a career to kill."

O'Malley, who actually left office five months ago, was responding to a
question about former White House speech writer Peggy Noonan's contention
in the Wall Street Journal that Clinton's Democratic challengers were
pulling their punches in their campaigns because of a concern they could
become pariahs in their party if they go after the presumptive nominee on a
personal level or criticize her ethical practices.

Noonan, who worked for President Ronald Reagan, predicted Clinton would
"glide" to the nomination "dinged but not damaged."

O'Malley said he was encouraged by a poll showing that 59 percent of New
Hampshire Democrats want to have an alternative to Clinton in the nation's
first primary.

While the former Maryland governor said he would have no compunction about
attacking Clinton, he did not level personal criticism of her Friday. His
most pointed remark came as he sought to contrast his position with
Clinton's on President Obama's proposed Asian trade deal, which the former
secretary of state recently criticized.

"I was opposed to it not after it failed but before it," O'Malley said.

In the wake of the slaying of nine people at a Charleston, S.C., church
Wednesday, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked O'Malley about how to prevent such
incidents. Scarborough said the law O'Malley pushed through the Maryland
General Assembly after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre would not have
prevented the accused Charleston shooter from obtaining his gun, reportedly
a gift from his father.

O'Malley said the nation's laws must deal with both gun control and mental
health, adding that the Maryland law he signed addressed both issues.

"It's a matter of doing both, and not either/or," he said.

O'Mallley said the "vast majority" of Americans would favor background
checks for handgun purchasers. But the former governor acknowledged the
difficulty of preventing such shootings.

"How do you make sense of giving a gun to a troubled young man?" he said.

The former governor followed up his TV appearance with an email from his
campaign with the subject line "I'm pissed." In it, he wrote about the the
things that anger him about the Charleston shooting and pointed to his
record of support for gun control.

"I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real
gun control -- laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing
standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers — Congress
continues to drop the ball," he said.

O'Malley spelled out steps he would support as president: a national
assault rifle ban, stricter background checks and a fingerprinting
requirement for gun purchases -- all provisions of the Maryland law.

He said it was time for the United State to stop "caving" to the National
Rifle Association.

Asked on MSNBC about the racial aspect of the Charleston shootings, in
which the victims were black and the accused killer is white, O'Malley said
the nation has to face up to its history.

"We do it by acknowledging the racial legacy we share as Americans," he
said.

O'Malley, who has been working to differentiate himself from Clinton as she
has moved to  the left, cast himself as a critic of the financial industry,
with which Bill and Hillary Clinton have had close ties.

"Wealth and power has become very, very concentrated in our country,' he
said, adding that Americans are looking for "new leadership."

*Martin O’Malley Launches Major Post-Charleston Gun Control Push With “I’m
Pissed”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/martin-omalley-launches-major-post-charleston-gun-control-pu#.cwyQwpJ0a>
// Buzzfeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro – June 19, 2015 *

Martin O’Malley launched a major push for gun control tied to the
Charleston shooting Friday, his campaign’s latest attempt to use his record
as Maryland governor to drive up support for his presidential campaign.

In what has become a trademark for O’Malley, he announced his new gun
control focus in a brusque manner. “I’m pissed,” reads the subject line
from a gun-control focused email O’Malley’s campaign sent to supporters
Friday. (O’Malley sent a similar list-building email after he called
Republican economic plans “bullshit” on NPR in April.)

“I’m pissed” comes with a series of policy prescriptions O’Malley promises
to make a centerpiece of his campaign moving forward. The plan is modeled
on policies O’Malley signed into law as Maryland governor that drew the ire
of the NRA and its allies and praise from gun control supporters. O’Malley
is proposing a national assault-weapons ban, tightening background checks,
and efforts to end so-called “straw purchasing,” where firearms will be
purchased legally on behalf of someone unable to legally purchase them.

O’Malley’s gun policy agenda is similar to ones Democrats and President
Obama hoped to pass after the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown,
Connecticut. In the presidential field, it puts him in a more unique
position: Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont and according to polling
second place candidate in the Democratic nomination race, voted for an
assault-weapons ban and expanded background checks in 2013, but has not
expressly called for a ban since announcing his presidential candidacy.

Gun-rights advocates ultimately defeated the 2013 effort, leaving Obama, he
said Thursday in his remarks after Charleston, with little recourse
policy-wise.

The former Maryland governor appeared to take issue with Obama’s read on
the situation in D.C. — namely, that nothing can be done about new gun laws
while Congress is divided the way it is — on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday.

“I think you have to advocate for it in Congress,” O’Malley said. “I think
when incidents like this happen, we shouldn’t say, ‘well, it’s just
America. That’s just the way it is.’”

Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic frontrunner,
spoke about Charleston Thursday but did not issue support for an
assault-weapons ban or other specific policy proposals.

O’Malley’s running towards his gun-control record in his new presidential
campaign push. His email to supporters boasts about his “F rating from the
NRA.” A senior O’Malley aide told BuzzFeed News the supporter email was
“the beginning of what will be a major push” and said voters “will be
hearing a lot more from him on this.”

The former mayor of Baltimore will find a friendly audience for a
gun-control message when O’Malley addresses the U.S. Conference of Mayors
Sunday, his next scheduled public appearance. Mayors have often been among
the most vocal proponents of gun-control legislation, and have stepped up
their calls for it after mass shootings in the past.

*SANDERS*

*Bernie Sanders hits the Las Vegas strip, takes aim at billionaire Sheldon
Adelson
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-hits-the-las-vegas-strip-takes-aim-at-billionaire-sheldon-adelson/>
// WaPo // Philip Rucker – June 19, 2015 *

Directly across the Las Vegas Strip from the Venetian, the lavish hotel and
casino built by wealthy political donor Sheldon Adelson, Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders rallied more than 700 supporters
here Friday to join his revolution against the billionaire class whose
greed he says is crushing the United States.

“Today we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but
the vast majority of the American people do not know that, do not feel
that, because almost all of that wealth today rests in the hands of a tiny
few," Sanders said. "What we are saying to the billionaire class is, 'Your
greed, which is destroying this country, has got to end.'"

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who describes himself as a
socialist but caucuses with Democrats, took direct aim at Adelson, who
together with his wife, Miriam, spent roughly $100 million to help elect
Mitt Romney and other Republicans in 2012.

"People like Sheldon Adelson -- you know who he is! -- and the Koch
brothers are now spending unbelievable sums of money," Sanders said. When
he argued that such political spending had created an "oligarchy" and
wrecked "the foundations of American democracy," the crowd stood on its
feet and chanted, "Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!"

Sanders received a raucous reception here Friday, with repeated standing
ovations and loud cheers. The hour was early, especially by Las Vegas
standards -- 9 a.m. -- but hundreds of people, young and old, streamed in,
sipping coffee and munching on muffins and breakfast cake.

The Sanders campaign received so many responses from locals wanting to see
him that they relocated his town hall meeting from the University of Nevada
Las Vegas to a venue that could accommodate hundreds more -- the ballroom
at Treasure Island, a hotel and casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

On Saturday, Sanders is scheduled to hold an event in Denver, where
campaign officials said they already have received about 7,000 RSVPs. If
they all show up, it would be perhaps the largest rally any candidate in
either party has staged thus far in the 2016 campaign cycle.

Sanders argued that the reception he saw here in Las Vegas and in other
recent stops, from Iowa to Minnesota to New Hampshire, shows that his
message is resonating with progressive activists.

“This campaign is about you, your kids, our parents, our grandparents," he
said. "It is about having the courage to do something which is pretty hard,
and that is to say very loudly and clearly that enough is enough, that this
government, our country belongs to all of us and not just a handful of
billionaires."

Climate change is a core theme of Sanders's pitch to voters, but he added a
new line to his stump speech, referring to Pope Francis's call to action,
issued Thursday from the Vatican, that the burning of fossil fuels and
human activity contribute to climate change.

"As Pope Francis reminded us yesterday, climate change is real; climate
change is caused by human activity; climate change is already having
devastating impact in America and around the world," Sanders said. He
argued that it is an "international embarrassment" that some U.S. senators
from the Republican Party continue to deny climate change science.

*Bernie Sanders and immigration? It’s complicated
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-and-immigration-its-complicated-119190.html>
// Politico // Seung Min Kim – June 19, 2015 *

Running as a presidential hopeful in 2016, Bernie Sanders has touted his
support for immigration reform and the need to find a solution to a problem
that has long vexed Washington.

But in 2007, Sanders was part of the charge from the left to kill an
immigration overhaul bill.

Back then, the Vermont independent warned that the immigration bill — a
product from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
— would drive down wages for lower-income workers, an argument that’s been
used by hard-liner reform opponents. He paired with conservative Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa) on a restrictive immigration amendment. And Sanders
backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while
voting to block the final measure in June 2007.

Sanders’ history on immigration that year is complicated. But his overall
record has come under renewed attention after criticism that the senator
was being too quiet on the issue during his long-shot campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination.

He plans to address immigration when he appears before a conference of
Latino officials on Friday in Las Vegas.

Sanders, more comfortable speaking in the language of income inequality and
economic populism, has largely skipped over immigration while campaigning —
a silence that prompted Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) to muse in a
television interview last week: “I don’t know if he likes immigrants
because he doesn’t seem to talk about immigrants.”

“He’s running for the nomination of my party, and my party has made pretty
clear that immigration is a top-tier issue,” Gutierrez said, explaining why
he pushed Sanders on the topic. Still, Gutierrez added: “I have no reason
to doubt his authenticity and sincerity.”

For all his rhetoric in 2007, Sanders didn’t oppose a pathway to
citizenship or efforts to boost border security. That chapter in Sanders’
immigration record reflects less on his support for the issue and more on
his alliance to labor — and key unions also opposed the 2007 legislation.

“Sanders was basically one of our only allies … especially for low-skilled
workers” in 2007, said Ana Avendano, a former top immigration official at
the AFL-CIO. “He adamantly put his foot down and said these kinds of
programs [allow] employers to bring in more and more vulnerable workers.”

For some overhaul supporters, Sanders’ stance was a blow in 2007.

“I wasn’t happy when he voted against the bill and I wasn’t happy we lost.
It hurt,” said Frank Sharry, a longtime veteran of Washington’s immigration
battles. “In retrospect, we realized that the only way we can proceed is
that progressive forces are united behind the bill, and then you negotiate
from strength with the business community and conservatives on employment
and business immigration.”

Fast forwarding to today, Sanders’ immigration stance is still notable,
though more for how muted it has been compared to his competitors’ views.
Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have aggressively
tackled the issue. Clinton has pledged to go further than President Barack
Obama has on shielding immigrants here illegally from deportations, while
O’Malley vowed to take on reform within the first 100 days as chief
executive.

After Gutierrez’s comments last week, Sanders inserted new remarks in his
stump speech in Des Moines, calling for a “rational immigration process”
that differed from the “Republican alternatives of self-deportation or some
other draconian non-solution.”

In a brief interview, Sanders said Gutierrez’s criticism didn’t influence
his decision to include immigration in his stump speech. The senator also
said he would speak on the issue during his Friday Las Vegas event.

“We’ll have a very strong statement on the need for comprehensive
immigration reform,” Sanders said, previewing his remarks at the gathering
of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
“It’s an issue that I’ve been involved in.”

The son of Polish immigrants, Sanders has a record on immigration that’s
broadly praised by advocates.

In December 2010, Sanders voted for the Dream Act — legislation that would
have legalized immigrants brought to the United States illegally as
children. It passed the Democratic-led House, but blocked in the Senate.
Sanders voted with all Senate Democrats to support the so-called Gang of
Eight bill in 2013.

And last year, when Sanders began flirting with a presidential run, he
pressed Obama on taking executive action for millions of undocumented
immigrants at a time when moderate Senate Democrats up for reelection
fretted over the White House acting on its own on deportations.

But in 2007, Sanders was far from a reliable vote for immigration reform in
the Senate.

The problem for Sanders was a guest-worker program that some immigration
advocates and Democratic lawmakers begrudgingly accepted as part of a
comprehensive deal — but was abhorred by labor unions and their allies on
Capitol Hill.

“What concerns me are provisions in the bill that would bring low-wage
workers into this country in order to depress the already declining wages
of American workers,” Sanders said in May 2007. “With poverty increasing
and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into
even more economic distress.”

The guest-worker program proposed in the 2007 bill would bring in foreign
workers for two years at a time, but force them to leave the United States
for a year in between each renewal. It also offered few protections for
those workers, labor advocates said.

In early June of that year, Sanders proposed an amendment with Grassley
that would ban companies that have laid off workers en masse from being
approved for new worker visas.

Then-Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) pitched an amendment to end that
guest-worker program after five years, which passed by one vote and has
since been called a poison pill that helped scuttle the bill. Sanders voted
in favor of Dorgan’s amendment, as did Clinton.

“Sanders was very active in trying to reduce the guest-worker parts of the
‘07 bill,” said Roy Beck, the executive director of Numbers USA, a group
that calls for stricter immigration laws. “It was remarkable that Sanders
went along with that in 2013.”

The 2007 measure splintered both parties in the Senate — as a coalition of
conservative Republicans, union-friendly liberals and centrist Democrats
banded together to block the legislation and effectively killed immigration
reform under President George W. Bush.

Other labor-backed Senate Democrats, such as Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Debbie
Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa, sided with Sanders. But
Clinton voted to advance it, as did then-Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and
Joe Biden of Delaware.

In contrast to the failed 2007 push, labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
in 2013 struck an agreement for lower-skilled immigrant workers — a
landmark deal that was key to the Senate proposing and passing its
comprehensive bill in June that year.

But even though he ultimately voted for it, Sanders wasn’t too keen on
guest-worker plan in 2013, either.

The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import
hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from
overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the
sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled
immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision.

Sanders ultimately secured a sweetener in the final days of the 2013
immigration battle: a $1.5 billion youth jobs program that, on its face,
appeared to have little to do with immigration.

It would dole out that money to states to help 16- to 24-year-olds in the
United States become employed, which Sanders proclaimed would help more
than 400,000 young people. He argued that his youth jobs program was
necessary to offset the immigrants coming here to do jobs that Sanders said
the young Americans would otherwise do.

“Like any piece of complicated legislation, there are aspects of this bill
which I strongly support and others I disagree with,” Sanders after he
voted to pass the 2013 bill. “One of the areas I have serious concerns
about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase
in guest-worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely
high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled
workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.”

That wasn’t too far off from Sanders in 2007 — except that back then, he
voted against the bill.

“At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and
millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no
sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years,
would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared
to work for lower wages than American workers,” Sanders said after that
year’s bill died. “We need to increase wages in this country, not lower
them.”

*Sanders gains with blunt talk of rich vs. poor
<http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-vermont-iowa-blunt-talk-rich-poor/28970237/>
// AP // June 19, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders likes to call it "practicing democracy." He doesn't take the
stage to a blaring soundtrack. He doesn't have a teleprompter or a phalanx
of Secret Service agents surrounding him. But when his Brooklyn accent
booms out at a campaign stop in rural Iowa, heads nod along in approval.

"What I'm doing in this campaign is trying to tell the people the truth —
but a truth which is not heard a whole lot in Washington or discussed a lot
in the media," Sanders said recently at a picnic in Iowa's Warren County,
south of Des Moines.

"So let me lay it out on the table for you," he said. "You're living in a
country today which has more wealth and income inequality than any major
industrialized nation on earth."

In a race for the Democratic presidential nomination with Hillary Rodham
Clinton, the blunt talk about the economy and the gap between the rich and
poor is working for Sanders. The independent senator from Vermont is an
unconventional messenger at a time when many politicians test-drive what
they want to say in polls and with focus groups.

Sanders is drawing sizable crowds in the early voting states. He's also
gaining against Clinton in very early polls, particularly in New Hampshire,
a factor that impresses the political class even though opinion surveys at
this point are limited in predicting who will win.

Clinton remains the race's overwhelming favorite, but there's no question
that the 73-year-old self-described democratic socialist, whose disheveled
white hair might remind some of Doc Brown from "Back to the Future," isn't
just a novelty.

"This is a unique individual," said Iowa Democratic state Rep. Scott Ourth,
who introduced Sanders last weekend at the picnic in Indianola. "This guy
has only one standard. If it's right for people, he's going to fight for
it. If it's bad for people, he's going to take a stand against it."

Drawing unexpectedly large crowds, the campaign has moved a town meeting
planned in Las Vegas on Friday into a more spacious venue.

About 5,000 people are expected at a rally Saturday at the University of
Denver.

"The challenge for us, really, is that at this point the crowds are way
ahead of us," said Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver.

Sanders is running with a relentless focus on policy. He rarely talks about
his family, other than mentioning his four children and 7 grandchildren
when explaining the importance of confronting climate change. In
Minneapolis he was joined on stage by his wife, Jane, and noted they had
just celebrated their 27th wedding anniversary.

He's promoting a massive government-led jobs program to fix roads and
bridges. He wants a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and higher taxes on the
wealthy and Wall Street. He advocates for a single-payer health care
system, an expansion of Social Security benefits and debt-free college.

He's combative, too.

Sanders often points to some European and Scandinavian countries that
provide subsidized or free education, universal health care and generous
family leave policies as models for the U.S.

While speaking to graduate students recently, Sanders asked a student from
Finland whether his country is "crazy" to pay for his education. Then he
grilled the students about U.S. policy on paid sick leave for new parents.

"C'mon guys, you're in graduate school!" he barked. "What are you teaching
these guys? Do you know anything?"

One woman yelled, "None," meaning no national policy on such leave.
Nodding, Sanders instructed the students that people in Finland get paid
leave after they have children.

"Ahhh. Now I want to get everybody very nervous," Sanders said
sarcastically. "This is called European socialism! Terrible, horrible,
right? Because none of you want to be able to go to college and graduate
school tuition-free.

"None of you, when you have kids, want the opportunity to bond with your
kids. Terrible! European socialism!"

His speeches often reflect such a black-and-white view of the world. He
rarely mentions that tax rates in such countries are far higher than in the
U.S.

It's a style that couldn't be more different than Clinton's.

Hours before the first major rally of her campaign, Clinton released a
Spotify playlist of songs, featuring music by Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson
and Sara Bareilles. One of her campaign Twitter feeds showed a green
silhouette of her head wearing trendy headphones.

Clinton has been traveling with Secret Service agents since her husband's
presidency in the 1990s.

Sanders shows up at rallies and events with a small contingent of aides. In
Indianola, he carried a folded piece of paper scrawled with notes while he
spoke.

Other presidential candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire will linger long
after their speeches, trying to shake every hand and make a personal
connection with a potential voter. Sanders doesn't make a lot of small
talk. After receiving a standing ovation in Indianola, he was stopped
repeatedly for photos and handshakes — which he obliged — but he kept
moving.

"Very quickly, very quickly," he said to one man requesting a photograph.

For all of that, the woman he's challenging is perhaps the most dominant
front-runner within the party in a generation.

"Clinton is going to be a safer bet," said John MacBride, a 24-year-old
Sanders supporter who drove from Kansas City to see him speak. "A lot of my
peers think she's a safer bet. But they like what he says better."

*Bernie Sanders Faces Awkward Issues for His Liberal Allies: Immigration
and Guns
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/bernie-sanders-faces-awkward-issues-for-his-liberal-allies-immigration-and-guns>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – June 19, 2015 *

Senator Bernie Sanders is positioning himself as the furthest-left
mainstream presidential candidate, but on Friday he ended up confronting
two of the issues where he’s most at odds with liberals: immigration and
guns.

Speaking to a gathering of Latino government officials, Sanders touted his
support for a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws, saying he backs a
path to full citizenship for the undocumented as well as efforts to improve
working conditions for immigrants.

“It is not acceptable to me and I think a growing majority of the American
people that millions of folks in this country are working extremely hard
but they are living in the shadows and that has got to end,” Sanders told
the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
convention, drawing a substantially smaller crowd than another hopeful for
the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, did a day earlier.

Sanders talked up his support of the 2013 Senate immigration bill, which
included a measure linking new immigration laws to heightened border
security. On Friday, though, he said he opposes "tying immigration reform
to the building of a border fence.”

Addressing the Immigration Issue

Sanders’ speech marked his first extended discussion of immigration, an
issue that his campaign has downplayed. It was missing from his
announcement speech in May, drawing the criticism of liberal commentators
and at least one outspoken immigrant rights advocate. It was also missing
during last week's visit to Marshalltown, an Iowa town with a sizable
Latino population, when he faced sharp questions from an immigration
advocate.

"I don’t know if he likes immigrants, because he doesn't seem to talk about
immigrants. But sooner or later he’ll tell us. I hope he likes immigrants.
I haven’t heard him say anything. He’s been kind of quiet and silent,"
Illinois Rep. Luis Gutiérrez said last week in an interview with Larry
King.

Gutiérrez is a Clinton supporter but told King that he’s also satisfied
with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s position on the immigration.

During last summer’s border crisis, Clinton supported the Obama
administration’s general approach, saying that children who had arrived in
the United States "should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who
responsible adults in their families are.” The country, she said, needs to
“send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border
doesn’t mean your child gets to stay.”

O’Malley, though, bucked his party’s leader and said that the United States
is not a "country that should turn children away and send them back to
certain death.” Sensing Clinton’s vulnerability a year later, Sanders
offered a critique. “It was wrong for some to suggest turning away the
unaccompanied Central American children along the border,” he said.

Avoiding Gun Talk

Earlier Friday, speaking to a crowd of more than 700 that had gathered for
a town hall discussion in a ballroom at the Treasure Island casino after
RSVPs outpaced plans for a smaller space at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, Sanders avoided talk of guns during his stump speech, even when
discussing Wednesday’s mass shooting at a church in Charleston, S.C.

When started taking questions, though, one audience member went for it,
saying that she sees a need for tougher gun laws.

Sanders framed his response with his backstory, telling the woman: “I come
from a state that has zero gun control and it also has a very low crime
rate.” Even so, Vermonters "are more than aware that we have guns in the
hands of people who should not have those guns. There are weapons out there
that have nothing to do with hunting but are designed to kill people and
kill them quickly. So those are issues that must be dealt with.”

Sanders first got to Congress in 1990 after beating Republican Rep. Peter
Smith, who had voiced support for an assault weapons ban, drawing the ire
of the NRA, which ended up campaigning against him, though not directly for
Sanders. Once Sanders got to the House, he opposed the Brady Bill, in what
one article at the time called an “especially incongruous” position.

But Sanders’ explanation then and in the quarter-century since has been
that he takes his stance on behalf of all Vermonters, many of whom see guns
as essential to rural life.

Asked after his town hall by a reporter on how those issues could be dealt
with, Sanders avoided getting specific.

“I think rural America needs to understand what urban America fears. Urban
America needs to understand the culture of rural America,” he said.

Pressed on what he would do as president, he said only: “I will talk about
guns at some length but not right now.”

*Clinton, Sanders, Paul top Facebook chatter in key early presidential
states
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/19/270552/clinton-sanders-paul-top-facebook.html>
// McClatchy // David Lightman – June 19, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s winning big in the “Facebook poll” in New Hamsphire and
South Carolina, but Bernie Sanders is right behind. And among Republicans,
Rand Paul is on top.

Those are the results of Facebook “interactions,’’ which include likes,
posts, comments and shares, over the past month. The data cover May 13 to
June 13.

No one knows, of course, how much influence Facebook and social media will
have, but at the moment, Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, is clearly
the most talked-about candidate. Her 289,000 Iowa interactions are far
ahead of runnerup Sanders, the senator from Vermont, who had 153,000. Paul,
a senator from Kentucky, had 98,000.

Sanders came closer in New Hampshire, which shares a long border with
Vermont. He had 123,000 interactions to Clinton’s 145,000. But he fell way
back in South Carolina, where Clinton topped him, 460,000 to 116,000.
Clinton held her first major rally Saturday, the last day the data was
collected. Sanders held his first big presidential event May 26.

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has been trying to appeal to the
Republicans’ evangelical base, did well in that state, finishing a close
second to Paul.

Here are South Carolina data. The first number is unique people. The second
is interactions:

Hillary Clinton 104,000 460,000

Rand Paul 34,000 132,000

Ben Carson 24,000 120,000

Bernie Sanders 24,000 116,000

Lindsey Graham 43,000 100,000

Ted Cruz 25,000 94,000

Jeb Bush 32,000 80,000

Mike Huckabee 29,000 80,000

Rick Perry 33,000 71,000

Marco Rubio 18,000 48,000

Scott Walker 14,000 39,000

Rick Santorum14,000 28,000

Carly Fiorina 10,000 25,000

Chris Christie 13,000 24,000

Donald Trump 12,000 20,000

Bobby Jindal 8,000 15,000

Martin O Malley 2,000 5,000

George Pataki 2,000 2,000

John Kasich 1,000 2,000

*Bernie Sanders Calls for Broader End to Deportations
<http://time.com/3928948/bernie-sanders-immigration/?xid=tcoshare> // TIME
// Philip Elliot – June 19, 2015 *

Prosecutors in the Colorado theater shooting trial rested Friday,
concluding their argument that James Holmes methodically planned and
executed the 2012 massacre in a case that relied heavily — over defense
objections — on victims’ recollections of the carnage he inflicted inside
the darkened cinema.

Over the past eight weeks, prosecutors weaved experts’ testimony with
survivors’ personal stories to try to convince jurors that Holmes was sane
when he opened fire on a midnight showing of the Batman film The Dark
Knight Rises. The former neuroscience student killed 12 people and wounded
70.

For its last witness, the prosecution called a survivor whose story was
among the most heart-wrenching. Ashley Moser was paralyzed and suffered a
miscarriage in the shooting, and her 6-year-old daughter, Veronica, was
killed.

Moser came to the witness stand in a motorized wheelchair. She described
hearing what she thought were kids setting off fireworks in the theater,
and wanting to leave. She reached for her daughter’s hand, but it slipped
away.

The soft-spoken Moser used a tissue to wipe away tears as she described the
attack. She said it started with an explosion and something spewing gas
behind her, then bright flashes at the front of the room. Moser said she
assumed someone was setting off fireworks as a prank, and she stood up to
take her daughter’s hand and leave.

“Did her hand reach back?” prosecutor George Brauchler asked.

“It just slipped through my hand,” she replied.

Moser said she felt a pain in her chest and fell on top of her daughter,
but couldn’t move.

“I heard the movie still playing and people crying and screaming,” Moser
said, vaguely recalling being carried out of the theater. She learned later
that her daughter was dead.

As Moser testified from her wheelchair, Holmes stared straight ahead,
slightly swiveling in his chair.

The prosecution rested after displaying Veronica’s kindergarten graduation
picture. The gallery was packed, and several victims and their relatives
hugged and thanked prosecutors once the jury was dismissed for the day.

Holmes’ lawyers will now begin calling their own psychiatrists and
presenting other evidence to argue Holmes was in the grips of a psychotic
episode at the time of the shootings and should be found not guilty by
reason of insanity. They plan to begin their case Thursday.

The defense says Holmes’ mental illness distorted his sense of right and
wrong, a key factor the jury must consider in determining if he was sane.
Holmes’ attorneys say he should be committed to the state mental hospital.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Holmes abandoned a prestigious graduate program at the University of
Colorado-Denver before he opened fire at the suburban Denver movie theater
where more than 400 people were watching the midnight premier.

Prosecutors showed jurors nearly 21 hours of Holmes’ videotaped interviews
with a state-appointed psychiatrist who concluded Holmes was seriously
mentally ill but legally sane at the time of the shooting.

On the video, Holmes said he felt nothing as he took aim at fleeing
moviegoers. Halting and awkward, he blurted out that he feared being
stopped from committing what he acknowledged was a crime.

Prosecutors also took jurors on a video tour of the theater, the camera
moving past bodies wedged between rows of seats or sprawled throughout
aisles amid spent ammunition, spilled popcorn and blood. The footage, taken
by an investigator, zoomed in on bullet fragments, bloody stairs and shoes
left behind in the panic to escape.

Prosecutors introduced a brown spiral notebook Holmes kept titled “Of
Life,” in which he scrawled a self-diagnosis of his “broken mind” and
described an “obsession to kill” since childhood.

Holmes made lists of weapons he planned to buy and included detailed
drawings of the theater complex, complete with pros and cons of attacking
different auditoriums and police response times.

Dr. Lynne Fenton, the university psychiatrist who treated Holmes before the
attack, testified she did not have enough evidence to have him detained but
was so concerned after he confessed his homicidal thoughts that she
violated his health care privacy to call his mother.

Trial began April 27 after three months of jury selection that produced 12
jurors and 12 alternates. Five of those jurors have been dismissed — three
amid concern they were exposed to news of the proceedings, one after her
brother-in-law was wounded in a Denver ATM robbery, and one because she
recognized a witness. That left 19 jurors, including seven alternates.

*Where Bernie Sanders disappoints liberals
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/bernie-sanders-immigration-reform-2016/>
// CNN // Dan Merica – June 19, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders has a growing immigration problem.

The Vermont independent senator is an outspoken liberal champion on social
issues, jobs and foreign policy. He is known for his boisterous speeches on
the Senate floor, his blunt style and his penchant for getting under the
skin of his opponents.

But when the newly minted presidential candidate takes the stage at the
National Association of Latino Elected Officials meeting in Las Vegas on
Friday, he will stand before many Latino lawmakers that feel he hasn't been
nearly liberal enough on the issue of immigration.

"It is not his priority," Arturo Vargas, the executive director of NALEO,
said on Thursday. "I think that is one of the challenges his campaign is
going to have to confront."

Sanders does have a record on immigration. He backed the 2013 immigration
reform law, he has worked extensively on migrant worker rights and has
spoken out, at times, about how lower wages impact immigrant families more
than most.

But he helped kill a 2007 immigration push and until recently, the issue
was not something Sanders addressed in his presidential stump speech. When
he kicked off his campaign earlier this year on the shores of Lake
Champlain in Burlington, Vermont, his 3,509 word speech did not mention
immigration.

"He absolutely needs to get up to speed," Debra Guerrero, a member of the
San Antonio Independent School District and NALEO attendee. "If he wants to
serve as our leader ... he needs to be aware of what the future holds and
immigration is a part of that."

Omar Narvaez, a NALEO member and a Dallas County Schools Board of Trustee,
said "it could be a bit of a problem, especially for those of us who come
from southern states or states that border Mexico."

"If you are going to run for president, you have to have some plan or
thought process that you can delver for us," he said.

The Latinos gathered Las Vegas feel that Sanders has not brought the same
forcefulness he usually does to liberal causes when talking about
immigration. Many attribute this to the fact he is from Vermont, a state
that has fewer than 10,000 undocumented immigrants, according to Pew
Research.

Sanders' lack of outspokenness on immigration has caught the attention of
some of his colleagues on Capitol Hill, too.

"I don't know if he likes immigrants because he doesn't seem to talk about
immigrants," Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Illinois told Larry King earlier this
month. "But sooner or later, he'll tell us. I hope he likes immigrants. I
haven't heard him say anything. He's been kind of quiet and silent."

Sanders will address the audience at NALEO on Friday and his campaign aides
said this week that he will outline, in detail, his views.

In a statement to CNN, Sanders noted that, as the "son of an immigrant," he
believes it is "time to bring our neighbors out of the shadows."

Sanders pushed back against the idea that he isn't outspoken enough on
immigration by noting his record of voting for immigration reform and
workers' rights.

"The Republican majority in both the House and the Senate needs to let us
debate and pass real immigration reform," Sanders told CNN.

Polls show Sanders struggling with minority voters.

A CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month found that 5% of non-white
voters supported Sanders for president, compared to 10% of overall voters
who support the independent senator.

By comparison, Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic frontrunner who won a
majority of Latino voters in her 2008 primary vote against then Sen. Barack
Obama -- enjoyed 62% support from non-white voters.

Vargas, the executive director of NALEO, said it wasn't too late for
Sanders, however.

"Immigration is an extremely important issue, it is not the only issues,"
he said. "You have people here who are running school districts. What is
his policy on public education? You have people here running cities. What
is policy on infrastructure? And what is his policy on public safety?

"I wouldn't say he has a clean slate. But he certainly is an unknown factor
and I think tomorrow is an opportunity for him to define himself," Vargas
said.

*Bernie Sanders wants to talk about guns. But not right now.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/bernie-sanders-guns-south-carolina-church-shooting/>
// CNN // Dan Merica – June 19, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders says he wants to talk -- at length -- about guns.

Just not now.

Two days after a white man walked into a historically black church in
Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine people, the Vermont senator and
presidential candidate took a cautious approach on gun control Friday when
speaking with reporters after an event in Las Vegas.

"I think the people of Vermont understand that guns in Vermont are
different than guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles," Sanders said,
telling the assembled journalists that he thinks "it is wrong" when people
are "in some cases suicidal and in some cases homicidal" are "still being
able to purchase guns."

Sanders, saying his home state of Vermont has "zero gun control,"
acknowledged that different parts of the country have different outlooks on
guns.

"I think we need to have as serious conversation about that," Sanders said.
"I think rural America needs to understand what urban America feels. Urban
America needs to understand the culture of rural America. But I think
together we have got to go forward to make certain that people who should
not be having these weapons do not have them."

When CNN tried to follow up with Sanders about how he would handle guns
differently than President Barack Obama, the independent senator rejected
the question.

"I will talk about guns at some length," he said, "but not right now."

Sanders' caution smacks in the face of his usual persona: Blunt, brash and
proudly liberal. Before his chat with reporters, Sanders delivered his
proudly liberal stump speech to an energized audience at The Treasure
Island Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. He framed his campaign as one where
the lower and middle class were fighting against the wealthy.

"Brothers and sisters, this is a tough fight," he said, just before a woman
shouted, "but we are going to win!"

"We are going to win," Sanders responded with a slight smile.

The senator started his rally with a moment of silence for the people
killed in Charleston, a tragedy he said was a remind that "racism, sadly,
remains alive and well in this country and that we have much too much
violence."

As his campaign aides watched closely, Sanders also addressed guns during
his remarks, again contrasting his background in Vermont with urban America.

"There are weapons out there that have nothing to do with hunting and are
designed to kill people and kill them quickly," Sanders said. "And this is
an issue that must be dealt with."

In the eyes of gun control activists, Sanders has a mixed and moderate
background on the issue, something that contrasts with his more liberal
persona.

Sanders voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, a
law that imposed a five-day waiting period for gun purchases and mandated
background checks, and voted for allowing guns on Amtrak. For much of his
career, Sanders has followed the lead of his constituents -- who mostly
back gun rights for hunters -- by keeping a generally states' rights view
of gun laws.

But Sanders has also backed stricter gun laws. He voted for the 1994
assault weapons ban, and after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut in
2012, Sanders backed Obama's failed push for more background checks and
another assault weapons ban.

Even after the 2013 push, though, Sanders questioned whether the
legislation he supported would even work.

"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
told Seven Days, an independent paper in Vermont.

Sanders' reluctance to address specifics on gun control contrasts with his
foremost progressive challenger, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who
outlined specific policy proposals Friday in an email to supporters
entitled, "I'm pissed."

O'Malley backed a national assault weapons ban, stricter background checks
and "efforts to reduce straw-buying, like fingerprint requirements."

"How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our
communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special
interests like the NRA when people are dying?" he asked.

*Why Sanders is a good fit for Warren Backers
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/opinions/sagrans-lenchner-warren-sanders/index.html?eref=rss_topstories>
// CNN // Erica Sagrans and Charles Lenchner – June 19, 2015 *

Elizabeth Warren's rallying cry is simple: If we fight for our values, we
will win. And the question she's asked supporters is this: Are you ready to
fight?

It was that fearless, fighting spirit that inspired us to start Ready for
Warren more than a year ago to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president.
We believe the movement to draft Warren fundamentally changed the terms of
the 2016 debate, and these days, just about every Democrat running for
president seems to sound a lot like Warren. Few people have ever played as
large a role in a Democratic presidential primary without even entering the
race.

But having demonstrated how much support Elizabeth Warren has, we've spent
the past few weeks listening to our grassroots supporters and the
progressive community about what they want to do next. And one thing we
heard time and again is that they're ready to play a big role in 2016,
fighting alongside Warren on issues like trade, student debt, and reining
in Wall Street.

They are also ready to back "Warren Wing" candidates who embody Warren's
fearless brand of progressive populism. And although it isn't just about
the presidency, 56% of supporters have urged us to back Bernie Sanders as
the candidate currently running for president who best embodies the values
that Warren champions.

That's why on Friday, Ready for Warren is launching a new grassroots
initiative called Ready to Fight -- and Ready to Fight is endorsing Bernie
Sanders as its candidate for president.

Why?

Because while Warren is the champion who inspired this movement, the draft
effort was never just about her -- it's about her message and the values
she represents. Bernie Sanders has caught fire in a way that's reminiscent
of the draft Warren movement itself -- from the Internet to town halls in
Iowa, Sanders has captured the imagination and support of people looking
for a real progressive challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary.

One reason we're witnessing such a surge of support for politicians like
Sanders and Warren is that they have given voice to Americans' deeply-felt
frustration that the game is rigged against working people and stacked in
favor of corporations and the very wealthy. For example, Robert Reich,
citing a Pew report, notes that "the percentage of Americans who believe
most people who want to get ahead can do so through hard work has plummeted
14 points since 2000."

While it's harder and harder for working people to get ahead or even get
by, their voices are being drowned out by corporate influence and a flood
of money in politics -- some $3.7 billion in last year's election cycle
alone.

Indeed, a 2014 Princeton study of more than 1,800 policy initiatives
concluded that, over the past two decades, the United States has
transformed from a representative democracy to a country where the elites
hold power and shape policy, regardless of the will of the majority of
voters. We've seen this imbalance play out with the outsize influence of
corporations in the fight over the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership. About
500 corporate trade "advisers" have access and input into the details of
the trade deal, while the text has been kept secret from representatives
from labor and environmental groups, as well as the media and voters.

As the gap in priorities between policy makers in D.C. and people across
America widens, the voices of progressive populists like Warren and Sanders
are growing louder and louder. But to be successful, they need the power of
the people behind them -- people who are willing to stand up and fight.

The launch of Ready to Fight doesn't mean the movement to draft Warren is
over. Organizations don't create movements, and they can't end them. There
is still a real and widespread desire to see Elizabeth Warren run for
president, and Ready for Warren is continuing to organize in order to make
the case to Warren, and the country, that she should be a candidate in the
2016 race. We're a long way from Iowa, and no one knows what the future
holds.

But this effort has always been a bottom-up movement. It's an expression of
a deep and broadly felt desire for leaders who are willing to stand up to
powerful interests and fight for working families. The Warren Wing is on
the rise -- you can see it in everything from the fight against TPP to the
growing momentum around Bernie Sanders, and in the way Hillary Clinton and
even Republican candidates are echoing Warren's themes on income inequality.

We're ready to fight -- standing with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
to make sure the values we share are represented in next year's
presidential election.

*Sanders has favored a lighter touch on gun control than Clinton, O’Malley
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-has-favored-lighter-touch-gun-control-than-hillary-clinton-martin-malley/w28HABk8NLT59aSl5gzZNO/story.html?event=event25>
// Boston Globe // Anne Linksey and Tracy Jan – June 19, 2015 *

Senator Bernie Sanders has built his insurgent presidential campaign by
trying to outshine Hillary Clinton on populist economic issues. But
political reaction to the racially motivated mass murder in a Charleston,
S.C., church this week highlighted an area where he’s out of sync with most
liberals: gun control.

Sanders, from Vermont, a rural state where support of guns and hunting is
part of the political culture, has amassed a mixed record on proposed gun
restrictions in his years as a congressman and senator.

The self-avowed Democratic socialist once earned a C- rating from the
National Rifle Association — not a high mark for a Republican contender,
but one that sets him apart as practically gun friendly among the 2016
Democrats vying for the nomination.

The issue isn’t one that Sanders typically discusses on the stump, unless a
question comes up. But after Wednesday’s church shooting, gun control back
has bounced back to the national agenda. Interest in Sanders and his
positions also has spiked as he has attracted large numbers of people to
his events who are eager to listen to the most prominent liberal
alternative in the field to Clinton.

Clinton’s response to the Charleston shootings was in line with her past
views. She said the country must “face hard truths about race, violence,
guns, and division.” Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and
another Democrat in the presidential race, said the slayings should “call
all of us to action” on gun control. President Obama, too, speaking from
the White House on Thursday, decried the multiple mass shootings that have
occurred since he assumed office, while lamenting the opposition to
stricter rules on Capitol Hill.

Sanders made no mention at all of firearms or gun regulations in the wake
of the attacks at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Instead, he focused on the alleged motive for the attack, calling it a
“tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism that still taints our
nation.’’ A 21-year-old man was charged Friday in the murders of the
worshippers, who were all African-American. Sanders also canceled a planned
trip to South Carolina over the weekend.

On Friday afternoon, in response to questions from the media and an
attendee at a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Sanders said additional gun
control should be considered but noted there are deep differences between
rural and urban areas on the issue, according to Michael Briggs, a Sanders
spokesman.

Sanders, 73, doesn’t own a gun, added Briggs, and he shot a weapon once —
as a Boy Scout.

Sanders’ views more closely reflect a general pro-gun attitude in Vermont,
said Ed Cutler, the president of Gun Owners of Vermont.

“Even the liberals have guns up here,” Cutler said.

He added that he has met with Sanders several times, and the senator has
shown little interest in gun related legislation. In one instance, Sanders
even refused to touch an empty magazine that Cutler hand-crafted to
demonstrate how easy they are to make.

“Firearms is not his issue,” Cutler said. “He doesn’t know a whole lot
about them.”

Sanders has voted against the landmark Brady bill that required background
checks and a waiting period before purchasing a firearm. He supported
legislation allowing guns to be transported on Amtrak trains. He voted for
a a measure to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits in cases of
shootings.

At other times, Sanders has supported gun control measures, including
voting for an assault weapons ban and supporting President Obama’s gun
control package in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School
shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead.

The National Rifle Association awarded Sanders an F rating in 2002 when he
ran for reelection in the House of Representatives. The grade changed to a
D+ in 2004; a C- in 2006 when he ran for the Senate, and most recently
earned a D- when he ran in 2012.

In contrast, Clinton and O’Malley have both earned consistently failing
grades from the organization. The NRA hasn’t issued any ratings yet for
2016.

In the past, Clinton has supported banning assault weapons, expanding
background checks, and banning high-capacity magazines. During a “town
hall” style meeting last year that was broadcast on CNN, she delighted gun
control advocates by saying: “We cannot let a minority of people, and
that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that
terrorizes the majority of people.”

O’Malley oversaw sweeping new gun control legislation in Maryland after the
Sandy Hook massacre, a package that prompted one gun manufacturer to leave
the state. On Friday O’Malley e-mailed supporters under the subject line
“I’m pissed,” and called for an assault weapons ban, stricter background
checks, and measures to prevent so-called straw purchases of weapons where
a person without a criminal record purchases a weapon on behalf someone
with one.

The Republican presidential field, predictably, generally opposes gun
control measures. In response to the Charleston killings, Republicans
shunned the subject of gun control while denouncing the attacks in a church
and highlighting the deep religious faith of the victims.

Gun rights lobbyists have identified former Florida governor Jeb Bush as
one of the most conservative in the GOP side, pointing to his A+ rating
from the NRA and now-famous “stand your ground” law in 2005 that expanded
the rights of people to use deadly force when threatened in their homes or
in a public place. Bush also signed bills that expanded protections for gun
owners carrying concealed firearms, including out-of-state visitors.

While running for governor in 1998, however, he backed a Florida law
mandating background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows.

The NRA lobbied against a bill to close a loophole that allows gun buyers
to avoid background checks following the Sandy Hook Elementary School
shootings. Senators Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz -- who are all
running for president -- opposed the measure, which failed.

Rubio, a Florida Republican who says he has a concealed weapons permit but
does not carry a gun, also voted against banning high-capacity magazines.
He’s proposed rolling back laws in the District of Columbia that prohibit
guns.

Following the Sandy Hook shootings, Rubio said he was open to bills that
would limit access to guns for criminals and the mentally ill. While
running for US Senate, he said he supported background checks and waiting
periods.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who also has an A+ endorsement from the
National Rifle Association, has in recent months voiced support for a
version of Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

In a March appearance in Charleston, Walker highlighted his gun record at a
Republican luncheon. As governor, he signed a law, which he called the
“castle doctrine,” that provides protections for gun owners who shoot home
intruders. He’s also signed legislation allowing permit holders to carry
concealed firearms, including into public buildings including the Wisconsin
State Capitol.

*Ready for Warren Sets Up Outlet for Members to Back Bernie Sanders
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/ready-for-warren-sets-up-outlet-for-members-to-back-bernie-sanders-20150619>
// National Journal // Eric Garcia – June 19, 2015 *

Ready for Warren is no longer exclusively ready for Warren. The
organization is keeping its efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren in place, but
for those supporters who are giving up and want to shift gears and back
another candidate, they have launched a project backing Sen. Bernie
Sanders' presidential bid.

In an email to supporters, the group's organizers said they were launching
an initiative called Ready to Fight, and that when members were asked about
2016, 56 percent supported Sanders, leading the organization to give the
Vermont Democrat its support.

An op-ed for CNN by Ready for Warren campaign manager Erica Sagrans and
cofounder Charles Lenchner explained the decision to back Sanders.

"Sanders has captured the imagination and support of people looking for a
real progressive challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary," they wrote.

But in an email to supporters, Ready for Warren insisted that the movement
to draft Warren effort was not over yet.

"Ready for Warren will continue to be a place for everyone who wants to
organize to make the case to Warren, and the country, that she should run,"
the email said.

By hosting these two organizations, Ready for Warren likely is trying to
settle the predicament of how to keep momentum for their draft effort while
maintaining the energy of people in the tent who are ready to channel their
efforts toward an actual candidate's campaign.

Warren has repeatedly rebuffed pushes to jump in the race from Ready for
Warren and Run Warren Run, which suspended its efforts last week and
instead said it would focus on helping Warren in her fight for progressive
causes.

The boosters who held onto a potential Warren candidacy for so long,
though, aren't all just going to bounce to Bernie Sanders. Saba Hafeez, who
helped drop off signatures to Warren's office to ask her to run for
president, and was a campus organizer at the University of Iowa for the
effort, said last week that she had seen former Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley speak in Iowa City and was planning on seeing Hillary Clinton
speak in Sioux City.

"I haven't decided what I'm doing next, but I would love to work in another
campaign," Hafeez said.

Warren supporters are trying to show the campaigns that they are a valuable
constituency in the Democratic Party, but it is unclear how much of an
influence or help that Warren's backers would be to Sanders, or if their
movement to him would have any effect on Clinton's front-runner campaign.

*Sanders denounces ‘billionaire class’ outside GOP donor’s Vegas casino
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245576-sanders-denounces-billionaire-class-outside-gop-donors>
// The Hill // Jonathan Easley – June 19, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) rallied hundreds of supporters against “the
billionaire class” at a campaign stop Friday in Las Vegas across the strip
from a luxury hotel and casino built by GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson.

“Today we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world,” said
Sanders, a candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination,
according to The Washington Post. “But the vast majority of the American
people do not know that, do not feel that, because almost all of that
wealth today rests in the hands of a tiny few."

"What we are saying to the billionaire class is, 'Your greed, which is
destroying this country, has got to end,’ ” Sanders said.

Sanders called out Adelson by name.

"People like Sheldon Adelson … and the Koch brothers are now spending
unbelievable sums of money [to influence the political process]," Sanders
said, according to the Post. Charles and David Koch are billionaires who
also support conservative causes and candidates.

While Sanders took advantage of the proximity to Adelson's casino, the
location of the rally didn’t appear to be intentional.

He had reserved a room at the University of Nevada Las Vegas but had to
move to a bigger location at the Treasure Island hotel and casino near the
Venetian to accommodate a bigger-than-expected crowd.

Adelson’s net worth is estimated to be near $30 billion. He donated some of
the largest sums to conservative causes in the 2012 election cycle,
spending about $100 million.

That year, he almost single-handedly kept former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s
(R-Ga.) campaign afloat by showering an affiliated super-PAC with tens of
millions of dollars.

GOP candidates in the 2016 race have been lining up to seek his support.

*Ready for Warren endorses Sanders
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245541-ready-for-warren-endorses-sanders>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19, 2015 *

Two top officials with Ready for Warren, the group that attempted to nudge
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) into a presidential bid, are throwing their
support behind Sen. Bernie Sanders, who appears to be Hillary Clinton’s
progressive foil.

“While Warren is the champion who inspired this movement, the draft effort
was never just about her — it's about her message and the values she
represents,” Erica Sagrans and Charles Lenchner write in an opinion piece
on CNN released Friday morning.

“Bernie Sanders has caught fire in a way that's reminiscent of the draft
Warren movement itself — from the Internet to town halls in Iowa, Sanders
has captured the imagination and support of people looking for a real
progressive challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary.”

Sagrans is the campaign manager for the group, which has now rebranded
itself as Ready to Fight. Lenchner is the group’s co-founder.

Sanders has emerged as Clinton’s leading opponent from the left. While he
still trails Clinton by significant margins in most national and statewide
polls, he’s racking up strong poll numbers in New Hampshire and is drawing
large crowds in Iowa.

The two write that 56 percent of the group’s supporters have asked it to
back Sanders, whom the article frames as the new torchbearer of the “Warren
Wing.”

“You can see it in everything from the fight against TPP to the growing
momentum around Bernie Sanders, and in the way Hillary Clinton and even
Republican candidates are echoing Warren's themes on income inequality,”
the op-ed says.

The Ready for Warren rebrand comes weeks after another group, Run Warren
Run, suspended operations after it delivered a petition of 365,000
signatures urging Warren to run.

*Bush, Sanders and the long, slow death of the GOP
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/245542-bush-sanders-and-the-long-slow-death-of-the-gop>
// The Hill // Bernie Quigley – June 19, 2015 *

I wrote here in late February, making the case that former Gov. Jeb Bush
(R-Fla.) has had turnings in life which he responded to positively as a
family man: His wife didn't like to cook so he simply took the job of
cooking for family and kids. He was raised an Episcopalian and she a Roman
Catholic and he converted to Catholicism so as to unite the family. In both
cases, he made the selfless decision to do what needed to be done to keep
the family whole. These acts and judgments in the family microcosm reflect
the most essential nature of an individual, and they show Bush to be a man
of substance.

On the other hand, he is not exactly an Alpha Dog. In the whole crew rising
to 2016, possibly former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is most
effectively an Alpha Dog. And in the recent conservative oeuvre which
weirdly affirms the marginal — bikers, hillbillies, mountain free church
preachers, yellers, Phil Robertson and Church Norris — she is also the most
urbane. Do conservatives really want to win?

It might also be not unfair to note that Bush appeared to reject out of
hand the family path of Sen. Prescott Bush (R-Conn.) and President George
H.W. Bush and their tradition of capable public service, perhaps running
away from the New England family tradition scorned as "W.A.S.P." (white
Anglo-Saxon Protestant) in his college years, even though it was that
tradition that provided the backbone of establishment America from
President John Adams to the Kennedy period.

Instead, he headed below the border to find the better life and it might be
said that he escaped from the "Bush name" and the W.A.S.P. baggage. But
isn't this the distinct American character which brings some to want
another Bush? Do they not want what H.W. brought to the Oval Office: steady
and dependable patrician reliability?

He is, as he says, an "introvert," and as such, he would likely be in time,
possibly a very short time, uncomfortable as president. And so would we.
(He would be an excellent priest or pope.) My wife and I are introverts.
Introverts are librarians and solitary writers with cats who look forward
to eating supper in front of the TV, watching "24."

Already, he is getting testy with Neil Cavuto on Fox, one of the most
gentle and companionable commentators on TV. I'm not sure that he actually
wants to be president, but is getting encouraged to do so by Henry
Kissinger and Fred Barnes and that crowd. New York money has been pouring
in, thinking him to be the best bet.

It may be a problem this time around that conservatives have convinced
themselves that they will be running against Hillary Clinton and it will be
a cakewalk, so they can send in young, inexperienced "new" people from the
far red margins. Bush would likely win against Hillary and that, as far as
I can see, is his only value.

But I am not so sure that Clinton will get the nomination. They failed to
anticipate Bernie.

The millennial generation will soon rise to action, and it is beginning to
swarm around Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). His old socialist
approach is a radical departure from what we have seen in the last 25
years. One of my millennials emailed home this week to say of Clinton/Bush:
"Thanks, but we're tired of your families."

Today, Sanders's approach may be winning the millennials, the group said to
be essential to the turn and rise of the century. Sanders is everywhere on
their indigenous means of communication, Facebook and Twitter. He may be
their Gray Champion. President Obama might have been that figure, but his
inexplicable insistence on the imperious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
ruins everything. And TPP could well be the trigger for the new generation
rising.

Generational theorists predict, accurately in my opinion, that the
generation that rises to action cohesively today will be the action
generation to advance the century, just as the so-called "Greatest
Generation" rose to master its world-shaking events in the 1930s and '40s.
If they continue to follow Sanders's cue, and that of Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the La Passionara of this new movement, it
could bring a slow and painful death to conservatism as we know it.

Millennials are not slackers or sleepyheads, as they are said to be; they
are bright, disciplined and acutely focused. They are — it is — a
generation in waiting. And it may well be waiting for Bernie Sanders.

*Democrats May Keep Bernie Sanders Off New York Primary Ballot
<http://gothamist.com/2015/06/18/bernie_sanders_new_york.php> // Gothamist
// Emma Whitford – June 18, 2015 *

Vermont Senator/Indie Rocker Bernie Sanders is an Independent on paper,
which means that he's going to have a hard time getting his name on the
Democratic presidential primary ballot in New York to compete with Taylor
Swift fan Hillary Clinton next year.

Why? Meet Wilson-Pakula, a very obscure state law. The Wilson-Pakula act,
which passed in New York State back in 1947, bars any candidate from
running for the nomination of a political party that he or she is not
officially affiliated with. Unless, that is, he or she manages to get
permission from that party's committee leaders.

Sadly, Wilson-Pakula helped marginalize some of the political movements
that Bernie supports. According to the Washington Post, pre-1947,
"communist and socialist candidates had been able to become candidates...
after winning support from voters." In other words, back then, average New
Yorkers got to make candidacy appointments.

Under current law, permission to cross party lines is, apparently, very
rarely granted. It doesn't help that the relevant committee in New York
State has a lot of Hillary supporters: From Assembly Chair David Paterson,
to Governor Cuomo himself who, as Capital put it, "controls most of the
party apparatus."

Undeterred, as of this writing, 4,269 people have signed an online petition
to "GET BERNIE SANDERS ON BALLOT IN NEW YORK." From the letter, addressed
to Governor Cuomo and David Paterson:

We believe that selecting candidates to represent us is one of the core
functions of the people. Thus, we stand in solidarity with Governor Cuomo's
call to repeal the Wilson Pakula law. The Wilson Pakula law, which requires
a candidate from one party obtain permission from party bosses to run as a
candidate from another party, is antiquated and not Democratic.

Indeed, as recently as the spring of 2013, Cuomo proposed an end to
Wilson-Pakula, following the arrest of then-Senate majority leader Malcolm
Smith, a Democrat, after he tried to bribe Republican leaders to grant him
permission to run for mayor on their ticket.

Another wrinkle for all of the New York Sanders groupies out there: While
there are no party affiliation requirements in presidential elections,
primaries in several states, New York included, require voting along party
lines. As one Redditer put it yesterday, "I wonder if all the Bernie fans
realize they have to register as democrats to vote for him?"

*Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a
good fight
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate>
// Guardian // Paul Lewis – June 19, 2015 *

The diplomatic overture was dispatched to Hu Yaobang, chairman of the
Chinese Communist party, on 29 October 1981. A near-identical letter was
sent to the Kremlin, for the attention of Leonid Brezhnev, general
secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union.

“Like an unconscious and uncontrollable force, our planet appears to be
drifting toward self-destruction,” the newly installed socialist leader of
somewhere called Burlington wrote. He urged them “in the strongest possible
way” to disarm militarily and begin immediate negotiations with other world
leaders.

Bernie Sanders, the ardently leftwing mayor of Vermont’s largest city,
dispatched similar missives to Downing Street, the Élysée palace and the
White House, before releasing a statement declaring: “Burlingtonians cannot
calmly sit back and watch our planet be destroyed – with hundreds of
millions of people incinerated.”

The correspondence, unearthed by the Guardian, confirms what has long been
said of America’s longest-serving independent member of Congress who, at
the age of 73, recently launched a bid for the Democratic nomination for
president. Bernie Sanders is unafraid of punching above his weight.

Never has that been more the case than now. Six weeks into his campaign,
Sanders has gained the kind of momentum few expected from the Vermont
senator, establishing himself as the primary obstacle between Hillary
Clinton and the Democratic ticket for the White House.

His national poll rating has more than doubled, to over 10%, in little over
a month. His rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire have been attracting crowds
larger than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Hard copies of his
memoir – mostly a dry recitation of a 1996 congressional race – are
suddenly selling for more than $250 on Amazon.

The race for the 2016 presidential nomination is in its infancy, and
Clinton remains the clear frontrunner by a margin most political analysts
believe is all but unassailable. But Sanders is changing the contours of
the race: the rise of a hard-left politician, long battling to to be heard
from the sidelines, is now the first unexpected twist in the Democratic
primary contest.

The Guardian has spoken to close to a dozen of Sanders’ closest friends,
family, confidants and operatives. They paint a picture of a politician who
has spent a lifetime obsessed with the same issues that still drive him
today, and is now wrestling with the demands of a 2016 presidential race.

For his part, Sanders suggested in an interview with the Guardian that some
of his policies remain a work in progress, but rejected the notion that his
surge in popularity should come as a surprise. “I am a United States
senator, I did win my last election with 71% of the vote,” he said last
week. “So it’s not just like someone just walked in off the street and
suddenly they’re Hillary Clinton’s main challenger. We’ve been doing this
for a few years.”

The unquenchable optimism of an electric young politician

Sanders was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1941, into a family struggling
to get by on the low wage of his father, a Polish immigrant and paint
salesman. “That created tensions for our parents, and that was an important
part of our life,” said the senator’s 80-year-old brother, Larry, who now
lives in Oxford, England, where he recently stood as a parliamentary
candidate for the Green party.

Larry Sanders recalled his brother’s first foray into politics, some time
in the late 1950s, when he ran for election to be class president at James
Madison high school. Sanders lost, but found consolation in defeat. “The
student who won ended up adopting Bernie’s policy about raising money for
Korean orphans,” Larry said.

The consensus in Washington is that the best Sanders can hope for is a
similar outcome in 2016, using a campaign that will almost certainly end in
defeat in order to pull Clinton to the left. The MIT academic Noam Chomsky,
who was personally invited by Sanders to give a speech at Burlington city
hall in 1985, gave a similar assessment.

“I am glad that he’s doing it,” Chomsky said, arguing that Sanders’
presidential campaign would promote ideas that are rarely part of
mainstream political discourse. “But the chances of him winning at the
primary, or even at the national level, are virtually nil in our system,
which is not a democracy but a plutocracy.”

Sanders told the Guardian he was “not as pessimistic as Noam is”. “He’s
right, we live in an increasingly oligarchic form of society, where
billionaires are able to buy elections and candidates, and it is very
difficult, not just for Bernie Sanders but for any candidate who represents
working families,” the senator said. “But I think the situation is not
totally hopeless, and I think we do have a shot to win this thing.”

That unquenchable optimism has always been a part of Sanders’ career, and
was perhaps forged in the 1970s, the first major chapter of his political
life. Working as a youth counsellor and carpenter, Sanders ran in four
consecutive US senate and gubernatorial elections, representing Liberty
Union, a socialist party born from the anti-Vietnam war protests.

He lost every election he stood in, never winning more than the 6% of votes
he secured in a 1976 gubernatorial race. But these early campaigns gave
Sanders an opportunity to advance his stridently progressive agenda.

One press release – from a Senate race he contested in 1974 – proposes a
radical solution to rising energy prices. “Bernard Sanders, the Liberty
Union candidate for the United States Senate, today called for the public
takeover of all privately owned electric companies in Vermont,” it stated.

The press release discovered by the Guardian is annotated and could be a
draft, and it goes on to describe the policy as a “dollar and cents”
proposal rather than a forced appropriation of the means of producing
energy. (Electricity in other municipalities in America was, at the time,
administered by public bodies.)

But that was never the kind of policy likely to win a statewide election in
Vermont in the 1970s, which was still in a process of transitioning from a
Republican-leaning state to the liberal haven it has become today.

Around 1976, Sanders left Liberty Union and spent a couple of years as an
amateur historian and film-maker, selling educational film strips to
schools across New England. His main project was a short documentary about
his hero, Eugene Debs, an early 20th-century union leader who was a
six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist party. (Sanders remains
fascinated with historical figures and, sources close to the senator
confirm, on the rare occasions he is not working, the senator spends hours
on YouTube watching political documentaries and biopics.)

But that interest in the history of politics has rarely crossed over into
theory. Then as now, according to friends, Sanders had a secret disdain for
what he believed were doctrinaire academics who failed to ground their
ideas in the real world.

Huck Gutman, the senator’s longtime friend – and, until 2012, his chief of
staff – recently tried to persuade Sanders to engage with the work of
Thomas Piketty, the French economist whose research into wealth inequality
has received widespread acclaim. Sanders rolled his eyes and replied: “I
got 30 seconds.”

Given his aversion to intellectuals, it is ironic that two of the senator’s
best friends are leftwing academics at the University of Vermont.

One is Gutman, 71, an English professor. The other is Richard Sugarman, 70,
who teaches Jewish philosophy and existentialism. Two Sundays ago, the trio
was on a picnic bench in Burlington’s Ethan Allen park, reflecting on the
hectic turn of events.

The previous day Sanders had been in Keene, New Hampshire. Like every other
event the senator has attended since announcing his campaign, the town hall
was packed.

Sanders spoke for an hour, railing against growing economic inequality, the
corporate media, millionaires and billionaires, global warming, Barack
Obama’s Pacific trade deal and the Iraq war. The Vermont senator promised
equal pay for women, tuition-free colleges and universities, an equitable
tax system, the right to healthcare for all, an expansion of social
security for the elderly, and tough action against Wall Street banks.

Those lucky enough to have a seat spent much of the hour on their feet, in
wave after wave of standing ovation, as Sanders laid out his platform in
his trademark Brooklyn twang; sober, exasperated, always impassioned.

“The best president in the history of the world – somebody courageous,
smart, bold – that person will not be able to address the major crises that
we face unless there is a mass political movement, unless there’s a
political revolution in this country,” Sanders told his approving audience
of more than 700 people.

The next day, on the picnic bench, Sanders was upbeat as he regaled his
friends with a rundown of the event.

“It was busy in Keene,” Sanders told the professors, according to
Sugarman’s account of the conversation. “You wouldn’t believe how many
people showed up.”

“OK, good. Did they seem sympathetic?” Sugarman asked.

“Yeah, they seemed to get it,” Sanders said. “They really seemed to get
what was going on.”

Not far from the park, Sanders’ presidential campaign team was in the
process of working out how best to tap into that surge of energy.

Money is pouring into the campaign coffers – in the first 24 hours after
his campaign launch, Sanders raised $1.5m. The funds mostly came from
small-money donors, but he still raised more than any other presidential
candidate who has disclosed their first-day tally.

The donations have allowed the campaign to scale up in New Hampshire and
Iowa, where Sanders opened an office this past weekend. The campaign has
hired Revolution Messaging, the digital and social media firm that provided
groundbreaking support to Barack Obama presidential campaign in 2008.

But the operation remains a fraction of the team hired by Clinton; one
senior aide described the process of building a large campaign apparatus as
“a very big challenge and one we’re still working out”. The top operatives
on the Sanders team are – with one exception – Vermont old-timers who have
been at the senator’s side for most of his career.

The senator is anxious about expanding too quickly, and is reluctant to
hire the many Washington-based political consultancies that have been
knocking on his door. “He has concerns that as you run for president,
everybody who is president wants business from you and dollars from you,”
Gutman said. “Both Richard and I said he should depend on his own good
sense.”

But winning election in the tiny state of Vermont is not the same as a
nationwide presidential race. One of Sanders’ campaign operatives, talking
on the condition of anonymity, spoke of the moral incentive for a “50-state
strategy”, spreading resources more equitably across the country. Another
acknowledges the difficulty of managing the boon in grassroots support,
suggesting that Sanders supporters may need to be left to their own devices
and “self-organise, organically”.

Even Sanders, a disciplined politician who rarely deviates from his script,
can give the impression he is still working out the finer points of the
campaign.

Asked how he would transition the country from the Affordable Care Act,
toward the universal, single-payer system he prefers for healthcare,
Sanders seemed unsure. “That’s a good question,” he told the Guardian. “I
can’t give you a definitive answer.” He added that he envisaged a system
“kind of modelled on what the Canadians are doing”.

Pressed on his taxation policy, Sanders said he would “absolutely” make the
income tax system more progressive, but declined to say precisely how much
top-rate earners should pay on their income. “I don’t want to develop
policy off the top of my head,” he said, pointing to the extensive work he
had already done on legislation to close tax loopholes for corporations and
tax Wall Street stock transfers. “We will come up with a progressive
individual tax rate as well.”

It is hardly uncommon for presidential candidates to avoid taking detailed
policy stances early on in their campaigns, although their hand can often
be forced by rivals. On the picnic bench with Gutman and Sugarman, the
senator discussed one of the more peculiar issues on which he may be asked
take a stand: Rhode Island’s governor, Lincoln Chafee, was ridiculed
earlier this month when he launched his campaign for the Democratic
nomination with a pledge to transition America toward the metric system of
measurement.

Both Gutman said Sugarman said they talked to the senator about whether he
too should adopt the policy.

“No, absolutely not,” Sugarman said he told the senator. “Fight it. That
will be our conservative, traditional, issue. You have got to have a few
dialectical issues or you really are going to be a liberal moron.”

Michael Briggs, Sanders’ campaign spokesman, insisted the senator had “no
recollection” of any discussion about the metric system.

It was Sugarman who, in 1981, persuaded Sanders to run for mayor of
Burlington, the rural city 40 miles from the Canadian border where the pair
were roommates.

Running as an independent, Sanders ended up winning the election by just 10
votes, dislodging the incumbent Democratic mayor in a victory that made
national news.

Sanders was the only mayor in the entire country who was neither a Democrat
nor a Republican, and one of the few self-described socialists to gain
public office. Burlington’s political establishment was aghast. “It was
like Trotsky had been elected mayor,” Sugarman recalled. “But it wasn’t
Trotsky. It was Bernie.”

Sanders was re-elected mayor three times, laying the foundations for the
statewide election that made him Vermont’s only congressman in 1990.

It has often been said that Sanders’ eight years in city hall, redeveloping
Burlington’s waterfront and spurring a civic initiative to clear snow from
the streets, turned him into a pragmatist attuned the needs of everyday
people. But that is only half the story.

The University of Vermont’s library has a collection of archived papers
from Sanders’ mayoral years. The documents, which include notes scribbled
on the yellow legal pads that he still uses today, are contained in 50
boxes that, remarkably, have not been inspected since the senator announced
his candidacy for president.

The files confirm how Sanders spent much of his time as would be expected
of a small-city mayor, solving a garbage disposal problem, building a bike
path and securing a minor league baseball team for Burlington. But they
also reveal a concerted effort by Sanders to leverage his modest power base
to affect change in places far away from Vermont.

The letters he sent to the Soviet Union, China, the UK and France, urging
military disarmament in conjunction with the UN’s international disarmament
week, was just one example of dozens of diplomatic initiatives from
Sanders, who used his perch at city hall to influence issues as diverse as
apartheid in South Africa and the US invasion of Grenada.

In July 1981, the UK’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was informed that
Burlington was “deeply disturbed” by what Sanders said was her government’s
abuse, humiliation and mistreatment of prisoners in northern Ireland. And
when François Mitterrand announced a visit to the US later that year,
Sanders wrote to the French president’s wife, Danielle, inviting her to his
“struggling socialist municipal government” in Vermont to speak on any
topic of her choosing.

President Ronald Reagan was the recipient of several Sanders letters
relating to international affairs, most of which concerned Nicaragua, where
the US was covertly funding a guerrilla war against the leftwing Sandinista
government. In 1985, Sanders actually travelled to Nicaragua, for the sixth
anniversary of the Sandinista revolution, and met the country’s president,
Daniel Ortega.

In a letter addressed to the people of Nicaragua, penned in conjunction
with that trip, Sanders denounced the activities of the Reagan
administration, which he said was under the influence of large
corporations. Burlington’s mayor assured the Nicaraguan people that
Americans “are fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs
and economic sabotage”.

“In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that
your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained
and strengthened.” Sanders was the highest-ranking American official to
visit Nicaragua at that time, and returned to the US intent, it seems, on
acting as emissary between the two countries.

In a letter to the White House, Sanders relayed that Ortega was willing to
meet with Reagan “at any time or any place” to resolve the conflict. He
also sought to enlist the help of the Democratic former president Jimmy
Carter, telling him in a letter that he was highly thought of in Nicaragua.
Sanders even invited Ortega to Burlington; the Nicaraguan leader politely
declined.

The mayor’s international expedition was hailed by leftwingers across the
country, and cemented Burlington’s reputation as a magnet for
anti-establishment types. Chomsky was one of a long line of liberal
thinkers, musicians and artists who flocked to the mountain city.

Another was Allen Ginsberg, who visited Burlington in February 1986; a
handwritten and signed poem composed by the beatnik writer is also
contained in Sanders’ mayoral archives. (Entitled Burlington Snow, it
begins with lines about “Socialist snow on the streets” and “Socialist kids
sucking socialist lollipops”, and ends: “Isn’t this poem socialist? It
doesn’t belong to me anymore.”)

Not everyone in Burlington appreciated the town’s transition, under the
supervision of a travelling, socialist mayor, into a people’s republic. The
WMNY-TV station put out an editorial that decried the mayor’s “vacation” in
Nicaragua as “absolutely shameful”.

Sanders told the Guardian that he still stands by the international
approach he took in Burlington, which was summed up in the mantra “think
globally, act locally”. “What you want to do is use your capabilities,
whether you’re a mayor, governor, senator or president – whatever it is –
to make this world a better place,” he said. “During my time as mayor, the
United States was involved in the support of the contras in Nicaragua,
something that I thought was part of the long-term Latin America policy in
support of rightwing oligarchies and against the needs of the poor people
of the continent.”

Burlington’s solidarity with the Sandinistas was cemented the year before
the mayor’s trip, when it formed a sister city relationship with the
Nicaraguan coastal town of Puerto Cabezas.

When Sanders was mayor, Burlington formed an alliance with another city –
in the Soviet Union. When Sanders traveled to Yaroslavl, 160 miles
north-east of Moscow, in 1988, the trip doubled as a honeymoon with his new
wife, Jane. Not much survived in terms of paperwork from that trip,
although the mayoral archives do contain a tape recording of Sanders
interviewing Yaroslavl’s mayor on a boat somewhere on the Volga river.

After receiving a rundown of central planning, Soviet-style, from
Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders notes how the quality of both
housing and healthcare in America appeared to be “significantly better”
than in the communist state. “However,” he added, “the cost of both
services is much, much, higher in the United States.”

The ‘one percent’ – 20 years ago

Burlington was by no means the only American city to develop cultural and
education exchanges in the Soviet Union as the cold war drew to a close.
But Sanders’ broader embrace of international politics during his mayoral
years was by his own admission unique, standing him apart from local
elected officials elsewhere in the country.

He even visited Cuba – a highly unusual journey for any American in the 80s
– hoping to meet with Fidel Castro. The encounter did not take place,
although he did meet Havana’s mayor at the time.

“A number of cities have nice waterfronts, good streets, honest police
departments, and even minor league baseball,” Sanders wrote in his memoir.
“But how many cities of 10,000 have foreign policy? Well, we did.”

Today it is rare to find Sanders talk about the plight of people overseas.
That, friends say, is perhaps the most significant change he has witnessed
in the senator’s political career, as he has become less interested in
international affairs.

Sanders has gradually taken a less keen interest in foreign policy; his
politics have become more parochial, focused on the needs of everyday
Americans. Gutman described the senator’s evolution as becoming more
aligned with the bread-and-butter interests of voters. “The way to succeed
in politics is not to be excessively concerned about the people far away,”
he said.

Foreign policy barely got a mention in his presidential announcement speech
in Burlington at the end of April, except for a reference to the senator’s
opposition to “an endless war in the Middle East”. Sugarman said he
recently discussed with Sanders the idea of making his campaign’s foreign
policy “an extension of his economic policy”.

On the domestic front, in contrast, Sanders has remained resolute through
four decades of political campaigning, sticking to the issues that
underpinned his mayoral years. The central thrust of Sanders’ message –
about economic inequality and the corruption of political power – has never
really changed.

Take almost any excerpt from his announcement address, and the thread can
be traced back in time, often to a speech or article that is decades old
but adopts the very same language.

He was comparing soaring corporate profits and the accumulation of wealth
at the top with a decline in real terms wages of average workers in 1974,
as a Liberty Union candidate for the US senate. He attacked “giant banks
and multimillion-dollar corporations” in his inauguration speech in
Burlington in 1981.

Sanders first started speaking about the richest “one percent” – language
now synonymous with the Occupy movement, since co-opted by mainstream
politicians – as far back as 1996.

Asked on C-Span in 1988 what the socialist mayor of Burlington would like
to see from the next president, Sanders replied that the ideal candidate
would “recognise that we have an extreme disparity between rich and poor,
that elections are bought and sold”. Those issues are the pillars of his
bid for the White House in 2016.

Anguish, a choice, and a breakthrough at long last

So committed is Sanders to his beliefs about economic injustice that it
almost convinced him not to stand for president.

In the months during which he was contemplating his run for the White
House, Sanders reflected on the careers of other progressive politicians,
past and present.

Despite a highly successful career defined outside the Democratic party,
Sanders never contemplated following Ralph Nader’s example and running for
president as an independent. Sanders was adamant he did not want to be a
“spoiler”, sapping votes from whoever the Democratic presidential candidate
is, in much the same way Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.

Another politician on his mind was Elizabeth Warren, the populist
Massachusetts senator who was under intense pressure from the progressive
wing of the Democratic party to mount a challenge against Clinton. Sanders’
friends remain divided over whether he would have run if Warren had decided
to be a candidate. Sugarman suggested his friend would not have entered the
race, saying that had Warren run, she would have saved the Vermont senator
“a lot of anguish”.

“People needed to feel as though they had a choice,” Sugarman said,
explaining his friend’s thinking. “He felt these issues had to come to the
fore.”

Yet even then, there was a third politician Sanders had in mind when he was
considering whether to run. “He didn’t want to be Chris Dodd,” Gutman said,
referring to the Connecticut senator who came last in the 2008 Democratic
primary contest.

Sanders was not worried about what an embarrassing defeat would mean for
him personally – his concern, friends say, was the damage such a defeat
could inflict on the cause of economic justice in America.

“What he was saying over and over again was that he had a responsibility to
the ideas that he represents,” his brother Larry said. “If he went in and
he was badly beaten and humiliated, he could take it. But it would be a
setback to those ideas, and the people who need those ideas.”

That fear, so far at least, appears to have been unfounded. In just the
latest example of his rising standing among Democrats, a Suffolk University
poll released on Tuesday showed the Vermont senator receiving 31% of
support among New Hampshire primary voters – just 10 points behind Clinton.

It is a stunning endorsement of Sanders, who has been beating the same
drum, mostly in vain, for close to half a century. Now, in the twilight of
his career – and very possibly at its pinnacle – the reverberations are
starting to be heard.

“Sadly enough, I suppose, the world has caught up with what I have been
saying for many years,” the senator told the Guardian, adding that he was,
perhaps, “a bit ahead of his time”.

“People are now saying, wait a minute, this is absurd, this is
unsustainable, this is a rigged economy,” Sanders said. “And people are now
demanding change.”

*CHAFEE*

*Only Lincoln Chafee Knows Which Woman Should Be on the $10 Bill
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/only-lincoln-chafee-knows-which-woman-should-be-on-the-10-bill>
// Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – June 19, 2015 *

It's not exactly up there with immigration, trade, and abortion for
controversy: Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew's announcement earlier this week
that a redesigned $10 bill will feature a portrait of a woman is one of the
few feel-good stories of the summer. The decision was roundly welcomed. And
yet the 2016 presidential candidates are having a hard time taking a stand.

Plenty of names have been floated by advocates agitating for the government
to put the face of a woman on paper currency. The organization Women on
20s, through a voting process narrowed the final four to abolitionist
leader Harriet Tubman, civil-rights icon Rosa Parks, Cherokee Nation chief
Wilma Mankiller, and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. (Their primary round
included Alice Paul, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Sojourner Truth,
Rachel Carson, Rosa Parks, Barbara Jordan, Margaret Sanger, Patsy Mink,
Clara Barton, Harriet Tubman, Frances Perkins, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor
Roosevelt and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The group's website offered fifteen,
and then another seventy, more.)

New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who introduced an official Women on
the Twenty Act into Congress, last month said she'd love to see a woman who
had actually served in government on the bill, and suggested Frances
Perkins, the first woman appointed to the U.S. Cabinet and the
longest-serving secretary of labor. But the nation's would-be leaders
refused to pick—perhaps because each has his or her own constituency.

Of a considerable slate of assumed and declared presidential hopefuls, only
one reached by Bloomberg Politics would name a preference: former Rhode
Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, who through a representative selected Rachel
Carson, the marine biologist whose landmark book Silent Spring did much to
advance the environmental movement.

A spokesperson for former Virginia Senator Jim Webb declined to answer,
because the candidate was at his daughter’s graduation, but offered the
following:  “As a very proud Dad of his daughter graduating high school
today I'd guess he would put her on the bill.”

And that was, more or less, it.  A representative for New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie replied, “Thanks for reaching out.  I won’t have a response
in time for your deadline, but thank you again for the opportunity.”
(Bloomberg had not specified a particular deadline.) A spokesperson for
Donald Trump expressed thanks for “offering to include us,” but said “we
will pass on this one.” Same from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s campaign:
“We'll pass. Thanks.”

Bloomberg did not hear back from representatives for former Florida
Governor Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Ted
Cruz, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker—or even Carly Fiorina, whose campaign
has made so much of gender and the importance of boosting women.

What about the woman who seems closest to becoming the first American woman
president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

A Clinton spokesperson, after a day-long waiting period, sent the following
statement to Bloomberg:

Putting a woman on the $10 bill is a long overdue step toward recognizing
the tremendous impact women have had on the history of our country. We’re
looking forward to seeing which woman is selected by U.S. Department of
Treasury – but there’s no doubt that they have a long list to choose from.

That’s it? The woman hoping to run the country, who has articulated her
admiration for Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosa Parks, to name just two, replies:
Let’s leave it to a man.

Good luck with that, Mr. Lew.

*UNDECLARED*

*WEBB*

*Jim Webb to speak to Clinton County Democrats
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/19/jim-webb-clinton-county-hall-fame-dinner/28977269/>
// Des Moines Register // Jason Noble – June 19, 2015 *

Former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a potential Democratic presidential candidate,
will speak at the Clinton County Democrats' annual Hall of Fame Dinner next
Friday in eastern Iowa.

Webb has not formally declared his candidacy, but is exploring a run in
2016 and has visited Iowa several times over the last few months.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Maryland Gov. Martin
O'Malley and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders are officially seeking the Democratic
nomination. Clinton is seen as the frontrunner both in Iowa — home of the
first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses — and nationally.

The Clinton County Democrats Hall of Fame Dinner is scheduled for 6:30 p.m.
on June 26 at Gil's Ballroom in Clinton. Tickets are $30.

*OTHER*

*‘Ridin’ With Biden’ in 2016, but So Far the Vice President’s Not Aboard
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/politics/ridin-with-biden-in-2016-but-so-far-the-vice-presidents-not-aboard.html?_r=0>
// NYT // Peter Baker – June 19, 2015 *

On the whiteboard at campaign headquarters in a spartan downtown office are
listed the day’s tasks. No. 1: “Send out bumper stickers.”

Those would be the “I’m Ridin’ With Biden” bumper stickers featuring the
vice president of the United States in his signature aviator sunglasses
behind the wheel of a favorite muscle car with a slightly mischievous grin
on his face.

Never mind that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is not for the moment
actually running for president. The founders of the Draft Biden 2016
committee refuse to take probably not for an answer. And in this spare
office with a shuffleboard table but no televisions, a handful of
Democratic activists is trying to build the unlikely nucleus of an unlikely
presidency.

Theirs is not exactly a political juggernaut. During a recruiting trip to a
Democratic event in South Carolina, some who encountered the Draft Biden
movement asked if it was a beer. Mr. Biden has not endorsed the effort, nor
called or visited or publicly acknowledged its existence. The closest the
team of activists has come to the vice president during this campaign
season is the life-size cardboard cutout figure of Mr. Biden in the corner
of their office.

But Will Pierce and his band of Bidenistas argue that the vice president is
the best Democrat to carry on the legacy of President Obama and they are
working overtime to convince him of that. They have collected more than
81,000 petition signatures, sponsored house parties, secured endorsements,
made fund-raising calls, issued news releases and, on Saturday, will
sponsor a rally in Davenport, Iowa, all in the hope of luring the vice
president into the race.

“We’re bringing on more people. We just want to show the vice president the
support he has,” said Mr. Pierce, 27, an Army Reserve captain who served in
Iraq and started the draft committee this spring. “When and if he gets into
the race, he’ll have a foundation. He’ll have some endorsers. He’ll have a
grass-roots organization ready to go.”

The draft committee reflects an undercurrent of discontent in the
Democratic Party with the idea of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton gliding to the nomination. The momentum shown by the long-shot
candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has encouraged those in the
party who want a choice.

“We’re trying to engage Democrats who up until this point have felt
disengaged by a coronation,” said Joseph Schweitzer, 26, who serves as the
Draft Biden committee’s finance director.

Mr. Biden has not ruled out a campaign, but he has given no indication that
he is serious about running either. In recent months, he has been consumed
by family crisis as his elder son, Joseph R. Biden III, known as Beau,
battled brain cancer and died last month.

Since his son’s death, the vice president has spent most of his time with
his family at home in Wilmington, Del., but he has made several forays to
Washington in recent days wearing a simple black rosary with a religious
medal on his wrist. Some who saw him at the White House said he seemed
eager to get back into a work routine.

Some Democrats wonder whether Mr. Biden, 72, who served 36 years in the
Senate and ran for president in 1988 and 2008, might emerge from the
tragedy recommitted to public service and give another look at a third
presidential bid. But several people close to Mr. Biden said they saw no
real chance that he would run absent an unforeseen development taking Mrs.
Clinton out of the race.

Still, unlike Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who
consistently said she was not running despite a draft effort, Mr. Biden has
not definitively said no, instead promising a decision by the end of
summer. As long as he is not telling them to stop, the Democratic activists
here in Chicago figure the door remains open.

Mr. Pierce said the committee got its start in his living room a few months
ago when he sent out an email to 2,000 people arguing for a Biden
presidential bid. He then went to the gym to work out.

“I came back and when I saw my email” there were “all these people who
said, ‘We want to get involved,’” he said. “Since then, it’s just taken
off.”

Like the others on the committee, Mr. Pierce has no strong ties to Mr.
Biden. He did some motorcade advance work for the vice president and his
wife. Most of the 10 or so others who work full-time for the committee —
about half a dozen are paid — have worked on Democratic campaigns, usually
in field work or fund-raising. Ahmed Khan, 31, the communications director,
ran unsuccessfully for Chicago alderman and worked for three successive
challengers to Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

But none of them served in senior positions with the Obama-Biden team, and
only a few have met Mr. Biden in passing once or twice at events. Mr.
Biden’s advisers said they learned about the draft committee only when it
announced its formation.

The activists hope to collect 500,000 petition signatures by the end of
summer and have been raising money, although they will not say how much
until the next required reporting period. (“We haven’t found our
billionaire yet,” Mr. Schweitzer allowed.) Their focus has been on
enlisting supporters from Mr. Biden’s past campaigns.

They showed up one day a couple months ago in the office of Roxanna Moritz,
the elected auditor of Scott County, Iowa’s third most populous county, and
won her support. “I love the fact that Biden tells it like it is,” she said
by telephone from Davenport, the county seat. “I don’t believe you have to
be charismatic and do the fluff. I really want to know how that person
feels. And while he’s sometimes too blunt, I know it’s coming from his
heart and his mind. I like that about him.”

Mr. Biden is way behind Mrs. Clinton in any theoretical matchups and few
independent analysts see him as a serious threat. But he does have a
reservoir of good will among Democrats. A New York Times/CBS News survey in
early May found that 53 percent of registered Democratic voters would
consider voting for Mr. Biden versus 85 percent who would consider voting
for Mrs. Clinton.

“As soon as he were to hint or even drop a line to anybody that had a say,
I think that poll number would go far up and we wouldn’t have a problem
about viability or electability,” Mr. Khan said.

*Chasing Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley Court Teachers Unions // US News and
World Report
<http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/19/bernie-sanders-and-martin-omalley-talk-testing-equity-with-teachers-union-chief>
// Allie Bidwell – June 19, 2015 *

The nation's two largest teachers unions are in the thick of their 2016
presidential endorsement processes, having met with the three major
Democratic candidates who have announced their candidacies.

On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders – an independent from Vermont running for
the Democratic nomination – and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley met
with Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association.
Both the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers – the nation's largest
teachers union after the NEA – now have heard from O'Malley, Sanders and
front-runner Hillary Clinton at a time when the party each hopes to
represent in the White House is divided over how to improve K-12 education
in America.

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Divide on Education

"We are asking the tough questions that get to the heart of the issues that
educators, their students and families are facing every day. They see what
is happening in their schools and communities. They know that all students
deserve the support, tools and time to learn," Eskelsen Garcia said in a
statement. "But are politicians willing to commit to the success of every
student regardless of his or her ZIP code? That is the key question that
educators will ask over and over again."

So far, all three candidates have focused on framing education as an
economic imperative that creates the clearest path to the middle class.
They've also put a focus on the needs to reduce standardized testing in
schools and empower teachers – desires the unions share – while staying
away from more controversial topics such as teacher tenure and evaluation
systems, school choice and Common Core.

Sanders is the only candidate so far to focus on problems with No Child
Left Behind in his remarks to the unions, according to excerpts provided by
the NEA and AFT.

Sanders, who serves on the Senate education committee, said there are few
others as opposed as he is to the sweeping education law – which Congress
is attempting to update – and to "this absurd effort to force teachers to
spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests."

"If I have anything to say in the coming months, we would end [No Child
Left Behind]," Sanders told Eskelsen Garcia.

NEA President Lily Eskelsen García met with former Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley on Thursday as part of the association’s recommendation process
for the 2016 presidential campaign.

National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García speaks with
former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley on Thursday at the association's
headquarters in Washington.

Both candidates also made the overuse of standardized testing a focus of
their NEA remarks.

Sanders said it's important to "look at the whole child," and to give
teachers more flexibility to work with their students.

"Teaching kids just to take [a] test in my view does not go far enough,"
Sanders said.

O'Malley, too, said there needs to be a more holistic approach to teaching.

"Increasing the frequency of tests doesn't necessarily increase the quality
of education," O'Malley said. "We have to be mindful of the whole child –
their development, their nutrition, their health. Learning is about more
than that feedback loop of tests and quizzes."

O'Malley used his remarks to focus on his time as governor, saying that
during his tenure from 2007 to 2015, Maryland "made public education a
priority by partnering with teachers, and by not doing less but by doing
more." He also defended the federal government's role in K-12 education,
which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said needs to be scaled
back to some extent.

"No child is a spare American. In Maryland, we came together to forge the
consensus to make the investments at the state level to give our children
the quality education they deserve," O'Malley said. "There's so much the
federal government can do better in education, but we won't do better if we
insist on doing less, not more."

Sanders and O'Malley are far behind Clinton in early polling, though
Sanders has showed some momentum of late, trailing Clinton by 10 points in
a recent Suffolk University poll of New Hampshire.

*What Did O’Malley and Sanders Tell the NEA?
<http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/06/what_did_sanders_and_omalley_t.html>
// Ed Week // Alyson Klein – June 18, 2015 *

The National Education Association is getting started early on its 2016
presidential endorsement process. The union's president, Lily Eskelsen
Garcia, has already met with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S.
Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and a contender for the Democratic nod.

And Thursday, the union met with two more candidates for the Democratic
nomination: Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, and U.S. Sen.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is technically an Independent, identifies as
a socialist, but is running as a Democrat anyway.

Dying to know what did the two leading, Non-Hillary Democratic candidates
in the race have to say for themselves on education? Luckily NEA sent
around some excerpts.

Under O'Malley, Maryland won a Race to the Top grant, changed its teacher
evaluation laws to better incorporate student test data, and it is a leader
in one of the two consortia offering tests aligned to Common Core State
Standards. But he didn't emphasize those things to the NEA, at least not in
the remarks the union sent around.

Instead, he talked about the limitations of testing. And he stuck up for
the federal role in K-12, which isn't so popular these days:

"We need to do a better job of listening to the people who are doing the
job. I've never believed one could make teachers the enemy and expect to
improve student and classroom outcomes.

"The issue of more time in the classroom is related to this holistic
approach about how we educate children. Increasing the frequency of tests
doesn't necessarily increase the quality of education. We have to be
mindful of the whole child—their development, their nutrition, their
health. Learning is about more than that feedback loop of tests and quizzes.

"As president I would make education funding an economic issue and continue
to spread that understanding that the more a child learns, the more that
child will earn and the better for our entire economy. As governor, we made
public education a priority by partnering with teachers, and by not doing
less but by doing more."

"No child is a spare American. In Maryland, we came together to forge the
consensus to make the investments at the state level to give our children
the quality education they deserve. There's so much the federal government
can do better in education, but we won't do better if we insist on doing
less, not more."

Sanders, meanwhile, has been one of the most outspoken Democratic critics
of the Obama administration's competitive grants. But, in his remarks, he
hit mostly on his distaste for the No Child Left Behind Act, which is on
its last legs anyway:

"I am running for president of the United States to start a political
revolution. We have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income in
the country since 1929. The great middle class has been disappearing. The
American dream is disappearing. We have priorities that are absolutely
backwards. There are 45 million Americans living in poverty. A teacher at a
recent town hall meeting told me that 90 percent of her students are
eligible for free and reduced lunch. This is not what America is about.

"Our country belongs to all of us, not just billionaires. No president can
take care of all the problems facing Americans today alone. We need a
movement of working people, of middle-class people, to stand up right now.
If we don't, I worry about the future of our children and grandchildren.

"As I sit on the Senate education committee, it's fair to say that there
are few people on the committee who are as opposed to No Child Left Behind
and as opposed to this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of
their lives teaching kids how to take tests. If I have anything to say in
the coming months we would end NCLB.

"If elected president, we are going to look at the whole child. We are
going to give teachers the opportunity and freedom to work with kids in any
and all ways to improve their lives and to give them the best possible
education. Teaching kids just to take tests in my view does not go far
enough."

For those keeping score at home, NEA and the American Federation of
Teachers have each met with Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley. The NEA doesn't
have any other meetings scheduled just yet, but it's still early in the
union's endorsement process.

It's worth noting that when he ran for president back in 2007, Mike
Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and a GOP candidate again this
time, took the NEA's endorsement process seriously, and wound up getting
the stamp of approval of the union's New Hampshire affiliate, which turned
out to be a mixed blessing for him.

Also, back in the 2008 season, the union didn't elect to endorse in either
the GOP or Democratic primaries.

Still, it will be the biggest edu-political surprise of the year if either
union endorses anyone but frontrunner Clinton, who is continuing to hit
education on the campaign trail.

She told the National Conference of Latino Elected Officials in Las Vegas
Thursday about her plan to move toward universal preschool, expand college
access, and staff "our primary and secondary schools with K-12 teachers who
are second to none in the world, and get the respect they deserve for
sparking the love of learning in every child."

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*BUSH*

*Voodoo, Jeb! Style
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/opinion/voodoo-jeb-style.html> // NYT //
Paul Krugman – June 19, 2015 *

On Monday Jeb Bush — or I guess that’s Jeb!, since he seems to have decided
to replace his family name with a punctuation mark — finally made his
campaign for the White House official, and gave us a first view of his
policy goals. First, he says that if elected he would double America’s rate
of economic growth to 4 percent. Second, he would make it possible for
every American to lose as much weight as he or she wants, without any need
for dieting or exercise.

O.K., he didn’t actually make that second promise. But he might as well
have. It would have been just as realistic as promising 4 percent growth,
and considerably less irresponsible.

I’ll get to Jeb!onomics in a minute, but first let me tell you about a
dirty little secret of economics — namely, that we don’t know very much
about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth. Economists do know
how to promote recovery from temporary slumps, even if politicians usually
refuse to take their advice. But once the economy is near full employment,
further growth depends on raising output per worker. And while there are
things that might help make that happen, the truth is that nobody knows how
to conjure up rapid productivity gains.

Why, then, would Mr. Bush imagine that he is privy to secrets that have
evaded everyone else?

One answer, which is actually kind of funny, is that he believes that the
growth in Florida’s economy during his time as governor offers a role model
for the nation as a whole. Why is that funny? Because everyone except Mr.
Bush knows that, during those years, Florida was booming thanks to the
mother of all housing bubbles. When the bubble burst, the state plunged
into a deep slump, much worse than that in the nation as a whole. Taking
the boom and the slump together, Florida’s longer-term economic performance
has, if anything, been slightly worse than the national average.

The key to Mr. Bush’s record of success, then, was good political timing:
He managed to leave office before the unsustainable nature of the boom he
now invokes became obvious.

But Mr. Bush’s economic promises reflect more than self-aggrandizement.
They also reflect his party’s habit of boasting about its ability to
deliver rapid economic growth, even though there’s no evidence at all to
justify such boasts. It’s as if a bunch of relatively short men made a
regular practice of swaggering around, telling everyone they see that
they’re 6 feet 2 inches tall.

To be more specific, the next time you encounter some conservative going on
about growth, you might want to bring up the following list of names and
numbers: Bill Clinton, 3.7; Ronald Reagan, 3.4; Barack Obama, 2.1; George
H.W. Bush, 2.0; George W. Bush, 1.6. Yes, that’s the last five presidents —
and the average rate of growth of the U.S. economy during their time in
office (so far, in Mr. Obama’s case). Obviously, the raw numbers don’t tell
the whole story, but surely there’s nothing in that list to suggest that
conservatives possess some kind of miracle cure for economic sluggishness.
And, as many have pointed out, if Jeb! knows the secret to 4 percent
growth, why didn’t he tell his father and brother?

Or consider the experience of Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback pushed
through radical tax cuts that were supposed to drive rapid economic growth.
“We’ll see how it works. We’ll have a real live experiment,” he declared.
And the results of the experiment are now in: The promised boom never
arrived, big deficits did, and, despite savage cuts to schools and other
public services, Kansas eventually had to raise taxes again (with the pain
concentrated on lower-income residents).

Why, then, all the boasting about growth? The short answer, surely, is that
it’s mainly about finding ways to sell tax cuts for the wealthy. Such cuts
are unpopular in and of themselves, and even more so if, like the Kansas
tax cuts for businesses and the affluent, they must be paid for with higher
taxes on working families and/or cuts in popular government programs. Yet
low taxes on the rich are an overriding policy priority on the right — and
promises of growth miracles let conservatives claim that everyone will
benefit from trickle-down, and maybe even that tax cuts will pay for
themselves.

There is, of course, a term for basing a national program on this kind of
self-serving (and plutocrat-serving) wishful thinking. Way back in 1980,
George H.W. Bush, running against Reagan for the presidential nomination,
famously called it “voodoo economic policy.” And while Reaganolatry is now
obligatory in the G.O.P., the truth is that he was right.

So what does it say about the state of the party that Mr. Bush’s son —
often portrayed as the moderate, reasonable member of the family — has
chosen to make himself a high priest of voodoo economics? Nothing good.

*Jeb Bush Pledges Debate on Gay Marriage After Court Ruling
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/jeb-bush-pledges-fight-on-gay-marriage-after-court-ruling/?smid=tw-share>
// NYT // Jeremy Peters – June 19, 2015 *

Jeb Bush told a gathering of religious conservatives on Friday that the
debate over same-sex marriage should continue on “irrespective of what the
courts say,” signaling that he would not consider a Supreme Court decision
favorable to gay rights as the last word on the issue.

With the court expected to rule before the end of the month on the question
of whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry,
one of the looming questions for Mr. Bush and the other Republicans running
for president is how aggressively they will respond.

There are many in the Republican Party who have hinted that they would
rather the issue simply go away. And while they may prefer the court not
invalidate state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, they
would welcome a decision that settles the issue once and for all.

In his comments to the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority
Conference in Washington, Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, said he
was not content letting the issue fade away.

“It’s got to be important over the long haul, irrespective of what the
courts say,” he said.

He added: “We need to make sure that we protect the right not just of
having religious views, but the right of acting on those religious views.”

“Conscience should also be respected for people of faith who want to take a
stand for traditional marriage,” he said.

Mr. Bush, who also stressed in the speech the role that his Catholicism
plays in his life as both a private citizen and a public servant, extolled
the importance of raising children in families with heterosexual parents.

“In a country like ours we should recognize the power of a man and a woman
loving their children with all their heart and soul as a good thing, as
something that is positive and helpful for those children to live a
successful life,” he said.

Mr. Bush has not yet addressed a question that seems likely to divide
Republicans if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex couples: Should
there be renewed push for a constitutional amendment that limits marriage
to one man and one woman?

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin recently said that he would support such an
amendment, as have several of the other Republican presidential candidates
who are running as social conservatives, like former Gov. Mike Huckabee of
Arkansas, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Senator Ted Cruz
of Texas.

At least two, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky, do not support such an amendment.

*Jeb Bush’s slam against Washington, D.C.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/19/jeb-bushs-slam-against-washington-dc/>
// WaPo // Glenn Kessler – June 19, 2015*

“This morning I was in Washington, Iowa. Washington, Iowa, is a little
different than Washington, D.C. It’s pretty, the people there are
hard-working, they don’t think that they’re the masters of people. It’s not
the most prosperous place in the world, in the United States. Sadly,
Washington, D.C., is. I don’t know if you know this — Washington, D.C., has
the highest per capita income in the United States. Washington, D.C., has
average home values of $800,000. Washington, D.C., doesn’t have
unemployment. Washington, D.C., has federal workers making significantly
more than the private sector workers for lifetime jobs. Washington truly
believes that it is the master of us, rather than its servant. And the next
president of the United States needs to reverse that trend and put it back
where it should be which is our servant focused on doing fewer things, but
doing them much, much better.”

— Former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), speaking in Pella, Iowa, June 17,
2015

It is a time-honored tradition for politicians to attack Washington, D.C.
But they need to get their facts straight when they do so. So how does Bush
fare with four of the factoid he tossed out in a speech to voters in Iowa,
as he tried to make the case that the District is the ‘most prosperous
place’ in the United States?

The Facts

‘Washington, D.C. has the highest per capita income in the United States’

This claim struck us as a little odd, given that a number of metro areas
generally are often ranked higher than the Washington, D.C., area. The
Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the Commerce Department, says the
Washington D.C., metro area ranks 10th, with a per capita personal income
of $73,461 in 2013.

By contrast, Midland, Tex. ranks the highest, with income of $129,193,
followed by cities such as San Jose, ($100,115), Bridgeport ($93,404), San
Francisco (78,844), Seattle ($74,701) and Boston ($74,701). So the D.C.
area is certainly near the top — the per capita figure for all 381 metro
areas is $52,093 — but not the “highest,” as Bush claimed.

The Bush campaign, however, pointed to other BEA data at the state level,
which at first glance appears to show the “District of Columbia” with a
2014 per capital income of $76,532, higher than the state of Connecticut,
with $62,467. But the District is not a state, and BEA officials note that
this table includes the District but does not rank it. Connecticut is
ranked as number 1. So it’s incorrect for the Bush campaign to claim that
this table shows that Washington, D.C., has the highest per capital income
in the United States.

The District’s per capita income simply should not be measured against
other states; it’s a city.

‘Washington, D.C., has average home values of $800,000’

The key word here is “average.” The Bush campaign pointed to a 2014 article
quoting the D.C. chief financial officer as saying the average price will
hit $813,600 in 2015. But a more recent 2015 forecast shows that the
average price was $736,400 in 2014 and is projected to be $771,200 in 2015.

The median price, according to the article, is around $600,000. Zillow pegs
the median price at nearly $500,000.  (The median is the middle value, with
an equal number of data values larger and smaller.)

So D.C. house prices are high, but not quite as high as Bush claimed.

‘Washington, D.C., doesn’t have unemployment’

This is a strange quote when talking about a city with a 7.5 percent
unemployment rate (compared to Iowa’s 3.8 percent.) A Bush spokesman
explained that “the point the Governor is trying to make is that D.C. is a
boomtown where many more people are moving to find jobs off of Government
largess.” He noted from December 2007 (when the Great Recession started) to
today, the District has had a 9 percent increase in the number of nonfarm
employees, compared to 2 percent for the entire United States, according to
the Bureau of labor Statistics.

Okay, so Bush misspoke. We don’t try to play gotcha here at The Fact
Checker. But if Bush is talking about people with jobs in the federal
government, then he’s looking at the wrong set of data. The growth of
federal jobs in this period was just about 8,000, or 4 percent, the BLS
says. The real growth in jobs – about 63,000, or nearly 14 percent – came
in private industry.

‘Washington, D.C., has federal workers making significantly more than the
private sector workers for lifetime jobs’

This is where Bush is on the strongest ground. His campaign cites a 2012
Congressional Budget Office report that estimated that “on average for
workers at all levels of education, the cost of hourly benefits was 48
percent higher for federal civilian employees than for private-sector
employees with certain similar observable characteristics.”

If benefits are included, “overall, the federal government paid 16 percent
more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had
been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for
certain observable characteristics of workers.”

Workers with professional degrees tend to earn about 23 percent less than
their private-sector counterparts, but they make up only 7 percent of
federal workers, CBO said. Workers with bachelor’s degrees tended to earn
about the same as private sector workers, but workers with no more than a
high school degree tended to earn about 21 percent more, on average.

The Pinocchio Test

Bush would have done better if he had not gotten off-track with some of his
specifics. The Washington area does have one of the highest per capita
income levels, but not the highest. Meanwhile, the District has a
relatively high unemployment rate, while the growth in jobs has been in the
private sector, not in the federal government. He’s right that home prices
are high, if not quite $800,000. And the CBO confirms that federal salaries
are much higher, on average, compared to private-sector workers.

Overall, Bush earns Two Pinocchios.

*Like grandfather, like father, like son: Jeb Bush Jr. joins the campaign
fray
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/like-grandfather-like-father-like-son-jeb-bush-jr-joins-the-campaign-fray/2015/06/19/1092a474-15ed-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html>
// WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – June 19, 2015 *

As his father was on stage here fielding questions from the crowd, Jeb Bush
Jr., the third and youngest son of Republican presidential candidate Jeb
Bush, was playing the role of seat filler.

He sat listening from the bleachers and later hung back quietly as the
candidate posed for pictures with admirers. Earlier in the day in another
town, he watched from a distance, arms crossed, as his father pitched Iowa
Republicans for the first time as an official candidate.

John Ellis Bush Jr. is nicknamed Jebby — though he prefers Jeb — or “2.0,”
as some campaign aides call him. The 31-year-old serves as a frequent
travel companion and active campaign surrogate for his father, with a focus
on building support among Hispanic and millennial voters.

It is a role once played by Jeb Bush himself for his father, George H.W.
Bush, and for his brother, George W. Bush.

Jeb Bush’s oldest son, George P. Bush, the 39-year-old Texas land
commissioner, will play a limited role because of his day job. His
daughter, Noelle, 37, and his wife, Columba, aren’t expected to make many
appearances. When asked this week, Jeb Bush suggested that his older
brother might not campaign with him, either.

Jeb Bush waits to speak to a crowd of supporters in Pella, Iowa. His son,
Jeb Jr., second

But Jeb Jr. has been close to his father for several years. They shared a
Miami office suite, where they ran Jeb Bush & Associates, a consulting firm
that focused on the health-care, technology, energy and real estate sectors.

After deciding last year to run for president, his father divested his
business interests and left his son to run a few projects on his own.

“I basically told him I was all in and happy to do whatever he wanted me
to,” Jeb Jr. said this week in his first extended interview. He said his
father’s initial response was: “You should focus on making money and having
more grandkids.”

Speaking with reporters this week, the candidate pulled Jeb Jr. in close
and said: “My advice is to have fun, do it with joy in your heart, don’t
get too wonky. Use the kind of humor that he’s got to take me down a notch
or two.”

Jeb Jr. has already served as his father’s liaison to major GOP fundraising
events and has headlined fundraisers for younger donors at Miami
nightclubs, Washington restaurants and New York apartments.

“As Dad has said, we’re organizing the win and taking every state
seriously,” he said. “It’s a huge effort. That’s one thing I’ve learned so
far: how much of a massive effort this takes. Not only to potentially win a
primary, but win a general. And also actually to get something done when
you get there. It’s a huge, long process that takes a massive organization.”

Kent Lucken, a Bush supporter and Boston-based banker who is helping the
campaign, said he was impressed by the younger Bush’s demeanor at a Utah
conference hosted last weekend by 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt
Romney.

Active in Florida politics, Jeb Bush Jr. endorsed Marco Rubio, left, for
Florida's open Senate seat in April 2010. (AP/J. Pat Carter) (J Pat
Carter/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

“I couldn’t get over how he’s picked up his father’s tone, his respectful
manner,” he said. “He can speak like his dad. He’s been with him
side-by-side for seven years doing business deals. Most fathers don’t spend
seven years with their sons next to them like this.”

The Bushes are part of a long tradition of large political families helping
a sibling or parent become president. Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy and her
children met with small groups of female voters as her son, John F.
Kennedy, campaigned for president in 1960. Romney’s five sons used an RV to
tour Iowa’s 99 counties in 2008 and fanned out across the country for their
father in 2012. Chelsea Clinton didn’t play an active role in Bill
Clinton’s 1992 or 1996 campaigns, but she is expected to help Hillary
Rodham Clinton in the coming year.

Jeb Bush’s first taste of presidential politics came in 1980, when his
father sent him to Puerto Rico to help win the island’s first GOP primary.
The three other Bush sons, George W., Marvin and Neil, also campaigned for
their father that year in Iowa and New Hampshire. The family did it again
in 1988 and 1992, and for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

George P. Bush and Jeb Bush Jr. first dabbled in politics through MAVPAC, a
committee launched by veterans of George W. Bush’s administration to help
fund GOP campaigns. Jeb Jr. has been especially active in South Florida: He
campaigned for Marco Rubio during his 2010 U.S. Senate campaign and has
been mentioned as a possible candidate for several positions. For now, Jeb
Jr. said, he’s more interested in charitable work with St. Jude’s
Children’s Hospital and helping his father.

Little has bothered him about the media coverage of his father, he said,
but he is plagued by “the anxiety of people not knowing his record and who
he is as Jeb.”

So Jeb Jr. is trying to build out his father’s personal history. At
fundraisers hosted by Right to Rise USA, the super PAC supporting his
father’s candidacy, he told younger crowds that his dad is a fan of
“Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” the 2006 movie starring Will
Ferrell, who is also known for his lampooning of George W. Bush. The former
governor also likes country music, Al Green and Stevie Wonder, his son
said. And with a mother who was born in Mexico, Spanish music often filled
the Bush home.

“There was a lot of salsa, a lot of Luis Miguel,” Jeb Jr. said, referring
to the popular Mexican singer. “A little Cuban influence. But Mom was
always big on the Luis Miguel.”

“My mom still speaks to me in Spanish,” he added. “I made the mistake of
responding in English, so my Spanish is kind of intermediate. It should be
fluent.”

After growing up in Miami, he attended the University of Texas and earned a
Latin American Studies degree — just like his father. Jeb Jr. had a brief
run-in with the law in 2005, when he was arrested in Austin for public
intoxication and resisting arrest.

Now he lives near his parents with his wife, Sandra. She was born in Canada
and is of Iraqi descent; they met in London when he was traveling on
business. Together they speak to their two young daughters in English,
Arabic and Spanish.

In a bilingual interview with ABC News this week, Jeb Bush marveled at how
his young granddaughters are learning three languages. “It’s a very
American mix,” he said in Spanish.

*Five myths about Jeb Bush
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-jeb-bush/2015/06/19/f2143148-15f1-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html>
// WaPo // Brian E. Crowley – June 19, 2015 *

The nation has the chance to vote for another Bush now that Jeb has
declared his candidacy for president. Though his last name is one of the
most famous in the country, much of the conventional wisdom about Bush is
wrong, starting with his first name. (It’s not actually Jeb.) Here are five
other myths about the third child of George and Barbara.

1. Jeb Bush is a moderate.

“Republican vanilla” was how Henry Olsen put it in National Review. Others
have described Bush’s “ ‘very conservative’ problem” (National Journal),
the right’s “wary” response to his candidacy (the Boston Globe), and
similarities between him and Hillary Clinton (Laura Ingraham, who said they
could “run on the same ticket”). At the heart of Bush’s supposedly moderate
ideology: his support for Common Core and immigration reform.

While some conservatives disagree over those two issues, almost nothing in
Bush’s record as governor suggests he’s a moderate. The notion puzzles
Floridians who watched him govern for eight years, during which he pushed
to disrupt public schools by establishing vouchers, grading schools and
student performance, and creating charter schools. He reduced the size of
state government, promoted tax cuts for the wealthy, passed tough-on-crime
bills and bragged about helping Florida have more concealed-weapon permits
than other states.

When Bush left office, “he was widely, unanimously, unambiguously regarded
as the most conservative governor in the United States,” according to Steve
Schmidt, who was Sen. John McCain’s senior campaign adviser in the 2008
presidential race. Darryl Paulson, a professor emeritus of government at
the University of South Florida, said, “He governed as a conservative, and
everyone in the Florida Republican Party considered him a conservative.”
Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell stated it more bluntly: “a
union-busting, school-voucher-promoting, tax-cutting, gun-loving, Terri
Schiavo-interfering, hard-core conservative.”

2. George is the dumb one, Jeb is the smart one.

“When we first started doing [George W.] Bush on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ ”
former head writer Adam McKay told the New York Times, “the ‘Bush is dumb’
joke was too good.”

While George’s unique way with words launched a thousand late-night jokes,
Jeb emerged as the “smart one.” Last year, the Times described the younger
Bush’s reputation thusly: “an intellectual in search of new ideas, a serial
consulter of outsiders who relishes animated debate and a probing manager
who eagerly burrows into the bureaucratic details.”

George the bumbler, Jeb the thinker. Got it. But some who worked in the
Bush White House say the perception that Jeb is smarter may have more to do
with style than with substance.

George’s persona is often one of swagger and verbal stumbles. However,
Keith Hennessey, former director of Bush’s National Economic Council,
argues that “President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard.
He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the
core question he needed to answer.”

Meanwhile, Jeb the policy wonk has had his share of gaffes. During the 1994
gubernatorial race, an African American woman asked candidate Bush what he
would do for blacks in Florida. Bush answered, “Probably nothing.” The
remark followed him through the rest of the campaign.

And last month, Jeb flubbed questions about whether he would have
authorized the Iraq war, demonstrating that, like his big brother, he, too,
can slip when he speaks.

Bottom line: George and Jeb are two intelligent men who happen to express
themselves differently.

3. Bush is Marco Rubio’s mentor.

Last year, National Review asked: “Would a presidential run by his mentor
lock Rubio out of the race?” The Times called Rubio the protege of Bush and
described the senator’s decision to run as a “Shakespearean turn in a
15-year relationship so close, personal and enduring that friends describe
the two men as almost family.”

Both Rubio and Bush live in Miami-Dade County and are heavily immersed in
the Hispanic community. As fellow Republicans, they worked together and
were politically close as Rubio climbed the ranks of the state House of
Representatives, eventually becoming speaker in November 2006. Bush once
gave Rubio a samurai sword. But was Rubio really Bush’s protege?

“I wouldn’t diminish the relationship or exaggerate it,” Rubio told The
Washington Post in February.

Bush was not a “mentor in the traditional sense,” S.V. Dáte noted in a
Politico story that examined the relationship. Dáte also found that Bush’s
archived e-mails don’t suggest a bond with Rubio any more special than with
other lawmakers, and the men took very different paths, marked by very
different styles, to office. One Florida GOP operative told The Post that
Rubio respected Bush but was “not necessarily a protege,” and strategist
Ana Navarro suggested that a Bush-Rubio matchup “would be less awkward for
Jeb and Marco than for a lot of us around them.”

Why the false narrative? A battle between mentor and mentee certainly
increases the personal drama of the campaign; “Marco Rubio vs. His Mentor”
is a much catchier headline than “Marco Rubio vs. other guy who happens to
be from Florida.”

4. Bush will campaign “joyfully.”

Last year, while discussing whether he would run for president, Bush said,
“The decision will be based on ‘Can I do it joyfully?,’ because I think we
need to have candidates lift our spirits.” He’s apparently decided that
yes, he can.

His opponents in his three races for governor would have been delighted to
see Bush campaign joyfully. At home, he ran tough races. In 1994, he aired
a TV ad accusing Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles of not moving fast enough to
execute Larry Mann, the killer of a 10-year-old girl. The spot featured the
child’s grieving mother, Wendy Nelson. Chiles “says it can’t be done; we
know that it can,” said Cory Tilley, Bush’s spokesman at the time.

The ad led the Sun Sentinel to declare in an editorial that Bush was
“showing his utter contempt for the truth, for fair play, for his own
party’s Code of Conduct . . . and for the voters he wants to hire him as
governor.” (Bush left office in 2007. Mann was executed in 2013.)

In 1998, according to the Los Angeles Times, Bush ads portrayed fiscally
conservative Lt. Gov. Buddy MacKay “as having spent his 30-year political
career trying to push through tax hikes on everything from senior citizens’
income to burglar alarms.” In 2002, Bush called Tampa lawyer Bill McBride,
who had never held public office, “a tax-and-spend Democrat, political
death in tax-allergic Florida, which still resists a state income tax,” as
Time magazine said.

Nothing about Bush’s attack ads was out of the ordinary. And he got hit
back just as hard. But it would be a very unusual presidential campaign
that did not use negative ads, and the idea that Bush’s team will somehow
refrain and embrace “joy” instead is unlikely.

5. He has broad support in Florida.

“Return of the GOP King” was the headline of a January Miami Herald story
about the growing Bush campaign machine. Just before Bush formally became a
candidate, Florida’s three elected Cabinet officers and 11 of 17
Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation endorsed him. So Bush
has Florida sewn up, right?

Not exactly. Despite this establishment support, polls suggest that Bush,
who has not been on the ballot in the Sunshine State in 13 years, cannot
take Florida for granted. A Mason-Dixon poll from April showed Bush (30
percent) and Rubio (31 percent) essentially tied among Florida Republican
voters.

A look at past races suggests that Bush could have a hard time. In 1994, he
narrowly lost to Chiles, a reluctant candidate who showed little energy
until the end of the campaign. In 1998, MacKay ran a terrible race and, as
many Democrats predicted, lost. In 2002, running for a second term, Bush
outspent political novice McBride by as much as 4 to 1.

While the latter races offered little resistance, Bush’s toughest test
after 1994 was the 2000 presidential campaign. The Bush family had every
reason to believe that Jeb would help his brother carry Florida. He did,
but only by a very controversial 537 votes.

And much has changed since Bush left the governor’s mansion. One study, as
Bloomberg News reported, “found that nearly three-quarters of Florida’s
12.9 million currently registered voters have never even seen Bush’s name
on a ballot.”

*Jeb Bush Emphasizes Anti-Abortion Record as Florida Governor
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/turmoil-only-sure-thing-if-supreme-court-rejects-gay-marriage>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – June 19, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush drew applause from an
evangelical crowd Friday when touting anti-abortion measures he enacted as
governor of Florida, including parental notice for minors and a ban on
"partial-birth abortion."

"We also put the most vulnerable in society at the front of the line,
guided by my faith," Bush said at the Faith & Freedom Coalition meeting in
Washington. "And we also put the rights of the unborn in the front of the
line."

Bush, whose positions on immigration (he favors a path to legal status for
some immigrants in the United States illegally) and education (he favors
the national education standards known as the Common Core) have put him out
of sync with some of his party's more conservative voters, is placing a
heavier emphasis on abortion than some of his rivals for the Republican
presidential nomination. He is placing his gubernatorial record
front-and-center as he makes his case for the White House.

In 2000, Bush signed measure to ban a late-term abortion procedure. In 2005
he enacted the Parental Notification Act, which mandates that doctors
notify parents of a minor at least 48 hours prior to terminating a
pregnancy.

"When I became governor I was shocked at the total lack of regulation of
abortion clinics, and that parents had no legal role in their minor
daughter's abortion decision," he said. "So what we did was we put
regulations on abortion clinics. And we narrowed the number of them... I
signed into law a partial birth abortion ban." He said he also supported
funding for crisis pregnancy centers.

Later Friday, Bush named David James, who served as senior adviser to Mitt
Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, as political director,
according to The Wall Street Journal. He will oversee voter contact,
campaign volunteers, efforts to maximize voter turnout, Bush spokesman Tim
Miller told the paper.

*Jeb Bush Makes Surprise Pick for Political Director
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/19/jeb-bush-makes-surprise-pick-for-political-director/>
// WSJ // David James – June 19, 2015 *

For the second time in less than two weeks, Jeb Bush is shuffling the top
tier of his 2016 campaign staff.

The job of political director – expected to go to Kentucky-based consultant
Scott Jennings – will instead be filled by David James, who served as a
senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. He
has also worked at the Republican National Committee and helped lead the
Pennsylvania Republican Party.

The political director oversees voter contact, campaign volunteers, and
other grassroots efforts to maximize Election Day turnout.

Mr. Jennings, who advised Mr. Romney’s 2012 campaign and George W. Bush’s
2000 and 2004 campaigns, will work with Mr. James and serve as a senior
political adviser, according to Tim Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Bush.

The shift in staffing comes just four days after Mr. Bush officially
launched his campaign in Miami and 11 days after he decided to name Danny
Diaz as his campaign manager. That job was expected to go to Iowa-based
consultant David Kochel, who will instead serve as chief strategist.

Some GOP donors are concerned that the staff shakeup reflects Mr. Bush’s
failure to establish himself as the clear frontrunner in a crowded GOP
field despite his fundraising prowess and national profile.

Mr. Miller said, “After a successful announcement where Jeb really laid out
how he is uniquely prepared to fix the problems in Washington, we are happy
to be building out a political operation with David, Scott and the rest of
the team that will spread that message in the primary and caucus states.”

*Jeb Bush might have a big problem on his hands if he wins the White House
<http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-bush-corporate-election-campaign-2015-6>
// AP // Annie Greene – June 19, 2015 *

Jeb Bush's deep dive into corporate America, where he served on the boards
or as an adviser to more than a dozen companies, could trigger
complications for him if he wins the White House.

Companies that paid Bush as a board member or adviser regularly hire
lobbyists to press issues in Washington before federal agencies, Congress
and the White House. Others have been fined by U.S. agencies, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, or faced inquiries from the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Some are expected to conduct business beyond November
2016 that will be directly affected by U.S. government decisions.

That nexus raises thorny questions for Bush if he wins the Republican
nomination and the presidency: How would he respond when one of the
companies that paid him seeks favorable treatment or undergoes scrutiny
from the federal government?

That potential entanglement could hamper any presidential candidate with a
history in corporate America, such as Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, the
former secretary of state whose family foundation received big-money
support from corporate interests.

"Anytime you have these kinds of entanglements, there's certainly the
potential for conflict," said Dale Eisman, a spokesman for Common Cause.

Unlike lower-ranking employees, a president can't effectively recuse
himself and pass on a decision to a more neutral supervisor.

Bush began shedding his corporate ties late last year to prepare his run
for president. Potential conflicts of interest involve federal interactions
with companies that paid him millions.

Beyond his own companies and educational foundations, Bush was a board
member or adviser to at least 15 companies and nonprofits after leaving the
Florida governor's office early in 2007, an AP review found. At least seven
of those companies lobbied the federal government in recent years — an
effort likely to continue over a range of issues, such as health care and
corporate taxes.

Bush spokesman Tim Miller said Bush won't play favorites.

"If Jeb is successful in his campaign, special interests are going to find
his administration to be unwelcome territory because he's going to clean
out the broken tax and regulatory system," Miller said.

The companies Bush formerly advised frequently appear before regulatory
agencies.

Take, for instance, Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare, where Bush served on the
board of directors for eight years through 2014, earning nearly $2.4
million in compensation. In the past two years, Tenet has hired lobbyists
to represent its interests on dozens of issues in Washington, including the
congressional budget, Medicare's reauthorization and the Hospital Payment
Fairness Act.

Tenet has benefited from President Barack Obama's health care law, with the
company's CEO saying last year that an increase of newly insured people led
to an uptick in admissions to its hospitals. Republicans, including Bush,
have chided "Obamacare," raising the specter that a GOP White House victory
could lead to a legislative imbroglio — and trigger a massive lobbying
effort from industry.

Tenet's lobbying goes well beyond one issue. Since 2014, the company put
its lobbyists to work before 10 different federal agencies and offices.

Another example is Rayonier Inc., a publicly traded Florida timber company
where Bush served on the board of directors from 2008 to 2014 and earned
nearly $1 million in total compensation.

This year, Rayonier has hired lobbyists on federal issues involving
taxation of timberland, an international trade dispute involving U.S. pulp
production and the tax treatment of timber real estate investment trusts.

In November, with Bush on the board, the SEC subpoenaed Rayonier over its
public filings; the company said it is cooperating with the agency, which
is led by a presidential appointee.

Rayonier spokesman Mike Bell said any candidate seeking to rise to national
prominence would naturally bring "a body of knowledge, background
associations and affiliations with business and nonprofits."

Rayonier won't stop lobbying in Washington and Bell said he does not
believe the connection would be troublesome. "I am confident that Governor
Bush knows when to recuse himself," he said.

Another potential connection involves the Barrick Gold Corp., where Bush
served on the international advisory board from 2011 to 2013.

In the last two years, Barrick lobbyists pressed issues with the Senate,
House, Army Corps of Engineers, Treasury and EPA. Barrick has been fined by
the EPA, an agency also led by a presidential appointee.

Andy Lloyd, a Barrick spokesman, said the company complies with lobbying
regulations in every country it serves, "and we will continue to do so."

*Jeb Sells Catholicism to Evangelicals*
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/19/jeb-sells-catholicism-to-evangelicals.html>*
// Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff – June 19, 2015*

Evangelicals aren’t typically the target audience for Roman Catholic
theology talk. Low-church Protestants from the Bible Belt have historically
been hostile to Catholicism, even sometimes fearing that Catholics’
devotion to the pope will lead to one-world government, and that their
political clout in the United States presages the end times.

So it was perhaps a little surprising when Jeb Bush, who converted to his
wife’s Catholicism, launched into an emotional testimony before a
predominantly Evangelical audience on Friday about the joy he felt when he
left Protestantism.

Catholics and Evangelicals haven’t always played well together. In 2008,
Rev. John Hagee—a Texas pastor and one of the country’s most powerful
Evangelical leaders—apologized to Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for
intimating that the Catholic church was the “great whore” of Revelation,
and for telegraphing the kind of anti-Catholic rhetoric typically
associated with 19th-century nativists. (Among Southern Baptists, in
particular, there’s long been a flamboyantly anti-Catholic strain of
thought and rhetoric.) And while conservative Catholics and Evangelical
Protestants are simpatico when it comes to certain public policy goals,
they usually avoid public discussions about areas of theological
disagreement.

But here in a ballroom in a hotel in D.C.’s Woodley Park neighborhood, Bush
decided that courting the country’s leading social conservative activists
could entail discussing one of the elements of Catholic theology that’s
least amenable to Evangelicals—namely the blessed sacraments, which include
confession and communion.

“I converted to the Catholic Church—Christ came into my life a little
earlier, but I converted to being Catholic in honor of my wife and because
I believe in the blessed sacraments and they give me great comfort,” he
said at the beginning of his speech before the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
“On Easter Sabbath of 1995, I had lost an election in 1994 and found a
total serenity and solace in the RCIA class, and converted to being a
Catholic and it’s been an organizing part of my architecture, if you will,
as a person and certainly as an elected official.”

RCIA stands for Right of Christian Initiation of Adults, and refers to the
catechesis process that would-be Catholic converts go through before
entering the Church.

Evangelicals, needless to say, do not see the act of leaving Protestantism
as something that should necessarily be a source of “total serenity and
solace.”

Evangelicals, needless to say, do not see the act of leaving Protestantism
as something that should necessarily be a source of “total serenity and
solace.” And sometimes, as in Hagee’s case, their leaders show outright
hostility to those who jump ship. So Bush’s willingness to talk explicitly
about his decision to leave behind the Protestantism that galvanizes so
many members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition audience reflects an
important shift in the way social conservatives talk to each other.

Yes, the two groups have long been political allies—the evangelical George
W. Bush handily won Catholics in 2004, and the stalwart Catholic Rick
Santorum was kept afloat in the 2012 GOP primary by southern Evangelicals.
But increasingly, Evangelical Christians and conservative Roman Catholics
are finding common ground not just in their shared political concerns but
also in a shared language about personal devotion to faith.

And that shared devotion played heavily in Bush’s speech, as he reiterated
his support for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns
embroiled in a fight with the federal government over contraceptive
coverage, and his repulsion with Hillary Clinton’s comment that “religious
beliefs…have to be changed.” Clinton’s camp hasn’t clarified which specific
religious beliefs she thinks must change, but conservatives like Bush have
taken the comment as a direct attack on their pro-life convictions. Bush’s
criticism of Clinton’s comment drew warm applause from the crowd.

Penny Nance, an Evangelical Christian who heads the conservative Concerned
Women for America, said those comments reflect growing unity and
cooperation between conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.

“We are more united than we have been in my lifetime, certainly,” she said.
“Catholics and Evangelicals have certainly linked arms and will continue to
link arms over the issue of life and marriage.”

“Jeb embracing his Catholicism is not a problem for Evangelicals,” she
added.

Nance would know—she wrote a Fox News op-ed in February of 2012 titled “We
are all Catholics now”. And Patricia Miller of Salon argued in March of
this year that white Catholics’ increasing affinity for the GOP could
become a problem for the Democratic party.

“[F]or the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting
group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants,” she
wrote.

It’s just one more indicator that despite a fraught history, Protestant
Evangelicals and conservative Catholics have become a cohesive political
unit. As the two groups become more and more closely allied on public
policy issues, and as they both increasingly adopt a defensive posture in
the culture wars, conservative Catholic candidates like Bush will feel more
comfortable talking about their faith in more explicit ways before
Evangelical audiences.

*Jeb Bush demonstates the opposite of economic wonkery
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/jeb-bush-demonstrates-the-opposite-economic-wonkery>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 19, 2015 *

At his formal presidential campaign kickoff this week in Miami, Jeb Bush
pointed to a rather specific economic target. “There is not a reason in the
world why we cannot grow at a rate of four percent a year,” the Florida
Republican said. “And that will be my goal as president – four percent
growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it.”

In reality, there are all kinds of reasons why GDP growth of 4% per year is
unrealistic – reasons Bush is supposed to understand. Indeed, in the modern
era, how many presidents have averaged 4 percent growth over the course of
their terms? Zero. Not Clinton, not Reagan, not Obama, no one.

But the real fun kicks in when we consider how, exactly, Jeb Bush arrived
at his 4% target. When Reuters asked for an explanation, the Republican
responded, “It’s a nice round number. It’s double the growth that we are
growing at. It’s not just an aspiration. It’s doable.”

Except, it’s not doable at all. Matt Yglesias flagged this piece, noting
that Bush apparently chose his goal randomly, “backed by zero substantive
analysis of any kind.”

That ambitious goal was first raised as Bush and other advisers to the
George W. Bush Institute discussed a distinctive economic program the
organization could promote, recalled James Glassman, then the institute’s
executive director.

“Even if we don’t make 4 percent it would be nice to grow at 3 or 3.5,”
said Glassman, now a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
In that conference call, “we were looking for a niche and Jeb in that very
laconic way said, ‘four percent growth.’ It was obvious to everybody that
this was a very good idea.”

That’s a great use of the word “laconic,” by the way. There was no detailed
economic discussion, no number crunching, no projections based on hours of
pouring over spreadsheets. Bush just blurted it out, convinced that four is
a round number.

This is problematic on its face, but let’s not forget that for much of the
political world, Jeb Bush is one of his party’s leading policy wonks. This
is the guy who describes himself as a “nerd” who loves public policy and
the substantive ideas of governing.

Except this reputation is a sham. He got on the phone with some folks from
the George W. Bush Institute – as if his brother’s economic team was
brimming with competence – and picked that number off the top of his head,
confident that his vague ideas about tax cuts will make him the single most
successful economic president of the last 75 years.

Anyone who still considers the former governor a policy wonk simply isn’t
paying close enough attention.

*Paul Krugman: Jeb Bush’s economic policies could turn the entire country
into a failed Kansas-style “experiment”
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/paul_krugman_jeb_bushs_economic_policies_could_turn_the_entire_country_into_a_failed_kansas_style_experiment/>
// Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19, 2015 *

Paul Krugman lit into Jeb Bush in Friday’s column for the New York Times,
calling the Republican presidential contender “a high priest of voodoo
economics” whose plan to revitalize the American economy resembles Governor
Sam Brownback’s disastrous “experiment” in Kansas.

Bush has promised that, if elected, “he would double America’s rate of
economic growth to 4 percent,” which would be an impressive feat given that
not even economists “know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of
economic growth.”

But unlike economists, Bush believes he has the answer — and he’s basing it
on the misguided belief that “the growth in Florida’s economy during his
time as governor offers a role model for the nation as a whole.” Krugman
finds that “kind of funny…because everyone except Bush knows that during
those years, Florida was booming thanks to the mother of all housing
bubbles.”

When the bubble burst, the state plunged into a deep slump, much worse than
that in the nation as a whole. Taking the boom and the slump together,
Florida’s longer-term economic performance has, if anything, been slightly
worse than the national average.

The key to Mr. Bush’s record of success, then, was good political timing:
He managed to leave office before the unsustainable nature of the boom he
now invokes became obvious.

But Mr. Bush’s economic promises reflect more than self-aggrandizement.
They also reflect his party’s habit of boasting about its ability to
deliver rapid economic growth, even though there’s no evidence at all to
justify such boasts. It’s as if a bunch of relatively short men made a
regular practice of swaggering around, telling everyone they see that
they’re 6 feet 2 inches tall.

To be more specific, the next time you encounter some conservative going on
about growth, you might want to bring up the following list of names and
numbers: Bill Clinton, 3.7; Ronald Reagan, 3.4; Barack Obama, 2.1; George
H.W. Bush, 2.0; George W. Bush, 1.6. Yes, that’s the last five presidents —
and the average rate of growth of the U.S. economy during their time in
office (so far, in Mr. Obama’s case). Obviously, the raw numbers don’t tell
the whole story, but surely there’s nothing in that list to suggest that
conservatives possess some kind of miracle cure for economic sluggishness.
And, as many have pointed out, if Jeb! knows the secret to 4 percent
growth, why didn’t he tell his father and brother?

*Jeb Bush’s pathetic Charleston dodge: “I don’t know” if white supremacist
suspect was motivated by racism
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/jeb_bushs_pathetic_charleston_dodge_i_dont_know_if_white_supremacist_suspect_was_motivated_by_racism/>
// Salon // Scott Eric Kaufman – June 19, 2015 *

As news of Dylann Roof’s longstanding and deeply rooted racist beliefs
began to filter through the media yesterday, many of the Republican
candidates for president nevertheless denied that race was the motivating
factor. Taking their cues from Fox News, Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham
speculated that Roof was a “whacked out” opponent of “religious liberty,”
just one of many “people out there looking for Christians to kill them.”

Early Friday morning, CNN reported that a source close to the investigation
said that Roof had confessed to police that he chose the historically black
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church because he wanted to start a
race war. That statement is consonant with what a survivor told Sylvia
Jones yesterday — that Roof had said that African-Americans have “raped our
[white] women, and you are taking over the country. I have to do what I
have to do.”

And yet, despite the abundance of evidence that Roof’s attack was racially
motivated, GOP presidential front-runner Jeb Bush told attendees at a Faith
and Freedom Coalition summit in Washington today that he doesn’t “know what
was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious
crimes.”

According to Talking Points Memo’s Tierney Sneed, Bush followed Santorum
and Graham’s lead and focused on the fact that Roof decided to stage the
opening salvo of his race war at a church. (The fact that it’s a
historically black one is, we must assume, beside the point.) Bush later
claimed that while Roof is completely opaque to him, he does know “what was
in the heart of [Roof's] victims.”

“They were praying. They were learning and studying the word of the Lord,”
he said. “In times like these, in times of great of national mourning,
people of faith, all of us must come together and at least reflect on this
and fortify our strength and love of Christ, love of God to be able to
continue to go forth.”

The Huffington Post’s politics reporter Laura Bassett asked him point blank
about the racial component of the Charleston massacre:

For their part, both Democratic candidates have addressed the racial animus
that motivated Roof, Clinton in a speech yesterday and Senator Bernie
Sanders on Twitter today.

*Jeb Bush already a winner – when it comes to campaign logos
<http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20150619-jeb-bush-already-a-winner--when-it-comes-to-campaign-logos.ece>
// Dallas News // Christy Hoppe – June 19, 2015 *

Political campaigns take apple pie, pour in red, white and blue, sprinkle
sunshine, add a hint of Lincoln, a kiss of hope, wrap it in a flag and call
it a logo.

Fifteen announced presidential campaigns have unfurled their banners. And
the symbols they’ll put on signs, stickers and shirts are mostly
predictable, though some have refreshing flourishes, two experts in
campaign messaging say.

“You can spot a political logo a mile away,” said San Antonio political
consultant and marketing executive Lionel Sosa. They have flags, American
colors and usually, a tagline like “leadership, honesty, integrity or the
even more boring, experienced,” he said.

But this year, a few at least “have a touch of freshness,” Sosa said.

Ben Bentzin, a marketing lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin,
said eventually the logo of a well-known and well-funded candidate will
become emblematic of who they are and what they want to do.

And the most effective logos incorporate the candidate’s name as a brand.

Bentzin, who has been a legislative candidate, said he skews “toward simple
logos that convey personality.”

The two experts largely agreed on which candidates have succeeded with
their first important decision — the symbol of their campaign — and which
should have stayed a little longer at the drawing board.

Follow Christy Hoppe on Twitter at @christyhoppe.

Winner: Jeb Bush

Sosa: “Jeb’s logo is the freshest and therefore the best — a strong,
sophisticated serif typeface with an exclamation point. Short, sweet, to
the point.”

Bentzin: “I ranked Jeb the highest for personality and simplicity.”

The experts agreed on the next four as their next top choices. Ted Cruz,
Rand Paul, Rick Santorum all conveyed strong symbols — eternal flames and
an eagle. Bernie Sanders’ simple star dotting the “i” was a notable touch.

Sosa: “The eternal flame as the American flag for Ted Cruz. Nice and
simple. No taglines needed for these, and that’s part of their strength.”

Bentzin: “These logos are brands.”

Hillary Clinton, perhaps trying to avoid the dynasty tag, left out her name
altogether. And the experts see that as a mistake.

Sosa: “Is she taking a page from Nike and Apple, big brands that substitute
a graphic for the name? Or does she think she is so well known that there
is no need to even mention her name?

“While I like the simplicity of Hillary’s logo, it works against her — the
graphic reflects a hard, corporate and untouchable feel, which only
reinforces her least desirable qualities.”

Bentzin: “Hillary is simple, but I didn’t rate it higher because it feels
contrived, like it is trying too hard.”

The complicated logo for Rick Perry prompted a novel suggestion from Sosa.

“Perry’s logo would be much stronger if he had left out the silly P with
the nerdy star and replaced it with a strong graphic of his face,” Sosa
said. “After all, he’s not a bad-looking fellow.”

Sosa: “All lowercase letters and the use of a U.S. map for a period?
Really? ‘A new American century’ might have worked in 2000 but comes off as
unimaginative today.”

The weakest effort, both experts agreed, was Mike Huckabee’s.

Bentzin: “These messages help to define the candidate, but at the expense
of making the logos more complex and that’s harder to understand and
remember.”

As for the rest, Sosa summed it up: “Just more of the same old, same old.”

*Jeb Bush changes tune, calls Charleston shooter ‘racist’*
<http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/jeb-bush-changes-tune-calls-charleston-shooter-racist/2234418?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>*
// Tampa Bay Times // Kirby Wilson – June 19, 2015*

In a speech at a Hillsborough County Republican Party dinner Friday night,
Jeb Bush called the Charleston shooter who killed 9 African Americans as
they prayed Wednesday a "racist."

"It breaks my heart that somebody, a racist, would do the things he did,"
Bush said.

The former governor's characterization of shooter Dylann Roof stood in
contrast to remarks from earlier Friday, when he said, "I don't know what
was on the mind or heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes."

The earlier remarks came in a speech to Christian conservatives Friday
morning at the Washington, D.C. Faith & Freedom Coalition conference.

Bush cancelled his planned events in Charleston Thursday in the aftermath
of the tragedy.

*Bush makes his case vs. Walker, Rubio, minus criticism
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/19/bush-makes-case-walker-rubio/29010483/>
// Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs – June 19, 2015 *

Ask Jeb Bush why he'd be a better president than Scott Walker or Marco
Rubio, and his argument comes down to this: After eight years as Florida's
chief executive and decades managing ventures in the business world, he has
learned that his "sweet spot" is his ability to forge fixes for big
problems.

"Practical business experience is actually a virtue in public service
because you can apply private-sector practices. For people who have only
been involved in government, they literally have no clue," Bush told The
Des Moines Register on Wednesday in his first sit-down news interview in
Iowa of his presidential campaign.

And as a governor, Bush said, he has a concrete record of reforms.

"We have a lot of really talented senators, but they have the ability to
hide behind the collective body," he told the Register during an hourlong
van trip between two campaign stops. "Over time, they kind of start
speaking in a different language. They speak the language of Washington.
They honestly do brag about filing an amendment and calling that success.
Governors have to balance budgets. They have to make decisions that make
people mad sometimes. They have to lead."

Bush added: "I don't say any of this in criticism of anyone else. I hope we
can get to the point where you can actually toot your own horn without
implying that someone else is bad."

As it happens, Walker, the Wisconsin governor and frontrunner in Iowa
polling in the race for the GOP caucuses, has had a career mainly in
government. He'd been doing marketing and fundraising for the American Red
Cross at age 22 when he made his first bid for public office. He lost that
legislative race, but was victorious at age 25.

He was a state representative for nearly nine years, then county executive
in Milwaukee County for almost nine years. He was elected governor at age
43 and has held that office for 4 ½ years.

Rubio, a 44-year-old first-term U.S. senator in Florida, is popular among
Iowa's likely GOP caucusgoers as their second choice for president and has
a high favorability rating, according to a late May Iowa Poll. Those are
signs he could potentially do very well in Iowa if he can persuade voters
to make him their top choice.

In the horse race for first choice for president, Walker is strongly in the
lead, followed by Rand Paul and Ben Carson tied in second place, and Bush
and Mike Huckabee tied in fourth place, the May 25-29 Des Moines
Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll found.

Asked Wednesday how his approach to dealing with public-sector unions
compares to Walker, who has a strong reputation for taking on organized
labor, Bush said: "In Florida, we created probably the most dramatic
changes in career civil service rules in the country."

Bush said he shrunk the state government workforce by 13,000 employees.

That statement is true, Matthew Corrigan, chairman of the Department of
Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North
Florida, told the Register later. Bush also reclassified another 16,000
from civil service to at-will employees, Corrigan said. That means the
workers are nonunionized and can be fired without evidence to support
disciplinary or performance problems.

Bush also said he reformed the pension system.

"I earned the wrath of AFSCME," he said, referring to the public employee
union.

"Someone who's a friend of mine who's active in Democratic politics told me
that at my re-election, they had 4,000 folks that came in from out of state
to take me out," Bush said. "Because they were worried that if Florida
could do it, then other states could do it as well, so they had to punish
me. My opponent outraised me in terms of money, plus his union support was
pretty spectacular. And I beat him like a drum."

Bush added: "You have tenure for all government workers in most places in
the country. In Florida, you don't."

In 2008, the country made a big bet on a gifted senator, Bush said.

"I think it's pretty clear now despite the skills, the eloquence, the
charisma of Barack Obama, he's not a leader. And there was nothing in his
background that suggested he would be one," he said. "So we need a leader
now, because we can't keep talking about our problems. Leaders skip over
that, and they start talking about solutions. That's my sweet spot."

Bush joined a Florida real estate firm with a friend in 1981 and built it
from three employees to 280, he said. He and his son, Jeb, started a
consulting business and an investing business, he said.

As governor from 1999 to 2007, Florida saw 4.4 percent growth annually over
eight years, Bush said, and he left the state with a triple A bond rating
and close to $10 billion in reserves. He cut taxes every year, for a total
of $19 billion, he said.

Corrigan said Florida added a million jobs during Bush's tenure, although
some were low-wage agriculture and tourism jobs, and some were housing-boom
construction jobs that went away when the recession hit in 2007. Corrigan
said Bush did cut taxes, but the exact amount is in dispute. PolitiFact
rated Bush's "$19 billion" statement "half true."

Education is at the center of Bush's legacy.

"I'm not bragging here. It's just a simple fact that when you look at
rising student achievement in Florida, we to this day continue to lead the
nation," Bush said. "We started at the bottom. The state of Florida, with
57 percent of the students qualified for free and reduced (price) lunch,
kids near or at the poverty level, are now in the upper quartile in terms
of reading and math scores."

But the testing element of Bush's reforms has become unpopular, Corrigan
said. The charter school Bush co-founded in Miami had financial problems
later and closed.

Bush also said he managed the affairs of state during eight hurricanes and
four tropical storms that caused more than $100 billion in losses.

"Nothing's ever happened like this in the country," he said.

Corrigan agreed that the 2004 hurricane season was particularly tough, and
Bush handled it well, partly because of his ability to speak Spanish.

Bush said: "I'm a proven leader. No disrespect to anybody else."

*As Florida Governor, Jeb Bush Bought Land from Timber Company That Later
Paid Him $1 Million
<http://www.ibtimes.com/florida-governor-jeb-bush-bought-land-timber-company-later-paid-him-1-million-1974360>
// IB Times // Andrew Perez – June 19, 2015 *

Florida was buying wetlands. Seeking to conserve its fragile coastline, the
state sought to set aside acreage in perpetuity, ensuring it would never be
developed. But as then-Gov. Jeb Bush assessed a proposal to buy a choice
parcel -- a 26,000-acre piece of swampland near Jacksonville -- he worried
that the price was far higher than the land’s true worth.

“I’m concerned about the value of the property,” Bush told top state
officials during a meeting in Tallahassee in March 2000.

This was a subject Bush knew something about, having previously earned his
living in real estate. After expressing his reservations, however, Bush
quickly assented to the purchase, calling the parcel “a jewel.” Then he
cracked a prescient joke.

"Man,” the governor said, according to the minutes of the meeting, “I can’t
wait to get back into the real-estate business and sell property to the
state."

That wish would ultimately come true.

A year after the state bought the land, Bush approved a plan through which
the state purchased logging rights on part of the property, paying $4.6
million to a publicly traded timber and real-estate company called Rayonier
Inc. A state audit would later conclude that this price was likely
inflated: Florida officials had relied on “questionable assumptions” that
“may have led to misleading and overstated value conclusions.”

During Bush’s eight years in office, Rayonier would secure almost $100
million from the state of Florida in exchange for surrendering logging
rights and property. In 2008, two years after Bush left office, Rayonier
gave him a seat on its board of directors as it continued to sell property
to Florida.

When Rayonier appointed Bush to its board, the company specifically touted
his “expertise in real-estate and public-policy issues.” This know-how was
an asset, given that Rayonier was at the same time publicly expressing
concerns about what it called “anti-development groups” in Florida that
were “seeking constitutional amendments, legislation and other anti-growth
limitations” that threatened to impede the growth of its business.

With Bush on hand to lend his knowledge of state government and his
political connections, Rayonier overcome these obstacles, securing state
government backing for two major developments near Jacksonville. Florida
has agreed to spend taxpayer money widening a highway in the vicinity of
those developments. Rayonier secured a deal with the state to sell
renewable energy to Florida utilities. Rayonier also waged a legal battle
that ultimately prompted the state Legislature to preserve a tax benefit
boosting major landowners.

During his six years on Rayonier’s board, Bush would draw nearly $1 million
in pay for this part-time job, according to the company’s financial
statements.

As Bush now seeks the Republican Party's nomination for the U.S.
presidency, he is presenting himself as an outsider who abhors the culture
of lobbying and inside dealing that often shapes politics. But some
advocates for greater government transparency point to the land deals Bush
brokered with Rayonier followed by the hefty payday he secured for himself
as evidence that he is a savvy exploiter of the very culture he now decries.

“It’s a classic example of cronyism,” said Peter Butzin, who leads Common
Cause Florida, an advocacy group, who described Bush’s dealings with
Rayonier as emblematic of how many politicians operate. “When they are cozy
with interests in office, it’s not surprising they would end up working on
behalf of those interests when they leave office.”

Bush’s presidential campaign did not respond to questions from
International Business Times. A Rayonier representative, Roseann Wentworth,
told IBTimes it was “entirely appropriate” for the company to have brought
on Bush.

“We had in Governor Bush somebody with extensive real-estate experience and
experience in the state of Florida where we had so many real-estate
interests,” said Wentworth, whose company manages 416,000 acres in Florida
and runs a factory in one of 29 areas recently flagged by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for failing to meet air-pollution standards.

Although Bush stepped down from Rayonier’s board in December, his
relationship with the timber company is not the only one that has provoked
questions about his proclivities for mixing public and private interests.

While Bush was governor, his administration directed state pension
investments to firms that employed top donors to the campaign that elevated
his brother, George W. Bush, to the White House. Some of those donors are
now contributing to his own campaign. Jeb Bush also pressed state officials
to consider investing taxpayer money into a donor’s financial firm. Since
leaving office, he has gone on to serve as a board member or adviser to 15
companies and nonprofit organizations, including firms with significant
business with the Florida government, such as Barclays PLC, Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corp. Some of those firms also lobby
federal government agencies Bush would supervise were he to win the
presidency.

Few relationships better illustrate Bush’s overlapping public and private
dealings than the one he forged with Rayonier. The firm is one of the
largest landowners in Florida. It lobbies both the Florida and federal
governments.

The connection dates back to 1999, when Bush’s administration helped coax
the timber conglomerate into moving its headquarters to Jacksonville from
Stamford, Connecticut, with the aid of $2.6 million worth of state and
local tax incentives. Bush and other state officials soon approved a $60
million purchase of 57,000 acres of the company’s land in the northern part
of Florida as part of an environmental-preservation deal negotiated by the
Nature Conservancy.

In 2001, Bush and other Florida officials backed the proposal to buy the
timber rights from Rayonier on a portion of the swampland the state had
purchased the year before.

An audit that emerged in 2003 suggested the terms of the two deals had been
overly generous to Rayonier. The report from Florida’s auditor general,
obtained by IBTimes, said the administration’s appraisals on one of the
Rayonier land deals contained “inconsistencies” and “unsupported
assumptions” about the potential for development. The report further found
the valuations on the timber-rights purchase “contained questionable
assumptions related to future timber rights that may not have supported”
the price the state paid to Rayonier.

Wentworth, the Rayonier representative, said the company was not concerned
by the questions the audit raised about the appraisal process. “It’s part
of a normal state auditing process, and due diligence is part of that kind
of transaction,” she said.

While he was governor, Bush acknowledged the state often paid a premium in
purchasing property. He presented this as a sign that Florida was
successfully pursuing public aims while still rewarding property owners.

“When I got elected governor, I thought that private property owners
typically got the shaft from the state, that there was an erosion of
private property rights,” he said during a meeting to approve the deal for
land on which Rayonier held timber rights. “They come up here every other
week, and they do real well.”

While the state was directing taxpayer money to Rayonier, Bush was
developing political ties with the company. As Bush sought re-election in
2002, his administration was publicly lauding Rayonier’s environmental
record. Both the company’s then-CEO, Lee Nutter, and his wife gave the Bush
campaign maximum contributions of $500 each. According to emails compiled
by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, Bush also agreed to
solicit a donation from Nutter to Enterprise Florida, the state’s
public-private partnership that recommends economic-development strategies.
An Enterprise Florida representative said the group has no record of
support from Nutter or Rayonier.

Those ties were a precursor to 2008, when Bush was appointed to Rayonier’s
board of directors.

Some longtime observers of Florida politics say Bush’s current rhetorical
mode, in which he rails against political influence peddling, collides with
the apparent reason that Rayonier saw fit to include him within its inner
circle.

“You know why people get on boards and why they are sought after, and why
he in specific was sought after,” said Ron Book, a prominent lobbyist in
Florida’s capital Tallahassee. “People end up on boards because they are
people of stature and people of influence, and they are looking for
intelligent people that fit that sphere from a profile perspective.”

In Bush’s first year on Rayonier’s board, the company lobbied the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to oppose an accounting regulation that
would have required timberland to be appraised at “fair market value” on a
quarterly basis. The rule was designed to compel companies to more
accurately report the value of their property to governments and to ensure
that firms are paying required taxes.

While Bush was on the board, the company also raised objections to a
Florida clean-water regulation proposed by the federal government. At the
same time, Bush served on Rayonier’s audit committee, which helps oversee
the company’s financial statements -- now the subject of a class-action
lawsuit and an SEC subpoena amid claims that the firm misstated its
earnings.

Government watchdogs say the former governor must explain how he came to
land on the Rayonier board.

“The question that comes to mind is, ‘Is this some sort of payback for the
land purchase and the tax breaks?’” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of
Good Jobs First, an advocacy group that tracks government development deals
nationwide. “The governor should be forthcoming about how this happened and
whether there’s a quid pro quo.”

*Jeb! Bush isn’t sure what motivated the killer who ‘wanted to start a race
war’
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394615/-Jeb-Bush-isn-t-sure-what-motivated-the-killer-who-wanted-to-start-a-race-war>
// Daily Kos // Barbara Morrill *

Jeb! Bush becomes the latest Republican who just can't bring himself to
admit that racism motivated the mass murder of nine African Americans in
Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday night:

"I don't know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed
these atrocious crimes," Bush said in remarks at a Faith and Freedom
Coalition summit in Washington.

Huh. Let's see if we can help old Jeb! out here. Has Dylann Roof himself
said anything about why he did it?

One of the officials said that Roof, who is white, told investigators that
he wanted to start a race war.

Did this killer say anything as he gunned these people down?

Sylvia Johnson, a cousin of church shooting victim Pastor Clementa Pinckney
says she spoke with one of the survivors "and she said that he had reloaded
five different times... and he just said 'I have to do it. You rape our
women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go.'"

And did family or friends of Roof offer any insight?

There were many signs Roof had been planning an attack, telling his
roommate he "wanted to start a civil war" and "was going to do something
like that and then kill himself." He was infuriated by Trayvon Martin and
Freddie Gray protests and told a friend something needed to be done for the
sake of "the white race."

Yep, what was on Dylann Roof's mind when he murdered those nine African
Americans remains a mystery. Could have been anything ... heck, maybe it
was even an attack on Christianity.

Guess we'll never know ...

*RUBIO*

*Marco Rubio’s supply-side problem: Why anti-tax fanatics have it in for
him
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/marco_rubios_supply_side_problem_why_anti_tax_fanatics_have_it_in_for_him/>
// Salon // Simon Maloy – June 19, 2015 *

Marco Rubio’s tax plan has always been fantasy. His proposal, crafted in
conjunction with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, sought to bridge the gap between
two factions of conservative economic thinkers: the supply-side devotees
who view rate cuts for top earners as the alpha and omega of tax policy,
and the so-called “reformicons” who want to gently ease the Republicans
away from tax-cut mania and focus more on using the tax code to bolster
middle-class incomes. The solution Rubio and Lee came up with was to try to
give both sides what they wanted: a reformicon-friendly expansion of the
Child Tax Credit paired with across-the-board rate cuts, a slashed
corporate tax rate, and the elimination of taxes on capital gains and
estates.

This was quite sensibly derided by the New York Times’ Josh Barro as the
puppies-and-rainbows tax plan: “It’s full of things everybody likes, at
least on the Republican side: family tax cuts that will make it easier to
buy the children a puppy, and capital tax cuts that chase a pot of capital
investment gold at the end of the rainbow.” Deeply cutting taxes on the
wealthy lowers revenue, and expanding tax credits costs money, and in doing
both Rubio created a plan that would rip a gargantuan hole in the budget –
the price tag is so high that he doesn’t even pretend that it can be
dynamically scored into revenue neutrality.

It also suffers another potentially fatal flaw: It doesn’t account for just
how single-minded and ferociously zealous the supply-siders are when it
comes to rate cuts and “pro-growth” tax policy. And now the supply-siders
are lashing out at Rubio for his heresies.

The Wall Street Journal published a long editorial yesterday attacking
Rubio’s tax plan as a “major detour from pro-growth tax reform.” Their
biggest beef is with the expanded Child Tax Credit, arguing that it “does
nothing for economic growth. The only growth case for it is the Keynesian
claim that it would boost consumer spending and aggregate demand, but by
now we’ve seen how that doesn’t work.” Instead of wasting money on families
and children, they argue, they should cut taxes for rich people some more.
This is very similar to the Heritage Foundation’s critique of Rubio’s plan,
which judged it to be “pro-growth” overall but viewed the expanded tax
credit as a “missed opportunity” to make further cuts to the top rate.

Strangely, though, the Wall Street Journal sees the political dynamic in
Congress as favoring the reformicon-oriented portions of Rubio’s plan
winning out over the tax cuts they so desperately crave. “The larger
political danger would arrive if Mr. Rubio became President,” they write.
“In the inevitable negotiations with Congress, his tax cuts on capital
would surely be watered down while his giant tax credit would pass. What
happens if the economy failed to respond?”

Really? If nothing else, Rubio has shown that his tendency is to mollify
the supply-siders, who still dominate the conservative establishment. The
Journal may complain bitterly about Rubio’s tax plan, but the fact is that
he’s already massively overhauled to make it more acceptable to the
trickle-down set. As the New Republic’s Brian Beutler wrote back in April:

As originally conceived, [Rubio’s] tax plan would’ve paired modest middle
class benefits with very large tax cuts for high earners, much like George
W. Bush’s first big tax cut in 2001. But when conservatives voiced
dissatisfaction with that particular distribution, Rubio responded not by
telling them to buzz off, or by eliminating the middle-income benefits and
plying the savings into further high-end tax cuts. He kept the benefits,
and layered hugely regressive additional tax cuts for the wealthy on top of
an already unaffordable plan. What once would have increased deficits by
$2.4 trillion over a decade, according to the Tax Policy Center, would now
increase them by trillions more.

In Congress, Republicans tend to take their tax policy cues from people
like Paul Ryan, who is squarely in the supply-side camp, views tax cuts as
the “secret sauce” of economic growth, and considers them vastly more
important than expanding tax credits for middle-income families. Seems like
they’d be unwilling to let a newly elected President Rubio back off his
promise of zeroed-out capital gains taxes and more than happy to let the
Child Tax Credit wither, if forced to choose between the two.

On a broader level, though, this entire debate is surreal. Rubio’s tax plan
is already an insanely generous giveaway to top earners, and he’s already
bent over backward to try to make peace with the trickle-down folks. But
they’re still not happy, they’re still demanding more. There’s just no
compromising to be had with extremists, I suppose.

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul Names Hedge Fund Chief Mark Zpitznagel as Economic Advisor
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/business/dealbook/rand-paul-names-hedge-fund-chief-mark-spitznagel-as-economic-adviser.html>
// NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – June 19, 2015 *

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has appointed Mark Spitznagel, the hedge fund
manager, as a senior economic adviser as he seeks the Republican
presidential nomination.

At first blush, the two might seem like an odd pair. Mr. Spitznagel is the
founder of Universa Investments, a $6 billion hedge fund that is set up to
make money in an economic crisis.

But the two share a similar outlook on the government’s role in the
financial markets: that it should not have one.

Mr. Paul, whose policies are inspired by libertarianism, has promoted his
belief in limited government spending and a hands-off approach to the
economy by the Federal Reserve. Mr. Spitznagel has argued that the Fed’s
recent policy of quantitative easing, which involved pumping trillions of
dollars into the financial system, set the stage for the next market
reckoning.

“As I travel across the country, the top concern of the American people is
our failing economy,” Mr. Paul said in a written statement. “I look forward
to working alongside Mark to solve our nation’s economic problem and to
restore the American dream,” he added.

In his own statement, Mr. Spitznagel credited Mr. Paul as the only
presidential candidate who understood “the destructive ramifications” of
the Fed’s current policy. “I look forward to working with him on his ideas
and message to change that policy,” Mr. Spitznagel said.

Mr. Spitznagel, who is 44, gained credibility for predicting two market
routs over the last decade, first in 2000 and then in 2008. In the 2008
financial crisis, his Universa funds rose by 115 percent as the Standard &
Poor’s 500-stock index plummeted. Mr. Spitznagel believes the next market
rout is coming soon.

“There needs to be a purge,” he said in an interview with The New York
Times in 2013. “If there isn’t a purge, you don’t get healthy growth.”

His thinking is shaped by the Austrian school of economics, which has its
roots in 19th-century Vienna and makes the argument that the government
should not meddle in any part of the economy because when it does, it
causes all kinds of distortions.

In addition to limiting the role of the government in the markets, Mr.
Spitznagel has had other ideas on how to bolster the economy. Last year, he
brought 18 goats to a blighted neighborhood in Detroit to help clean it up.
Part of his plan was to employ local residents to take care of the goats,
which he hoped to increase to 60 in total.

But the plan was thwarted by city officials who argued local laws
prohibited animals from grazing on city property. Within 48 hours the goats
were back on a truck, destined for the butcher.

Mr. Spitznagel is also a friend of Mr. Paul’s father, Ron Paul, a former
Texas congressman and presidential candidate. The elder Mr. Paul wrote a
foreword in Mr. Spitznagel’s book, “The Dao of Capital” (Wiley, 2013), in
which Mr. Spitznagel outlines his philosophy of the markets.

*Rand Paul taps hedge-fund manager as senior economic advisor
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-taps-hedge-fund-manager-as-senior-economic-adviser-119240.html>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015 *

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has brought on a hedge-fund manager known for his
strong support for the so-called Austrian school of economics as a senior
economic adviser for his 2016 presidential campaign.

Paul’s campaign announced Friday that Mark Spitznagel, the founder and
chief investment officer of the $6 billion investment management firm
Universa Investments L.P., would be joining the campaign. Spitznagel has
been a vocal critic of the Federal Reserve and an advocate of the Austrian
school of economics, which argues vigorously against government
intervention in the economy.

“Rand Paul is the only candidate that really understands the destructive
ramifications of current economic policy driven in large part by a reckless
Federal Reserve. I look forward to working with him on his ideas and
message to change that policy,” Spitznagel said in a statement released on
Friday.

Spitznagel seems like a comfortable ideological fit with Paul, who has
repeatedly criticized the Federal Reserve’s use of monetary policy during
the 2007-2008 financial crisis and has pushed legislation to “audit the
Fed.”

“I am very grateful to have Mark Spitznagel serve as Economic Advisor to my
campaign,” Paul said in a statement. “As I travel across the country, the
top concern of the American people is our failing economy. I believe we can
revitalize our economy by encouraging opportunity and entrepreneurship with
lower taxes, a balanced budget, less Federal Reserve interventionism, and
limited government spending. I look forward to working alongside Mark to
solve our nation’s economic problem [sic] and to restore the American
Dream.”

character: In 2014, he sent 20 goats to a blighted neighborhood in Detroit
to graze there in what he called an “urban farming experiment.” At the end
of that summer, he promised to give the goats to butchers and send the
profits to help the community.

“Goats are an effective way to do landscaping,” he told The New York Times.

*A New ‘Rand Paul’ Super PAC is Making Paul’s Official Super PAC Nervous
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/a-new-pro-rand-paul-super-pac-is-making-paul-s-official-super-pac-nervous>
// Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 19, 2015 *

The phone calls were confounding, until they multiplied. People at the top
of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's network were being asked about a new group
that wanted to turn donations into campaign wins. What, they asked, was the
Concerned American Voters super PAC?

The short answer: A headache. The new iteration of the CAV super PAC is the
child of a movement that mostly helps but sometimes bedevils Rand Paul. It
was relaunched this week, with much fanfare, when long-time FreedomWorks
CEO Matt Kibbe announced that he'd left the Tea Party group to become a
senior PAC advisor. The new PAC would try to organize Iowa for Paul,
starting with 40-full time organizers. Kibbe's goal, he told reporter Byron
Tau, was to prevent 2016 from being another "train wreck for the GOP" by
out-organizing the Republican establishment.

At FreedomWorks, Kibbe had endorsed Paul's work whenever he could. In 2013,
he and FreedomWorks endorsed Paul's filibuster over the legality of drone
warfare. In 2014, he stood behind Paul to endorse the senator's civil suit
over the NSA's bulk data collection program, "on behalf of our six
million-plus members."

Yet people close to Paul discouraged Kibbe from building up his own PAC. It
was nothing personal; it was just that the candidate had already sanctioned
America's Liberty PAC. One source euphemistically described Kibbe's move as
entrepreneurial, to emphasize that the senator had not been pining for a
second super PAC.

"We have no animosity and Mr. Kibbe is free to support Rand in any way he
likes," America's Liberty PAC Jesse Benton told Bloomberg in an e-mail.
"America's Liberty PAC, however, will remain the only Super PAC endorsed by
Senator Paul, and the only PAC that will host Senator Paul at events."

Benton, that PAC's lead strategist, has spent eight years in Paul's orbit.
He became the spokesman for the quixotic presidential campaign of his
father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, in 2007. He went on to work with
Paul's congressional re-election committee, for his Liberty PAC, for the
Campaign for Liberty (a non-profit grassroots group created in the wake of
the presidential bid) and for his 2012 presidential campaign—and during all
that, he married Paul's granddaughter and started a family. Benton and
Campaign for Liberty president John Tate were making America's Liberty PAC
what Right to Rise PAC was for Jeb Bush, or what Priorities USA Action was
for Hillary Clinton.

But Concerned American Voters pulled from another group of pro-Paul
activists. Its president is Jeff Frazee, who ran Ron Paul's youth outreach
campaign in 2008 and turned that into the still-growing Young Americans for
Liberty. Its senior tech advisor is Steve Oskoui, president of the 2012
pro-Ron Paul Endorse Liberty PAC that convinced Silicon Valley entrepreneur
Peter Thiel to fork over $2 million. Thiel, famously, has resisted making a
similar commitment to Rand Paul. While America's Liberty PAC is most famous
(so far) for a WWE-styled commercial for Paul's PATRIOT Act filibusters,
CAV is packaging itself as an on-the-ground disrupter.

"We already have 40 full-time field staffers in Iowa knocking on doors and
making phone calls," Frazee told Bloomberg. "Our team has knocked on over
75,000 doors and made over 70,000 phone calls as of today. We're building a
grassroots operation that the other candidates won't be able to compete
with in Iowa. Based on polling and the responses we're getting back, it's
certainly a state we think Rand can win."

If anything, Frazee was even more ambitious in a Thursday statement about
the new PAC. "By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and
proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand
the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general
election," he said. "The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses,
lobbyists, and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic
that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell's
hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010."

Benton might not put those exact words together. In 2013 and 2014, he
embodied the rapprochement between Paul and McConnell by serving as
McConnell's campaign manager. He only left, late in the campaign, after
nagging questions about the Ron Paul campaign's 2012 endorsement from an
Iowa state senator who took a kickback. In the sprawling, grassroots side
of Paul movement, the branding of America's Liberty PAC leaves something to
be desired.

Yet Concerned American Voters is no blank slate. As Ken Vogel has reported,
Kibbe left FreedomWorks after a years-long struggle that spilled into the
media. After the disappointing losses of the 2012 election, FreedomWorks
president Dick Armey resigned, and Kibbe took over. In 2013, Armey himself
went on a PR tear, describing a fight over the writing and rights of
Kibbe's 2012 book, decrying the "secrecy" with which money came in for
campaigns.

Later in 2013, when Buzzfeed reported that FreedomWorks was in "dire
financial straights," the group dismissed the "baseless attacks" and went
ahead funding a series of 2014 Republican primary challenges—with limited
success. According to FreedomWorks's 990 tax filing, its revenue dropped
dramatically in 2013, and it ended the filing period with less than $1
million in net assets, down from around $5 million the year before. In the
same period, Kibbe's compensation was cut from $321,343 to $258,619.

But Kibbe no longer works for FreedomWorks. "The Concerned American Voters
team is going going to focus on grassroots organization, GOTV, door
knocking, and social media persuasion and canvassing," Kibbe told Bloomberg
in an e-mail. "This is our comparative advantage, and it nicely complements
what the other Rand PAC is doing. I think we both add value in our efforts
to ensure a Rand Paul victory."

Asked if he had been discouraged to join and build a new pro-Paul PAC,
Kibbe said he hadn't. "I think everyone is good and we will run a very
inclusive operation that does not step on other folks' toes."

*Rand Paul Pitches Plan to ‘Blow Up’ Tax Code
<http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/06/19/rand-paul-pitches-plan-to-blow-up-tax-code/>
// AP // June 19, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul called Thursday for a "fair and
flat tax" that would "blow up" the nation's tax code, offering a proposal
his campaign said would cut taxes by $2 trillion over the next decade.

The first-term senator from Kentucky released the outline of a plan to
institute a 14.5 percent income tax rate on all individuals and on
businesses. It was among the first major policy proposals released by
Paul's presidential campaign, although he did not make the full plan
available for review.

"Basically my conclusion is the tax code can't be fixed and should be
scrapped," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We should
start over."

Many of the dozen major Republican candidates for president list tax reform
among their priorities. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, is among the GOP
contenders calling for the wholesale abolition of the Internal Revenue
Service -- a position many experts say is unrealistic.

But few have offered detailed proposals, and while Paul said his plan would
benefit American both rich and poor, he cited an independent analysis that
his campaign did not make available to reporters.

In a column describing highlights of his plan published Thursday in The
Wall Street Journal, Paul called for the outright elimination of payroll
taxes on workers and of several other federal taxes, including those on
gifts and estates, telephone service and all duties and tariffs. He also
proposed eliminating all corporate tax subsidies and personal tax
deductions, except those for mortgage interest and charitable donations.

Paul says the first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be
taxed and the earned-income tax credit would be preserved.

"In Washington, most Republicans are very tepid and very uninspiring on tax
policy," he said in the interview.

It was not clear how Paul would ensure cutting taxes so deeply would not at
the same time explode the nation's debt. He wrote in the column that his
plan would "reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when
combined with my package of spending cuts," but he did not detail those
cuts.

In the interview, Paul referred to his previous budget proposals, which
include sweeping cuts in foreign and domestic spending. In particular, he
has previously called to eliminate all aid to foreign governments,
including Israel. He has also proposed eliminating the federal departments
of education, energy and housing and urban affairs.

He noted, however, he's also called for increased national security
spending in his most recent spending plans. "I think that the priority for
spending is national defense and national security so we don't have
significant cuts in our preparedness," he said.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio stands out among his Republican colleagues for
offering the most detailed economic agenda of the GOP candidates for
president, anchored by a massive tax cut that the conservative Tax
Foundation said could add as much as $4 trillion to the nation's debt in
its first decade.

That approach keeps with conservative economic thinking that the best way
to spark growth and increase wages is to reduce the tax burden on
businesses, the wealthy and investors. Rubio would also eliminate all taxes
on investment income, a change that largely favors the most wealthy
Americans.

Like Paul's emphasis on tax cuts, however, it is an approach that exposed
Republicans to Democratic criticism that they favor the rich.

While Paul offers just one tax rate, Rubio's plan would set two: 15 percent
for those making less than $75,000 (or families earning under $150,000),
and 35 percent for all making more.

"Our outdated policies from yesterday are not going to fix this," Rubio
said Thursday while calling for new tax policies in a speech to religious
conservatives.

"The more your employer pays you, the less they will owe in taxes to the
IRS," he said of his plan. "We will help working families by helping them
to keep more of what they earn."

Cruz, meanwhile, has repeatedly promised to scrap the tax-collecting agency
as he runs for the GOP presidential nomination.

He did not address taxes while speaking to evangelical Christians on
Thursday, but Cruz advisers said the senator would soon release more
details on his proposal, which he has said would allow most Americans to
file their taxes on the back of a postcard-size form.

*Rand Paul’s First Two Books Are Full Of Fake Founding Fathers Quotes
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-pauls-first-two-books-are-full-of-fake-founding-fathers?utm_term=.wg5b3eXP3#.gsK497Vd2>
// Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper – June 18, 2015 *

Many of the quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers in two of Rand Paul’s
books are either fake, misquoted, or taken entirely out of context,
BuzzFeed News has found.

Paul’s first two books — *Government Bullies*, which was an
e-book best-seller, and*The Tea Party Goes to Washington* — lay out the
conservative manifesto he hoped to bring to Washington following the tea
party wave in 2010.

A heavy theme in Paul’s books is that the tea party movement is the
intellectual heir to the Founding Fathers, with Paul often arguing he knows
what position our country’s earliest leaders would have had on certain
issues.

The final line in Paul’s book *The Tea Party Goes to Washington* is a fake
sentiment attributed to Jefferson:

The Constitution is very clear about it. The Tea Party’s job is to keep
making things clearer, and this is only the beginning. It is not a job that
will be finished overnight or even in an election cycle. Thomas Jefferson
believed that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance — and now the Tea
Party must prove it.

“We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said
or wrote” this phrase, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has said of “the
price of liberty was eternal vigilance,” which Paul uses twice in his book.

Earlier, Paul used another fake Jefferson quote:

In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers— whose Constitution was supposed to
restrain our rulers— would have likely made the same prediction. Jefferson
wrote, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government.” This has certainly been true of too much
government intervention, as well as attempts to administer too many
government benefits.

“This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas
Jefferson,” writes the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.

Writing on the Patriot Act, Paul again cites a fake Jefferson quote.

“This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second
Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms, or as Jefferson wrote
‘The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.’”

As noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, “this quotation has not been
found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.”

Later, writing on Obamacare, Paul cites a different fake Jefferson quote.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote that a “government big enough to give you
everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have,” he
could have easily been referencing Obamacare.

“Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the
writings of Thomas Jefferson,” writes the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. The
foundation notes that it has been attributed to Gerald Ford, though an
assistant to Ford said he heard it from someone else.

Another quote cited by Paul from Jefferson appears to be a misquote.

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical,” reads the Jefferson
quote at the beginning on one chapter.

As noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, this quote comes from
Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and the original
actually reads, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and
tyrannical.”

Paul also uses a fake George Washington quote.

Such is the nature of government, which is precisely why the Founders
viewed military use, even when warranted, as something that should be
definite and limited. George Washington told us: “Government is not reason;
it is not eloquence; it is force…. Never for a moment should it be left to
irresponsible action.” Science tells us that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. Yet today it seems we are much less hesitant
to use government action, whether abroad or domestically, than the Founders
could have ever imagined. The Founding Fathers also would not be surprised
to see that trying to solve problems with continuous government action
creates its own set of problems. Not surprisingly, the majority of what our
federal government does today, abroad or domestically, also continues to
take place well outside the parameters of the Constitution.

The quote, as noted by professor Eugene Volokh and Fred Shapiro, editor of
the*Yale Book of Quotations*, is also fake.

“This is undoubtedly apocryphal, like many other quotations attributed to
Lincoln or Washington,” said Shapiro. “No one has ever found any evidence
that Washington said it.”

Later in the book, a quote from Benjamin Franklin is used out of context.
In the context of the quote as used in the 1750s, Franklin was actually
speaking in support of not only taxation but also defense spending.

Writes Paul:

Who’s to say the Tea Party won’t become the government’s next target under
the PATRIOT Act? Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “They who can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety,” and Americans who continue to support unconstitutional
intrusions into the private lives of their fellow citizens will inevitably
learn the same lesson.

As noted by Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
and the editor of *Lawfare* blog, the letter from Franklin concerned a
dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Penn family.

“He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General
Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the
Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar,” Wittes said recently on NPR.

“And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for
frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept
instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great
affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually
meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family
was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General
Assembly’s acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.”

Paul also mischaracterized this quote in his second book, *Government
Bullies*, on two separate occasions with slightly different variations.

Writes Paul in his book, “as Benjamin Franklin famously said and our
Founders knew well, those who trade liberty for security get neither.”

Then, Paul cites a fake Thomas Jefferson quote again to lead off the
chapter “Living Everyday in Fear of Your Government.”

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear
the government, there is tyranny,” Paul cites Jefferson as saying.

But again, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation notes they “have not found any
evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote” these remarks.

Paul’s chapter “Paved With Good Intentions” also starts off with a
mischaracterized Jefferson quote.

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines
they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who
live under tyranny,” Paul attributes to Jefferson.

As noted again by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, “This quotation has
never been found in Jefferson’s papers in its above form, but it is most
likely a paraphrase of Jefferson’s statement in *Notes on the State of
Virginia*, “Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet,
our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.”

Paul’s chapter “How Can We Solve the Problem” starts off with a quote from
former President James Madison that is likewise disputed.

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy,” Paul quotes Madison saying.

As noted by etymologist Barry Popik there’s no evidence Madison said it,
and no citations link it to Madison before the 21st century.

In the past three weeks, Paul has misattributed a quote to former President
Abraham Lincoln (a quote he again repeated in a speech today) and used a
fake quote from Founding Father Patrick Henry. Previously, Paul used a fake
Thomas Jefferson quote in his Senate victory speech.

At CPAC in 2011, Paul cited a Jefferson quote that the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation says they have “no evidence” he ever said.

Paul’s campaign declined to comment, and the book publisher did not respond
to request for comment.

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz: Democrats using Charleston as ‘excuse’ to take away gun rights
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/ted-cruz-democrats-using-charleston-as-excuse-to-take-away-gun-rights/>
// WaPo // Katie Zezima – June 19, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Friday that Democrats are using the shooting
deaths of nine people in a Charleston, S.C., African American church as an
"excuse" to try to roll back gun rights.

"It’s sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as
an excuse not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who
are repeat felons or criminals but rather try to use it as an excuse to
take away the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens," Cruz told
reporters after a town hall event here.

"Those are altogether different issues and we need to focus on protecting
our Bill of Rights and also on keeping everyone safe."

Cruz said it is evocative of a line used by Chicago Mayor and former White
House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

"I’ll tell you it’s reminiscent of Rahm Emanuel who said you never let a
good crisis go to waste," Cruz said.

Cruz said, as he did Thursday, that he is "horrified" by the killings and
offered his prayers to the families of the victims.

"A sick and deranged man went and prayed for an hour with the congregants
in an historically black church and then, for reasons that we don’t fully
understand murdered nine innocent souls," Cruz said of Dylann Roof, who was
charged with nine counts of murder. The nine victims were shot Wednesday
night inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, the
South’s oldest African American church.

"Sadly there is evil in the world and there is evil in the world that has
to be dealt with. We’ll find out more about this crazed gunman and what led
this to happen."

Roof confessed to police, a law enforcement official said, and wanted his
actions known. In an extraordinary display at Roof's bond hearing Friday,
relatives of the dead offered him forgiveness.

A reporter for The Huffington Post asked Cruz why it has been "difficult"
for Republicans to "acknowledge that the attack was racially driven."

Cruz said he disagreed with the premise of the question.

"It appears to be racially driven from what was reported that this deranged
man said and a racial hate crime is horrific. And any murder is horrific,"
Cruz said. "I don’t think we should be using this question to try to divide
people and to try to seek partisan advantage. I think we should be praying
for those who lost loved ones."

Cruz said earlier that Democrats like to "go after our rights to keep and
bear arms" and there has been a "consistent pattern" from the Obama
administration and Democrats of violating the Constitution and Bill of
Rights.

During the town hall event Cruz defended Second Amendment rights and used a
quip he tailors for the states he is visiting on campaign trail: "The great
thing about the state of Iowa is pretty sure y'all define gun control the
same way we do in Texas: hitting what you aim at."

Cruz is scheduled to attend a "celebrate the Second Amendment" event in
Iowa Saturday. He recalled going to a gun range in New Hampshire recently
that had a fully automatic machine gun on a tripod. His wife Heidi, whom he
described as a "petite California blond," fired the machine gun while
wearing a "pink baseball cap that said 'armed and fabulous,'" he said.

*Cruz commits to ‘full Grassley’ in caucus run
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/19/ted-cruz-commits-full-grassley/29010169/>
// Des Moines Register // Matthew Patane – June 19, 2015  *

Speaking from the home city of one of his fellow U.S. senators, Ted Cruz
committed Friday to completing a full 99-county tour of Iowa as he competes
for his party's presidential nomination.

"I'm going to be spending a lot of time in your great state. Indeed,
between now and the Iowa caucuses, it is my intention to do what I guess is
called the 'full Grassley' ..." Cruz told a crowd in Red Oak, the home of
U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst.

The Red Oak stop was part of a series of visits Cruz is making this
weekend. He gave a similar speech at a stop in Denison.

Friday's speeches focused on many of the same issues he has laid out at
prior events, such as religious liberty, maintaining the Constitution,
fighting terrorism and distancing himself from Washington, D.C.

"If you think things in Washington are going great, we're on the right
trajectory, we just need someone to fiddle around the edges — I ain't your
guy," the Texas Republican said.

Rod Goodemote , 49, of Villisca brought his 11-year-old daughter, Bethany,
to the town hall to witness "history in the making."

"This is history 101, right here," Goodemote said.

After hearing him speak, Goodemote said Cruz could "very well be my guy."

"I think that we need a man that fears and respects God," he said. "We need
a man that has wisdom, and wisdom comes from God. We need a man that
supports life, that understands that God is the author of life."

Earlier in the day, the leaders of Cruz's Iowa campaign took over for him
at a stop in Council Bluffs. A canceled flight kept Cruz from making it in
time for the town hall.

In Council Bluffs, registered nurse Barb Wunderlich came from her night
shift to see Cruz speak.

Although disappointed he wasn't there, Wunderlich said she is "pretty much
all in" for Cruz because he's a constitutionalist and because of his faith.
"Ted's the whole package to me. Any of the guys — except for (Donald) Trump
and Jeb Bush — that are running would probably be good. Ted would be best,"
said Wunderlich, who lives in Glenwood.

David Overholtzer, a self-employed certified public accountant in Council
Bluffs, said he hasn't decided who to back in the 2016 race.

"I haven't seen one I wouldn't be comfortable with in the White House. ...
I'm looking for fresh ideas," Overholtzer said.

Cruz was the first contender to enter the Republican presidential race, but
he sits in the middle of the pack in a number of polls.

Five percent of likely caucusgoers said Cruz is their current first choice
in the most recent Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll. That ranks
him eighth in the field of 16 declared and possible contenders.

The event

SETTING: In Council Bluffs, a meeting room in the city's public library. In
Red Oak, a conference room at the Red Coach Inn & Restaurant. In Denison, a
dining room in Cronk's Cafe.

CROWD: About 60 people started at Council Bluffs, but only about 30 were
left by the end of the event, which Cruz did not attend. About 73 showed up
in Red Oak and about 80 in Denison.

REACTION: Sighs of disappointment, followed by relatively calm discussion
in Council Bluffs. In Red Oak and Denison, Cruz was greeted with multiple
rounds of applause around some of his more popular lines, such as jokes
about the Obama administration. One supporter rang a cowbell multiple times
during Cruz's speech in Denison.

WHAT'S NEXT: On Saturday, Cruz is scheduled to attend a "Celebrate the 2nd
Amendment" event in Johnston.

*PERRY*

*Rick Perry calls Charleston church shooting an ‘accident’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/rick-perry-calls-charleston-church-shooting-accident/>
// WaPo // Patrick Svitek – June 19, 2015 *

The one presidential candidate who cannot make a mistake did just that
Friday.

Addressing Wednesday's massacre at a South Carolina church, former Texas
governor Rick Perry referred to it as an "accident." His campaign quickly
clarified that he meant "incident," but not before the apparent slip of the
tongue sparked a social media backlash, inviting inevitable comparisons to
the so-called "oops" moment that defined Perry's last bid for the White
House.

The comment came during a TV interview in which Perry was asked about
President Obama's response to the shooting, which left nine people dead at
the historically black Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in
Charleston. In a speech Thursday, Obama suggested more gun control might be
necessary to prevent tragedies like it.

"This is the M.O. of this administration anytime there is a accident like
this," Perry told Newsmax's Steve Malzberg in an interview published
Friday. "You know, the president's clear. He doesn't like for Americans to
have guns, and so he uses every opportunity, this being another one, to
basically go parrot that message."

Shortly after Perry's remark began making headlines and ricocheting around
social media, spokesman Travis Considine indicated the former governor
misspoke. "From the context of his comments, it is clear Gov. Perry meant
incident," Considine said in a statement.

But the sound bite had already become a hot topic online, evoking memories
of the 2012 debate where Perry was unable to remember the third federal
agency he would eliminate if elected president.

In the Newsmax interview, Perry spoke extensively about the shooting,
saying he did not know whether it was an act of terror but did know it was
a "crime of hate." He also suggested the alleged shooter, 21-year-old
Dylann Roof, may have been "medicated," apparently tying the issue to his
campaign's outreach to current and former members of the military.

"I know for a fact, being a substantial supporter of our military and our
veterans, that the Veterans Administration, for instance, is handing out
these opioids in massive amounts," Perry told Malzberg. "And then people
question, 'Well then why can't these young individuals get work?' or 'Why
is the suicide rate so high?' "

Perry was also asked whether the Confederate flag should fly over the South
Carolina Capitol in the aftermath of the shooting, which many consider
racially motivated. In his response, Perry reminded Malzberg that the
Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Texas has the right to refuse to issue
Confederate license plates, a decision with which he agrees. And Perry
indicated he would be open to taking down the flag in South Carolina,
saying "maybe there's a good conversation that needs to be had."

*Rick Perry Says Obama Administration Always Overreacts to ‘Accidents’ Like
Charleston Shooting
<http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/19/3672122/rick-perry-says-obama-administration-always-overreacts-accidents-like-charleston-shooting/>
// Think Progress // Kay Steiger – June 19, 2015 *

In an interview with Steve Malzberg’s Newsmax TV program on Friday,
Republican presidential candidate and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry called
the shooting deaths of nine black church members in Charleston, S.C. an
“accident.”

“This is the M.O. of this administration, any time there is an accident
like this — the president is clear, he doesn’t like for Americans to have
guns and so he uses every opportunity, this being another one, to basically
go parrot that message,” Perry said in response to President Barack Obama’s
Thursday remarks, according to a video posted by RWW blog.

Perry then went on to say that Dylann Storm Roof, the alleged shooter who
confessed to the killing, may have been unduly influenced by drugs. “Also,
I think there is a real issue to be talked about. It seems to me, again
without having all the details about this, that these individuals have been
medicated and there may be a real issue in this country from the standpoint
of these drugs and how they’re used.”

He may have been referring to a theory the conspiracy website Infowars
posted about on Thursday that postulated Roof may have been taking a drug
called suboxone, which supposedly causes personalities to change and prompt
violent outbursts in its users.

Perry also called the incident “a crime of hate.”

*GRAHAM*

*Returning Home to Console, Lindsey Graham Joins the Mourning*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/politics/returning-home-to-console-lindsey-graham-joins-the-mourning.html>*
// NYT // Ashley Parker – June 19, 2015*

Senator Lindsey Graham was in the passenger seat on Friday, preparing to
make what would be the first of many difficult phone calls in the coming
days.

Mr. Graham, a South Carolina Republican and 2016 presidential hopeful, was
running down a list, calling the families of the nine people who were
killed Wednesday night at a historic black church.

First on his list: John Pinckney, the father of the church’s slain pastor,
the Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney, a state senator whom Mr. Graham knew.

“I just wanted to say, well, I feel terrible, but nobody can feel it like
you do,” Mr. Graham said, clearing his throat. “Your son — every time he
walked into the room, I’d smile because I knew I was going to get something
nice said, and a request to help someone other than himself.”

“You raised a fine man,” the senator continued.

People attended a vigil on Friday for the nine shooting victims at the
College of Charleston TD Arena in Charleston, S.C. Credit Travis Dove for
The New York Times

“It’s hard for people, particularly in the South, to imagine somebody could
go into a church, stay for Bible study, talk to people for an hour, look
them in the eye, and then stand up and start shooting,” Mr. Graham said.

“Even the crazy people, they don’t go into church,” he said.

Mr. Graham visited the church Thursday evening, quietly making his way
there with a bouquet of lilies, bowing his head, and offering a short
prayer. “For comfort and healing and understanding to those who have
suffered in a way that most of us can never imagine,” he said.

He spent Friday morning shuttling around town for television interviews,
making himself a presence on screens throughout the city. Later, his aides
sent him a list of the victims’ families for him to call. And Friday
evening, he arrived at a prayer vigil here, greeting residents who had come
to mourn with handshakes and hugs.

Continue reading the main story

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?

In the process, he also grappled with the racial history of his state,
which in many ways he himself embodies. He did not have an African-American
classmate until middle school, and said he did not experience full
integration until high school.

The importance of the end of segregation, he said, could not be overstated:
“It’s not just for a black family to go to a better school,” he said. “It’s
for white kids at an early age to understand that merit and leadership are
not unique to one group.”

And in an e-book he recently released, he recalled growing up underfoot at
his parents’ bar, which sold beer to anyone of legal age but for many years
expected black patrons to drink it off premises. “That eventually changed,
but not until the early seventies, much later than it should have,” he
wrote.

He said he thinks he has earned some credibility among South Carolina’s
black communities by being open to working with Democrats, and supporting
some of Mr. Obama’s nominees, like Loretta E. Lynch, a black woman, who is
now attorney general. Yet during his Senate re-election campaign last year,
he won just 6 percent of the state’s black vote.

But on Friday morning, he clarified when asked, saying he believed it was a
racially motivated hate crime. “The only reason these people are dead is
because they’re black,” he said.

Later, Mr. Graham described Mr. Roof as “a racial jihadist.”

He also fielded questions about the Confederate flag, demurring when asked
if he believed it should continue to fly on the grounds of the State
Capitol. He was fine revisiting the issue, he said, but it was a decision
for the State Legislature.

On the question of gun control, he said he welcomed a debate on background
checks for guns, but that the current background check system was broken.

“We’ll talk about guns, we’ll talk about the flag, we’ll talk about
anything you want to talk about, but we’re going to bury these people with
dignity, we’re going to honor their memory,” Mr. Graham told one television
reporter.

But throughout it all, Mr. Graham could not seem to shake the question: How
could someone enter a church, attend a Bible study, an then open fire,
killing nine people?

He kept coming back to it — when former Senator Saxby Chambliss called him
to offer condolences and when he set out Friday morning, the temperature
sliding past 80 degrees before the sun was even ripe in the sky.

The night before, over dinner — his usual fried green tomatoes and fried
chicken livers at Magnolias— Mr. Graham wondered again and again, what it
must have been like to learn that your loved one had gone off to Bible
study and was not coming home.

“I don’t know why I’m fixated on it, but I just keep thinking about what it
must be like, to pick up the phone and hear your loved one was killed at
church,” he said.

*Lindsey Graham: Confederate Flag Is a “Part of Who We Are”*
<http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/lindsey-graham-defends-confederate-flag>*
// Mother Jones // Inae Oh – June 19, 2015*

Following the mass shooting inside a black church in Charleston, South
Carolina on Wednesday, one flag was conspicuously not lowered to half-mast
in tribute to the nine lives lost in the deadly attack—the Confederate
flag, which regularly flies on the grounds of the state capitol, despite
countless calls for its removal because of its racist roots.

The rebel flag's presence in Columbia was especially disturbing this week
after images surfaced showing the suspected gunman's embrace of the flag,
which was on his license plates. (Dylann Roof also wore patches baring the
flags of Apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, the racist symbolism of
which was evident.)

While other GOP politicians, including Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker,
are criticizing the flag's enduring presence, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who
hails from South Carolina and is now running for president, has come to the
rebel flag's defense. According to Graham, the Confederate flag is an
integral "part of who we are."

This isn't exactly surprising, considering Graham appeared on "The View"
yesterday to promote his new e-book and brushed aside the obvious racial
overtones of the attacks, suggesting that suspected shooter Dylann Roof was
seeking to massacre Christians. "This guy's just whacked out," he said.
"It's 2015—there are people who are looking for Christians to kill them."

Although Graham acknowledged to CNN the flag has been used to push racist
agendas in the past, he said "the problems we have in South Carolina and
throughout the world" do not stem from symbols, but because of "what's in
people's heart."

"How do you go back and reconstruct America?" he asked hopelessly.

Actually, here's one solution: remove the damn Confederate flag.

*CARSON*

*‘Crazy’ Ben Carson Is The GOP’s Voice of Sanity on Charleston
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/19/crazy-ben-carson-is-the-gop-s-voice-of-sanity-on-charleston.html>
// Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – June 19, 2015 *

Before today, Ben Carson was far from the voice of reason in the Republican
party. The brain surgeon and presidential candidate has purveyed theories
like “Obamacare is worse than slavery” and Obama’s America is reminiscent
of Nazi Germany.

Now, however, Carson has the distinction of being the lone Republican
candidate to be honest and plainspoken about the fact that racism was the
motive for the Charleston church shooting.

How we got here is a sad indictment of American politics, where candidates
would rather shove their fist in their mouths or speak in riddles than risk
upsetting anyone with the reality of racism.

It started yesterday afternoon. Just before Rand Paul took to the stage of
the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, where a crowd of evangelical
conservatives waited for him to speak, police arrested Dylann Storm Roof. A
21 year old white supremacist, Roof had, the night before, walked into a
historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, sat among its
congregation for a time, and then opened fire, murdering nine of them.

It seemed obvious that Paul would address the tragedy before the
self-anointed “Faith and Freedom Coalition.”

If the Republican Party is truly shifting to appeal to new (i.e., less
white) constituencies, it is Paul who is helping to lead the way by openly
discussing things Republicans of primaries past wouldn’t touch, like the
failed war on drugs, criminal justice reform, and the fact that
“race…skew[s] the application” of justice in America.

But, when Paul opened his mouth to discuss the terrorist attack in
Charleston, what came out was a confusing string of words designed to
assure the Christian crowd that none of it would’ve happened if more
Americans were like them.

How we got here is a sad indictment of American politics, where candidates
would rather shove their fist in their mouths or speak in riddles than risk
upsetting anyone with the reality of racism.

“What kind of person goes into church and shoots nine people?” he asked.
“There’s a sickness in our country, there’s something terribly wrong, but
it isn’t going to be fixed by your government. It’s people straying away,
it’s people not understanding where salvation comes from. And I think that
if we understand that, we’ll understand and have better expectations of
what we get from our government.”

Paul didn’t say anything about Roof’s confederate flag license plate, his
pro-apartheid emblazoned jacket, or his blatant act of domestic terror.

Ted Cruz, as Talking Point’s Memo’s Brendan James put it, “kinda dipped his
toe in,” to the topic of race when he held a moment of silence for the
victims and said, “Today the body of Christ is in mourning that a sick and
deranged person came and prayed with a historically black congregation for
an hour, and then murdered nine innocent souls.”

The following day, the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s event was still going.
Chris Christie took to the stage and acknowledged that the “conduct” of the
shooter was “depraved [and] unthinkable,” but “only the goodwill and the
love of the American people can let those folks know that that act was
unacceptable, disgraceful that we need to do more to show that we love each
other.” He said nothing about race.

Jeb Bush, at the same event, said, “I don’t know what was on the mind or
the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes.” After his
speech, Bush told The Huffington post, “it was a horrific act and I don’t
know what the background of it is, but it was an act of hatred.” Asked
again if race was behind the attack, Bush said, “I don’t know. Looks like
to me it was, but we’ll find out all the information. It’s clear it was an
act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, they were
African-American. You can judge what it is.”

Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal similarly evaded the issue, while Marco
Rubio ignored the shooting altogether, save for a polite Tweet, but spoke
of his love for the Second Amendment during his Thursday speech to the
Faith and Freedom crowd.

Lindsey Graham, who is the Senator from South Carolina, initially suggested
the persecution of Christians was as likely a reason for the shootings as
racism. “There are real people out there that are organized to kill people
based on race. This guy is just whacked out. But it’s 2015, there are
people out there looking for Christians to kill them.” On Friday, however,
while visiting Charleston, Graham had made a shift. He told The New York
Times’ Ashley Parker, “the only reason these people are dead is because
they’re black.”

Rick Perry on Friday told Newsmax “this was a crime of hate. We know that.”
But the former Texas governor criticized president Obama’s call for gun
control. “So I mean there are a lot of issues here underlying this that we
as a country need to have a conversation about rather than just the
knee-jerk reaction of saying, ‘if we can just take all the guns away, this
won’t happen.’”

During an appearance on MSNBC, Martin O’Malley acknowledged race as the
motivating factor but did so timidly. “From the reports I read, and let’s
be honest with one another, the facts are still evolving here. I mean, it
would appear that the racial motivation was certainly a big part of what
happened here.”

In contrast, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sounded like civil rights
activists.

Clinton said that in order to make sense of the shooting, “we have to be
honest—we have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and
division,” and offered words of comfort from Dr. Martin Luther King.

Sanders was even more direct.

“The Charleston church killings are a tragic reminder of the ugly stain of
racism that still taints our nation,” he said in a statement. “While we
have made significant progress in advancing civil rights in this country,
we are far from eradication racism.”

But it was Carson who stuck out amid the cowardly tongue-twisting of the
majority of his party’s candidates with his straightforwardness.

"Racial based hate is still very much alive as last night so violently
reminds us,” he wrote on Facebook. “I fear our intolerance of one another
is the new battle ground of evil. Today many feel it is ok to hate someone
who thinks different than you do…As a brain surgeon I can assure you that
all of our brains look the same, no matter what our skin color or party
affiliation.”

And so here we are, with Ben Carson—the right-wing sideshow who, despite
competitive polling, could never truly be taken seriously as a candidate
because of his proclivity for voicing off-the-rails theories and his
complete lack of political experience—is teaching the rest of the
Republican field how to sound like a human being when discussing a tragedy
caused by racism in America. The real absurdity of American politics is
that the people running for office are more often than not the ones stupid
enough to believe that they can only win if they are so agreeable that they
ignore reality altogether, fearing that acknowledging its ugliness might
reflect it onto them.

Perhaps that’s why Carson felt free to say the truth before poll-testing
it, and without insulating it in caveats.

*Ben Carson Not for Traditional Marriage
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/19/ben_carson_not_for_traditional_marriage_amendment_127054.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19, 2015 *

Should the Supreme Court decide this month that state same-sex marriage
bans are not constitutional, some Republican presidential candidates plan
to push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one
man and one woman.

But Ben Carson would not be one of them.

In an interview Friday with RealClearPolitics, the neurosurgeon and
conservative favorite said although he “would not be in agreement” with a
ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide, “I think you always have the
obligation to uphold the laws of the land.”

“My strong belief is that everybody i protected by the Constitution,
regardless of their sexual orientation, their race, whatever,” Carson said.
“That needs to be our primary focus.”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide within the next two weeks whether
state bans on gay marriage are constitutional.

Carson has been vocal about his support for “traditional marriage,” and has
indicated that he views homosexuality as a choice.

But he said Friday that his primary concern regarding a Supreme Court
ruling would be with any groups granted “extra rights.”

“We need not be thinking of providing extra rights to anybody. That’s where
you get into problems -- where you pick this group or that group and say,
‘Well, let’s change everything for everybody because you want it that
way,’” Carson said. “That’s when you start having problems with America as
it was envisioned.”

He added: “I would be comfortable with phrasing that said, ‘Everybody in
our society has equal rights, and equal rights of association.’”

Carson was in Washington, D.C., to appear at a conference hosted by the
conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition, where the prospect of the Supreme
Court legalizing same-sex marriage was vigorously opposed by many speakers.

Sen. Ted Cruz, another Republican candidate for president, warned in a
speech Thursday of a deliberate attempt by Democrats to impose “mandatory
gay marriage in all 50 states.”

“I would encourage everyone here to be lifting up in prayer that [the
Supreme Court] not engage in an act of naked and lawless judicial activism
tearing down the marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution,” Cruz
said.

In addition to Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen.
Rick Santorum have said they will push for a Constitutional amendment to
ban gay marriage if the Supreme Court rules to legalize it.

*TRUMP*

*Carl Icahn politely declines Trump Cabinet offer //
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/carl-icahn-donald-trump-cabinet-offer-119223.html>
Politico // Adam B. Lerner – June 19, 2015 *

Donald Trump may be less than a week into his presidential campaign, but
he’s already been rebuked by one of his top Cabinet picks.

On Thursday, Trump floated three names that he would possibly nominate as
Treasury secretary in the unlikely event that he wins the presidency next
year.

“I’d like guys like Jack Welch. I like guys like Henry Kravis. I’d love to
bring my friend Carl Icahn,” the real estate mogul and current 2016
Republican presidential contender said in an interview Thursday on MSNBC’s
“Morning Joe.”

Icahn, a legendary billionaire ‘corporate raider’ who founded Icahn
enterprises, responded to Trump’s comments in a blog post on Shareholders’
Square Table, saying, “I am flattered but do not get up early enough in the
morning to accept this opportunity.”

Though he declined to “opine on [Trump’s] chances” to win the presidency,
he wrote, “I am knowledgeable concerning markets and believe Donald is
completely correct to be concerned that we have ‘a big fat bubble’ coming
up. We have artificially induced low interest rates.”

Trump warned in his MSNBC appearance Thursday that interest rates are too
low, noting that he had borrowed cheaply to finance the building of a
luxury hotel in Washington, D.C. “Without proper leadership, I predict
you’re going to see some very, very bad things happening economically,” he
said. “They give you free money.”

Icahn agreed with Trump’s point wholeheartedly.

“I personally believe we are sailing in dangerous unchartered waters,”
Icahn wrote. “I can only hope we get to shore safely. Never in the history
of the Federal Reserve have interest rates been artificially held down for
so long at the extremely low rates existing today.”

“I applaud Donald for speaking out on this issue — more people should,” he
concluded.

*Carl Icahn Says He’ll Never Be Trump’s Treasury Secretary
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/carl-icahn-says-he-ll-never-be-trump-s-treasury-secretary>
// Bloomberg // Ben Brody – June 19, 2015 *

Billionaire Carl Icahn doesn't want to be Treasury Secretary in the Trump
Administration, but he thinks the Donald is "completely correct" in his
concern about interest rates.

"I was extremely surprised to learn that Donald was running for President
and even more surprised that he stated he would make me Secretary of
Treasury," the activist investor wrote in a statement he linked to on his
verified Twitter account. "I am flattered but do not get up early enough in
the morning to accept this opportunity."

He added, though, that he thinks the real estate mogul, who is seeking the
Republican nomination for president, is right to worry that the U.S. has "a
big fat bubble coming up" because of low interest rates.

"I personally believe we are sailing in dangerous unchartered waters,"
wrote the former corporate raider, who is worth approximately $22 billion
and is the 33rd richest person in the world, according to Bloomberg. "I can
only hope we get to shore safely. Never in the history of the Federal
Reserve have interest rates been artificially held down for so long at the
extremely low rates existing today. I applaud Donald for speaking out on
this issue — more people should."

Trump said Thursday he might name his "friend Carl Icahn" treasury
secretary of he should find himself in the White House. He also suggested
former GE CEO Jack Welch and KKR co-founder Henry Kravis could also fill
the spot.

*Trump slams Hillary Clinton, calls her ‘pathetic’
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/trump-clinton-pathetic-charleston/>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 19, 2015 *

Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton is blaming him for the killings in
Charleston, South Carolina, an attack he returned as "pathetic" and as
evidence that "politicians are just no good."

In an 11-second video posted to his Instagram account on Friday, Trump, the
bombastic new entrant into the Republican presidential race, said Clinton
"blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina."

In an interview on Thursday, Clinton said Trump's comments about Mexicans
during his announcement speech typified the inflammatory rhetoric that
could "trigger people who are less than stable to do something" like the
shootings.

Trump said during his speech that some Mexicans who come to the United
States are "rapists."

"Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable. You know, you
don't talk like that on talk radio," Clinton said in the interview.

*Donald Trump ‘felt bad’ for bashing Jeb Bush*
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-too-rough/>*
// CNN // Tom LoBianco – June 19, 2015*

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too
rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very
hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I
hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to
air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his
announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other
politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff.
"He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you
vote for this guy?"

Trump told CNN that the Bush campaign is taking him seriously and that he
knows it because "they do call, and they write, and just believe me they
take me very seriously."

On reflection, the grandiose billionaire told Tapper he might have gone too
far knocking Bush.

"I actually saw myself a couple of days ago and I said that's, that's too
rough. Because I really think he's a nice man, I think he's a wonderful
man. I don't know if I want him negotiating with ISIS. I think Trump will
do a lot better. You think so too, but you're not going to say it."

Trump opened his campaign for president this past Tuesday with an hourlong
speech packed with some spectacular claims, by political standards. He held
out a financial statement he said showed his worth at $8.7 billion and said
he "will be the greatest jobs president God ever created."

If elected president, he also said he would seek to build a wall along the
border and have Mexico pay for it. (The U.S. struggled initially with the
construction of the border fence, taking five years to construct from the
time President George W. Bush signed the legislation creating it in 2006.)

Some top tier candidates, like Bush friend Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have
been keeping their powder dry when it comes to knocking their Republican
rivals, instead focusing their fire squarely on Hillary Clinton. But Trump
and a few others, including Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have had no trouble
firing away at Bush.

*Trump campaign responds to Hillary linking him to South Carolina shooting:
‘She must be nervous’
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/19/trump-campaign-responds-to-hillary-linking-him-to-south-carolina-shooting-she-must-be-nervous/>
// Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – June 19, 2015 *

The 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner hinted that the shooting at a
church in Charleston, South Carolina is in some way connected to Donald
Trump’s recent presidential announcement. Clinton told an interviewer:

Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be,
which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable. I think
we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the
Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about
Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.

Clinton was referring to Trump’s announcement speech, when he commented
about the illegal aliens coming across the southern border from Mexico.

“They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not
sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re
bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing
crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in
his announcement speech.

A spokesperson said Trump sends his prayers and condolences to South
Carolina residents.

Following the violent incident, Trump canceled a sold out campaign event in
South Carolina out of respect for the grieving.

“At this time of national sorrow, a responsible leader should be focused on
uniting and healing the country,” the spokesman said, adding:

Mr. Trump believes that Hillary Clinton does not have any credibility when
she blames words for violence. This is the same politician who lied to the
world after she failed to take proper steps to secure the U.S. Consulate in
Benghazi and falsely blamed the radical Islamic attack on a YouTube video.
This is the same person who illegally deleted her emails after getting a
subpoena from the U.S. Congress.

Also, it is “totally inappropriate” for Clinton to use this tragedy as a
way to attack a political opponent, the spokesman says.

“She must be nervous about something,” he added, hinting Clinton must feel
threatened by Trump’s recent media popularity following his formal White
House bid.

*Charleston: Hillary Clinton says Trump-like comments can spark race
attacks
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11688120/Charleston-Hillary-Clinton-says-Trump-like-comments-can-spark-race-attacks.html>
// Telegraph // Rob Crilly – June 20, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton has accused Donald Trump, the property mogul and Republican
presidential candidate, of deploying the sort of race rhetoric that can
trigger attacks like the Charleston shootings.

Mrs Clinton, who is the frontrunner in the Democratic race, used a radio
interview to take issue with language used by Mr Trump in his campaign
launch on Tuesday.

Her comments came two days after Dylann Roof is accused of walking into a
historic church in Charleston, South Carolina, and shooting dead nine black
people.

Dylann Roof after his arrest

"The people who do this kind of dastardly horrible act are very small
percentage, but unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and
more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people
who are less than stable to do something like what we've seen," said Mrs
Clinton during an interview in Las Vegas with KNPB.

Although Mrs Clinton did not name Mr Trump, her target could not have been
more clear.

“For example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said
some very inflammatory things about Mexicans,” she said. “Everybody should
stand up and say that's not acceptable. You know, you don't talk like that
on talk radio.”

On Tuesday Mr Trump had been characteristically blunt in describing the
problems facing the US and its jobs market.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he told his
audience at Trump Tower in New York. “They’re not sending you. They’re not
sending you.

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing
those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime,
they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”

On Friday he fired back at Mrs Clinton with an Instagram post.

“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the
horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina. This is why
politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble,” he said.

*UNDECLARED*

*WALKER*

*Scott Walker unveils new Web site as he stockpiles money for unlikely
presidential bid
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/19/scott-walker-unveils-new-web-site-as-he-stockpiles-money-for-likely-presidential-bid/?postshare=831434727303922>
// WaPo // Matea Gold – June 19, 2015 *

Scott Walker is making an early push to stockpile money for his likely
presidential bid, asking donors to raise $27,000 by mid-July, when he is
expected to launch a White House campaign.

An e-mail that went out to supporters Thursday asked them to be the first
donors to a new “testing the waters” committee, which he can use to raise
and spend money as he considers a run. All contributions made to the
committee now would go to his eventual campaign.

Donors were urged to visit a new Web site and participate in “The Race to
270” by raising $27,000 by Sunday, July 12. That is the day before when
supporters expect Walker to formally launch his campaign in the Milwaukee
area.

“Once you cross the finish line, you will be invited to a special thank you
event and be provided RACE TO 270 benefits,” according to an e-mail from
fundraiser Jenny Drucker that was obtained by The Washington Post.

Those benefits include an exclusive Race to 270 event and special gear,
along with an “Exclusive Race to 270 Conference Call with Governor Scott
Walker,” according to the details provided to supporters.

The donation page of the new Web site asks supporters to show Walker that
"he has the support to run for President of the United States."

"It is clear what we have accomplished in Wisconsin can be replicated
across the country," the Web site states. "Big Government liberalism broke
Washington. Limited government conservatism will fix it."

A spokeswoman for Walker's political organization said he will not make a
final decision about running until after the Wisconsin budget is complete.

However, the governor appeared to confirm his mid-July timing in an off-air
comment to Fox’s John Roberts, who tweeted last week that Walker told him
that “his presidential announcement would likely be around the 2nd week of
July.”

Once Walker decides to run and collects $5,000 for his "testing the waters
committee," he has 15 days to file his statement of candidacy with the
Federal Election Commission.

*Scott Walker learns a lesson*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/19/scott-walker-learns-a-lesson/>*
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 19, 2015 *

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported this week:

Scott Walker said Wednesday that he will stop talking about private
meetings with world leaders after British Prime Minister David Cameron
disputed that he had disparaged President Barack Obama’s leadership in
private comments to the Wisconsin governor.

“I’m just not going to comment on individual meetings I had with leaders
like that, be it there or anywhere else,” the White House hopeful told
reporters when asked about Cameron’s response.

Walker on Friday told Republican donors at a Utah gathering that Cameron
and other leaders were concerned about Obama’s “lead-from-behind mentality.”

Cameron’s office responded that the prime minister never expressed concerns
about Obama in his February meeting with the governor.

The report quotes Walker as saying, “What I learned best from that is I
should leave discussions like that that aren’t done in front of the media
to be treated privately, whether it was there or anywhere else.”

On the one hand, a mini-kerfuffle this early in the race is unlikely to
have any lasting effect. On the other hand, coming on the heels of Jeb
Bush’s near-flawless overseas trip and Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) adept
handling of all sorts of foreign policy questions, it should remind Walker
and his supporters that he still has much to learn.

In particular, Rubio — the other “new generation” Republican reformer with
appeal to working and middle class voters — poses a real challenge to
Walker. Dorothy Rabinowitz writes:

Candidate Rubio has, and it is no small advantage, a gift for language
found frequently in people who have been voracious readers from childhood
on. Like many children with his history, he also imbibed the sense of
American exceptionalism at an early age and it has not gone away nor is it
likely to do so.

There is no love of country quite as deep or conscious as that of the
first-generation American. Mr. Rubio is the child of immigrants, Cubans in
this case, who tutored him, as other immigrant parents have done with their
children, in the unparalleled blessings of America. . . .

In the course of his campaign rollout two months earlier than Mrs.
Clinton’s, Mr. Rubio too addressed the dangers of leadership and ideas
based on the values of yesterday. Only in his view those dangers were the
obstruction of economic progress, the stifling of America’s ability to
compete—and not least the failure to remember the importance of U.S.
leadership in the world.

“And so they appease our enemies, they betray our allies, they weaken our
military,” he says of the current administration. A dramatically different
set of charges against yesterday’s thinking—and one with which virtually
all Republican candidates would agree—than the compendium of victims
suffering under the heels of Republicans and millionaires and billionaires
that Mrs. Clinton cited on Roosevelt Island.

In other words, it may be that the policy outcome Rubio and Walker reach is
quite similar, but Walker will find it hard to match Rubio’s verbal
dexterity and comfort level on national security — at least for a while.
Walker navigated some bumpy moments early in the year before he began his
foreign policy studies and started traveling. For a time he seemed to have
found his footing and was effective in interviews. But the bar rises as the
campaign goes on, especially in side-by-side comparison with other
candidates in debates and the like. As other candidates show their ability
to navigate foreign policy issues Walker will have a smaller margin for
error. And soon when he travels abroad, the expectation will be that he
speaks and/or takes questions from the press.

The lesson for Walker is therefore two-fold: Don’t characterize publicly
what foreign leaders say to you privately, and, more importantly, the goal
posts will keep moving throughout the race, forcing each candidate to
improve. For someone who has not spent his career delving into foreign
policy and has no military experience, that means the learning process must
continue throughout the primary and into the general election. It’s not
enough as it was a couple of months ago to avoid big missteps or to just
list Hillary Clinton’s errors. Candidates will need to instill confidence
and demonstrate mastery of the ins and outs of international affairs. It is
a tall order, but then no one ever said it was easy to become a credible
commander in chief.

*ScottWalker.com goes live*
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/scott-walker-launches-scott-walker-dot-com-119222.html>*
// Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015*

In the latest step toward his all-but-announced presidential campaign,
Scott Walker’s “testing the waters” committee on Friday launched a new
website, ScottWalker.com.

The website features a prominent link to donate to Walker’s personal
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram profiles, along with options to
donate $10, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, $2,700 or some other amount. The
website is listed as paid for by “Scott Walker Inc., Testing the Waters.”

According to The Washington Post, Walker is asking donors to raise $27,000
ahead of his expected campaign announcement next month. Walker has said
that he will not make a decision on when he is specifically going to
announce until the completion of the state’s budget.

In a post to RedState on Friday, Walker outlined why he is considering a
run for the White House.

“I have heard these voices loud and clear. That’s why I am launching a
testing the waters committee to gauge support for a presidential run. This
will be the final step before I decide whether I become a candidate for our
nation’s highest office, and I urge you to sign up at ScottWalker.com so
you can be among the first to know when I have made this important
decision,” he wrote.

“There are many accomplished people eyeing the GOP nomination for
president. Some want you to think they fight. But speeches aren’t fighting
or winning. Others have won elections but haven’t fought any big fights. In
Wisconsin, we have a record of doing both,” the governor said.

*How Scott Walker dismantled Wisconsin’s environmental legacy
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/how_scott_walker_dismantled_wisconsins_environmental_legacy_partner/>
// Salon // Siri Carpenter – June 19, 2015 *

When Wisconsin’s new state treasurer Matt Adamczyk took office in January,
his first act was to order a highly symbolic change in stationery.
Adamczyk, a Republican and one of three members of the board that oversees
a small public lands agency, “felt passionately” that Tia Nelson, the
agency’s executive secretary, should be struck from the letterhead. As soon
became clear, his principal objection to Nelson, daughter of former
Wisconsin governor and environmentalist-hero Gaylord Nelson, was that in
2007–08 she had co-chaired a state task force on climate change at the
then-governor’s request. Adamczyk insisted that climate change is not
germane to the agency’s task of managing timber assets, and that Nelson’s
activities thus constituted “time theft.” When he couldn’t convince the two
other members of the agency’s board to remove Nelson from the letterhead,
he tried to get her fired. When that motion failed, he moved to silence
her. In April the board voted 2–1 to ban agency staff from working on or
discussing climate change while on the clock. The climate censorship at the
public lands agency made national headlines.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has kept his distance from Adamczyk. It is easy
to see why: Walker is widely expected to announce a bid for the Republican
presidential nomination. And his environmental legacy—which so far has gone
largely unexamined in the national press—has reached much farther than
anything the board of a tiny public lands agency could accomplish.

Since taking office in 2011 Walker has moved to reduce the role of science
in environmental policymaking and to silence discussion of controversial
subjects, including climate change, by state employees. And he has presided
over a series of controversial rollbacks in environmental protection,
including relaxing laws governing iron mining and building on wetlands, in
both cases to help specific companies avoid regulatory roadblocks. Among
other policy changes, he has also loosened restrictions on phosphorus
pollution in state waterways, tried to restrict wind energy development and
proposed ending funding for a major renewable energy research program
housed at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Most recently Walker has targeted the science and educational corps at the
state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which has responsibility for
protecting and managing forests and wildlife, along with air and water
quality. In his 2015–17 budget, released in February, he proposed
eliminating a third of the DNR’s 58 scientist positions and 60 percent of
its 18 environmental educator positions. (The cuts were approved by the
state legislature’s budget committee in May, and the budget is currently
making its way through the legislature.) Walker also attempted to convert
the citizen board that sets policy for the DNR to a purely advisory body
and proposed a 13-year freeze on the state’s popular land conservation
fund—both changes that lawmakers rejected in the face of intense public
objections.

Walker’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comments for this
article. But he and his allies in the Republican-controlled legislature
have said that such policy shifts will streamline regulations that they say
interfere with business development. Many scientists and environmental
advocates as well as some conservative political and business leaders say
Walker’s actions diminish the role of science in policy decisions and
undermine key environmental protections that have long distinguished
Wisconsin as a conservation leader.

“I just see a guy who’s afraid of the mob”

One of the biggest environmental controversies to mark Walker’s tenure came
in 2013,when he signed a law paving the way for Gogebic Taconite, a mining
company later revealed to be a major political donor, to build a
6.5-kilometer-long open-pit mine in the Penokee Hills region in the Lake
Superior watershed. Citing a 2011 study funded by Gogebic, Walker argued
the mine would bring thousands of jobs to the struggling region. Gogebic
helped write the new law, which allows companies to dump mine waste into
nearby wetlands, streams and lakes; doubles the area around a mine that a
company can pollute; allows the DNR to exempt any company from any part of
the law; and strips citizens of the right to sue mining companies for
illegal environmental damage.

The new law also included a philosophical shift: Where the old law
specified that mining should impact wetlands as little as possible, the new
one says that significant adverse impacts on wetlands are presumed to be
necessary.

Gogebic dropped the Wisconsin mining project after finding more wetlands
than expected in the area, raising questions about the cost of meeting
federal mitigation standards. The rewritten Wisconsin law, however, would
govern any future projects.

Phosphorus pollution has been another flashpoint. In 2010 Wisconsin was the
first state in the U.S. to adopt rules imposing numeric limits on
phosphorus pollution, which impairs hundreds of Wisconsin waterways and can
harm aquatic life and human health. When Walker took office in 2011, he
argued that the rules would be too expensive for manufacturers and
communities to follow and proposed to delay implementing them for two
years. In 2014 he signed a law allowing polluters to postpone meeting the
phosphorus restrictions if they could demonstrate that complying with the
rules would pose a financial hardship. Environmental groups say that by
diminishing polluters’ responsibility for reducing phosphorus discharges,
the law is a step backward for water quality.

Walker has also resisted measures to reduce carbon emissions that
contribute to climate change. Like many Republican governors and lawmakers,
he has avoided making public remarks on climate change. But his actions
paint a picture.

In 2008 before he was governor, he signed the Koch-backed “No Climate Tax
Pledge,”vowing to oppose any climate legislation that increased government
revenue. In 2014 he appointed a utility commissioner who said in a
confirmation hearing that “the elimination of essentially every automobile
would be offset by one volcano exploding,” a remark he later recanted. In
February a child asked Walker what he would do about climate change if he
were president. Walker’s reply: as a Boy Scout he believed in leaving his
campsite cleaner than when he found it. Nevertheless, this spring Wisconsin
joined 13 other states in a lawsuit challenging U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which would cut carbon
emissions from Wisconsin power plants by 34 percent by 2030. (A federal
court dismissed the suit on June 9.)

Walker has argued, based on a study funded by the coal company Peabody
Energy that the new rules are “unworkable” because they would be too
expensive for manufacturers and residents and has implied that Wisconsin
might not comply with them.

Although some conservatives in Wisconsin praise Walker’s actions, he’s
attracted the ire of others, including former Republican state senator Dale
Schultz, who retired from the senate last winter after 32 years in the
legislature. “I think what’s going on is appalling,” Schultz says. “As
somebody who thinks that should be the first thing conservatives ought to
be doing is protecting our environment, it’s embarrassing. I’m a pretty
pro-business Republican. But a clean environment is essential to business.
This is just wholly unacceptable.”

Schultz attributes Walker and other far-right Republicans’ policy positions
to the demands of wealthy benefactors, especially those connected to the
energy industry. “Some days I look at Governor Walker and I just see a guy
who’s afraid of the mob,” Schultz says. “He helped create it, he fosters
it, but then he’s also fearful of it.”

“The term ‘climate change’ has become a red flag”

The Walker administration’s policy changes have been accompanied by efforts
to weaken scientists’ role in policymaking. Even before taking office,
Walker signaled his environmental agenda by appointing former Republican
state senator and construction-company owner Cathy Stepp as DNR secretary,
explaining that he wanted “someone with a chamber-of-commerce mentality” at
the agency’s helm. Stepp, who does not have a background in science or
natural resource management, had publicly derided DNR staff as “unelected
bureaucrats who have only their cubicle walls to bounce ideas off of” and
who thus “tend to come up with some pretty outrageous stuff that those of
us in the real world have to contend with.”

Recently retired scientists spoke to a sharp shift under Stepp’s
leadership. Adrian Wydeven, a wolf biologist who ran the DNR’s wolf
management program from 1990 until 2013 and retired last year, points to
the 2013 restructuring of all the DNR’s wildlife advisory committees. In
that restructuring the agency removed university scientists and greatly
reduced the number of DNR professional staff; it also gave special interest
groups, such as politically influential pro-hunting groups, more slots.
Wydeven says the DNR has also restricted scientists’ opportunities to speak
directly with lawmakers about proposed regulations and has become
deferential toward the legislature. “In the past, if the legislators were
proposing anything that wasn’t scientifically sound, the DNR was much more
forceful in disagreeing with the legislature and making recommendations to
improve the legislation,” he says. “Now there’s much less of that.”

Although DNR researchers haven’t been explicitly forbidden from mentioning
climate change (as Tia Nelson was at the public lands agency until the
board yesterday amended its policy to ban staff only from engaging in
advocacy on climate policy), they nonetheless describe a “chilling effect”
on discussion about politically controversial subjects. In November 2010
the DNR’s main climate change Web page was a rich portal containing
detailed information about climate trends, forecasted impacts of climate
change and DNR programs aimed at addressing the problem. The page also
acknowledged that “the most renowned group of scientists working on climate
change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that
it is very likely [more than 90 percent probability] that human activity is
responsible for rising temperatures.” Today, the page contains a single
paragraph describing, in general terms, a partnership with the University
of Wisconsin to study the impacts of climate change and a link to the
university’s project Web site.

The chilling effect is also evident in internal discussions, DNR scientists
say. Sally Kefer, a land use expert who retired from the DNR in 2014, says
that she encountered increasing institutional resistance to discussing
climate change in the course of helping communities prepare for a warmer
and wetter future. “I was being told to quit contacting the communities to
determine their level of interest in having a discussion about climate
adaptation,” Kefer says. “I was told to wait until they called me. And
can’t I figure out a way to call it something other than ‘climate
adaptation’? Can’t we just call it ‘sustainability’?” A current DNR
scientist, who requested anonymity, says that the term “climate change” has
become a red flag in internal grant proposals. “It’s impossible to work on
natural resources without incorporating climate change in some way,” the
researcher says. But “we’re less likely to cause problems if we just call
it something else. ‘Environmental variability’s sort of our code word.”

Kimberlee Wright, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, an
environmental law center, works closely with DNR engineers and scientists
to review and comment on pollution permits for activities such as
wastewater disposal and groundwater pumping under the Clean Water Act. In
the past, Wright says, the process was typically straightforward, and she
and colleagues were routinely able to hammer out permits that followed the
technical requirements of the law. But since Gov. Walker took office, she
says, “We have not been able to settle one permit—we’ve had to litigate
every single challenge. We’re often told by [DNR] staff, ‘We know you’re
right, but you’re going to have to sue us because the people above me won’t
let me issue a technically sufficient permit.’ That’s a really big
difference—the interference in science-based decision-making is pretty
complete.”

The DNR Office of Communications did not permit agency scientists to be
interviewed for this article and did not make Sec. Stepp or Bureau of
Science Services Director Jack Sullivan available for comment on whether
the agency restricts scientists’ freedom to communicate about areas of
their expertise. The department’s spokesperson, William Cosh, said in an
e-mail that “When it comes to making decisions the agency remains committed
to doing so by using sound science, following the law and using common
sense.”

But Walker’s 2015–17 budget proposal, which called for eliminating a third
of all research scientist positions and more than half of environmental
educator positions from the DNR, would dramatically decrease the influence
of science on natural resources policy and public outreach.

According to the state’s bipartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which
provides fiscal information to the lawmakers, about half of the scientist
positions Walker slated for elimination are federally funded. In March
Stepp said the agency was considering subsuming remaining positions into
other parts of the agency, dissolving the Bureau of Science Services
altogether. Walker has indicated that he wants science to inform policy
decisions on “an as-needed basis.” The agency spokesperson said the cuts do
not eliminate the agency’s research capacity. “What these cuts require us
to do,” he said in an e-mail, “is to better prioritize the research that
our scientists are engaged in to help inform management decisions.”

DNR scientists reject that assertion. “I don’t understand how they can say
with a straight face that cutting a third of the research program will not
diminish their capacity to do research,” says one researcher, who requested
anonymity. “We already have a pretty formalized process of prioritizing
research; every two years we go through a process where they identify their
research needs.”

Walker’s proposal to shrink the DNR’s scientific capacity appears to have
been the brainchild of Tom Tiffany, a GOP state senator who is a longtime
critic of the DNR’s science bureau. In May he confirmed on a regional radio
program that he requested Gov. Walker cut the DNR scientist, educator and
communications positions. Tiffany said he thinks the agency’s scientists
have a wildlife management “agenda” that has driven the agency to mismanage
the deer herd, curtailing sportsmen’s hunting opportunities. He has also
said he believes the agency’s scientists spend too much time on
controversial subjects like climate change, which he views as
“theoretical.” (According to DNR records, just under 3 percent of DNR
scientists’ work hours during the last fiscal year involved activities
related to climate change.)

The DNR changes are “an assault on the science side of policy making,” says
Curt Meine, a conservation biologist and biographer of conservation pioneer
Aldo Leopold. “Wisconsin’s conservation has always been built on a broad
public commitment to building and sustaining the health of the landscape
and the inherent connection between a healthy economy and healthy land and
waters,” he says. “We have a long record of bipartisan support for that.
There’s always been tensions, there always will be tensions, maybe—but
science has always been a way of talking across those divisions because
everybody wants good information to make decisions. Now that legacy,
fostered by the likes of Aldo Leopold and Gaylord Nelson, is eroding away.”

*Scott Walker’s Wisconsin job agency gave out $124 million without review
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-scott-walker-jobs-agency-20150619-story.html>
// Chicago Tribune // June 19, 2015 *

More than two dozen awards worth more than $124 million were made to
companies without a formal staff review by the underwriting department of
Gov. Scott Walker's economic development agency, it reported Friday.

Documents detailing the awards were made public late Friday afternoon in
advance of a Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation board meeting on
July 20 to discuss one troubled unsecured loan that went to a failing
company owned by a Walker donor.

The Republican Walker, who is expected to formally launch a presidential
campaign in mid-July, has been hounded by troubles with the quasi-private
jobs agency he created shortly after taking office in 2011.

An internal review released Friday showed that WEDC gave out 27 award
contracts to 24 companies between July 2011 and June 2013 without staff
review, which WEDC said was not required at the time. Those were discovered
during a review of 371 awards WEDC made in its first two years of operation.

Walker's spokeswoman Jocelyn Webster said the governor would review the
documents to prepare for the discussion at the July 20 board meeting.

Rep. Peter Barca, the Assembly's Democratic leader, called the situation
"outrageous." He said there are many unanswered questions about how many
loans were approved over underwriters' objections.

"I am not at all confident we have even a fraction of the troubling details
board members need in order to carry out our fiduciary responsibility," he
said. "This is yet another example of how senior WEDC officials have kept
the board and Wisconsin taxpayers in the dark about serious problems
surrounding the governor's jobs agency."

Some of the companies on the list are owned or affiliated with donors to
Walker's political campaigns.

Kenneth C. Stock, the chief executive of KCS International, a luxury boat
builder in Oconto, donated $8,500 to Walker. Members of the Sonnentag
family, which owns County Materials, have donated at least $36,000 to
Walker. Laona-based WD Parket LLC, is a fifth-generation company run by the
Connor family, longtime Republican donors.

The three highest un-reviewed awards all came through the enterprise zone
program. The largest, $62.5 million, went to Kohl's Department Stores for
an expansion of its corporate headquarters on June 28, 2012, for a project
that was expected to create 3,000 jobs but that has created just 473 so far.

The next highest was $18 million to Kestrel Aircraft Company for an
expected 665 jobs, but just 24 have been created. The third highest was $15
million to Plexus Corp. to create 350 jobs, but none have been created,
according to a tally provided by WEDC.

Of the 27 awards, just over 6,100 jobs were expected to be created, but to
date only about 2,100 have been. Nearly 8,900 jobs have been retained,
according to WEDC. The projects made about $490 million in investment, the
report said.

One of the 27 unsecured awards was a $500,000 loan to the now-defunct
Milwaukee construction company Building Committee Inc. that was collapsing
at the time and created no jobs. That was among several loans questioned by
state auditors that led Walker in May to call for scrapping the loan
program.

The loan to BCI came after its owner William Minahan had given Walker's
2010 gubernatorial campaign a last-minute $10,000 donation on Election Day
— the maximum individual contribution.

A memo from Jake Kuester, the vice president of credit and risk at WEDC,
outlined what he called an "extensive review" of all awards the agency made
worth more than $200,000 during its first two years in operation.

Kuester said employees of the former Department of Commerce, which WEDC
replaced, said it was an "acceptable practice" for the secretary of the
agency to approve an award with no formal written staff review "when the
need to be flexible and reactive to a business's needs warranted it. That
practice was carried forward into WEDC during its early days."

In July 2013, the WEDC board approved a new policy that included requiring
a written review on all program awards. Since then, WEDC says it has
approved more than 760 awards, all of which were reviewed by staff.

*CHRISTIE*

*Chris Christie rips Rand Paul on the Patriot Act
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-rand-paul-patriot-act-119217.html>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015 *

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie lit into Sen. Rand Paul on Friday over his
efforts to force the expiration of the PATRIOT Act.

The governor and likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate devoted a
chunk of his speech at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority
conference to hitting Paul for successfully causing parts of the PATRIOT
Act to expire.

Christie didn’t mention Paul by name, but it was clear he was referring to
the Kentucky Republican senator’s efforts to alter the anti-terrorism law.

“These types of actions, I’m telling you from experience, are shortsighted.
And these same people who give these long speeches up on Capitol Hill if,
God forbid, there is some kind of other attack in this country, will be the
first ones to [drag] the CIA director and the FBI director up to Capitol
Hill, put them under oath and excoriate them for not connecting the dots
and not preventing the attacks,” Christie said.

In late May, Paul was able to cause parts of the PATRIOT Act to expire
through procedural tactics that delayed the law’s renewal. Christie
suggested in his speech Friday that the move was really about Paul raising
money and his profile for his presidential bid.

“This is about life and death for our country, and I stand for keeping
America safe and making America strong and not giving political speeches on
the floor of the Senate to raise money for a political campaign,” Christie
said.

*KASICH*

*Operation replace Jeb Bush
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-kasich-replace-jeb-bush-2016-candidate-119191.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 19, 2015 *

Sensing the window of opportunity is closing, John Kasich is on a
last-minute dash across the country to convince party donors and
power-brokers that there’s room for one more candidate in the most crowded
Republican presidential field in decades.

The Ohio governor, who’s expected to formally announce his White House bid
next month, is jetting to America’s political money capitals — from Dallas
to New York City to Palm Beach — with the goal of securing the financial
support he’ll need to wage a 2016 campaign.

He’s huddled with Ann Romney at a lavish Utah ski resort and pushed to win
the backing of a powerful longtime friend, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. He’s
also tried to convince Ohio’s deepest-pocketed donors to keep their powder
dry and not commit until he gets into the race.

The case for his candidacy is grounded in his record as a popular swing
state governor. But part of his sell to donors is that Jeb Bush has run an
ineffective campaign, creating an opening for a candidate who happens to
fit Kasich’s own profile.

At times, Kasich, who waged a disappointing campaign for the GOP nomination
in 2000 and lacks the national profile of many of his would-be 2016 rivals,
has faced tough questions about whether he’s getting in too late.

During one meeting, which took place about two weeks ago, the governor grew
angry when a major Republican Party contributor pointed out that others had
already formally launched their campaigns and built expansive teams of
political advisers. “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Kasich
snapped at the donor, who wished to remain anonymous because the meeting
was private. It was still early, Kasich insisted, and Bush, who had endured
a rocky rollout, was “losing steam.”

Kasich’s temper has made it harder to endear himself to the GOP’s wealthy
benefactors. Last year, he traveled to Southern California to appear on a
panel at a conference sponsored by the Republican mega-donors Charles and
David Koch. At one point, according to accounts provided by two sources
present, Randy Kendrick, a major contributor and the wife of Ken Kendrick,
the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, rose to say she disagreed with
Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid coverage, and questioned why he’d
expressed the view it was what God wanted.

The governor’s response was fiery. “I don’t know about you, lady,” he said
as he pointed at Kendrick, his voice rising. “But when I get to the pearly
gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”

The exchange left many stunned. About 20 audience members walked out of the
room, and two governors also on the panel, Nikki Haley of South Carolina
and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told Kasich they disagreed with him. The
Ohio governor has not been invited back to a Koch seminar — opportunities
for presidential aspirants to mingle with the party’s rich and powerful —
in the months since.

A Kasich spokesman, Chris Schrimpf, declined to comment on the episode.

As he travels the country, Kasich, a two-term governor who spent nearly two
decades in the House of Representatives, has made a forceful case for why
there’s room for him in the race and has said that the fluid nature of the
contest guarantees that the dynamics will shift before the primary season
intensifies.

In his talks with the party’s top donors — a group that includes retail
king Les Wexner and publishing magnate John Wolfe — Kasich, 63, has argued
that other candidates had failed to coalesce the party behind them. And he
has suggested they consider holding off on giving to other contenders, or
at least consider contributing to him as well.

In his conversations with some of the party’s top statewide leaders, he’s
pointed out that Bush had been unsuccessful in steamrolling the competition
— as, he’s fond of pointing out, he was expected to do.

“It’s a year-and-a half before the election,” said Matt Borges, the Ohio
Republican Party chairman and a staunch Kasich ally. “It’s not that the
landscape might change. It’s that the landscape will change.”

Those briefed on Kasich’s plans say he’s begun a concerted push to lock
down the support of Murdoch, the Australian-born media tycoon who is an
influential voice in conservative circles, and was hopeful he could be
brought aboard. The two have long been close: Murdoch was Kasich’s boss
during his six-year tenure as Fox News host, and during Kasich’s 2010
gubernatorial bid he persuaded Murdoch to make a $1 million contribution to
the Republican Governors Association. When they are both in New York City,
Kasich and Murdoch make plans to see one another.

But Murdoch, those familiar with the effort say, hasn’t yet committed to
Kasich, and has said he has many friends in the contest. He has pointed to
Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie as candidates he particularly
admires.

There’s little question that Bush is a serious obstacle to Kasich. Both see
themselves as serious, cerebral men with unrivaled policy chops. And both
are seeking to win over the party’s pro-business establishment. Leaving
nothing to chance, in recent months, the former Florida governor has
launched a mission to secure support in Ohio, robbing Kasich of prospective
fundraising dollars in his home state before he gets his campaign off the
ground.

Two of Ohio’s biggest Republican givers, Wexner and businessman Mercer
Reynolds, recently cut checks to Bush, who’s brought on Heather Larrison, a
top fundraiser for Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, to help introduce him to the
state’s Republican benefactors. And while House Speaker John Boehner, who
remains a force in Ohio politics, has stopped short of endorsing Bush,
there’s little question about where his allegiances lie. Last year, Boehner
praised the former Florida governor by saying that he “has a record of
serious, big reforms” and that he would have “a real shot” at winning the
White House.

For Kasich, it’s an ironic twist. Running for president in 2000, Kasich,
then a congressman, found himself gasping for air when George W. Bush
dominated in the race for money and endorsements. Kasich would drop out
before the primary season got under way, and in the years after, he would
tell friends that he was stung by the loss.

Today, another Bush is standing in his way. But as he prepares to enter the
2016 maw, Kasich’s advisers insist he’s a different candidate — and one
with more financial support. He’s gathered a formidable group of donors
that is expected to include manufacturing company executive Karen Wright
and venture capitalist Mark Kvamme.

“What that experience taught him was that he wasn’t really ready,” said
Doug Preisse, the Franklin County Republican Party chairman and a longtime
top Kasich political adviser, noting that historically, it’s been difficult
for a member of the House to seek the presidency. “The difference is that
he’s 15 years older, and he’s the executive of the seventh-largest state in
the union.”

Kasich isn’t simply focused on raising dollars. He’s also racing to
increase his profile, hoping that it will boost his standing in national
polls so he can qualify for the first Republican debate, slated for August
in Cleveland. If he doesn’t get in, it would prove embarrassing — and
potentially damaging to his prospects. In recent weeks, Kasich — who at
times during his gubernatorial tenure has been media-shy — has made himself
a regular figure on the Sunday show circuit.

Unlike most candidates who attended a Republican donor retreat in Park
City, Utah, Kasich went out of his way to make himself accessible to the
reporters covering the event. He hung out in a media room, joked around
with journalists, and made time for a 15-minute press conference.

The only thing he didn’t want to talk about, it seemed, was the thing he
got asked about the most: Bush. Just days earlier, while stumping in New
Hampshire, Kasich had said, “I thought Jeb would just suck all the air out
of the room, and it just hasn’t happened.”

“You know, I said some things in New Hampshire about the fact that I
wouldn’t have gotten in if I thought there was a clear winner,” Kasich said
in Utah, adding: “I’m done talking about Jeb Bush, OK? I like Jeb.”

*OTHER*

*GOP Presidential Candidates: The More the Scarier
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/20/gop_presidential_candidates_the_more_the_scarier.html>
// RealClearPolitics // Jonathan Riehl & David B. Frisk - June 20, 2015*

Hillary Clinton apparently doesn’t scare the Republican Party, since a
candidate roster of unprecedented size is amassing in search of the party’s
presidential nomination. But the very size of that overcrowded field is
diminishing GOP chances of retaking the White House in 2016.

For centrist voters, the chaotic array of candidates will reinforce an
impression that except for criticizing the incumbent president, the GOP
lacks focus. Meanwhile the Democrats will, perhaps fitfully, draw toward
their center of gravity. The challenge Clinton faces in maximizing unity
and enthusiasm before her coronation as nominee is not trivial, as Bernie
Sanders’ unexpected strength in the recent Wisconsin Democratic convention
straw poll reveals. But Clinton's intra-party difficulties look trivial
compared with those a ridiculously crowded field presents to the GOP.

This is all the truer because base Republican voters are juggling a
complicated set of criteria that makes it hard for them to settle on what
“best nominee” actually means. With no clear leader, the conservative ship
of state is truly adrift – notwithstanding any half-hearted protestations
about the embarrassment of riches.

An important factor in lengthening the candidate roster and also making a
quick winnowing unlikely is a long decline in political discipline among
conservatives, who for many decades have dominated the Republican
electorate. One notable result of this indiscipline is trouble judging who
is most worth backing in a presidential race – the proliferation of fuzzy
thinking about who is most likely to win a general election, remain true to
conservative principles, and deliver for conservatives as president. This
situation results from at least two causes. One is conservatives' and
libertarians' ambivalent attitude toward power and therefore toward
practical, as distinct from merely expressive, politics. The other is their
long record of frustration with presidential power and federal authority.

Despite their substantial success within the GOP, some of these voters have
felt increasingly alienated from a political system that has produced such
limited policy victories for them in the half century since conservatives
flouted the party's moderate establishment to nominate the unabashedly
ideological Barry Goldwater. In addition, the famous “Buckley Rule” from
that era, accurately attributed to the founding editor of National Review —
that the party should nominate the rightmost viable candidate — has been
widely preached but little fulfilled.

What William F. Buckley Jr. meant was that the party should focus on
someone who would clearly advance the conservative cause even if he didn't
win. Even by that modest standard, it would be hard to choose from among
the current crop of contenders on the Republican right. How has Ted Cruz,
for example, demonstrated any ability to nudge large swaths of voters in
his direction, even in a losing cause? As for winning a national election
while advancing conservatism’s broader agenda, Ronald Reagan may be the
only nominee who ever pulled off that trick. In that sense Reagan succeeded
where Goldwater did not. But in the 2016 field, the Republicans don’t
appear to have a Reagan or a Goldwater. They do have a Bush, but that’s
part of the problem, not the solution.

To cite one result of the dysfunctional criteria many conservatives now
apply to nomination contests: Organizers of the early debates will probably
feel compelled to include Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson even if their poll
numbers are statistically nonexistent — lest conservatives accuse them of
favoring insiders. Symbolic politics are too much at work. Conservatism and
its postwar legacy of intellectual seriousness are in real peril.

The crowded debate stages will prevent any one or two candidates from
making a strong enough impression to actually begin shaping the Republican
field. Worse, the teeming cast will allow far too little time for viewers
to learn much about candidates or issues — a problem not just for
democratic citizenship, but for the GOP's morale and sense of identity as
well. The overcrowding will also tend to dangerously delay the emergence of
strong motivation for any particular candidate among volunteers and donors,
even if they have early inclinations toward one or another. (Each candidate
of any prominence will have some deeply, durably committed backers. But
not, we think, a very significant number.) The existence and likely
continuance of a plethora of campaigns will also multiply occasions for
resentment among the supporters of various candidates, or types of
candidates, as the looming battle is joined. And finally, all of this
proceduralism will waste even more Republican money in the primary phase
than would be the case anyway.

Furthermore, even if conservatives did promptly zero in on the questions
that actually matter most to their cause, this candidate field would be
hard to judge. A thumbnail sketch of the higher-profile Republican
hopefuls' key assets and liabilities suggests the trouble that primary
voters will have in deciding who is most electable and politically
trustworthy — and therefore ending, reasonably soon, what promises to be a
dangerously long primary season for the GOP.

Jeb Bush would insure the GOP against the risks of relative inexperience,
can be expected to show strong command of many issues, and wouldn't offend
centrist independents. But his name and the dynastic factor are
backward-looking minuses — and he isn’t likely to  win the hearts of social
conservatives or immigration restrictionists, two constituencies that exert
significant pressure on the nominating process, or the many Republicans who
distrust the politics of compromise and incrementalism.

Ben Carson breaks the party's supposedly damaging “white male” image — and
does so as an outspoken conservative. His combination of geniality,
superior achievement in a profession far more popular than the corporate
world, and fearless denunciation of the left could be formidable, but he’s
never held or run for office, and is given to the kind of impolitic gaffes
that invariably bedevil political amateurs.

Ted Cruz has a strong aura of self-promotion, and something rings hollow in
his rhetoric, (and his thin Senate record) especially if he is standing
next to someone like fellow freshman Sen. Rand Paul. But he can motivate
conservatives, and with his public speaking skills might be able to get
others to listen.

Carly Fiorina is the Hillary Clinton antidote, at least as far as gender
demographics are concerned, but her resume stands in stark contrast to the
Democrats’ frontrunner. Clinton is a former first lady, U.S. senator, and
secretary of state—though not without critics of her role as the nation’s
top diplomat. Fiorina is a corporate CEO with a mixed record of success and
a failed Senate candidate.

Mike Huckabee has, like Jeb Bush, “run” a state. Uniquely among the
candidates, he also has experience dealing with the Clinton machine back
home in Arkansas. More than most in the field, he understands the economic
plight of working and middle-class Americans. And his commitment to social
conservatism is genuine and appreciated by the GOP base, but may have
limited appeal. Those traits might make him a more formidable primary
season candidate than his current poll numbers suggest, but his social
conservatism could render him unelectable in November 2016.

Rand Paul capitalizes credibly on the anti-Washington mood —giving the
impression of an honest, committed, independent thinker who would rather be
right than president. But his tendency toward isolationism — even if he
pref ers it to be called non-interventionism — is simply not in sync with
most Republicans’ foreign policy views.

Marco Rubio, the third of the GOP’s troika of freshmen senators, is a fresh
face, projects inclusiveness and optimism, and is especially quick and
articulate. Like Cruz, he is Hispanic and speaks evocatively of the
immigrant experience. But many conservatives also want a candidate who can
speak convincingly of the great danger they believe the country is in — and
who is comfortable “going negative.” He may not be able to.

Scott Walker has an impressive gubernatorial and electoral record, beating
back the twin bogeymen of public-employee unions and MSNBC (in the person
of Ed Schultz) for good measure. But does he have the charisma the role
demands? His network of think tank leaders, opinion leaders, and donors is
impressive to insiders, but does he come across as presidential? Will his
lack of gravitas give voters pause?

*Republican candidates struggle to talk about race, guns
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-candidates-2016-charleston-dylann-storm-roof-ben-carson-race-119230.html>
// Politico // Eli Stokols and Daniel Strauss – June 19, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidates are struggling to characterize the
motivation behind the tragic mass shooting in Charleston, S.C., with only
Ben Carson speaking quickly and forcefully about the role of race in the
killing of nine people in a historically black church this week.

“If we don’t pay close attention to the hatred and division in our nation,
it is just a harbinger of what we can expect,” said Carson, who stands
apart from the rest of the GOP field as a rare African-American
conservative.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition, at which many of the Republican contenders
are appearing this week, showed the party’s overall discomfort with talking
about race and guns.

While the Justice Department quickly opened up a hate crime investigation
into the killings, carried out by a 21-year-old white man, and Hillary
Clinton argued the tragedy should force America to focus on “hard truths”
about race, guns, violence, and divisions, Republicans were initially
reluctant to attribute the murders to racism.

Some of the earliest reactions argued that the shooting at the A.M.E.
Church in Charleston was really an attack on religious liberty and a matter
of good versus evil. But by Friday afternoon much of the field suggested
that the shooting was (at the very least) related to race.

“The idea that anyone would walk into a church and pray with the people he
intended to murder is depraved,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who
spoke Friday morning. “It’s unthinkable.”

Early on in the conference, several Republican candidates who touched on
the Charleston shooting here — only Marco Rubio, who spoke Thursday,
completely ignored it — chose to focus on the fact that it happened inside
“a House of God.”

Though he spoke about race when urging Republicans to become a “party of
minority rights,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, ascribed the killings to “people
straying away” from faith.

“There’s a sickness in our country,” he said. “There’s something terribly
wrong but it isn’t going to be fixed by your government … It’s people not
understanding where salvation comes from.”

That same day, former senator Rick Santorum described the shooting as a
“crime of hate” and pegged it as a “assault on religious liberty.”

Jeb Bush, who emphasized his conservative bona fides at the conference, was
cautious when asked whether he thought the shooting was racially motivated.

“Looks like it to me it was, but we’ll find out all the information,” Bush
said Friday at the conference during a hallway interview, according to
spokesman Tim Miller . “It’s clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure.
Nine people lost their lives, and they were African American. You can judge
what it is.”

During his remarks just before from the stage, however, the former Florida
governor told the crowd that he didn’t know “what was on the mind or heart
of the man who committed these atrocious crimes.

“I do know —I do know what was in the heart of the victims. They were
meeting in brotherhood and sisterhood in that church.”

The candidates’ hedges and wobbles are at odds with the facts that have
emerged about the alleged killer, Dylann Storm Roof. His own Facebook page,
his statements to law enforcement officers and media reports quoting those
who know him show strong connections to white supremacy beliefs.

Bush’s initial avoidance of that reality mirrored that of Ohio Gov. John
Kasich, who acknowledged the obvious racial aspect of the shooting only
after being asked by reporters after his speech.

“What I noticed is that the entire country is now standing shoulder to
shoulder with the minority community, the African American community in
South Carolina, and God bless them,” he said. Asked whether the shooting
was a hate crime, Kasich replied, “There’s nine people dead…you read what
they say about the guy, it sure appears that way.”

Speaking to the crowd of several hundred religious conservatives, Bush,
Christie and others called for prayer and little else.

“Laws can’t change this,” he said. “Only the good will and love of the
American people can let folks know that an act like this is unacceptable.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal opened his remarks by himself leading a long
prayer, expressing grief for the victims, their families and the Charleston
community; he prayed that God brings comfort to children asking their
parents “about the realities of evil.”

Bush, while acknowledging that the shooting “has had a big effect on me”,
encouraged the audience to turn inward for solace in the shooting’s
aftermath.

“We must continue to bear witness to the truth that God acts through us;
and that, even in crisis, even in desperate times, we can always walk
upright as brothers and sisters and look to the havens and know that we’re
children of God,” Bush said.

“Let’s hope it never happens again.”

*GOPers road-test their religious messages
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/2015-faith-freedom-forum-119235.html?hp=t3_r>
// Politico // Kyle Cheney, Katie Glueck, and Eli Stokols – June 19, 2015 *

Jeb Bush invoked Terri Schiavo. Rand Paul called for cutting foreign aid to
countries that “persecute Christians.” And Ted Cruz warned that a Supreme
Court decision legalizing gay marriage would amount to “naked and lawless
judicial activism.”

Washington’s annual social conservative cattle call, a three-day event
hosted by the Faith & Freedom Coalition, has so far amounted to a message
test for a dozen Republicans running for president, each tailoring rhetoric
they hope resonates among the religious right.

Some quoted scripture and others hewed closely to their stump speeches. But
the ones who found particular favor with their audience — a potent force in
GOP primary politics — described a conservative Christian community under
siege by government, Democrats and an increasingly godless society.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned of an “assault on religious liberty” in
America. Paul called it “a sickness.” Bush said freedom of religion was
“under attack.” But few were more hot-blooded than Cruz, who argued that a
recent battle in Indiana over a religious freedom law — ripped by opponents
as an attack on gay rights — exposed many of his Republican competitors as
weak-kneed.

“More than few Republicans, sadly, even more than a few Republican running
for president in 2016, chose that moment to go rearrange their sock
drawer,” he said. Cruz referenced William Barret Travis, who, according to
legend, drew a line in the sand with his saber to determine which of his
men were willing to die defending the Alamo. “You choose which side of the
line you’re on,” Cruz said.

The candidates are betting that the moment is right to mobilize
evangelicals and other Christians worried about the erosion of religious
values in America. The latest blow, they fear, will come later this month,
when the Supreme Court is set to decide whether same-sex marriage is legal
nationwide. That anxiety was on display throughout the conference, which
included a panel discussion dubbed “The War on Christianity” and it was
threaded through many speeches by non-candidates too — Rep. Steve King
called for “civil disobedience” if the Supreme Court supports gay marriage.

Bush, who has run afoul of the GOP base by supporting immigration reform
and Common Core education standards, emphasized his Catholicism and social
conservatism.

“We shouldn’t push aside those who believe in traditional marriage,” he
said, touching on a subject he rarely brings up during his forays into Iowa
and New Hampshire.

As he did in his announcement speech in Miami Monday, Bush focused on his
belief in religious freedom and blasted Hillary Clinton and the Obama
administration for suing Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor over
their religious objections to Obamacare.

“Religious freedom now is under attack more than ever before,” Bush said,
as he defended religion generally as “the greatest force for good in the
world.”

“If we act on our faith everyday, we’re going to create a more just, more
loving world,” Bush said.

The former Florida governor reminded the audience of his intervention on
behalf of Schiavo’s family in the 2005 right-to-die case in an effort to
keep her alive.

“When I was asked to intervene on behalf of a woman who could not speak up
for herself…I stood on her side,” Bush said.

He also emphasized his work during two terms as Florida governor regulating
abortion clinics, signing a bill into law requiring parental notification
and another banning partial-birth abortions.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also mentioned abortion, albeit obliquely,
telling the audience it’s important to support people before and after
they’re born.

“I believe if you are pro-life, as I am, you need to be pro-life for the
whole life,” Christie said, pivoting to his own record and his
administration’s prioritizing of drug treatment over incarceration for
nonviolent offenders and its support for expanding educational opportunity
through charter schools. “You can’t just afford to be pro-life when the
human being is in the womb.”

In fact, the issue of abortion rarely came up in the candidates’ comments.
Cruz, Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio barely discussed it at all. It was left
largely to other speakers — Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Iowa’s King — to
broach the subject with any force.

The forum, which continues Saturday with speeches from Carly Fiorina and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, also offered a chance for underperforming
candidates to find new energy.

Jindal trails badly in early polling, but on Friday, he found a receptive
audience, earning one of the most enthusiastic receptions of the morning.
Jindal, who is expected to announce for president next week, tapped into
the siege mentality that has gripped many religious conservatives, charging
that under the Obama administration, the ability to freely practice faith
is under attack. He blasted the Obamacare contraception coverage mandate
that became an issue for Hobby Lobby, described his path to Catholicism —
he converted from Hinduism — and jabbed at Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama, who once opposed same-sex marriage, saying, “My views on marriage
are not evolving with the polls.”

The Louisiana governor was one of the earliest and consistently loudest
voices supporting the Indiana religious freedom measure and, like Cruz,
tore into businesses that opposed the law.

“I’ve got a message for big business: You’re now in bed with the folks who
want to tax you and regulate you,” he charged.

To big applause, Jindal argued, “The United States of America did not
create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of
America.”

Even former New York Gov. George Pataki, whose barely perceptible
presidential campaign launched last month, found that standing up for
religious liberty could energize his audience. He quoted St. Francis of
Assisi and hailed a recent Supreme Court ruling preventing limits on
pastors who wish to advertise when they hold services.

Others tested mellower messages and mixed in stories about the role of
faith in their lives, like Ben Carson, who quoted proverbs and emphasized a
belief that God (not evolution) created humanity. He said that God helped
him find his wife more than 40 years ago, after years of ignoring romantic
relationships to focus on his studies.

“He’s available if we just ask him for stuff in terms of our faith,” he
said.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich — who’s taken flak from Republicans for invoking God
to justify controversial decisions — spent the bulk of his speech …
invoking god to justify controversial decisions.

“I have a mission and I have a role on this Earth, but I’m trying to
prepare myself for the world to come,” he said, describing his policy
decisions to aid the working poor through Medicaid expansion and through
de-emphasizing incarceration for convicts with mental health issues. It
just so happens, he said, that those decisions made good politics, too,
leading to a resounding reelection last year in which he won a quarter of
the African American vote and a majority of women.

“Why did that happen? Hope returned,” he said, adding, “That’s what has to
happen in America.”

*Top Repulican Candidates Tread Lightly on Gay marriage at Evangelical
Summit
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/top-republican-candidates-tread-lightly-on-gay-marriage-at-evangelical-summit>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur and Josh Eidelson – June 19, 2015 *

There was an elephant stalking the room this week at the Faith & Freedom
Coalition's annual Washington meeting, and it wasn't of the crowd-pleasing
Republican variety. The Supreme Court's imminent ruling on same-sex
marriage has Republican presidential candidates caught between a general
election electorate that’s rapidly embracing gay rights, and a large
faction of the party's evangelical base that's still steadfast in its
opposition.

Same-sex marriage, which the Republican Party successfully wielded as a
wedge issue just a decade ago, now commands the support of three-fifths of
Americans. Many legal scholars expect the Supreme Court to legalize
same-sex marriage in all 50 states before the justices conclude their term
by the end of the month.

The result: Delicate footwork by the Republicans most likely to win the
nomination — and therefore wanting to preserve their opportunity with swing
voters — and red meat rhetoric from long-shot competitors anxious to gain
ground with the evangelical constituency that can often determine primary
and caucus winners.  The differences in how they addressed the crowd were
stark.

The Red Meat Contingent

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas accused Democrats of pushing "mandatory gay
marriage in all 50 states," and warned that a judicial victory for gay
marriage advocates could lead to government persecution of Christian
churches and schools. He asked the crowd to pray that the justices “not
engage in an act of naked and lawless judicial activism, tearing down the
marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution."

Cruz also cited this year’s controversies over two states’ religious
freedom bills, where Republican governors and state lawmakers backtracked
following protests over the prospect that the laws would shield anti-gay
discrimination. “Every one of us, our hearts broke a couple months ago in
Indiana and Arkansas,” the Texan said, before adding "more than a few
Republicans running for president in 2016 chose that moment somehow to go
and rearrange their sock drawer." The crowd ate it up.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, the party's runner-up in 2012
who's running again in 2016, stressed his history of fighting gay marriage
and urged the crowd while evaluating candidates to "look at their track
record" and willingness to lead, "particularly on the cultural issues."

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal cast the issue of same-sex marriage as an
overarching battle about whether Americans truly have freedom of religion
and speech.

"Unlike President [Barack] Obama and Hillary Clinton, my views on marriage
are not evolving with the polls. I believe in traditional marriage between
a man and a woman," said the potential Republican candidate. "This fight is
bigger than marriage... This fight is about religious liberty. This fight
is about whether you really do have First Amendment rights.

"I'll summarize this in a way that even the liberals and Hollywood can
understand: The United States of America did not create religious liberty,
religious liberty created the United States of America," he said.

Other candidates seemed aware of the changing poll numbers, delivering
remarks that suggested sympathy with the crowd without leaving a trail of
tell-tale soundbites that Democrats might use against them

The Front Runners

"While there are people that disagree with this, we should not push aside
those that do believe in traditional marriage," said former Florida
Governor Jeb Bush. "I for one believe it's important, and I think it's
gotta be important over the long haul irrespective of what the courts say."

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida didn't mention same-sex marriage, but made a
veiled reference to it when he argued that "the government is not meant to
replace moms and dads, it is meant to empower them."

"We see an erosion in our culture and in our values," he added. "You cannot
have strong families with a government that strong-arms parents and our
faith."

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky emphasized the importance of virtue and the
rights of minority religious views, but didn’t directly address same-sex
marriage. “We believe that our rights come naturally from God,” he told the
crowd, “and that a majority shouldn’t take them away from us.”

The pledge

The National Organization for Marriage on Thursday released a pledge which
would commit candidates to back a constitutional amendment restricting
marriage to opposite-sex couples, in an attempt to overturn an unfavorable
Supreme Court ruling, and to have the Justice Department investigate
harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. Iowa Congressman Steve King used
his Faith & Freedom speech Thursday to reiterate his call for “civil
disobedience” if the Supreme Court sides with same-sex couples, a prospect
he compared to its rulings in Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott, the 1857
pro-slavery decision.

If they’re defeated at the Supreme Court, some same-sex marriage opponents
want presidential candidates to show similar commitment. “I would hope that
they would strike that [ruling] down, and just do what our Founding Fathers
said to do and what the Bible says to do,” said Faith and Freedom attendee
Gary Cuprisin, a 69 year-old retired chef. If a ruling in favor of gay
marriage stands, he said, “what I’ve heard on the talk radio is that every
law, and everything that says ‘man and woman’ and ‘family’ is going to have
to be struck from the records.”

But even at the conference of the Faith & Freedom Coalition — the group
Ralph Reed founded as 'a 21st-century version of the Christian Coalition on
steroids' — others were ready to move on if same-sex marriage becomes the
law of the land. “I don’t think they should amend the constitution,” said
South Carolina insurance agent Donna Snyder. 'If the Supreme Court says it,
then I will go along with it, because they are the rulers of the land
ultimately."

*Post-Charleston, Republicans Urge Prayers But No Action
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/19/post-charleston_republicans_urge_prayers_but_no_action_127049.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Rebecca Berg – June 19, 2015 *

In the aftermath of the mass shooting Wednesday at an African-American
church in Charleston, S.C., Republican candidates for president have
offered heartfelt prayers and solemn condolences.

They have also derided a culture of hate that might have caused suspect
Dylann Roof, 21, to shoot and kill nine people.

But few have suggested that the government should act in response. On the
contrary, many GOP candidates are insisting that lawmakers cannot solve the
problems at the root of this and other such tragedies.

“There's a sickness in our country. There's something terribly wrong,” Sen.
Rand Paul said Thursday at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the
conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition. “But it isn't going to be fixed
by your government.”

That thinking reflects not only his party’s steadfast support for the
Second Amendment and its opposition to restrictive gun laws, but also the
small-government theme that anchors many of the Republican presidential
campaigns and the party at large.

In an interview Friday with RealClearPolitics, Ben Carson said he believes
the shooting represents not a regulatory problem but a cultural one, which
would require cultural solutions.

“There’s something that we can all do, and that is to begin to teach real
values and principles to our young people. That’s the only way you’re going
to solve this problem,” Carson said. “This young man obviously was not
brought up in the right environment, because he would not have harbored
such hatred if he had been. That’s what we need to be working on.

“In terms of government regulations, that’s not going to do anything,”
Carson added. “If you have an evil heart, government regulation isn’t going
to help you.”

Likewise, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday characterized the
shooting as a “depraved” and “unthinkable” act. But, he said, “laws can’t
change this.”

“Only the goodwill and love of the American people can let folks know that
act was unacceptable,” Christie said in his speech to the Faith and Freedom
gathering.

Democrats have presented a starkly different picture of the root causes of
mass violence in American society and of the regulatory path forward,
urging government action to prevent such events in the future, including
more stringent gun control laws.

“How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” Hillary
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said Thursday.

That call for action was echoed Thursday by President Obama, delivering his
14th statement in response to an act of gun violence while president.

“At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this
type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It
doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency,” Obama said.
“It is in our power to do something about it. … I say that [while]
recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues
right now."

The divide between Democrats and Republicans mirrors the chasm so apparent
in the aftermath of the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., where 20
children and six adults were killed. Although the president took a series
of executive actions in response, Congress did not approve any new
legislation.

On Friday, one Republican candidate for president, Sen. Lindsey Graham of
South Carolina, broke with his party, saying he is "open-minded" about
improving the system of background checks for gun owners and taking into
account mental illnesses.

"I own a bunch of guns, and I haven't hurt anybody. But there is something
wrong with the background system," Graham told CNN. "... There's probably a
million people who have been adjudicated by a court to be mentally unstable
whose records are not in the national background system."

But that remark put Graham in the minority, with most of his peers
recommending a considerably more passive approach.

At the Faith and Freedom event Friday, Jeb Bush urged only this: “Let’s
hope it never ever ever happens again.”

*Wilmore: Santorum, Fox News on Charleston ‘Makes My F**king Head Explode’
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/larry-wilmore-charleston-shooting-fox-news>
// TPM // Brendan James – June 19, 2015 *

While his colleague Jon Stewart decided not to tell any jokes on Thursday
after the killing of nine people in Charleston, S.C., Larry Wilmore had
more to say.

"Even on a day like today, Fox News just makes my fucking head explode,"
the host of "The Nightly Show" said.

He ran a montage of clips showing Fox frame the attack of a historically
black church as an "attack on faith," in the words of "Fox & Friends"
co-anchor Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and actively downplay the idea it was a
racially-motivated attack.

Wilmore was stunned, referencing the evidence and replaying the clips
reporting shooter Dylann Roof's racism and statements to the victims like,
"you are raping our women and taking over the country.”

"Nice try anyway, Fox," Wilmore said.

Next he turned to presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum
(R-PA), who echoed the Fox line, saying the attack was an assault on
"religious liberty."

Wilmore pointed out that when four black girls were killed in a church
bombing in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, there wasn't a question about
motive.

"Back then, no one pretended to wonder what the motivation was," he said.
"If you tried to say it was about religion, even the perpetrators would
have corrected you."

Watch the clip, courtesy of Comedy Central.

*RNC raised $9.3M in May
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/245522-rnc-raised-93m-in-may>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 19, 2015 *

The Republican National Committee raised $9.3 million in May, a figure
first shared with The Hill, growing its campaign fund to almost $15 million
for the competitive 2016 election cycle.

The figures, to be released on Friday, show 98 percent of those donations
were $200 and under, with an average donation of $92.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told The Hill in a statement that the committee
is “incredibly grateful for the strong support.”

“There is clearly enthusiasm on the Republican side to take the fight
directly to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats and to put a Republican back
in the White House," he said. "Our supporters understand the importance of
investing early in ground game infrastructure, staff and volunteer
training, voter engagement, and data and digital operations.

“We’re laying the groundwork for our nominee earlier than ever before.
While Hillary Clinton has already lost the trust of the majority of
Americans, Republicans are working every day in communities across the
country to earn the trust of new voters and first-time voters, sharing our
values and listening to their concerns,” Priebus added.

The May haul is slightly less than the $10.1 million the committee raised
in April. The RNC has now raised more than $45 million in the 2016 cycle
and holds $1.8 million in debt, according to the new figures.

The Democratic National Committee has not yet released its May figures,
with one more day to file before the Federal Election Commission’s
deadline. In April, the party raised $4.9 million, bringing its cash on
hand to more than $8.2 million with a total of $21 million raised in the
2016 election cycle.

With its fundraising figures set to go public within days, the DNC also
held about $5.4 million in debt as of April.

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Today in Politics: Charleston Shooting Leads to a Campaign Pause
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/19/today-in-politics-charleston-shooting-leads-to-a-campaign-pause/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 19, 2015 *

The killing of nine people at a predominantly African-American church in
South Carolina, where the gunman was said to have sat and prayed with his
victims before unleashing violence, will leave a lasting impression on the
state and has already affected the dynamics of the 2016 presidential race.

The magnitude and maliciousness of the crime will linger in national
discussions. It is unclear whether Democrats, who tried in vain to pass a
federal gun-control bill in early 2013 along with some center-right
Republicans in Congress, will broach that politically difficult issue in
their campaigns.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican presidential
hopeful, denounced the violence. Jeb Bush canceled his planned appearances
in the state.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, had left
Charleston, where the shootings took place, just before the violence
occurred. In an appearance in Nevada on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called for
facing “hard truths” about race, policing and gun violence. She did not
make an explicit call for gun-control measures, which bedeviled President
Obama after the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012. But
the question of race in America is going to be critical as the nation looks
toward the post-Obama era.

Other Democrats also weighed in. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has
voted against gun-control bills in the past, emailed his list of supporters
seeking donations to the church where the shootings took place, and
canceled what had been a large rally planned in the state this weekend. Martin
O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, posted a note of prayer for the
victims on Twitter.

*NRA board members blames pastor for Charleston deaths
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nra-board-member-blames-clementa-pinckney-charleston-shooting-119202.html#ixzz3dWvdf89u>
// Politico // Nick Gass – June 19, 2015 *

A board member for the National Rifle Association blamed the gun-control
position of South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, a pastor who was
killed in Wednesday night’s shooting at a historic black church in
Charleston, for the deaths of his congregation.

If had voted to allow gun owners to carry their own weapons, Charles Cotton
wrote, “eight of his church members … might be alive.”

A spokesman for the NRA told POLITICO, “Individual board members do not
speak for the NRA and and do not have the authority to speak for the NRA.”

Cotton, who according to his bio page has been a board member for 13 years,
also moderates TexasCHLforum.com, described as “the focal point for Texas
firearms information and discussions.”

In one thread discussing the shooting at Emanuel AME Church on Thursday
morning, a user with the name ShootDonTalk wrote: “Something else to
consider: The pastor of this church, who was killed, is a State Legislator
in S.C.”

“And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who
might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in
church are dead,” Cotton responded to the post on Thursday afternoon.
“Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

The bill that Pinckney voted against in 2011 would have permitted gun
owners to bring guns into public places like churches and daycare centers.
It ultimately failed.

Gov. Nikki Haley addresses a full church during a prayer vigil held at
Morris Brown AME Church for the victims of Wednesday's shooting at Emanuel
AME Church on Thursday, June 18, 2015 in Charleston, S.C.  Dylann Storm
Roof, 21, was arrested Thursday in the slayings of several people,
including the pastor, at a prayer meeting inside the historic black church.

According to an NRA site, Cotton has also been elected to the Board of
Trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Following the 2012 shooting
at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Cotton wrote that
President Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and others were
trying to use the event to launch their “anti-gun response.”

“The shameful truth is that the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition used the Sandy
Hook shootings as a Hollywood-like soundstage to launch their long planned
attack on the Second Amendment,” he wrote at the time.

*McConnell promises Senate vote on late-term abortion bill
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fdb1da3a30f74b469261af32d8173f3b/mcconnell-promises-senate-vote-late-term-abortion-bill>
// AP // Alan Fram – June 19, 2015 *

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Friday that his chamber
will vote on legislation banning most late-term abortions, setting the
stage for a showdown over a top conservative priority that his party will
likely lose.

"It's about time we begin the process of putting America into the ranks of
most other civilized countries by protecting unborn children after 20 weeks
in the womb," the Kentucky Republican told a conference of the conservative
Faith and Freedom Coalition.

McConnell was interrupted by applause as he reminded the crowd that the
measure "couldn't even get a hearing" when Democrats controlled the Senate.

"I promise you will be getting a vote," he said, though he did not specify
when.

Underscoring how the issue galvanizes both sides, the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee almost immediately solicited contributions from
supporters, writing in an email, "When anti-women attacks are what passes
for leadership, it's time for a change."

Though the GOP-run House approved similar legislation last month, it faces
an uphill climb in the Senate. Republicans control that chamber with 54
seats but will need 60 votes to defeat a Democratic filibuster.

Most Democrats are sure to oppose the bill by presidential hopeful Sen.
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and some moderate Republicans could too. Among the
handful of GOP senators not listed as co-sponsors Friday were Sens. Kelly
Ayotte of New Hampshire and Mark Kirk of Illinois, who face potentially
competitive re-election races next year.

Should it reach his desk, a veto by President Barack Obama would be all but
certain.

"I hope Republicans will reverse course and focus on real challenges rather
than using women's health to score political points, but if they don't,
they should know that this dangerous legislation is nothing but a dead
end," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., top Democrat on the Senate Health
committee.

The bill makes exceptions to save the mother's life or if she was a rape
victim who receives counseling or medical treatment at least 48 hours
before the procedure. Also exempted would be minors who were victims of
rape or incest and reported the incident to law enforcement or social
service officials.

*Iowa court allows remote dispensing of abortion pill
<http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_96bb3cad-881f-5da5-9f0e-7706754f4940.html#.VYQ_qE8VOJg.twitter>
// AP // June 19, 2015 *

The Iowa Supreme Court has struck down a restriction that would have
prevented doctors from administering abortion-inducing pills remotely via
video teleconferencing, saying it would have placed an undue burden on a
woman's right to get an abortion.

Iowa is one of only two states that offers so-called telemedicine abortions
— Minnesota offers them on a smaller scale — and doctors at Iowa's urban
clinics that perform abortions had been allowed to continue offering the
remotely-administered abortions while the ruling was pending.

Planned Parenthood's local affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland,
had sued the Iowa Board of Medicine over its 2013 decision that would have
required a doctor to be in the room with a patient when dispensing
abortion-inducing medication.

The board cited safety concerns when it passed the rule requiring a
physical examination, but Planned Parenthood and other critics said it was
just another attempt by abortion rights opponents to make it harder for
women to get abortions. They said the Iowa board's restriction particularly
would have made it harder for women in more rural areas who don't live near
the few urban clinics where doctors who perform abortions are based.

The court agreed with Planned Parenthood's argument that the rule would
have placed an unconstitutional burden on women by requiring a doctor's
physical presence in the room.

"Because the Board agrees the Iowa Constitution protects a woman's right to
terminate her pregnancy to the same extent as the United States
Constitution, we find the rule violates the Iowa Constitution," the
justices wrote.

Telemedicine is becoming a more popular method of treating patients
nationwide, but its use to dispense abortion-inducing medication is fairly
new. Iowa was the first state in the country to offer it in 2008, and it
has provided services to more than 7,000 women to date.

More than a dozen states in recent years have preemptively banned the
abortion method without ever having allowed it, according to the Guttmacher
Institute, a national nonprofit that follows reproductive health issues.

*The Left and Right Try to Lobby Pope Francis Months Ahead of U.S. Visit
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-19/the-left-and-right-try-to-lobby-pope-francis-months-ahead-of-u-s-visit>
// Bloomberg // Melinda Henneberger – June 19, 2015 *

In Rome last week, a Vatican official who had already seen Pope Francis’s
encyclical on the environment had this advice for a visiting American who
was concerned that the pontiff was about to blame man for changing the
Earth’s climate: You might not want to read it, then.

That’s one way Catholics have been able to avoid the disagreeable
experience of ever disagreeing with their pope: Just play dumb and keep
walkin’. Another strategy, though—and one that’s become far more blatant
under Francis—is to try and influence him by passing messages through those
around him. Lobbying, in other words.

In the months leading up to the release of the encyclical, conservative
American Catholics and even the oil and gas industry sent emissaries to the
Vatican hoping to dissuade the Holy Father from weighing in on climate
change, arguing that the science isn’t settled and that cutting back on
fossil fuel use would hurt rather than help the world’s poor. Exxon Mobil
sent several delegations to meet with Vatican officials, and a conservative
Chicago-based think tank, the Heartland Institute, held a whole
counter-conference on alternative climate science in Rome at the end of
April. But the Pope was apparently unmoved, and the encyclical states
“there is a very consistent scientific consensus that indicates that we are
witnessing a worrying warming of the climatic system…Humanity is called to
take conscience of the need to change life styles, ways of production and
consumption to fight this warming, or at least the human causes that
produce it or accentuate it.”

Conservatives aren't the only ones who have been lobbying. Ahead of
Francis’s September trip to the U.S., both left- and right-leaning
believers, as well as secular groups, are offering him their unsolicited
counsel. Earlier this month, a delegation of about 20 American community
organizers and union leaders stressed to the Vatican officials they met
with how important they feel it is that Pope Francis use his U.S. pulpit to
preach on criminal justice and immigration reform and institutional racism.
They also want him to talk as specifically and forcefully as possible about
pay so low it doesn’t add up to a “living wage”—a phrase coined by the
American priest John A. Ryan in his doctoral thesis at Catholic University
way back in 1906.

The trip, organized by the Service Employees International Union and PICO,
a national network of faith-based community organizations, felt like a big
success, said Allen Stevens, a deacon at St. Peter Claver Catholic Church
in New Orleans and long-time PICO organizer.

“We were able to meet with a number of cardinals who advise Pope Francis,’’
he said, and talk to them about the push to raise the minimum wage, the
Black Lives Matter campaign, and the Live Free response to mass
incarceration. “We wanted to make sure he clearly understands the
landscape, and there’s no doubt the message came through.’’ Some cardinals
prayed with them, and Stevens said that some of the cardinals even said
they hoped the pope would adopt specific language proposed by the group.

Wish List

Conservative American Catholics have a very different wish list, of course,
and want the Pope’s men to pass on their impression that he doesn’t seem to
like the U.S. that much—he's never been here, after all, although his
friends insist that this is simply because he hates traveling.
Conservatives also see anti-Americanism in his writing about the excesses
of capitalism—though his predecessors also touched on that subject. They
want to hear more from him on abortion, religious liberty and the
traditional family, aren’t sure he should even be going to Cuba in the
fall, and wonder why, with Christians being rounded up and killed in Libya,
he would choose to focus on the environment, of all things.

Not all efforts to shape the message are going on inside the Vatican.
Maureen Ferguson, of the conservative lay group Catholic Alliance, said,
“We’re not part of any direct lobbying, but we’re in conversations with
people putting together the visit, and we’re very focused on the
Philadelphia stop,” where Francis will speak on the family. The central
purpose of his whole visit, said Ferguson, a former official with National
Right to Life, “is to talk about the beauty of church teaching on the
family.” Yet there is also some risk involved, she said: “Because of his
off-the-cuff manner of speaking, which is marvelous and refreshing, when he
says ‘Who am I to judge?’ that also lends itself to misunderstanding and
confusion among faithful Catholics…We see our role as helping to
communicate the full message.”

That the pope’s first trip to the U.S. comes against the backdrop of a
presidential election–and one in which several of the candidates are
Catholic, including Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and Chris Christie–heightens
one of the pontiff’s own concerns about the visit, according to several
people who know him well: He doesn’t want to be used by any aspirant or
either party, and is determined not to be.

There has been more intense and more obvious lobbying under Francis,
several church officials said, especially from Americans. (Though the
Vatican practically invented politics, Italians don’t even have one word
for ‘lobbying,’ and tend to use the English one instead of the Italianized
‘lobbismo,’ or work-arounds like ‘tentare di influenzare’–to try to
influence–or plain old ‘pressione,’ or pressure.)

Though it’s Francis’s open, easy manner that seems to have invited the
perception that he can be moved, those who know him say that once he makes
a decision, he isn’t likely to change his mind. And in fact, he’s less
accessible through old-fashioned “I know somebody who knows somebody”
channels than Benedict or John Paul: You’re unlikely to meet this pope, a
friend in Rome quipped recently, unless you’re in a wheelchair or a wedding
dress, at one of the Wednesday morning audiences where he embraces the sick
and blesses the newly married. (“The high point’’ of his group’s recent
lobbying trip to Rome, said Deacon Stevens, “was that even though we didn’t
get to meet him, we did get to see him,’’ at the audience, “and our
founding director was able to shake his hand and look him in the eye and
share that PICO spirit.”)

The Gospel's Interests

Austen Ivereigh, author of The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a
Radical Pope, predicts that attempts to shape what Francis says in the U.S.
won’t go any better than trying to get him to rethink what he wanted to say
in the encyclical did: “Francis is allergic to lobbies and pressure
groups,” Ivereigh said, “and sees it as his duty as pope not to let the
church or the papal office be used for interests other than those of the
Gospel.’’

He even avoided going to his native Argentina this year because he doesn’t
want to be used in the presidential election there, Ivereigh said, and
“he’ll be studiously careful to avoid being used in the U.S. campaign. On
the other hand, he’ll want to build relationships with all the key
players—but most of the bonding will be off-camera.”

If anything, attempts to harness him to either party’s agenda could
backfire, he and others feel. And while Francis’s message will certainly
contain elements that will please and offend both Republicans and
Democrats, one is likely to have a harder time than the other, though not
because the pope is a closet Democrat: “One of Francis’s objectives in his
U.S. trip,’’ Ivereigh said, “is to challenge what he regards as an
unhealthy nexus that has grown up between U.S. conservatives and the
Catholic Church” during fights over abortion and religious liberty. “The
deal has too long been that evangelicals and Catholics present a united
front on life and family issues and religious freedom while staying silent
on economic injustice, immigration, the death penalty and ecology. Francis
believes that a key part of the Gospel message has been suffocated by the
church’s proximity to conservatives, and he is determined to restore it.”
The new environmental encyclical, Laudato Si': On Care For Our Common Home,
“is a major instrument of that rebalancing.”

Previous popes spoke about the environment, too–to the point that Benedict
was even called the “green pope”–but American conservatives remained
unfazed because the overall emphasis on social issues was still to their
liking. With Francis, that’s no longer the case.

He is trying to integrate the two halves of Catholic teaching in the U.S.,
and here’s a taste of what that looks like: “I think the environment has
become a pro-life issue–respecting the life that we find of God in others
and his handiwork in the environment,” New Orleans Archbishop Gregory
Aymond recently told GroundTruth’s Jason Berry.

Meanwhile, lobbying the Vatican may not only have the effect of hardening
the lobbied, but also of softening the supplicant: One American
conservative who went to Rome recently filled with concern about whether
Francis is anti-American, and eager to communicate that he ought to let
Americans know how much he appreciates the generosity that only the
prosperous can provide, came home with a changed focus. Now, she said,
she’s no longer as worried about what the pope is going to say to America
as about what America is going to show the pope during his visit.

Danger for Democrats

The danger of trying to co-opt his message is clearly greater for
Democrats, who may feel that he’s on their side—but being seen as trying to
translate his loftier purpose into votes could easily come off as shabby:
“I’m going to slap the first person who says the pope is a Democrat,’’ says
Michael Sean Winters, a National Catholic Reporter columnist and fellow at
Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies. In
part, that is, because “it’s so strategically stupid.”

Taking on such a popular and persuasive figure as Francis carries as much
risk as hugging him too tightly. But thus far, both Jeb Bush and Rick
Santorum have said he should stick to matters of faith and avoid science.
One jarring thing about their criticism is that conservatives have long
chafed at references to Galileo, both because the case against the
Renaissance astronomer was more complicated than the oft-told cartoon
version, and also because the church has been pro-science–it was a Belgian
priest, Georges Lemaître , after all, who came up with the Big Bang theory.
Yet now it’s Santorum and others on the right who are invoking Galileo as a
cautionary tale about why the church should stay out of scientific debates.

But it isn't so much that the shoe is on the other foot now, with
conservatives rather than liberals on the outs where the Vatican is
concerned, as that the pope wants to put Catholic shoes on both feet: His
social and economic messages don't fit together in American politics; but
in church teaching, they do. Beyond the environmental message in his
encyclical, he drives that home again and again, connecting abuse of the
environment with human trafficking, the ecology of the human person with
the ecology of the planet, and GMOs with research on human embryos. He’s
arguing that we’re so interconnected that every form of violence, from
disease-causing pollution to animal abuse to abortion, sends out ripples
that affect the entire world.

When he addresses Congress in September, fellow Catholics John Boehner and
Nancy Pelosi will be seated behind him, as speaker and minority leader of
the House and his joint hosts. Presumably both will be applauding their
pope, too. “I think John Boehner is the most excited person in Washington
about this visit,’’ said his friend Maureen Ferguson, of Catholic Alliance.
Pelosi, who often attends daily Mass, issued a statement on Thursday
lavishly praising Francis’s encyclical and concluding, “We really must
listen to His Holiness as we go forward.” But the fact that Pelosi and
Boehner are likely to be standing and cheering at very different moments
during the pope’s address is the perfect illustration of the very split
he’s coming here to address.

*Cashing In
<http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/19/former-presidents-cash-in-after-leaving-office>
// US News and World Report // Kenneth T. Walsh – June 19, 2015 *

How times have changed for America's former presidents.

Harry Truman, who served as commander in chief 70 years ago, wrote, "I have
a very strong feeling about any man who has the honor of being an occupant
of the White House in the greatest job in the history of the world, who
would exploit that situation in any way, shape or form."

But ex-presidents today routinely make millions of dollars by parlaying
their White House experiences into speeches, personal appearances and
books. All this, taken together, diminishes their stature and lessens their
influence.

Bill Clinton has been widely criticized for milking his presidency for tens
of millions of dollars, and former first lady Hillary Clinton, who is
running for president in 2016, has been attacked for using her time in the
White House to boost her income, partly through book sales and speeches.

It turns out that former President George W. Bush has been doing much the
same thing. Politico reports that since he left office in 2009, "Bush has
given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically
pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which
rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions
of dollars. Relative to the Clintons, though, he has attracted considerably
less attention, almost always doing his paid public speaking in private, in
convention centers and hotel ballrooms, resorts and casinos, from Canada to
Asia, from New York to Miami, from all over Texas to Las Vegas a bunch,
playing his part in what has become a lucrative staple of the modern
post-presidency."

Clearly, the nature of the post-presidency has morphed in a fundamental way
since Truman's time. As the longevity of ex-presidents increases, more of
them will be on the public stage longer than their predecessors, and they
will be tempted to seek media and public attention as they defend and
promote their legacies, size up contemporary issues and make money. There
are currently four ex-presidents who are still living – George W. Bush,
Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama will join
this elite club in a year-and-a-half, when his second term expires.

A recent academic study offers some surprising assessments about who have
been the best ex-presidents – John Quincy Adams, Jimmy Carter, William
Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, even though none of them was in the top
tier of presidents when they were in office, according to historians.

Justin S. Vaughn, a political scientist at Boise State University who
helped lead the study, said the standards he and his researchers used were
two-fold: Having the longevity and good health to provide "meaningful
service" for an extended period of time, and accomplishing "something
significant beyond campaigning for their fellow partisans, burnishing their
legacy and cutting the ribbon at the groundbreaking for their library."
Vaughn concluded in a recent New York Times essay, "The greatest
ex-presidents have engaged in important work, sometimes at a level that
rivaled their accomplishments in the White House."

Vaughn added: "Our worst ex-presidents, on the other hand, have been
noteworthy for taking strong positions against the national interest and
consistently undermining their successors for personal and political
reasons." The worst ex-presidents, he said, were John Tyler, Millard
Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Theodore Roosevelt. Of these, only Roosevelt
was in the top tier of incumbent presidents.

Vaughn noted that, "Mr. Obama's slow pivot to his retirement coincides with
renewed controversy over how Bill Clinton has conducted his, especially
around donors to the Clinton Global Initiative and possible conflicts of
interest during Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. Some
assessments of Mr. Clinton's post-presidential career have become extremely
critical. ... President Obama would do well to chart an active course that
makes a difference but avoids partisan entanglements and financial
controversy."

It is likely that Obama has more than a passing interest in this analysis
as the outlines of his post-presidency become clear. He has approved
building his presidential library in Chicago, his political base for many
years. He is widely expected to write a book about his tenure, which will
probably be a bestseller. (Book writing is probably the least offensive way
in which a president can remain in the public eye and make money because
presidential books tend to be at least in some way educational and add to
the public's understanding of history.) It's unclear how much speaking he
will do for profit.

His friends say Obama plans to devote himself, at least in part, to
altruistic pursuits such as working with young people and inspiring
African-Americans to strive and emulate him and his wife Michelle as
examples of the American dream in achieving success. Obama has already
signaled his intention through his devotion to a White House initiative
called "My Brother's Keeper." It's designed to inspire African-American men
to overcome whatever obstacles exist to live successful and productive
lives and take good care of their families.

The challenge for the ex-presidents, as Truman suggested, is to avoid
profiting crassly from their years of public service, and at the same time
making a positive difference in people's lives. No one has come up with a
perfect formula, but soon it will be Obama's turn to try.

*Iowa Supreme Court: Ban on telemed abortion unconstitutional
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/19/iowa-supreme-court-approves-planned-parenthood-heartland-telemedicine-abortion-system/28973085/>
// Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – June 19, 2015 *

Iowa's Supreme Court ruled Friday that Planned Parenthood of the Heartland
may keep using its controversial telemedicine-abortion system.

More than 7,200 Iowa women have used the system to obtain abortion-inducing
pills since 2008. The system, the first of its kind in the nation, allows
Planned Parenthood doctors in Des Moines or Iowa City to interact via video
with patients in outlying clinics, then dispense the pills to the women.

State regulators, appointed by Iowa's anti-abortion governor, ruled in 2013
that the system should effectively be banned because of purported safety
concerns. The ban was put on hold while Planned Parenthood appealed in
court. A district judge sided with the regulators in 2014, but the Supreme
Court disagreed Friday.

The justices decided 6-0 that the Iowa Board of Medicine's rule violated
women's constitutional rights. The court noted that telemedicine is being
used to provide many other types of health care. But the medical board only
focused on telemedicine's use for abortion when it imposed a requirement
that doctors personally perform physical exams on patients, the justices
wrote. "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the board's medical
concerns about telemedicine are selectively limited to abortion."

The Supreme Court determined the medical board's rule imposed an
unconstitutional "undue burden" on women's right to abortion. It noted that
national standards do not require a physician to perform a physical
examination on a woman before providing a medication abortion. The court
also noted that other staff members in the outlying Planned Parenthood
clinics draw blood, take medical histories and perform sonograms on the
patients, which are transmitted to the physicians. The justices wrote that
they didn't see proof that an in-person exam by a doctor would "provide any
measurable gain in patient safety."

Supporters say the telemedicine system provides a safe way to offer
abortion services in rural areas where they otherwise are unavailable. The
Iowa case is being watched nationally, because abortion providers in other
states have considered setting up similar systems. This is believed to be
the first time in more than 40 years that the state Supreme Court
considered an abortion case.

Suzanna de Baca, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's president, hailed
the ruling. "This is a major victory for the women of Iowa and for
reproductive rights in general," she said. De Baca added it was significant
that the justices were unanimous. "It really validates our belief that this
was politically motivated," she said, referring to the medical board's
attempt to ban the telemedicine system.

De Baca was asked if the ruling also could be seen as a rebuke to Gov.
Terry Branstad, who appointed the medical board members. She paused, then
replied: "I think we are thrilled that we have an independent judiciary,
who make decisions based on evidence and not on politics."

Branstad spokesman Jimmy Centers released a statement expressing the
governor's frustration with the justices' ruling. He noted that the medical
board's ruling came after it received a petition from health care
professionals who were concerned about the system's safety. "The governor
is extremely disappointed that the Iowa Board of Medicine's action, which
ensured women received the high standard of care that they deserve, was
reversed by the Iowa Supreme Court." Centers said it was too soon to
speculate on whether any more appeals are possible.

Jenifer Bowen, executive director of Iowa Right to Life, said she'd heard
conflicting theories on whether the Iowa justices' ruling could be appealed
to federal court. Bowen said the ruling was a setback. "We're devastated,"
she said, "but obviously we're not going to wave the white flag of
surrender."

Bowen said she was disappointed by the "lackluster" presentation of the
medical-board's legal case before the Supreme Court in March. That
presentation was made by a lawyer from the office of Attorney General Tom
Miller, a Democrat. But she said she had hoped the justices would be swayed
by the medical board's written explanation of why it believed Planned
Parenthood's telemedicine arrangement was unsafe.

Bowen said her group would continue to spread its message that the
telemedicine abortion system exposes vulnerable women to a potentially
dangerous drug without sufficient medical backup in case of complications.

The medical board, responding to petitions filed by abortion opponents,
ruled in 2013 that the system's use was inappropriate and unsafe. The
board, which licenses physicians, ruled that doctors must perform in-person
physical exams before dispensing abortion pills. That would effectively
have banned use of Planned Parenthood's telemedicine system.

Planned Parenthood noted that under a previous governor, the medical board
looked at the telemedicine abortion system and found no problems. The 2013
ruling against the system came after Branstad, who opposes abortion,
replaced all 10 members of the board. His replacement members included a
Catholic priest and a former legislator known for introducing
abortion-limiting bills.

The medical board's ruling was on hold while Planned Parenthood fought the
matter in court. A Polk County district judge sided with the medical board
last August. Planned Parenthood then appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court,
which heard arguments this March.

A lawyer for the attorney general's office, who represented the board
before the Supreme Court, contended that the board followed proper
procedures, including having a public hearing and taking written comments,
before making the decision. Critics noted that the board rules wording was
taken nearly verbatim from a petition filed by abortion opponents.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court sidestepped Planned Parenthood's request
that it declare a more extensive right to abortion under the Iowa
Constitution. The justices said they didn't need to answer that question,
because the medical board's rule violated the "undue burden" test
established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The opinion was written by Justice David Wiggins, a political independent.
Justice Bruce Zager, a Republican, did not participate in the case. Iowa
Supreme Court justices don't generally explain reasons for such abstentions.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Iran Still Aids Terrorism and Bolsters Syria’s President, State Department
Finds
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/world/middleeast/state-department-terrorism-report-iran-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0>
// Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt – June 19, 2015*

WASHINGTON —  Iran continued its “terrorist-related” activity last year and
also continued to provide broad military support to President Bashar
al-Assad of Syria, the State Department said Friday in its annual report on
terrorism.

The assessment suggests that neither the election of President Hassan
Rouhani nor the prospect of a nuclear accord with the United States and its
negotiating partners has had a moderating effect on Iran’s foreign policy
in the Middle East.

“In 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training and the
facilitation of primarily Iraq Shia and Afghan fighters to support the
Assad regime’s brutal crackdown,” the report said.

“Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al Qaeda members it
continued to detain and refused to publicly identify those senior members
in its custody,” it added.

The report does not contend that Iranian officials are conspiring to kill
Americans. Nor does it accuse Iraqi militias backed by Iran of plotting to
attack American advisers in Iraq. The report also does not provide specific
figures on Iranian operations that might indicate whether they are
increasing or decreasing.

But it paints a picture of an aggressive Iranian foreign policy that has
often been contrary to the interests of the United States. Even when the
United States and Iran have a common foe, as they do in the Islamic State,
the Iranian role in Iraq risks inflaming sectarian tensions. Some of the
Shiite militias Iran has backed in Iraq, including Kataib Hezbollah, have
committed human rights abuses against Sunni civilians, the report said.

Although the report covers 2014, American officials said the Iranian
policies described in it had continued this year.

“We continue to be very, very concerned about I.R.G.C. activity as well as
proxies that act on behalf of Iran,” said Tina S. Kaidanow, the State
Department’s senior counterterrorism official, referring to Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps. “We watch that extremely carefully.”

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has suggested that Iran sees
its regional and nuclear policies as proceeding on separate tracks, an
approach that may be intended to placate hard-liners at home but may also
reflect his foreign policy strategy.

The White House has held out hope that a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear
program might be the first step toward an eventual easing of tensions and
perhaps even cooperation on regional matters. But even if the two sides
remain at odds over the Middle East, Obama administration officials insist
a nuclear accord is worth pursuing in its own right. The report comes a
week before Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to travel to Vienna
to try to seal a nuclear accord.

In a broad survey of terrorist trends, including a country-by-country
assessment, the report notes that the threat from Qaeda leaders who have
sought sanctuary in Pakistan has diminished even as the group continues to
be a source of inspiration for militants elsewhere. But the threat from the
Islamic State, the militant group that has established what it calls a
caliphate in much of Iraq and Syria, has grown.

The report said that as of December, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS
or ISIL, could muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters. The group derives most of
its funding not from external donations, as Al Qaeda does, but from
smuggling oil, kidnapping for ransom, robbing banks and selling stolen
antiquities.

The pace at which foreign fighters have traveled to Syria — more than
16,000 as of late December and thousands more since — is greater than that
at which foreign militants have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia
at any point in the last 20 years, the report said.

“The ongoing civil war in Syria was a significant factor in driving
worldwide terrorism events in 2014,” it stated.

The report also noted that the Islamic State had deftly used the news media
and social media to influence a wide spectrum of potential audiences: local
Sunni Arab populations, potential recruits, and governments of coalition
members and other populations around the world, including English-speaking
audiences.

“ISIL has been adroit at using the most popular social and new media
platforms (YouTube, Facebook and Twitter) to disseminate its messages
broadly,” it said.

American counterterrorism officials have voiced increasing concern that the
Islamic State, as well as Al Qaeda and its affiliates, is inspiring, but
not necessarily directing, a greater number of so-called lone-wolf attacks
— like the terrorist attacks last year in Ottawa and Sydney, Australia.

“These attacks may presage a new era in which centralized leadership of a
terrorist organization matters less, group identity is more fluid, and
violent extremist narratives focus on a wider range of alleged grievances
and enemies,” Ms. Kaidanow said.

An annex to the report indicates that the problem of terrorism has grown,
though many of the figures reflect militant attacks in the wars in Iraq,
Syria and Afghanistan. The number of terrorist attacks in 2014 was up 35
percent from 2013, while the number of fatalities from those assaults
increased 81 percent.

The number of exceptionally lethal attacks has also grown. In 2014, there
were 20 attacks that killed over 100 people. In 2013, there were only two
such attacks.

The statistics, appended to the State Department report, were prepared by
the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to
Terrorism, at the University of Maryland.

Despite the increasing attacks, State Department officials said the United
States was making headway in the struggle against terrorism, including by
working with partners in the region. John Kirby, a State Department
spokesman, said defeating the Islamic State would take time.

“It’s going to take about three to five years,” he said.

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*The opacity of Hillary’s Clinton’s e-mail
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-opacity-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail/2015/06/19/91d0d548-1452-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html>
// WaPo // Rick Morris – June 19, 2015 *

In his June 12 op-ed, “Get the Benghazi panel back on track,” Rep. Elijah
Cummings (D-Md.) left out pertinent facts. First, requests from Congress
and the Select Committee on Benghazi for documentation and information have
gone either unanswered or the responses provided have been slow-rolled
since late 2012. This is still occurring even with the release of former
secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. The requests are being
expedited now only because a court ordered it.

When Ms. Clinton, using a private computer server, determines which e-mails
to turn over to State, there can be no accountability. Ms. Clinton deleted
some 30,000 other e-mails. Regardless of your political position, it is
difficult to assume transparency under those circumstances. Even if other
secretaries of state used private e-mail accounts, none had a private
e-mail server.

In addition, the FBI has determined that some information in at least one
e-mail was considered classified and redacted it before it went to the
committee. This contradicts statements Ms. Clinton made that no classified
information was in her e-mails.

*Hillary Clinton is playing the “woman card” too early
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-is-playing-the-woman-card-too-early/>
// WaPo // Ed Rogers – June 19, 2015 *

Americans won’t be doing themselves any favors if they make the same
mistake three times in a row and elect a candidate who is more interested
in acting as some sort of symbol than in being an engaged, working
president. President Obama probably peaked on Election Day 2008. He thought
he had done his job simply by getting elected and becoming an icon of
America’s progress on race. By being elected, he proved the melting pot is
real. And as significant as that is, it hasn’t made him an effective
president. Obama is living proof that a president won’t necessarily be
feared or respected or succeed just because their election was some sort of
symbolic breakthrough.

In 2016, it is urgent that we elect a president who actually has the skill
set and personality required to be an effective leader at home and abroad.
The presidency is not one-size-fits-all. It is a unique job that requires
skills that are both innate and learned.

So is it smart for Hillary Clinton to play the “women card” this early in
the race? She is already talking about the symbolism of her candidacy as a
reason why we should support her. As she said in an interview with the Des
Moines Register in Iowa on Sunday, “I expect to be judged on my merits, and
the historic nature of my candidacy is one of the merits that I hope people
take into account.” Well, her campaign can’t be pitched as a third Obama
term and her own post-government private sector money hunt erodes her
credibility in championing solutions to income inequality. Her record as
Secretary of State doesn’t exactly shine. She doesn’t appear to feel
particularly strongly about any particular issue. “Fighting for the middle
class” isn’t exactly a fresh, bold appeal.  Anyway, the operative class is
beginning to murmur, and a lot of the pundits cannot seem to discern what
her real, ultimate campaign strategy is. Is her strategy just to hunker
down, stick to a narrow script and play the “woman card”?

In the absence of anything else to say, Hillary Clinton has felt compelled
to remind everybody that she is a woman and offer that fact as a key reason
why one should vote for her. And perhaps relying on gender and the historic
nature of the first female president would be a viable — if risky — plan
for a frontrunner during the last ten days of a campaign, but sustaining
this for a full eighteen months before election day will become untenable.
She needs to build and maintain appeal for a long stretch ahead, and an
overt reliance on her gender will not do the trick.  Hillary Clinton will
need to start answering questions and taking positions on the issues that
matter most to the Democratic base, or she risks “Clinton Campaign”
becoming a new synonym for “opaque and dodgy”.  Her campaign is on the
brink of supplying more punchlines than real messages.

I have often thought the Democrats didn’t want to have freewheeling
relationships with the fair-minded media because they didn’t want people to
know what they really think. Hillary, on the other hand, doesn’t want to
deal with the media because she doesn’t know what she believes. Sure, she’s
a classic liberal and all that, but she only knows for certain that she
wants to be president.  Everything else seems negotiable and her policy
positions are — at best — situational.

*Hillary Clinton wants to take us back to yesterday, not the future
<http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/18/hillary-clinton-wants-to-take-us-back-to-yesterday-not-future.html>
// Fox // Cal Thomas – June 18, 2015 *

In her reintroduction speech on Roosevelt Island in New York last Saturday,
Hillary Clinton hit all the boilerplate liberal Democrat notes: The New
Deal, big government, soak the rich, evil Wall Street … you know the song
because the music is from a familiar score.

Speaking of songs, Hillary Clinton made reference to The Beatles’
“Yesterday” and tied it to the seemingly outdated ideas of the Republican
Party. In light of what the country is facing, yesterday is looking
increasingly better, particularly if one considers the foreign and domestic
policies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (minus some of the tax
increases).

While Hillary Clinton wants to channel The Beatles, there is another song
called “Yesterday” that may not be as familiar, but better describes her
failed policies, as well as those of President Obama and Secretary of State
John Kerry, who appear committed to an unverifiable nuclear deal with Iran.

Country singer Roy Clark sang this “Yesterday” song. Here are a few
excerpts that might well be used to rebut Hillary Clinton:

“Seems the love I’ve known has always been

The most destructive kind

Yes, that’s why now I feel so old

Before my time.”

That could describe Clinton’s relationship with her husband, but let’s not
go there again.

And then there’s this: “The thousand dreams I dreamed, the splendid things
I planned

I always built to last on weak and shifting sand.”

Examples: Hillarycare, which was rejected by a Democratic Congress during
her husband’s first term, the absence of any significant legislation while
she was a senator from New York, the failed “re-set” with Russia, Benghazi,
Middle East policy, including the rise of ISIS, the hidden emails, the
refusal, so far, to release her medical records, which might shed light on
her fall and hospitalization while she was secretary of state. Need I go on?

Hillary Clinton succeeded as secretary of state in logging lots of airline
miles at taxpayer expense, but no one seems to know what she actually
accomplished. TV interviews of some of her supporters have produced no
substantive answers to the question: “What has she done?”

Back to “Yesterday.”

“I never stopped to think what life was all about

And every conversation I can now recall

Concerns itself with me and nothing else at all.”

That seems fairly descriptive. It has always been about Hillary and Bill,
hasn’t it?

And then the quite sad last line of the song:

“There are so many songs in me that won’t be sung,

I feel the bitter taste of tears upon my tongue.

The time has come for me to pay for

Yesterday when I was young.”

That “pay” will come in next year’s election if Republicans don’t blow
their opportunity by cowering in the face of the bogus “war on women”
attack and retreat on social issues as the secular wing of the party
continues to urge them to do.

We only learn from the past. We can’t learn from the future because it
hasn’t arrived. But we can help shape the future by not repeating the
mistakes of yesterday, focusing instead on those things that have a track
record of working.

Democrats want to cling to yesterday’s ideology, the one promoted by
Franklin Roosevelt during different times. So who is really living in the
past? All Hillary Clinton has to offer is bigger government, higher taxes,
more spending on failed programs and a lax morality that has eaten away at
the moral underpinnings of the nation.

To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear is Hillary Clinton,
herself.

*ASU suckered by Clinton Foundation
<http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2015/06/19/asu-paid-to-host-clinton-global-initiative-university/28987141/>
// AZ Central // Laurie Roberts – June 19, 2015 *

As the world – and more importantly, the Arizona Legislature -- now knows,
Arizona State University shelled out $500,000 for the privilege of hosting
last year's Clinton Global Initiative University.

It was, Michael Crow has told us, "money well spent."

So says the sucker who paid half of million dollars to get the Clintons for
this three-day "marketing opportunity."

Turns out at least three universities haven't paid a dime to host the
Clinton Global Initiative University, according to The College Fix.

After learning of ASU's largesse, student reporters reached out to the six
other schools that have hosted the weekend conference since its inception
in 2008.

Tulane University said it didn't pay a dime to host the inaugural event.

Neither did the University of Texas at Austin, which hosted the 2009
conference. In fact, the Clinton Foundation reimbursed the UT's student
government group $28,851 to cover its expenses.

George Washington University, the 2012 hosts, also paid nothing.

"As part of our partnership, we provided space on our campus and many of
our students participated and volunteered during the meeting," a campus
official told The College Fix. "We did not pay an honorarium to host."

Several private universities -- including the University of Miami, which
has hosted the event twice – either didn't respond or declined to disclose
whether they kicked in to bring the Clintons to town.

The only other public university to host the event, University of
California at San Diego, has not yet responded to questions about whether
it paid to land CGIU in 2011. The website reports that it expects an answer
to its public records request in July. Unlike ASU, the school doesn't show
up on a list of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

That leaves ASU thus far the only public university willing to pay to coax
the Clintons to come to town. That is, ASU, the school so financially
strapped that it is attaching a $320 surcharge to tuition this fall in
order to get by.

Student reporters asked one of ASU's army of PR warriors if the school was
aware that others got for free what ASU paid $500,000 to land. The school
gave its usual non-answer, saying that "the university co-invested in this
educational and promotional opportunity, which was co-produced for our
students, and for students from around the world."

Last month, after being criticized for the expense, Crow wrote an op-ed
explaining the $500,000 was a worthwhile marketing expense.

Hacks like me, he sniffed, "fail to recognize that the university is about
outcomes, about creating master learners immersed in a diversity of thought
and prepared for any career path. They fail to acknowledge what the
university is and how it acquires what it needs to be successful."

Well, I'm all for master learners immersed in a diversity of thought. I'm
just wondering why that diversity of thought costs so much bring here when
UT can get it for free?

*MISCELLANEOUS ADDED BY STAFF*

*Marriage Equality Is Only Step One
<https://medium.com/@GavinNewsom/marriage-equality-is-only-step-one-1ebaf4ba392d>
// Medium // Gavin Newsom – June 18, 2015 *

In the next ten days, the United States Supreme Court will hand down its
decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — a case that has the potential to take a
place in history alongside landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of
Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade. Depending on the outcome,
same-sex couples across the nation could soon have the constitutional right
to marry, a right that those of us outside the LGBT community have always
taken for granted.

In 2004, the year we started to marry same-sex couples in San Francisco, it
was impossible to imagine that this day might come so quickly. Even in that
liberal community, my decision as Mayor of the City and County of San
Francisco to order the County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples set off a firestorm of such magnitude that the controversy ended up
in the California Supreme Court.

Although the Court halted the unions, more than 4,000 same-sex couples
already had married in San Francisco, availing themselves of the right to
have their relationships legally recognized for the first time, and giving
their children the joy of seeing their parents’ unions receive the same
protections and validation as the marriages of the their friends’ and
classmates’ parents.

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples
had the right to marry under the California Constitution. The joy that the
court’s decision brought was soon muted six months later when Proposition 8
enshrined discrimination into California’s constitution with a simple
phrase, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California.”

After a lengthy battle, Prop 8 was overturned by the Federal District Court
in August of 2010 on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause
of the US Constitution.

Now, in 2015, after a series of victories in federal courts, 37 states
allow same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court affirms that the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, that ruling will overturn constitutional
amendments across the country banning same-sex marriage.

While this certainly will be cause for celebration, bringing to a close a
dark chapter in our history, I fear that the celebration of this milestone
might lead some to believe that the fight for equality is over.

Far from it.

Over our history, even when the courts and Congress have acted to afford
important and significant legal protections for fundamental rights — such
as 19th Amendment,(women’s suffrage) , the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Voting Rights Act, and Roe v. Wade — we have all too frequently seen those
rights undermined in subsequent judicial decisions and laws enacted at the
state and federal levels.

In 2013, for example, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act,
freeing states to change their voting laws and redistricting maps in ways
that would effectively deprive many minority citizens their right to vote
and to have equal representation. Chief Justice Roberts reasoned in his
opinion for the Court’s majority that, “Our country has changed” and such
protections are no longer required. That would surprise the millions of
citizens who still are prevented from early voting or required to meet
onerous identification requirements at the polls. Restrictions on using
race or gender as a criteria for school admissions, scholarships and hiring
have eroded equal rights for minorities and women. And for decades, state
legislatures have been passing laws that limit who may perform abortions,
in what types of facilities, and at what stage of pregnancy, all of which
have severely limited women’s access to abortions in many states.

If the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutional right of same sex couples
to marry, then we can almost certainly expect similar efforts to undermine
that right. But even if the right to marry remains protected across the
country, there is a long list of other rights that must be guaranteed
before the LGBT community achieves full equality.

There still are no federal workplace protections against discrimination
based on sexual orientation or gender identity expression; no federal
anti-bullying laws to protect LGBT students; and we are nowhere near having
in place adequate protections of the rights of transgender Americans. While
same-sex marriage rights may soon be guaranteed, the patchwork of same-sex
adoption laws across the states continues to be a source of great confusion
and frustration for many prospective parents.

Beyond the changes that must take place through continued judicial and
legislative action, more fundamental change is needed in public opinion.

The impetus for my decision to order the clerks in San Francisco to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples was hearing then President George W.
Bush call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage during
his 2004 State of the Union address. “Our nation must defend the sanctity
of marriage,” he said, as though the nation — or marriage — were under
attack.

But even more important to my decision was a conversation I overheard
shortly afterwards at the coat check in the capitol. Two men were talking
about how glad they were that President Bush was taking on same-sex
marriage when one of them said, “I’m glad he’s finally doing something
about those homosexuals.”

“Those homosexuals” — in other words, those people who are in some
fundamental way different from us. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court
cannot outlaw the underlying fear and ignorance that leads people to view
“those homosexuals” as a problem we need to “do something about.”

In the eleven years since the so-called “winter of love” in San Francisco,
I have become the proud father of three young children. Regardless of what
the Supreme Court decides later this month, by the time my children are old
enough to consider marrying, I feel confident that the notion that a
same-sex couple may not marry will seem as arcane and absurd as the
separate lunch counters and drinking fountains of more than five decades
ago.

But I’m less sure that the underlying prejudices will have disappeared.
Until they have, we must all continue to fight for full equality. And we
must fight to eliminate ignorance and hate.

Bigotry may never go completely away, but as the national referendum in
favor of same-sex marriage in Ireland demonstrated just last month,
majority attitudes can change — and with them, our public policy.

And when they do, it will truly be time to celebrate.