Subject: H4A News Clips 6.26.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:35:10 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*June 26, 2015*

*LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS*

All three networks reported on the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable
Care Act. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have all claimed that they
would repeal ACA if elected to office. ABC and NBC reported that Univision
has decided to take the Miss USA Pageant off the air after Donald Trump’s
derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants. Trump claims Univision
apologized to him yesterday morning, but Univision has called his comments
insulting to immigrants. Trump has threatened to sue them for dropping the
pageant from their lineup.

*LAST NIGHT’S EVENING
NEWS........................................................................
**1*

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

State Dept. Gets Libya Emails That Hillary Clinton Didn’t Hand Over // NYT
// Michael Schmidt – June 25, 2015     5

State Department says 15 e-mails missing from pages Hillary Clinton
provided // WaPo // Karen DeYoung – June 25,
2015....................................................................................................................................................................................
7

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

Deidre Walsh (6/25/15, 10:29 am) - Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions
says he plans to introduce a bill to repeal & replace Obamacare next week
-- the first of MANY
coming..............................................................................
8

Generation Forward (6/25/15, 3:33 pm) - #TBT when @BernieSanders caved
under pressure from the NRA and didn't support the Brady Bill
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/whos-afraid-of-the-nra-vermonts-congressmen-thats-who/Content?oid=2435066
….....................................................................................................................................
8

David Chalina (6/25/15, 5:01 pm) - CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire GOP primary poll
#'s: Bush 16%, Trump 11%, Paul 9%, Walker 8%, Fiorina 6%, Rubio 6%, Carson
5%, Christie
5%....................................................................................
9

Dan Merica (6/25/15, 4:10 pm) - Clinton campaign, via @Ann_OLeary,
fundraising off how Bush, Huckabee and Rubio responded to the SCOTUS
decision...........................................................................................................................
9

Phil Elliott (6/25/15, 2:19 pm) - Pro-Rubio super PAC up with first
60-second ad. Topic: a nuke deal with Iran. Includes cameo for PM
Netanyahu:
https://youtu.be/mqqZfDpFofg.................................................................................
9

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

Hillary Clinton’s ‘All Lives Matter’ Remark Stirs Backlash // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – June 25, 2015......... 9

New Hampshire Poll Shows Bernie Sanders in Dead Heat With Hillary Clinton
// NYT // Katharine Seelye – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
10

If Hillary wins, would she have to give up this former first lady perk? //
WaPo // Al Kamen – June 25, 2015               11

State Department Says Hillary Clinton’s Email Disclosure Was Incomplete //
WSJ // Byron Tau – June 25, 2015      12

Clinton Didn’t Turn Over All Work E-Mail to State Department // Bloomberg
// Billy House – June 25, 2015            13

State Department says it can't locate 15 Hillary Clinton emails // Fox News
– June 26, 2015....................... 14

State Dept.: 15 emails missing from Clinton cache // AP // Bradley Klapper
& Matthew Lee – June 25, 2015              16

State Dept.: Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over all Libya emails // Politico
// Rachel Bade – June 25, 2015.. 18

Why the Clinton-Bush rivalry is really a food fight // Politico // Kate
Bennett – June 25, 2015................... 19

Billionaire GOP donor deletes ‘lesbian’ joke about Hillary Clinton //
Politico // Annie Karni – June 25, 2015              21

State Department calls Clinton's email records incomplete // Reuters //
Lesley Wroughton – June 25, 2015             22

Report: Clinton Libya emails surface // USA Today // Michael Winter – June
25, 2015............................... 23

The Gender Subplot // National Journal // Charlie Cook – June 26,
2015...................................................... 24

State Department: ‘Limited’ Number of Hillary Clinton Emails Are Missing //
National Journal // Ben Geman – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
25

Hillary Clinton to Anti-Obamacare Republicans: 'Move On' // National
Journal // Eric Garcia – June 25, 2015           27

Hillary Clinton won’t have to fight Obama’s battles on health care // MSNBC
// Alex Seitz-Wald – June 25, 2015      28

Hillary Clinton’s big diss to Bill de Blasio // Page Six // Ian Mohr – June
25, 2015......................................... 29

Sid Blumenthal’s Israel Michegas // The Daily Beast // James Kirchick –
June 26, 2015............................. 30

Google says Hillary Clinton will be the next president // CNET // Chris
Matyszczyk – June 25, 2015........ 32

Fifteen Libya Emails Missing From Clinton Cache // Sky News US Team – June
26, 2015........................... 33

Clinton Lawyer, Soros Back Anti-Voter ID Lawsuits // Washington Free Beacon
// Joe Schoffstall - June 26, 2015   35

Karma Chameleon in Chief // Washington Free Beacon // Matthew Continetti -
June 26, 2015................ 36

Moroccan Government Lobbyists Ready for Hillary // Free Beacon // Lachlan
Markay – June 25, 2015 39

How Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Signifies A New Era For Women’s Rights //
Elite Daily // Aisha Moktadier – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
40

American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says
Hillary Clinton // Politifact // Linda Qiu – June 25,
2015...........................................................................................................................................................................
42

Benghazi panel says Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over all Libya emails,
despite her claims // The Washington Times // Stephen Dinan - June 25,
2015...................................................................................................................................
48

Bill Maher: Hillary plays ‘hide-and seek’ while Putin allows tough marathon
interviews // The Washington Times // Douglas Earnst – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................
50

State Dept: Clinton did not turn over some emails // CNN // Elise Labott –
June 25, 2015........................ 50

FNC’s ‘Special Report’: Schweizer’s Clinton Cash Scandals Cause Hillary to
Drop in Polls // Breitbart News – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
52

Bernie Sanders closes on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire Democrats poll //
The Guardian // Ben Jacobs – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
53

Hillary wraps up New York fundraising swing with private shopping trip to
ultra-expensive Bergdorf Goodman one day after boasting about her plans to
help 'poor people, people of color, and the elderly' // The Daily Mail –
June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................................
53

Hillary Clinton's lead over N.H. Democrats dwindling, poll finds // CNN //
Jennifer Agiesta – June 25, 2015              55

In Hillary Clinton’s journey, a history of Jewish kinship // J Weekly //
Ron Kampeas – June 25, 2015..... 57

Hillary Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say, but is still the
Dem frontrunner // Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
59

Hillary Clinton's Newest Consultant Was A Major Keystone Lobbyist // HuffPo
// Sam Stein – June 25, 2015             60

Hillary Clinton Has Hired a Former Keystone Pipeline Lobbyist // The New
Republic // Rebecca Leber – June 21,
2015...........................................................................................................................................................................................
61

Hillary celebrates ruling: 'Yes!' // The Hill // David McCabe – June 25,
2015................................................ 63

Election 2016: 'Chelsea's Mom' Is Hillary Clinton's Fan Love Song //
International Business Times // Ginger Gibson – June 25,
2015.................................................................................................................................................................
63

Hillary Clinton Wears Epic '90s Outfit in TBT Pic Congratulating Supreme
Court's Obamacare Decision // E! // Brett Malec – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................
64

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **65*

DECLARED..............................................................................................................................
65

*O’MALLEY............................................................................................................................
**65*

Here’s what climate hawk Martin O’Malley would do as president // Grist //
Ben Adler – June 25, 2015 65

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

A pro-O’Malley super PAC goes after Sanders on guns // WaPo // John Wagner
– June 25, 2015............ 68

Claire McCaskill, a major Clinton ally, unloads on Bernie Sanders //
Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 25, 2015          69

Bernie Sanders Calls For 65% Top Estate Tax Rate // Forbes // Ashley
Ebeling – June 25, 2015............... 70

For first time, O'Malley-linked group goes after Sanders // CNN // Dan
Merica – June 25, 2015.............. 71

Pro-Martin O’Malley Super PAC Targets Bernie Sanders // TIME // Sam Frizell
– June 25, 2015............. 73

MARTIN O’MALLEY AD HITS NOT HILLARY CLINTON — BUT BERNIE SANDERS? // First
Look // Lee Fang – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
74

Bernie Sanders Gains on Hillary Clinton in Bloomberg Early-State Polling //
Bloomberg News // John McCormick – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................
75

Bernie Sanders Responds to Claire McCaskill Attack: This Is a First //
Bloomberg News // Arit John – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................................
78

Sanders: My Views Resonating With Women as Campaign Keeps Rising //
Bloomberg News // Alexa Papadopoulos – June 25,
2015.................................................................................................................................................................
80

This new anti–Bernie Sanders video shows Martin O'Malley is getting
desperate // VOX // Andrew Prokap – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................................................................
80

Bernie Sanders joins push for DC statehood // The Hill // Tim Devaney –
June 25, 2015........................... 81

UNDECLARED........................................................................................................................
82

*WEBB...................................................................................................................................
**82*

Jim Webb Criticized for Comments on Confederate Flag // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – June 25, 2015...... 82

Bernie Sanders Attacked For Not Being Liberal Enough // The Weekly Standard
// Michael Warren – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................................
83

*OTHER.................................................................................................................................
**83*

Terry McAuliffe's other job // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – June 26,
2015............................................ 83

Democratic civil war ends, for now, as House approves final trade measures
// WaPo // Paul Kane – June 25, 2015 86

Democratic Field Champions Health Care as Human Right // Real Clear
Politics // Andrew Desiderio – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................................
89

*GOP.................................................................................................................
**90*

DECLARED...............................................................................................................................
91

*BUSH.....................................................................................................................................
**91*

Jeb swipes at Obama over Iran deal // Politico // Adam Lerner – June 25,
2015.......................................... 91

Jeb Bush cast as 'villain' in GOP fight for recognition // CNN // Ashley
Killough – June 25, 2015................ 91

Florida Voter Purge Fiasco May Complicate Jeb Bush's Appeal To Minorities
// HuffPo // Scott Conroy – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................................
93

Jeb Bush, Donald Trump running first and second among 2016 GOP field: poll
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
99

Jeb Bush did not appoint a guardian for a rape victim's fetus, but he
fought for one // Politifact // Joshua Gillin – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................
100

Is the poverty rate worse now than it was in the 1970's? // Politifact //
Joshua Gillin – June 25, 2015..... 102

Jeb Bush did say women should 'find a husband' to get off welfare -- in
1994 // Politifact // Joshua Gillin – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
103

Political group makes five points about Jeb Bush's record // Politifact //
Josh Gillin – June 25, 2015..... 104

Jeb Bush Shakes Money Tree in Manhattan Two More Times // The Observer //
Ken Kurson – June 25, 2015          107

For-Profit Charter Operator In Jeb Bush Video Has A Checkered Past //
Buzzfeed // Molly Hensley-Clancy – June 25,
2015................................................................................................................................................................................
109

Pro-Jeb Bush Super PAC runs first online ad in New Hampshire, Iowa // Miami
Herald // Patricia Mazzei – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................................................................
111

Jeb Bush Leads New Hampshire GOP Poll; Donald Trump in 2nd Place // Latinos
Post - June 26, 2015. 111

*RUBIO..................................................................................................................................
**112*

In N.H., Marco Rubio Is Pressed on Trade and Immigration // NYT // Jeremy
Peters – June 25, 2015. 112

Marco Rubio is playing to win The Sheldon Adelson Primary // WaPo // James
Hohmann & Elise Viebeck – June 25,
2015.................................................................................................................................................................................
113

Rubio plans early-state ad blitz // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 25,
2015................................................. 115

A Canadian idea Rubio likes // Politico // Danny Vinik – June 25,
2015.......................................................... 115

Marco Rubio discusses health care, veterans in NH visit // WMUR 9 //
Jennifer Crompton – June 25, 2015               117

First on CNN: Rubio slams Obamacare ruling // CNN // Dana Bash – June 25,
2015................................... 118

Marco Rubio defends courting Koch Brothers in New Hampshire // CNN //
Theodore Schleifer – June 25, 2015    119

Marco Rubio Campaign Buys 'Several Million' Dollars' Worth Of Airtime For
Ads in Early Primary States // ABC News // Jonathan Karl – June 25,
2015..................................................................................................................................
120

Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush vow to continue fighting Obamacare after Supreme
Court ruling // Palm Beach Post // George Bennett – June 25,
2015............................................................................................................................................
120

Marco Rubio gives Obama an ‘F’ on VA issues // The Washington Times //
David Sherfinski – June 25, 2015              121

Rubio Gives Veterans Cool Grenade Stress Balls at New Hampshire Town Hall
// Slate // Jeremy Stahl – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
122

Rubio: My luxury yacht 'is cleverly disguised as a fishing boat' // The
Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 25, 2015 122

*PAUL....................................................................................................................................
**123*

Rand Paul slams Obamacare ruling, Warren says too late // The Boston Herald
// Joe Dwinell, Zuri Berry, & Chris Cassidy – June 25,
2015.............................................................................................................................................
123

Rand Paul Said to Take on the IRS, Again // Bloomberg News // Richard Rubin
– June 25, 2015........... 124

VAT Chance: Rand Paul, Ben Cardin Push to Change Tax Code // Bloomberg News
// Richard Rubin – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
126

Rand Paul and AAPS Want to Bring You Liberty.... From Safe Healthcare //
HuffPo // Dr. Jason Johnson – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
128

Rand Paul's Courtship With Evangelicals: Will It Be Enough to Win the GOP
Primary // The Christian Post // Shane Vander Hart – June 25,
2015....................................................................................................................................
129

Rand Paul: The Supreme Court ‘Missed An Opportunity Here’ // The Daily
Caller // Al Weaver – June 25, 2015      133

*CRUZ...................................................................................................................................
**134*

Ted Cruz Speaks to the Right, Shuns Party Leaders // WSJ // Janet Hook –
June 25, 2015..................... 134

Ted Cruz Calls Supreme Court Justices 'Robed Houdinis' Over Obamacare
Decision // The National Journal // Marina Koren – June 25,
2015................................................................................................................................................
135

Ted Cruz on Obamacare Subsidies Decision: "Supreme Court's Judicial
Activism Violating Their Oaths Of Office" // Real Clear Politics // Ian
Schwartz – June 25,
2015.......................................................................................................
137

Ted Cruz, angered by Obamacare ruling, tells ‘rogue justices’ to resign and
run for Congress // The Washington Times // Seth McLaughlin – June 25,
2015.............................................................................................................................
137

Ted Cruz is bashing John Roberts after years of praising him // Business
Insider // Colin Campbell – June 25, 2015 138

*GRAHAM............................................................................................................................
**139*

Graham Blasts Hillary’s ‘Sleazy’ Associates, State Department Management //
Free Beacon // Alana Goodman – June 25,
2015................................................................................................................................................................................
139

Lindsey Graham Criticizes Hillary Clinton on Equal Pay // Free Beacon //
Joe Schoffstall – June 25, 2015 140

How Lindsey Graham Would Defeat the Islamic State // Free Beacon // Daniel
Wiser – June 25, 2015 141

*SANTORUM........................................................................................................................
**143*

Santorum returns focus to culture wars in Iowa speech // The Des Moines
Register // William Petroski - June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
143

Rick Santorum: “European Socialist” Obama Believes In Revolutionary Model
That Led To Reign Of Terror // Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 25,
2015...................................................................................................................
145

*HUCKABEE........................................................................................................................
**146*

Huckabee calls court’s health-care ruling an ‘act of judicial tyranny’ //
WaPo // Philip Rucker – June 25, 2015          146

Mike Huckabee: 'Donor Class' Pushed Senate Republicans To Approve Obama's
Fast-Track Trade Authority // HuffPo // Samantha-Jo Roth – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................
147

Mike Huckabee: The Supreme Court just issued 'an out-of-control act of
judicial tyranny' // Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 25,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
147

Mike Huckabee: Get government out of veterans’ health care business // The
Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25,
2015................................................................................................................................................................
148

*CARSON.............................................................................................................................
**149*

Ben Carson: The Supreme Court Overstepped on Obamacare // TIME // Dr. Ben
Carson – June 25, 2015 149

Carson says GOP must offer ‘really appealing’ ObamaCare alternative;
Congressman King reacts to ruling // Radio Iowa // O. Kay Henderson – June
25,
2015.....................................................................................................................
150

Ben Carson In 2014: Communists Have “Infiltrated Our Society” // Buzzfeed
// Christopher Massie – June 25,
2015.........................................................................................................................................................................................
151

*TRUMP................................................................................................................................
**152*

Univision Severs Ties With Donald Trump and Beauty Pageants // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – June 25, 2015 152

Are Donald Trump’s poll numbers too good to be true? // Politico // Daniel
Strauss – June 25, 2015.... 153

Donald Trump Leads All But Bush in New Hampshire // TIME // Phillip Elliott
– June 25, 2015.............. 155

Donald Trump says 'hypocrite' Neil Young asked him for money // FOX News –
June 25, 2015.............. 156

UNDECLARED.......................................................................................................................
157

*WALKER.............................................................................................................................
**157*

Scott Walker to announce 2016 intentions next month // CBS News //
Stephanie Condon – June 25, 2015                157

Corruption Charges Against Walker Are Baseless, Supporters Say // The Daily
Beast // Peter Fricke – June 25,
2015.........................................................................................................................................................................................
158

Scott Walker says Barack Obama told Coast Guard global warming is top
threat to military and world // Politifact // Tom Kertscher – June 25,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
159

Scott Walker’s Jobs Program Didn’t Work // The Daily Beast // Betsy
Woodruff – June 25, 2015........... 161

*CHRISTIE...........................................................................................................................
**165*

Chris Christie to Announce Decision on 2016 Campaign // NYT // Nick
Corasaniti – June 25, 2015......... 165

Chris Christie to announce 2016 bid as early as next week // Politico //
Alex Isenstadt – June 25, 2015 165

*JINDAL...............................................................................................................................
**167*

Bobby Jindal’s identity causes a Twitter storm in India // WaPo // Rama
Lakshmi – June 25, 2015........ 167

Indians on social media mock Bobby Jindal candidacy // LA Times // Shashank
Bengali – June 25, 2015 167

Bobby Jindal’s fateful choice // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 25,
2015..................................................... 169

Jindal’s Facebook showing matches his lagging poll numbers // McClatchy //
David Lightman – June 25, 2015          170

Bobby Jindal presidential bid sparks Twitter mockery // BBC – June 25,
2015............................................ 172

*KASICH................................................................................................................................
**173*

John Kasich Appeals to Iowa as He Ponders White House Bid // NYT // Trip
Gabriel – June 25, 2015.. 173

*OTHER................................................................................................................................
**175*

GOP insiders expect no harm from Confederate flag controversy // Politico
// Kyle Cheney – June 26, 2015            179

Republicans Cite Health Care Ruling in Pushing Candidacies // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – June 25, 2015 182

GOP lawmakers: Time to move on from Obamacare repeal // Politico // Manu
Raju & Burgess Everett – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
183

The Supreme Court Just Did Republicans a Big Favor // The New Yorker //
John Cassidy – June 25, 2015 186

Republicans to fight Obamacare through election campaign despite ruling //
Reuters // Susan Cornwell – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
188

After Charleston shootings, poll highlights race dilemma for Republicans //
Reuters // John Whitesides – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
190

GOP presidential hopefuls in Colorado for conservative summit - and a
marijuana policy grade // The Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – June
25,
2015.........................................................................................................................
191

GOP lawmaker: Blumenthal Benghazi deposition should be released // The Hill
// Martin Matishak – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
192

THE LID: Glass Half Full for GOP After Obamacare Decision // NBC News //
Carrie Dann & Andrew Rafferty – June 25,
2015................................................................................................................................................................................
193

Supreme Court Lets GOP Candidates Off the Hook on Obamacare // The Daily
Beast // Betsy Woodruff – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
193

GOP chairman: Only way to fix healthcare is to elect Republicans // The
Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 25, 2015             195

GOP Field Renews "Repeal Obamacare" Battle Cry // Real Clear Politics //
Caitlin Huey-Burns – June 25, 2015        196

Republican Presidential Candidates Blast Supreme Court Ruling // The Daily
Caller // Alex Pappas – June 25, 2015 198

Conservatives Unleash Fury at One-Time Hero John Roberts // Bloomberg News
// Sahil Kapur – June 25, 2015    199

Republicans Go On Obamacare Offensive: 'A Reckless Law' // The Weekly
Standard // Daniel Halper – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
201

*OTHER 2016
NEWS.......................................................................................
**202*

Obamacare ruling: Six takeaways for 2016 // Politico // Glenn Thrush & Kyle
Cheney – June 25, 2015. 202

GOP, Democrats seek campaign cash from Obamacare ruling // USA Today //
Fredreka Schouten – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................................................................
205

Campaign swag and “Made in America” in the 2016 election // CBS News //
Jenna Sakwa – June 25, 2015 206

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**207*

DOMESTIC.............................................................................................................................
207

Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges // NYT //
Margot Sanger-Katz – June 25, 2015       207

Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling benefits way more people in red counties
than blue // WaPo // Philip Bump – June 25,
2015.........................................................................................................................................................................
209

Supreme Court Rules That Disparate Impact Claims Are Allowed Under Fair
Housing Act // Buzzfeed // Chris Geidner – June 25,
2015................................................................................................................................................................
210

INTERNATIONAL..................................................................................................................
211

Putin Breaks Silence With Call to Obama // NYT // Peter Baker – June 25,
2015......................................... 211

ISIS Attacks Two Towns in Northern Syria // NYT // Ben Hubbard – June 25,
2015.................................. 212

Palestinians press International Criminal Court to charge Israel // WaPo //
William Booth – June 25, 2015 214

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**216*

A Bush vs. a Clinton? // WSJ // Daniel Henninger – June 25,
2015................................................................. 216

Hillary Clinton has to attack Bernie Sanders // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin –
June 25, 2015.......................... 218

It's Official -- Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts
and Minds of Democrats // HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – June 25,
2015........................................................................................................................................
220

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*State Dept. Gets Libya Emails That Hillary Clinton Didn’t Hand Over
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/state-dept-gets-libya-emails-that-clinton-didnt-hand-over.html>
// NYT // Michael Schmidt – June 25, 2015 *

The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by
Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over,
raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from
the private account she used exclusively while in office.

The disclosure appeared to open the door for Republicans on Capitol Hill to
get more deeply involved in the issue. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican
of South Carolina, who is running for president, said he planned to send a
series of questions to the State Department about the missing emails and
about why it allowed her to use the personal account.

Republicans said that the State Department’s statement was likely to
increase pressure on the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, to
subpoena the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home that housed the account.

Hillary Rodham Clinton in New Hampshire on Monday. Sidney Blumenthal, a
close confidant of Mrs. Clinton, turned over emails about Libya to a House
committee.Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton’s Confidant, Turns Over Memos
on LibyaJUNE 15, 2015

Mrs. Clinton has said that she gave the State Department about 50,000 pages
of emails that she deemed to be related to her work as secretary of state
and deleted roughly the same number. She said the messages she deleted were
personal, relating to topics like yoga, family vacations and her mother’s
funeral.

Her longtime confidant and adviser Sidney Blumenthal, responding two weeks
ago to a subpoena from the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks
in Benghazi, Libya, gave it dozens of emails he had exchanged with Mrs.
Clinton when she was in office. Mr. Blumenthal did not work at the State
Department at the time, but he routinely provided her with intelligence
memos about Libya, some with dubious information, which Mrs. Clinton
circulated to her deputies.

State Department officials then crosschecked the emails from Mr. Blumenthal
with the ones Mrs. Clinton had handed over and discovered that she had not
provided nine of them and portions of six others.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, who is running for president,
said that she had given the State Department “over 55,000 pages of
materials,” including “all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”

The chairman of the House committee, Trey Gowdy, Republican of South
Carolina, said that many of the emails that Mrs. Clinton had not handed
over showed that “she was soliciting and regularly corresponding with
Sidney Blumenthal, who was passing unvetted intelligence information about
Libya from a source with a financial interest in the country.”

“It just so happens these emails directly contradict her public statement
that the messages from Blumenthal were unsolicited,” he said. Mr.
Blumenthal identified the source of his information as Tyler Drumheller, a
former high-ranking C.I.A. official, according to a person with knowledge
of his testimony to the Benghazi panel. Mr. Drumheller was part of a group
that sought to do business in Libya.

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have argued that the committee’s mission has
crept far beyond its original scope: to investigate the Benghazi attacks,
which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Republican committee members have said that they are within their right to
look into her email use because the resolution that created the panel
directed them to examine how the administration complied with previous
inquiries into the attacks. Mrs. Clinton’s emails relating to the attacks
were not handed over to any of the panels conducting those inquiries.

Other panels in Congress may consider investigating the matter. Mr. Graham,
who oversees a Senate subcommittee with sway over the State Department’s
budget, said that the department “seems to have a system that is not
working very well” in regards to its production of documents to Congress.

“I’m going to ask them whether they think Mrs. Clinton has handed over
everything she should and what they are going to do about it,” he said.
“And if they give me runaround responses, we’ll drag them up on Capitol
Hill and make them answer these questions in public.”

While the State Department acknowledged that it did not have several of
Mrs. Clinton’s emails, it also told the Benghazi committee that it had not
turned over other messages of hers. The department said that it had not
done so because the contents of those messages fell outside the requests
made by the committee.

“The State Department is working diligently to review and publish the
55,000 pages of emails we received from former Secretary Clinton,” it said
in a statement.

That statement is unlikely to satisfy the committee, which believes it has
been clear in its requests. Members of the panel have contended that the
State Department has withheld documents to protect Mrs. Clinton and grind
the investigation to a halt. State Department officials have said that one
of the reasons it has taken so long to produce documents is that the
department’s record-keeping system is cumbersome. They have also said that
the committee has not been specific enough in its requests.

*State Department says 15 e-mails missing from pages Hillary Clinton
provided
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-says-15-e-mails-from-clinton-cannot-be-found/2015/06/25/39e20a84-1b9e-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html>
// WaPo // Karen DeYoung – June 25, 2015 *

The State Department said Thursday that it could not locate “all or part”
of 15 e-mails provided last week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi
by Sidney Blumenthal from his exchanges with then-Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who has raised repeated
questions about whether Clinton covered up her activities related to the
September 2012 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, called the
State Department disclosure “significant and troubling.”

It was the first indication that some 55,000 pages of e-mails from a
private server Clinton used while in office were not a complete record of
her work-related correspondence, and the latest turn in what has become a
contentious political battle pitting committee Republicans against Clinton
and committee Democrats, who have charged Gowdy with trying to undermine
her presidential campaign.

When the existence of the private server was revealed, Clinton said she had
discarded “personal” e-mails and gave the rest to the State Department. The
department then culled about 300 e-mails related to Benghazi in response to
a committee subpoena. Many were from Blumenthal, a former Clinton White
House aide and a close friend, who forwarded what he said were inside
intelligence reports from sources with access to the Libyan government
between 2011 and 2013. The documents, which were publicly released last
month, shed no new light on the Benghazi attack.

The committee then subpoenaed Blumenthal, who appeared for a closed-door
deposition last week. He also supplied the committee with additional
Libya-related e-mails that Gowdy said at the time might not have been among
those culled by the State Department.

In response to a committee query, Gowdy said in a statement Thursday, “the
State Department has informed the Select Committee that Secretary Clinton
has failed to turn over all her Benghazi and Libya related records. This
confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected public
record.

“This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s
work,” he said, and “conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself,
which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete
public record.”

An official at State, speaking on the condition of anonymity under ground
rules imposed by the department, said there were “a limited number of
instances — 15 — in which we could not locate all or part of the content of
a document from [Blumenthal’s] production within the tens of thousands of
e-mails she gave us. . . . The substance of those 15 e-mails is not
relevant to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.”

At the same time, the official said, some of the documents Clinton had
already turned over “do not appear” in Blumenthal’s “production to the
committee.”

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Deidre Walsh (6/25/15, 10:29 am)*
<https://twitter.com/deirdrewalshcnn/status/614077962216980481>* - Rules
Committee Chairman Pete Sessions says he plans to introduce a bill to
repeal & replace Obamacare next week -- the first of MANY coming*

*Generation Forward (6/25/15, 3:33 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/GenFwdPAC/status/614154567291240448>* - #TBT when
@BernieSanders caved under pressure from the NRA and didn't support the
Brady Bill
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/whos-afraid-of-the-nra-vermonts-congressmen-thats-who/Content?oid=2435066
<http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/whos-afraid-of-the-nra-vermonts-congressmen-thats-who/Content?oid=2435066>
…*

*David Chalina (6/25/15, 5:01 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/DavidChalian/status/614176523688480769>* -
CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire GOP primary poll #'s: Bush 16%, Trump 11%, Paul 9%,
Walker 8%, Fiorina 6%, Rubio 6%, Carson 5%, Christie 5%*

*Dan Merica (6/25/15, 4:10 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/614163752980742144>* - Clinton
campaign, via @Ann_OLeary, fundraising off how Bush, Huckabee and Rubio
responded to the SCOTUS decision.*

*Phil Elliott (6/25/15, 2:19 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/Philip_Elliott/status/614135814465921024>* - Pro-Rubio
super PAC up with first 60-second ad. Topic: a nuke deal with Iran.
Includes cameo for PM Netanyahu:  https://youtu.be/mqqZfDpFofg
<https://youtu.be/mqqZfDpFofg>*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary Clinton’s ‘All Lives Matter’ Remark Stirs Backlash
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 25, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton is facing backlash for saying that “all lives
matter” in an African-American church in Missouri on Tuesday, offending
some who feel that she is missing the point of the “black lives matter”
mantra.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks at Christ the King United Church of Christ in
Florissant, Mo. — only a few miles north of Ferguson, where a black
teenager was shot by a white police officer last August — came during a
broader discussion of civil rights in America.

She was talking about how a disproportionate number of young people of
color are out of school and out of work and, explaining that everyone needs
a “chance and a champion,” she recalled how her mother was abandoned as a
teenager and went on to work as a maid.

“What kept you going?” Mrs. Clinton remembered asking her mother. “Her
answer was very simple. Kindness along the way from someone who believed
she mattered. All lives matter.”

The remark caused a stir on social media, with some African-Americans on
Twitter suggesting that Mrs. Clinton had lost their votes.

The Rev. Renita Lamkin, who was in the audience at the event, told NPR that
Mrs. Clinton’s comment did not go unnoticed.

“That blew a lot of support that she may have been able to engender here,”
she said.

The phrase “black lives matter” has become a rallying cry in the last year
for demonstrators amid a spate of episodes around the country, including
the 18-year-old Michael Brown’s death in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson,
where white police officers have been accused of using excessive force
against black suspects.

Judith Butler, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, summed up
the frustration with the use of “all lives matter” in The Times in January.

“When some people rejoin with ‘All Lives Matter’ they misunderstand the
problem, but not because their message is untrue,” she wrote. “It is true
that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are
understood to matter which is precisely why it is most important to name
the lives that have not mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way
they deserve.”

Mrs. Clinton has not been opposed to using the phrase in the past,
declaring that “yes, black lives matter” at a gala in New York last year.

The controversy comes as Mrs. Clinton has sought to address racial issues
in a more direct manner than she was able to in 2007, when she was running
against someone who would go on to become the first black president.

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who is black, defended Mrs. Clinton
and said that her remarks on Tuesday should be taken in the context that
she was discussing her mother.

*New Hampshire Poll Shows Bernie Sanders in Dead Heat With Hillary Clinton
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/verbatim-hillary-clinton-supports-supreme-court-decision/>
// NYT // Katharine Seelye – June 25, 2015 *

The next time Hillary Rodham Clinton visits New Hampshire, she need not
look over her shoulder to find Bernie Sanders; the Vermont Senator is
running right alongside her in a statistical dead heat for the 2016
Democratic presidential nomination, according to a CNN/WMUR poll released
on Thursday.

The poll shows Mrs. Clinton drawing 43 percent of likely Democratic primary
voters compared to 35 percent for Mr. Sanders, but with a margin of
sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points, the race is a
statistical tie.

While Mrs. Clinton has been enormously popular in New Hampshire, her
favorable ratings have dropped almost 20 points since February, while Mr.
Sanders’s have been climbing. And his negatives are lower than hers. So
their net favorability ratings (favorable minus unfavorable) are now equal,
at 55 percent.

In her favor, however, is that most voters appear to view Mrs. Clinton as
by far the stronger leader, and as having the personal characteristics that
are most presidential. She also trounces Mr. Sanders on her perceived
ability to handle important issues, with more voters saying she is best
able to handle the economy, terrorism, trade and health care.

Working against her is the hefty 28 percent who view her as the “least
honest.”

Working to Mr. Sanders’s advantage: Most voters believe he “best represents
Democrats like yourself” and “cares the most about people like you.” The
one issue that voters said he was better able to handle than Mrs. Clinton
was dealing with “big banks and corporations.”

The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, interviewed 1,010
voters from June 18 to 24. The margin of sampling error for the entire poll
was plus or minus three percentage points, but for the 360 likely
Democratic primary voters who were interviewed, it was plus or minus five
percentage points.

A Suffolk University poll last week also found Mr. Sanders making headway
against Mrs. Clinton, trailing her by 10 percentage points, just outside
that poll’s margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage
points.

*If Hillary wins, would she have to give up this former first lady perk?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/25/if-hillary-wins-would-she-have-to-give-up-this-former-first-lady-perk/>
// WaPo // Al Kamen – June 25, 2015 *

There will doubtless be all manner of novel situations to deal with if
Hillary Clinton becomes the first woman to occupy the Oval Office.

One question will be whether The Kennedy Center will have its first male
honorary chair on the center’s board of trustees. The six current honorary
chairs are, by tradition, the current and former first ladies: Michelle
Obama, Laura Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan and
Rosalynn Carter.

So would Bill Clinton, as First Gent, become a member of the board?

Center spokesman Michael Solomon, in response to our inquiry, e-mailed: “We
have had a long tradition at the Kennedy Center of inviting each First
Spouse to be an Honorary Chair of the Kennedy Center and we are honored by
their participation. We do not expect to alter that tradition at any time
in the future.”

But then would this mean another first? A husband and wife team on the
board at the same time?

Eventually, but not immediately, one former Obama White House lawyer told
us. It would seem Hillary Clinton would probably have to give up her chair
at the center while she was president. It could be a conflict of interest
and the general principle is that the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t take on
side government tasks.

On the other hand, if Jeb! wins, then first lady Columba Bush would be
asked to be an honorary chair, which would mean that, for the first time,
three people from the same family would be honorary chairs.

It’s only an honorary thing with no real responsibility. But you’re
guaranteed good seats.

*State Department Says Hillary Clinton’s Email Disclosure Was Incomplete
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-department-says-hillary-clintons-email-disclosure-is-incomplete-1435280138>
// WSJ // Byron Tau – June 25, 2015 *

The State Department said Thursday that former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton didn’t turn over at least 15 emails that appear to be work-related
from her personal server, contradicting her claims that all relevant emails
were in the hands of the federal government.

The emails in question were uncovered as part of a subpoena from a
congressional committee to Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton confidant
and former White House aide in Bill Clinton’s administration.

At least 15 emails given by Mr. Blumenthal to the committee—which is
investigating the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack—don’t match any in the
archive of more than 30,000 emails turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State
Department late last year, the department said.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the
assault on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Libya.

A State Department official said there were “a limited number of
instances”—15—“in which we could not locate all or part of the content of a
document from his production within the tens of thousands of emails she
gave us.”

“Those instances are described in a letter the department sent today to the
Committee,” the official said.

The missing emails contradict Mrs. Clinton’s claims that all work-related
emails from her personal server are in the hands of the government, as
required by federal record-keeping laws.

Mrs. Clinton chose to use her personal email account for government
business during her four years as secretary of state, an arrangement that
was legal, though discouraged, during her tenure.

Emails Show Clinton Was Warned Over Security in Benghazi Ahead of Attack
(May 22)

At a March news conference, Mrs. Clinton said her team had conducted a
thorough search of her email server, turning over all work-related
correspondence after the department requested it.

“I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be
work-related,” she said, adding that she deleted remaining personal emails
from the server.

On Thursday, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said: “She has turned over 55,000
pages of materials to the State Department, including all emails in her
possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”

Referring to the emails Mr. Blumenthal provided to the committee, the
spokesman said: “We do not recognize many of those materials and cannot
speak to their origin.”

The State Department has made public more than 800 emails related to the
2012 Benghazi attack and plans to make others public in the coming months,
as ordered by a federal judge.

Republicans on the Select Committee on Benghazi, which has been probing
both the 2012 attacks, as well as Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement, said
the missing emails raised questions about the thoroughness of her
disclosures. Democrats have painted the committee’s work as tainted by
partisanship, contending the panel has strayed far from its investigation
into the attack.

“This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work.
This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then
vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record,”
said Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the GOP-led panel.

“This Benghazi select committee has become the committee to investigate
Hillary Clinton. Period,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the
panel, said last week.

*Clinton Didn’t Turn Over All Work E-Mail to State Department
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-26/clinton-didn-t-turn-over-all-work-e-mail-to-state-department>
// Bloomberg // Billy House – June 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over to the U.S. State Department all the
work-related e-mail from her personal account relating to Libya and
Benghazi, as she had previously said she had.

Nine e-mails and parts of six others couldn’t be found among documents
Clinton provided in response to a request from the State Department, the
agency said in a letter to the Select House Committee investigating the
2012 terror attacks in Benghazi.

U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, chairman of the panel,
said Clinton’s selection of e-mails to provide to the State Department
resulted in an incomplete public record. Clinton, now the leading
Democratic presidential candidate, exclusively used a private e-mail
account while serving as secretary of state.

“The revelation ... is significant and troubling.”

U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy

“The revelation these messages were not originally produced to the State
Department by Clinton is significant and troubling,” he said.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address and home server has become a
focus of the House committee’s probe of the Obama administration’s handling
of attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby Central
Intelligence Agency outpost that killed four Americans. It’s also become a
distraction for Clinton as she campaigns for president.

Document Production

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, said “she has turned over
55,000 pages of materials to the State Department.”

In December, Clinton turned over about 30,000 e-mails to the department.
About 850 pages that the State Department deemed Benghazi-related were
turned over to the House committee in February.

The New York Times reported earlier that the State Department said Clinton
hadn’t handed over several Libya-related e-mails.

The 15 missing or incomplete e-mails aren’t related to the 2012 attacks in
Benghazi, according to a statement from the State Department. The latest
date on any of them is two weeks before the attacks, according to the
statement.

All of the e-mails are exchanges between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, a
long-time Clinton confidant, and are work-related, according to the State
Department. The existence of the e-mails came to light after Blumenthal,
who was subpoenaed to appear before the House panel investigating Benghazi,
turned over copies of communications with Clinton to the committee.

Libya Memos

Lawmakers complained about e-mails that they said either weren’t provided
by Clinton to the State Department or by the department to the panel in
response to its request.

Merrill said Clinton turned over “all e-mails in her possession from Mr.
Blumenthal.”

Blumenthal, though not employed at the State Department at the time,
providing Clinton with memos about Libya.

Topics among the nine e-mails produced by Blumenthal that were missing
entirely from those turned over by Clinton included the death of Muammar
Qaddafi’s son, the suspicious death in Austria of a former Libyan prime
minister and defector from Qaddafi’s regime, and dissatisfaction among
Libyan rebels in 2011 with the amount of tactical and air support they were
receiving against Qaddafi forces.

*State Department says it can't locate 15 Hillary Clinton emails
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/state-dept-15-emails-missing-from-clinton-cache/>
// Fox News – June 26, 2015*

The State Department said Thursday that it cannot locate 15 work-related
emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server released this week by the
select committee probing the 2012 Benghazi attacks, a revelation that the
head of the committee described as “significant and troubling.”

The emails consist of more in a series of intelligence reports passed to
her by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, officials told The
Associated Press.

At the least, the existence of the emails turned over by Blumenthal but not
by Clinton directly contradicts Clinton's news conference in March in which
she claimed that all work emails from her personal server were turned over
to the State Department.

The revelation will also raise further questions about the presidential
hopeful’s use of a personal email account and server when she served as
secretary of state, as well as the decision to wipe the server.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi,
called the revelations “significant and troubling.”

“This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected
public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her
personal server—especially before it could be analyzed by an independent,
neutral third party arbiter,” Gowdy said.

When asked for comment by Fox News, a Clinton official said "not only did
she turn over all emails that she had from Blumenthal, she actually turned
over more than a dozen emails that were not included in what he handed over
to the House committee. We do not have a record of other correspondence
between her and Mr. Blumenthal beyond that which was turned over to the
State Department.”

“In terms of the documents provided by Mr. Blumenthal to the House
committee, we do not recognize many of those materials and cannot speak to
their origin,” the official said.

Clinton's use of the non-governmental email while in office was not
publicly disclosed until earlier this year, after the committee sought her
correspondence related to the Benghazi attack. She says the single account
for personal and professional purposes was a matter of convenience, and
says all her work emails were included in the 55,000 pages of documents she
later handed over to the State Department. Clinton claims that emails of a
personal nature were destroyed.

The State Department informed the Select Benghazi Committee on Thursday
that they are no longer certain that's the case, officials told The
Associated Press.

The emails missing from the State Department's records include missives
from Blumenthal in which he sends media accounts about the killing of one
of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi's sons, various reports on internal
politics among Libya's rebels and news of the assassination of a former
Qaddafi minister in Vienna.

Gowdy told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly last week that Blumenthal was merely
forwarding information from someone who may have had business interests in
Libya.

Gowdy said that Blumenthal has never been to Libya, is not an expert on the
country and therefore “has no idea” as to the validity of the information
he was sending to Clinton.

“Not only was [Blumenthal] providing unvetted, uncorroborated,
unsubstantiated intelligence to our top diplomat, he was just simply
forwarding on intelligence that somebody by the name of Tyler Drumheller
was sending him,” Gowdy said.

Clinton's responses to Blumenthal’s emails are brief. In one from March
2012, she passes on an adviser's skepticism regarding one of Blumenthal's
reports about political intrigue in post-Qaddafi Libya, saying: "This
strains credulity based on what I know. Any other info about it?"

And after a long August 2012 note from Blumenthal about Libya's new interim
President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf, Clinton writes: "Another keeper --
thanks and please keep `em coming." Four days later, she responds to a
follow-up reports about el-Magariaf, saying: "Fascinating. I had a very
good call w him."

Gowdy said Thursday that the emails show Clinton "was soliciting and
regularly corresponding with Sidney Blumenthal -- who was passing unvetted
intelligence information about Libya from a source with a financial
interest in the country. It just so happens these emails directly
contradict her public statement that the messages from Blumenthal were
unsolicited."

*State Dept.: 15 emails missing from Clinton cache
<http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-15-emails-missing-clinton-cache-221215204--politics.html>
// AP // Bradley Klapper & Matthew Lee – June 25, 2015 *

The State Department cannot find in its records all or part of 15
work-related emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that were
released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in
Benghazi, Libya, officials said Thursday.

The emails all predate the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility
and include scant words written by Clinton herself, the officials said.
They consist of more in a series of would-be intelligence reports passed to
her by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, the officials said.

Nevertheless, the fact that the State Department says it can't find them
among emails she provided surely will raise new questions about Clinton's
use of a personal email account and server while secretary of state and
whether she has provided the agency all of her work-related correspondence,
as she claims.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, released a
statement Thursday saying, "This confirms doubts about the completeness of
Clinton's self-selected public record and raises serious questions about
her decision to erase her personal server — especially before it could be
analyzed by an independent, neutral third-party arbiter."

When asked about the discrepancy, Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign
spokesman, said, "She has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the
State Department, including all emails in her possession from Mr.
Blumenthal."

Clinton is running for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton's use of the non-governmental email while in office was not
publicly disclosed until earlier this year, after the committee sought her
correspondence related to the Benghazi attack. She says the single account
for personal and professional purposes was a matter of convenience, and
says all her work emails were included in the 55,000 pages of documents she
later handed over to the State Department. Emails of a personal nature were
destroyed, she says.

The State Department informed the Select Benghazi Committee on Thursday
that they are no longer certain that's the case, according to officials who
spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak
publicly on the matter. The officials said Julia Frifield, the assistant
secretary of state for legislative affairs, confirmed that nine emails and
parts of six others that the committee made public Monday couldn't be
located in the department's records.

As for 46 other, previously unreleased Libya-related Blumenthal emails
published by the committee, officials said all are in the department's
records. They weren't handed over to congressional investigators because
they had no relevance to events in Benghazi and did not correspond to the
committee's request, the officials said. The officials added that they are
willing to provide emails outside the committee's initial request, but
warned that doing so would require more time.

The emails missing from the State Department's records include missives
from Blumenthal in which he sends media accounts about the killing of one
of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's sons, various reports on internal
politics among Libya's rebels and news of the assassination of a former
Gadhafi minister in Vienna. The last email was sent Aug. 28, 2012, two
weeks before the Benghazi attack, and none focus particularly on the
eastern Libyan city.

Clinton's responses are brief. In one from August 2011, she tells
Blumenthal she will be in Paris the next day to meet rebel leaders and says
she had "to resort to new iPad" because she didn't have electricity or
Blackberry coverage after Hurricane Irene.

In another from March 2012, she passes on an adviser's skepticism regarding
one of Blumenthal's reports about political intrigue in post-Gadhafi Libya,
saying: "This strain credulity based on what I know. Any other info about
it?"

And after a long August 2012 note from Blumenthal about Libya's new interim
President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf, Clinton writes: "Another keeper —
thanks and please keep 'em coming." Four days later, she responds to a
follow-up reports about el-Magariaf, saying: "Fascinating. I had a very
good call w him."

Clinton's critics are likely to focus less on the substance of the emails
than on the fact that they weren't shared with the State Department.

Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, has pressed for an explanation of why
Blumenthal gave the committee emails not previously shared by the State
Department. The suggestion has been that either the department or Clinton
was hiding something.

Gowdy said Thursday that the emails show Clinton "was soliciting and
regularly corresponding with Sidney Blumenthal — who was passing unvetted
intelligence information about Libya from a source with a financial
interest in the country. It just so happens these emails directly
contradict her public statement that the messages from Blumenthal were
unsolicited."

Clinton aides say her submission to the department included all emails from
Blumenthal and a dozen more exchanges that weren't in the records he
provided the House committee. They said some from Blumenthal's record,
which was provided as a Microsoft Word document, couldn't be confirmed as
having been sent as emails.

State Department officials also questioned the provenance of some exchanges
because they weren't formatted as emails.

*State Dept.: Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over all Libya emails
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-all-libya-emails-state-119453.html>
// Politico // Rachel Bade – June 25, 2015*

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton withheld from the State
Department several emails related to Libya, the State Department confirmed
Thursday night — calling into question her insistence that she has handed
over her complete public record.

The 2016 Democratic front-runner did not hand over 15 exchanges with
longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal on the security situation in the
Middle Eastern nation. The existence of the new correspondence only came to
light days ago after Republicans subpoenaed the former Clinton White House
adviser’s records and he turned them over.

Clinton has said she cooperated with the House Benghazi Committee
investigation by handing over all work-related communications, which she
stored on her own personal server against official record-keeping rules.

“This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected
public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her
personal server — especially before it could be analyzed by an independent,
neutral third-party arbiter,” Benghazi panel Chairman Trey Gowdy said in a
statement.

The South Carolina Republican said the implications go “far beyond Libya,
Benghazi and our committee’s work.”

“This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then
vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record,” he
continued.

Clinton has come under fire for circumventing government rules instead of
using an official State Department email address, with critics accusing her
of hiding behind a shroud of secrecy. Clinton, for her part, turned over
more than 30,000 work emails to state as part of its document production to
the Benghazi committee. The rest, she said, were personal in nature — about
Chelsea’s wedding or yoga, she said.

Then, her team wiped her server clean, they say.

Barred from working at the State Department by the Obama administration,
Blumenthal was being paid $10,000 a month by the philanthropic Clinton
Foundation at the time. He was also advising friends working on a new
business venture in Libya — and one of those business partners is said to
have been the author of the intelligence memos Blumenthal passed along to
Clinton.

Blumenthal told the committee the emails were unsolicited, but Republicans
say a number of the emails Clinton did not turn over suggests they were,
including responses where she encouraged her old friend to continue writing.

“These new messages in many instances were Clinton’s responses, which
clearly show she was soliciting and regularly corresponding with Sidney
Blumenthal — who was passing unvetted intelligence information about Libya
from a source with a financial interest in the country,” the panel
statement continues. “It just so happens these emails directly contradict
her public statement that the messages from Blumenthal were unsolicited.”

Democrats on the panel, however, have challenged that assertion and
questioned Gowdy’s definition of “unsolicited,” arguing that simply a
response to an email does not constitute solicitation.

State, meanwhile, says it is working quickly to produce all the emails it
does have.

“We have confirmed that the emails Secretary Clinton provided the
Department include almost all of the material in Mr. Blumenthal’s
production,” a state official said in a statement. “The State Department is
working diligently to review and publish the 55,000 pages of emails we
received from former Secretary Clinton, according to FOIA standards so they
are available to the general public and the media. All of the materials
that she provided will be reviewed as part of this effort.”

*Why the Clinton-Bush rivalry is really a food fight
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/why-the-clinton-bush-rivalry-is-really-a-food-fight-119398.html#ixzz3e8a0mH6c>
// Politico // Kate Bennett – June 25, 2015 *

For Capricia Marshall, the accidental death of former White House chef
Walter Scheib—whose body was found in New Mexico earlier this week—brought
back memories of a master cook whose culinary passion was also, in an odd
way, intensely political.

In fact, the mostly untold back story to Scheib’s amazing career at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue is one of a Clinton-Bush family rivalry that played out
in the kitchen as much on the campaign trail.

“I’ll never forget when Walter arrived for his interview, to cook for
Hillary for the first time,” recalls Marshall, who as White House social
secretary worked in tandem with Scheib to create countless menus, events
and “special occasion” meals. “He had a vision, and it was amazingly in the
same vein as hers. They went on and on about the great products in this
country, the farms, the fisheries—they just gelled.”

Marshall says it was Mrs. Clinton who wanted the new chef to usher in her
plan of how the first couple would entertain; Hillary wished to showcase
the best of what America had to offer, the robust and diverse products from
each state. “Walter and I worked very, very closely to achieve that goal,”
says Marshall, who, at 32, was the youngest White House social secretary on
record when she took on the post in 1997.

But things went very differently after George W. Bush was elected. The new
president was partial to Velveeta sandwiches and more, er, traditional
food, particularly the sort of parochial tastes one might find at a Texas
roadstop. “I found myself thinking with profound nostalgia of Mrs. Clinton
and her passion for inclusion, her interest in learning about and trying
new foods, and her desire to show off her nation’s best to visitors foreign
and domestic,” Scheib later wrote in his 2007 memoir, White House Chef.

Scheib was summarily replaced in late 2004 by Laura Bush. (After his death
this week, Laura Bush released a statement saying, “Walter was an
astounding talent.”)

According to Marshall, the Maryland-raised Scheib was constantly trying to
come up with creative ideas during the Clinton years, even pushing Hillary
Clinton into new concepts of culinary outreach. “One of my favorite Walter
stories was when we had a big event coming up, the 50th anniversary of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization; it would be the quintessential American
event, the eyes of the world would be on us, and we really had to think
hard about what to serve,” Marshall said in a phone interview. For the
event, Scheib suggested bison—not exactly a household meat, but one that
was certainly American. “Hillary was like, ‘What!? Bison?’ It just sounded
so unusual, for a minute I thought, uh-oh, this is a gamble he might not
want to take.” But Scheib convinced the first lady with a tasting. “It was
phenomenal, of course. We went with it.”

Schieb also gave cooking lessons to a high-school age, Chelsea Clinton.
“Chelsea was interested in different types of food, and different types of
cooking. He completely understood that this house wasn’t only a venue for
official events, press conferences and briefings, but it was also a home.”
Marshall remained close with Scheib after she departed the White House.

Marshall called upon the chef when she launched the Diplomatic Culinary
Initiative and the American Chef Corps during her tenure as chief of
protocol at the State Department from 2009 to 2013. As she says, “A huge
part of that came from my discussions with Walter.”

Marshall was shocked to learn he died while hiking. “I loved it when he
would bring us into the kitchen and say, “Try this! Try this!” It’s really
such a sad thing to one day have a friend just not be here anymore.”

And for the Clintons, it meant the loss not only of a friend, but a
political ally who managed to be simpatico with a stove. The family said in
a statement: “Walter used his immense talents not only to represent the
very best of American cuisine to visiting leaders, but to make a difference
in people’s lives across the country.”

*Billionaire GOP donor deletes ‘lesbian’ joke about Hillary Clinton
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/billionaire-gop-donor-daniel-loeb-hillary-clinton-lesbian-joke-119429.html#ixzz3e8FnpBOj>
// Politico // Annie Karni – June 25, 2015 *

Hedge-fund billionaire Daniel Loeb — one of the biggest and most feared
investors on Wall Street and a vocal backer of same-sex marriage — posted a
joke speculating about Hillary Clinton’s sexuality on his personal Facebook
page.

“Dear Abby,” he posted May 9. “My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has
cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies
everything. What’s worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so
humiliating. Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn’t even look
for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot
the bull with his buddies, while I have to work to pay the bills. Since our
daughter went away to college he doesn’t even pretend to like me, and even
hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do? Signed Clueless.”

“Dear Clueless,” the post continues, “Grow up and dump him. Good grief
woman! You don’t need him anymore! You’re running for President of the
United States. Act like one.”

The anti-Clinton diatribe wasn’t Loeb’s own joke or words — it appeared to
be a right-wing meme that has been circulating online since Clinton’s first
run. The same faux “Dear Abby” column was also posted on the Facebook page
of actor Kevin Sorbo, best known for his role as Hercules in the TV series
“Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.”

The resurfacing of the old attack on the Clintons this cycle — on the page
of a prominent billionaire — indicates how ugly attacks could get if
Hillary Clinton gets into the uncharted territory of a general election.

Loeb, who bundled money for Barack Obama in 2008 before turning on him and
backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012, has shown interest
in a few of the GOP candidates this cycle.

Before Chris Christie became embroiled in the Bridgegate scandal, Loeb had
publicly touted the New Jersey governor’s leadership style and urged him to
run for president. But he’s been silent on Christie since, and has yet to
commit publicly to any 2016 candidate.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has been courting Loeb for his
recently launched campaign. And last year, Bush headlined a benefit gala
chaired by Loeb to raise money for Success Academy Charter Schools.

Loeb promptly deleted the Dear Abby post after POLITICO contacted his
office about it.

“This widely circulated, old meme ended up on my Facebook page
inadvertently and as soon as I was informed of it, I took it down,” Loeb
said in a statement. “ As a longstanding public supporter of gay and
women’s rights, it does not represent my views.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment for this report.

*State Department calls Clinton's email records incomplete
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN0P52V620150626>
// Reuters // Lesley Wroughton – June 25, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton did not hand over at least 15 emails from her time as
secretary of state, the U.S. State Department said on Thursday,
undercutting her claim that the 30,000 work emails she provided from her
personal server were a complete record.

The department learned the email record was apparently incomplete after
Sidney Blumenthal, an old friend and informal adviser to Clinton, provided
several previously undisclosed emails to U.S. lawmakers investigating the
deadly 2012 attack on diplomatic staff in Benghazi, Libya.

The 15 emails were either missing from the records Clinton provided or
included only in partial form. The department said they were not relevant
to the attacks on Benghazi although copies posted online showed that they
discussed the turmoil in Libya more generally.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in an email on Thursday that the
Democratic presidential candidate had given the department "all emails in
her possession from Mr. Blumenthal."

He said he could not explain the origins of the additional correspondence
Blumenthal provided in response to the lawmakers' subpoena.

Clinton, the favorite to become her party's nominee for the 2016
presidential election, has weathered criticism that she side-stepped
record-keeping and transparency rules by using only a private email account
for her work. The private address was connected to a server in her home.

The arrangement was made public in March, more than two years after she
stepped down as the top U.S. diplomat. Clinton said she used the private
email account for the sake of convenience and broke no rules.

Recent polls show more than half of all voters say she is not trustworthy,
in part because of her email habits, although this has not put a deep dent
in her popularity among Democrats.

Trey Gowdy, the Republican congressman in charge of the select committee
investigating the Benghazi attack, said Clinton's incomplete email record
"raises serious questions".

"This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee's
work," Gowdy said in a statement. "This conclusively shows her email
arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has
resulted in an incomplete public record."

In March, Clinton said in an impromptu news conference at the United
Nations headquarters that she gave the State Department all emails she sent
and received that "could possibly be work-related".

She said the 30,490 emails she handed over in December after the State
Department asked for her records included all that referred to Libya or
Benghazi, as well as all work-related correspondence from what her office
described as "long-time friends".

She said that once those copies were made, all her emails, including
another 30,000 or so that were deemed personal, were deleted from the
server.

Clinton spokesman Merrill declined to respond when asked whether some
emails might have been deleted at an earlier date, before the State
Department made its request.

*Report: Clinton Libya emails surface
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/hillary-clinton-state-department-libya-emails-missing/29303027/>
// USA Today // Michael Winter – June 25, 2015 *

The State Department has received 15 Libya-related emails that Hillary
Clinton did not hand over from the personal computer server she used while
secretary of state, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The emails were between Clinton and her longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal.
He surrendered them after being subpoenaed by the House committee
investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks by Islamists on two U.S.
diplomatic compounds in Benghazi. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was among
four Americans who died.

The panel released the emails this week.

All of the emails pre-date the attacks. Citing unnamed officials, AP
describes them as "more in a series of would-be intelligence reports" sent
by Blumenthal, with "scant words written by Clinton herself."

Clinton has said she turned over about 30,000 work-related emails from her
time in office. An equal number she deleted were "private" or "personal"
and pertained to her daughter Chelsea's wedding, her mother's funeral,
family vacations and yoga.

Clinton said she used one account for work and personal business out of
convenience.

"She has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department,
including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal," said Nick
Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign.

*The Gender Subplot
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-cook-report/gender-role-women-2016-presidential-election-20150626>
// National Journal // Charlie Cook – June 26, 2015*

One of the biggest questions in next year's presidential election will be
what role gender will play in the voting and outcome, particularly if
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. Over the
past six presidential elections, Democrats have swept the female vote, by 8
points in 1992, by 16 points in 1996, by 11 points in 2000, by just 3
points in 2004, by 13 points in 2008, and by 11 points in 2012. Meanwhile,
Republicans have carried the male vote four times: in 1996 (by 1 point), in
2000 and 2004 (both by 11 points), and in 2012 (by 7 points). Democrats
came out ahead among men in 1992 (by 3 points) and 2008 (by 1 point). So
while Republicans do have a problem with women voters, Democrats have one
with men.

In looking at the women's vote, however, race is a major factor that cannot
be ignored. Among white women, Democrats broke even in 1992 and won by 5
points in 1996—but Republicans have swept this group in the past four
elections, by just 1 point in 2000, but by 11 points in 2004, 7 points in
2008, and 14 points in 2012. Democrats obviously hope that Clinton will be
able to reverse this trend, but even if she can, by how much?

Given that Clinton is unlikely to be able to match President Obama's
turnout and support levels among minority and young voters, how can she
make up for that? If there is a sphere in which she could conceivably
outperform Obama, it is likely to be among women—arguably those who do not
also fall into either the "minority" or "young" categories, as Obama did
especially well with both minority and young women.

In the new NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll conducted June 14 through
18, which surveyed 1,000 adults, the gender gap in attitudes toward Clinton
is striking. When asked whether they had a "positive," "neutral," or
"negative" view of Clinton, women gave her a net positive score of +18
points (52 percent positive, 34 percent negative), while men gave her a net
negative score of -13 points (48 percent negative, 35 percent positive)—a
31-point spread. Among white women, Clinton had a net positive score of 1
point (44 percent positive, 43 percent negative), while among white men,
she was at -22 points (53 percent negative, 31 percent positive), a
23-point gender gap.

The NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll, conducted by Democratic pollster
Fred Yang and Republican pollster Bill McInturff, did find an interesting
distinction between white women who are college-educated and those who are
not. Clinton had a 13-point net positive rating among white women who have
attended college (51 percent positive, 38 percent negative) but an 8-point
net negative rating among white women who haven't (47 percent negative, 39
percent positive). Apparently consistent with this finding, Clinton also
had a net positive rating of 15 points among suburban women (51 percent
positive, 36 percent negative), although this cross-tab included suburban
women of all races, ages, and levels of educational attainment. (Once you
slice the data too finely, the margin of error goes through the roof unless
you are combining multiple surveys.)

In Clinton's recent campaign-kickoff speech, she made a clear play for the
women's vote, attempting to maximize her strength there while not
exacerbating her considerable problem with men—a delicate balance. Should
she win the nomination, it is unlikely that she will double down on her
strength with (most) women by choosing a female running mate. It will be
interesting to see, however, whether the eventual Republican presidential
nominee—assuming that it is not former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina,
the only woman running on the GOP side—opts to fill out the top of the
ticket with someone like Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or New Mexico
Gov. Susana Martinez, a Hispanic woman who isn't in Congress and isn't of
Washington.

Republicans are obviously acutely aware of their problem with women voters.
Witness Sen. Cory Gardner's effort to blunt the Democrats' narrative about
a Republican "war on women" by pushing to make more contraception methods
available over the counter. The strategy worked exceedingly well for him,
getting him out of the corner he was in for having once supported
Colorado's controversial "personhood" amendment. Less certain is how aware
Democrats are of their problem with men voters, specifically white men.

There are plenty of subplots in the unfolding presidential election, but
the gender fight is among the most interesting of them—and one that will be
critical to the outcome.

*State Department: ‘Limited’ Number of Hillary Clinton Emails Are Missing
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/state-department-limited-number-of-hillary-clinton-emails-are-missing-20150625>
// National Journal // Ben Geman – June 25, 2015 *

All or parts of 15 emails that Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal
gave to a House committee cannot be located among the thousands of pages of
emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, the agency said
Thursday night.

The State Department downplayed the discrepancy, but it's likely to
intensify GOP questions and criticism about Clinton's claim that she
provided State with all the work-related emails kept on her private server
late last year.

"We have confirmed that the emails Secretary Clinton provided the
Department include almost all of the material in Mr. Blumenthal's
production. There are, however, a limited number of instances—15—in which
we could not locate all or part of the content of a document from his
production within the tens of thousands of emails she gave us," a
department official said on condition of anonymity.

The official said, "The substance of those 15 emails is not relevant to the
2012 attacks in Benghazi."

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the GOP chairman of the committee, pounced on the
revelation, stating that Clinton's unusual use of a private email account
and server "has resulted in an incomplete public record."

"This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton's self-selected
public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her
personal server—especially before it could be analyzed by an independent,
neutral third party arbiter," Gowdy said in a statement Thursday.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign, defended the
completeness of her disclosure. "She has turned over 55,000 pages of
materials to the State Department, including all emails in her possession
from Mr. Blumenthal," Merrill said

Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton family ally who has consulted for
pro-Hillary Clinton advocacy groups, sent her a suite of memos on Libyan
intelligence issues in 2011 and 2012, when Clinton was secretary of State.

Blumenthal told the panel that the memos, which Clinton circulated to top
aides, were written by a former high-level CIA officer.

The memos showed Blumenthal keeping Clinton abreast of his work to parry
GOP attacks. In one case, an Oct. 1, 2012 email from Blumenthal to Clinton,
with the subject line "H: Romney's last gambit. Got done and published.
Sid.," passed along a piece in Salon about then-presidential candidate Mitt
Romney's plans to go after President Obama over the Benghazi attack.

Another message passed along links to several Media Matters blog posts and
noted, "Got all this done. Complete refutation on Libya smear. Philippe can
circulate this links"—likely a reference to Clinton aide Philippe Reines.

According to State, the nine emails with Clinton that Blumenthal provided
but State could not locate include a March 21, 2011 message with press
clips about the death of one of Muammar el-Qaddafi's sons, a late August
2011 memo titled "Inside NTC latest," which is a reference to the National
Transitional Council that countered the Libyan leader, and others.

“Excellent!"Rick, Executive Director for PolicySign up form for the
newsletter

Portions of six others are missing, State said.While Blumenthal provided
documents that State cannot locate, the department official also noted that
there are "instances where the Department has produced portions of
Secretary Clinton's correspondence with Mr. Blumenthal that did not appear
in his production to the Committee."

In addition to the revelation about the Blumenthal emails State could not
locate, Gowdy said State "also turned over a new set of Clinton emails that
were responsive to previous committee requests regarding Libya and
Benghazi, but for some reason were not previously given to the committee
under subpoena."

*Hillary Clinton to Anti-Obamacare Republicans: 'Move On'*
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-obamacare-republicans-supreme-court-scotus-20150625>*
// National Journal // Eric Garcia – June 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton, while saying the Affordable Care Act isn't "perfect," is
embracing the law at the outset of her presidential campaign, following
Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding a key piece of Obamacare.

The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments in King v. Burwell,
upholding subsidies in every state, regardless of whether its exchange was
federally or state-run.

"I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to affirm what the authors of the
Affordable Care Act clearly intended and wrote into law: that health
insurance should be affordable and available in every state across the
country," Clinton said in a statement.

Clinton also argued that it's time for Republicans, who have voted to
repeal or dismantle the law more than 50 times, to "move on."

"Now that the Supreme Court has once again re-affirmed the ACA as the law
of the land, it's time for the Republican attacks to end," Clinton said.

While acknowledging unspecified imperfections in the law, Clinton
highlighted several of its more popular components, like health insurance
companies no longer being able to discriminate against people for
preexisting conditions.

Clinton also pointed to her own push for health care reform, which included
an ill-fated attempt during her husband's administration, adding "I'm not
going to stop now." Despite the Affordable Care Act still drawing divided
public support, Clinton shows no signs of walking away.

Whether she wanted it or not, though, Clinton is going to be put on the
defense regarding Obamacare during her presidential campaign. That was on
clear display Thursday, with Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush
choosing not to go after the Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts, who
wrote the majority opinion, was appointed by his brother), but to focus on
Clinton and President Obama.

"This is the direct result of President Obama," Bush said in an email to
supporters. "He deliberately forced ObamaCare on the American people in a
partisan and toxic way."

Bush said Clinton would be "more of the same" when it came to health care,
adding that there needed to be a conservative president who would "repeal
and replace Obamacare with a conservative solution."

He also used the occasion to fundraise, saying the only way to prevent four
more years of the same policies was "to make the most generous contribution
you can afford right now to stop her."

*Hillary Clinton won’t have to fight Obama’s battles on health care
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-wont-have-fight-obamas-battles-health-care>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – June 25, 2015 *

If Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017, she’ll
inherit a health care reform law that will be already seven years old and
likely deeply entrenched, thanks in part to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling
upholding the subsidy system for state-based exchanges.

Health care has been one of the defining issues of Clinton’s long career in
public life, capped by an ambitious but ultimately doomed effort to create
a universal health care system under her husband’s administration in 1993.
By securing the future of the Affordable Care Act, the court’s ruling could
allow Clinton to complete one of the biggest unfinished goals of her career
by building on the law that bears her one-time rival’s name.

“This morning, the Supreme Court sided with common sense and America’s
families, and confirmed again that the Affordable Care Act is the law of
land – and it’s here to stay,” Clinton said in an email to supporters. “The
next president will either protect and expand health care for every
American, or undo the progress we’ve made.”

Clinton has already telegraphed that she’d work hard to overhaul the mental
health and addiction treatment systems, vowing to make the heroin and
pharmaceutical epidemic “a big part” of her campaign. And she’ll likely be
forced to confront a host of other health care issues, like rising health
care costs.

Politically, the ruling preserves the status quo. While Republicans will
keep talking about repealing Obamacare as long as it motivates their base,
most probably know it’s now practically infeasible. And the GOP remains
deeply divided on how to replace the law, making it unlikely the party will
unite behind an alternative.

Clinton will likely not feel much pressure to endorse major changes to the
law. While only eight percent of Americans think the Affordable Care Act is
working well, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, most
say the want the law preserved and improved rather than nixed. Among
Democrats, whom Clinton will need to win over in the primary election and
turnout in the general election, more than three-quarters think the law is
working.

Obamacare didn’t sink Obama in 2012 and will likely be even less of an
issue in 2016, when repealing it would mean actively taking away healthcare
from millions of Americans.

In his remarks in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama said it was time to
switch from defense to offense on health care. After five years of
relentless attacks, three elections, a mismanaged roll out, and two legal
challenges that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the existence of the
law is finally secure.

“The Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” he said. “There will be parts of
the law that will still need to be improved. And if we can stop refighting
old political battles that keep us gridlocked, then we could actually make
the law work even better for everybody.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that in its waning days, the
Obama administration will focus on implementing the law to maximize its
impact. That will include pushing more governors to expand Medicaid and
create their own exchanges.

But improvements on top of the existing statute will likely have to wait
until the next presidency.

When asked Obama, Clinton has often spoken of her potential presidency as
finishing some of the big projects Obama started, noting that his
administration had to prioritize saving the country from the Great
Recession.

“I think the president has done an extraordinary job in dealing with a
terrible set of issues he inherited,” Clinton said in a response to
question from msnbc on the economy in New Hampshire last week. “There’s a
lot more work still be done, but boy am I glad where we are now than where
we were.”

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, it was Clinton who pushed
the other candidates to come up with comprehensive health reform plans. And
hers included the controversial mandate for individuals to hold health
care, which Barack Obama slammed then before ultimately making it a
cornerstone of his own health law.

Now, she might finally have the chance to not only defend a national health
law that strives for universal health access, but to expand it.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, she won’t have to fight Obama’s battles on
Obamacare.

*Hillary Clinton’s big diss to Bill de Blasio
<http://pagesix.com/2015/06/25/hillary-clintons-big-diss-to-bill-de-blasio/>
// Page Six // Ian Mohr – June 25, 2015*

Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett brought down the house at a Hillary Clinton
fundraiser at the Plaza Hotel on Wednesday night. But Democratic insiders
were also buzzing over who wasn’t in the high-powered house — Bill de
Blasio.

Spies told Page Six Bennett and Gaga played a “tour de force” one-hour set
of solo numbers and duets at the $1,000 and $2,700-a-ticket affair.

“They worked really hard. It was stunning,” said a source. After singing,
“Gaga talked about why she’s voting for Hillary and then said she’d ‘leave
the honors to Tony’ to introduce Clinton,” who sat with Gaga’s mom and
Bennett’s wife.

Clinton gave an “informal speech.” But witnesses said the biggest moment of
the night was a symbolic kiss-off by Clinton to de Blasio when Public
Advocate Letitia James — who’s first in line of succession to the mayor —
was given the “most coveted speaking spot of the evening,” introducing the
singers.

One source said, “It was profoundly significant to all the top donors and
political activists. Everyone in the room got it — it was an elevation of
[James] over de Blasio, at his expense.” The mayor has famously refused to
endorse Hillary, although he managed her 2000 Senate campaign.

“It was telling,” said the source. “It was a major opportunity for James to
present herself and a real breakthrough moment. It was a statement that
city Democrats couldn’t care less what de Blasio’s saying. They’re not
looking to de Blasio to tell them what to do.”

Guests included Tribeca Film’s Jane Rosenthal, Richard and Lisa Perry ,
Mort and Linda Janklow, Robert Zimmerman, Alan and Susan Patricof, and
Charles Myers.

Another insider said: “There’s a tremendous amount of resentment in
Hillary’s camp that de Blasio hasn’t endorsed her.” Some even theorized
that de Blasio’s secretly hoping to run for president himself if Hillary’s
campaign implodes.

But another insider laughed off the idea as “fantasy baseball on acid. He
does want to be a national figure. But how does he mobilize the country if
he can’t mobilize city Democrats?”

*Sid Blumenthal’s Israel Michegas
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/26/sid-blumenthal-s-israel-michegas.html>
// The Daily Beast // James Kirchick – June 26, 2015*

The notorious Clinton operative pushes pro-Israel Libyan in his emails to
Hillary, but sells his son’s anti-Israel book in public.

It’s a shame that Hillary Clinton wasn’t able to convince the Obama White
House to let Sidney Blumenthal serve under her at the State Department.
Blumenthal, the liberal journalist-turned-Clinton family consigliere,
earned himself quite the reputation during the bruising 2008 Democratic
primary, when his main job seemed to be sending out mass emails chock full
of links to lurid stories about Barack Obama culled from the very “vast
right-wing conspiracy” that he had combatted his entire adult life.

According to Politico, for his efforts, Blumenthal earned the moniker
“Sulfur-Breathing Spawn of Hell” from Obama campaign staffers. That Clinton
ever thought she had a chance of putting Blumenthal on the State Department
payroll says something about her chutzpah.

If only those embittered Obama staffers had let bygones be bygones and
harnessed the acumen of the inveterate emailer, they might have been able
to strike a major blow for Middle East peace.

Buried in the pages of once-confidential missives that Blumenthal sent to
Clinton during her tenure at the State Department, since subpoenaed by a
congressional committee investigating the 2011 attack on the U.S. consulate
in Benghazi, was a claim that the then-interim President of Libya, Mohammed
Yussef el-Magariaf, wanted to “seek a discreet relationship with Israel.”
According to a “sensitive source,” Blumenthal wrote, “political realities
in Libya at present will dictate that this relationship be handled in a low
key manner, but the new President of Libya shares many common friends and
associates with the leaders of Israel and intends to take advantage of this
situation to improve the lot of the Libyan people.”

It’s entirely possible that this information was overly optimistic, if not
entirely false. Forwarding the email onto an aide, Clinton expressed
skepticism, prefacing her remark that the news was “encouraging” with “if
true.” When Seymour Hersh, himself a man known for an overactive
imagination, questions the validity of your information (as he did
Blumenthal’s claims, made in another email to Clinton, that Hersh was
preparing to interview an ousted Muammar Qadaffi hiding in Chad), it’s a
discouraging sign.

But what’s most revealing about Blumenthal’s giddy hopes for a potential
Libyan-Israeli rapprochement is how much it differs from other sentiments
he had expressed about the Jewish state. For it wasn’t so long ago that
Sidney Blumenthal was hawking the vitriolic anti-Israel book published by
his son, Max, and attacking those who had criticized it.

In the course of a short career, the younger Blumenthal gradually exiled
himself from respectable journalistic outlets, and so several years ago
decided to reinvent himself as Israel’s most outspoken and extreme Jewish
antagonist, at one point writing for a Beirut-based newspaper aligned with
the Assad regime in Syria, before deciding that the blood-drenched regime
in Damascus was no longer to his liking. His 2013 book Goliath is so
venomous in its denunciations of Israel, and so strident in its defense of
terrorism against it, that Eric Alterman, himself a harsh critic of Israel
and a columnist for the far-left Nation magazine, concluded that it “could
have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club (if it existed)
without a single word change once it’s translated into Arabic.”

“[W]hat’s most revealing about Blumenthal’s giddy hopes for a potential
Libyan-Israeli rapprochement is how much it differs from other sentiments
he had expressed about the Jewish state.”

The book is replete with comparisons of Israeli Jews to Nazis, and calls
for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East. The book’s last
chapter, “Exodus,” a riff on Jewish biblical history and the Leon Uris tome
of the same name, envisions the reverse Exodus of the Jews out of their
homeland. Asked at a 2013 event about what he believes should happen to
Israel’s Jews, Blumenthal fils responded, “There should be a choice placed
to the settler-colonial population” (that is, the Jewish population):
“Become indigenized…you have to be part of the Arab world.” Those who
don’t? “The maintenance and engineering of a non-indigenous demographic
majority is non-negotiable.” In other words, leave or suffer.

When Max’s book came under attack from Alterman, Sidney did what he does
best: he launched what Buzzfeed described as “an online campaign” against
the Nation columnist. According to Alterman, “I worried that by telling the
truth about his son’s book, I would soon hear of nasty e-mails about me
sent by Sid to our mutual friends and professional acquaintances. Call it
‘bizarre,’ if you will, but sadly, that’s just what happened.”

It’s one thing to love your son, and another entirely to endorse his
controversial work (Sidney hosted a book party for Max) and attack those
who criticize it. By doing so, Blumenthal the elder identified himself as a
sponsor of his son’s calumnies.

Not that everyone hated Goliath. Frazier Glenn Cross, the 73-year-old white
supremacist who murdered three people at Kansas Jewish Community Center and
retirement home last year, was one of Blumenthal’s biggest devotees. “Jew
journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign
government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con,
war-mongering republican establishment,” Cross wrote on a Ron Paul fan site
in 2012, referencing an interview Blumenthal gave on the Russian
government-funded RT network. A survey of a white supremacist web forum run
by Cross found over 300 references to Blumenthal and his work, with posters
lauding his exposes of nefarious Jewish influence.

Last year, Max earned himself the distinction of being barred from the
German Bundestag after he chased the leader of the country’s Left Party
into a toilet, demanding to know why the parliamentarian had put the kibosh
on a talk Blumenthal was scheduled to give at the invitation of two Left
Party members. Scheduled to speak on the day after the anniversary of
Kristallnacht, outraged party members initiated a petition criticizing
their colleagues’ hosting Blumenthal, which they said amounted to “stoking
obsessive hate and demonization of Israel with an anti-Semitic argument
pattern and trivialization of the Holocaust.”

The Clintons value loyalty about all else, and it’s hard to imagine Sidney
Blumenthal doing anything that would make Hillary consider him a liability.
But Blumenthal’s freelance diplomacy raises an intriguing question: who is
the real Sidney Blumenthal? The one promoting Israel’s interest in the
broader Middle East by trumpeting a Libyan politician eager to make peace
with the Jewish state? Or the one who promotes his son’s work portraying
Israel as a uniformly ghastly, racist country and American Jews as its
disloyal double agents?

*Google says Hillary Clinton will be the next president
<http://www.cnet.com/news/google-says-hillary-clinton-will-be-the-next-president/>
// CNET // Chris Matyszczyk – June 25, 2015 *

Google, be blessed.

You have given me almost two more years of my life that I never thought I'd
have. You have saved me from endless hours and days of purgatorial pain.
You have offered me closure, even before the doomed affair had truly begun.

My apologies. I'm not wrecked on Retsina. I'm merely reading reports that
Google's very fine search engine has already indicated that Hillary Clinton
will be the next president of the United States.

Of course, there's a touch of hyperbole here. But I suspect there might be
one or two political partisans who will be experiencing intensely
hyperbolic reactions when they hear of it.

You see, Google search has responded to the question: "Who will be the next
president?" with a card that answered: Hillary Clinton.

I know, I know. You were still holding out for either Ted Nugent or the
Hulk Hoganesque intellect of Donald Trump.

Instead, as the Next Web reported, two formulations of the same question
both throw up results that suggest that in 2016, the revolution will be
Clintonized.

Nerds will surely rush to explain that Google's search engine reacts to
optimized results, and these two happened to be results that appear to be
-- but aren't -- definitive answers. One, after all, is from renowned
independently-minded performer Glen Beck.

There is no suggestion that Google's engineers are machinating to offer a
coronation before the 18-month ululation.

I suspect, though, that a few conspiracy theorists will be ready to offer
concerns about Google's alleged dark arts.

One imagines that a sizable proportion of Google's youthful staff might
lean more to port than starboard. However, let me toss in one exalted
conspiracy theory, merely for the amusement of those who cannot get enough
of them .

Wouldn't it be delicious if this was a ploy by Bernie Sanders supporters to
combat the notion that the Clinton nomination is a foregone conclusion?

*Fifteen Libya Emails Missing From Clinton Cache
<http://news.sky.com/story/1508754/fifteen-libya-emails-missing-from-clinton-cache>
// Sky News US Team – June 26, 2015*

The US State Department has said it cannot find 15 emails from Hillary
Clinton's private server that were released by a House of Representatives
panel investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi.

The emails, which all pre-date the 11 September attack on the US diplomatic
compound, contain intelligence reports passed to Mrs Clinton by her
long-time adviser Sidney Blumenthal, officials have said.

Several previously undisclosed emails were handed over to the State
Department by Mr Blumenthal, which revealed it did not have a complete
record from Mrs Clinton's time in office as Secretary of State.

File photo of Stevens, then U.S. ambassador to Libya, in meeting of
delegation of African Union with Transitional Council, in Benghazi

US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in 2012

The 15 emails were either missing from the records she provided, or
included only in partial form.

They include a media account about the killing of one of Moammar Gaddafi's
sons, reports on internal politics among Libyan rebels and news of the
assassination of a former Gaddafi minister in Vienna.

Play video "Hillary Clinton 'Sensitive' Emails"

Video: Hillary Clinton 'Sensitive' Emails

The last one was sent 28 August, 2012 - two weeks before the Benghazi
attack.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs Clinton, said the Democratic presidential
candidate had given the department "all emails in her possession from Mr
Blumenthal".

He said he could not explain where the origin of the additional
correspondence Mr Blumenthal had provided in response to a subpoena.

Mrs Clinton - the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the 2016
presidential election - has faced strong criticism that she flouted
record-keeping and transparency rules by using a private email account for
her work.

The private address was connected to a server in her home.

Mrs Clinton has insisted she used the private account for convenience and
has broken no rules. The account was revealed in March, more than two years
after she stepped down as the top US diplomat.

Trey Gowdy, the Republican congressman who heads the select committee
investigating the Benghazi attack, said the incomplete email record "raises
serious questions".

He said: "This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our
committee's work.

"This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then
vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record."

In March, Mrs Clinton said that she had given the State Department all the
emails she sent and received that "could possibly be work-related".

She said the 30,490 emails she handed over in December included all those
that referred to Libya or Benghazi, along side work-related correspondence
from "long-time friends".

She said that after those emails were copies, all her correspondence -
including another 30,000 that were deemed personal - were deleted from the
server.

It comes after an Islamic-State militant thought to have been involved in
the attack in Benghazi was reportedly killed in a drone strike in Iraq last
week.

Four Americans, including US ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed during
the attack on the US outpost in Benghazi on 11 September 2012.

*Clinton Lawyer, Soros Back Anti-Voter ID Lawsuits //
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-lawyer-soros-back-anti-voter-id-lawsuits/>
Washington Free Beacon // Joe Schoffstall - June 26, 2015*

George Soros and Clinton lawyer Marc Elias engaging in multi-state effort
to overturn ID laws.

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer is behind a multi-state push
challenging voter identification laws implemented in recent years, efforts
that are expected to reach numerous other states ahead of the 2016
elections.

Marc Elias, a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton and a partner at the
Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie, has filed lawsuits in three states
thus far. The nationwide campaign is being fueled with money from the
liberal billionaire George Soros.

Elias first began exploring the possible challenges back in January 2014.
Soros then became involved, vowing to throw his weight behind the effort in
collaboration with Elias.

“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect
the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York
Times.

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

Soros has pledged $5 million to propel the campaign. Elias did not return a
request for comment concerning his dealings with Soros or the total number
of lawsuits they plan on bringing forward. A request for comment from
George Soros’s press office was also not returned by press time.

Democrats ramped up their efforts last month to challenge voter ID laws
implemented by Republican legislatures and governors, claiming that the
laws disenfranchise minority voters.

The first in the series of lawsuits was filed in Ohio on May 8. Three weeks
later, on June 1, a second suit was filed in Wisconsin. On June 11, a third
lawsuit was filed in Virginia. Further suits are expected to follow in
other states.

Elias is working independently on behalf of his firm, Perkins Coie, though
the Clinton camp supports the effort. Perkins Coie has pulled in more than
$40 million from Democratic clients since 2000.

The suits came as Hillary Clinton made comments about voting in a number of
public speeches.

During a speech in Houston on June 4 at historically black Texas Southern
University, Hillary Clinton called for a universal, automatic voter
registration for 18-year-olds along with early voting up to 20 days before
an election.

“I call on Republicans at all levels of government with all manner of
ambition to stop fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud
and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their
say,” Clinton said during the speech.

True the Vote, a right-leaning vote-monitoring organization, sees the
campaign as a political stunt to rile up apathetic voters who may not have
the same excitement for Clinton as they did for Obama.

“Mrs. Clinton’s decision to shuffle voting reforms to the top of her policy
platform has now been viewed as a purely political move to rally the
potentially apathetic Obama coalition prior to 2016,” True the Vote said in
a statement.

“The political calculus is simple: the potential benefits of victory
outweigh the lasting efficacy of debates over real election reform. It is a
very rare thing to see election experts on both the left and right agree
that Clinton-sanctioned demagoguery and litigation are not based in
objective facts and promising any success in the courts.”

While Soros and other Voter ID opponents say the laws disenfranchise
minority voters, one state showed the opposite outcome: minority turnout in
Georgia skyrocketed after the law went into effect.

According to a review conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
turnout among African Americans and Hispanics drastically increased from
2006 to 2010.

“Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to
implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide
general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and
2010, when voters selected a new governor,” AJC writes. “Prior to the new
law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification,
including a utility bill.”

“Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black
voters rose by 44 percent from 2006—before the law was implemented—to 2010.
For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout
among whites rose 12 percent.”

*Karma Chameleon in Chief
<http://freebeacon.com/columns/karma-chameleon-in-chief/> // Washington
Free Beacon // Matthew Continetti - June 26, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is a woman without conviction, a woman who doesn’t know.
She was first lady of a southern state, she sat on the board of directors
of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992—but is there any record of her voicing
opposition to Wal-Mart’s labor practices, of her opposing the sale of the
Confederate battle flag? Until recently, has there been any moment in the
decades following her appointment to that board, in the many years in which
she has been egregiously prominent in public life, when she led on, was
prominently identified with, the issue of the flag or racial matters in
general?

They say Obama’s audacious. What’s truly remarkable, though, is his
potential successor’s blatant contempt for the politics of principle and
conviction—her unique ability to adopt, quickly and seamlessly, the most
expedient position at any moment, to flaunt her temporary stance with the
righteousness and self-regard of a longtime committed activist.

Her husband campaigned in the ’90s as a tough-on-crime neoliberal who would
lock up criminals, even put them to death, who challenged the racism of
Sister Souljah, promised to “mend” affirmative action, worked hard to
recover the Democratic position in white working class precincts. Hillary
was his active partner. Nor did she denounce her husband’s policies when
she ran for Senate in 2000 and 2006 and for president in 2008, when the
chances of her nomination rested on her ability to win “beer track” white
and Hispanic Democrats.

It is only today, when the Democratic Party of Barack Obama has veered
left, written off the white working class, and been seized by a practically
religious enthusiasm for cultural reformation and purgation, that Clinton
has called for an “end to the era of mass incarceration,” said America has
“to face hard truths about race and justice,” and launched a campaign, in
the words of the New York Times, “focused more on mobilizing supporters in
the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on
persuading undecided voters.”

What we have, on issue after issue, is a presidential frontrunner
uninterested in leadership, who holds an ambivalent attitude toward notions
of political courage and intellectual independence, who is devoted
exclusively and mechanically to the capture of high office. She has latched
on to the president’s ad hoc and failing Iraq policies because her party’s
base supports them; gone from opposing same-sex marriage as recently as a
few years ago to marching at the vanguard of America’s latest Cultural
Revolution and saying that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs,
and structural biases have to be changed”; pledged to “go further” than
Barack Obama’s constitutionally dubious executive amnesty despite being
silent when her husband signed tough immigration bills in the ’90s, and
despite having voted for an amendment that helped kill a pro-immigration
bill in 2007; waffled on a trade agreement that she backed while secretary
of state; somehow avoided committing to an intelligible and consistent
position on the Keystone Pipeline despite taking money from the
anti-Keystone billionaire Tom Steyer. Is there any doubt that this supposed
pro-Israel Democrat will back whatever nuclear agreement President Obama is
able to reach with Iran, no matter how much he capitulates to the
ayatollah’s demands?

Hillary Clinton’s approach to politics is cynical, uninspiring, robotic.
She’s a chef who follows the recipe without exception, who’s too afraid of
failure to challenge the authority of either her superiors or her
customers. She’ll be a president suitable for the age of intelligent
machines. Like a Terminator she is fixated on her mission—though the
Terminator has more personality, greater charm. There’s an assumption
behind all her latest moves, a programming code that determines the
automaton’s behavior: that the country’s demographics and culture have
changed to such an extent that a winning campaign needn’t do more than
identify and mobilize core supporters by assuming the various poses most
likely to drive them to the polls. There’s the chance the code could be
garbage.

Clinton isn’t the first politician who’s inconsistent—far from it. What she
and her husband have pioneered is a mode of inconsistency, an entire
lifestyle of ideological flexibility the goal of which isn’t public-minded
but wholly self-interested. “The only way a man can remain consistent amid
changing circumstances is to change with them while preserving the same
dominating purpose,” Churchill wrote in “Consistency in Politics” (1932).
But the dominating purpose Churchill had in mind was a public one: the
common good. And the pursuit of the common good often requires the
statesman to disagree with public opinion—to challenge his base, or indeed
the majority.

Earlier this year Bill Clinton identified the dominant purpose behind his
family’s inconsistency: “I gotta pay our bills.” Blessed with loquacity,
smarts, and personal charisma, the man from Hope, Ark., used political
office as a means to acquire fame and fortune. Unable to go into business,
or perhaps uninterested, convinced that his good and the public good are
synonymous, he derived riches from his political talent: lucrative
friendships, generous supporters, speaking audiences ready to pay.

The maintenance of what Mickey Kaus calls the “Clinton mode of production”
requires at least one member of the family to hold office, so that powerful
and wealthy people might obtain a frisson of access and influence through
financial gift-giving. What the Clintons understand is that the easiest way
to hold office, and thereby keep up the mansions and private jets and
villas and beach vacations, is to flatter and cater to the ever-changing
morality and self-conception of the liberal ruling caste, to understand
what troubles their guilty consciences, to put yourself forward as the
representative of their fluctuating and malleable concerns.

Such an approach requires a canny operator able to obscure changes in
policy behind a smooth veneer of likability and guile—and if we have
learned anything so far in this campaign it is that Hillary Clinton is not
such an operator. She is clumsy, stilted, tentative, suspicious, rehearsed,
monotonous. She might satisfy, but does she inspire? Do any of the voters
nodding their heads at her latest declaration of the conventional wisdom
consider themselves “Hillary Clinton Democrats”? What does she stand for
besides her own ambition?

It would take someone like Bill Clinton to overcome another obstacle: The
differences between the primary electorate and the general one. The social
issues on which the left is proclaiming victory may become insignificant
next year when voters compare them to a moribund economy and a collapsing
international order. The combination of an uninspiring and untrustworthy
candidate and a political environment hostile to the incumbent party might
overwhelm Hillary Clinton’s meager skills. Like Boy George, Hillary doesn’t
quite know how to finesse the contradiction between her past and her
present, between what she’s selling and what the general electorate might
want. Voters are fickle, after all. They come and go.

*Moroccan Government Lobbyists Ready for Hillary
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/moroccan-government-lobbyists-ready-for-hillary/#sthash.HLQ9FSAq.dpuf>
// Free Beacon // Lachlan Markay – June 25, 2015 *

Lobbyists representing an arm of the Moroccan government have donated
thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and a super
PAC supporting it, public records show.

The firm, Nurnberger & Associates, reported that its employees donated
$1,500 to Clinton’s campaign last month in a Monday filing with the
Department of Justice disclosing its work on behalf of the Moroccan
American Center for Policy (MACP).

The firm reported another $5,000 in contributions last year to Ready for
Hillary, a now-defunct pro-Clinton super PAC. Ralph Nurnberger, the firm’s
principal, served on the group’s national finance council.

The previously unreported donations suggest additional ties between Clinton
and the Moroccan government, which has donated millions to the Bill,
Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and received favorable treatment
from the State Department while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary.

The MACP is a nonprofit owned by the Moroccan government. “Chief among the
Center’s objectives is to assist the Kingdom of Morocco in its efforts to
obtain American support to construct a stable, progressive, democratic, and
economically dynamic region in North Africa,” according to its website.

To that end, it secured a lobbying contract with Nurnberger in 2009 by way
of another firm, the Amani Group (since renamed GrayLoeffler). That firm’s
founder and partner, the former Democratic congressman William Gray,
co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Nurnberger submitted a registration statement to the Justice Department,
pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, just eight days after
Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in 2009.

In the years that followed, it reported lobbying State Department officials
on MACP’s behalf. In 2011, the firm met three times with Lorraine Hariton,
a former Clinton campaign finance committee member tapped by the secretary
as the department’s special representative for commercial and business
affairs.

The last meeting took place on Oct. 18, 2011. Days later, State announced
that Hariton would “lead a delegation of American entrepreneurs,
early-stage investors, non-governmental organization representatives” on a
trip to Morocco and two other North African nations.

Clinton and the Moroccan government have enjoyed a mutually beneficial
relationship, as reported by Politico’s Ken Vogel last month. A state-owned
mining company last month paid more than $1 million to host the annual
meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Marrakesh.

Vogel reported that the meeting faced criticism from the Sahrawi people of
the Western Sahara, who accused the Clintons of buddying up with a regime
that they say represses advocates for independence from Morocco.

“Hillary Clinton sold her soul when they accepted that money,” one former
employee of the Moroccan mining company told Vogel.

The MACP has also faced criticism for what the critics describe as “smear
tactics” designed to discredit political forces advocating Western Saharan
independence.

“If you are looking only for the totally biased and slanted Moroccan
royalist line on the Western Sahara, this group I guess works well enough,”
wrote Charles Liebling,

chairman of the group United States Citizens for Western Sahara, in a 2012
blog post.

“If, however, accuracy, truthfulness, international law, and balanced
analysis are concerns, I suggest you go elsewhere,” he said.

Neither MACP nor Nurnberger returned requests for comment.

*How Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Signifies A New Era For Women’s Rights
<http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/clinton-campaign-gender-equality/1094358/>
// Elite Daily // Aisha Moktadier – June 25, 2015 *

On September 5, 1995, Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the Fourth World
Conference on Women held in Beijing, where she declared, “It is no longer
acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.”

As Clinton moves forward in her presidential campaign, women’s rights and
gender topics have remained at the forefront of her platform.

She has broken her campaign into four “fights,” one of which is tackling
social issues affecting the strength of American families.

These issues include the wage gap between genders, paid leave and
addressing human rights within the LGBT community.

In her 1995 speech at the Fourth World Conference on Women, Clinton stated,
“We need to understand there is no one formula for how women should lead
our lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes
for herself and her family.”

This statement rings true even in today’s feminist movement, a word or
concept that has seemingly constructed an air around itself as being
“untouchable,” “dismissive” or “irritating.”

While there are many women’s rights issues occurring all over the globe,
such as abuse, trafficking and being denied a right to education, there is
still a good amount of women’s rights issues in our own nation that cry for
attention as well.

The United States of America is one of seven countries that have not
ratified The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW), which is considered the international bill of rights
for women.

According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), there
about 293,000 victims of rape and sexual assault every year. According to
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), over 10 million
women and men are physically abused by an intimate partner, with highest
percentage of victims being women between the ages of 18 to 24.

In terms of Clinton’s bold statement about respecting the choices a woman
makes for herself, access to abortions for women in the United States is
shrinking, due to increased restrictions.

Some of these restrictions include late-abortion bans, long waiting
periods, clinic regulations and bans on insurance coverage.

Taking away a woman’s right to a legal abortion forces her to turn to more
clandestine means, thus jeopardizing health and safety.

These are just a few examples of women’s rights issues within the
boundaries of America.

Clinton’s platform for strengthening America’s families includes addressing
the wage gap between men and women. A woman, on average, makes $0.78 to
every dollar earned by a man. Black women make $0.64 to every dollar and
Latinas make $0.56 to every dollar.

For many families, these few cents lost per dollar really add up, creating
difficulty in being able to provide and save.

Even outside of the family, single working women should be able to take
home the same amount a man has made, not less because of her anatomy.

Anatomy is not synonymous with skill or worth.

In order to deal with the wage gap, Clinton aims to pass the Paycheck
Fairness Act, which, according to Congress, “amends the portion of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) known as the Equal Pay Act to revise
remedies for, enforcement of, and exceptions to prohibitions against sex
discrimination in the payment of wages.”

She also is proposing a raise in minimum wage and the introduction of paid
leave so Americans will not have to sacrifice their income because of a
newborn child, taking care of a sick family member or being sick themselves.

Human rights within the LGBT community is also being addressed by Clinton’s
platform.

She aims to help give LGBT Americans and their families the rights to
“live, learn, marry and work free from discrimination.”

In her famous 1995 speech in Beijing, she stated, “Women’s rights are human
rights,” and has extended this assertion to include the LGBT community, in
her recently-released video, featuring many married LGBT couples.

The video ends with a moving statement that “being LGBT does not make you
less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights. And human rights
are gay rights.”

Clinton plans to combat discrimination against the LGBT community and has a
record of being heavily involved in the international movement to end this
discrimination around the globe.

She produced a daring and equally heroic statement in her 2011 address in
Geneva, when it came to international human rights, saying, “It is
violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their
sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about
how men and women should look or behave.”

It is no doubt there are many social issues at the forefront of the next
presidential race, with women’s and gender issues being main topics.

When we search “feminism in the United States,” or “women’s rights in the
United States,” we are met with links to historical movements such as those
ranging from about 1848 to 1970.

However, the fight is long from being a part of history.

The movement toward gender equality in the United States and around the
globe is a slow fight that will continue to take more time.

Hillary Clinton’s platform is indicative of the progress we have already
achieved, and how much further we have to go.

*American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says
Hillary Clinton
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/25/hillary-clinton/american-schools-are-more-segregated-they-were-196/>
// Politifact // Linda Qiu – June 25, 2015 *

Speaking at a black church near Ferguson, Mo., Hillary Clinton applauded
efforts to remove Confederate flags before challenging America to own up to
its racist past and confront "hard truths" about bigotry in the present.

The shooting in Charleston, S.C., was no isolated incident, but an extreme
manifestation of institutionalized racism, she said.

"The truth is equality, opportunity, civil rights in America are still far
from where they need to be," Clinton said on June 23. "Our schools are
still segregated, in fact, more segregated than they were in the 1960s."

The Supreme Court declared segregation "inherently unequal" and
unconstitutional in its landmark 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education
decision. Sixty years later, have we really regressed and resegregated?

It’s important to note that modern school segregation is not the same as
the government-sanctioned social system that the Supreme Court struck down
in 1954. Segregation today refers to the level of isolation of minority
students, which can be measured in a variety of ways. Clinton's comment
omits a lot of nuance.

Not quite Jim Crow

The Clinton campaign pointed us to a passage in a 2014 study by UCLA
Graduate School of Education’s Civil Rights Project that tracked the amount
of southern black students attending white schools in the South. By that
yardstick, schools are slightly less integrated now than they were in 1968.
That’s the year the Supreme Court mandated the enforcement of desegregation
in Green vs. County School Board and diverse classrooms really started to
become reality.

Clinton, however, bookended the 1960s as the point of comparison and her
claim doesn’t hold true for the better part of the decade. Jim Crow laws
were still in place until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and despite the Brown
decision, most black students in the South still didn’t attend white
schools,"the kind of schools that provided strong potential opportunities
for diverse learning experiences," according to the study. In 1967, one in
100 black students went to a white school. In 1960, it was one in 1,000.

"It’s true that segregation for blacks is worse today than it was in 1968,
but it’s certainly not worse than 1964 and before," said Gary Orfield, a
UCLA professor of education and lead author of the study Clinton cited.

Even if we take 1968 to represent the 1960s, Clinton’s claim has issues if
we look at different ways of measuring segregation. The UCLA report also
considers how many black students are isolated in overwhelmingly black
schools. Across the United States, fewer black students attend these
schools now than they did in 1968 (four in 10 versus six in 10), signalling
a decline in segregation.

A separate study by Charles Clotfelter, a professor of public policy and
economics at Duke University, measured the potential for black and white
students to interact. According to that data, segregation has been
declining since the 1970s, albeit at a slower rate in the past decade.

Rainbows here, black and white there

Clinton’s blanket statement also leaves out regional and demographic
nuances in the UCLA study.

According to that data, the South is now the least racially divided region
in the United States when it comes to school segregation, and no state in
Dixie is among the top five most segregated by any yardstick. For example,
a third of black students are isolated in black schools in the South,
compared to half of black students in the Northeast and 40 percent on
average. How did the South surpass the rest of the nation in diversity?
It’s a mixture of the judicial mandates in the 1960s and modern geography.

"The South is really the only place where we seriously enforced
desegregation," said Orfield, the lead author of the UCLA study.

"Large school jurisdictions," added Clotfelter, the Duke professor. "That
means that it's not possible to slice up into such small bits, like a
metropolitan area where the districts dramatically differ."

In contrast, the densely populated cities of the Northeast and West are
becoming more and more segregated. On the Pacific coast, Clinton’s claim is
on the money: Latino students are now more isolated than black students and
"more segregated than they’ve ever been," according to Orfield.

"Latinos have increased more than five times over in the number of students
since the 1960s," he said. "Demographics is the largest factor (in their
segregation) but there’s a lot of history as well. There was never was much
of a desegregation effort for Latinos."

Two steps forward, one step back

Clinton does have a strong point that American schools have relapsed into
monochrome. Classrooms were the most diverse from the 1970s through the
early 1990s. At peak integration, four out of 10 black southern students
attended a white school, while less than a third of all black students
attended black schools.

"We’ve lost a lot of the progress we gained, no doubt about that,"
Clotfelter said.

Experts say the backslide was the consequence of a series of judicial
decisions, beginning with Milliken vs. Bradley in 1974, a relatively
unheard of but seminal case in the desegregation saga. Criticized by some
as "one of the worst Supreme Court decisions" ever, Milliken dealt with
Detroit’s plan to integrate students by busing them from the intercity to
the suburbs. The court ruled that such a plan was unconstitutional, arguing
that black students had the right to attend integrated schools within their
own school district, but were not protected from de facto segregation.

"That decision … said the racial disparities across districts would remain
outside the reach of policymakers," Clotfelter wrote in piece exploring the
impact of Milliken. "The maximum amount of interracial contact one could
strive for, then, would be limited by the two remaining factors:
balkanization of jurisdictions and household choices about where to live."

Court-mandated desegregation was dealt its own deadly blow by three rulings
from the Supreme Court between 1991 and 1995. According to the court,
integration was only a temporary federal policy and after the historical
imbalance was righted, school districts should reclaim local control and
were released from desegregation orders.

Since then, school segregation has been intrinsically tied to the racial
gaps in housing and income, leading to the re-emergence of the color line.
Economic segregation, which disproportionately affects black and Latino
students, is increasing, pointed out Orfield. He noted that in California,
Asian and white students are 10 times more likely to go to a high-quality
school than Latinos and therefore dramatically more likely to attend
college.

"We’ve lost something very vital," he said. "Inequality is very related to
the double segregation of low-income racial minorities and (their)
isolation from the middle class, from the best teachers, the best
curriculum. That has become very profound."

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton said, "In America today, our schools are more segregated
than they were in the 1960s."

Overall, experts say and the data shows that the United States has taken
two steps forward and one step back, but hasn’t quite reverted to pre-Civil
Rights levels of segregation. Clinton would have been more accurate setting
her time frame a little later. But she has a strong point that the country
has fallen back from the high levels of diversity that existed from the
1970s to the early 1990s. On the whole, we rate her statement Mostly True.

Speaking at a black church near Ferguson, Mo., Hillary Clinton applauded
efforts to remove Confederate flags before challenging America to own up to
its racist past and confront "hard truths" about bigotry in the present.

The shooting in Charleston, S.C., was no isolated incident, but an extreme
manifestation of institutionalized racism, she said.

"The truth is equality, opportunity, civil rights in America are still far
from where they need to be," Clinton said on June 23. "Our schools are
still segregated, in fact, more segregated than they were in the 1960s."

The Supreme Court declared segregation "inherently unequal" and
unconstitutional in its landmark 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education
decision. Sixty years later, have we really regressed and resegregated?

It’s important to note that modern school segregation is not the same as
the government-sanctioned social system that the Supreme Court struck down
in 1954. Segregation today refers to the level of isolation of minority
students, which can be measured in a variety of ways. Clinton's comment
omits a lot of nuance.

Not quite Jim Crow

The Clinton campaign pointed us to a passage in a 2014 study by UCLA
Graduate School of Education’s Civil Rights Project that tracked the amount
of southern black students attending white schools in the South. By that
yardstick, schools are slightly less integrated now than they were in 1968.
That’s the year the Supreme Court mandated the enforcement of desegregation
in Green vs. County School Board and diverse classrooms really started to
become reality.

Clinton, however, bookended the 1960s as the point of comparison and her
claim doesn’t hold true for the better part of the decade. Jim Crow laws
were still in place until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and despite the Brown
decision, most black students in the South still didn’t attend white
schools,"the kind of schools that provided strong potential opportunities
for diverse learning experiences," according to the study. In 1967, one in
100 black students went to a white school. In 1960, it was one in 1,000.

"It’s true that segregation for blacks is worse today than it was in 1968,
but it’s certainly not worse than 1964 and before," said Gary Orfield, a
UCLA professor of education and lead author of the study Clinton cited.

Even if we take 1968 to represent the 1960s, Clinton’s claim has issues if
we look at different ways of measuring segregation. The UCLA report also
considers how many black students are isolated in overwhelmingly black
schools. Across the United States, fewer black students attend these
schools now than they did in 1968 (four in 10 versus six in 10), signalling
a decline in segregation.

A separate study by Charles Clotfelter, a professor of public policy and
economics at Duke University, measured the potential for black and white
students to interact. According to that data, segregation has been
declining since the 1970s, albeit at a slower rate in the past decade.

Rainbows here, black and white there

Clinton’s blanket statement also leaves out regional and demographic
nuances in the UCLA study.

According to that data, the South is now the least racially divided region
in the United States when it comes to school segregation, and no state in
Dixie is among the top five most segregated by any yardstick. For example,
a third of black students are isolated in black schools in the South,
compared to half of black students in the Northeast and 40 percent on
average. How did the South surpass the rest of the nation in diversity?
It’s a mixture of the judicial mandates in the 1960s and modern geography.

"The South is really the only place where we seriously enforced
desegregation," said Orfield, the lead author of the UCLA study.

"Large school jurisdictions," added Clotfelter, the Duke professor. "That
means that it's not possible to slice up into such small bits, like a
metropolitan area where the districts dramatically differ."

In contrast, the densely populated cities of the Northeast and West are
becoming more and more segregated. On the Pacific coast, Clinton’s claim is
on the money: Latino students are now more isolated than black students and
"more segregated than they’ve ever been," according to Orfield.

"Latinos have increased more than five times over in the number of students
since the 1960s," he said. "Demographics is the largest factor (in their
segregation) but there’s a lot of history as well. There was never was much
of a desegregation effort for Latinos."

Two steps forward, one step back

Clinton does have a strong point that American schools have relapsed into
monochrome. Classrooms were the most diverse from the 1970s through the
early 1990s. At peak integration, four out of 10 black southern students
attended a white school, while less than a third of all black students
attended black schools.

"We’ve lost a lot of the progress we gained, no doubt about that,"
Clotfelter said.

Experts say the backslide was the consequence of a series of judicial
decisions, beginning with Milliken vs. Bradley in 1974, a relatively
unheard of but seminal case in the desegregation saga. Criticized by some
as "one of the worst Supreme Court decisions" ever, Milliken dealt with
Detroit’s plan to integrate students by busing them from the intercity to
the suburbs. The court ruled that such a plan was unconstitutional, arguing
that black students had the right to attend integrated schools within their
own school district, but were not protected from de facto segregation.

"That decision … said the racial disparities across districts would remain
outside the reach of policymakers," Clotfelter wrote in piece exploring the
impact of Milliken. "The maximum amount of interracial contact one could
strive for, then, would be limited by the two remaining factors:
balkanization of jurisdictions and household choices about where to live."

Court-mandated desegregation was dealt its own deadly blow by three rulings
from the Supreme Court between 1991 and 1995. According to the court,
integration was only a temporary federal policy and after the historical
imbalance was righted, school districts should reclaim local control and
were released from desegregation orders.

Since then, school segregation has been intrinsically tied to the racial
gaps in housing and income, leading to the re-emergence of the color line.
Economic segregation, which disproportionately affects black and Latino
students, is increasing, pointed out Orfield. He noted that in California,
Asian and white students are 10 times more likely to go to a high-quality
school than Latinos and therefore dramatically more likely to attend
college.

"We’ve lost something very vital," he said. "Inequality is very related to
the double segregation of low-income racial minorities and (their)
isolation from the middle class, from the best teachers, the best
curriculum. That has become very profound."

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton said, "In America today, our schools are more segregated
than they were in the 1960s."

Overall, experts say and the data shows that the United States has taken
two steps forward and one step back, but hasn’t quite reverted to pre-Civil
Rights levels of segregation. Clinton would have been more accurate setting
her time frame a little later. But she has a strong point that the country
has fallen back from the high levels of diversity that existed from the
1970s to the early 1990s. On the whole, we rate her statement Mostly True.

*Benghazi panel says Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over all Libya emails,
despite her claims
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/hillary-clinton-benghazi-emails-withheld-state-pan/#ixzz3eA617u00>
// The Washington Times // Stephen Dinan - June 25, 2015*

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t turn over all of
her work-related emails to the department despite her claims to have done
so, the Benghazi investigative committee charged Thursday in a statement
raising new questions about the Democratic presidential candidate’s email
practices.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican and the Benghazi panel chairman,
said the State Department informed his panel that it did not have in its
possession some emails related to Benghazi and Libya that Mrs. Clinton had
exchanged with longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal, and which he turned
over to the committee.

If true, it suggests that Mrs. Clinton either did not perform a full
search, intentionally shielded some messages, or had some other hiccup when
she claimed to have belatedly complied with federal law and turned back to
the department some 30,000 messages from her time as secretary.

The Associated Press said there were 15 messages that the State Department
said it couldn’t find in its own records that Mrs. Clinton provided.

“This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected
public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her
personal server — especially before it could be analyzed by an independent,
neutral third-party arbiter,” Mr. Gowdy said.

Mrs. Clinton set up her own email server at one of her homes, in New York,
and used an account she issued herself, rather than an account on State
Department servers, to conduct business during her four years in office.

She said the arrangement was done out of convenience.

Federal law requires that officials ensure their emails, which are
considered potential government records, be stored on official servers for
archival purposes. Mrs. Clinton did not comply with that requirement until
nearly two years after she left office, and only after the Benghazi
investigative panel discovered her unique email arrangement.

At a dramatic press conference and in follow-up communications from her
attorney, she said she had gone through all of her messages and decided
which of the more than 60,000 from that period were personal and which were
related to government business.

She said she found 30,000 that she deemed official and turned them over to
the State Department in paper form. She said another 32,000 were private
and she expunged them, then wiped her server clean.

A court has ordered the department to make all of the official messages
public, and the department had already turned over several hundred related
to Benghazi and Libya more generally, so the committee could complete its
probe into the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, which killed Ambassador
J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

However, Mr. Gowdy said, the emails Mr. Blumenthal exchanged with Mrs.
Clinton during her time in office were business-related but weren’t part of
the set that the State Department sent.

He demanded that the department say whether it had withheld the emails, or
whether Mrs. Clinton never turned them over in the first place.

The messages Mr. Blumenthal produced also contradict Mrs. Clinton’s claim
that his advice was “unsolicited.”

“This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work.
This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then
vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record,”
Mr. Gowdy said.

The messages in question don’t go to the heart of the Benghazi attack,
Democrats said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign didn’t immediately respond to a
request for comment Thursday night, nor did a spokesman for Rep. Elijah E.
Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi committee.

A Clinton campaign spokesman told The Associated Press that they believe
she fulfilled her obligations.

“She has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department,
including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal,” spokesman Nick
Merrill told the wire service.

They also questioned whether some of the messages Mr. Blumenthal turned
over were really emails, saying they appeared to be formatted as other
types of documents.

*Bill Maher: Hillary plays ‘hide-and seek’ while Putin allows tough
marathon interviews
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/bill-maher-hillary-clinton-plays-hide-and-seek-whi/#ixzz3e8q10wWG>
// The Washington Times // Douglas Earnst – June 25, 2015 *

Comedian Bill Maher used Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press schedule
to mock former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “hide-and-seek”
press strategy.

The HBO “Real Time” host said on his official website Wednesday that Mr.
Putin recently gave a marathon interview with an Italian paper.

“Maybe it helps to be a sociopath, but the guy regularly does
three-hour-plus press conferences in front of a hostile press — contrast
that with Hillary Clinton’s game of hide-and seek,” Mr. Maher said.

The sentiment of the comedian’s blog post echoes The New York Times’ Amy
Chozick, who announced a series in May that would address Mrs. Clinton’s
avoidance of the press.

“Since she declared her candidacy on April 12, Hillary Rodham Clinton has
answered just seven questions from reporters. This is the first installment
of a regular First Draft feature in which The Times will publish questions
we would have asked Mrs. Clinton had we had the opportunity,” the paper
reported May 6.

Mr. Maher told Maureen Dowd for her May 30 op-ed “Hooray for Hillarywood?”
that he will vote for Mrs. Clinton, but he will not donate $1 million to
her campaign as he did for President Obama.

*State Dept: Clinton did not turn over some emails
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-benghazi-state-department/>
// CNN // Elise Labott – June 25, 2015 *

The State Department has not been able to find emails from former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's private server in its archives, State Department
officials said Thursday.

The officials said the State Department is missing all or part of 15 emails
from longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal released this week by a House
panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in
Benghazi, Libya. Blumenthal provided the Select Committee on Benghazi with
the emails.

"She has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department,
including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal," said Clinton
spokesman Nick Merrill on Thursday.

Officials said the exchanges with Blumenthal were not among the 55,000
pages of emails Clinton handed over to the State Department, even though
Clinton insisted she gave her former agency all of her work-related
correspondence from private account during her time at State.

"We have confirmed that the emails Secretary Clinton provided the
department include almost all of the material in Mr. Blumenthal's
production," one of the officials said. "There here are, however, a limited
number of instances 15 in which we could not locate all or part of the
content of a document from his production within the tens of thousands of
emails she gave us."

But the official added, "The substance of those 15 emails is not relevant
to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi."

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the committee, has petitioned Clinton and her
former aides to reveal what they know about the attack at an American
diplomatic compound that killed four Americans. Gowdy's recent attention
has turned to any emails between Clinton and Blumenthal.

Gowdy's committee has located emails between the pair and has asked the
State Department to turn over their copies of the correspondence, which it
said it did Thursday in a letter to the committee.

"This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton's self-selected
public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her
personal server -- especially before it could be analyzed by an
independent, neutral third party arbiter," Gowdy said in a statement on
Thursday. "This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our
committee's work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with
herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an
incomplete public record."

A Clinton aide says they do not recognize many of the materials Blumenthal
turned over to the committee and cannot speak to their origin.

They do not, the aide said, have a record of other correspondence between
her and Mr. Blumenthal beyond that which they turned over to the State
Department.

The aide also said that Clinton turned over all emails from Blumenthal,
including more than a dozen emails that were not included in what he handed
over to the House committee.

The missing emails are likely to fuel Republican charges that Clinton is
hiding emails from her private server. The committee believes almost half
of Clinton's public record on the attacks can be uncovered by looking at
her emails with Blumenthal.

Gowdy's committee released 179 pages of emails on Monday. The emails that
Blumenthal produced in response to the committee's request numbered about
120 pages.

Clinton has said that the emails she received were "unsolicited," but the
committee believes the new emails show that not to be the case.

Blumenthal met behind closed doors last week with the committee for nearly
nine hours about amid revelations he sent Clinton more than two dozen memos
that read like intelligence reports. The emails have drawn Republican
scrutiny because Blumenthal sent them while advising businesses interests
in Libya and working with the Clinton Foundation, although Blumenthal said
his work for the Clinton Foundation had "nothing whatsoever to do with my
emails to my friend."

Democrats complained that the committee has drifted from its mission of
investigating the attacks in Benghazi and has become an inquest into
Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

*FNC’s ‘Special Report’: Schweizer’s Clinton Cash Scandals Cause Hillary to
Drop in Polls
<http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/25/fncs-special-report-schweizers-clinton-cash-scandals-cause-hillary-to-drop-in-polls/>
// Breitbart News – June 25, 2015 *

On Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” on Wednesday, White House
correspondent Ed Henry broke down a Fox News poll showing Democratic
presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton sliding in the polls after a series of
scandals were revealed in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash.”

Henry pointed to the latest Fox News poll showing her underwater in terms
honesty and trustyworthiness.

“Amid the drip, drip of revelations about her family’s foundation, Hillary
Clinton’s image continues to take a hit,” Henry explained. “A new Fox poll
found when asked if she’s honest and trustworthy — 45 percent say yes, 52
percent say so. Republican pollsters believe she’s missing a key ingredient
that allowed former President Bill Clinton to survive one scandal after
another.

Henry continued by going into detail about one controversy in particular
involving the Russian government and its efforts to bolster its position in
the international uranium market.

“Controversies like the sale of uranium to the Russian government during
her time as secretary of state may not have helped,” he said. “In an
interview with WMUR in New Hampshire, Clinton denied that a $500,000
speaking fee to her husband by a Kremlin bank and millions in contributions
to the Clinton Foundation were tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin,
getting a corner on the uranium market.”

“The former secretary telling WMUR quote, ‘I was not personally involved
because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,’” Henry said.
“‘Clinton Cash’ author, Peter Schweizer scoffed declaring in an op-ed
quote, ‘The transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium, the stuff used to build
nuclear weapons to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of secretary of
state Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?’”

*Bernie Sanders closes on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire Democrats poll
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/25/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-democrats-poll>
// The Guardian // Ben Jacobs – June 25, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is catching up to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

A CNN/WMUR poll released on Thursday had the independent Vermont senator
just eight points behind the former secretary of state in the Granite
State’s Democratic primary.

The poll has Sanders receiving the support of 35% of likely Democratic
voters while Clinton is at 43%. Vice-president Joe Biden, who has not
indicated that he will mount a presidential bid, is at 8% and the former
Maryland governor Martin O’Malley is at 2%.

The poll has Clinton with a far slimmer lead than she possessed at this
time eight years ago. In June 2007 a CNN/WMUR poll gave Clinton a 36%-22%
lead over Barack Obama in New Hampshire. Obama won the Democratic
nomination.

Sanders has been drawing massive crowds on the campaign trail. Most
recently, when he and Clinton appeared with two days of each other in Des
Moines, Iowa, the Vermonter drew a significantly bigger crowd. This was
despite the fact that Sanders has repeatedly held public events in Iowa
while it was Clinton’s first public rally in the Hawkeye State since
announcing her candidacy.

Clinton’s weakness in New Hampshire is a significant red flag for her
campaign. New Hampshire has long been a stronghold for both Hillary and
Bill Clinton. A strong performance in the state’s primary made Bill Clinton
“the Comeback Kid” in 1992 and a surprise win in the 2008 primary kept
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign alive after her loss in Iowa.

Sanders is scheduled to hold six events across New Hampshire this weekend.
In contrast, while several members of Congress are appearing on Clinton’s
behalf in the Granite State.

*Hillary wraps up New York fundraising swing with private shopping trip to
ultra-expensive Bergdorf Goodman one day after boasting about her plans to
help 'poor people, people of color, and the elderly'
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3139115/Hillary-wraps-New-York-fundraising-swing-private-shopping-trip-ultra-expensive-Bergdorf-Goodman.html#ixzz3e7SB09Qy>
// The Daily Mail – June 25, 2015*

Hillary Clinton's rhetoric may skew toward supporting the downtrodden, but
her shopping tastes are strictly LIfestyles of the Rich and Famous.

The Democratic presidential front-runner was phoographed Wednesday morning
in wind-swept New York City emerging from the ultra-high-end Bergdorf
Goodman department store and getting into her armored black 'Scooby' van
with chief of staff Huma Abedin and a contingent of Secret Service agents.

'Bergdorf's,' as New Yorkers with gobs of disposable income call it, is
Manhattan's ground zero for expensive brands like Gucci, Valentino, Prada
and Louboutin, whose signature red-soled shoes can go for $1,000 or more
per pair.

Hillary is also known to get her roots touched up or her hair cut by
renowned - and pricey -  stylist John Barrett at his salon on the 9th floor
at Bergdorf's. But with the wind whipping her hair around, it's hard to say
if she stopped by for a $600, yes, $600 cut and blow dry.

The landmark store is also renowned for its personal-shopper service, which
pairs the wealthy with valet service to help choose, try and tailor outfits.

Clinton spoke Tuesday at a black church a stone's throw from
race-riot-scarred Ferguson, Missouri, boasting of her pledge to combat
'systematic efforts to disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor
people, people of color, and the elderly.'

She then jetted to New York City on a private plane waiting at the St.
Louis airport.

Bergdorf Goodman shoppers who are in the know don't come and go through the
main entrance on posh Fifth Avenue, but via a less public door around the
corner on West 58th Street.

That's where Clinton and her entourage emerged on Wednesday.

Bergdorf's privileged customers who work with personal shoppers also
typically don't walk out with armloads of bags, but can opt for delivery
service after garments are tailored for a perfect fit.

The former secretary of state was in Manhattan for a one-night-only
fundraiser at the legendary Plaza Hotel, where Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett
were both on the program.

An invitation to the event described it as an 'intimate performance in
support of Hillary for America.'

The fundraiser, where the minimum buy-in was $1,000 – or $2,700 for a VIP
seat – is part of a mad scramble to collect as much campaign case as
possible before the end of the month, when the fundraising quarter ends and
prying eyes can see Federal Election Commission reports showing how
successful she's been.

Guests on Wednesday night could sign up as 'event hosts' if they brought a
total of $50,000 in campaign contributions. That magic number opened the
door to a private receptioin with Clinton and an after-party with Bennett
and Gaga.

Clinton visited Bergdorf's last year in February, fueling speculation that
a trip to stock up on pantsuits was a sign that she planned to run for the
White House.

The store, which is known for guarding its high-end clientele's secrets,
did not respond to a request for comment.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill also did not respond.

Hillary will be in Northern Virginia on Friday to speak at an annual
Democratic Party dinner commemorating Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson,
whose history as prominent slave-owners has come under fire this week.

*Hillary Clinton's lead over N.H. Democrats dwindling, poll finds
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-martin-omalley-new-hampshire-poll/index.html>
// CNN // Jennifer Agiesta – June 25, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton's sizable lead among Democrats in New Hampshire has been
trimmed to single digits as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders makes a strong push
in a state that narrowly broke Clinton's way in 2008 to keep her campaign
alive.

According to a new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary poll, Clinton holds an
8-point edge over Sanders, with 43% behind Clinton and 35% backing Sanders.
Vice President Joe Biden clocks in at 8%, with 2% or less supporting Martin
O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee.

The poll marks a significant tightening of the contest since the May
Granite State Poll, which included Elizabeth Warren on its list of
candidates. In that poll, Clinton stood at 51%, with Warren at 20% and
Sanders at 13%.

Several shifts in the poll seem to explain much of Sanders' gain. Looking
at the demographic breakdown in primary preferences, men, younger voters
and liberals appear to have moved broadly toward Sanders in the last month.
Among men, 52% backed Clinton in the May survey, that fell to 32% in the
new poll, while 47% now support Sanders. Likewise, among liberals, a 51% to
16% Clinton advantage is now a 48% to 41% Sanders edge. And among voters
under age 50, Clinton has fallen from majority support to a near even split
in the new poll, 37% back Clinton while 39% favor Sanders.

And likely Democratic primary voters are now more apt to see Sanders as the
candidate who "best represents the values of Democrats like yourself."
Sanders trounces Clinton, with 41% of Democratic primary voters saying
Sanders does, to 30% who chose Clinton. In the May poll, 38% said Clinton
was tops on this question, with 22% choosing Warren and just 13% picking
Sanders.

Sanders has also gained dramatically in favorability ratings among
Democrats since May. In the new poll, 66% say they have a favorable view of
the Vermont senator, while just 11% hold an unfavorable view. In May, 45%
had a favorable view and 11% held an unfavorable one.

And the Vermont Senator also holds a big edge over Clinton as the most
empathetic candidate in the field; 45% say he's the one who cares the most
about people like you, compared with 24% who pick Clinton on that score.

Clinton's advantages are apparent in voters' preferences on the issues,
however. She is more trusted to handle two of the top domestic issues in
the race: The economy (37%, compared with 28% who prefer Sanders' approach)
and health care (43% Clinton to 27% Sanders).

And the former secretary of state's advantages are larger on matters of
foreign affairs. She holds a wide lead as the more trusted candidate to
handle both international trade policy (55% say they trust Clinton compared
with Sanders' 14%; Biden is at 11% on that one) and terrorism (45% Clinton
to 12% Biden and 11% Sanders).

But when it comes to dealing with "big banks and corporations," things are
much tighter: 36% trust Sanders compared to 31% who favor Clinton.

More see Clinton as presidential than Sanders, with 38% saying she has the
personal characteristics and qualities a president should have, compared
with 27% who think Sanders is best representative of those qualities.
Further, 56% of Democratic voters say she is the strongest leader in the
field. On that question, just 13% say Sanders has the edge.

Still, 28% describe Clinton as the "least honest" candidate in the field.
No other candidate is named by more than 5% of likely Democratic primary
voters.

Clinton's favorability ratings remain strong and have generally held
steady: 74% have a positive impression, 19% a negative one, about the same
as in May.

O'Malley makes a small gain here, with his favorable rating climbing from
10% in May to 16% now. The former Maryland governor remains largely
unknown, however, with 72% unable to offer an opinion.

One interesting contrast between the two parties in New Hampshire: while
75% of Republicans say they're still trying to make up their minds about
who to support, that figure stands at 54% among Democrats, suggesting
Democratic support is solidifying more quickly than Republican support.

The CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll was conducted by telephone by the
University of New Hampshire Survey Center from June 18-24 among 1,010 adult
residents of New Hampshire. Of those, 360 said they plan to vote in the
Democratic presidential primary. Results among likely Democratic primary
voters have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage
points.

*In Hillary Clinton’s journey, a history of Jewish kinship
<http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/75064/in-hillary-clintons-journey-a-history-of-jewish-kinship/>
// J Weekly // Ron Kampeas – June 25, 2015 *

From the man who married her grandmother to the man who married her
daughter, from working a room full of bar mitzvah guests on behalf of her
husband’s political career to headlining major pro-Israel events during her
own, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey has been suffused with Jewish
connections.

That’s been a natural consequence of her East Coast education, her
trajectory in the party favored by a substantial majority of Jewish
Americans, and her embrace of the Jewish narrative of triumphing over
adversity and bigotry, longtime friends of the 2016 presidential candidate
say.

Sara Ehrman, whose friendship with the Democratic front-runner dates back
more than four decades, noted that the Clintons, upon arriving in Arkansas
in the mid-1970s, quickly established ties with leaders of the state’s tiny
Jewish community.

“They were a smart, educated young couple … who had come down to this
wonderful little city,” said Ehrman, now 96, referring to Little Rock. “The
Jews gravitated to them. Among her best and most fervent supporters were
Jews.”

The Clintons would attend seders at the homes of Jewish friends during
their Little Rock years, and in 1988 Bill Clinton as governor co-officiated
with Rabbi Zeke Palnick of Arkansas’ capital city at the Jewish wedding of
Richard and Sheila Bronfman.

The Clintons are “both very spiritual and they tend to like to experience
different cultures around them,” said Sheila Bronfman, who traveled the
country to campaign for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and for Hillary
Clinton in 2008.

In her first autobiography, “Living History,” Hillary Clinton recalls being
10 years old and noticing numbers tattooed on the arm of an acquaintance of
her father’s. Hugh Rodham explained that Nazis had tattooed Jews, whom they
murdered en masse.

“I knew that my grandmother Della’s [second] husband, Max Rosenberg, was
Jewish, and I was horrified that someone like him could have been murdered
just because of his religion,” Clinton wrote in 2003.

By the time Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, the youthful
governor and his wife had become favorites among Jewish Democrats. Ehrman
described a presidential campaign headquarters buzzing with Jewish
activists. “The Jews loved the Clintons so much, they were coming from
around the country,” she said. “If they couldn’t come, they would send
food. The whole staff would end up in the Jewish room because there were
bagels from New York, Danish pastries, Goldenberg’s peanut chews.” (The
“Jewish room” she describes refers to the area where Jewish activists would
congregate.)

The Jewish sensibility permeated the Clinton White House, where the first
couple inaugurated what is now an annual Hanukkah party in 1993, in part
because of the abundance of Jewish staffers: there was communications chief
Ann Lewis; senior adviser Rahm Emanuel; Jack Lew, special assistant to
President Clinton who would go on to become Treasury secretary under
President Barack Obama; and Ron Klain, now Obama’s Ebola czar.

Hillary Clinton’s eight years in the Senate representing New York
strengthened the couple’s ties to national Jewish groups. Her pro-Israel
advocacy included exposing incitement in Palestinian media and helping to
win full membership for Magen David Adom in the International Committee of
the Red Cross. She blamed the Palestinians, and not the Israelis, for the
collapse of the 2000 Camp David peace talks and the subsequent second
intifada.

After winning the Senate seat in 2000, Clinton repeatedly secured the
Tuesday-morning slot at national conferences for AIPAC and the Jewish
Federations of North America, among others — a slot reserved for the most
respected pro-Israel figure in Congress. Clinton chose the annual AIPAC
conference in 2008 to concede the primaries to Obama.

For her 2016 bid, Clinton has lined up pro-Israel funding powerhouses who
helped fuel her 2008 bid, including entertainment mogul Haim Saban, and has
added some of Obama’s most prominent Jewish bundlers, notably movie
executive Jeffrey Katzenberg. Lewis, the former White House communications
chief, leads her Jewish outreach.

There were other alliances, less noticeable back in the 1990s, that would
be personally consequential.

The 1992 election swept 51 Jewish lawmakers into Congress, the largest
class ever. Among them was Rep. Marjorie Margolies, the Democrat from
Pennsylvania who served a single term before being ousted in the Republican
takeover of the House in ’94. Her opponents raised the issue of Margolies’
tie-breaking vote in 1993 passing Bill Clinton’s unpopular tax bill.

The Clintons, known for their loyalty to those who fall on their sword for
them, campaigned for Margolies in her unsuccessful 2014 congressional bid.
Margolies’ son, Marc Mezvinsky, met the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, when
they were children at a political retreat, and fell in love when they met
again at Stanford University. Co-officiating at their wedding was Rabbi
James Ponet, the head rabbi at Yale.

After meetying up again with  Hillary Clinton at a recent memorial for
philanthropist Edgar Bronfman, Ponet said Clinton spoke with sensitivity
about Bronfman’s efforts to make Swiss banks accountable for Holocaust-era
Jewish assets. “There’s a sense of foundational connection to the Jewish
people,” he said of her, “and a sense of the responsibility to the Jewish
people in the world.”

*Hillary Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say, but is still
the Dem frontrunner
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-voters-/>
// Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25, 2015 *

A majority of voters say former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not
honest and trustworthy and that her claim to be a fighter for the middle
class is just a campaign slogan, but she is still retaining a tight lock on
the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination contest and leads all but one
of her Republican rivals.

Fifty-two percent of voters said Mrs. Clinton is not honest and trustworthy
while 45 percent said she is, a new Fox News poll said.

Forty-four percent said Mrs. Clinton really would be a fighter for the
middle class if elected president, while 51 percent said it was just a
campaign slogan.

Still, she was the choice of 61 percent of likely Democratic primary voters
in the poll, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 15 percent and
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at 11 percent.

She also led a number of potential Republican rivals in head-to-head
match-ups, though she was tied with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 43
percent and she led Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida by 1 point, 45 percent to
44 percent.

She led businessman Donald Trump by 17 points, 51 percent to 34 percent,
and held 6-point leads against Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (48 percent to 42
percent), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (47 percent to 41 percent) and former
Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (45 percent to 39 percent).

She also led retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson by 5 points, 46 percent to 41
percent, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky by 4 points, 46 percent to 42
percent.

Some Republicans have been working to strike a generational contrast with
Mrs. Clinton, with Mr. Rubio calling her a “leader from yesterday” in his
April announcement speech.

But seven in 10 voters said they would see a Clinton presidency more as her
first term, compared to 21 percent who said they would see it more as
bringing back her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for another term.

Fifty-four percent also said they would see her presidency more as a fresh
start for her, compared to 38 percent who said they would see it more as a
continuation of the policies of President Obama.

The survey of 1,005 registered voters was taken June 21-23 and has a margin
of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, with a margin of error of
plus or minus 5 percentage points for the Democratic subgroup.

*Hillary Clinton's Newest Consultant Was A Major Keystone Lobbyist
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/25/hillary-clinton-keystone_n_7663356.html>
// HuffPo // Sam Stein – June 25, 2015 *

The newest hire for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is a longtime
strategist who played a key role in her 2008 primary defeat while working
for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

He’s also a Washington lobbyist who lobbied the State Department -- led, at
the time, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- on behalf of the company
seeking to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Clinton's new consultant, Jeff Berman, has followed, in many respects, a
well-worn path for those in Washington D.C. He spent a large chunk of his
career in the public sector before a stint on K Street, and now he's back
again. When Clinton hired Berman for his current role, it was seen as
something of a coup, because he's known as a master of the mechanics of the
primary process. Buzzfeed, which broke the news of Berman's hiring on
Wednesday, described him as “a bit of a living legend in the small world
that can speak fluently" about the strategic minutiae involved in winning
an election.

Certainly anyone who was paying attention during the 2008 election knows
what a better grasp the Obama campaign had on the process than the Clinton
camp -- which was due in large part to Berman’s expertise.

But his hiring doesn’t come baggage-free. After Berman left the Obama
campaign, he joined the firm Bryan Cave, where he lobbied on behalf of
several big-name clients. The most controversial of those clients was
TransCanada, the multibillion-dollar company seeking a permit to complete
the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Alberta's oil sands to
refineries in Texas.

According to public records, Berman lobbied for TransCanada from the second
quarter of 2009 through the second quarter of 2011. Several other officials
from Bryan Cave joined him on the account. For that work, the firm was paid
$980,000.

According to the filings, Berman and others lobbied to help obtain
“approval for Keystone Pipeline path through Missouri tracts” and later to
“monitor climate change legislation and [push for a] presidential permit
process for TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.” (Other lobbying objectives were
listed, but they largely mirrored these two).

Berman lobbied the House, the Senate and multiple federal agencies. In the
second and fourth quarters of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, the State
Department was among the agencies that he lobbied. Clinton was running the
department at the time.

Now, well into the seventh year of the Obama administration, Keystone
remains in political limbo. The administration has not yet issued a
decision, though agency comments on the pipeline were due in February.

Environmentalists have deep concerns about the pipeline because it would
carry a type of oil that produces higher greenhouse emissions than
conventional crude oil, and because of the threat of spills in America's
heartland. TransCanada has said it intends to move the oil one way or
another, and that it’s safer to do it through a pipeline than, say, by
rail. The official State Department assessment basically makes the same
argument -- that the oil will be burned with or without KXL.

There is also concern about Clinton’s position on the matter. Because the
pipeline would cross an international border, the State Department is
charged with deciding whether it would be in the national interest to grant
a permit to the project. While secretary of state in 2010, Clinton said the
department was "inclined" to sign off on the pipeline. On the campaign
trail, however, Clinton has declined to comment on Keystone one way or the
other. And since then, there have been accusations that she's been the
object of influence peddling. Two Canadian banks "tightly connected" to
promoting the pipeline have paid her $1.6 million for just eight speeches.

A Clinton campaign aide told The Huffington Post that Berman's job will be
to work on strategy, helping to count delegates as the team charts out the
primary, and that he will not be playing a policy adviser role.

*Hillary Clinton Has Hired a Former Keystone Pipeline Lobbyist
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122147/hillary-clinton-has-hired-former-keystone-pipeline-lobbyist?utm_content=buffer9a3bd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
// The New Republic // Rebecca Leber – June 21, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton has hired a former lobbyist for the company behind the
Keystone XL pipeline, further upsetting environmentalists who have long
been wary of her commitment to fighting climate change.

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith reported on Wednesday that the Clinton campaign has
hired Jeffrey Berman as a campaign consultant. Berman, who began working
for the campaign earlier this month, once lobbied on behalf of TransCanada,
the company that hopes to build a pipeline carrying tar sands oil from
Canada to the southern coast of the U.S.

R.L. Miller of Climate Hawks Vote said Berman's hiring "is a
disappointment—especially as Martin O'Malley is taking flight based on the
best climate plan I've seen from a candidate, and Bernie Sanders continues
to soar."

"For us it’s a signal that she continues to be willing to work with oil and
gas interests and take money from folks who are commited to have a pathway
to fossil fuels," said Ben Schreiber, Friends of the Earth's climate and
energy program director.

In 2008, political operatives described Berman as an “unsung hero” of
Obama’s upset win over Clinton, due to a strategy that won Obama more
delegates in key primaries when Clinton was still ahead in the popular
vote. After Obama’s win, Berman joined the lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLC,
which retained TransCanada as a client until 2013.

Federal disclosures show that TransCanada paid Bryan Cave $120,000 to lobby
the State Department—to “monitor climate change legislation and
presidential permit process for TransCanada Keystone Pipeline,” per the
disclosure form—while Clinton was secretary. Berman is listed as the
lobbyist on this issue.

In 2010, Clinton said she was "inclined" to approve a permit for the
pipeline. She's refused to take a position ever since. “I have steadily
made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion” she said in January,
which also happened to be the same week the Senate considered a bill to
fast-track the six-year-long delay to a permit. Clinton’s extended network
has other connections to TransCanada, like her 2008 national deputy
campaign manager Paul Elliot, now an in-house lobbyist for TransCanada. And
the Wall Street Journal reported in February that between Clinton's tenure
at the State Department and campaign for president, the Clinton Foundation
received millions of dollars in donations from ExxonMobil and nearly half a
million dollars from Canada's Foreign Affairs, Trade and Management agency,
which supports the pipeline.

Even though Clinton has made early promises to take an aggressive stand on
climate change, ennvironmental groups remain wary. Friends of the Earth has
requested public records from the State Department on Bryan Cave's lobbying
during Clinton's tenure. Still, the bulk of the environmental campaign
community is reluctant to criticize the likely Democratic nominee outright.
It's unclear whether these donations and distant connections ever
represented a conflict of interest for Clinton, and Democratic donor and
climate activist Tom Steyer continues to hold fundraisers for Clinton
regardless of the criticism.

Clinton's opponents still sense an opportunity to outdo the frontrunner on
climate change. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley received positive
reviews from Steyer and other activists last week for proposing that the
U.S. adopt 100 percent clean energy by 2050. And Vermont's Bernie Sanders
already is a favorite among green activists for championing climate
legislation in the Senate.

What does Clinton need to do to convince environmentalists she's on their
side? Her critics argue she needs to come out with an aggressive and
detailed plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the next 35 years.

"Hiring as a high-ranking campaign official someone who spent years on
TransCanada's payroll lobbying for Keystone is a big step in precisely the
wrong direction," a spokesperson for 350 Action said. "We need bold ideas
and leadership from our candidates—like a plan to decarbonize the United
States by 2050, not a campaign that says nice things about renewable energy
while letting Big Oil's lobbyists and cronies drive the bus."

"The best thing Clinton could do for her campaign to bolster her climate
credentials," said Climate Hawks Vote's Miller, "is an honest and lengthy
interview on the subject of Keystone XL, in which she describes all the
steps taken at the State Department that appeared to nudge it forward while
maintaining a semblance of neutrality, and the reason she's now deciding to
say no to one of the dirtiest and notorious projects of the decade."

*Hillary celebrates ruling: 'Yes!'
<http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/246118-hillary-clinton-praises-obamacare-ruling>
// The Hill // David McCabe – June 25, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday celebrated
the Supreme Court's decision to uphold subsidies crucial to ObamaCare.

She followed up the tweet with a message imploring her followers to add
"your name if you agree: Affordable health care is a basic human right,"
accompanied by a link to her campaign website. The tweet included a photo
of her hugging President Obama in the White House Situation Room after the
law passed Congress in 2010.

The court decided in a 6-3 ruling Thursday to uphold the subsidies to 6.4
million people across roughly 34 states. Many on the left feared the the
challenge, if it were successful, could take down the president's signature
healthcare law.

The ruling is likely to roil the Republican side of the presidential
election as well, as conservative candidates look to stake out their
opposition to the healthcare law.

Clinton later released a statement urging Republicans to end their attacks
on the law.

"Now that the Supreme Court has once again re-affirmed the ACA as the law
of the land, it’s time for the Republican attacks to end," Clinton said in
a statement. "It’s time to move on."

*Election 2016: 'Chelsea's Mom' Is Hillary Clinton's Fan Love Song
<http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-chelseas-mom-hillary-clintons-fan-love-song-1984355>
// International Business Times // Ginger Gibson – June 25, 2015 *

The 2016 election has its first fan song. Hillary Clinton is the recipient
of a love song, of sorts, from the New York City-based group Well-Strung.
It's a reworking of the 2003 hit “Stacy’s Mom.”

In the original Fountains of Wayne song, the singers lusted after their
classmate's mother. The Well-Strung version instead sings a song of praise
for “Chelsea’s Mom” -- a reference to Clinton’s daughter -- and features
the members dancing around a life-size cutout of of the candidate.
Well-Strung is an all-male string quartet that covers pop music and
includes vocals.

The group's manager, Mark Cortale, explained Well-Strung is always trying
to stay contemporary. "Since this election is so important and relevant,
Well-Strung wanted to put their own spin on a classic pop song to show
their support of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race," he told International
Business Times. "The guys recorded this song as an unabashed love letter to
Hillary, with no expectations or agenda. That said, they would certainly
love the opportunity to perform for her."

The video features images of Clinton tossing her hair and smiling at the
camera. “Chelsea’s mom has got it going on, she’s all we want and we’ve
waited for so long, from sea to shining sea, she’ll fight for liberty,” the
lyrics say. "She's sexy and she's strong, I'm going to vote for Chelsea's
mom. Chelsea’s mom has got it going on.”

One verse even jabs at Republicans. “Why should we put up with zealots like
Ted Cruz,” the group sings. “Anyone but Clinton will give us the blues. We
get a lot of drama from the GOP. And sure we loved Obama, but your mom’s
the one for me.”

It seems the campaign had nothing to do with making the video. The group
does display a considerable amount of stickers feature the H logo designed
by the campaign and several “Vote for Hillary” signs.

Having fans pen a song that can go viral is one of those unplanned
occurrences that a campaign can only hope for. In 2012, Republican Rick
Santorum became the beneficiary of a viral fan song called “Game On.” His
campaign then showered attention on the two young Oklahoma women who
recorded it. In 2008, Barack Obama was the beneficiary when a young woman
known as “Obama Girl” released a song called “Crush on Obama” that went
viral.

*Hillary Clinton Wears Epic '90s Outfit in TBT Pic Congratulating Supreme
Court's Obamacare Decision
<http://www.eonline.com/news/670679/hillary-clinton-wears-epic-90s-outfit-in-tbt-pic-congratulating-supreme-court-s-obamacare-decision>
// E! // Brett Malec – June 25, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is trading in her signature pantsuit style in her last
throwback Thursday pic!

The 67-year-old presidential hopeful took to Instagram today to
congratulate the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Obamacare with an epic
flashback photo of from the ‘90s.

"I had cared about this issue for a long time, well before Bill and I got
into politics, and I believed that access to quality affordable health care
was a right American citizens should be guaranteed."–Hillary on her
decades-long fight for affordable health care in America #tbt," the pic is
captioned. The snapshot shows Hillary meeting with a young boy who appears
to be in physical therapy for issues walking. Hillary cheers him on as the
boy flashes a smile.

In addition to her do-gooder work when it comes to healthcare, we couldn't
help but notice Hillary's epic ‘90s dress. It's outfits like these that
make TBT pics so funny and nostalgic.

Earlier this month, the politico shared a moving video clip that looks back
at her early years in politics in honor of flashback Friday.

"What is a fighter? To me a fighter is someone who won't give up," a voice
said as photos of younger Clinton flash across the screen. The politico is
shown at work and meeting with different people throughout her impressive
career.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*Here’s what climate hawk Martin O’Malley would do as president
<http://grist.org/politics/heres-what-climate-hawk-martin-omalley-would-do-as-president/>
// Grist // Ben Adler – June 25, 2015 *

Say what you will about Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and
current Democratic presidential candidate, but the man is a wonk. He may
lack for narrative, but he will give you plenty of commonsense solutions.
And he has a demonstrated commitment to combatting climate change.

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that despite his lagging far
behind Hillary Clinton and even lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the
polls, he is the first candidate to produce anything resembling a detailed
climate policy. It’s only a work in progress, and it isn’t even available
yet on the campaign website. But O’Malley’s team shared with Grist a white
paper outlining some significant climate change policy proposals.
Collectively, they would go further than President Obama has — or than
Hillary Clinton has called for thus far.

O’Malley’s plans go on for two full pages. The first lists things he would
do through executive authority. Here are some of the highlights, in the
white paper’s own words:

Direct the Environmental Protection Agency to take aggressive action to
limit greenhouse gases, expanding rules to other large sources of emissions
beyond power plants.

Direct the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a zero-tolerance policy
for methane leaks from current oil and gas production.

Reject projects like Keystone XL that exacerbate climate change and extend
our reliance on fossil fuels.

Deny new permits for drilling in Alaska, Antarctica, and off our coasts.

Increase royalties and emissions fees for fossil fuel companies currently
drilling on federal lands.

And here are some of the most important policies that O’Malley says he
would fight for in Congress:

Set a national, cross-sector Renewable Electricity Standard so our nation
is powered by 100% clean energy by 2050.

Fight for federal legislation for a cap on carbon emissions from all
sources, with proceeds from permits returned to lower-and middle-class
families and invested in job transition assistance and the Clean Energy
Corps.

Set a national goal of doubling our energy productivity within 15 years.

End all subsidies for fossil fuels, while extending production and
investment tax credits for renewable energy for the long term.

Some of these goals overlap with Obama’s and Clinton’s. Obama’s EPA has
already proposed carbon emissions regulations for power plants, and it
can’t propose opening new avenues until those rules are in place, which
won’t happen until after Obama leaves office. But it’s worth noting that
O’Malley explicitly promises to expand carbon regulation to other major
sources. O’Malley is presumably referring to other stationary sources of
greenhouse gases such as industrial and agricultural activity, which
respectively account for 21 and 9 percent of U.S. emissions. EPA has
already raised fuel efficiency standards, and therefore reduced emissions,
for mobile sources such as cars and trucks. Transportation is responsible
for 27 percent of U.S. emissions and electricity generation represents 31
percent. In other words, there is potentially as much to be gained from
going after industry and agriculture as power plants.

When Clinton addressed the League of Conservation Voters last year, she
said, regarding the Clean Power Rule, “The unprecedented action that
President Obama has taken must be protected at all cost.” That’s hugely
important, because congressional Republicans are certain to keep attacking
it. But promising to also tackle other major sources is even better.

On methane leaks, a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions thanks to
the fracking boom, O’Malley promises to go considerably farther than Obama.
In January, the Obama administration laid out a plan to reduce methane
leakage, but climate hawks were underwhelmed. As I explained at the time,
the Obama administration intends only to regulate new and modified wells,
even though existing wells will continue to operate and leak. According to
an Environmental Defense Fund study, wells in operation since 2011 will
account for up to 90 percent of methane emissions from oil and gas in 2018.
O’Malley’s promise to regulate methane leaks from current wells would
address that.

Another key difference between O’Malley and Obama is that O’Malley doesn’t
subscribe to Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy. While Obama tries to
boost domestic production of oil and gas along with renewables, O’Malley is
focused solely on the latter. So O’Malley promises to reject the Keystone
XL pipeline, which Obama hasn’t taken a stance on yet, and to block other
proposals to invest in fossil fuel infrastructure. O’Malley also would
reject proposals to drill off American coasts, whereas Obama plans to open
areas of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans to oil and gas leasing.

On all of these issues, it’s impossible to know where exactly Hillary
Clinton stands in relation to Obama and O’Malley. As Obama’s secretary of
state, Clinton could not publicly contradict Obama’s policies. Like Obama,
she hasn’t taken a stance on Keystone. As a senator, Clinton supported
offshore drilling, and as secretary of state she promoted fracking abroad.

One point of agreement among the Democrats that is long overdue: O’Malley
and Clinton both say they would charge more for fossil fuel leases on
federal land, something the Obama administration is finally just beginning
to work on.

O’Malley’s plans to call for various actions from Congress are less
important, since he is unlikely to get them passed. Republican control of
the House of Representatives is unlikely to change before 2023 because of
partisan gerrymandering.

But a lot can change in politics in just a few years. In 2008, Republican
presidential nominee John McCain proposed cap-and-trade legislation. A year
later he wouldn’t support the exact same sort of bill. Maybe Republicans
will come around to saving the planet.

If they do, O’Malley’s proposals would look a lot like Obama’s: setting a
carbon cap and selling permits and investing in renewables and eliminating
fossil fuel subsidies. O’Malley would set even more ambitious goals than
Obama. The president came into office aiming for 10 percent renewable
sources of electricity by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. Right now, we’re at
13 percent. O’Malley wants 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050, and
doubling our energy productivity by 2030. (Energy productivity measures the
dollars of economic output produced from a given amount of energy
consumption. It overlaps significantly with energy efficiency, but is a
different way of measuring progress.)

In the months ahead, according to his campaign, O’Malley will emphasize the
importance of climate change and release further, more detailed proposals.

Last Thursday, when Pope Francis issued his encyclical calling for action
to address climate change, O’Malley, a Catholic, published an op-ed in USA
Today proposing to eliminate fossil fuel energy by 2050. A few paragraphs
in particular stand out:

Clean energy represents the biggest business and job creation opportunity
we’ve seen in a hundred years. And reliance on local, renewable energy
sources means a more secure nation and a more stable world.

Given the grave threat that climate change poses to human life on our
planet, we have not only a business imperative but a moral obligation to
future generations to act immediately and aggressively.

This is why protecting the United States from the devastating impact of
climate change — while capitalizing on the job creation opportunity of
clean energy — is at the center of my campaign for president.

Like Sanders, who is a prominent climate hawk, O’Malley is promising to
treat climate change — an issue that is often marginalized even by
pro-environment candidates — as the hugely important challenge that it is.
And O’Malley, like Sanders, is unafraid to set himself apart from Obama and
the centrist, corporatist wing of his party that embraces fossil fuel
development. “We cannot meet the climate challenge with an all-of-the-above
energy strategy, or by drilling off our coasts, or by building pipelines
that bring oil from tar sands in Canada,” O’Malley writes in USA Today.
“Instead, we must be intentional and committed to one over-arching goal as
a people: a full, complete transition to renewable energy — and an end to
our reliance on fossil fuels.” Environmental leaders such as NextGen
Climate founder Tom Steyer and Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune
praised O’Malley’s op-ed for its boldness.

When Sanders issues climate change policy proposals, they will surely be
strong — although it remains to be seen whether he will match O’Malley in
committing to clamping down on fossil fuel production. But the really big
question looming over the Democratic primary is whether Clinton will offer
ambitious new proposals like O’Malley’s — or just more of the same
half-measures as Obama.

*SANDERS*

*A pro-O’Malley super PAC goes after Sanders on guns
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/25/a-pro-omalley-super-pac-goes-after-sanders-on-guns/>
// WaPo // John Wagner – June 25, 2015 *

A super PAC supporting Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley is
attacking Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for his record on guns in new Web ads
targeting Iowa voters.

The ads by the Generation Forward PAC assert that "Bernie Sanders is no
progressive when it comes to guns" and highlight several votes the senator
has taken over the years, including one in 1993 against the landmark Brady
Bill, which mandated federal background checks on firearms purchasers.

Sanders, who has emerged as the chief Democratic challenger to Hillary
Rodham Clinton, represents a state where hunting is a way of life and
anyone can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. His record on gun
control is mixed and also includes a 2005 vote to shield manufacturers from
lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence.

Though O'Malley is barred by law from coordinating with the super PAC, the
15-second ads suggest that his supporters think he can make some headway
against Sanders on the issue in the wake of last week's church massacre in
Charleston, S.C. A separate ad purchased by the PAC highlights O'Malley's
record as governor of Maryland, including a 2013 law that banned 45 types
of assault rifles and required new fingerprinting requirements for handgun
purchases.

In recent days, as he's been asked about his record on guns, Sanders has
pointed out that he has a D- grade from the National Rifle Association and
has supported a ban on assault weapons and background checks in the past.

At a news conference on another issue on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Sanders
declined to directly address the ad, but said that "if you look at my
record, you will find that we do have a strong record" on guns.

In an interview, Jeff Weaver, Sanders's campaign manager, said: "If Martin
O'Malley wants to engage in negative campaigning before he introduces
himself to the country, that's up to him."

Weaver said that Sanders is open to a discussion about guns, but he said
"that discussion has to entail how we bridge the gap between rural and
urban areas. Guns mean different things to different parts of the country."

Ron Boehmer, a spokesman for the pro-O'Malley PAC, said the size of the ad
buy is in the "five digits" and would be disclosed later Thursday.

A pair of new polls released by Bloomberg Politics shows Sanders as the
strongest challenger to Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the first
two nominating states. In Iowa, Clinton draws the support of 50 percent of
likely caucus-goers, while Sanders draws 24 percent. O'Malley is at 2
percent. In New Hampshire, Clinton attracts the support of 56 percent of
likely primary voters, compared to 24 percent for Sanders and 2 percent for
O'Malley.

*Claire McCaskill, a major Clinton ally, unloads on Bernie Sanders
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/claire-mccaskill-bernie-sanders-criticizes-liberal-2016-morning-joe-119419.html#ixzz3e8skQXPX>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 25, 2015 *

Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) unloaded on her Senate colleague Bernie Sanders on
Thursday, saying the Vermont independent is far too liberal to make it to
the White House.

“I think that the media is giving Bernie a pass right now,” McCaskill said
in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I very rarely read in any
coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist. I think everybody wants a fight
and I think they are not really giving the same scrutiny to Bernie Sanders
that they’re giving to, certainly, Hillary Clinton and the other
candidates.”

McCaskill endorsed Clinton’s 2016 bid almost exactly two years ago, in June
2013, making her one of the former secretary of state’s earliest major
Democratic backers. In the 2008 cycle, she endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama
over Clinton.

But this time, she’s all in for Hillary.

“So she’s going to win this, and as soon as I think they begin treating
[Sanders] like a serious candidate instead of, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s so great
we’ve got a fight in the Democratic Party’, I think it’ll be very clear,”
McCaskill said.

“Any other candidate that had the numbers that Hillary Clinton had right
now would be talked about as absolutely untouchable,” she said. “I think
Bernie is too liberal to gather enough votes in this country to become
president, and I think Hillary Clinton is going to become a fantastic
president.”

same day that a pair of new polls showed Sanders gaining momentum in Iowa
and New Hampshire. Both those polls, from Bloomberg Politics, found Clinton
with a substantial lead.

Meanwhile, the super PAC aligned with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley,
another candidate running in the Democratic primary, released an ad
Thursday, attacking Sanders on gun control.

“Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns,” the voice-over
said.

Sanders said McCaskill’s comments were a first for him.

“This is the first time I’ve had a colleague attack me,” Sanders said in an
interview with New Hampshire’s WADR radio station later on Thursday.
“You’ll have to ask Senator McCaskill why.”

*Bernie Sanders Calls For 65% Top Estate Tax Rate
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2015/06/25/bernie-sanders-calls-for-65-top-estate-tax-rate/>
// Forbes // Ashley Ebeling – June 25, 2015 *

U.S. Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called today for
lowering the amount individuals can shield from the federal estate tax, and
hiking estate tax rates across the board, as he introduced the Responsible
Estate Tax Act. “This is a piece of legislation that addresses what I
consider to be the most significant moral issue of our time,” he said at a
press conference in Washington, D.C., citing growing economic inequality.

“Inequality is a crisis that threatens our country,” echoed Rep. Jan
Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who is sponsoring a companion bill in the House of
Representatives.

Sen. Sanders’ supporters listening in on Periscope tweeted: “We are the
99%.” “Got to get this guy elected!” A few skeptics chimed in too: “Well,
it’s their money..why can’t they keep it?” “I understand the Walmart
family, but if I die with $2 million, am I taxed twice?”

The guy worth $2 million doesn’t have to worry. The Sanders bill, a rewrite
of a bill he introduced in 2010—the year the estate tax lapsed under the
Bush tax cuts — would exempt the first $3.5 million on an individual’s
estate from estate tax. (A married couple could shelter $7 million.) That’s
a huge drop from current law, a “permanent” $5 million exemption, indexed
for inflation, brokered effective Jan. 1, 2011. For 2015, the individual
exemption is $5.43 million ($10.86 million for a married couple). Still
just 3 out of every 1,000 people who die would be subject to estate tax
under the Sanders bill, compared to 2 out of 1,000 now. The higher the
exemption, the more people don’t pay estate tax.

For those who owe estate taxes, the tax rate is a flat 40% under current
law. Under Sen. Sanders’ legislation, the tax rate would be 45% for estates
valued between $3.5 million and $10 million. The rate on estates worth more
than $10 million and below $50 million would be 50%, and the rate on
estates worth more than $50 million would be 55%. An additional surtax of
another 10%–for a 65% rate—would be assessed on billionaires.

The legislation also would close estate tax loopholes used by the rich,
ending tax breaks for dynasty trusts, GRATs, and “sharply” limiting the
annual exclusion from the gift tax—now set at $14,000 (you can now give
$14,000 to as many individuals as you want each year without worrying about
federal estate or gift tax)–down to $10,000, further limited if given in
trust.

Estate tax foes beat Sen. Sanders with a bill to repeal the estate tax
earlier this year. In April, the House of Representatives voted to kill the
federal estate tax 240-179, with 7 Democrats joining. Anti-death tax
advocates say it sets the stage for possible repeal in 2017. The repeal
bill, H.R. 1105, was introduced by Kevin Brady (R-TX). Sen. John Thune
(R-SD) sponsored a companion bill, S. 860.

Meanwhile Republican Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) became the first declared
Presidential candidate of the 2016 election season to sign the Family
Business Coalition’s Death Tax Repeal Pledge: “I Hereby Pledge to Support
Repeal of the Federal Estate Tax.”

Note, there are still 19 states plus the District of Columbia that impose
their own state versions of death taxes (estate and/or inheritance taxes).
Vermont is one; it has an exemption of $2.75 million per person and has a
top 16% tax rate.

“So few have so much, so many have so little; there’s disenchantment,” Sen.
Sanders said. “People want change.”

*For first time, O'Malley-linked group goes after Sanders
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-2016/index.html>
// CNN // Dan Merica – June 25, 2015 *

A pro-Martin O'Malley super PAC knocked Bernie Sanders over guns in a short
video posted on Thursday, the first time a group associated with the former
Maryland governor attacked his foremost progressive opponent in the bid to
emerge as Hillary Clinton's main competition.

The ad by Generation Forward PAC, titled "Time for a Debate," may be tacit
acknowledgment by the O'Malley camp that the former Maryland governor's
poll numbers are stagnating while the senator's are rising.

After noting that Sanders voted against the Brady Bill and voted to give
gun manufacturers protections against lawsuits, the ad bluntly says,
"Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns."

At a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Sanders declined to
directly address the ad, stating instead that "if you look at my record,
you will find that we do have a strong record" on guns.

The latest chapter in the gun control debate was sparked after a white man
walked into a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last
week and killed nine African-Americans in a racially-motivated attack.

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. For much of his career, Sanders has followed the lead of his
Vermont constituents -- who mostly back gun rights for hunters -- by
keeping a generally states' rights view of gun laws.

But Sanders has voted to tighten gun laws in the past. He approved 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.

Last week, Sanders took a cautious approach when CNN questioned him about
his position on gun laws, stating that he thinks "we need to have a
conversation about" laws, but that rural and urban America need to
understand how each other feel before laws move forward.

After a follow-up question, Sanders shied away from the debate. "I will
talk about guns at some length, but not right now," he said, a comment that
contrasted with his usual blunt, brash and proudly liberal persona.

Unlike Sanders, O'Malley has consistently backed tighter gun control laws.
His team regularly claims that he passed the "most comprehensive gun
control law in the country" in 2013, a law that banned new assault weapons,
lowered magazine capacity, required fingerprints for firearm purchase and
increased regulations on gun dealers.

After the shooting in Charleston, O'Malley told his supporters via email
that he was "pissed" about the nation's unwillingness to pass gun control.

Recent polling has shown O'Malley is falling behind while Sanders is
surging. Both declared their presidential bids earlier this year, running
to be the liberal alternative to Clinton, the race's frontrunner.

A Fox News poll out Wednesday found that O'Malley gets 1% of national
Democratic support, compared to Sanders who enjoyed 15%. Clinton is way out
in front, however, with 61% support.

O'Malley is equally behind in early states, according to a Bloomberg
Politics poll. The former Maryland governor has 2% support, according to
the poll, in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders has 24% in both early
voting states.

*Pro-Martin O’Malley Super PAC Targets Bernie Sanders
<http://time.com/3936562/martin-omalley-bernie-sanders/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell – June 25, 2015 *

A super PAC supporting Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley
released a video Thursday attacking liberal rival Bernie Sanders’ gun
control record, marking the first critical advertisement of the 2016
primary for the Democratic nomination.

In the 15-second ad released on YouTube Thursday morning, the pro-O’Malley
super PAC Generation Forward points to Sanders’ 1993 vote against the Brady
Bill, which required background checks for gun purchases and his later vote
to protect gun manufacturers from victim lawsuits.

The ad also points out that the National Rifle Association paid for ads
attacking a Sanders opponent in a 1990 congressional race.

“Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns,” intones a voice
in the ad.

It’s a small, yet significant move in the Democratic primary race. Until
now, none of the candidates or their proxies have put forward ads attacking
their Democratic competitors’ records. O’Malley has implicitly criticized
Clinton, but generally refrained from direct attacks.

After the ad was posted on YouTube, Sanders tweeted a response from his
personal account.

A spokesperson for O’Malley’s campaign said the former governor was not
aware of the ad before it was released and that he doesn’t currently
fundraise for Generation Forward.

O’Malley’s super PAC is a scrappy operation without the fundraising
firepower of the pro-Hillary Clinton Priorities USA or Jeb Bush’s Right to
Rise operations. The governor’s long shot chance in winning the primary and
his anti-Wall Street rhetoric don’t help attract donors, and many donors
that do contribute to his nascent campaign will do so directly, not to
outside groups.

Damian O’Doherty, who runs Generation Forward, recognizes as much.

“We have to do the things that the Ewoks taught us in Return of the Jedi,”
said O’Doherty, referring to the furry, technologically backward animal
species that helps defeat the powerful Galactic Empire in the third Star
Wars movie. “If I think I’m running some slick TV effort—no way.”

Instead, O’Doherty says the strategy is to run a ground-based grassroots
operation in the early states and targeting voters through digital efforts.
Generation Forward is hiring staff and has already rented out office space
in Des Moines. “It’s knocking on doors,” he said. “It’s old-time and
online.”

Part of the strategy involves testing ad models on voters in Iowa to test
messaging, and finding areas in which O’Malley differs from Clinton and
Sanders.

“We’re going to constantly encourage debate, and that’s what this ad is
intended to do,” said O’Doherty about his group’s ad criticizing Sanders’
gun positions.

Sanders—a staunchly left progressive who supports single-payer healthcare
and sweeping tax reforms—has a moderate record on gun rights. While he
supports basic gun control including an assault weapons ban and background
checks, he has expressed skepticism about the effects of gun control.

“Obviously, we need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it,”
Sanders said in an interview with NPR. “But some people think it’s going to
solve all of our problems, and it’s not.”

O’Malley, by contrast, enacted as Maryland governor some of the toughest
gun laws in the country, banning high-capacity magazines and assault rifles
and tightening background checks.

*MARTIN O’MALLEY AD HITS NOT HILLARY CLINTON — BUT BERNIE SANDERS?*
<https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/25/martin-omalley-advertisement-hits-bernie-sanders-progressive/>*
// First Look // Lee Fang – June 25, 2015*

Let’s say you’re running underdog Democratic presidential candidate Martin
O’Malley’s Super PAC. What’s the first order of business?

Could it be: Convincing voters he has a shot? Trying to chip away at the
Hillary Clinton colossus?

Well, in the mixed-up world of presidential politics, where it’s sometimes
not entirely clear whether candidates are running for president or
jockeying for the vice presidential nod, O’Malley’s Super PAC on Thursday
released an ad slamming not Hillary Clinton — but fellow underdog Bernie
Sanders.

The ad, released by O’Malley’s Super PAC, Generation Forward, is one of the
first ads released on behalf of O’Malley’s campaign. It labels Sanders “no
progressive when it comes to guns.” The commercial flashes headlines from
online news articles calling Sanders a “gun nut.” In a message about the
anti-Sanders ad, the pro-O’Malley PAC explained on Facebook, “You can’t
claim to soak the fat boys and exempt the profiteers in the gun industry.”

As the Boston Globe recently reported, Sanders “has amassed a mixed record”
on gun issues, voting against the landmark Brady gun control bill but
voting in support of a ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the Sandy
Hook school shooting. As the Globe noted, activists have found that Sanders
has shown little interest in gun-related legislation.

Watch the commercial here.

The O’Malley attack on Bernie appeared online only shortly after Sen.
Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a close ally of the Hillary Clinton campaign,
appeared on MSNBC this morning to bash Sanders. “I very rarely read in any
coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist,” McCaskill said on MSNBC.

The Generation Forward Super PAC is led by two O’Malley supporters, Damian
O’Doherty and Ron Boehmer. Federal Communications Commission records reveal
that Generation Forward contracts with Fortune Media, a Democratic
ad-buying firm that has previously worked on behalf of Emily’s List.

During the 2008 presidential election, O’Malley co-chaired the
business-friendly Democratic Leadership Council, authoring an opinion
column with Harold Ford to persuade his party not to drift too far to the
left. He also served as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton’s campaign against
Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Though he kicked off his campaign with a pledge to take on Wall Street, the
Maryland politician rarely embraced economic populism during his time as
mayor of Baltimore or as governor.

The ad today left observers perplexed about what O’Malley is really trying
to accomplish.

Josh Kraushaar, politics editor at National Journal, noted that the new ad
today shows that O’Malley is “hitting Bernie Sanders more than Hillary
Clinton.”

*Bernie Sanders Gains on Hillary Clinton in Bloomberg Early-State Polling
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/bernie-sanders-gains-on-hillary-clinton-in-bloomberg-early-state-polling>
// Bloomberg News // John McCormick – June 25, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is gaining on Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire,
with an appeal as an issue-oriented protest vehicle potentially capable of
slowing any coronation of the popular front-runner.

In simultaneous surveys, the U.S. senator from Vermont received nearly a
quarter of support from likely Democratic caucus and primary voters in the
states that host the first presidential nomination balloting early next
year, cutting sharply into Clinton's still-huge lead.

The polls suggest substantive and symbolic support for the socialist, as
well as a craving among some Democrats for a Clinton rival to rise.

“I want to try to get him along as far as I can,” said Democratic poll
participant John Murphy, 74, a retired railroad worker in West Des Moines,
Iowa. “He’s going to bring up some issues that she may not want to talk
about.”

The surveys were commissioned to test sources of strength for Sanders, who
has seen audiences at his campaign events swell in recent weeks
<http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28353535/sanders-delivers-blistering-condemnation-business-billionaires?source=infinite>.
The polls were
conducted June 19-22 by West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co. in Iowa and
Washington-area Purple Strategies in New Hampshire, the latter done in
cooperation with Saint Anselm College. The margin of error on the full
samples—401 in Iowa, 400 in New Hampshire—is plus or minus 4.9 percentage
points.

In Iowa, Clinton leads Sanders 50 percent to 24 percent, and in New
Hampshire, 56 percent to 24 percent. That's a six- to eight-point increase
in his support since those
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-01/iowa-democrats-stick-with-hillary-clinton-in-bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-poll>
states
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-11/new-hampshire-poll-hillary-clinton-resilient-in-nation-s-first-primary>
were
polled by Bloomberg Politics and partners in May.

With nearly identical support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the polls suggest
Sanders' rise isn’t just because he enjoys New England neighbor-state
status. In both states, he gets higher marks than Clinton on authenticity
and willingness to take on Wall Street and financial elites.

Along the campaign trail, Sanders appears to be changing some minds: His
unfavorable rating in Iowa is just 4 percent, down 8 percentage points
since May. At the same time, 57 percent now view him positively, up 10
points from the last poll.

“You can make the case that a certain amount of Bernie Sanders’s support is
a protest vote, but there’s more to it than that,” said J. Ann Selzer,
president of Selzer & Co. “People like him. They like what he stands for.
They like showing up at his events and hearing him say things they believe
in.”

Clinton’s support has dropped by 7 points in Iowa and 6 points in New
Hampshire. Among likely Democratic voters, she's viewed favorably by 88
percent in Iowa and 86 percent in New Hampshire. That's up two points since
May in Iowa and unchanged in New Hampshire, and comparable to the
popularity of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Yet Sanders' team points to mounting evidence that the white-haired,
sometimes seemingly grumpy senator could offer voters an appealing
alternative to Clinton, a former U.S. secretary of state, senator, and
first lady viewed as the overwhelming Democratic nomination front-runner.

“It's tremendous progress that he is making with voters in the first two
states,” Tad Devine, Sanders' chief political strategist, said of the poll
findings. “It's something we felt on the ground.”

While Sanders is indeed enjoying something of a mini-surge in the two
states, the polls show he's almost certain to hit a ceiling eventually,
said Purple Strategies' Doug Usher.

“Clinton remains enormously well-known and well-liked in New Hampshire, a
state she won before,” Usher said. “She benefits from a gender gap in a
primary that will be disproportionately female, and even Sanders’ voters
admit Clinton is likely the nominee. As long as Democrats like both
candidates simultaneously, Sanders will have an uphill climb.”

The New Hampshire survey shows the race not as close there as a poll
released last week by Suffolk University
<http://www.suffolk.edu/news/60069.php#.VYqZABNVhBc>, which had Clinton at
41 percent and Sanders at 31 percent. Unlike the Bloomberg Politics/Saint
Anselm poll, the Suffolk survey didn’t start with a database of registered
voters, instead relying more on the self-reported likelihood of voting in
the primary. It also included Vice President Joe Biden, while this one
didn’t.

Clinton swamps Sanders on who can beat the Republican nominee in the
general election, foreign-policy experience, and knowing how to get things
done in Washington. The two find roughly equal support among likely
Democratic voters on who will fight for average people and who will care
for people like themselves. Depending on the state, Sanders has a 7- to
18-point edge on taking on Wall Street and a 12- to 17-point advantage on
authenticity.

“His priorities are right and he’s not going to just crumble under the
status quo,” said Anne Welch, 59, a caregiver who lives in Penacook, New
Hampshire. “He won’t compromise.”

Welch, who once lived in Vermont and met Sanders, said she supported
Clinton in 2008. “I kind of feel like I’m betraying my gender,” she said.

Clinton's team has worked to dampen expectations, noting
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-competitive/25722941/>
that
it's rare for a Democratic candidate who isn't an incumbent president to
win more than 50 percent in Iowa's caucuses. The goal is to try to avoid
having her seen as a wounded front-runner should she fail to dominate the
first contest. In 2008, she finished third in Iowa and her aura of
inevitability was badly damaged by an insurgent Barack Obama.

That sense of inevitability is strong again in Iowa and New Hampshire, with
four-fifths of likely Democratic voters in both states saying they think
Clinton is destined to be the nominee. Even among supporters of Sanders, 69
percent of those in Iowa say she'll be the party's eventual nominee.
Clinton’s own Iowa supporters are even more confident, with 93 percent
saying she'll be the standard-bearer. Her campaign declined to comment on
these polls.

Among independents likely to participate in the Iowa caucuses—about a fifth
of the probable electorate—Sanders leads Clinton, 35 percent to 29 percent.
In May, she led with that group by 19 points. (The margin of error is
higher in subgroups like these.)

Women in Iowa are much more likely to back Clinton than men are, 59 percent
to 39 percent. Among women, she leads Sanders 59 percent to 19 percent,
while it’s much narrower advantage among men, 39 percent to 30 percent.

While some Democrats and independents are welcoming Sanders to the race
with their support, it doesn't mean they're rejecting Clinton.

Almost nine in 10 who are supporting Sanders in New Hampshire, and 83
percent in Iowa, say they're backing him because of what he stands for.
Just 13 percent in Iowa and 9 percent in New Hampshire say their decision
is because they don't want Clinton to get the nomination, or because they
want to send her a message.

Matthew Cook, 27, who just completed a physics degree and lives in
Waterloo, Iowa, said Sanders has been “a really consistent politician,
which is hard to find.” He plans to vote for Sanders if for no reason other
than to push Clinton on the issues he cares most about, including gay
marriage, climate change, and fair trade.

“She needs to come out and firmly state where her opinions are,” he said.
“There can’t be any ambiguity.”

*Bernie Sanders Responds to Claire McCaskill Attack: This Is a First
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/bernie-sanders-responds-to-claire-mccaskill-attack-this-is-a-first>
// Bloomberg News // Arit John – June 25, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Thursday responded to
criticism from his Senate colleague, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, that he
is too liberal to credibly challenge Hillary Clinton.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a colleague has
attacked me,” said Sanders, a Vermont socialist who joined the presidential
race about two months ago, in an interview with Bloomberg Politics' Mark
Halperin and John Heilemann. “You'll have to ask Senator McCaskill why.”

McCaskill, who supported President Obama during the 2008 election, was
quick to back Clinton this cycle, and said on MSNBC's Morning Joe Thursday
that Sanders “is too liberal to gather enough votes in this country to
become president.” Her comments came on the heels of Bloomberg Politics
polling in Iowa and New Hampshire that showed Sanders gaining ground on
Clinton, though the former secretary of state still holds a formidable lead.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a colleague has
attacked me.”

Senator Bernie Sanders

“Do I believe, in opposition to Senator McCaskill, that we need trade
policies that are fair to the American worker, and not just benefit CEOs
and large corporations?” Sanders said. “I plead guilty.”

Sanders said he “absolutely” believes in a single-payer health care system
and opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

McCaskill said the media has given Sanders a pass, especially when it comes
to pointing out his political leanings.

“I find it surprising that she says that the media doesn't refer to me as a
socialist,” Sanders said. “There's no article that I've seen that doesn't
refer to me as a democratic socialist. I am.”

Sanders often laments negative advertising and character attacks in modern
politics. A super-PAC supporting another Democratic presidential candidate,
former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, unveiled Web advertising in Iowa
on Thursday going after Sanders on gun issues. The candidate tweeted
Thursday afternoon:

*Sanders In 1985: Sandinista Leader “Impressive,” Castro “Totally
Transformed” Cuba*
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally#.dk9JL2XYl>*
// Buzzfeed // Megan Apper – June 25, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont who is now challenging
Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination, praised the Castro
regime and Nicaragua’s Sandinista government upon returning from a trip to
South America in 1985.

In an interview that aired on Channel 17/Town Meeting Television, Sanders
called Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, “an impressive guy,” and said
that while Fidel Castro wasn’t “perfect,” Americans shouldn’t forget that
“just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people, doesn’t mean that people
in their own nations feel the same way.”

According to his book, Outsider in the House, Sanders traveled to Nicaragua
on the invitation of the Sandinista government, to witness the celebration
of the “Seventh Anniversary of the Revolution.” By his own account, he was
the “highest ranking American official present” at the event.

Upon his return, Sanders said that he was “impressed” with the
“intelligence and sincerity” of Sandinista leaders, arguing that they were
not the “political hacks” some had portrayed them to be.

“You do not fight, and lose your family, and get tortured, to go to jail
for years to be a hack,” said Sanders, adding that the Sandinistas had
“very deep convictions.”

Sanders also said he was “impressed” by Father d’Escoto — at the time,
Nicaragua’s Minister of Foreign Affairs — who he described as “very gentle”
and a “loving man.”

Acknowledging that his favorable assessment of the Sandinistas could lead
to his being “attacked by every editorial writer in the free press for
being a ‘dumb dupe,’” Sanders countered that such a reaction was due in
part to the fact that the Reagan White House had “trained and well paid
people who are professional manipulators of the media,” and who possessed a
“sophistication” that Ortega and the Sandinistas lacked.

The Sandinistas, Sanders explained, had to “improve their ability to
communicate with the average American.”

Sanders also commented on Fidel Castro, pointing to the lack of resistance
to Castro as proof that Americans would be “very, very mistaken” to expect
a popular uprising against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

“In 1959 […] everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy
in the world and all of the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion
against Fidel Castro,” said Sanders. “They forgot that he educated their
kids, gave their kids healthcare, totally transformed the society.”

“So they expected this tremendous uprising in Cuba,” Sanders continued, but
“it never came. And if they are expecting a tremendous uprising in
Nicaragua, they are very, very, very mistaken.”

Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest “that Fidel Castro and
Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not.”

But “just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people,” he argued, “doesn’t
mean that people in their own nations feel the same way.”

in the coming days, the former secretary of state is not scheduled to
appear.

*Sanders: My Views Resonating With Women as Campaign Keeps Rising
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/sanders-my-views-resonating-with-women-as-campaign-keeps-rising>
// Bloomberg News // Alexa Papadopoulos – June 25, 2015 *

“I think people who think we have reached our ceiling are making a
mistake,” Sen. Bernie Sanders says in interview to air on Bloomberg
Television’s “With All Due Respect.”

Sanders says his proposals aimed at women, working families will boost his
bid, increasing competitiveness with Democratic presidential frontrunner
Hillary Clinton

“We are about to unveil a childcare proposal for universal Pre-K, which I
think will make working families all around the country extremely excited”

Sanders, an independent from Vt. seeking the Democratic nomination, says
plan includes paid vacation time, paid sick live.

Sanders says views on taxes, boosting public infrastructure spending,
raising minimum wage, equal pay for women, making public college tuition
free also will resonate with voters

Says wants to be a part of a “political revolution” to make changes in
Washington with millions of American at his side.

*This new anti–Bernie Sanders video shows Martin O'Malley is getting
desperate
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8846911/bernie-sanders-guns-omalley> // VOX
// Andrew Prokap – June 25, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton remains in a dominant position in the Democratic
presidential primary, but it's looking increasingly like Bernie Sanders is
emerging as her main challenger — which means that Martin O'Malley isn't.
Indeed, the former Maryland governor is barely topping 1 percent of the
vote in national and early state polls.

As a result, the people behind the main pro-O'Malley Super PAC , Generation
Forward, seem to be getting restless — so they've released a new web video
attacking Sanders's record on guns, along with one praising O'Malley's.

But just hours later, Sanders gave what looked like an indirect response to
the new video, on Twitter:

It's a rather remarkable testament to Sanders's success so far that what
may be the first explicit attack video of the Democratic contest targets
him — it makes it even clearer that Sanders has emerged as the clear
second-place contender (though he's still well behind Hillary Clinton).

It is accurate that Sanders is pretty far from being a staunch liberal on
the gun issue — likely reflecting the views of his rural Vermont
constituents. However, in 2013, Sanders voted for the Democrats'
post-Newtown gun control bill, which didn't become law, but would have
expanded background checks and restored the assault weapons ban. He said
then that there was "a growing consensus" that "we have got to do as much
as we can to end the cold-blooded mass murders of innocent people."

Overall, though, the bigger problem for O'Malley is that activists on the
left are excited about Sanders's candidacy in a way they just aren't about
his own. And it doesn't seem likely that attack ads will solve that problem
for him.

*Bernie Sanders joins push for DC statehood
<http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/246170-bernie-sanders-joins-push-for-dc-statehood>
// The Hill // Tim Devaney – June 25, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and a group of more than a
dozen senators are calling for Washington, D.C., to become the 51st state
in the nation.

In their proposal, the federal government would still maintain control over
portions of the nation’s capital that surround the White House, Congress,
Supreme Court and National Mall.

The rest of the nation’s capital would be renamed New Columbia and given
full representation in Congress under the legislation introduced by Sen.
Tom Carper (D-Del.).

Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.), one of 16 co-sponsors of the New Columbia Admission
Act, said it is "morally wrong" to block District residents from federal
representation.

“Washington D.C. is currently home to more people than the state of
Vermont, yet its residents lack voting representation in Congress," Sanders
told The Hill in a statement. "I think it is morally wrong for American
citizens who pay federal taxes, fight in our wars, and live in our country
to be denied the basic right to full congressional representation.”

The sentiment was echoed by Carper.

“The District of Columbia is not just a collection of government offices,
monuments and museums,” Carper said in a statement. "It is home to more
than 600,000 people who build lives, families, and careers here. These
Americans serve in our military, die defending our country, serve on our
juries, and pay federal taxes. Yet, despite their civic contributions, they
are not afforded a vote in either chamber of Congress."

*UNDECLARED*

*WEBB*

*Jim Webb Criticized for Comments on Confederate Flag
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 25, 2015 *

Former Senator Jim Webb, the Democrat from Virginia, has struggled to
generate much excitement over his potential presidential campaign, but on
Wednesday he managed to attract some attention with some curious comments
about the Confederate battle flag.

In a statement on Facebook, Mr. Webb said that any discussion of the flag
needed to be tempered with respect for the “complicated history of the
Civil War.”

He went on to explain that while the flag had been used as a symbol of
racism in recent decades, that was not always the case.

“We should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in
the Civil War, including slave holders in the Union Army from states such
as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many nonslave
holders fought for the South,” Mr. Webb wrote.

The Confederate flag has been denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike
in the last week since the killing of nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C.
Mr. Webb’s sentiment was rebutted by even his most loyal backers on
Wednesday.

“As one of your most enthusiastic supporters, I have to disagree with you
on this issue,” David Dickerson wrote in a comment on Mr. Webb’s post. “As
a fellow Southerner, I prefer to take Robert E. Lee’s path and disassociate
from that flag and what it stands for.”

Others, such as Jordan Genso, expressed disappointment.

“I don’t need to agree with you on every issue in order to support you, but
this should be low-hanging fruit for you to be on the right side of,” Mr.
Genso wrote. “And there’s no reason not to state that the Confederate
battle flag represents a quasi-nation whose short existence was spent
trying to fight for an immoral cause.”

Mr. Webb has a history of defending the confederacy. In a 1990 speech at
the Confederate Memorial in Arlington, Va., he said, “I am not here to
apologize for why they fought, although modern historians might contemplate
that there truly were different perceptions in the North and South about
those reasons, and that most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to
be sovereignty rather than slavery.”

In 2008, Politico reported that Mr. Webb’s book “Born Fighting” seemed to
sympathize with the Confederate cause, potentially giving pause to then
Senator Barack Obama as he was vetting potential running mates. In Mr.
Webb’s book, Born Fighting, he wrote about acquiring a Confederate
headstone through the Veterans Administration for a great-great-grandfather.

A Vietnam War veteran who has been considered a potential presidential
candidate over the years, Mr. Webb announced last year that he was forming
a presidential exploratory committee. This year, he said the Democratic
Party could do a better job appealing to white working-class voters.

On Wednesday, Mr. Webb recalled that the Confederate Memorial at Arlington
National Cemetery was meant to recognize the character of soldiers who
fought on both sides of the Civil War.

“This is a time for us to come together,” he said, “and to recognize once
more that our complex multicultural society is founded on the principle of
mutual respect.”

*Bernie Sanders Attacked For Not Being Liberal Enough
<https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bernie-sanders-attacked-not-being-liberal-enough_978291.html>
// The Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – June 25, 2015 *

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is being attacked in a new ad for not being
liberal enough on guns.

"Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns," says a voiceover
in the 15-second spot, which criticizes the socialist senator's votes
against two gun-control bills. The ad also notes the National Rifle
Association's support for Sanders. Watch the video below:

The sponsor of the ad is Generation Forward, a super PAC supporting former
Maryland governor Martin O'Malley. O'Malley is challenging Sanders for the
Democratic nomination for president.

Sanders has been closing the gap with the leading Democratic candidate,
Hillary Clinton, in polls of voters in the early primary states of Iowa and
New Hampshire. O'Malley, meanwhile, has been stuck in the single digits in
most polls.

*OTHER*

*Terry McAuliffe's other job
<file:///\\localhost\Read%20more\%20http\::www.politico.com:story:2015:06:terry-mcauliffes-other-job-119458.html#ixzz3eA6zImz1>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – June 26, 2015*

The Virginia governor doesn’t have any official responsibilities for
Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But he’s carving out a significant
behind-the-scenes role.

Terry McAuliffe tells political associates that he’s focused on his day job
as Virginia governor, so he won’t have any formal responsibilities in his
friend Hillary’s campaign.

But the Clinton loyalist, fundraiser and 2008 campaign chairman is already
shaping a significant role for himself — and it will be front and center
Friday evening when he introduces Hillary Clinton at the Virginia
Democrats’ fundraising event in Fairfax.

It’s the most public sign yet that McAuliffe, a former Democratic National
Committee chairman and a consummate political animal, just can’t keep his
fingers away from the flame. Despite the daily demands of running the state
he was elected to lead in 2013, he’s emerging as Hillary’s informal liaison
to governors and the party’s biggest donors, while also keeping a finger on
the pulse of the camp’s central operations in Brooklyn.

It’s a different vantage point than he’s accustomed to. As Clinton pursues
the White House for a second time, McAuliffe is in the cosseted confines of
Virginia’s governor’s mansion, obliged to watch the action unfold from
Richmond, far from the New York and Washington nerve centers where he
operated in 2008.

McAuliffe insists to friends that the best thing he can do for the Clinton
campaign is build Virginia’s state Democratic infrastructure ahead of its
2015 state senate elections, thereby strengthening Democrats’ position in a
state that Barack Obama won twice. But, according to people close to him
and the Clinton fundraising operation, he’s also likely to start calling
donors on behalf of the pro-Clinton super PAC and has taken on the role of
reaching out to other Democratic governors to lock down their political
cooperation.

“He’s going to be all-in, it’s just a question of how public-facing it’s
going to be,” explained one Clinton ’08 alum who worked closely with
McAuliffe.

As the 2008 Clinton campaign’s top official, McAuliffe played a highly
visible role that frequently involved putting a positive spin on an
operation that had no shortage of internal troubles. His allies in both
Richmond and Brooklyn — more than half a dozen of his former staffers,
including campaign manager Robby Mook, now work for Clinton — are relieved
that he won’t cut such a high-profile this time, and has no plan to show up
on Sunday shows every week. They recognize that McAuliffe is a
less-than-ideal spokesman for Clinton at the moment, in part because he
can’t afford the perception that his attention is wandering from his
responsibilities as governor but also because his ebullient money-chasing
and insider credentials could prove problematic for her.

In public, McAuliffe is all-Virginia-all-the-time — including when he
represented the pro-Clinton perspective at April’s South Carolina
Democratic Party convention and on Meet The Press that month — but he
remains in close contact with the now-Brooklyn-based Mook, who manages
Clinton’s operation.

The posture is the result of a long consideration of McAuliffe’s role
before the campaign began as he weighed how to maximize his political
usefulness. He is a close friend of both Clintons — he guaranteed the
mortgage on their first post-White House home and chaired presidential
campaigns for both of them.

The conclusion was that Hillary would need strong and well-oiled Democratic
machinery in Virginia come November 2016, and that it made little sense to
divert his attention from Richmond with state senate races and a
redistricting battle looming — especially with swirling rumors in Virginia
that McAuliffe has said he’d like to be Treasury secretary in a Clinton
administration after leaving his current office.

“He’s focused on his day job. He’s focused on governing,” said Mo
Elleithee, a veteran of national and Virginia Democratic politics who
worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign and who now directs Georgetown’s
Institute of Politics and Public Service. “He’s made it pretty clear that
he’s a supporter of hers, but that he’s focused on his day job.”

McAuliffe’s gubernatorial office didn’t respond to multiple requests for
comment for this story.

The governor’s attempt to build a more durable political infrastructure in
Virginia — where Democrats in 2015 have a coordinated campaign committee
for the first time ever in a year without a statewide election — is a
response to longstanding worries of both Bill and Hillary Clinton that
crucial swing states have weak Democratic infrastructures.

Before deciding to run again, Hillary asked about the state of Democratic
leadership in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania and since she’s been a
candidate Mook has been on a swing-state tour: he met with operatives in
Cleveland earlier this month, and he is due to raise money in Florida next
week.

In Virginia, where state parties are known for being exceptionally
dependent on sitting governors, a tight alliance with Richmond has proven
useful to presidential candidates, including both George W. Bush, who was
friendly with Jim Gilmore in 2000, and Obama, who was close with Tim Kaine
in 2008.

“It’s a huge difference having an incumbent governor, because your state
party organization is stronger, it’s better funded,” explained former
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a close Clinton ally. “It makes a huge
difference.”

McAuliffe has also looked beyond his own borders and reached out to
Democratic governors in pivotal states to discuss how to utilize their own
political infrastructures — among them, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Hillary Clinton has told campaign donors and fundraisers that she is
closely monitoring state-level leadership in a handful of toss-up states,
according to two of them.

McAuliffe is also likely to jump back into the world of presidential
fundraising before long. Alums of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s three
presidential campaigns recall McAuliffe making hundreds of donor calls when
he was formally employed by them — and in some cases, jumping on multiple
flights to reach as many as five cities in a single day to rake in campaign
cash. While no one expects the governor to reprise this role in 2016, he
will likely hand his own donor list to the Clinton camp and be called in to
woo a handful of billionaires, according to multiple people briefed on the
campaign and PAC fundraising strategies.

“My guess is they’ll give Terry 20-to-25 calls for Priorities, to the big
hitters he has a relationship with,” explained Rendell. “He’ll be asked,
like I’ve been asked, to help out with $2,700 or $5,400 campaigns. But you
can’t expect a sitting governor to sit around making too many phone calls.”

Still, a handful of Clinton fundraisers told POLITICO they doubted
McAuliffe could restrain himself from jumping into the campaign money game
wholeheartedly when he finds the time.

“He was just a machine [in 2008],” said a former Hillary aide. “To the
extent that this job enables him time-wise to do it, he’ll do whatever he
can. There’s no doubt he’ll be super-duper intensely invested in this. … I
have no doubt he’s going to be raising a shit-ton of money for them.”

“On the fundraising side, you’ll see the [expletive] crazy machine he was,”
the former aide said.

The topic of his affection for the Clintons — and their affection for him —
is never far from any Macker discussion, even if he is concentrating on
this fall’s Virginia’s state senate races.

“He occupies his own territory. He is a Clinton. He’s like Chelsea,” said a
close family ally. “He doesn’t need a title or a place in the campaign.”

Rendell explains Hillary Clinton’s Friday visit to Virginia this way.

“They are extremely loyal people who are loyal to people who are loyal to
them. I’m not sure Hillary gets much out of the [Virginia fundraiser]
except maybe a little help for next fall,” he said. “She’s doing this as a
favor to Terry.”

*Democratic civil war ends, for now, as House approves final trade measures
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-civil-war-ends-for-now-as-house-approves-final-trade-measures/2015/06/25/17d0e3b8-1ac5-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html>
// WaPo // Paul Kane – June 25, 2015 *

The sweeping bipartisan House vote Thursday to approve the final pieces of
President Obama’s trade agenda ended, for now, a feud that left Democratic
leaders shaken and fearful of long-term damage should the dispute reignite.

The divide pitted Democrats who supported Obama’s trade policies against
those backed by labor unions and liberal activists whose tactics included
politically threatening the president’s allies. But the debate also exposed
a key difference between the Democratic presidential front-runner, Hillary
Rodham Clinton, and her rivals, particularly Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.),
who repeatedly criticized the former secretary of state’s reluctance to
take a strong position on a trade deal that she once predicted would be the
“gold standard” for such pacts.

The family fight began two months ago when Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.), considered a rising star among liberal activists, fired salvos
at each other. It continued this week as members of the Congressional Black
Caucus questioned Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s tone ahead of Thursday’s
key vote on the measure, which passed on a 286-to-138 roll call that masked
the tension in the Democratic caucus.

Party leaders are now just happy to try to regroup and find another issue
to focus on.

“Oh, relieved. You know, we hate to see our ranks split, particularly on a
very emotional issue, where our own people are split and so are those who
support us,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democratic
leader, who rebuffed pleas from Obama for support. “So the quicker we can
move to something where we’re back together again, the better.”

Beyond those deep concerns in the trade fight was the fear that the party
still has not pivoted toward an economic agenda that appeals to
middle-class voters after last fall’s rout in the midterm elections.

“Our party needs a better agenda than trying to kill trade deals. Even if
we had succeeded, it’s no substitute for an agenda,” said Rep. Peter Welch
(D-Vt.), a liberal who opposed the trade legislation. “Let’s oppose fast
track, but let’s not pretend that’s an agenda.”

Some Democrats stressed that on a wide array of economic issues, including
the minimum wage as well as a revamped tax code in which the wealthy pay
more, there is unity. Even so, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the ranking Democrat
on the Finance Committee who helped negotiate the trade package, said the
past two months laid bare the chasm over Obama’s push to win a 12-nation
trade deal across the Pacific Ocean.

“The trade issue is, for many Democrats, the most difficult economic
issue,” Wyden said.

The matter is likely to return to Congress later this year or early next
year, if Obama is able to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the
pending trade deal that represents about 40 percent of the global economy.
The legislation approved this week sets the framework for how Congress
would handle TPP, giving timelines for the House and the Senate and
requiring simple up-or-down votes without amendments.

“It’s not over. It’s not over,” said Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.), who led
the Democratic rebellion that temporarily froze Obama’s agenda. “So we
fight on.”

After five years of watching Republicans wage their internecine battles
with tea party activists, Democrats said they devolved into their own
version of that dispute this spring. Liberals and labor unions allege that
trade deals have disproportionately benefited corporations at the expense
of domestic workers, while Obama said it was a progressive trade deal that
would allow the United States to set the rules for commerce in a pivotal
part of the world.

The pitched battle included personal attacks that were reminiscent of
Republican fights, right down to outside groups threatening primary
challenges to Democrats if they didn’t oppose Obama.

“What we watched on this effort was an arrogance. We were shut out. Quite
frankly, disrespectful, of members and their input,” DeLauro said of Obama
and his advisers. At a news conference DeLauro arranged outside the Capitol
in early June, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said Obama shared “the same
values but not the same lifestyle” as House Democrats because he lived “in
a cloister” where only chief executives got to visit.

In early May, Obama and Warren set the tone. He repeatedly singled out the
senator’s critique of the trade bills, at one point calling her “a
politician like everybody else.” She returned fire by accusing him of
trying to “grease the skids” on a “secret” trade deal that benefited only
corporations.

After a few unsteady moments in May, the Senate finally secured 62 votes —
48 Republicans and 14 Democrats — and sent the bill to the House, where
Pelosi (D-Calif.) was visibly uncomfortable in trying to navigate the fight
between Obama and some of her closest friends in the House.

Two weeks ago, after Obama made a plea for their support in the Capitol, a
raucous group of House Democrats led cheers to take down that day’s vote by
opposing funding for a worker program that they otherwise support. Pelosi
joined the revolt at the last minute, as the trade initiative stalled
because both portions needed to win a majority in separate votes for the
entire package to advance.

In the ensuing days, Clinton was dragged into the debate while campaigning
in Iowa. She sounded as though she was supporting Pelosi, but on the actual
vote at hand, she declined to take a position, and Sanders pounced.

How did Clinton comport herself? “Not well,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur
(D-Ohio), a fierce opponent of trade. Kaptur attended a Monday meeting of
northern Ohio party activists. “I was never asked about her once,” she said
of Clinton. “You know who people asked me about? Bernie Sanders.”

By last week, Obama was working closely with Republican leaders to pass the
bills separately.

The final act was Thursday’s House vote on the revamped package that
included the worker training funds and the popular African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA), which promotes African trade.

At a Wednesday morning meeting of House Democrats, Pelosi’s position again
was unclear to lawmakers, according to five Democrats in attendance. At one
point, she suggested that members might vote yes because AGOA was critical
to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

Reps. Charles B. Rangel and Gregory W. Meeks, both New York Democrats and
senior CBC members, challenged Pelosi, telling her that it was an issue
that all Democrats should support.

“It was sounding as though we should only pass [the worker program] because
it was connected to AGOA and out of deference to the CBC,” Meeks said.

After the meeting, Pelosi said she would support the plan, ending any
suspense over the final votes of the two-month war among Democrats on trade.

At her weekly news conference, she acknowledged that it would be good to
focus on some other issues but warned that once Obama brings the Pacific
trade deal to Congress, the fight will resume.

“We welcome that opportunity with lowered heat to go forward with it,” she
said, “but with increased intensity and scrutiny and bright light shining
on what is in this TPP.”

*Democratic Field Champions Health Care as Human Right
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/25/democratic_field_champions_health_care_as_human_right_127121.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Andrew Desiderio – June 25, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidates praised Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling
preserving a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, which they say
vindicates President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The White
House hopefuls also made clear a political goal if elected president in
2016 – providing universal coverage – and how they would sell it to
Americans – by portraying it as a human right.

In King v. Burwell, the second major legal challenge to the law, the
justices ruled 6-3 to authorize tax subsidies intended to help low-income
and middle-class Americans afford health insurance, regardless of whether
their coverage is obtained through a state exchange or a federal one.
Conservative justices John Roberts – who wrote the majority opinion – and
Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberals on the bench in upholding the
subsidies.

“Yes!” Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton tweeted after the ruling was
handed down. “SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under the
law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all.”

Clinton’s reaction was emblematic of a larger political goal for Democrats:
to expand health care coverage to every American. In anticipation of
another monumental Supreme Court ruling expected soon on gay marriage,
Clinton’s campaign released a video in which she describes same-sex
marriage as a human right. Clinton and her fellow Democrats sounded a
familiar tune Thursday, arguing that health care also qualifies as a human
right.

While acknowledging the law is not perfect, the former secretary of state
and architect of the failed “HillaryCare” initiative during her husband’s
presidency attacked congressional Republicans for their efforts to undo the
Affordable Care Act. She repeated commonly cited accolades for the law,
including the ability to stay on one’s parents’ insurance plans until age
26, and the guarantee that coverage can’t be denied to those with
pre-existing conditions.

“Republicans should stop trying to tear down the law and start working
across party lines to build on these successes,” Clinton said in a
statement.

Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who lags far behind Clinton
in national polls, reacted with a similar message promoting universal
health care. “Now that this ideological attempt to stop #ACA failed, we
must redouble our efforts to bring health care to every person in this
nation,” he tweeted.

“With the national goal of universal coverage now affirmed, we must reduce
costs by improving wellness,” O’Malley continued in a statement.
“Innovations for better coordinated care, personalized medicine, and the
alignment of profit incentives to promote wellness make all of this
possible.”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist, said
the court acted within its power to guarantee health care subsidies to
Americans regardless of where they live. “It would have been an outrage to
throw 6.4 million people off health insurance,” he said in a statement.

Sanders called health care a “right of citizenship,” adding that his
overall goal is to establish a “Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.”

Lincoln Chafee, the former Rhode Island governor who has largely been
running a single-issue campaign based on the Iraq War, lauded the court’s
ruling and touted his state’s ACA rollout as “one of the nation’s best.”

Chafee, a former Republican, did not call for universal coverage or depict
health care as a human right, instead saying, “More insurance means more
healthy Americans.”

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden after the ruling was handed down, a
relieved but unsurprised President Obama echoed Clinton, O’Malley, and
Sanders, proclaiming, “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

If a Democrat is elected to succeed Obama, it might simply be a foundation
for more reforms.

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*BUSH*

*Jeb swipes at Obama over Iran deal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jeb-bush-barack-obama-iran-nuclear-deal-119427.html>
// Politico // Adam Lerner – June 25, 2015 *

Jeb Bush renewed his attack on President Barack Obama’s negotiations with
Iran Thursday, citing a recent letter from five former White House advisers
cautioning against the emerging deal.

“Even former top Obama officials think emerging deal will ‘not prevent Iran
from having a nuclear weapons capability’,” the former Florida governor
tweeted Thursday, including a link to a New York Times article about the
letter.

On Wednesday, 18 foreign policy experts published a letter on the website
of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy saying “most of us would
have preferred a stronger agreement,” since the emerging deal “will not
prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons capability.”

The letter outlined five additions to the agreement that would be necessary
“to maximize [the deal’s] potential,” including additional inspection
powers, slowed sanctions relief and harsher limits on advanced centrifuges.

Also included were recommendations for further measures the U.S. can take
in the region to bolster the security of our allies and prevent Iranian
hegemony.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus, former Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.),
former Obama adviser Dennis Ross, and former State Department arms
proliferation expert Robert Einhorn, in addition to a number of Bush
administration alums, all signed the letter. Gary Samore, a former top
adviser to Obama on nuclear issues, was also a signatory.

The deadline for a final agreement is set for June 30, though an outline of
the emerging agreement was released by the State Department at the
beginning of April. The deadline could also slip.

*Jeb Bush cast as 'villain' in GOP fight for recognition
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/jeb-bush-attacks-republicans/> //
CNN // Ashley Killough – June 25, 2015 *

Bobby Jindal took some veiled swipes at his Republican presidential rivals
Wednesday night, but in a rare move for an announcement speech, the
Louisiana governor singled out one opponent by name: Jeb Bush.

"You've heard Jeb Bush say we need to be willing to lose the primary in
order to win the general election. We're going to help him do that," he
said, referring to a statement Bush made last year.

"Let me translate that political speak into plain English," Jindal
continued. "What Jeb Bush is saying is that we need to hide our
conservative ideas, but the truth is if we go down that road again, we will
lose again."

Jindal's jab adds to the list of punches thrown at Bush from Republican
candidates in recent weeks, a trend that's growing in intensity and
frequency as the GOP field becomes more crowded.

As someone who's consistently stayed in the top tier of national polls,
Bush is a natural target for lower-tier candidates in need of more
publicity and name recognition, Republican strategists say. For Jindal, the
strategy worked and generated a lot of headlines.

"When you're a candidate out the gate and not that many people know you and
you're trying to craft a narrative of your campaign, you need a hero --
which is the candidate -- and a villain, which in this case was Bush," said
Republican strategist Ford O'Connell.

Bush hasn't always been a villain for Jindal, though. In Jindal's first
term nearly eight years ago, the governor started a monthly speaker series
for his Cabinet secretaries and staff and invited Bush to be the first
guest speaker, The Associated Press reported.

But the two have been on a collision course ever since Jindal became one of
the most vocal governors against Common Core, despite first supporting it,
while Bush has been a strong advocate of the standards.

Others have also piled onto the former Florida governor recently. Like
Jindal, Donald Trump named Bush in his kickoff last week, attacking the
former governor repeatedly, as well as other candidates by name. He later
regretted being hard on Bush, only to attack him again a few days later.

A pro-Rand Paul super PAC released a web video earlier this week of a
faux-infomercial selling "Bailout Bush" dolls, a satire on Bush expressing
support for the 2009 financial services bailout and on his ties to Wall
Street. (Bush in 2012 said the the bailout "right thing to do" in the short
term but did not approve of what he called "massive" regulations that
ensued.)

Matt Mackowiak, another GOP strategist, argued that attacking someone who's
considered to be the overall frontrunner is a well-worn strategy, and he
expects to see Bush continue to take more hits in the coming months as the
contest becomes more competitive.

"Any shot you take, you always swing up, you never swing down," Mackowiak
said.

Along with boosting a candidate's own publicity, attacking someone like
Bush also lends credibility to those who want to be perceived as
anti-establishment insurgents willing to buck the party line.

"If you want to be an outsider or be an underdog, the Bushes are as
establishment as you can get," Mackowiak argued.

Other candidates have long been delivering more subtle blows. Ohio Gov.
John Kasich essentially argued earlier this month that he may run for
president because Bush is underperforming. "Frankly, I thought that Jeb was
going to just suck all the air out of the room and it just hasn't
happened," he said, though stressed that he was just being "honest" and
wasn't trying to attack Bush.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker regularly notes that he didn't come from "fame
or fortune," while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio earlier this month blasted
"outdated leaders," a reference that was designed to draw a contrast with
older, more established candidates like Hillary Clinton or Bush.

In his announcement speech, Bush seemed to acknowledge concerns that he's
often viewed as a frontrunner simply because of his connections and tried
to set the scene for a competitive primary season.

"Not a one of us deserves the job by right of resume, party, seniority,
family, or family narrative," he said. "It's nobody's turn. It's
everybody's test, and it's wide open -- exactly as a contest for president
should be."

Allie Brandenburger, a spokeswoman for Bush, said people around the country
are now getting to know the governor and his record, arguing that "the more
they know, the more they want to see his leadership in the White House."

Bush has largely resisted responding to the attacks directly, trying to
maintain his stated goal of being a "joyful" candidate instead. But he also
knows he has to prove to voters that he has enough fire in the belly.

"You got to pop 'em," he said last month in New Hampshire, slamming his
fist into his hand. He was responding to a question from a voter who asked
Bush to explain how he'll defend himself in the brutal process of a
presidential campaign. "You got to push back, and then get back to the
message that matters."

*Florida Voter Purge Fiasco May Complicate Jeb Bush's Appeal To Minorities
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/25/jeb-bush-florida-voter-purge_n_7656764.html>
// HuffPo // Scott Conroy – June 25, 2015 *

Something was noticeably different about the crowd packed inside a
gymnasium at Miami Dade College’s Kendall campus last week to welcome Jeb
Bush into the ranks of the announced 2016 Republican presidential
candidates.

In a vivid departure from the nearly all-white audiences that typically
turn out to greet GOP White House contenders, Bush’s racially and
ethnically diverse supporters mirrored the demographics of this
multicultural city.

The scene was meant to emphasize a core Bush strength, if not send a
message to fellow Republicans, that an inclusive and aspirational brand of
politics offers the GOP an opportunity to re-engage with minority voters,
including African-Americans, who long ago abandoned the party of Lincoln en
masse.

Even some Democratic operatives acknowledge privately that Bush -- a fluent
Spanish speaker with a Mexican-born wife -- has a biography and demeanor
that could chip away at the coalition that twice propelled Barack Obama to
the White House.

Bush’s critics in Florida, however, scoff.

As the 2016 campaign heats up, an episode from his tenure as Florida
governor reveals why Bush's image as a “uniter, not a divider,” as his
older brother used to put it, may not stand up. The state's deeply flawed
purge of felons from its voting rolls in advance of the 2000 presidential
election remains a scar that still has not healed for many in the state.

“I’ll never the forget people that came up to me and said, ‘You let them
steal our votes,’” Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), who became state's first
African-American elected to Congress since Reconstruction when she won her
seat in 1992, told The Huffington Post. “So many people were just wiped off
the rolls -- people who’d been voting for years and years. You had the
obligation to prove that you weren’t a felon.”

The felon purge wrongfully denied thousands of legitimate voters the
ability to participate in a presidential election pitting Republican George
W. Bush against Democrat Al Gore. Ultimately, a few hundred Florida ballots
would determine the presidency, and with it, the nation’s path for the next
eight years and, really, well beyond.

Though it received little notice outside of Florida in the election’s
immediate aftermath, as hanging chads and butterfly ballots took center
stage during the recount, the purge remains for many the most egregious
example of voter disenfranchisement that took place during the 2000
presidential election, which was ultimately decided by a Supreme Court
ruling.

“The purge was right out of one of these playbooks in how you diminish
minority turnout -- there was absolutely no justification for it,” said Dan
Gelber, a former Democratic state legislator and a longtime Bush nemesis.
“It was almost a purposeful crashing of a car. They knew it was
irresponsible and about something incredibly important, and they went
forward knowing that the only mistakes were going to benefit them.”

Florida has banned convicted felons from participating in elections since
1868. But it wasn’t until 1998 -- the year before Bush took office -- that
state legislators passed a law intended to clean up the voter rolls after a
Miami mayoral election was overturned amid widespread cases of absentee
ballot fraud.

The secretary of state’s office subsequently awarded Database Technologies
Inc., or DBT, a $4 million contract to carry out the effort to ensure that
felons, deceased voters, and non-residents would be blocked from
participating in the 2000 election.

It would not be an easy task.

Since Florida did not track its voters by Social Security number, the
company was instructed to engage in a subjective process that attempted to
match felon names and dates of birth with voter records, allowing for “
near matches” that were close, but not exact.

After Jeb Bush took office in 1999, this process continued. In the months
leading up to the 2000 presidential election, local election supervisors
began receiving lists from state officials of people DBT had identified as
convicted felons and thus needed to be eliminated from the voting rolls.

It became immediately clear that the effort was generating a slew of false
positives. Voters in good standing, who happened to share names with
convicted felons, but had never been in trouble with the law, were being
taken off the voting rolls.

But election officials in Tallahassee -- led by Secretary of State
Katherine Harris, who would later gain infamy over her controversial
handling of the election recount -- declined to make the process more
transparent and uniform.

Charges that the purge was politically motivated grew louder when it was
revealed that the man responsible for determining the parameters for voter
removal was Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV -- a Division of Election attorney
who went on to become general counsel for the Florida Republican Party.

In early 1999, DBT product manager Marlene Thorogood warned Mitchell of
false positives generated by the guidelines that he had set. But in an
email Mitchell sent in March of that year, he instructed Thorogood not to
concern herself with wrongly eliminating non-felons from the voter rolls.
It was better to purge too many people than too few, in Mitchell’s
estimation.

"Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren't matches and
let the [county elections] supervisors make a final determination rather
than exclude certain matches altogether," Mitchell wrote.

This decree from Tallahassee having been made clear, county-level election
officials began receiving lists of voters they were told to remove from
their rolls in the months leading up to an Election Day that would prove to
be among the most memorable in American history. The local officials’
responses to this instruction varied. Some tossed out the lists altogether.
Others used their discretion to try to correct them. Some used the lists
with full knowledge that they were defective.

Many county officials decided to mail certified letters notifying people on
the lists that the Department of Law Enforcement had identified them as
felons and that they would need to provide evidence to challenge that
conclusion or face permanent removal from the voter rolls. In short, voters
who had been swept up in the net had to prove their innocence.

Some Floridians who learned that they had been wrongfully removed from the
voting rolls attempted to bring the matter directly to the governor.

In a message sent on Aug. 28, 2000, to [email-masked] -- one of the
governor's official email addresses -- a man named Gene Gay noted that he
had recently received a letter indicating that he had lost his right to
vote.

“I have search all weekend for a site to access that type of records with
no success,” Gay wrote. “Where do U go online to get that sort of
information without paying these scalpers prices … This is a lot of stuff,
for a person whom knows, he has NOT been convicted of any felony. This is
very important to me please respond asap.”

In another email to an official gubernatorial account ([email-masked]),
sent on the Wednesday before Election Day, a man named John Browne
expressed intense frustration to Bush in a 760-word note about a brother,
who Browne said had stolen his identity repeatedly over the previous
decade. This traumatic experience, Browne explained, had led to an
erroneous determination from Martin County that he was a convicted felon.

Browne wrote:

“I have spent an enormous amount of time dealing with the local county
Sheriff’s offices, the State Attorney’s Office, the Social Security
Administration, private attorneys and the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement. Not one person to date has told me what I can do to protect
myself or how to file charges against this person or anyone else using my
personal information ... Mr. Bush, I have a family to provide for and I
have worked very hard to get to where I am today. This continued abuse of
my records is seriously impacting on my ability to continue a normal and
productive life. I also think the fact that I am being denied the right to
vote is a violation of my civil rights. I would hope that you take this
situation very seriously and offer some measure of relief.”

It's unclear whether Bush read either email. As governor, he primarily used
the email address [email-masked], but also had access to several other state
email accounts, including the two in question. A campaign aide told The
Huffington Post that these accounts were primarily used by the governor’s
Office of Citizen Services and that Bush himself did not see most of the
incoming messages sent there, unless they were forwarded to his Jeb.org
account.

(Coincidentally, on the same day that Gene Gay sent his email to Bush,
likely 2016 rival Scott Walker -- then a Wisconsin state legislator -- sent
Bush a request via [email-masked] for information on a new Florida law
that prohibited possession of vehicle airbags that lacked identification
stickers.)

Estimates vary on just how many non-felons in Florida were wrongly denied
the right to vote on Election Day, but the total was at least 1,100,
according to a 2001 Palm Beach Post analysis, and may have been much
higher.

Following the election recount, in which he officially recused himself, Jeb
Bush sought to distance himself from the botched purge, arguing that as
governor, he was not charged with administering the election.

A post-election investigation by the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights,
however, in which Bush was subpoenaed, was dubious about this reasoning,
noting that the actions Bush took immediately after the 2000 election
demonstrated that he did, in fact, have the ability to act on
voting-related matters.

“Florida’s governor insisted that he had no specific role in election
operations and pointed to his secretary of state as the responsible
official,” the commission wrote in its report. “After the election,
however, the governor exercised leadership and responsibility in electoral
matters in the commendable action of appointing a task force to make
recommendations to fix the problems that occurred."

The report found a “strong basis” for determining that violations of the
1965 Voting Rights Act had occurred during the election in Florida. While
it did not find that “the highest officials of the state conspired to
disenfranchise voters,” the report singled out Bush and Harris, saying
their “overall lack of leadership in protecting voting rights was largely
responsible for the broad array of problems in Florida during the 2000
election.”

“The state’s highest officials responsible for ensuring efficiency,
uniformity, and fairness in the election failed to fulfill their
responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take responsibility,”
the report said.

African-Americans were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to
have their ballots discounted in Florida, the report found, and it singled
out for criticism the felon voter purge’s “sloppy and irresponsible”
implementation.

“The governor, the secretary of state, or the director of the Division of
Elections should have provided clear instructions to their subordinates on
list maintenance strategies that would protect eligible voters from being
erroneously purged from the voter registration rolls,” the report said.

Aides to Jeb Bush at the time criticized the report by the Commission On
Civil Rights, controlled by a Democratic majority, as “biased” and “sloppy”
in its own right -- charges that did nothing to quell widespread outrage,
particularly among African-Americans, in Florida.

But any lingering bad feelings about Bush were not apparent at his
presidential campaign announcement last week, when R.B. Holmes, Jr. -- an
African-American minister from Tallahassee -- delivered impassioned praise
of the former governor in introducing him on stage.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Holmes noted that he appreciated
Bush’s efforts to appoint more African-Americans to judgeships in Florida
when he was governor.

“Jeb Bush is a very compassionate person,” Holmes said. “I respect his core
values. I respect that he married a minority, and he did that back in the
day. Think of how unpopular that was for a Bush of his status to go to
Mexico and find a bride.”

Holmes is far from the only African-American in Florida who retains
positive feelings toward Bush.

After famously saying during his failed 1994 gubernatorial run that he
would do “probably nothing” to help blacks, Bush changed his tone
dramatically when it came to engaging in matters of race and identity
during his 1998 campaign. That year, he ended up earning the support of 61
percent of Hispanics and 14 percent of African-Americans -- impressive
numbers for a Republican.

Even though he didn’t do as well with either group during his successful
2002 re-election bid, Bush’s reputation as a bridge-builder who actively
concerned himself with lifting up minority communities -- boosted, in part,
by his high-profile push for expanded educational opportunities -- remains
a central tenet of his political identity.

Mac Stipanovich, a Florida Republican lobbyist who advised Harris
throughout the 2000 recount, was blunt in arguing that Bush had not erred
in failing to provide any oversight of the botched felon purge.

“Any time you attempt to pare the voting rolls in Florida, regardless of
what the reason is, you are anti-democratic with a small-D and probably
racist,” Stipanovich said by way of discounting those accusations.

But criticism of how Bush and members of his administration handled the
purge became even louder four years later, when he and other Florida
officials failed to correct the problems that arose during the previous
presidential election year and, in fact, may have made it worse.

The 2004 iteration of the felon voter purge -- this time carried out by the
Department of Elections itself -- ended with a whimper when a peculiar
(some would say "fishy") anomaly was discovered the summer before Bush’s
brother stood for re-election.

That year’s list of 48,000 felons who were to be purged from the voting
rolls contained more than 22,000 African-Americans' names, but just 61
Hispanics. (In Florida, Hispanic communities tend to be more
Republican-leaning than they are nationally.)

Bush administration officials denied there was any partisan motivation in
the discrepancy, calling it “unintentional.” But as Democrats scoffed and
public pressure mounted, Florida officials ended up scrapping the list
entirely.

Some 15 years later, Jeb Bush, now running his own presidential campaign,
has treated the Florida voting purge as a foreign object -- an episode that
had little if nothing to do with him.

Asked during a press conference during a campaign swing through Iowa last
week whether he believes that African-Americans were disproportionately
affected by those efforts, he waffled a bit before rephrasing the question
in his own manner.

“I don’t think so,” he said. “I don’t think there was any -- no, if you’re
going to say, ‘Did the Florida Department of Law Enforcement target
African-Americans?’ No.”

Meanwhile, Florida remains one of just three states where all convicted
felons automatically lose their voting rights and must petition the
governor and a clemency board in an arduous process in order to try to get
them restored.

In 2007, Gov. Charlie Crist, then a Republican, initiated a change in the
clemency policy, which made it so that most convicted felons in Florida
would automatically have their voting rights restored after the state
ensured that they had paid restitution to victims.

Those new guidelines were then rolled back by Gov. Rick Scott (R) shortly
after he took office in 2011.

According to a 2012 study by The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group
advocating for judicial sentencing reform, Florida continues to have the
highest rate of African-American disenfranchisement in the country with 23
percent of the adult African-American population in the state barred from
voting.

“I think that the purge system brought a real apartheid type of politics
that was going on in Florida,” said former Democratic state Rep. Tony Hill.
“Look at the people who were purged -- they were African-American. They
just discounted our votes without any recourse.”

*Jeb Bush, Donald Trump running first and second among 2016 GOP field: poll
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/jeb-bush-donald-trump-running-first-and-second-amo/>
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25, 2015 *

A new poll shows former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush sitting atop the 2016 GOP
presidential field, with businessman and reality television show host
Donald Trump jumping to second place in the wake of his recent campaign
kick-off.

Mr. Bush was the choice of 15 percent of likely Republican primary voters
in the Fox News poll, followed by Mr. Trump at 11 percent and retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 10 percent.

Mr. Bush had been at 12 percent in a Fox poll released in early June, and
Mr. Trump had been at 4 percent. The survey was taken June 21-23 — soon
after both men officially announced their candidacies.

Still, nearly two-thirds of GOP primary voters said they think of Mr.
Trump, the host of NBC’s “The Celebrity Apprentice,” as a side show,
compared to 29 percent who said they consider him a serious candidate.
Among all registered voters, 77 percent said they think he’s a side show
and 18 percent said they think he’s a serious candidate.

He took to social media Wednesday evening to tout the results, tweeting:
“Just out, the new nationwide @FoxNews poll has me alone in 2nd place,
closely behind Jeb Bush-but Bush will NEVER Make America Great Again!”

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were at 9
percent apiece, with Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida at 8 percent and former
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6 percent.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was at 4 percent and former Hewlett-Packard CEO
Carly Fiorina and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania were at 3
percent apiece.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John
Kasich and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry were at 2 percent apiece. Mr.
Jindal announced his candidacy Wednesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former New York Gov. George
Pataki were at 1 percent apiece.

Of the names included, Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie, and Mr. Kasich have yet to
officially announce 2016 bids.

Mr. Bush was also the top second choice, at 11 percent, followed by Mr.
Rubio and Mr. Huckabee at 10 percent apiece.

The survey of 1,005 registered voters has a margin of error of plus or
minus 3 percentage points, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5
percentage points for the subgroup of Republican primary voters.

*Jeb Bush did not appoint a guardian for a rape victim's fetus, but he
fought for one
<http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/25/ultraviolet/jeb-bush-did-not-appoint-guardian-rape-victims-fet/>
// Politifact // Joshua Gillin – June 25, 2015 *

A political group has highlighted a controversial fight over fetal rights
that former Gov. Jeb Bush mounted years ago, but it went too far in its
description of what the current presidential candidate did.

Ultraviolet, a women’s rights group, posted an image on Facebook on June
15, 2015, with the title "5 things you should know about Jeb Bush." The
first item read, "Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape survivor."

We checked into all five of the claims listed on the image and found this
one was not accurate. (Read our story on the rest here.)

In May 2003, a severely mentally handicapped woman identified only as
J.D.S. had been raped in a group home at 22 and was six months pregnant.
J.D.S., who was abandoned at birth and raised in foster care, suffered from
severe mental retardation, cerebral palsy and autism, with the mental
capacity of a 4- or 5-year-old.

But Bush actually didn’t appoint a guardian, because he didn’t have that
power. What he did was order state lawyers to ask the Orange County Circuit
Court in Orlando to appoint a representative for the fetus.

Though Bush opposes abortion, he said the court case was not about that.
"This is a question of protecting an innocent life," Bush told the Miami
Herald. "And it will be the policy of our government in the case of a woman
who is incapacitated or cannot make decisions for her child, that there
should be a guardian."

The Florida Department of Children and Families had already asked the court
to appoint a guardian once the baby was born. No parties involved had
suggested aborting the fetus.

But Judge Lawrence Kirkwood did not consider the guardian request, saying
he had to follow state statute. Appointing a guardian for the fetus would
be "a clear error," he wrote.

"A trial judge must follow the law as written," Kirkwood said. "Many had
expected this court to blaze new territory and write new law for the facts
beyond the Florida statute."

The issue moved forward, even after a healthy girl known as Baby S was born
in August 2003. Kirkwood appointed her a guardian at birth. In January
2004, a three-judge panel in a Daytona appeals court ruled against Bush in
a 2-1 decision.

Kirkwood had adhered to a 1989 state Supreme Court ruling that said
appointing a representative for an unborn fetus would be "clearly
improper." A fetus was not a person under state law, and was therefore
without the same rights as a person. Judge Emerson Thompson noted in the
majority opinion that fetal rights were not mentioned anywhere in state
statutes about guardianship.

Bush continued to hold his position after the appeal ruling in Daytona.

"I do think that a child that could be brought to term, as this child was,
in the case where a mother has little or no capabilities in representing
the child's interest, a legal guardian should be appointed," he said.

Our ruling

Ultraviolet said Bush "appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape
survivor."

Bush asked a judge in 2003 to name someone to act in the interests of the
fetus of a mentally disabled woman raped in a group home. But the judge did
not, because state law does not give a fetus the same protections as a
person. An appeals court upheld the judge’s compliance with a 1989 Florida
Supreme Court ruling.

To be clear, Bush did not appoint anyone as a representative for the fetus,
but he did want one. We rate the statement Mostly False.

*Is the poverty rate worse now than it was in the 1970's?
<http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/6/10/politifact_poverty_r.html>
// Politifact // Joshua Gillin – June 25, 2015 *

As the 2016 presidential hopefuls travel the country, they are undoubtedly
on a mission to play up their strengths and, for the Republicans, say why
they are a better choice than Democrats, who have held the White House for
the last two terms.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) was recently in North Carolina talking
to reporters at the state GOP headquarters.  While discussing the death of
Freddie Gray, the Baltimore man who died after being arrested, Bush pointed
out that the national conversation needs to focus on poverty and what can
be done to eliminate it.  Bush said this about poverty in the United States:

"There are more poor people today as a percentage of our population than
the 1970s."

Our partners at PolitiFact Florida took a look at Bush's claim to see if he
had his facts correct.  PolitiFact reporter Joshua Gillin says that Bush's
claim rates MOSTLY TRUE on the Truth-O-Meter.  Gillin said that Bush's
wording of his statement is key to the claim.

"We went back and looked at the statistics for the Federal Poverty Level,"
said Gillin.  "In 2013, the last year we have full numbers, the poverty
rate was about 14.5 percent of the population, while the rate in the 1970's
topped out around 12.5 percent, and remember, we're talking about these
percentages as a percentage of the population, which is the language that
former Gov. Bush used in his statement."

Gillin notes that another calculation closes that gap between now and
then.  "If you include government-assisted programs in the mix, the number
for the Supplemental Poverty Measure from the 1970's actually creeps up a
bit, and that difference between then and now disappears," said Gillin.
"However, that's not generally the percentage that is used, and social
scientists and experts we talked to said that they usually stick with the
straight Federal Poverty Level when comparing different years."

Gillin said that because Bush used the phrase "percentage of our
population," his claim is pretty accurate, leading to a MOSTLY TRUE rating
from PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter.

*Jeb Bush did say women should 'find a husband' to get off welfare -- in
1994
<http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/25/ultraviolet/jeb-bush-did-say-women-should-find-husband-get-wel/>
// Politifact // Joshua Gillin – June 25, 2015 *

A women’s rights group took presidential candidate Jeb Bush to task in a
social media post, dredging up a 21-year-old quote that makes him sound
behind the times.

In a June 15, 2015, Facebook post, political group Ultraviolet listed "5
things you should know about Jeb Bush." The fourth item: "Said low-income
women should ‘get their life together and find a husband.' "

We looked at all five items in a separate story (which you can read here)
and found a few inaccuracies.

In this case, Bush did say it -- way back in 1994, during his failed first
run for governor.

During that campaign, Bush pushed for two-year limits on receiving benefits
from a federal welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), which ended in 1996.

"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to
do so within a two-year period," he said. "They should be able to get their
life together and find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in
terms of private charity or a combination of all three. That is the first
step, to redefine the role of government. It will be hard. There will be
lots of screaming and hollering."

Bush’s GOP primary opponents seized on this widely reported quote --
particularly former Florida Attorney General James Smith, who used part of
the quote in an attack ad. Bush called the ad unfair, and said Smith took
"a fragment of a quote from me on welfare reform totally out of context in
an attempt to portray me as a sexist who is insensitive to women."

The Orlando Sentinel quoted Bush as saying marriage "is one of many
options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today,
how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house."

CNN reported that Bush added, "Let's be honest here. Men are not on
welfare, that's the point. That's the point -- men are not on AFDC."

A state official noted that a small percentage of men did get benefits from
the program, as did some families with both men and women as heads of the
household. Bush lost the 1994 gubernatorial election in a close race with
Democratic incumbent Lawton Chiles.

Bush’s past statements about shaming single mothers have been in the news
quite a bit during this campaign after media outlets began highlighting
comments from his 1995 book Profiles in Character.

"One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and
more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that
there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel
shame," Bush wrote.

"Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends
engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have
become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior.
There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on
out-of-wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus
for one to be careful."

The same Ultraviolet Facebook image also referenced the so-called "Scarlet
Letter" law that passed while Bush was in office. That 2001 bill included a
provision that required unwed mothers who didn’t know who fathered their
child to publish weekly notices describing dates, places and partners with
which the women had had sex prior to putting the child up for adoption.
Bush let it pass without his signature, but it was ruled unconstitutional
two years later and repealed.

Bush told an attendee at an Iowa event on June 17, 2015, his real goal had
been to focus on the responsibility those absent men bore.

"I'm not in favor of shaming women. What I'm in favor of is shaming men who
abandon their children," Bush said. "Women who bring up children by
themselves do it heroically, they do it against all odds. Men who don't
feel responsible for being part of their child's life create real strains
on that family."

Our ruling

Ultraviolet claimed Bush "said low-income women should ‘get their life
together and find a husband.’ "

He did say that, back in 1994 during his first gubernatorial run, when the
quote also was used against him by opponents. He was talking about putting
a limit on a particular welfare program and doubled down on the concept
that women would not be on welfare if they were married.

The meme omits context and that the comments are more than 20 years old.
But Bush did say that. So we rate the statement Mostly True.

*Political group makes five points about Jeb Bush's record
<http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2015/jun/25/political-group-makes-five-points-about-jeb-bushs-/>
// Politifact // Josh Gillin – June 25, 2015 *

A Facebook meme from a political group made so many simultaneous assertions
about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, we couldn’t put them all on the
Truth-O-Meter.

That doesn’t mean we can’t still examine the quintet of claims, however.

Ultraviolet, which describes itself as a community "mobilized to fight
sexism and expand women’s rights," posted an image labeled "5 things you
should know about Jeb Bush" to its Facebook page on June 15, 2015. A few
days later, the group added a link to information backing up its claims.

PolitiFact Florida wanted to review this information for ourselves. We
found that some were largely factual, but at least two had significant
inaccuracies. (One was wrong on Facebook, but has been corrected on the
group’s website.)

Let’s take Ultraviolet’s talking points one by one:

1. Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape survivor: In May 2003, Bush
ordered state lawyers to ask the Orange County Circuit Court in Orlando to
appoint a representative for the fetus of a mentally handicapped woman in
state care. The 22-year-old woman, who was severely developmentally
disabled, had been raped while living in a group home and was six months
pregnant.

Bush did not actually appoint a guardian, but wanted a judge in the case to
consider it. No party in the case had suggested aborting the fetus. We
rated this statement Mostly False in a separate Truth-O-Meter fact-check.

The judge did not consider the issue, but left the woman in state care. The
Florida Department of Children and Families had already asked the court to
appoint a guardian once the baby was born, which happened in August 2003.

The request sparked controversy about whether a fetus deserved
representation in the womb, something the state Supreme Court ruled
"clearly improper" in 1989. The issue went before an appeals court. In
January 2004, the three-judge panel ruled against Bush in a 2-1 decision,
finding that a fetus was not a person under Florida law and appointing a
guardian would be improper.

2. Signed into law a bill requiring single moms to publish their sexual
history: First of all, we will note that at some point after June 15,
Ultraviolet changed the wording of this statement on its website, restating
that Bush said he "refused to veto a bill" that required this. That is more
accurate, but the original is still circulating on Facebook with the
original wording, and it is partly wrong.

This item refers to a bill often known as the "Scarlet Letter" law, which
started as a 2001 reworking of Florida’s adoption regulations. The
Legislature that year passed a bill that required single mothers who didn’t
know who was the father of their child publish a newspaper notice prior to
putting the child up for adoption.

The notice had to run once a week for a month, and had to list a detailed
description of all the possible fathers, plus dates and cities where a
sexual encounter resulting in conception may have taken place. This was
originally designed to alert the child’s potential father the child was up
for adoption, but amounted to forcing the mother to publish her sexual
history in her hometown newspaper multiple times.

The bill passed the House and Senate by a wide margin. Bush objected to
several parts of the bill in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine
Harris -- the bill’s own sponsor, Sen. Skip Campbell, D-Tamarac, lamented
the final bill -- but instead of using his veto power to kill the
legislation, Bush let the bill pass without signing it.

He said he had expected legislators to fix the notice requirement’s wording
(Campbell had told him as much, he said). But a court did that for him in
2003 when it ruled the law unconstitutional for being an invasion of
privacy. Bush signed the law’s repeal that year.

3. Hired a staffer who publicly called women "sluts": On Feb. 9, 2015,
Bush’s Right To Rise PAC announced they had hired Hipster.com co-founder
Ethan Czahor as its new chief technology officer. But the Internet found
dozens of years-old tweets from his Twitter account disparaging women and
homosexuals. Offending tweets were being deleted from the account, but not
before Buzzfeed shared them, including several that did refer to women as
"sluts." Czahor resigned on Feb. 10.

4. Said low-income women should "get their life together and find a
husband": Ultraviolet attributed this quote to a 2003 Washington Post
profile of Bush, but CNN put the comment in context earlier this month.

During his first gubernatorial run in 1994, Bush pushed for limits on a
federal welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
which ended in 1996.

"If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to
do so within a two-year period," he said. "They should be able to get their
life together and find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in
terms of private charity or a combination of all three."

Bush defended those comments by saying that same year, saying, "How you get
on welfare is by not having a husband in the house -- let's be honest here.
Men are not on welfare, that's the point. That's the point -- men are not
on AFDC."

A state official had refuted that, by the way, noting that a small
percentage of men did get get benefits from the program, as did some
families with both men and women as heads of the household. We rated
Ultraviolet’s statement Mostly True in a separate fact-check.

5. Used taxpayer money to promote anti-abortion groups: The group pointed
to a Salon story that highlighted Bush signed into law a 1999 bill allowing
the state to be the first in the country to sell "Choose Life" specialty
license plates. These plates allowed Floridians to pay a fee to help fund
so-called crisis pregnancy centers. Bush’s Democratic predecessor Lawton
Chiles had vetoed the plates a year earlier.

The centers provide pregnant women with services but do not mention
abortion as an option, steering clients to paths to put their unwanted
children up for adoption. The centers, usually run by religious
organizations, have been criticized by abortion rights groups for giving
out false information about reproductive health care and abortions.

In 2005, Bush proposed spending millions on a pregnancy counseling hotline
that steered women to these crisis pregnancy centers, which were opposed to
abortion. After a $4 million launch, the hotline continued to get $2
million budgeted per year for these services for the rest of Bush’s tenure.

*Jeb Bush Shakes Money Tree in Manhattan Two More Times
<http://observer.com/2015/06/jeb-bush-shakes-money-tree-in-manhattan-two-more-times/>
// The Observer // Ken Kurson – June 25, 2015 *

Jeb Bush has been Hoovering up campaign cash in the Northeast, surprising
some with the strength of his appeal in what should be considered Chris
Christie’s neighborhood. Yesterday the money train continued, making two
New York City stops.

The first was a breakfast at the Sheraton, hosted by a who’s who of
Republican money bigs. Event co-chairs included Mel Immergut, the super
lawyer who is the former Chairman of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; Bob
Foresman, who was Jeb’s partner at Barclay’s and is now CEO of the firm’s
Russia operation; hedge fund manager John Paulson, who CDS’ed his way to a
$4 billion profit betting that the housing market would crash in 2007; and
John Catsimatides, the supermarket and oil well mogul who ran
unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination for mayor of New York City in 2013.

Also notable were the strong showing of New Jersey co-chairs and attendees,
worth mentioning given the long Christie shadow. Woody Johnson, the Jets
owner who is one of the national chairs of Jeb’s campaign and Joe Kyrillos,
the close friend of Gov. Christie who surprised many by supporting Mr. Bush
were among the co-chairs. Gail Gordon, a prominent NJ GOP fundraiser who
had been on Christie’s finance committee, also attended, as did Ira
Perlmuter of Triple Five, the private equity fund that owns the Mall of
America and other colossuses.

In addition to the Jersey strength, Mr. Bush flexed real muscle among
prominent Jewish donors, including George Klein, the developer and former
president of the Republican Jewish Coalition and Jay Lefkowitz, the brainy
Kirkland and Ellis lawyer who also had the easy-peasy job of being
President Bush’s Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea.

There were even some two-fers—Jews from New Jersey. South Jersey lawyer
Hersh Kozlov was there, as was former Cliff Sobel, who squawked like crazy
when the Observer identified him as Bush supporter in an earlier story.
He’s apparently still hoping to thread the needle; he’d clearly like to
back the brother of the man who made him ambassador to The Netherlands and
then to Brazil without angering his home-state governor too egregiously. To
that end, Mr. Sobel declined to appear on the invitation itself—his son
Scott Sobel was listed—but the Observer has confirmed that Cliff did indeed
attend.

After the well-publicized Sheraton event with dozens of co-chairs, Mr. Bush
headed to an equally impressive although quieter—and thus far
unreported—event. Mr. Bush’s cousin, George Herbert Walker IV, is the
chairman and CEO of Neuberger Berman, the largest private, investment
management firm. Mr. Walker hosted Jeb for lunch yesterday, again flexing
the kind of reach that has made Mr. Bush the clear finance frontrunner
among the large GOP field, if not necessarily the political frontrunner.

According to Ms. Gordon and others to whom the Observer spoke, the Sheraton
was packed. “I was a co-chair, which means the buy-in was $27,000 by the
end of the month,” explained Ms. Gordon, referring to the requirement to
find 10 “max out donations” of $2700 each. “It was a vigorous,
well-attended event and the enthusiasm was so strong we’re parlaying it
into two more events.” Ms. Gordon is referring to a pair of July 23
fundraisers in New Jersey itself, the very existence of which is a shock,
given the totality with which Mr. Christie shut down Jersey support for all
contenders in 2012 until he decided to endorse Mitt Romney and brought all
21 county chairmen with him.

The July fundraising twilight-doubleheader begins in Monmouth County, where
Mr. Kyrillos and Larry Bathgate, a power lawyer who served as the
Republican National Committee’s finance chairman, are establishing a large
committee. According to an email obtained by the Observer, anyone “joining
us as an Event Co-Chair with a pledge to raise $10,000″ can be listed on
the invitation. According to one source close to the event, expectations
are high—”1-2 million is not out of the question—for the event, which will
take place at the tony Navesink Country Club, right in the heart of popular
State Senator Kyrillos’ district.

Larry Wieseneck, a former partner of Jeb Bush at Barclay's, is co-hosting
one of two New Jersey fundraisers for Jeb on July 23. Here he's pictured
with his wife Gayle in a promo for the posh Newark Academy in Livingston,
where Chris Christie is expected to announce his own run for the presidency
on Tuesday.

Larry Wieseneck, a former partner of Jeb Bush at Barclay’s, is co-hosting
one of two New Jersey fundraisers for Jeb on July 23. Here he’s pictured
with his wife Gayle in a promo for the posh Newark Academy in Livingston,
where Chris Christie is expected to announce his own run for the presidency
on Tuesday.

Determining which New Jersey Republicans would break ranks with the
powerful home state governor has become a parlor game in the Garden State.
The Observer was the first to report many of the GOP names supporting Jeb
listed in this February story, and also detailed surprising support for
Scott Walker. On Monday, the Star-Ledger revealed that Marco Rubio would be
coming to Colts Neck in August for a fundraiser at the home of Juan and
Marta Gutierrez, Cuban exiles who supported President Bush. The Observer is
now the first to reveal that the second event on July 23rd will be hosted
by Bill Cohen and Larry Wieseneck in Mr. Cohen’s Short Hills home.

While it’s long been known that Mr. Bathgate, Ms. Gordon, Mr. Kozlov and
Mr. Kyrillos would be supporting Jeb Bush, the names Cohen and Wieseneck
are new to Jersey politicos, a further sign of Jeb’s ability not just to
win over experienced fundraisers but to cultivate new ones. Both men were
colleagues of Jeb’s at Barclays, where Mr. Cohen is the vice chairman of
investment banking and Mr. Wieseneck, who lives in West Orange, used to be
the head of structuring. A search of public records (which are imperfect,
especially with a relatively common name like Cohen) revealed no federal
donations from Short Hills and Larry Wieseneck, who lives in West Orange,
was also not previously on any political radar; he gave to no federal
candidates in 2014, though he did reliably contribute a couple hundred
bucks a month to Barclay’s PAC and gave $3500 to Romney and $1000 to Scott
Brown in 2012.

With Chris Christie expected to announce his candidacy on Tuesday, there is
every chance that the brawler-in-chief will re-exert the discipline that
saw him leading a state party that spoke with one voice in 2012. But so far
Jeb Bush has proven—and Marco Rubio and Scott Walker are adding their
voices—that New York and New Jersey are wide open for political business.

*For-Profit Charter Operator In Jeb Bush Video Has A Checkered Past
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/for-profit-charter-operator-in-jeb-bush-video-has-a-checkere#.ygPJyY3Rm>
// Buzzfeed // Molly Hensley-Clancy – June 25, 2015 *

In Jeb Bush’s first set of campaign videos, including one released
yesterday, there is no place more prominently featured than the classroom.
Oft-repeated reels of footage show Bush, known as Florida’s “education
governor,” speaking to rooms full of hand-waving elementary students,
leaning over a girl’s shoulder as she works on the computer, and sitting
down for a discussion with smiling boys in ties.

Many of those students wear the uniforms of Mater Academy of International
Studies; others are students at Somerset Academy South Miami, where Jeb
Bush’s campaign was seen filming earlier this month, according to Politico.
Almost all of the classrooms have something in common: they are at schools
operated by Academica, the state’s largest for-profit charter school
management company.

Academica, which has almost 100 schools in Florida and well over $150
million in annual revenue, has a checkered past. Along with an ongoing
federal probe into its real estate dealings, past investigations have
looked at allegedly corrupt connections with lawmakers. Last year,
controversy erupted over its opening of an unaccredited college funded by
one of its charter schools.

Of his time as governor of Florida, Bush told Fox News in the wake of his
presidential campaign announcement that “what I’m most proud of is
reforming our education system.”

As suggested by Bush’s latest ads, Academica and its high-performing
charter schools, which consistently receive high grades from the state, are
perhaps the best examples of that legacy at work. The company owes much of
its growth in Florida to Bush’s policies during his governorship. Bush
spurred charter schools to flourish in the state, including those operated
by for-profit companies, which found a way to circumvent a 1996 law that
forbids the practice. To get around the law, companies set up nonprofit
boards to run the schools, which then contract out virtually all of the
work to for-profit operators. Bush has been a supporter of for-profit
operators. In emails, he suggested that his successor, Rick Scott, sell the
massive state-run Florida Virtual School to a for-profit operator, where it
could make “more [money]in the private sector.”

As governor, Bush visited Academica schools several times, his emails show,
including a trip to a campus of a Mater Academy school in 2006. His son,
Jeb Bush Jr., was elected to serve as the chair of the nonprofit board
another Academica school group, Somerset Academy, though he later withdrew
his name.

A spokeswoman for Bush said the former governor “is a longtime advocate for
providing more choices for parents and students … Thanks in part to the
strongest choice programs in the nation, Florida is one of the only states
closing the achievement gap in America today.”

A Miami Herald investigation in 2011 found Academica was embroiled in a
complex and controversial real estate scheme. Its founder and president,
Fernando Zulueta, owns a wide swath of real estate companies — firms that
also lease tax-exempt space to many of Academica’s schools, acting as their
landlords. Academica schools pay tens of thousands of dollars in rent,
sometimes over 20% of their revenue, well above the area average, to
Zulueta-connected real estate holdings, the Herald found, deals that are
meted out by nonprofit governing boards with close ties to Academica.

In 2003, for example, Mater Academy, whose logos dot the polo shirts of
students in Bush’s campaign ad, signed a $5.8 million construction contract
to a company whose contractor also served on the school’s board. And Mater
Academy High leased its land from a company owned in part by Zulueta’s
brother, the Herald reported.

Similar real estate setups have landed other charter companies in serious
federal trouble. One other major operator, Imagine Schools, was ordered to
pay $1 million in January for a “self-dealing” real estate scheme.

Mater Academy was the focus of a federal investigation last year, the
Herald reported. Academica’s founder and his family, a preliminary report
found, had ties that constituted “a potential conflict of interest” to the
companies that Mater Academy leased its space from, and to an architect
that designed their buildings.

A new controversy arose last year, when the company opened Doral Academy, a
junior college within one of its schools in suburban Miami. The school is
funded with taxpayer dollars intended for the state’s K-12 system. The
school is entirely unaccredited, meaning its credits do not transfer to any
other schools, which prompted skepticism from officials and outside
observers. The college is helmed by Anitere Flores, a state senator and
former education adviser to Bush.

Flores has also been involved in education-related legislative efforts in
Florida — and was the sponsor of a bill to create virtual charter schools
in the state, The Herald reported; when it passed, Academica applied to
open 19 such schools.

Other Florida legislators with close ties to Academica, and to Bush, have
also been behind legislation that works in favor of the company. State
representative Erik Fresen, who is married to an Academica executive who
also happens to be the CEO’s sister, relaxed zoning restrictions that stood
in the way of Academica’s expansion.

Working with the company can be lucrative. Miami-Dade prosecutors
investigated another former representative, Ralph Arza, after he backed a
slew of pro-charter bills while serving as a consultant on the payroll of
Academica. He was paid $230,000 for his services, via a company set up in
his wife’s name. He was later cleared. The Tampa Bay Times said Arza, a
Republican, “worked with Bush on many of his education initiatives.”

The Jeb Bush campaign and Academica did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

*Pro-Jeb Bush Super PAC runs first online ad in New Hampshire, Iowa
<http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/06/pro-jeb-bush-super-pac-runs-first-tv-ad-in-new-hampshire-iowa.html>
// Miami Herald // Patricia Mazzei – June 25, 2015 *

Right to Rise, the deep-pocketed Super PAC former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
raised money for before formally declaring his 2016 Republican presidential
candidacy, has its first online ad on the New Hampshire and Iowa airwaves.

The 30-second spot is also targeting voters in Iowa, according to NH1. It
features a montage of clips from his campaign announcement last week at
Miami Dade College.

*Jeb Bush Leads New Hampshire GOP Poll; Donald Trump in 2nd Place
<http://www.latinospost.com/articles/65170/20150626/jeb-bush-leads-new-hampshire-gop-poll-donald-trump-2nd.htm>
// Latinos Post - June 26, 2015 *

The race for the GOP nomination has drastically changed in recent weeks.
While former Florida Governor Jed Bush is still at the top of the ladder,
businessman Donald Trump has leapfrogged into second place.

According to Fox News, Bush tops the GOP contenders with 15 percent of the
Republican primary voters. Trump, however, now has around 11 percent of the
primary voters which is more than double of what he had when he first
declared that he would run for president.

However, Trump does have bad news coming his way as only about 29 percent
of the Republican primary voters take him seriously. While a whopping 64
percent think he is a side show and does not belong in politics at all.
Among all voters, almost 80 percent think that Trump is a side show.

Both candidates have just recently started their campaigns for candidacy,
Bush on June 15 and Trump on June 16. So these numbers could be inflated as
it is normal to see poll numbers to be larger at first. According to
Politico.com, 37 percent of New Hampshire voters had a favorable view on
Trump, while 49 percent had a negative view on the businessman.
Astonishingly there was a 6 percent of voters who did not even know who
Trump was.

Meanwhile, Jed Bush mainly tested favorably with 58 percent of the voters
having a favorable view on the former Florida senator while only 28 percent
viewed him negatively.

Other GOP contenders include:  Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (9 percent), Florida
Sen. Marco Rubio (8 percent) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (6
percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz receives 4 percent, and businesswoman Carly
Fiorina and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum get 3 percent apiece.

On the other side, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton remains the
top contender for the Democratic party's candidate for president in 2016.
Clinton currently holds 61 percent of the Democratic primary voters, her
closest rival is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who hold about 15 percent.

The biggest reason for such support for Clinton has been shown to be that
44 percent of all voters think that Clinton would fight hard for the middle
class, although 51 percent think that is just a campaign slogan.

The polls also show that Clinton and Trump share similar traits.
Unfortunately, they are not all that positive traits as 54 percent of
voters think Trump is dishonest while 51 percent think the same for
Clinton. This could be stemming from Trump's business deals during the late
1980's and early 90's and from Clinton's recent email debacle.

*RUBIO*

*In N.H., Marco Rubio Is Pressed on Trade and Immigration
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/verbatim-hillary-clinton-supports-supreme-court-decision/>
// NYT // Jeremy Peters – June 25, 2015 *

Senator Marco Rubio defended his conservative credentials on two issues
that are roiling the right – immigration and trade – as he returned to the
campaign trail on Thursday.

The Florida Republican, who had taken a breather from campaigning as he
crisscrossed the country on a fund-raising tour, had not taken questions
from the public since casting a decisive vote on Tuesday that allowed
President Obama’s trade bill to advance in the Senate.

Some conservatives, who objected to giving Mr. Obama enhanced negotiating
powers to complete a major Pacific trade accord and derided the legislation
as “Obamatrade,” blamed Mr. Rubio for providing a crucial 60th vote that
assured the legislation could move forward. Others accused Mr. Rubio of not
even reading the bill.

In a town-hall-style meeting here on Thursday, Mr. Rubio was asked to
explain himself.

“There’s been some controversy on whether or not you actually read the
bill,” one woman pressed him. “Why did you vote for it?”

“First of all,” he said, “I did read the bill. Second of all, it’s not
Obamatrade. It’s called free trade.” To further underscore his point, he
invoked a conservative hero: “We voted on fast-track authority, which
Ronald Reagan was for.”

Whether Mr. Rubio was convincing or not was unclear. The crowd of about
200, which applauded politely on and off during the hour-long event, was
not particularly enthusiastic.

He was also asked to clarify his position on overhauling immigration, an
issue that still dogs him with many on the right, two years after he
dropped his support for a comprehensive Senate bill that would have
provided undocumented immigrants with the opportunity to become citizens.

Mr. Rubio was unequivocal. He said he no longer supported one sweeping,
omnibus bill, adding, “Anyone who insists on doing it all at once is
basically out of touch with reality.”

Instead, Congress must first pass a law that provides for greater border
security, then prove that illegal immigration is under control. Otherwise,
he said, “the votes aren’t there — the public won’t support it.”

Many in the crowd did not seem too familiar with Mr. Rubio, 44, who
announced his campaign for president in April and quickly shot to the top
of many polls. Several of the questioners seemed interested in testing his
conservatism.

Mr. Rubio spoke less than two hours after the Supreme Court upheld a key
provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows for the federal health
care exchange to provide coverage in states that have not set up their own
exchanges. The decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an
appointee of President George W. Bush, angered many conservatives.

One man in the crowd asked, “What are you going to do differently from the
past two Republican presidents, who gave us Souter and Roberts?” (David
Souter, a former justice appointed by the first President Bush, often voted
with the court’s liberal wing.)

Mr. Rubio responded that he would appoint “people that will actually
interpret and apply the Constitution, not expand and redefine it.” He added
that his understanding of the Constitution was fixed. “The Constitution is
not a living and breathing document,” he said, noting that the next
president could appoint as many as three Supreme Court judges.

*Marco Rubio is playing to win The Sheldon Adelson Primary
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/25/the-daily-202-marco-rubio-is-playing-to-win-the-sheldon-adelson-primary/>
// WaPo // James Hohmann & Elise Viebeck – June 25, 2015 *

Marco Rubio is playing to win The Sheldon Adelson Primary. The Florida
senator, who has relentlessly sought the billionaire casino mogul’s backing
for 2016, co-sponsored a bill yesterday afternoon to ban online gaming. It
is not only Adelson’s top legislative priority, it could significantly
boost his company’s bottom line. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another
presidential hopeful who has assiduously courted Adelson over their shared
hawkishness on foreign policy, is the lead Republican author on the
legislation for a second year in a row.

An intense courtship: This is just the latest in an aggressive string of
moves by Rubio to win over one of the GOP’s biggest donors. The two men
dined together at Charlie Palmer steak house, adjacent to the Capitol, in
March. That was one of at least half a dozen private meetings, which we
know about, since the Florida senator took office. Politico reported in
April that Rubio calls Adelson every fortnight to provide detailed updated
about the campaign. Meanwhile, the newspaper Adelson owns in Israel has
trumpeted Rubio on its front page so much so that Israelis joke about it.

Electability matters to Adelson: After spending at least $92 million on the
2012 elections, a good chunk of it for Newt Gingrich, GOP insiders say that
Adelson wants to get behind someone who can actually win. That was
reportedly a factor in his souring on Ted Cruz. He likes Graham (hosting a
fundraiser for him earlier this year and donating to his reelection
campaign last year), but he’s seemingly more attracted to Rubio’s story as
the son of Cuban immigrants. He’s reportedly told friends that Rubio is the
future of the Republican Party. Adelson has telegraphed that he will hold
off until at least September to get behind anyone, and he could also invest
in multiple contenders. This posture will encourage others to keep kissing
his ring.

Marco again risks upsetting conservatives, but Adelson’s money would more
than make up for any blowback: Rubio’s move puts him at odds with movement
conservatives (i.e. federalists) who believe that, under the Constitution,
states should have the right to decide for themselves whether to legalize
online gaming, and that the federal government should not be in the
business of boosting one business interest (brick-and-mortar casinos) over
another, more innovative one. (This would be akin to Rubio siding with the
traditional taxi industry against Uber, the opposite of the approach he’s
taken.) The senator, for his part, has previously said online gaming hurts
people already struggling economically, messaging that sounds like it is
meant to resonate with social conservatives.

House Republicans quietly tucked language into an appropriations bill to
protect dark money. The House Appropriations Committee approved a spending
bill last week that included little-noticed provisions to hobble executive
branch efforts that would mandate more campaign finance disclosures by
federal contractors. The restrictions are in a 157-page financial services
funding bill. The spending bill would also prohibit the IRS from moving
ahead with a rule defining political activity for nonprofits and prohibit
the SEC from creating a rule requiring public companies to disclose their
political spending.

It is not clear when or if there will be a floor vote on the spending
measure but campaign finance reform advocates said they hope an executive
order will be in place before the legislation is considered by the full
House and Senate, which like other appropriations bills, may not occur
until late this year. White House spokesman Eric Schultz declined Wednesday
evening to discuss plans for future executive orders, but he criticized the
House committee action while confirming ongoing White House concern over
“dark money” contributions to politically active non-profit organizations.

Appropriations bills have carried language protecting contractors against
executive branch disclosure requirements since 2011, when a draft of an
Obama executive order on the topic leaked publicly. The Brennan Center at
NYU tallies hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions collected by
committee members from firms doing business with the federal government.
Read more trenchant analysis from Tom Hamburger here.

*Rubio plans early-state ad blitz
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/marco-rubio-tv-advertising-2016-bid-119442.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 25, 2015 *

Marco Rubio is the first 2016 presidential candidate to book significant TV
advertising time in early presidential voting states, reserving at least
$4.3 million in airtime so far.

On Thursday afternoon, Rubio’s campaign began the process of placing buys
on TV stations in media markets in the four states slated to vote next
February: Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

The ad flights are set to begin on Nov. 24 in Iowa, and stretch on until
late February in South Carolina and Nevada, according to media tracking
information.

Ted Cruz was the first candidate on the airwaves this year, but the Texas
senator only purchased a small amount of airtime over a limited period.

Reserving the time at a relatively early point in the campaign will
ultimately save money for the campaign, his aides believe, since it enables
Rubio to acquire ad time at lower rates than competitors who book later.
The Florida senator is amassing a sizable war chest but is still likely to
trail former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in fundraising, putting a premium on
running a cost-efficient campaign.

A Rubio aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
strategy, said the purchase was only initial and would be expanded later on.

Rubio’s TV campaign will be overseen by Todd Harris, a longtime political
aide who has experience in Iowa politics. In 2014, he advised Iowa
Republican Joni Ernst on her successful Senate bid. In that campaign, Ernst
similarly purchased TV advertising time at an early juncture in the
political season.

*A Canadian idea Rubio likes
<http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/a-canadian-idea-rubio-likes-000118>
// Politico // Danny Vinik – June 25, 2015 *

A lot of politicians say they hate regulations, but how do you actually
start cutting them down?

Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is pushing an idea called a “regulatory
budget,” a novel approach that would put a dollar cap on the cumulative
economic costs that agencies can impose through regulations. It’s in his
presidential platform, and in the last Congress he introduced a bill that
garnered 12 cosponsors, all Republicans.

The regulatory budget is a sweeping solution to what many Americans worry
is an overbearing regulatory regime. The idea dates back to Senator Lloyd
Bentsen, who first proposed it in 1978, and had drifted out of sight until
Rubio revived it.

Now it has an unlikely base of support that Rubio may or may not be excited
about: the Canadian government.

On Tuesday, the Senate Budget Committee and Senate Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee pulled together a group of experts to examine
the idea of a regulatory budget, and the star witness was basically Canada.
Two years ago, Stephen Harper’s conservative government implemented a
so-called “One for One” policy, requiring Canadian regulators to remove at
least one regulation for each new regulation it imposes. In addition, the
administrative costs of the new regulation must be offset by the
administrative costs of the removed ones. This spring, the House of Commons
passed the policy into law.

The Canadians are claiming success: Tony Clement, a senior member of
Harper’s cabinet who first introduced the bill in January 2014, told the
legislators it was saving business’s money. “We saw hard evidence that the
rule was reducing the administrative burden on businesses,” he said in his
opening statement. “As of May 20 of this year, in fact, the rule has saved
$32 million in administrative burden.”

The “One for One” law is a slight variation on the idea of a true
regulatory budget. Under a more complete scheme like the one Rubio
proposed, agencies have a certain “budget” of administrative costs to
“spend” on regulations. Once an agency has used up its budget, it can only
implement a new regulation by eliminating old regulations with equal costs.
The idea is to force agencies to prioritize which regulations they value
most.

There’s a good reason why Canada didn’t opt for a traditional regulatory
budget: Implementing it would have been nearly impossible. Susan Dudley,
the former director of both the Office of Management and Budget and the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under former President George
W. Bush, testified at the hearing that calculating the total costs of all
existing regulations would be nearly impossible. “And the resulting numbers
are probably not very reliable,” she said.

The “One of One” policy is not without appeal. It effectively forces
government agencies to review past regulations and eliminate ones that are
duplicative or unnecessary. Too often, agencies are hesitant to do that
themselves.

But the regulatory budget has a shortcoming: it disregards the benefits of
regulation altogether, focusing only on costs. A federal agency, for
instance, could have to decide between which of two regulations to impose,
both of which have net positive benefits for the country. The “budget”
ignores that side of the ledger.

The challenge of reckoning gains is already vexing analysts within the
government. Many government agencies already require a cost-benefit
analysis before new regulations can take effect, and performing those
analyses turns out to be exceedingly difficult, since it’s impossible to
perfectly account for all the costs and benefits from a regulation – or
even know when those costs and benefits might come to pass. Regulations can
have steep immediate costs, like power plant rules to reduce carbon
emissions, and then a long, hard-to-measure benefit, like cleaner air and
less damage due to climate change.

“One of the things that we don’t look at is any kind of a timeline between
the upfront costs for the business and the long-term benefits for society,”
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, told
me.

“What we run into is the same problem as a 50 percent off department sale,”
he said. “There’s no way to spend the 50 percent that you save. That’s how
most of these benefits are. They’re savings that can’t actually be credited
to any particular account. Consequently, they can be pretty nebulous.”

It’s a fair point. And it suggests that the correct response to sketchy
cost-benefit analysis isn’t to implement a “regulatory budget” – it’s to
get better at cost-benefit analysis. And in the case of Enzi’s point, you
can also figure out ways to offset the costs of regulations with a policy
to help businesses hit hard in the short term.

Regulators will never perfect cost-benefit analysis, of course. As Dudley
emphasized to lawmakers, there are simply too many unknowns to make
accurate estimates. In addition, those estimates inherently involve value
judgments, on which Democrats and Republicans will often disagree. Better
cost-benefit analysis could help rulemakers with a lot of their problems,
but it’s highly unlikely to solve that one.

*Marco Rubio discusses health care, veterans in NH visit
<http://www.wmur.com/politics/florida-sen-marco-rubio-to-hold-town-hall-style-events-thursday/33765620>
// WMUR 9 // Jennifer Crompton – June 25, 2015 *

Florida senator and Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio sharply
criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold key provisions of
President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and said the high court's
decisions on health care and gay marriage should not mark the final word on
either issue.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of a key piece of the health law that allows
millions of Americans to receive tax subsidies, regardless of where they
live, to help pay for insurance premiums. Rubio said he disagrees with the
judges while campaigning Thursday in New Hampshire, home of the first
presidential primary contest.

"What we have now are activist judges," Rubio said. "(We have), it appears,
as many as six people on the Supreme Court who think it's their job to try
to fix Obamacare."

He said he'll continue to push for a "consumer-centric" approach that
allows people to buy health insurance from companies in any state.

The court also will issue a ruling on whether states can ban same-sex
marriage and whether states in which it is currently illegal must recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other states. Rubio said he thinks state
legislatures and voters, not the courts, should decide whether to legalize
gay marriage.

He pointed to his home state, where voters chose at the ballot box in 2008
to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Courts should not be allowed to overturn that," he said. "Other states may
reach a different conclusion, and they have a right to do that even if I
disagree with them."

Rubio's campaign swing through New Hampshire featured two town hall-style
events and a speech at an event focused on ending the Export-Import Bank.
Most of his remarks centered on familiar themes, including his background
as the son of Cuban immigrants and an emphasis on the need for a more
muscular foreign policy.

Rubio, a first-term senator, is among about a dozen Republicans seeking the
party's presidential nomination.

*First on CNN: Rubio slams Obamacare ruling
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-ruling/> //
CNN // Dana Bash – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio slammed the Supreme
Court's decision on Thursday to uphold Obamacare subsidies.

The Supreme Court held that the law authorized federal tax credits for
eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges but
in the 34 states with federal exchanges, a major win for the Obama
administration.

"I disagree with the court's ruling and believe they have once again erred
in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in
forcing Obamacare on the American people," Rubio told CNN.

"Despite the court's decision, Obamacare is still a bad law that is having
a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans," Rubio
continued. "I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it
with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in
control of their health care decisions. We need Consumer Care, not
Obamacare."

Thursday's 6-3 ruling is the second time in three years that the court has
ruled to uphold Obamacare, Obama's signature domestic achievement.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself, Justice Anthony Kennedy and
the four liberal justices. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent, joined
by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance
markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "If
at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with
the former, and avoids the latter."

In a dissent, Scalia said "we should start calling this law SCOTUScare,"
referring to the two times the Court has saved the law.

The ruling staved off a major political showdown and what would have been a
mad scramble in some states to set up their own healthcare exchanges to
keep millions from losing healthcare coverage.

Challengers to the law argued that the federal government should not be
allowed to continue doling out subsidies to individuals living in states
without their own healthcare exchanges and a ruling in their favor would
have cut off subsidies to 6.4 million Americans, absent a congressional fix
or state action.

*Marco Rubio defends courting Koch Brothers in New Hampshire
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/marco-rubio-koch-brothers-new-hampshire/>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 25, 2015 *

Marco Rubio courted New Hampshire voters allied with two powerful
organizations at the center of the Koch Brothers' sprawling political
network during campaign events on Thursday.

Charles and David Koch, whose donor network has become the most powerful
outside player in Republican politics, have pledged to direct about $900
million to help Republicans in 2016. And while the brothers themselves have
said they are unlikely to make a single endorsement in the Republican
field, many of their donors are. And Rubio, the 44-year-old senator from
Florida, has had both public and private auditions in front of their
well-heeled crowds.

Rubio spoke before the Concerned Veterans for America, a Koch-funded group
aimed at reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Americans for
Prosperity, the brothers' flagship organization with an aggressive ground
game and paid media operations in key states. As political nonprofit
groups, neither is required to disclose their donors.

Rubio, defending his events on Thursday, insisted that big donors wouldn't
rule in a Rubio White House.

"People buy into my agenda, I don't buy into theirs," Rubio told reporters
in Exeter after appearing at the Concerned Veterans for America event. "My
stands are not influenced by my contributors, I hope my stands influences
my contributors."

Rubio is expected to be one of the Republican field's top fundraisers,
though all are expected to trail Jeb Bush.

As Rubio barnstormed the Granite State, a political nonprofit group set up
to support him -- the Conservative Solutions Project -- unveiled a
first-week $1 million advertising campaign highlighting Rubio's leadership
on Iran.

"Tell your senators to join Marco Rubio. Vote against Obama's deal and stop
Iran from getting the bomb," the advertisement said.

Later in the day, Rubio spoke to the New Hampshire chapter of Americans for
Prosperity about the Export-Import bank, which the Koch groups fiercely
oppose. The bank, which uses federal money to incentivize U.S. companies to
manufacture products in the U.S., is up for a re-authorization vote before
Congress at the end of the month.

But outside of the Koch events, voters seemed to have a different view of
the groups' sway. At a town hall in Salem, a voter asked what he would do
to stop corrupting influence of money in politics.

"When I run for office, I tell people what I stand for," Rubio said. "And
when you hear what I stand for, if you want to support me and donate to our
campaign -- assuming you're not a really, really bad person or something
like that -- we accept that."

*Marco Rubio Campaign Buys 'Several Million' Dollars' Worth Of Airtime For
Ads in Early Primary States
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marco-rubio-campaign-buys-million-dollars-worth-airtime/story?id=32037434>
// ABC News // Jonathan Karl – June 25, 2015 *

Get ready for it. The 2016 ad wars are coming soon to a television near you.

ABC News has learned Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign has pre-booked
“several million” dollars worth of air time for advertisements in early
primary and caucus states, becoming the first major ad buy of the 2016
presidential cycle.

A Rubio source tells ABC News the campaign has reserved air time in Iowa,
New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — all critical early states in the
Republican nominating contest.

The ads won’t start running for some time, but Rubio, Florida's Republican
senator, has locked in the time at lower rates by buying now.

*Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush vow to continue fighting Obamacare after Supreme
Court ruling
<http://postonpolitics.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2015/06/25/marco-rubio-jeb-bush-vow-to-continue-fighting-obamacare-after-supreme-court-ruling/>
// Palm Beach Post // George Bennett – June 25, 2015 *

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush, both Republican
candidates for president, said they’ll continue to fight the Affordable
Care Act after today’s Supreme Court decision upholding federal subsidies
in states that don’t set up health insurance exchanges.

“I  remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it with my
consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of
their health care decisions,” Rubio said soon after the court’s 6-3
decision was released.

Similarly, Bush said, “this decision is not the end of the fight against
Obamacare.”

Here are their full statements:

Rubio: “I disagree with the Court’s ruling and believe they have once again
erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and
Congress in forcing Obamacare on the American people.

“Despite the Court’s decision, Obamacare is still a bad law that is having
a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans. I remain
committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it with my
consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of
their health care decisions. We need Consumer Care, not Obamacare.”

Bush: “I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court ruling in the King v.
Burwell case. But this decision is not the end of the fight against
Obamacare.

“This fatally-flawed law imposes job-killing mandates, causes spending in
Washington to skyrocket by $1.7 trillion, raises taxes by $1 trillion and
drives up health care costs.  Instead of fixing our health care system, it
made the problems worse.

“As President of the United States, I would make fixing our broken health
care system one of my top priorities.   I will work with Congress to repeal
and replace this flawed law with conservative reforms that empower
consumers with more choices and control over their health care decisions.

“Here is what I believe:  We need to put patients in charge of their own
decisions and health care reform should actually lower costs.
Entrepreneurs should be freed to lower costs and improve access to care –
just like American ingenuity does in other sectors of the economy.

“Americans deserve leadership that can actually fix our broken health care
system, and they are certainly not getting it now from Washington, DC.”

*Marco Rubio gives Obama an ‘F’ on VA issues
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/marco-rubio-gives-obama-f-va-issues/>
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25, 2015 *

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida on Thursday gave President Obama a failing
grade on issues related to the embattled Department of Veterans Affairs.

“It’s an F — I mean, because the system’s gotten worse, not better,” Mr.
Rubio said at a Concerned Veterans for America town hall in New Hampshire,
drawing applause. “We’ve replaced the secretary, we’ve had press
conferences … and you’ve poured more money into it, and the results — the
wait times have gotten longer in some places.”

Mr. Rubio, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said he thinks when it comes
to such issues, “it’s either an ‘A’ or an ‘F.’ “

“It can’t be a ‘C’ or a ‘D’ — I mean, it’s either an ‘A’ or an ‘F,’ ” he
said.

Mr. Rubio said it’s not a “funding issue” or a “want to” issue, “it is the
fact that the model itself may no longer work in a 21st century that is
dramatically different from what the world looked like 80 to a 100 years
ago in terms of access to private providers and centers of excellence that
want to take care of veterans and are open for business that can see you
right away and produce a result that’s good or better.”

“Again, the key is it is up to the veteran to choose,” he said. “They may
be very happy at the VA that they have, they may be very pleased with the
services they’re being offered and that should be available to them as
well. But putting the veteran in charge - [you] don’t do that, you’re going
to continue to have a failing grade no matter who the president is.”

*Rubio Gives Veterans Cool Grenade Stress Balls at New Hampshire Town Hall
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/25/marco_rubio_gives_veterans_grenade_stress_balls_at_new_hampshire_town_hall.html>
// Slate // Jeremy Stahl – June 25, 2015 *

Concerned Veterans for America hosted a Marco Rubio town hall in New
Hampshire on Thursday morning, and the door giveaways at the event were
pretty cool:

The “Veterans and Military Town Hall” in Exeter was Rubio’s first campaign
stop on a day of events throughout New Hampshire that will presumably
include less interesting giveaways.

Distributing stress balls to veterans is apparently not unusual for
Veterans Affairs facilities and veterans support groups. The green foam
grenade “stress balls” have also been used as marketing tools for
for-profit college recruiters.

The Concerned Veterans for America grenade stress balls have also
apparently been a popular item for them in the past. This online help guide
for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder encourages
soldiers experiencing flashbacks to play with a stress ball. It seems
unlikely that we’ll see much cooler presidential campaign schwag this
cycle, although “Rand on a Stick” seems pretty fun.

*Rubio: My luxury yacht 'is cleverly disguised as a fishing boat'
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/246195-rubio-my-luxury-yacht-is-cleverly-disguised-as-a-fishing-boat>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 25, 2015 *

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) needled recent reports about his “luxury
speedboat,” joking Thursday that the vessel lacked the amenities of a
lavish yacht, such as a bathroom.

“Well the thing about the boat is, too, it is a luxury speedboat, but it is
cleverly disguised as a fishing boat,” the presidential candidate said
during an event in New Hampshire hosted by the CEO of the Concerned
Veterans for America, according to CNN.

“But the best answer I got is someone who emailed me or texted me and said,
‘Any boat where you have to go to the bathroom off the side of the boat is
not a luxury speedboat.’”

A New York Times story from earlier this month detailed the “financial
struggles” of the Florida Republican, which included an $80,000 “luxury
speedboat,” the liquidation of a $68,000 retirement account despite heavy
penalties and taxes, taking a loss on a house in Tallahassee and a
“strikingly low savings rate.”

The campaign later sent Politico the make and model of the craft, which is
a family fishing boat that lacks the trappings of luxury.

The story came on the heels of another Times report that highlighted
traffic tickets incurred by Rubio in his wife, leading conservatives and
Rubio’s campaign to call foul.

“The attack from The Times is just the latest in their continued hits
against Marco and his family,” Alex Conant, Rubio’s communications
director, told reporters at the time.

“First The New York Times attacked Marco over traffic tickets, and now they
think he doesn’t have enough money. Of course if he was worth millions, The
Times would then attack him for being too rich, like they did to Mitt
Romney.”

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul slams Obamacare ruling, Warren says too late
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2015/06/rand_paul_slams_obamacare_ruling_warren_says_too_late>
// The Boston Herald // Joe Dwinell, Zuri Berry, & Chris Cassidy – June 25,
2015 *

As the president was declaring Obamacare “is here to stay” and Elizabeth
Warren knocked the GOP for fighting it, Rand Paul said it’s still broken
and must be fixed.

The Kentucky U.S. Senator and ophthalmologist slammed the Supreme Court’s
6-3 decision today backing health care subsidies — both federal and state
subsidies — giving President Obama a big win for his landmark 2010 statute.

“This was our best chance to try to get rid of either Obamacare or some of
the worst parts of Obamacare,” Paul said today on Boston Herald Radio’s
“Morning Meeting” show.

“If you don’t care about choosing your doctor and don’t care about choosing
your insurance company ... if you don’t believe in personal choice ... or
competition. No. Health care is not any less expensive,” he said when asked
if he agrees with the president that Obamacare is working. “If you pay for
your health care, your premiums are still pretty high.”

But it didn’t take long for Democrats to fire back at the GOP.

“The GOP can keep trying to deny millions access to health care, but our
experience in MA shows health reform works — & now it’s here to stay,”
Warren said in a Tweet.

“SCOTUS affirmed what we’ve known all along: the ACA was passed to provide
all Americans access to more affordable, comprehensive insurance,” she
added in another tweet.

Paul spoke as the president and Vice President Joe Biden addressed the
court decision outside the White House.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, stumping in New Hampshire today, took aim at the
justices.

"It appears there's at least six people on the Supreme Court who think it's
their job to fix Obamacare," he said. "We need Supreme Court justices ...
that apply the law, not redefine the law in the way they want."

House Speaker John Boehner said Republicans will “continue our efforts to
repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the
needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families.”

At the court, Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal
colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold
it in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the
majority on Thursday.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance
markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts declared in the majority opinion.

Limiting the subsidies only to individuals in states with their own
exchanges could well push insurance markets in the other states “into a
death spiral,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent he summarized from the bench, strongly
disagreed. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he said, using an
acronym for the Supreme Court and suggesting his colleagues’ ownership by
virtue of their twice stepping in to save the law from what he considered
worthy challenges.

*Rand Paul Said to Take on the IRS, Again
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/rand-paul-said-to-take-on-the-irs-again>
// Bloomberg News // Richard Rubin – June 25, 2015 *

Last week, Rand Paul said he wanted to blow up the tax code. Next week, he
could be suing the tax man.

The Kentucky senator is expected to be one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department,
challenging the government's rules on how Americans abroad are taxed and
what foreign banks have to disclose about U.S. citizens who are their
customers. Being on the wrong side of the IRS is, of course, a great place
for a Republican presidential contender to be.

The focus of the lawsuit is the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance
Act—FATCA to the initiated—which has made it much harder for Americans to
have foreign bank accounts hidden from the IRS. It's also been a logistical
nightmare for the millions of Americans who live outside the country and
are still required to file U.S. taxes. The law has also prompted some
foreign banks to refuse U.S. customers rather than deal with the hassles.

“The president can only rely upon his authority and he has no authority in
the Constitution for this.”

The Washington Times first reported Paul's involvement in the suit on
Thursday. Solomon Yue, vice chairman of Republicans Overseas, and James
Bopp, the lead lawyer on the suit, both said Paul will be one of the
plaintiffs, which will be filed in federal court in southern Ohio. Sergio
Gor, a Paul spokesman, wouldn't confirm the Kentucky senator's involvement.

Paul's portion of the suit will question the administration's ability to
negotiate agreements with other countries for sharing tax data without
going through the formal treaty process that requires Senate approval. To
implement FATCA, the Treasury Department has signed cross-border agreements
that are easier for governments and banks to use than the strict rules in
the law itself.

“The president can only rely upon his authority and he has no authority in
the Constitution for this,” Bopp said in an interview on Thursday.

Labeling those intergovernmental agreements as treaties would let Paul
block them—something he's not shy about doing. He's already halting a deal
with Switzerland that was signed in 2009, and Treasury Department officials
have complained that other countries have become less willing to negotiate
tax treaties with the U.S. because they have little confidence that the
Senate will ever ratify them.

Bopp, a longtime conservative activist, said the other plaintiffs are
Americans who live abroad and they'll be challenging  other portions of
FATCA and related bank-disclosure requirements. It could be a tough case.
Courts—remember the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling in 2012—are typically
very deferential to the government's authority to tax. Bopp said the
problem is the requirement to disclose confidential information without a
warrant.

“We don't think this has to do with taxes,” Bopp said. “This has to do with
disclosing private, personal information. The existence of a bank account
in a foreign country has nothing to do with what taxes are imposed.”

*VAT Chance: Rand Paul, Ben Cardin Push to Change Tax Code
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/vat-chance-rand-paul-ben-cardin-push-to-change-tax-code>
// Bloomberg News // Richard Rubin – June 25, 2015 *

Ben Cardin and Rand Paul don't have much in common.

The Maryland Democrat is a reliable vote for President Barack Obama's
agenda. The Kentucky Republican, who is seeking his party's 2016
presidential nomination, is anything but.

Yet both have come to the same conclusion on tax policy: The answer, they
say, is a VAT.

“We don't want people to confuse this with a European-style VAT.”

Yes, a value-added tax, the money machine that fuels governments in Europe
and gets proponents booted out of office around the world. The U.S. is the
only major industrialized nation without a VAT, and that's exactly the way
most lawmakers like it.

Campaign pledge

Paul made the VAT a centerpiece of the tax plan his presidential campaign
released last week. That makes him the latest convert to a cause Cardin has
been pushing for years.

Back in 2010, Cardin was on the losing side of an 85-13 Senate vote that
declared the VAT  "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on
fixed income.'' Just four of the other 12 who voted with Cardin are still
in office, though that had more to do with age than the VAT.

The VAT starts with a very broad base—consumption—and imposes taxes at each
stage of production. Each business pays based on what it sells minus what
it buys, and the burden gets baked into wages and prices.  Those features
mean VATs can raise a ton of money—and they impose a heavier burden on the
poor, who consume a greater share of their income than the rich do.

Cardin has been persistent, proposing the most thoroughly thought-out VAT
plan and advocating it despite little chance of success. Paul is a new
convert.

Cardin says he welcomes the new addition to the VAT chat—even though he
knows they won't agree at all on the details.

"You talk to conservative Republicans and as long as your tape's not on,
they'll say yes," Cardin said in an interview this week. "They will. I
mean, I've talked to them. And if you talk to progressive Democrats,
they'll say yes."

Cardin's plan and Paul's campaign proposal are going nowhere fast. A member
of the Senate minority plus one of a gaggle of presidential candidates
don't quite add up to the clout to transform the tax system.

VAT? What VAT?

In a sign of the idea's political toxicity, neither uses the VAT label.
Cardin goes with "progressive consumption tax." Paul prefers
"business-activity tax."

So at this point, there's no need for a deep dive on border adjustability
and the credit-invoice system. But there's an important lesson here about
the appeal of the VAT as a simple, efficient way to raise revenue.

"If you take a look, any objective—and I mean objective—analysis of our tax
code on competitiveness, you will come to the conclusion that the only way
you can reform our tax code is to bring in consumption tax revenues at the
national level and reduce the income tax revenues at the national level,"
Cardin said.

Cardin and Paul were each well aware of a leading argument against a
VAT—its regressive nature—and their plans propose remedies. However, the
way each senator uses the VAT shows just how far apart the parties are on
taxes.

For Paul, the 14.5 percent VAT is a way to cut other taxes.

He would eliminate the corporate income tax, the payroll tax, the estate
tax, the gift tax and all tariffs. The result would cut $3 trillion over 10
years from federal revenues, according to the Tax Foundation, and Paul's
plan to balance the budget would only work if his tax plan sparks economic
growth and he can persuade Congress to cut spending drastically.

The payroll tax repeal and rules that would prevent families of four making
$50,000 from paying any income taxes are Paul's attempts to address
regressivity. He wants to cut the top individual tax rate to 14.5 percent,
so high-income households would pay a lot less, too.

To borrow a phrase from the health-care debate, Paul's plan is to repeal
and replace.

"We don't want people to confuse this with a European-style VAT," said
Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation, who helped design Paul's plan.
"It's not an add-on. It's a complete and entire replacement."

Cardin's approach

Cardin takes the opposite approach. He starts from the reality that the the
U.S. is a low-tax country with relatively high marginal tax rates. His
working theory is that we just have too few taxes. If you spread the burden
across multiple tax bases, you can keep rates lower and reduce the economic
distortions that each tax causes.

So Cardin uses the revenue from his 10 percent VAT to reduce—but not
eliminate—other taxes. The corporate income tax rate would hit 17 percent,
down from 35. The top income tax rate would be 28 percent, down from 39.6.

To deal with the money machine fears, Cardin includes what he calls a
circuit-breaker—automatic rebates if VAT revenues exceed 10 percent of the
economy.

To address regressivity, Cardin takes Paul's $50,000 figure and doubles it,
so no married couple making under $100,000 would pay income taxes. Plus, he
would offer rebates based on family size.

So Cardin and Paul are close. On everything except the details.

Don't tear up your 1040s just yet.

*Rand Paul and AAPS Want to Bring You Liberty.... From Safe Healthcare
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jason-johnson/rand-paul-and-aaps-want-t_b_7656738.html>
// HuffPo // Dr. Jason Johnson – June 25, 2015 *

Rand Paul has been a lot of things over the last 5 years: a Senator, a Tea
Party scion, and now a candidate for the Republican nomination for
president.

But throughout all of these things Paul, has always fallen back to his
years as an Opthamologist and highlighting the training the dedication,
even the volunteer service he's done have all been a part of his political
message making. But what if Paul wanted to bring his same level of
libertarian politics to doctors? What if his same brand of no government,
no-oversight-free-market-politics made its way into your day to day
healthcare needs? Apparently, Paul has been privately pushing for that all
along under the guise of the Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons (AAPS).

The name sounds innocuous enough. But the AAPS has a radical political
agenda that would likely gut even the most basic protections Americans hold
dear in the realm of healthcare. The group has published numerous troubling
articles drawing a connection between vaccinations and autism, abortions
and breast cancer, and even connecting the rise in American leprosy cases
to illegal immigration. While these are all fringe beliefs based on nothing
more than junk science, they actually don't constitute the most dangerous
policy goals of the organization. Recently, they've set their sights on
medical certification boards.

For those who may be unclear on the role of medical certification boards,
these are the organizations that set the standards for certification that
all doctors have to be a specialist in that area of medicine. When a doctor
says they're Board Certified, it's because they've gone through this
process.

"The medical recertification industry is a monopoly whose net keeps
widening" and "opponents of MOC [Maintenance of Certification] urge
physicians to 'stand up to the tyranny' of the American Board of Medical
Specialties and the MOC requirements of the specialty boards. 'I call it
'civil disobedience' and regard myself as part of an incipient
mass-noncompliance movement," says Dr. Weiss, who has decided not to
recertify.

AAPS has decided that the idea of doctors having to periodically retrain
and update their skills in the medical profession is a horrible imposition
of government authority and, thus, must be stopped. They argue that unlike
cops, or teachers or even truck drivers, doctors should somehow be exempt
from maintaining their skill set. The consequences of this change in
legislation would be disastrous -- and not just for patients, but for
doctors themselves.

The vast majority of Americans don't see a medical provider every year, and
when they do, it is likely for emergencies, because their children are
sick, or they visit their local pharmacist. If doctors are left to their
own whim to determine when and how they update and certify their skills,
changes in medication, surgery procedures and patient care will likely be
missed or just outright ignored. Not because doctors are lazy or
unprofessional, but because re-certification takes time, money and study.

Most doctors feel equipped to handle whatever comes into their offices.
However, certification doesn't just affect patients, it protects doctors as
well. Proof of certification and updated medical knowledge inoculates
doctors against lawsuits and challenges about their competence. If an
urologist is sued for malpractice two weeks after being re-certified they
have a much stronger defense than if the last time they proved their
ability was medical school in the 90's.

Senator Rand Paul was a part of the AAPS until 2010 when he was elected to
the Senate, like most politicians he chose to quietly separate himself from
organizations that might harm his future political goals (like the Palin's
and the Alaska Independence Party). But it doesn't mean he still doesn't
share these beliefs and, in fact, given Paul's recent statements about
autism and vaccination there is every reason to believe that he is still an
ideological member of the AAPS even if he's no longer officially carrying
water for them.

Rand Paul may be many things -- a crusader, a protector of privacy and a
conservative, but one thing he certainly isn't is informed on the value of
and importance of oversight in American healthcare. Medical review boards
are a necessity for a safe and transparent healthcare system in the United
States. The AAPS and organizations like it, are attempting to scuttle the
ways in which the consumer is protected in favor of empowering doctors who,
regardless of intentions, are still capable to of making life threatening
mistakes. Libertarian politics may work great if you're running for
president, but it doesn't take an eye doctor to see it won't work well for
the healthcare needs of Americans.

*Rand Paul's Courtship With Evangelicals: Will It Be Enough to Win the GOP
Primary
<http://www.christianpost.com/news/rand-pauls-courtship-with-evangelicals-will-it-be-enough-to-win-the-gop-primary-140850/>
// The Christian Post // Shane Vander Hart – June 25, 2015 *

In 2012 57 percent of Iowa's Republican caucus-goers identified themselves
as evangelical or born-again Christians. Needless to say a candidate who
wants to do well in the upcoming Iowa Caucuses in February will have to
court evangelicals. It's simple math.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has a greater ability to reach evangelicals
than his father former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) did in 2012, and he is
reaching out.

In March at a small prayer breakfast with pastors in Washington, DC Paul
said that America needs a spiritual revival.

"The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn't say
keep religion out of government," Paul told the group of 50 pastors. "We're
the most disconnected city on the planet from the people so don't have a
lot of faith in what's going on up here."

"We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with
tent revivals of thousands of people saying reform or see what's going to
happen if we don't reform," he added.

At the same meeting he told the pastors that our nation's financial woes
stem from the country's spiritual brokenness. "It's a spiritual problem as
much as it is any other problem. All the other problems kind of stem from a
brokenness that is out there," Paul stated.

Paul has also said that government can't fix the moral crisis our country
is facing during that same meeting. "Don't always look to Washington to
solve anything," Paul said. "In fact, the moral crisis we have in our
country, there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage,
there's also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be
some sort of other marriage. And so, really there's a role outside and
inside government but the exhortation to sort of change people's thoughts
has to come through the countryside, from outside of Washington."

In response to the Charleston shooting Paul told the audience assembled for
the Faith & Freedom Coalition event in Washington, DC said there is a
sickness in the country that can't be solved by more laws.

"What kind of person goes into church and shoots nine people? 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. I think if we
understand that, we'll have better expectations of what to expect from
government," Paul asserted.

Yet he has to do a balancing act between evangelical's social conservatism
on one hand, and libertarians on the other. His campaign's focus has been
to discuss privacy and personal liberty matters where there could be some
overlap between the groups, as well as, with younger voters.

The issue of marriage, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision
to be released at any time could strain that coalition. Libertarians, by
and large, do not want government interference in marriage. Paul is on the
record saying that he would prefer it be left to the states, and that he
doesn't want to register his marriage with the government.

Evangelical social conservatives on the other hand see the Supreme Court's
decision should they rule in favor of same-sex marriage as expected as
federal interference with state laws and constitutional amendments, and yet
another example of a runaway judiciary. They're looking for answers and
Paul has been silent.

Paul has spoken out on the topic of religious liberty however. Last week at
the Faith & Freedom Coalition, but he didn't just talk about what was going
on domestically. "There is a war on Christianity, not just from liberal
elites here at home, but worldwide. And your government, or more correctly,
you, the taxpayer, are funding it," Paul said. "You are being taxed to send
money to countries that are not only intolerant of Christians but openly
hostile. Christians are imprisoned and threatened with death for their
beliefs."

Recently, however, Paul was criticized for his initial silence on the
controversy over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act which the
Indiana Legislature and Governor Mike Pence later gutted after pressure
from the corporate world.

He later defended the law in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News. "I
think what's amazing to me is that it's (RFRA) necessary. This was the
debate when our founding started. Our Founding Fathers didn't even want a
Bill of Rights. They thought it would be so understood that you had the
right to express your religious liberty that no one would ever question it,
and some thought that if you listed a bill of rights that some would
believe that is all of your rights. I think our Founders would be aghast
that anyone would think that they could tell you to do something, to
perform a ceremony or be part of a ceremony, that's against your religious
beliefs. That being said, though, I think the law ought to be neutral, and
I don't think we ought to treat people unfairly," he stated.

"I don't think you can have coercion in a free society very well. I mean,
they–seem to be antagonistic. So, I would think that we ought to try
freedom in most of these things. And then, also, people ought to understand
that people's opinions change through persuasion…so, if people want to
convince people that other forms of marriage are fine, they need to do it
through persuasion," Paul added.

Some evangelicals have expressed concerns about his commitment to Israel
and his non-interventionist foreign policy as it relates to fighting
terrorism. Paul recently changed course on Israel visiting the country for
the 1st time in 2013. He recently submitted the Stand with Israel Act that
would have defunded the Palestinian Authority. While Paul has criticized
military action in Iraq and Afghanistan he also advocated for the United
States to declare war on ISIS.

Also there are questions why Paul has avoided certain venues. He skipped
Congressman Steve King's Freedom Summit in January that had over 1000
grassroots activists present. He did speak at the Iowa Faith & Freedom
event in April, but is skipping The FAMiLY Leadership Summit for the second
year in a row. His campaign told Caffeinated Thoughts that there was a
scheduling conflict on July 18, but did not elaborate on what he is opting
to do on that Saturday.

His absence from what promises to be the largest gathering of evangelicals
in the state, especially in light of the Iowa Straw Poll's cancellation, is
mind-boggling to some political observers.

"In my opinion this ends any remote chances he still had to make any
inroads to the evangelical vote in Iowa, which is going to be about
two-thirds of the electorate next February. Apparently his plan is to see
if 7-10% wins next year. I don't understand that strategy," nationally
syndicated talk show host Steve Deace said on his Facebook page.

Not all disagree with his approach. Mark Doland, who is minister at Park
Avenue Church of Christ in Oskaloosa, IA, has been a vocal supporter of
Paul's and recently said that if Paul won 10 to 15% of the evangelical vote
Paul would be doing well, especially in light of his efforts to expand the
Republican base among younger voters and minorities.

In an op/ed published on Monday by The Des Moines Register Doland also said
that he used to buy into all of the cliches and that if a candidate
expressed support for life and marriage he could be won over easily. Not
anymore, Doland states he's looking for more substance.

He was impressed with Paul's call to reform the criminal justice system.

"Rand Paul is committed to reforming our broken criminal justice system. We
are feeling the shock waves through our culture because it wasn't addressed
sooner. I strongly believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

When I was 13 years old I met my biological father for the first time. I
developed a relationship and bonded with him. It was something I had
dreamed about. Two years later, my father was arrested for conspiracy
charges on drug trafficking. As a young man in an impressionable stage, it
caused a crisis in my life. My dream was annihilated.

My father was sentenced to 13 years in prison. While I do not dispute that
my father committed a crime and should have been incarcerated, I don't
believe that the penalty for his crime was appropriate. My little brother
has followed that path and I believe that it has been directly related to
the fatherlessness he experienced as a teenager.

Upon completion of his sentence I am happy to report that my father has
reformed and is now a Christian. Rand Paul understands the unintended
consequences of this type of justice system and is committed to reforming
it."

Doland also said he also appreciated how Paul has gone on the offense with
the life issue.

The courtship continues, albeit, it is not a traditional one Iowa
evangelicals are used to seeing from candidates. Paul has the ability to
draw some evangelicals provided he can maintain the delicate balance he has
with the libertarians in the party.

*Rand Paul: The Supreme Court ‘Missed An Opportunity Here’
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/rand-paul-the-supreme-court-missed-an-opportunity-here-video/>
// The Daily Caller // Al Weaver – June 25, 2015 *

Soon after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare subsidies Thursday morning,
Sen. Rand Paul said that the Supreme Court “missed an opportunity here” to
change the law.

The 2016 candidate also lamented to CNN’s Wolf Biltzer that the decision
takes “leverage” away from the GOP’s efforts to repeal or fix the law in
any way.

RAND PAUL: As a physician, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity here.
Obamacare is making all insurance more expensive. I think we made a
mistake. If they would have ruled and adhered to the literal nature of the
law, maybe Congress would have had a chance to take up Obamacare again and
try to make it less bad or fix the parts of it that are causing so many
problems in our society. I really think Obamacare is making all insurance
more expensive and taking away choice. So I am disappointed that we’ve
missed an opportunity here.

WOLF BLITZER: But for all practical purposes, senator, at least for now,
any changes, significant changes, in Obamacare, changes you as a physician,
as a Republican, as a senator, as a presidential candidate would like —
those changes are going away at least for now until — if there is a
Republican president that could change, but at least for now you’re
resigned to the fact Obamacare stays as is.

PAUL: I would still like to reform it and change it and give patients back
more choices on whether they can choose which doctor or which insurance
plan, legalize competition and legalize inexpensive insurance again, but it
makes it hard because we don’t have the leverage. If we had the leverage
where the president had to revisit this because part of it had been struck
down, then we would have the leverage to force the president to revisit it.
We have majorities and so we can bring it up and we can pass legislation,
but getting the president to actually do something about it and actually
have the leverage to get him to perhaps sign something that would change
Obamacare, I think we’ve lost that leverage.

BLITZER: But just to wrap this up, senator, even if you do — the Republican
majorities in the House and Senate pass legislation, the president
presumably will veto that legislation and you don’t have two-thirds
majorities to override a presidential veto, right?

PAUL: I agree, and that’s why, without this court case, I think we’ve lost
the leverage to actually have the president negotiate with us.

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz Speaks to the Right, Shuns Party Leaders
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/25/ted-cruz-speaks-to-the-right-shuns-party-leaders/>
// WSJ // Janet Hook – June 25, 2015 *

At a time when many other Republicans are trying to expand their party’s
appeal, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is aggressively building his 2016
presidential campaign with a different approach: Making an undiluted pitch
to his party’s most conservative, anti-establishment wing.

Just within the last week, Mr. Cruz abruptly dropped his support for a
trade bill bitterly opposed by many conservatives; launched fresh attacks
on his own party’s establishment leaders; and declined to take sides in the
South Carolina Confederate flag debate even after other GOP candidates
joined the call for it to be taken down from the Statehouse grounds.

No one ever expected Mr. Cruz to tack to the center in his bid for the 2016
GOP nomination. But as he looks for solid footing in the crowded field, he
is doubling down on positions that fire up his base on the right and
sometimes rankle other Republicans.

That is just fine by him. In a speech at the Heritage Foundation Wednesday,
he took it as a badge of honor that he has fought as much with his own
party leaders as with Democrats, attacking the bipartisan “Washington
cartel” of lobbyists, lawmakers and powerbrokers.

“You can say a lot of things about me but ‘beloved by my colleagues in
Washington’ is not one of them,” he said.

He infuriated many Republicans this week when he flipped positions on trade
legislation that he, as a vocal advocate for free trade, had supported in
the past.

His earlier vote for the trade bill — “fast track” legislation to expedite
international trade agreements — had put him at odds with many tea-party
activists, talk-radio hosts and other conservatives who said it gave too
much power to President Barack Obama.

Some critics saw his reversal this week as an act of political opportunism
to make amends with conservative supporters. He called it a response to
changing circumstances: He believed that party leaders, in rounding up
votes for the trade bill, cut a deal to keep alive the Export Import Bank,
a bete noire for conservatives. That charge was denied by GOP leaders.

In the debate over the Confederate flag in South Carolina after the
Charleston church massacre, Mr. Cruz was almost alone among the major
presidential candidates in not endorsing South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley‘s
call for taking the flag down from the state Capitol grounds.

Like many Republican presidential candidates, Mr. Cruz initially reacted to
the controversy cautiously, deferring to people in the state to decide.
Over the weekend, he said he understood “both sides” of the debate but “I
think that’s a question for South Carolina.”

After Ms. Haley and a bipartisan group of state leaders Monday called for
legislation to remove the flag, other major GOP candidates — including Jeb
Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Rand Paul — chimed in to endorse that
decision.

But Mr. Cruz has still not picked a side. To join in the take-it-down
chorus, he would have to cross some of his most important political
supporters in South Carolina. Two of his three campaign co-chairs are state
legislators who are leading opponents of removing the flag — state Sen. Lee
Bright and state Rep. Bill Chumley.

Campaign spokesman Rick Tyler said Mr. Cruz believed that with the issue
still before the state legislature, it remained one for the state to decide
for itself. “South Carolina doesn’t need outsiders chiming in and dictating
their outcome,” he said.

That puts Mr. Cruz in a familiar place: At odds with Republican Party
leaders.

One of the prominent “outsiders” chiming in on the debate is Republican
National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who has been trying to expand
the GOP’s support among minority voters in the wake of its 2012
presidential loss.

Mr. Priebus appeared on the stage with Ms. Haley as she called for the
flag’s removal, and released a statement in support: “While some say it
represents different things to different people, there is no denying that
it also represents serious divisions that must be mended in our society.”

*Ted Cruz Calls Supreme Court Justices 'Robed Houdinis' Over Obamacare
Decision
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/ted-cruz-obamacare-supreme-court-20150625>
// The National Journal // Marina Koren – June 25, 2015 *

President Obama's signature health care law saw a big victory on Thursday.
And the lawmaker who shut down the government over it is outraged.

Ted Cruz gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon,
a few hours after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold the Affordable Care
Act's subsidies nationwide. The senator from Texas, who is also running for
president, called the decision "judicial activism, plain and simple."

"Today, these robed Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an
exchange, quote, 'established by the State,' " he said. "This is lawless.
As Justice [Antonin] Scalia rightfully put it, without objection, words no
longer have meaning."

Cruz was referring to the challenge in King v. Burwell of a provision of
the Affordable Care Act that calls for health care subsidies to come from
"an exchange established by the State." Opponents of the law said that this
language meant that subsidies cannot be made available to people who live
in states that rely on the federal government to run their exchanges (there
are 34 of them). Roberts wrote that this reading was too narrow, and said
that section of the law could refer to both individual state exchanges and
government-run exchanges.

Scalia wrote a blistering dissent, saying that "words no longer have
meaning" if the majority considers the word "state" to also mean "federal
government." Like Cruz, Scalia accused his fellow justices of siding with
the president for reasons outside of the Constitution.

"Politics intervened," Cruz said. "For nakedly political reasons, the
Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote and instead
read into the law their preferred policy outcome. These judges have joined
with President Obama in harming millions of Americans. Unelected judges
have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that."

Nearly two years ago, just before the launch of Healthcare.gov, Cruz
convinced party leaders to tie funding legislation to a bill that would
defund Obamacare. The resulting legislative fight led to the first
government shutdown in 17 years. Cruz solidified his role as one of the
most vocally anti-Obamacare Republicans on the Hill, and is now vying for
the White House as the most anti-Obamacare presidential candidate. On
Thursday, Cruz looked ahead to 2016, saying the election "will be a
national referendum on repealing Obamacare."

"I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of Obamacare,"
Cruz said. "And mark my words, following the election in 2016, the
referendum that we will have in 2017, this chamber will return and we will
repeal every word of Obamacare."

For the GOP, Thursday's decision is bittersweet. The ruling saves
congressional Republicans and Republican governors from having to scramble
for a plan to immediately protect the 6 million people who would have lost
their coverage had the Court ruled the other way. But the long-term GOP
plan to gut Obamacare depended on a judicial win, one that Republicans
thought would force the president to cave on some parts of his law, like
the individual mandate, which the Court upheld in 2012.

Now, some Republicans are eyeing a legislative maneuver known as budget
reconciliation, which would allow the Senate to skip the 60-vote threshold
required to complete action on a bill, keeping the minority party—in this
case, Democrats—from blocking it. House Speaker John Boehner would not say
Thursday whether leaders will use reconciliation. But even if lawmakers set
the process in motion, they face a steep uphill climb, with Obama's veto
waiting for them at the top.

While the next legislative steps in the battle against Obamacare remain
unclear, Republicans running for president know what to do: promise the
fight isn't over. "I think you're going to see virtually every candidate
from Jeb Bush all the way to John Kasich calling for repeal and
replacement, absolutely," predicted GOP Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona after
the ruling came down.

That includes Cruz, who has the advantage of bringing his campaign to the
Senate floor.

*Ted Cruz on Obamacare Subsidies Decision: "Supreme Court's Judicial
Activism Violating Their Oaths Of Office"
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/25/ted_cruz_on_obamacare_subsidies_decision_supreme_courts_judicial_activism_violating_their_oaths_of_office.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Ian Schwartz – June 25, 2015 *

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): You, the teenage immigrant washing dishes are paying
illegal taxes right now today, because of President Obama's deception,
because of the IRS's lawlessness and because of the Supreme Court's
judicial activism violating their oaths of office.

I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of Obamacare. And
mark my words, following the election in 2016, the referendum that we will
have, in 2017 this chamber will return and we will repeal every word of
Obamacare. We'll bring back economic growth. We'll bring back opportunity.
And then we'll pass commonsense health care reform that makes health
insurance personal and portable and affordable, that keeps government from
getting between us and our doctors.

We will recognize that this horrible experiment has failed. And when
millions of Americans lose their jobs, are forced into part-time work, lose
their health care, lose their doctors, when millions of Americans see their
premiums skyrocket, it's incumbent on members of this body, it's incumbent
on the federal government to fix the wreckage they caused, to fix the
wreckage that the Supreme Court has now embraced lawlessly.

*Ted Cruz, angered by Obamacare ruling, tells ‘rogue justices’ to resign
and run for Congress
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/ted-cruz-angered-obamacare-invites-rogue-justices-/>
// The Washington Times // Seth McLaughlin – June 25, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz delivered a full-throated critique Thursday of the Supreme
Court, saying that it is clear that the “rogue justices” that ruled in
favor of Obamacare subsidies are “lawless” political foot soldiers that
have joined forces with the Obama administration.

Speaking on the Senate floor, the Texas Republican and 2016 GOP
presidential candidate said that if the “justices want to become
legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office.”

The remarks came shortly after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Obama
administration is lawfully doling out Obamacare’s subsidies in dozens of
states despite contested language in the law that sparked a legal battle
with major politi*cal and economic ramifications.*

“The Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote, and
instead read into the law their preferred policy outcome,” Mr. Cruz said.
“These judges have joined with President Obama in *harming millions of
Americans.”*

He continued, “Those justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and
strikes. They have joined a team, and it is a team that is hurting *Americans
across this country.”*

Mr. Cruz said the 2016 election will be a referendum on Obamacare, which he
said is hurting millions of Americans.

*Ted Cruz is bashing John Roberts after years of praising him
<http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-is-bashing-john-roberts-after-years-of-praising-him-2015-6#ixzz3e9865a9X>
// Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 25, 2015 *

Presidential candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) apparently used to have
a very different opinion about Chief Justice John Roberts than he expressed
on Thursday.

According to a 2005 Sun-Sentinel report, Cruz once praised Roberts as "one
of the best constitutional minds in the country."

Cruz reportedly made that comment while explaining why, as a domestic
policy adviser for George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, he brought
Roberts to Florida to assist with his team's legal battle over the
controversial post-election recount.

And as the Texas Tribune reported three years ago, when Bush nominated
Roberts to the Supreme Court in 2005, Cruz "was an outspoken advocate for
his confirmation, calling him 'brilliant' and a 'lawyer's lawyer.'"

"As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative,
as is the president who appointed him," Cruz wrote at the time in the
National Review. "But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts's approach will be that
of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and
legal precedent."

Cruz, now running a fiercely conservative campaign for president, seemed to
have a much different take on Roberts on Thursday when the Supreme Court
issued its second major ruling protecting the Affordable Care Act, also
known as Obamacare

In a passionate statement, Cruz tore into the court's "robed Houdinis" who
"transmogrified" the law to defend President Barack Obama's signature
healthcare law. Roberts wrote both of the rulings Cruz criticized.

"Today's decision in King v. Burwell is judicial activism, plain and
simple. For the second time in just a few years, a handful of unelected
judges has rewritten the text of Obamacare in order to impose this failed
law on millions of Americans," the senator said.

Cruz's lengthy statement argued that the Supreme Court justices clearly
screwed up and that they would have ruled against the Affordable Care Act
if politics had not intervened. Cruz once clerked for then-Chief Justice
William Rehnquist and, as Texas' solicitor general, argued a number of
cases before the Supreme Court.

"For nakedly political reasons, the Supreme Court willfully ignored the
words that Congress wrote, and instead read into the law their preferred
policy outcome. These judges have joined with President Obama in harming
millions of Americans," he continued. "Unelected judges have once again
become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide
their prevarication in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of
laws, not of men, and this transparent distortion is disgraceful."

Cruz's campaign did not respond to requests for comment from Business
Insider on Thursday asking about the 2005 Sun-Sentinel report and whether
his opinion of Roberts has changed.

If his opinion about Roberts has indeed shifted, Cruz wouldn't be the only
one. Roberts was nominated for his position by Bush, a Republican, and many
conservatives criticized him for siding with the court's liberal wing in
the Obamacare ruling.

Similarly, as a senator, President Obama criticized and voted against
Roberts' confirmation in 2005. Obama likely has a very different opinion of
the chief justice today.

*GRAHAM*

*Graham Blasts Hillary’s ‘Sleazy’ Associates, State Department Management
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/graham-blasts-hillarys-sleazy-associates-state-department-management/#sthash.7saSazjs.dpuf>
// Free Beacon // Alana Goodman – June 25, 2015 *

South Carolina senator and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham slammed
Hillary Clinton’s management of the State Department on Wednesday, saying
that other Americans could be sent to jail for running organizations in a
similar fashion.

“I don’t know how in the world she can avoid being held accountable for the
way she ran the State Department,” said Graham, during a meeting with
Washington Free Beacon reporters on Wednesday morning. “The sleazy nature
of these relationships, and her AWOL when it came to taking care of the
people under her charge—being AWOL regarding Benghazi.”

Graham said he had concerns about Clinton’s continued relationship with
long-time confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who passed on faulty intelligence
from his private intelligence network to the Secretary of State.

“I have zero respect for the man,” said Graham, noting that Blumenthal was
accused of spreading false rumors to discredit Monica Lewinsky in the
1990s. “There’s a reason the State Department wouldn’t hire him. For her to
continue to associate with this guy says a lot about her.”

Graham said he also found it troubling that Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl
Mills was simultaneously serving on the board of New York University’s
UAE-funded Abu Dhabi campus, earning $198,000 as NYU’s general counsel and
working for Clinton at the State Department. The Free Beacon first reported
on Mills’ overlapping positions on Wednesday.

“What kind of vetting system do you have over there?” said Graham.
“Somebody had to sign off on this. Either [Clinton’s] okay with this, or
completely in the dark.”

The Republican candidate also blasted Clinton for her use of a private
email server, saying that if she had been in the Bush administration there
would be much more serious consequences.

“If Dick Cheney had done any of this. If Dick Cheney had set up a server in
his house,” said Graham. “If Dick Cheney’s lawyers had gone through the
process and said ‘No, we cleansed the thing, trust us, we did it right,’
there’d be all hell to pay.”

The senator said Clinton’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi was the biggest black mark on her State Department record.

He criticized the former secretary of state for failing to address security
concerns at the Benghazi compound in the months leading up to the attack,
despite requests from staff and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“What do you have to do as an ambassador in her State Department to get
help? Do you have to take an ad out in the Washington Post?” said Graham.
“They did everything they could do to request additional help, and every
request, for the most part, was denied.”

“I think she’s carrying more bags than anybody should be able to carry for
President of the United States,” he added.

In addition to Clinton, Graham said he also thought fellow Republican
senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul would have significant baggage
on national security issues going into the race.

He said Paul’s recent filibuster to protest NSA surveillance hurt his
standing with senate colleagues, and described it as an “unseemly”
fundraising ploy.

“The worst thing that can happen to you in the Senate is people think you
don’t know what you’re doing,” said Graham. “Rand, I think, exhibited a
detachment from the reality that exists in terms of the [national security]
threats.”

“People thought he did it for political reasons,” Graham added. “He’s out
there on the floor doing a filibuster and raising money. And I think that
was unseemly. I think he tremendously hurt himself in terms of being seen
as a colleague who is serious and knowledgeable.”

*Lindsey Graham Criticizes Hillary Clinton on Equal Pay
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/gop-candidate-criticizes-hillary-clinton-on-equal-pay/#sthash.xOUo6u1H.dpuf>
// Free Beacon // Joe Schoffstall – June 25, 2015*

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) criticized
Hillary Clinton’s support for equal pay laws as little more than a handout
to the trial lawyer lobby.

Despite having a history of paying the female staffers in her Senate office
far less than their male counterparts, Clinton has claimed to be in favor
of laws that would mandate equal pay between the sexes.

Graham said in an interview Wednesday that her stated proposal would never
work and is purely politics. He also questioned how many people would want
the federal government to set salaries throughout the nation.

“Equal pay is about creating lawsuit opportunities, it’s not about
equality. It’s about creating more opportunities for a company to be
sued—it is a talking point. It is a concept and it is a shallow concept. It
is designed to make people aggrieved with no solution at hand other than
more lawsuits,” Graham said.

The senator questioned whether such efforts are the proper role of the
federal government.

“Is it the government’s job to set salaries for people in this country? I
would say the construct she’s proposing would never work; it’s all
politics,” Graham said. “How many Americans want the federal government to
inventory salaries throughout the country. There are already laws on the
books where you could sue somebody if you are being paid less because of
your gender.”

Clinton is “toying” with people by giving them hope when there is none,
Graham said.

“The worst thing about this is you’re creating—you’re giving people
hope—when there is none, you’re toying with people. Those who feel like, ‘I
should be paid more,’ well the federal government is not going to come in
there and give you more money but there is a process for you to sue if you
feel you’re being aggrieved as an individual. Her solution is just to
increase more lawsuits. When she talks about equal play and you flush it
out, she’s toying with people.”

The Washington Free Beacon  previously reported that Clinton’s current
equal pay rhetoric doesn’t quite match up to the history of what she paid
employees while in the Senate.

While Clinton was a senator, she paid females in her office just 72 cents
for each dollar paid to men.

“During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in
Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man,” the
Free Beacon found in its analysis of data compiled from official Senate
expenditure reports.

*How Lindsey Graham Would Defeat the Islamic State
<http://freebeacon.com/national-security/how-lindsey-graham-would-defeat-the-islamic-state/>
// Free Beacon // Daniel Wiser – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) laid out a
detailed plan for defeating the Islamic State terrorist group in an
interview Wednesday with the Washington Free Beacon, offering a frank
assessment of the necessity for more U.S. troops and a two-front strategy
for Iraq and Syria.

Concerns continue to be raised about the current U.S. strategy for
defeating the Islamic State (IS), which now reportedly controls more than
half of Syria and seized the Iraqi city of Ramadi last month. Despite U.S.
airstrikes and the presence of about 3,500 troops to train and advise Iraqi
forces, the Obama administration’s plan to “degrade and destroy” IS does
not appear to have slowed the group’s momentum.

Graham, one of the leading GOP voices on foreign policy and a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said “Gen. Obama and [Vice President Joe]
Biden have been very lousy generals” in the fight against IS. He added that
the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 only emboldened
neighboring Iran, which has expanded its influence in Iraq by backing
Shiite militias.

“Nothing you see today was unpredictable,” he said. “It was the natural,
logical consequence of a poor decision by the president.”

Graham said he agrees with retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the architects
of the surge strategy in the Iraq War, on the need to deploy about 10,000
U.S. troops to Iraq. This would include aviation battalions and special
operations forces that could call in airstrikes and better assist Iraqi
forces on the front lines. The raid last month by U.S. commandos that
killed a senior IS official in Syria should be replicated, he said.

“If I were president we’d be doing that every night in Syria and Iraq,” he
said. “They would never get a minute’s sleep.”

More U.S. advisers on the ground would also expedite the training of Iraqi
forces and Sunni Muslim tribal fighters from the western Anbar province,
who remain distrustful of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and
its ties to Iran, he said.

Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the American
Enterprise Institute, articulated a similar strategy in congressional
testimony on Wednesday. About 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to help
call in airstrikes, embed with Iraqi units to improve their effectiveness,
conduct raids on IS leaders, and obtain better intelligence, Kagan said.

In a February poll conducted by CNN, 57 percent of Americans said they did
not approve of Obama’s efforts to defeat IS. However, a slim majority of
respondents said they still opposed sending ground troops back to the
Middle East.

As president, Graham said he would tell Americans, “if we don’t deal with
the threats over there, they’re coming here.”

“I’ve never seen so many terrorist organizations with so many safe havens,
so much money, so many men, equipment, and material to hit the homeland as
I do today,” he said.

IS has also demonstrated an ability to expand its so-called caliphate and
global influence, making inroads in Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen, and
inspiring attacks in Paris and Texas.

“This is not a regional conflict,” he said. “This is a worldwide struggle
of good versus evil, religious Nazis against the rest of us.”

Turning to Syria, he said the chaotic civil war there “makes Iraq look like
a cakewalk.” The Pentagon is attempting to train and equip more moderate
Syrian rebels to battle IS, but fewer than 200 fighters have begun the
program so far due to vetting issues and the difficulty of exiting the
country’s war zone. Graham said the train-and-equip plan would “have to be
150 years old before this thing has any chance of working,” noting that IS
could have as many as 40,000 fighters in Syria, its original base of
operations.

“There are more foreign fighters coming into [IS] ranks than we’re training
Free Syrian rebels,” he said.

The U.S.-trained rebels also do not have explicit approval to target Syrian
dictator Bashar al-Assad, a situation that Graham said has undermined
regional support for the effort and must change. He said he would assemble
a regional force composed of troops from Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to
topple Assad and eradicate IS and other terrorist groups in Syria. Yet he
added that “big Arab armies haven’t really fought much,” meaning that more
U.S. commandos will be required to give them a logistical edge and act as
forward air controllers to improve the accuracy of airstrikes.

Once IS has been decimated from Iraq and Syria, U.S. allies must hold the
territory and begin a process of reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites,
he said. A political settlement could begin to heal a post-Assad Syria,
while neutralizing the influence of Iran in Iraq would create more
stability in that country and the region. Graham added that he “would walk
away” from the current nuclear negotiations between the United States and
Iran and ramp up pressure on Tehran with additional sanctions.

Americans must be prepared for the long-term challenge in the region of
rooting out IS and rolling back Iran’s influence, he said, dismissing quick
solutions such as the partition of Iraq and Syria.

“This mess has got many tentacles to it,” he said. “As you pull up the
caliphate by its roots, you’ve got to explain to the American people—this
is going to be a long struggle to hold this ground, rebuild Syria and Iraq.”

*SANTORUM*

*Santorum returns focus to culture wars in Iowa speech
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/25/santorum-campaign-western-iowa/29316087/>
// The Des Moines Register // William Petroski - June 25, 2015 *

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who has struggled for recognition in a
crowded Republican presidential field, focused heavily on his role as a
culture warrior here Thursday night and received enthusiastic support.

Santorum carried 11 states — including the Iowa caucuses — with a
low-budget, grassroots campaign in 2012 that appealed strongly to Christian
conservatives. He began the 2016 election cycle talking about helping
blue-collar workers, but he spent much of his campaign speech here making
clear his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion and the need to
bolster two-parent American families.

Santorum said he was disappointed with Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that favored the implementation of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care
Act. He added he is now concerned the high court will soon follow with a
decision endorsing same-sex marriage.

But if the court sides in support of gay marriage, Santorum made it clear
he won't consider the battle over. He warned such a court decision could
have profound effects on the nation's churches and religious schools and
hospitals, resulting in their loss of tax-exempt status if they don't
comply.

"You will find out what candidates are made out of," Santorum said. "The
key is, 'Are they willing to fight?' "

He told a packed crowd of Iowa and Nebraska residents — including some
Catholic priests, religious sisters and seminarians — that Americans who
value their faith are battling "a religion of the secular left."

"It is based on power and sheer will. It will be tough to stand against it,
but we must," said Santorum, who was repeatedly interrupted with applause
and received a standing ovation afterward.

Santorum touted his credentials as a former Senate member who was willing
to fight abortion even when his Republican colleagues were reluctant to
broach the subject. He said he has been debating Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton for a long time, noting that he wrote 2005 book
"It Takes a Family" in response to the former First Lady's 1996 book, "It
Takes a Village."

He accused President Barack Obama of dividing Americans racially and on
being more interested in "class warfare" than helping people rise in
society. But he added that Republicans need a presidential candidate who
sounds more like a neighbor to American voters than their boss.

He suggested that as president, he could use the White House as a bully
pulpit in support of two-parent American families who favor work and
education, saying it would help young people succeed economically,
regardless of the color of their skin.

State Rep. Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, Santorum's Iowa campaign chairman,
said Thursday night the former senator is close to having a full state
campaign staff and should make a strong effort in the 2016 Iowa caucuses.
Most Iowa Republicans "are still kicking the tires" on prospective
presidential candidates, he said, adding he believes "solid conservatives
will line up with Rick Santorum."

AT THE EVENT

SETTING: Belle Terre, a vineyard and reception hall, in rolling green
fields outside Glenwood in southwest Iowa.

CROWD: About 250 people who packed the facility.

REACTION: He received enthusiastic applause throughout his speech and a
standing ovation when he finished.

WHAT'S NEXT: This was the first day of a two-day campaign trip to Iowa, but
Santorum's plans earlier on Thursday to visit Atlantic, Elk Horn and
Kimballton were canceled because weather interfered with his flight plans.
Santorum concludes his Iowa visit with a faith and freedom roundtable
discussion at 9:30 a.m. Friday at St. Anne's Catholic Parish in Logan.

*Rick Santorum: “European Socialist” Obama Believes In Revolutionary Model
That Led To Reign Of Terror
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/rick-santorum-obama-reign-of-terror#.ccgg9GyrJ>
// Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said in May 2014 that
calling President Barack Obama a “European Socialist” means he “believes in
the model of the French Revolution,” which “led to the Reign of Terror.”

The former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania offered a comparative history of
the American and French revolutions while being interviewed by radio host
Hugh Hewitt at an event sponsored by the Reagan Foundation.

Where the American Revolution was “about ‘paternity’: God-given rights,”
Santorum said, the French Revolution was predicated on “‘fraternity’:
brotherhood, people giving rights.” This, Santorum further argued, helps
explain why the latter insurrection “led to the Reign of Terror” and why
contemporary Europe is “a dying culture.”

“And it was explicitly a secular revolution,” he said. “Anti-clerical,
secular revolution that said that the government is in charge. It led to
the Reign of Terror, the execution, the guillotine, Bonaparte. And now
Europe, which is a descendant of the French Revolution, is a godless,
secular continent, as the European Union is. And it’s a dying culture.”

Santorum contrasted this outcome with that of the American Revolution,
which, he said, “spawned this hopeful, optimistic country because we
believe in the dignity of every human life and the human potential. And
society was ordered to maximize that. And America flourished and changed
the world.”

Santorum was discussing how, today, there is “a group of people in America
who believe that that moment has passed” and that “in fact Europe has the
better ideas,” when he transitioned into his critique of Obama.

“You say, ‘Well, Barack Obama’s a European socialist,’” Santorum said.
“Understand what that means. He believes in the model of the French
Revolution, he believes in a secular, government-run society. Freedom is
top-down, not bottom-up.”

*HUCKABEE*

*Huckabee calls court’s health-care ruling an ‘act of judicial tyranny’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/25/huckabee-calls-courts-health-care-ruling-an-act-of-judicial-tyranny/>
// WaPo // Philip Rucker – June 25, 2015 *

Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and current Republican
presidential candidate, called the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to
protect the Affordable Care Act "an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny."

"Our Founding Fathers didn't create a 'do-over' provision in our
Constitution that allows unelected Supreme Court justices the power to
circumvent Congress and rewrite bad laws," Huckabee said in a statement
provided to The Washington Post.

"The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench, ignore the
Constitution, and pass a multi-trillion dollar 'fix' to ObamaCare simply
because Congress misread what the states would actually do," his statement
continued. "The architects and authors of ObamaCare were intentional in the
way they wrote the law. The courts have no constitutional authority to
rescue Congress from creating bad law. The solution is for Congress to
admit they screwed up, repeal the 'nightmare of Obamacare,' and let states
road-test real health care reforms."

Huckabee, who is campaigning throughout rural south-central Iowa all day
Thursday, pulled over at a gas station to review the court's King v.
Burwell ruling.

Huckabee said in his statement that the Affordable Care Act has been a
"Washington disaster" that's resulted in families "getting punched in the
gut with outrageous insurance premiums and infuriating hospital bills."

"As President, I will protect Medicare, repeal ObamaCare, and pass real
reform that will actually lower costs, while focusing on cures and
prevention rather than intervention," Huckabee said. "The status quo is
unfair, unaffordable, unsustainable and completely un-American."

*Mike Huckabee: 'Donor Class' Pushed Senate Republicans To Approve Obama's
Fast-Track Trade Authority
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/25/mike-huckabee-trade_n_7667940.html>
// HuffPo // Samantha-Jo Roth – June 25, 2015 *

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Thursday criticized Senate
Republicans for voting to approve fast-track trade authority for President
Barack Obama, blaming the influence of the "donor class."

“I expect better of the people that we send" to Congress, Huckabee, a 2016
presidential candidate, said during a campaign stop in Corydon, Iowa. "I
understand the donor class has pushed them and pushed them to vote for this
bill.”

The Senate on Wednesday cleared a bill to give Obama fast-track approval of
international trade deals. Fast-track authority would allow the president
to submit trade agreements to Congress for an accelerated vote without
amendments.

"74 percent of Republicans in America thought it was a bad idea, and most
of the Republicans that voted for it, admitted they haven’t read that bill
either,” Huckabee told Iowans at a pizzeria.

Huckabee, who traveled to 37 states last year to campaign for Senate
Republicans, said it’s time to take a stand against power, money and
influence.

“We went out and helped Republicans win in the last election cycle, we sent
them to Congress to curtail the executive overreach of this president on
issues like immigration and Obamacare,” Huckabee said. “What did our
Republicans do this week -- they gave this president more power.”

Huckabee said if he's elected president, he wouldn't seek fast-track
authority, pointing out recent trade agreements that have led to the loss
of U.S. jobs.

“We have allowed our trade partners to manipulate their currency to dump
products into our market place,” he said. “The result is some of your
friends, neighbors and family members who have lost jobs in this country,
have lost it because we didn’t enforce the trade bills we have, yet we are
going to enter into a new one.”

Four Republican Presidential candidates serving in the U.S. Senate
participated in the fast-track vote. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) voted against giving the president fast-track authority, while
Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) approved it.

*Mike Huckabee: The Supreme Court just issued 'an out-of-control act of
judicial tyranny'
<http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-huckabee-the-supreme-court-is-out-of-control-2015-6>
// Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike
Huckabee slammed the Supreme Court on Thursday after it delivered a huge
victory for the White House by saving a crucial component of Obamacare in a
6-to-3 vote.

In a fierce statement, Huckabee said the decision was "an out-of-control
act of judicial tyranny."

The US' highest court ruled that President Barack Obama's signature
healthcare law could provide subsidies to millions of people who were
insured through federal exchanges. The dissenting justices argued that the
language of the Affordable Care Act indicated that only people insured
through state-based exchanges should be eligible for the subsidies.

Huckabee clearly agreed with the dissent.

"Our Founding Fathers didn't create a 'do-over' provision in our
Constitution that allows unelected, Supreme Court justices the power to
circumvent Congress and rewrite bad laws," his statement continued. "The
Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench, ignore the Constitution, and
pass a multitrillion-dollar 'fix' to Obamacare simply because Congress
misread what the states would actually do."

He added: "The architects and authors of Obamacare were intentional in the
way they wrote the law. The courts have no constitutional authority to
rescue Congress from creating bad law."

Huckabee has long been critical of what he describes as the Supreme Court's
overreaching its legal authority. When discussing the court potentially
ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, for example, he has argued "the court
cannot change what God has created."

*Mike Huckabee: Get government out of veterans’ health care business
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/mike-huckabee-get-government-out-veterans-health-c/>
// The Washington Times // David Sherfinski – June 25, 2015 *

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee wants the U.S. to get out of the
business of veterans’ health and medical care.

The Veterans Health Administration, the part of the embattled Department of
Veterans Affairs handling medical care, should be “put out of its misery
and most importantly, put it out of the government’s” reach, Mr. Huckabee
said Wednesday at a stop in Osceola, Iowa, the Des Moines Register reported.

Veterans should instead be given a health care card that provides them with
medical services at whatever facility or provider they go to, said Mr.
Huckabee, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate and winner of the 2008 caucuses
in Iowa.

“You say ‘that might be expensive.’ It might be,” he said. “If we have to
take down every monument in Washington, D.C., cut them up in pieces and
sell them as souvenirs to pay for it, so be it.”

*CARSON*

*Ben Carson: The Supreme Court Overstepped on Obamacare
<http://time.com/3936463/dr-ben-carson-obamacare/> // TIME // Dr. Ben
Carson – June 25, 2015 *

The Supreme Court decided Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act. I,
like millions of Americans, am alarmed with the court’s new power to fill
in the blanks and connect the dots on the laws Congress enacts. It seems
that a new Justice John Roberts era of “never mind what the law says, we
know what it means” has begun. But as a brain surgeon, I was taught not to
waste critical time. So I will not.

The Affordable Care Act was the product of an inept process from the start.
Twisted legislative maneuvering compounded by a running clock gave us this
mess. No Republican voted for this nightmare. Some Democrats didn’t bother
to even read it, prompting then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to famously
warn, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

What’s in it is the problem, and the implementation has been just as
shameful. More than $2 billion was spent on a website that didn’t work, and
networks of community organizers combed neighborhoods to sign up people,
many of whom thought they had been offered something for free. Now we have
hospital emergency rooms filled with new policyholders who were never told
that up to $5,000 of the first costs are on them.

In the third quarter of 2008, when President George W. Bush was leaving
office, 14.4% of the adult population of this country was uninsured. Today,
with the full implementation of Obamacare, that number has dropped to
11.9%. To accomplish these results, many of us have been forced to find new
doctors, and many Americans are paying considerably more.

A drop in the uninsured adult population of 2.5% is rather paltry when you
measure it against the more than $2 billion spent to implement the program
and the 10-year Congressional Budget Office estimation of more $1 trillion
more. Doing the math will only lead to heartburn, and as a doctor, I don’t
recommend it.

Instead of wasting our time and energy resenting the power grab of the
court, the GOP presidential candidates should all agree to re-double our
efforts to rid our country of this poorly drafted, ineptly implemented,
massively costly and shamefully enacted piece of government intervention
into our lives.

I spent my life as a caregiver to young children. The number of fights I
have had with insurance companies is only surpassed by the amount of money
I paid in malpractice premiums. I am no defender of the “good ole days.”

I believe we need to replace Obamacare with a system that empowers
consumers with knowledge and choice to drive down costs. The more power we
put in the hands of consumers, the lower the costs will fall. If consumers
were picking up the costs for $20 bandages at the Emergency Room, how long
would it be before the prices were the same as the bandages at Walgreens.
If a patient knew he or she could get the same test at CVS for 90% less
than it cost at the hospital, then CVS would need bigger parking lots. More
government is always a poor excuse for a solution. Consumer empowerment
with health saving accounts coupled with catastrophic coverage is the way
to drive costs down.

The GOP nominees this cycle must have a plan to repeal and replace, the
determination to articulate that plan, and the fortitude and willingness to
work with Congress to actually cause change.

*Carson says GOP must offer ‘really appealing’ ObamaCare alternative;
Congressman King reacts to ruling
<http://www.radioiowa.com/2015/06/25/carson-says-gop-must-offer-really-appealing-obamacare-alternative-congressman-king-reacts-to-ruling/>
// Radio Iowa // O. Kay Henderson – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said this morning he’s “deeply
disappointed” in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that “ObamaCare”
subsidies are legal. But Carson is urging ObamaCare opponents not to “waste
time and energy mourning” the decision, but instead “redouble” the effort
to get congress to repeal the law.

“We have to come out with something that is really appealing,” Carson told
reporters in Sioux Center. “…That’s going to require some legislative
changes, which means we’ve got to get brave people in there in leadership
positions.”

Carson said it’s important to “get rid of things” in ObamaCare that are
“killing the economy” and that means ending the “employer mandate” which
requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health
insurance or pay a fine.

“It used to be as your company was growing, you were really happy. You got
40 and then you got 50 and then you got 100 employees. That doesn’t happen
anymore. Now you get to 40 and you start backing off,” Carson said. “That
antithetical to growth in our society.”

Carson made his comments after speaking to a big crowd this morning at the
Fruited Plain Cafe in Sioux Center.

Iowa Congressman Steve King, a leading critic of ObamaCare, issued a video
statement late this morning on the ruling.

“This is a frustrating day when you’re in the business of writing laws and
watching the Supreme Court amend them at their will,” King said, “by using
their own judgment on what public policy should be in the United States.”

King said when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, the court has decided
to “make it up” as it goes along.

“And they have ruled, essentially, that the law doesn’t mean what it says,”
King said.

This decision on “ObamaCare” was the first of two big rulings expected from
the court before it recesses for the summer.

“I’m really concerned about what can happen with the decision on marriage,”
King said. “They’ll likely conclude that the Constitution doesn’t mean what
it says either.”

Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior member of Iowa’s congressional
delegation, issued a written statement late this morning. Grassley said he
respect the court, but Grassley said ObamaCare “remains a terrible law” and
he is “committed to repealing and replacing it with effective reforms
driven by the marketplace, not the heavy hand of government.”

Congressman Dave Loebsack, the only Democrat in Iowa’s congressional
delegation, called today’s decision “a big relief for the thousands of Iowa
families who would have faced large, unforeseen, out of pocket increases in
their health care costs.” Loebsakc said in his written statement that it’s
time to “move forward and work to strengthen this law, not continue to try
and dismantle it.”

Congressman David Young of Van Meter, one of Iowa’s two rookie Republicans
in the U.S. House, issued a statement this afternoon saying there are “real
problems with the Affordable Care Act” and it “needs to be repealed and
replaced with a common sense patient-centered solution.”

Senator Joni Ernst was the first member of Iowa’s congressional delegation
to react today. Read her statement here, along with analysis from a
University of Iowa law professor. Freshman Congressman Rod Blum, a
Republican from Dubuque, has not released a statement on today’s ruling.

Two other GOP presidential candidates are campaigning in the state today.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called the ruling “an act of
judicial tyranny” and he says congress should “admit they screwed up” and
repeal the law. Rick Santorum will be in Glenwood this evening. The former
Pennsylvania senator calls the ruling a “reminder” that in order to get rid
of ObamaCare, the nation must elect a “conservative president.”

*Ben Carson In 2014: Communists Have “Infiltrated Our Society”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/ben-carson-beware-of-communism#.njjPQ24el>
// Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said in an interview last
year that Communists are “in our society” and are “organized” in their
effort to “bring America down.”

The retired neurosurgeon was talking to Baltimore News Radio’s Bryan Nehman
in May of 2014 about social divisions in the US, when he started explaining
his understanding of “neo-Marxist” literature and how it reflected
contemporary American society.

He recommended that people read Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals to “put a
lot of stuff that you’re seeing going on into perspective,” noting that the
book was “dedicated to Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own
kingdom.”

“This is what we’re up against,” he said.

“Go back and read what the neo-Marxists said about America and about our
incredible strength and how it would be necessary to bring America down to
do two essential things,” the retired neurosurgeon said. “We have to
destroy the American family—basically change the concept of what the family
is. And the other thing they said is you’ve got to kick to the curb their
Judeo-Christian beliefs because it provides way too much strength. The only
thing that’s amazing is how quickly that’s occurring. There’s a book called
the Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen, the same guy who wrote the Five
Thousand Year Leap, published in 1958. I encourage people to go and read
that book.”

The host asked Carson, “Who are the communists that are doing that? I mean,
the Soviet Union is no longer there.” Carson responded that, “They’re in
our society,” but that people should read about it themselves because he
didn’t want to “feed into what people say is paranoia.”

“They’re in our society,” he said. “They infiltrated our society. And
rather than, you know, feed into what people say is paranoia, I tell
people, ‘Go read this stuff yourselves.’”

“They are extremely well organized,” he argued. “And when you start reading
these things that were written 50 and 60 years ago you will recognize them
immediately as things that are going on today. Vladimir Lenin, it was kind
of funny, the way he put it, ‘There are a lot of people, they will not
recognize what we’re doing. They’ll play right into our hands.’ And he
calls them ‘useful idiots.’”

*TRUMP*

*Univision Severs Ties With Donald Trump and Beauty Pageants
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/verbatim-hillary-clinton-supports-supreme-court-decision/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 25, 2015 *

Donald J. Trump’s business empire was dealt its first casualty Thursday as
a result of his decision to run for president.

Univision said that it was ending its relationship with the Trump
Organization, that it will not air the Miss USA pageant on its network next
month, and that it is severing ties with the Miss Universe Organization.
Mr. Trump is a part owner of the Miss Universe Organization, the umbrella
group for both the United States and world beauty pageants.

Univision said the decision was because of Mr. Trump’s recent remarks about
Mexican immigrants. During his presidential announcement last week, Mr.
Trump proposed building a wall along the border to keep criminals and
“rapists” from sneaking into the United States.

“At Univision, we see firsthand the work ethic, love for family, strong
religious values and the important role Mexican immigrants and
Mexican-Americans have had and will continue to have in building the future
of our country,” the company said in a statement.

Mr. Trump said in a statement that Univision was breaking a contract
because of pressure from the Mexican government. He also vowed not to be
silenced on the subject, arguing that the United States was being damaged
by costly trade deals with Mexico and an influx of illegal immigrants who
are taking American jobs.

“I have great respect for Mexico and love the Mexican people, but my
loyalty is to the United States and making our country great again,” Mr.
Trump said.

In a subsequent interview with Politico, Mr. Trump suggested that former
Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida would have apologized for angering the Mexican
government with such blunt remarks.

“Anyone else would be subservient to that,” Mr. Trump said. “Bush would
say, I’m sorry, keep ripping us off.”

The jab at Mr. Bush comes as a poll this week showed Mr. Trump trailing him
by a small margin in New Hampshire, the first primary state.

*Are Donald Trump’s poll numbers too good to be true?
<http://www.politico.eu/article/are-donald-trumps-poll-numbers-too-good-to-be-true/>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – June 25, 2015 *

Real estate tycoon Donald Trump has been gleefully calling attention to a
Suffolk University poll showing him in second place among the large 2016
Republican primary field, and whispers of a Trump surge are making the
rounds.

It might be wise to take a deep breath.

The poll, released Tuesday, showed former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in the
lead in New Hampshire, with 14 percent, followed by Trump with 11 percent.
The Trump victory dance, or tweet, quickly followed: “The highly respected
Suffolk University poll just announced that I am alone in 2nd place in New
Hampshire, with Jeb Bust (Bush) in first.”

It’s true that Trump did indeed take second place in that poll. But it’s
also true that nationally Trump’s polling has been on the decline, and that
his favorability numbers aren’t hot in New Hampshire. The poll also comes
far in advance of the New Hampshire GOP primary, to be held early in 2016.

Pollsters and GOP consultants in the state chalked up Trump’s bump to a
mixture of his recent candidacy announcement and the high name recognition
that comes from his notoriously flamboyant personality, not to mention his
reality-show fame.

“Everybody should calm down,” Andy Smith, the director of the University of
New Hampshire’s Survey Center, said. “What you’re seeing is real in the
sense that people who are paying any attention to this in the last week or
so have seen Donald Trump on TV. That doesn’t mean they’re going to vote
for him.”

Right now, the early polls don’t reflect how many hands have been shaken by
a candidate or how much money has been spent on advertising or how many
staffers are on the ground there.

“When you’re asking people about who they’re going to vote for in the New
Hampshire primary, what you’re asking is, ‘All right, it’s months from the
primary now: Who have you seen in the newspaper lately?’ And that would be
Donald Trump,” Smith added.

A deeper look at the Suffolk poll results also cast doubt that this really
is some kind of Trump surge. On favorability, the poll found Trump
underwater among New Hampshire Republican primary voters, with 37 percent
saying they had a favorable view of him, while 49 percent have an
unfavorable view. A much smaller 13 percent said they were undecided on
him, and just 6 percent said they hadn’t heard of him.

By comparison, the Suffolk poll found that 58 percent said they had a
favorable view of Bush, while 26 percent said they held an unfavorable view
of him. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who came in third in the poll, also
had better favorability numbers than Trump — 53 percent said they had a
favorable view of him, while 16 percent said they had an unfavorable view.

“I think there’s more bad news for him than good news,” New Hampshire
Republican operative Tom Rath said, pointing to Trump’s favorability
numbers. “I’m not saying the poll is invalid or that it’s faulty as a poll.
The timing of it is dubious in that it’s right at the moment of the maximum
publicity announcement and that there was a lot of media coverage of it,
and so there’s probably a lot of oomph.”

The favorability number might actually show Trump’s ceiling, Patrick
Murray, the director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said. In
May, the RealClearPolitics average of national polls on the GOP field put
Trump at 4.5 percent. But as of late June, Trump is at 3.2 percent.

“At the end of the day, it’s quite possible that Donald Trump will get 11
percent in New Hampshire, but that might be his cap,” Murray said.

The other big tell, former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus
Cullen said, is that there’s no visible grass-roots movement for Trump in
the state.

“Do I think it’s a substantive measure of his real support? No way. But do
I think it recognizes that he has some name recognition that other
candidates don’t have?” Cullen said of the poll. “What I have observed of
coverage of those events is that they seem to be made-for-TV events where
there’s no authentic interactions with the candidate and voters.”

Cullen stressed that this isn’t a matter of the Suffolk poll’s accuracy,
just name recognition.

“If the Suffolk poll had included David Ortiz too, Ortiz might have been
first or second,” Cullen said.

*Donald Trump Leads All But Bush in New Hampshire
<http://time.com/3936959/donald-trump-new-hampshire/> // TIME // Phillip
Elliott – June 25, 2015*

Apparently, Donald Trump for President is a thing in New Hampshire.

A second public poll released this week shows the real estate
mogul-turned-reality show star ahead of all other Republican presidential
hopefuls except former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Earlier this week, when a
Suffolk University poll showed Trump in the No. 2 spot in New Hampshire,
some dismissed it as a fluke. Then on Thursday, a CNN and New Hampshire’s
WMUR-TV showed the same. It is part of a one-two win for Trump this week,
yet it also comes as Trump’s former business partners are moving away from
the tough-talking bully and his incendiary comments about China, Mexico and
immigrants.

While Trump is nipping at Bush’s heels, the polling also shows potential
problems, including that few voters believe he has a chance at the White
House. Trump is a recent addition to the race and none of his rivals have
yet to treat him like a viable candidate. A trove of negative research is
at the ready for his foes, Republicans and Democrats alike, to use against
him. His record in business is certain to be a liability, much the way
former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney spent most of his 2012 campaign on
the defense against charges his work in private equity hurt workers and
communities.

And as Trump’s advisers were touting the new polls, they were also going to
battle with Univision, Trump’s broadcast partner for the Miss Universe and
Miss USA pageants. Trump’s lawyers said they were preparing to sue
Univision for breaking its $13.5 million contract with the Miss Universe
Organization, which Trump co-owns.

When Trump began his White House bid on Wednesday with a rambling speech,
he said Mexicans coming to the U.S. were rapists and criminal. (“Some, I
assume, are good people,” he added as an aside, as though that fixed
everything.) Trump also said he would build a great, great wall on the
U.S.-Mexican border. He later blamed the media for distorting his words.

Univision, a Spanish-language channel popular with Latinos, said it would
not be broadcasting the Miss USA pageant on July 12. No matter, Trump said
with typical bravado. He was still a star.

Voters in New Hampshire, at least for the moment, seem to share that view
of the brash and blunt New Yorker. Jobs and the economy remain the top
focus for New Hampshire Republicans, and Trump leads when voters asked who
they best trust to address that subject. He also leads all others when
voters were asked which candidate is least likely to act like a politician
and who could handle international trade policy. He spent much of his
kick-off speech railing against China, a key U.S. trading partner.

He also leads in another field: the candidate the most New Hampshire voters
say they most definitely would not vote for. A full 23% of those surveyed
said Trump is a non-starter. Trump is in negative territory when voters
were asked their general opinion of him: 48% of New Hampshire voters see
him unfavorably, while 38% look at him favorably.

At the same time, only 7% of those surveyed see Trump as having the best
chance among Republicans to win the general election in November 2016. The
clear frontrunner on that question is Bush: 37% see him as the best shot
for the GOP to return to the White House for the first time since another
Bush moved out. Jeb Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, ended his Presidency on
Jan. 20, 2009.

The CNN/ WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll was conducted between June 18 and
June 24. The poll, considered one of the most reliable in New Hampshire,
interviewed 402 like Republican primary voters and carries a margin of
sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. That could mean the
number of New Hampshire voters who say they wouldn’t support Trump could be
as high as 28%.

*Donald Trump says 'hypocrite' Neil Young asked him for money
<http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/06/25/donald-trump-says-hypocrite-neil-young-asked-him-for-money/>
// FOX News – June 25, 2015 *

Donald Trump is saying Neil Young is a hypocrite for complaining about his
presidential campaign’s use of Young’s song “Rockin’ in the Free World,”
while at the same time hitting The Donald up for cash.

Trump tweeted Wednesday that Young recently came to his office seeking
funds for his high-end audio player Pono.

Trump even provided a photo to prove it.

“A picture of me with this candidate was also circulated in conjunction
with this announcement [for president] but It was a photograph taken during
a meeting when I was trying to raise funds for Pono, my online high
resolution music service,” he explained.

Young blasted the Republican candidate following his announcement, claiming
Trump didn't have permission to use his tune.

"Donald Trump was not authorized to use 'Rockin' In The Free World' in his
presidential candidacy announcement," Young's team said in a statement.
"Neil Young, a Canadian citizen, is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for
President of the United States of America."

However, when FOX411 reached Trump's campaign manager for comment, he sang
a very different tune.

“Through a licensing agreement with ASCAP, Mr. Trump’s campaign paid for
and obtained the legal right to use Neil Young’s recording of ‘Rockin' In
The Free World,'" Trump's Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski told us.
"Nevertheless, there are plenty of other songs to choose from. Despite
Neil’s differing political views, Mr. Trump likes him very much.”

It's not the first time -- or even the first time this year -- a candidate
has been chastised by a musician for use of a tune. When Marco Rubio played
the electronic hit "Something New" at a rally, the duo behind the song
spoke out almost immediately, declaring Rubio hadn't obtained permission to
use the song and they "don't want to be affiliated with a particular party
during the upcoming presidential race."

Plus, there can be a big cost associated with using a hit song to promote a
campaign.

John McCain said in 2008, though he was a huge ABBA fan, he gave up on
using one of their tunes at his campaign events.

"It's more difficult to play 'Let's Take A Chance On Me' than I thought,"
McCain said at the time, according to Reuters. "It gets expensive in a big
hurry, and if you're not careful, you can alienate some Swedes."

*UNDECLARED*

*WALKER*

*Scott Walker to announce 2016 intentions next month
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-walker-to-announce-2016-intentions-next-month/>
// CBS News // Stephanie Condon – June 25, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will make his presidential intentions known the
week of July 13, he said on Fox News Thursday night.

In a crowded field of more than a dozen Republican candidates, Walker's
standing in the 2016 polls is relatively decent, so far. In a recent Fox
pollof likely Republican voters, Walker tied for fourth place. A recent
NBC/ Wall Street Journal pollput him in second place.

The two-term governor has gained a reputation as a staunch conservative
after successfully taking on unions in his state and pushing an often
polarizing conservative agenda. Walker told Fox's Greta Van Susteren that
he would bring that same moxie to Washington, should he decide to run.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding a key portion of Obamacare
makes the 2016 race all the more important, he said, promising to replace
the health care law with conservative reforms.

"We don't just need to to talk about it, we need someone who can fight and
win," he said.

*Corruption Charges Against Walker Are Baseless, Supporters Say
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/corruption-charges-against-walker-are-baseless-supporters-say/>
// The Daily Beast // Peter Fricke – June 25, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is being accused of mismanagement and
corruption related to an economic development agency he helped create, but
defenders say the charges are bogus.

Shortly after taking office in 2011, Walker spearheaded the creation of the
Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) to replace the state’s
Department of Commerce. The WEDC provides incentives for businesses to
relocate to or expand operations in Wisconsin, and Walker has made the
semi-public agency a centerpiece of his efforts to create 250,000 new jobs.

Since then, however, only about 147,000 jobs have been created, and reports
from the state’s Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) have revealed insufficient
oversight of certain notable deals, according to The Daily Beast.

A May 2013 LAB report, for example, found that WEDC had disbursed $124.4
million without conducting formal staff reviews between 2011 and 2013.
Although staff reviews were not required at the time, it apparently
prevented the agency from noticing problems with the applications of some
business that later proved unable to live up to the promises they had made
when requesting the aid.

Defenders of Walker and the WEDC counter that such criticisms are a
stretch, considering they are based on findings from more than two years
ago, and say the agency has made massive improvements in response to past
failings.

Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, told The Daily
Beast WEDC’s loan delinquency rate had fallen from 2.7 percent to just 0.2
percent during the intervening years, and the agency now requires staff
reviews for every award it hands out.

“The improvements did not go unnoticed,” Patrick said. “In April 2014, WEDC
received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United
States and Canada, the highest form of recognition in governmental
financial reporting.”

She also asserted that, “All companies that receive awards from WEDC are
contractually required to meet certain objectives, which typically include
job creation, job retention and/or capital investment.” When those targets
are not met, she added, the state can impose penalties such as clawbacks or
denial of tax credit claims.

Not everyone is appeased by that explanation, however, particularly after
the Wisconsin State Journal reported on a $500,000 loan awarded to Building
Committee Inc. (BCI), a construction company whose owner had donated
$10,000 to Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. The company eventually filed
for bankruptcy, defaulting on the loan without having created any jobs.

Describing the BCI deal as “Walker’s pet project,” the liberal news outlet
PoliticsUSA says the incident is indicative of the “corruption and
cronyism” of Walker’s administration.

The article claims that as chairman of the WEDC at the time, Walker had
sole oversight of the $124 million awarded by the agency without staff
review between 2011 and 2013, and used that discretion to “[hand] out …
Wisconsin taxpayers’ money to his corporate donors.”

Walker’s supporters dismiss the corruption charge as absurd, pointing out
that campaign contributions do not disqualify a company from receiving
state benefits and denying that politics has any influence on the decision
to award subsidies to a particular company.

“Political contributions are in no way tied to awards provided by the
WEDC,” Patrick told TheDCNF. “Decisions related to investments or awards
are contractually required to meet certain objectives and are made
according to metrics approved by WEDC’s bipartisan Board of Directors.”

Any attempt to impute otherwise, she added, “is clearly political
gamesmanship by legislative Democrats and others more interested in playing
politics than on helping improve economic development in Wisconsin.”

Patrick also explained that, “WEDC initially approved the BCI project
because it was expected to result in the creation of 155 new jobs and
nearly $4 million in capital investment,” and said the agency took
immediate action once it became aware of BCI’s perilous financial
condition, imposing a 12 percent penalty interest rate and initiating legal
action against the company.

*Scott Walker says Barack Obama told Coast Guard global warming is top
threat to military and world
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jun/25/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-barack-obama-told-coast-guard-gl/>
// Politifact // Tom Kertscher – June 25, 2015 *

As he pursues a bid for the White House in 2016, Gov. Scott Walker has made
it a point to call for more action against "radical Islamic terrorism."

He did so again while speaking June 20, 2015, in Washington, D.C., at a
conference of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, a group led by conservative
political strategist Ralph Reed.

Toward the end of his remarks, Walker turned to national security -- or
what he prefers to call "safety." He criticized President Barack Obama and
Obama’s former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic
frontrunner for president. And then he made a claim about Obama, national
security and global warming.

"You know, I think about how mixed up this Obama-Clinton doctrine is when
it comes to foreign policy," Walker said. "We've got a president who,
earlier this year -- at the graduation ceremony for the Coast Guard Academy
-- stood up and actually told the graduates that the number one threat to
the military and the world today is global warming.

"Well, I've got a message for you, Mr. President: The number one threat to
the military, the number one threat to America, the number one threat to
the world, is radical Islamic terrorism and it's about time we do something
about it."

Extended applause followed. But Walker made a far-reaching claim.

Did Obama tell graduates from a branch of the military that global warming
is the number one threat to the military and the world?

What was said

Walker’s claim pertains to the commencement speech the president gave May
20, 2015, at the academy, which is located in New London, Conn.

The official text shows Obama devoted the bulk of his speech to climate
change (he used that term, not global warming), describing it as a serious
threat to America’s national security and to global security.

He did not go so far as to call it the top threat to the military or the
world.

Here’s a key portion of what Obama said:

And this brings me to the challenge I want to focus on today -- one where
our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front lines, and that, perhaps more
than any other, will shape your entire careers -- and that’s the urgent
need to combat and adapt to climate change. As a nation, we face many
challenges, including the grave threat of terrorism. And as Americans, we
will always do everything in our power to protect our country. Yet even as
we meet threats like terrorism, we cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril
that can affect generations ….

Here at the Academy, climate change -- understanding the science and the
consequences -- is part of the curriculum, and rightly so, because it will
affect everything that you do in your careers ….As America’s Maritime
Guardian, you’ve pledged to remain always ready -- Semper Paratus -- ready
for all threats.  And climate change is one of those most severe threats.

And this is not just a problem for countries on the coasts, or for certain
regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the
planet. No nation is immune.  So I’m here today to say that climate change
constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our
national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military
defends our country. And so we need to act -- and we need to act now.

So, Walker suggests Obama puts climate change ahead of terrorism as a
threat, but in his speech, the president notes that the U.S. needs to
confront both.

We also checked five news accounts of the speech -- from the Washington
Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, TIME and Fox News.
They all emphasized that Obama described climate change as a threat or
serious threat to national security.

Other speeches

Prior to the Coast Guard speech, Obama -- in a general context -- suggested
climate change is the world’s number one threat.

For instance, in his State of the Union speech in January 2015, Obama said:
"No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate
change." And in April 2015, a few days before Earth Day, he said: "Today,
there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change."

So, after having identified climate change as perhaps the world’s greatest
threat overall, Obama did devote a speech, given to members of the
military, to the threat climate change poses to national and global
security. But he didn’t go as far as Walker claims.

Our rating

Walker said Obama told the Coast Guard Academy "that the number one threat
to the military and the world today is global warming."

Obama on various occasions, and in a general context, has said there is no
greater threat to the world than climate change. But in the speech Walker
cited, the president told Coast Guard graduates that climate change was a
serious threat, not the number one threat to the military or the world.

For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical
facts that would give a different impression, we give Walker a Mostly False.

*Scott Walker’s Jobs Program Didn’t Work
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/25/scott-walker-s-jobs-program-didn-t-work.html>
// The Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff – June 25, 2015 *

Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s conservative governor, is reputed to be one of
the most divisive politicians in America. But in one complicated situation,
he’s brought people together: Wisconsinites of every political stripe agree
that his cumbersomely named Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, or
WEDC, is a big mess.

Here’s the thing, though: WEDC has a complex history, and its short saga is
a helpful example of the challenges governors face when looking to distill
their records for non-wonky national audiences.

First, some quick background. In 2011, newly elected Governor Walker
replaced the Wisconsin Department of Commerce with a public-private
partnership called (you guessed it!) the Wisconsin Economic Development
Corporation, or WEDC. Walker had won the gubernatorial race a few months
prior by campaigning on a promise to create 250,000 jobs in the state over
the course of his first term. WEDC (commonly pronounced “weed-ick”) was
supposed to help the state reach that goal and to trim some of the
bureaucratic fat that existed in the commerce department.

But Wisconsin only got about 147,000 of those 250,000 promised jobs. And
WEDC had serious growing pains, to say the least. A May 2013 audit from the
Legislative Audit Bureau had troublesome findings, including that between
2011 and 2013, WEDC gave out $124.4 million in awards without formal staff
reviews.

WEDC didn’t mandate staff reviews at the time, and the awards were all
approved by the agency’s bipartisan board. Still, some of those awards went
to companies that didn’t exactly handle them responsibly. For example, the
Wisconsin State Journal reported that Building Committee Inc. got a
$500,000 loan after falsely saying it hadn’t been sued for five years. It
later defaulted on that loan and dissolved. And, as it turned out, the
company’s owner had given $10,000 to Walker’s first gubernatorial campaign.

These charges of corporate welfare-mongering could be particularly
politically troublesome for Walker, given that the Koch Brothers have made
opposition to cronyism a key requirement for any candidates they consider
supporting.

“According to WEDC, the 27 awards were tied to the creation of 6,165 jobs,
but so far only 2,106 have materialized,” the State Journal said. “Many of
the awards are tax credits contingent on certain job-creation goals being
met.” (The biggest beneficiary of those awards was none other than Walker’s
beloved Kohl’s Department Stores, which got a $62.5 million tax credit.)

Critics argue that WEDC over-promised and under-delivered, and they
emphasize that some of the companies that benefited from those awards (like
Building Committee Inc.) are, as the Chicago Tribune reported, affiliated
with or owned by Walker donors.

So Democrats are crying foul. State Representataive Pete Barca, who is a
member of WEDC’s board, called on the Department of Justice to investigate
the agency because “they have the ability to probe more deeply into whether
or not criminal activity went on.” (The DOJ’s press office told The Daily
Beast that they don’t confirm or deny the existence of investigations.)

Democratic State Senator Dave Hansen went even further, calling for the
agency—which he said is an “unmitigated disaster”—to be shut down. And on
June 24, Barca and his fellow Democratic member of the board, State Senator
Julie Lassa, said WEDC’s secretary and CEO Reed Hall should resign.

Walker’s defenders, meanwhile, say that WEDC’s critics don’t have much to
go on. Dale Knapp, of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said he didn’t
think it was unusual that so many companies affiliated with Walker donors
benefited from WEDC awards.

“These kind of companies often give to both parties, but they tend to
support whoever’s in power,” he told the Beast. “The Republicans are
completely in power right now, so it’s not surprising that you would see
those kinds of numbers.”

Meanwhile, Mark Maley, WEDC’s public information manager, said that
campaign contributions don’t impact award disbursement.

“Regarding the recipients of WEDC awards, there is no way to make this any
clearer: Political affiliation and campaign contributions absolutely play
no role in determining which companies receive awards from WEDC,” he told
the Beast.

And it’s important to remember that the biggest problems Democrats
highlight happened between 2011 and 2013. Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for
the governor, noted that WEDC responded to bad report cards by making
dozens of policy changes, including replacing outdated software, hiring a
vice president of credit and risk, and implementing employee ethics
policies (among a host of other changes). Maley said that since the
implementation of these changes, WEDC has given out more than 760 awards,
all of which were first reviewed by staff.

And Walker’s team argues that these changes paid off. Patrick noted via
email that WEDC’s loan delinquency rate dropped dramatically between 2013
and 2014, from 2.7 percent to 0.2 percent.

“The improvements did not go unnoticed,” Patrick continued. “In April 2014,
WEDC received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United
States and Canada, the highest form of recognition in governmental
financial reporting.”

But another audit last month unearthed yet more room for improvement. In
response, Walker called for WEDC to stop loaning cash to businesses, and
instead to bankroll tax incentives with those funds. And Patrick emailed
that additional changes are on the way.

But, regardless of what reforms are made, WEDC also has its fair share of
conservative critics who object to the agency’s very existence. “[I]
suspect Gov. Walker is starting to realize just how big a liability WEDC
could be on the presidential campaign trail and is attempting to tie up
loose ends ahead of his announcement this summer,” wrote Collin Roth of
Right Wisconsin, a conservative website, in response to Walker’s latest
round of changes to the agency.

“[P]hilosophically, if we believe in free markets and limited government,
how important is a state agency that essentially tries to create jobs?” he
added.

And Brett Healy, the president of the right-leaning MacIver Institute
(which typically defends Walker’s policy moves), shared Roth’s opposition
to government entities giving monetary incentives to individual businesses.

“The simple truth is that government should not play a role in direct
economic development,” he told the Beast. “Corporate welfare is still
welfare.”

“Any time the government gets involved in this type of corporate
welfare—picking winners and losers—all kinds of problems seem to crop up,”
he continued. “Government should instead get out of the way and let the
free market function the way it is intended.”

These charges of corporate welfare-mongering could be particularly
politically troublesome for Walker, given that the Koch Brothers have made
opposition to cronyism a key requirement for any candidates they consider
supporting.

So Walker hasn’t gotten much cover from conservatives on the WEDC question.
And, naturally, his progressive foes have been even more pointed in their
criticism.

“The bottom line is that Scott Walker said when he came into office, this
is my blueprint for making good on my promise to create 250,000 jobs,” said
Scot Ross, who helms the progressive group One Wisconsin Now. “And there
were a lot of voices out there at the time—mostly on the Democratic or
liberal side—saying, this is going to be transparent, and it’s just going
to be a slush fund for Walker’s donors. Not only has been that, but it
hasn’t created jobs either.”

“It’s an ATM machine if you’re a Walker donor,” he added.

Walker and his team have stood firmly behind WEDC. This month, the governor
traveled to Canada with WEDC officials to pitch industry leaders on doing
more business with Wisconsin. Maley, the agency’s spokesman, provided The
Daily Beast with a list of its current initiatives, including a $300,000
grant for veteran-owned tech startups; $200,000 each to the
African-American, Hmong, Native American, and Hispanic Chambers of
Commerce; and community grants of up to $1 million to revitalize abandoned
industrial sites. And, most importantly, Walker’s team argues that WEDC is
a major improvement over the state’s now-defunct Department of Commerce.

But WEDC still might be the trickiest thing for Walker to explain on the
campaign trail. Walker discusses “big, bold reforms” whenever he talks with
Republican primary voters, but incremental changes—like the kind that WEDC
has brought about—are tougher to sell and easier to get in trouble over,
especially when your ideological allies object to them.

*CHRISTIE*

*Chris Christie to Announce Decision on 2016 Campaign
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/verbatim-hillary-clinton-supports-supreme-court-decision/>
// NYT // Nick Corasaniti – June 25, 2015 *

Gov. Chris Christie will announce Tuesday in Livingston, N.J., whether he
will run for president in 2016, a source close to his campaign confirmed.

Mr. Christie has been traveling the country under the banner of his
political organization, Leadership Matters for America, delivering policy
heavy speeches on entitlement reform and education, along with holding town
hall meetings as part of a “Tell It Like It Is” tour.

Mr. Christie will make his announcement at Livingston High School, his alma
mater.

A spokesman for the New Jersey governor declined to comment.

Once considered a Republican front-runner, Mr. Christie has since seen his
national standing decline, as he has struggled to overcome the George
Washington Bridge scandal and low approval ratings in his home state.

The news of his announcement was first reported by WNYC.

*Chris Christie to announce 2016 bid as early as next week
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-2016-bid-announcement-119354.html#ixzz3e7SmArh0>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – June 25, 2015 *

Chris Christie is in the final stages of preparing his 2016 presidential
bid, with a formal announcement possible as soon as next week, according to
several sources familiar with the discussions.

The New Jersey governor’s planning has intensified in recent days. On
Monday, his campaign-in-waiting announced that he’d hired two additional
staffers in New Hampshire, a state seen as critical to his White House
hopes. Earlier this month, Maria Comella, a longtime Christie aide,
departed the governor’s official office to take a senior position at his
political action committee.

A Christie spokeswoman, Samantha Smith, declined to comment. The governor’s
aides have previously said that he isn’t likely to launch his presidential
campaign until the New Jersey legislature finalizes the state budget —
expected to be around the end of June.

The announcement will mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous political
career. After defeating a Democratic incumbent in 2009, Christie
established himself as the GOP’s foremost rising star — a swaggering,
tell-it-like-it-is pol who seemed to be the antidote for a party that was
struggling to win over voters in blue states. In the years since, however,
Christie’s national prospects have been damaged — especially by the
revelations that his top aides concocted a plan to close lanes on the
George Washington Bridge in an act of political retribution against a local
mayor who refused to endorse the governor’s 2013 reelection bid.

Christie’s once-stratospheric poll numbers — both nationally and in his
home state — have since plummeted. A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll
released on Tuesday showed Christie with just a 30 percent approval rating
in New Jersey, while a Suffolk University poll showed him winning the
support of only 5 percent of likely voters in New Hampshire.

But Christie’s aides insist there’s room for him in the 2016 field. With
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush struggling to distance himself from the rest
of the pack, they say, the lane for an establishment candidate remains
open. Aides to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is also contemplating a run, have
put forward a similar argument for his potential candidacy.

The hope, Christie’s team says, is that his authentic political brand will
shine through, both on the debate stage — Republicans are preparing to hold
their first primary debate in August — and in New Hampshire. The state has
a history of breaking for moderate, independent-minded Republican
candidates, and Christie has been a frequent visitor there. Those familiar
with his early planning for a 2016 bid say he’s prepared to make it the
cornerstone of his electoral strategy.

In anticipation of his announcement, Christie has been hopscotching the
country in recent weeks, attending Republican cattle calls in Oklahoma
City, Utah and Washington, D.C., where he delivered fiery speeches
castigating a Republican rival, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, over national
security.

“If you want to know how little [senators] know, watch what Rand Paul’s
done the last two weeks,” Christie told Republican donors at a conference
in Deer Valley, Utah, hosted by Mitt Romney, referring to Paul’s opposition
to the PATRIOT Act. “Because, I will tell you, he’s made America weaker and
more vulnerable, and he’s done it for his own personal and political gain,
and he’s done it to raise money.”

Christie has also delivered speeches in early primary states in which he’s
detailed his policy proposals on issues like entitlements, taxes and
electronic surveillance.

In addition to building a campaign apparatus, Christie has also hired for a
super PAC, America Leads, that will be supporting his candidacy. The group
recently announced that it had brought on Gene Ulm, a veteran Republican
pollster, and Mike Leavitt, a mail consultant.

While Christie won’t be nearly as heavily funded as Bush — whose super PAC
is believed to have brought in around $100 million so far — the New Jersey
governor has a team of donors that includes Home Depot CEO Ken Langone and
hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller. Both are expected to write big
checks. (“I am going to work my ass off to make sure that Chris Christie
never needs money,” Langone told POLITICO in January.)

Earlier this month, Christie dropped another hint that he was nearing a
run. While campaigning in New Hampshire, the governor said that his family
— one of the last major hurdles to his entering the race — was on board.

“This is about me now,” he said.

*JINDAL*

*Bobby Jindal’s identity causes a Twitter storm in India
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/06/25/why-is-bobby-jindal-being-called-white-on-twitter/>
// WaPo // Rama Lakshmi – June 25, 2015 *

A day after Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced that he will run for U.S.
president in 2016, the way he chooses to identify himself has become the
subject of a trending hashtag in India.

It's called #bobbyjindalissowhite.

Jindal’s meteoric rise in the Republican Party as a conservative of color
has won him many supporters in the United States. But here in India, Jindal
is seen “as a man who has spent a lifetime distancing himself from his
Indian roots.”

“I’m sick and tired of people dividing Americans,” Jindal said on
Wednesday. “And I am done with all this talk about hyphenated Americans. We
are not Indian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, rich
Americans or poor Americans. We are all Americans.”

His remarks fueled a firestorm of jokes on Twitter that he is trying to
pass as white despite his Indian roots. Here's just a sample:

*Indians on social media mock Bobby Jindal candidacy
<http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-indians-mock-jindal-candidacy-20150625-htmlstory.html>
// LA Times // Shashank Bengali – June 25, 2015 *

As a rising power, India is obsessed with its image in the world, so the
announcement of the first U.S. presidential candidate with Indian roots
figured to create a stir.

It probably wasn’t the kind Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wanted.

Indians on Thursday roundly mocked Jindal’s campaign kickoff announcement,
particularly for the 44-year-old Republican’s line that he was “tanned,
rested and ready” to run. It was widely seen as an attempt to play down his
skin color to appeal to conservative voters, and fit with what Jindal’s
critics say is a longstanding effort to disassociate himself from his
Indian heritage.

The Twitter hashtag #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite trended in India for several
hours.

Some of India’s leading newspapers ran front-page mentions of Jindal’s
announcement, although the coverage was less than effusive. Lalit K. Jha,
longtime Washington correspondent for the Press Trust of India, wrote in a
news report that Jindal’s announcement “has failed to generate much
enthusiasm among the Indian-Americans because of his recent statements in
which he sought to distance himself from being an Indian-American.”

Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 to Indian immigrants from the northern
state of Punjab. As a child he changed his birth name, Piyush, to Bobby
after the character from “The Brady Bunch.” Raised by devout Hindus, he
converted to Catholicism as a teenager and says his faith inspires his
conservative principles, including a staunch opposition to same-sex
marriage.

Jindal invoked his parents at the start of his kickoff speech Wednesday but
used the word India only once: in his oft-repeated accusation that
Democrats were dividing the country along ethnic, gender and class
lines.“We are not Indian Americans, Irish Americans, African Americans,
rich Americans or poor Americans,” he said. “We are all Americans.”

Jindal enters the Republican presidential race near the bottom of the pack
and has failed to inspire much support from U.S. voters of Indian origin,
most of whom lean Democratic.

“Bobby has never supported a single Indian issue, he refused to join the
India Caucus when he was a congressman [on] Capitol Hill and is
conspicuously absent from any event with a visiting Indian leader,” Shashi
Tharoor, an Indian politician and author, wrote in a recent book, “India
Shastra.”

“It is as if he wants to forget he is Indian, and would like voters to
forget it too.”

Jindal is an object of fascination for a rising Indian middle class that
assiduously tracks their country’s stature in the world. When Prime
Minister Narendra Modi led scores of countries in marking the first
International Day of Yoga last weekend, many Indians beamed with pride.

But they are less charitable when it comes to Indians abroad who are seen
to betray their heritage. Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan,
has received less than favorable press coverage for the perception that he
has targeted Wall Street executives with South Asian roots, such as Sri
Lankan-born hedge fund billionaire Raj Rajaratnam, for prosecution of
financial crimes.

Young Indians flooded social media sites with sarcastic comments when
Jindal unveiled his official governor’s portrait earlier this year because
his skin looked shockingly white. A photo his office tweeted this week of
his family playing Monopoly inspired mockery because his young children had
their shoes on inside the house, a cultural no-no here.

Mihir Sharma, a columnist for the Business Standard newspaper, accused
Indian Americans of a “tendency to turn viciously on those they see as less
Indian.” But even he balanced his words with a critique of the candidate.

“Typical: smug Indians trying to shame Bobby Jindal for his choices on
identity, and not his awful politics,” Sharma tweeted.

*Bobby Jindal’s fateful choice
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/25/bobby-jindals-fateful-choice/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 25, 2015 *

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, barely registering in the polls, announced
his presidential run on Wednesday. The once wonky conservative is now
clinging to the Duck Dynasty star Willie Robertson in hopes of convincing
the right-wing base he is one of them. It seems there is not a far-right
position or slogan he does not embrace. How times change.

The Post reports:

Just eight years ago, Jindal’s future looked far brighter than it does now.

The former Rhodes Scholar and McKinsey consultant was elected governor at
age 36, the first Indian American ever to govern a state. “The question is
not whether he’ll be president,” Republican strategist Steve Schmidt said
in 2008, “but when he’ll be president.”

Jindal seemed to offer a new vision of what a Republican could be: an Ivy
League-educated son of immigrants, who had a relentless focus on making
government run faster, smarter and cleaner.

“We’ve laughed at our politicians and the ones that have gone to jail and
made the funny jokes,” Jindal said in 2007, after he was elected governor
on the second try. “But it’s not funny anymore.”

But, as Jindal pondered higher office, he seemed to fall into a strange and
vicious negative-feedback loop.

Like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Jindal felt the pull of the far right and
became determined not to be passed by any more conservative contender. The
problems for Jindal now are two-fold. First, his state has budget issues —
he slashed taxes and now has a severe revenue shortfall — and his own
popularity is in the low 30’s. Second, by going far right all he did was
enter a crowded field of equally right-wing promoters. He thereby lost
whatever advantages he would have had running as a conservative, reforming
governor. He’s going to have to share the part of the base that thrills to
extreme anti-gay marriage rhetoric, wallows in anti-Washington invective
and falls prey to anti-immigration reform hysteria with a long list of
contenders including Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, former Arkansas governor Mike
Huckabee, Donald Trump and Rick Santorum. His dilemma is now the same as
that of each of these players: How does he distinguish himself and get more
than a few percentage points?

Imagine if instead, Jindal had not, for example, flip-flopped on Common
Core or tried to slash the state budget or turned up the volume on his
opposition to gay marriage. Imagine if he had run as the ideal reformer — a
congressman, a policy wonk, and a governor — but more conservative than
Bush or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, brandishing healthcare expertise and a
compelling immigrant story. He might then be competing not with small fry
candidates but with more serious contenders like Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker. Former Texas governor Rick Perry — a friend of Jindal, who endorsed
Perry in 2012 — seems to have figured out that one can be a conservative
governor, but also reasonable and appealing to a wider audience. (Then
again Perry has his remarkable record in Texas, while Jindal is floundering
back home.)

The one candidate watching with delight as Trump, Jindal, Cruz, Carson,
Huckabee and Santorum scrounge for votes is Jeb Bush. Each new entry grabs
at least temporarily some support from the previous entrants and from
Walker and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) It’s Bush’s ideal scenario — he claims
the centrists and everyone else scrambles for the fringe. More mainstream
candidates like Walker and Rubio have to fight for oxygen while rivals like
Kasich or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (in 11th place in the last Fox
News national poll) may not get into the top 10 for the first debate in
August. It is not Bush, but Walker and Rubio who  would love to get Trump,
Jindal, Cruz, et. al, out of the race so they can consolidate support.

Jindal suffers from awkward over-eagerness as he tries to out-conservative
the conservatives, reminding me of Mitt Romney in 2008 — the moderate
Massachusetts governor reborn as a social conservative, anti-immigration
reform firebrand. The danger for Jindal, as it was for Romney, is that a
lack of authenticity, now compounds his challenge.

The lesson here for the candidates trying to keep pace with Bush (i.e.
Rubio and Walker) is to stay out of the scrum of candidates in single
digits. Instead they need to compete as not-Bush alternatives with an eye
to the wider GOP primary electorate. If they try endearing themselves to
the same audience Jindal and Trump seek on issues like gay marriage, the
Confederate flag, trade, tax policy or other issues they will find
themselves dragged down into the “also running” category. If they are
constantly looking over their shoulder, afraid to dismay talk radio hosts,
they will take themselves out of contention as consensus candidates.
Unfortunately for Jindal, he already made that choice and as a result is
unlikely to do well.

*Jindal’s Facebook showing matches his lagging poll numbers
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/25/271168/jindals-facebook-showing-matches.html>
// McClatchy // David Lightman – June 25, 2015 *

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s showing on Facebook was about the same as his
showing in most polls. Unspectacular.

In the 24 hour period between 12:01 a.m. ET June 24 and 12:01 a.m. ET today
25, 316,000 people generated 542,000 interactions, which include likes,
posts, comments and shares. Jindal announced his candidacy first in a tweet
Wednesday afternoon and later at a Louisiana rally.

The conservative governor, who’s making a big pitch for the evangelical
vote, didn’t come close to what businessman Donald Trump sparked earlier
this month. Trump’s announcement generated 3.4 million “unique people” and
6.4 million interactions. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also generated numbers in
the millions.

Here are some other Republican announcement showings:

Jeb Bush

493,000 unique people

849,000 interactions

Rick Perry

422,000 unique people

763,000 interactions

Lindsey Graham

84,000 unique people

142,000 interactions

George Pataki

59,000 unique people

81,000 interactions

Rick Santorum

169,000 unique people

266,000 interactions

Mike Huckabee

458,000 unique people

814,000 interactions

Carly Fiorina

304,000 unique people

515,000 interactions

Ben Carson

847,000 unique people

1.5 million interactions

Marco Rubio

695,000 unique people

1.3 million interactions

Rand Paul

865,000 unique people

1.9 million interactions

*Bobby Jindal presidential bid sparks Twitter mockery
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33272125> // BBC – June 25, 2015 *

Mr Jindal launched his campaign with a call for a uniform US identity,
saying he disliked Americans being identified by origin, ethnicity or
wealth.

The hashtag #BobbyJindalisSoWhite began trending on Twitter after the
launch.

The tweets poked fun at Mr Jindal's speech and alleged attempts to distance
himself from his Indian heritage.

"We are not Indian-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, rich
Americans, or poor Americans. We are all Americans," he told supporters.

Also a subject of ridicule was the fact that Mr Jindal railed against
allowing "people to immigrate to this country so that they can use our
freedoms to undermine our freedoms".

He added it was incumbent on migrants entering the United States to be
"ready and willing to embrace our values, learn English, and roll up your
sleeves and get to work".

The presidential hopeful had begun his speech with the words: "Forty-four
years ago, a young couple who had never been on an airplane before left
their home on the other side of the world to come to a place called
America."

Indians online were not amused by his remarks.

The original hashtag #bobbyjindalissowhite was started by Indian-American
comedian Hari Kondabolu, with a series of tweets. Following the success of
the tag he said it was the most "satisfying thing" he had ever done.

Others chimed in, like Aasif Mandvi from the Daily Show.

The hashtag was also picked up in India, where it was among the country's
top trends for much of the day.

Gopinath Gopalam, a healthcare professional from Baton Rouge, travelled to
New Orleans to watch Bobby Jindal make his presidential announcement on
Wednesday. Although Gopalam hails from India, he says the governor's Indian
ancestry is of little importance to him. What matters, he says, is what his
success says about the US.

"It's an open economy, open community," he says. "Anybody can come here and
have the skill and ability they can rise to the top."

The focus on Mr Jindal's ethnicity in recent media coverage has angered
many conservatives. In particular, they point to a Washington Post article
that featured a quote from a Louisiana University professor who said
"there's not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal".

"For years, liberals have attacked Governor Jindal for not being brown or
Indian enough for their liking," Mr Jindal's office said in a statement.
"Governor Jindal is proud of his heritage. He believes we need to stop
fixating on race and hyphenated Americans."

Mr Jindal, who was born Piyush, told CBS news that he changed his name to
Bobby after a character in US sitcom The Brady Bunch.

He also converted to Catholicism from Hinduism while he was at school.

A report in the Washington Post said many Indian-Americans who were among
his first supporters are now disillusioned with what they see as efforts by
Mr Jindal to distance himself from his roots.

"So what if he's Republican? So what if he's Christian? I don't care about
those things, But you can't forget about your heritage. You can't forget
about your roots," one of his first donors Suresh C. Gupta was quoted as
saying.

*KASICH*

*John Kasich Appeals to Iowa as He Ponders White House Bid
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/>
// NYT // Trip Gabriel – June 25, 2015 *

“Does anybody remember me?’’ John Kasich asked Iowans on his first visit to
the state since an inglorious presidential bid in 1999, when he barely made
an impression before dropping out.

Throughout Wednesday, as he hopscotched through events, Mr. Kasich, the
two-term Ohio governor, sought to disarm skeptics of his late-to-the-party
exploration of a second White House run.

“I was giant television star. Do you remember that?’’ he asked a roomful of
under-40 professionals from the Bull Moose Club. There were many blank
looks. “I was only at Fox News for 10 years,’’ he said, breaking into a
grin.

In an interview with The Des Moines Register that ran Wednesday morning,
Mr. Kasich even tutored Iowans on how to say his name. “It rhymes with
basic,” he said.

But with blunt talk about his policy departures from conservative
orthodoxy, Mr. Kasich appeared to make new friends in Iowa.

“I was taken aback by how straight a shooter he was,’’ said Tyler De Hahn,
chairman of the Dallas County Republican Party, who heard him at the Bull
Moose luncheon. “He’s kind of like a Christie lite.’’

A moment earlier, Mr. Kasich had been pushed about why Ohio was not a
right-to-work state. “Because we don’t have a reason to be one,’’ he said.

Like all candidates who come to Iowa, Mr. Kasich, 63, recounted
well-rehearsed chapters of his biography and trumpeted his successes:

* Working with President Clinton while a member of the House to craft “the
first balanced budget since man walked on the moon.’’

* His decade in the private sector. “I just loved it,’’ he said, skipping
over the role his employer, Lehman Brothers, played in contributing to the
financial crisis.

* His election as Ohio governor “at exactly the right time,” in 2010, when
“things couldn’t have been much worse.’’

“I took a lot of the lessons I had learned in Washington to Ohio,’’ Mr.
Kasic said, a line no other Republican candidate is likely to utter this
cycle.

Mr. Kasich, who said he was still weighing whether to enter the race, is
barely registering in Iowa polls. His formidable hurdles in the state
include a lack of time visiting it, and a list of center-right policies he
has supported that conservative caucusgoers are likely to reject, from
expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to voting for an assault
weapons ban while in Congress.

“The hurdle he’d have to get over is the strong religious right,’’ said
James Gilson, a retired stockbroker who heard Mr. Kasich address the
Greater Des Moines Partnership, a business and civic group.

But balancing out those negatives is the potential appeal of the
straight-shooting, even gnarly, Kasich persona. Despite the state’s
reputation for Iowa Nice, its voters welcome a candidate who can cut
through the political catchphrases.

“He tells it like it is, and I think that’s going to be huge,” said Mike
McInerney, the Bull Moose president. “Iowans really respect that.’’

*OTHER*

GOP nightmare: Big Labor courts George Soros, Tom Steyer
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/big-labor-donors-george-soros-tom-steyer-119454.html>
// Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Brian Mahoney – June 26, 2016

Big labor, which once relied almost exclusively on member dues to fund its
political activity, is now hoping to raise huge checks for its 2016 efforts
from billionaires like George Soros and Tom Steyer, according to
confidential documents.

The documents, obtained by POLITICO from a source outside the labor
movement, show labor leaders have invested considerable time and union cash
to secure preferential treatment from the preeminent club of major liberal
funders, the Democracy Alliance, or DA. They also offer a rare glimpse into
labor’s efforts to identify rich donors who could pump money into
union-linked non-profits that can legally accept unlimited donations and do
not have to disclose their contributors.

One briefing document shows that a leading labor non-profit called Working
America — which works to organize non-union workers to seek higher pay and
better working conditions, and to elect sympathetic candidates — is
focusing on donors it considers “true progressives (who) care about labor.”
It offers detailed profiles with information seemingly intended to
cultivate wealthy donors. Ian Simmons, the silent funding partner of the
small-dollar juggernaut ActBlue, is described as “an up and comer at the
DA,” while healthcare software pioneer Paul Egerman, an Elizabeth Warren
confidant, is listed as “important in Democratic Party fundraising circles.”

And there are signs that Working America is trying to reach donors whose
animating issues haven’t always figured prominently into labor’s playbook,
like climate change. Steyer, a San Francisco hedge fund billionaire who in
2014 donated $67 million to a super PAC pressing for climate change action,
is described as “an advocate of promoting economic development” who is
engaged in “ongoing discussions with AFL-CIO and Working America about
possible points of agreement and collaboration.”

Steyer’s political adviser Chris Lehane declined to say whether Steyer or
his foundation has donated to Working America or the AFL-CIO. “Tom is
working closely with our allies, including labor, to build a coalition that
will talk to voters about the three justices – economic justice, climate
justice and educational justice,” Lehane said.

Labor’s increasing forays into big-money politics come at a pivotal time
for unions and the Democratic Party.

The longtime traditional allies appeared to be closely synched heading into
2016 until a simmering feud boiled over this week. Congressional Democrats
sided with Republicans to pass trade legislation bitterly opposed by labor
but backed by President Barack Obama and promoted by Hillary Clinton when
she was secretary of state. Unions and their allies are promising to turn
up the heat on Democrats who don’t take labor’s side on trade. Yet unions
are relying on Democrats to help beat back well-funded conservative attacks
on bargaining power, and many Democratic candidates, including presidential
favorite Clinton, are embracing labor’s causes, such as raising the minimum
wage and requiring paid sick leave.

In interviews, labor leaders confirmed that they hope to expand the reach —
and revenues — of outfits outside traditional unions, which have seen their
ranks and budgets slashed by Republican efforts to limit organizing rights.
Labor unions have enthusiastically embraced super PACs, which focus on
election spending and were an outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s 2010
Citizens United decision. So-called “alt-labor” groups like Working
America, which seek to organize non-unionized employees, such as fast-food
workers, have been billed as the the labor movement’s future.

In April, four labor-linked non-profits won coveted spots among the
Democracy Alliance’s portfolio of 34 groups recommended for funding.
Insiders expect that to translate into serious 2016 cash for the labor
groups added to the portfolio — Working America, the Working Families
Party/Organization, the Economic Policy Institute and the National
Employment Law Project.

The DA’s member donors (“partners,” in club parlance) must donate anywhere
from $200,000 to $1 million to endorsed groups. And the club’s members
intend to steer a total of $100 million or more to recommended groups
during the 2016 election.

The list of DA partners now includes six prominent unions, with four (the
American Federation of Teachers, the Communications Workers of America, the
Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union) joining in the last two years, according to a
list and other club documents obtained by POLITICO.

The partnerships require the unions to pay annual dues of $60,000. But they
give the unions’ leaders access to the deep-pocketed donors and foundations
who constitute the majority of the partners at the DA, which is a kind of
nerve center and bank for the progressive movement, serving a similar — if
less well-financed — role as the Koch brothers’ conservative funding
network.

The finances of Working America illustrate labor’s efforts to diversify its
funding.

The group was started in 2003 by the AFL-CIO, which originally provided 93
percent of its funding.

But by 2013 – the most recent year for which records were available – the
AFL-CIO and other unions contributed only 40 percent of the $25 million
raised by Working America and Working America Education Fund. The two arms
are registered under sections of the tax code — 501(c)5 and 501(c)3,
respectively — that do not require them to disclose their donors. But a
significant portion of their budgets now comes from members who pay small
voluntary dues, and deep-pocketed liberal foundations and donors who write
five- and six-figure checks.

Labor non-profits like Working America in recent years have seen their
fundraising spike, with non-union sources playing a major role, according
to a POLITICO analysis of filings with the Department of Labor and the
Internal Revenue Service using data aggregated by the conservative Center
for Union Facts. The analysis found that 18 leading labor non-profits
(including Working America and the three others added to the DA portfolio
this year) raised $52 million in 2013 — 15 percent more than in 2012,
despite the presidential election that year — with 13 percent of the haul
coming from liberal foundations (which are required to disclose their
grants in their tax filings).

“There’s a huge upsurge in this type of activity,” said Larry Cohen, the
outgoing president of the Communications Workers of America, who sits on
Working America’s board and helped start a handful of labor non-profits
that have received funding from the CWA and have delivered presentations to
Democracy Alliance donors.

Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche said unions are becoming more
involved in the DA partly because “they recognize that the groups they have
backed need to have a broader base of support. Any healthy organization
shouldn’t be dependent on one main source of revenue.”

Since assuming the club’s leadership last year, LaMarche has worked to
build bridges between labor and rich liberals who sometimes hold sharply
different views on trade pacts and school reform – even the role of unions
in public life.

“One of the good things about bringing labor and capital together in the DA
is that they can have discussions about the issues on which they have been
at loggerheads,” he said. He noted that the group last year for the first
time elected a labor leader, National Education Association executive
director John Stocks, as board chairman.

The emerging synergy is both ironic and worrisome to conservatives who
track liberal money, to whom there are no greater threats than “Big Labor”
and the Democracy Alliance.

“They’re constantly complaining about the horrors of our campaign finance
system and yet this is a savvy way for them to make use of all the
available political finance avenues to fight their battles,” said Scott
Walter, executive vice president Capital Research Center, which studies
liberal funding networks.

For its part, Working America says it’s more focused on courting moderate
working-class members than liberal billionaire donors.

“We were delighted to be put among the groups within the Democracy Alliance
and have some support, but it’s just not mostly who we are,” said the
group’s executive director Karen Nussbaum.

Working America has demonstrated an ability to effect legislative and
campaign fights in recent years, from city halls to Capitol Hill. It helped
temporarily derail Obama’s trade deal and played a major role in lifting
its preferred candidate to victory in Philadelphia’s Democratic mayoral
primary. Plus, it was a leading player in pushing through minimum wage
increases in more than 15 states.

It’s planning an aggressive door-to-door campaign ahead of 2016, said
Nussbaum, who declined to discuss funding sources for the effort. She said
Working America sees Democracy Alliance primarily as a place to forge
collaborations with like-minded groups, not as a funding source.

Yet the donor profiles produced for her group suggest the efforts to build
collaborations and high-dollar fundraising relationships are not mutually
exclusive.

The profiles — like those prepared by development staffs across Washington
ahead of prospecting meetings — include donors’ contribution histories, pet
causes, hometowns, spouses’ names, etc.

Investor Sandor Straus and his wife Faye Straus are described as “genuine
progressives (who) have given $10k to (Working America) through the DA for
past two years” – donations that previously have not been disclosed. They
did not respond to requests for comment.

At the DA’s spring meeting in April in San Francisco, they co-hosted a
panel to discuss “how aligned donor, labor, and foundation investments” in
regional secret-money non-profits were “making progressive wins possible at
the state and local levels,” according to an agenda obtained by POLITICO.

Likewise, the Working America briefing describes Ken Zimmerman, a top
official for Open Society Foundations, the philanthropic network founded by
the billionaire investor Soros, as “central to meeting with the AFL-CIO
about possible collaborations.” An Open Society spokeswoman said Zimmerman
“has no formal relationship or involvement with the AFL-CIO,” but added
that foundation officials “meet with people all the time to talk about
areas of overlapping interest.”

Indeed, a pair of foundations in Open Society’s network have donated more
than $10 million to various alt-labor groups since 2001, with $600,000
going to an arm of Working America in 2012, according to foundation tax
filings.

Sources familiar with Soros’s relationship with Working America say he
donated $150,000 from his own pocket to the group in 2006 and $400,000 in
2008, when it organized a massive canvassing campaign supporting Obama and
other Democrats.

But Steve Early, a former CWA official and the author of Save our Unions
called labor’s courtship of foundation donors “troubling” at times because
“these philanthropic institutions are not fundamentally on the same side as
any real working class movement.” He said alt-labor groups “need to develop
a dues paying membership base” to become permanent sustainable
organizations.

*GOP insiders expect no harm from Confederate flag controversy
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-insiders-expect-no-harm-from-confederate-flag-controversy-119457.html>
// Politico // Kyle Cheney – June 26, 2015*

Republican insiders overwhelmingly say the GOP presidential candidates gave
an adequate – or even strong — response on the issue of the Confederate
flag this week, after its presence over the South Carolina state capitol
became a symbol of America’s racial divide in the aftermath of last week’s
shootings in Charleston.

That’s the assessment of this week’s POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan
survey of the top operatives, activists and political hands in Iowa and New
Hampshire.

Despite a week’s worth of unfavorable headlines over the issue, the GOP
insiders said the 2016 field struck the right notes after South Carolina
GOP Gov. Nikki Haley and 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney called for
removing the flag from the capitol grounds.

“Governor Romney opened the gate last weekend for Republicans to do the
right thing on the flag, and to their credit, the majority of the
candidates followed his lead,” said one New Hampshire Republican. “The
Republicans like to talk a lot about expanding the party and reaching out
to minority communities. This week, we took action on those words.”

Sixty-one percent of the Republican insiders surveyed called the collective
message on the flag “adequate,” and another 21 percent called it “strong.”
Democratic insiders had an opposite view: roughly two-thirds rated the GOP
candidate responses as “weak” or “disastrous.”

“What a bunch of babies,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “They couldn’t do
the right thing until Haley gave them cover.”

Beneath the Republican insiders’ overall assessment, however, was some
pointed criticism toward the uneven and belated responses of some of the
individual candidates before they ultimately called for the flag’s removal.

“Finally they all got in line,” said another New Hampshire Republican.
“Trying to work into their response a weak state rights argument completely
missed the point.”

Less clear was which candidate handled the matter best. Some suggested
Bush’s decision to highlight his own effort as governor to remove the
Confederate flag from Tallahassee’s capitol portrayed him as a man of
action. Others noted that Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican,
came across as the most statesmanlike. One common thread: the moment was a
missed opportunity for Sen. Rand Paul, who’s staked his campaign on a push
to mobilize young and minority voters he says have been left behind by
Republicans.

“Rand Paul continues to be one or two beats off the mark,” said one Iowa
GOP insider. “He’s building an outreach, big tent brand and would have
helped himself with an immediate, unequivocal call to banish the
Confederate symbol once and for all.” Other Republicans fingered New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie, who is expected to announce his candidacy next week,
as the most significant flop.

“Mr. Tell-It-Like-It-Is was a ghost,” said one New Hampshire GOPer.

Here are three other takeaways from this week’s POLITICO Caucus:

Bernie Sanders is gaining traction

It’s just an iota, a speck, a lonely molecule of hope for Clinton’s
progressive critics — but a handful of Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic
insiders say Bernie Sanders could compete with, and perhaps even defeat,
overwhelming frontrunner Hillary Clinton if the vote in their states were
held today.

“Bernie Sanders is picking up steam and he has met with key groups
throughout Iowa in the last 30 days,” noted one Iowa Democratic insider,
who said Sanders is leading. “He is scheduled to be in town for most of
next week, traveling to both northwest and southwest Iowa which are the
most conservative areas of the state He looks serious and his campaign
staff is targeting the most difficult areas of Iowa first. That is good
strategy.”

While the majority believes Clinton would still win, there’s a palpable
sense of a momentum swing in Bernie’s direction.

“Bernie is getting hot, and though the Clinton support seems broad, I
wonder what would actually happen if someone said you vote next Tuesday,”
offered a New Hampshire Democrat.

Chris Christie still has a shot in New Hampshire

Christie was left for dead after the Bridgegate scandal seemed to torpedo
his presidential prospects, but he’s begun a slow climb back to viability.
Though he’s still considered a longshot, two-thirds of New Hampshire
insiders agree that he’s got a chance to win their state – a prospect that
would vault him back into the top tier.

“Chris Christie has made New Hampshire his Waterloo and he will commit as
many resources as possible here as he can,” said one New Hampshire
Republican. “While the likelihood of a Christie win in the Granite State is
still small, by flooding the zone, similar to John McCain in 2000 and 2008,
Christie has an opportunity.”

Another put it more bluntly: “Live in NH or die.”

But even those who see signs of life for Christie in New Hampshire question
whether Christie missed his moment.

“After being MIA for months, he’s been doing everything he’s meant to do
since April in NH and he’s doing very well on the stump,” said one
Republican. “But he still has zero - zero - publicly committed supporters.
Time for some early TV ads? Not sure he’ll even end up filing for the
primary come November.”

Iowa is a different story: few insiders think he has a prayer of winning.
Two-thirds of Iowa respondents say his path there ends in a cliff. Iowa
Republicans largely see him as too late and too moderate to compete in the
Hawkeye State.

“He is so disliked I don’t know how he’s got a path to the nomination
unless there’s a simultaneous implosion of Walker, Bush, Rubio and Kasich,”
said one Iowa Republican. “The Establishment wing has more than enough
choices. The Christie Casserole in the Republican buffet line will go
untouched.”

Moving past gay marriage

With the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex
marriage, a majority of Republican insiders say their presidential nominee
should recognize the court decision, reiterate their support for
traditional marriage, and say it’s time to move on.

“In New Hampshire the vast majority of Republican voters are [past]this
issue, so it’s time for the party to get [past] it too,” said one New
Hampshire Republican. “Candidates need to pivot to a more positive policy
agenda: strengthening the many versions of the American family.”

“Gay marriage is already the law of the land in New Hampshire. It’s been on
the books for several years, and the sky hasn’t fallen,” said another
Granite State Republican. “If the Court rules in favor, Republicans should
see it as an opportunity to clear the decks of an issue that they’re on the
wrong side of in terms of public opinion and re-focus on better issues.”

An Iowa Republican said much the same: “Republicans need to moderate on
this issue because public opinion is changing rapidly on this issue in
favor of gay marriage.”

About a quarter of Republican respondents argued that Republicans can pivot
from the ruling to a fight about religious liberty — a theme that several
candidates struck at a cattle call last week hosted by the Faith & Freedom
Coalition.

“The marriage debate is over. Religious liberty actually still has broad
support in this country, unlike a federal marriage amendment,” argued one
Iowa Republican.

“The logical extension of a SCOTUS decision upholding [same-sex marriage]
will be for the proponents … to begin to FORCE churches to perform the
marriages,” argued another Iowa Republican. “[A]dvocates will never be
satisfied until every church has to perform their weddings and every vendor
has to serve their cakes.”

*Republicans Cite Health Care Ruling in Pushing Candidacies
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/verbatim-hillary-clinton-supports-supreme-court-decision/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidates were quick to pivot off the Supreme
Court’s ruling to uphold Affordable Care Act subsidies, arguing that the
decision shows the need to replace President Obama with a member of their
party.

Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said that it should not be left to the
Supreme Court to “save us from Obamacare.”

“We need leadership in the White House that recognizes the folly of having
to pass a bill to know what’s in it,” Mr. Perry said. “We need leadership
that understands a heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all policy does nothing to
help health outcomes for Americans.”

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said the court erred in trying to correct
Mr. Obama’s mistakes. The decision was another reason that he should be
elected president, Mr. Rubio said.

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said the decision should be more motivation
for Congress to overturn the law.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the administration’s implementation
of Obamacare means Republicans in the House and Senate must redouble their
efforts to repeal and replace this destructive and costly law,” he said.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said he was the man to lead the overturn of
the law.

“This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head,”
Mr. Paul said in a statement. ” As president, I would make it my mission to
repeal it, and propose real solutions for our health care system.”

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said that if he becomes president, he will
make fixing the health system through the private sector a top priority.

“We need to put patients in charge of their own decisions, and health care
reform should actually lower costs,” Mr. Bush said. “Entrepreneurs should
be freed to lower costs and improve access to care – just like American
ingenuity does in other sectors of the economy. ”

The Republican National Committee decided to focus its statement not on Mr.
Obama, but on Hillary Rodham Clinton and the 2016 election.

“Today’s ruling makes it clear that if we want to fix our broken health
care system, then we will need to elect a Republican president with proven
ideas and real solutions that will help American families,” said Chairman
Reince Priebus. “Hillary Clinton supports big government mandates and
expanding the government’s reach into our health care system, maneuvers
that have made our health care system worse off.”

The statement made no direct reference to Mr. Obama.

*GOP lawmakers: Time to move on from Obamacare repeal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-lawmakers-time-to-move-on-from-obamacare-repeal-119439.html#ixzz3e8VAUZip>
// Politico // Manu Raju & Burgess Everett – June 25, 2015 *

Republicans have tried to kill the health care law twice at the Supreme
Court, only to be rebuffed. They’ve held more than 50 repeal votes,
virtually all of which have died in the Senate. They tried to defund the
law through the spending process, but the government shut down instead.

As Republicans process Thursday’s sharp rebuke at the hands of the Supreme
Court, they’re struggling with what to do next — beset by internal
divisions and procedural roadblocks that severely limit their options.

The reaction to the ruling ranged from defiance to resignation.

Many, like Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), concede the law is here to stay
until at least 2017, when they hope a GOP president will finally kill it.
But conservatives like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz insist Congress should use
“every single tool at our disposal” now to stop the law, including holding
spending bills hostage to force President Barack Obama to acquiesce.

Bad idea, say other GOP lawmakers. “We’ve tried that before, and it didn’t
work very well,” said Cruz’s fellow Texan, Sen. John Cornyn.

Still others, such as Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), say it’s time to focus on
fixing aspects of the existing law, rather than continuing a fruitless
repeal effort.

“No, no,” responds Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.). “It needs to be repealed and
replaced.”

The dissension has left some GOP lawmakers resigned and ready to move on.

“We’re going to have to go back to the drawing board, figure out if there
is an alternative at this point,” Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said Thursday.
“Perhaps it’s time to move on from this particular topic.”

The latest round of soul-searching came in the immediate aftermath of
Thursday’s decision in King v. Burwell. In a 6-3 ruling, the high court
upheld subsidies for 6.4 million people who receive health care coverage
through the federal exchange. Had the Obama administration lost the case,
Republicans planned to use the ruling as leverage to push through a range
of legislative options to further erode key elements of the sweeping law.

With the law intact and the president’s veto pen in the way of any
conservative attempts to weaken Obamacare, the GOP has few viable
alternatives. They could try to use annual spending bills again to try to
gut elements of the law, but that would risk a government shutdown. And
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has disavowed a strategy that could
lead to a repeat of the 2013 closure, by virtually all accounts a debacle
for the party.

The most obvious vehicle to gut all or part of the law now is through the
so-called budget reconciliation process. But budget rules are likely to
prevent Republicans from doing a full-scale repeal through reconciliation
legislation, given that they are required to include policy provisions that
will decrease the deficit, rather than increase it.

“There are very strict rules,” warned Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a
senior member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Even though reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered and can pass with
just 51 votes in the GOP-led Senate, Obama could still veto any measure
that emerges from Congress.

Adding to the complication is a growing debate internally within the GOP
over whether to use reconciliation to attack Obamacare. Some Republicans
say they should channel their energy instead on hard-to-pass legislation —
like changes to entitlements or tax laws — that Obama may ultimately agree
to sign.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an ally of Speaker John Boehner’s, said the party
should focus on reforms “you might be able to talk the president into,”
such as changing how Medicare benefits and Social Security cost-of-living
adjustments are doled out.

“To me it doesn’t make much of it point,” Cole said of using reconciliation
to repeal the law.

But Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) responded: “I think we’ve got to use it
for Obamacare. We’ve just got to do it.”

On Thursday, senior Republicans said the House and Senate will still hold
repeal votes, even if they’re essentially for show. “In some ways, this
just gets us back to our old game plan,” Cornyn said of the court ruling.

Some Republicans argue more repeal votes will keep the issue
front-and-center in the 2016 congressional and presidential elections,
making next November a referendum on the law.

“It means that the most significant domestic issue in 2016, at every House
race, in every Senate race and for president will be centered around
whether or not the country wants to keep Obamacare,” said Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.), who is seeking his party’s nomination for the White House.

And if Hillary Clinton wins, Graham said: “It means that Obamacare becomes
Hillarycare.”

“At the end of the day, there is not going to be any complete repeal of the
law until there is a new administration,” Aderholt said. “But we can’t sit
back as a party who stood against it, and pretend that it is what it is and
we aren’t going to do anything.”

Republicans will have a very hard time changing the law even if they sweep
the 2016 elections. The Senate will likely be narrowly divided, and the
vast majority of the Affordable Care Act will already be in place and
relied upon by tens of millions of people.

Only a handful of provisions would still be waiting to take effect in 2017,
such as the so-called Cadillac tax on high-cost insurance plans, which
faces some bipartisan opposition, and the Independent Payment Advisory
Board, a controversial panel tasked with reducing Medicare spending growth.
So far, health costs haven’t risen at a rate that would trigger the board
to act.

Beginning in 2017, states will be able to get a waiver to essentially opt
out of some of the ACA’s structural rules — and some Republicans see the
waivers as a chance to escape some of the most onerous aspects of the law.
But states will receive a waiver only if they agree to cover the same
number of people and to the same extent that Obamacare would have, meaning
it would be difficult to venture too far outside the confines of the ACA.

Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers said fellow GOP lawmakers should continue to press
their case to keep the issue at the top tier in 2016. But he said
Republicans should work now with Democrats on reforms that can win support
from both parties.

“What I hope we’ll do is stay focused on the big bipartisan issues like
repealing the medical device tax right now,” Stivers said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is up for reelection in 2016 but could
be vulnerable in a primary, said in an interview that she believes the
priority should be to make piecemeal fixes to the law such as tweaking the
40-hour workweek requirement and boosting competition across state lines.

“We can go ahead and we can vote once again to repeal it, and I will vote
to repeal it,” Murkowski said. “But I’m also very pragmatic that this
repeal is not going to go anywhere with this president.”

But Cruz, who is running for president, railed against unnamed GOP
colleagues whom he contended are “quietly celebrating” that the law was
upheld. In an interview after making a speech on the Senate floor railing
against the law, he pointedly refused to rule out using spending bills to
try to defund the law again — a tactic that led to the government shutdown
two years ago.

Cruz also lashed out at the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John
Roberts.

“I am disappointed in every justice who today violated their judicial oath
of office and rewrote the law in a way that is contrary to the
constitutional separation of powers,” Cruz said.

*The Supreme Court Just Did Republicans a Big Favor
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-supreme-court-just-did-republicans-a-big-favor>
// The New Yorker // John Cassidy – June 25, 2015 *

In public, at least, the reaction among Republicans to the decision the
Supreme Court issued on Thursday to let the Affordable Care Act subsidies
stand was uniform and predictable: outrage. “#ObamaCare ruling is judicial
tyranny,” Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, commented on
Twitter. Not to be outdone, Ted Cruz, one of Huckabee’s rivals in the
upcoming G.O.P. primary, tweeted, “Any candidate not willing to make 2016 a
referendum on Repealing Obamacare should step aside.”

The language from the three leading Republican candidates was a bit more
measured, but their basic sentiments were pretty much the same. “This
decision is not the end of the fight against Obamacare,” Jeb Bush wrote in
a statement on his campaign Web site. “As President of the United States …
I will work with Congress to repeal and replace this flawed law with
conservative reforms that empower consumers with more choices and control
over their health care decisions.”

“I disagree with the Court’s ruling and believe they have once again erred
in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama,” Bush’s fellow
Floridian, Senator Marco Rubio, said on Twitter, adding, in two more
tweets, “I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it…
with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in
control of their health care decisions.”

Governor Scott Walker, of Wisconsin, tweeted: “Today’s #SCOTUScare ruling
means Republicans must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this
destructive & costly law.”

Elsewhere, Republicans tore into Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted with
the six-to-three majority and wrote the opinion justifying the court’s
decision. Some of his critics suggested that he could no longer be termed a
conservative. ”I don’t know that you can label the guy in any way, shape or
form right now,” Matt Salmon, a Republican congressman from Arizona, said,
according to the Wall Street Journal. Senator Cruz and Indiana Governor
Mike Pence both said that Roberts and his colleagues had committed the
heinous crime of “judicial activism.” (My colleagues Amy Davidson and
Jeffrey Toobin have more on the particulars of the decision.)

But despite all this rhetoric, I’d be willing to wager that many Republican
strategists were privately relieved at the court’s ruling. The Burwell v.
King lawsuit provided a rallying point for conservative Republicans, but
had it prevailed in the high court it would have blown up in the faces of
the Party’s elected representatives. Not only would they have been held
responsible for wrecking the federal health-care marketplace and making
health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans, they would have
had to say what precisely they intended to put in its place. Despite the
claims of Bush, Rubio, and others, this is a task that the Party wasn’t
prepared to take on.

To be sure, over the past few months, various Republicans have put forward
various suggestions for replacing all or parts of Obamacare. But these
plans are all over the place. Some would maintain the generous federal
subsidies as they are now; others would cut them. Some would leave the
state exchanges alone; others would dismantle them. At least one proposal
would jettison the requirement that insurers cover people with preëxisting
conditions. And practically all of them would end the individual mandate,
which would skew the risk pool toward sick people and drive up premiums. In
a recent article in which she described how each of the plans would work,
Vox’s Sarah Kliff wrote, “The result would likely be a world that looks
much more like America before Obamacare—where fewer people are enrolled in
coverage and are paying higher premiums.”

Going into an election year, that is hardly something that the G.O.P.’s
2016 candidates would want to advertise. Now that the Supreme Court has
ruled against the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, Republicans can go back to
what they do best: railing against the evils of Obamacare and promising to
repeal it, without committing to much in the way of specifics about its
putative replacement.

To their credit, some commentators pointed out some of this before
Thursday’s judgment came down. The New Republic’s Brian Beutler wrote that
a court ruling in favor of the King v. Burwell plaintiffs would be “an
administrative and political nightmare” for a newly elected Republican
President. At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall wrote a post headlined
“Did Republicans Swallow Their Own Grenade?” Greg Sargent, of the
Washington Post, published figures showing the numbers of people in key
swing states who stood to lose their health coverage if the Supreme Court
voted to gut the federal exchanges. “In Florida we’re talking about 1.3
million people,” Sargent wrote. “In North Carolina it’s over 450,000; and
in Virginia it’s nearly 300,000—suggesting the political stakes are high
indeed.”

The people running G.O.P. Presidential campaigns were surely aware of these
figures, and the dangers they implied. But such is the level of opposition
to the Affordable Care Act among Republican activists that it made no sense
for any of the candidates to do anything but toe the party line. Even Bush
and Carly Fiorina, who are supposedly positioning themselves as moderates,
went along with it—and they continue to do so. “It is outrageous that the
Supreme Court once again rewrote ObamaCare to save this deeply flawed law,”
Fiorina wrote on Facebook on Thursday, before adding the obligatory, “We
need to repeal ObamaCare.”

During the upcoming G.O.P. debates, we will hear much more of this kind of
rhetoric, although how much it will help the Party in the general election
is unclear. Taken together, the opinion polls suggest that a plurality of
Americans still oppose the Affordable Care Act. But there is some
suggestion that opinion is shifting. This year, the numbers favoring
Obamacare have been creeping upward, and in the most recent CBS News/New
York Times poll, forty-seven per cent of respondents said that they
approved of the reform, compared to forty-four per cent who opposed it.

It seems unlikely that Obamacare will decide the 2016 election, but it will
continue to provide Republicans with something to rail against. For that,
and more, the G.O.P. has John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy to thank. The two
justices, both of them Republican-appointed, just saved the Party from
itself.

*Republicans to fight Obamacare through election campaign despite ruling
<http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-vow-keep-fighting-obamacare-despite-court-ruling-160811704.html>
// Reuters // Susan Cornwell – June 25, 2015 *

Republicans will keep attacking Obamacare in the U.S. Congress and on the
presidential election campaign trail to energize right-wing voters and
raise money, but analysts said there was little chance of the healthcare
law being rolled back before 2017 now that the Supreme Court has again
validated it.

On Thursday, the high court upheld a central part of the Affordable Care
Act, as it is formally known. It was the second time the court confirmed
the legality of President Barack Obama's biggest domestic achievement.

That greatly reduces the chances of any substantive legislative or legal
challenge to the law by Republicans until a new president takes office in
January 2017 after Democrat Obama leaves office.

By then, the law will have been on the books for seven years and millions
of Americans will have a stake in it, making it even more difficult to
dismantle.

"It is entrenched. There certainly will be no legislation (signed into law)
that will change anything for the next year and a half," said Joseph Antos,
an expert in health policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a
conservative think tank.

View galleryRepublican presidential candidate Senator  Marco
Rubio&nbsp;&hellip;

Republican presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addresses a
legislative luncheon held a …

"This administration is done with health policy. Everybody's done," Antos
said.

Obamacare survived a major legal test when the Supreme Court upheld tax
subsidies at the heart of the law that help millions of Americans afford
premiums they pay for health insurance.

Enacted in 2010, the law was meant to provide health insurance coverage for
millions of Americans who neither had insurance through an employer nor
could afford an individual plan. Republicans opposed the law from the
start, calling it unnecessary government interference and "socialized
medicine."

More than 10 million people now have insurance purchased through state and
federal marketplaces set up under the law. About 8.7 million of them get
subsidies, the government says.

Following Thursday's 6-3 court ruling, Republicans quickly vowed to make
the 2016 election campaign a referendum on Obamacare, expressing
disappointment with the court's decision.

Democrats cheered it, however. On the presidential campaign trail,
Democratic Party front runner Hillary Clinton expressed delight via
Twitter. "Yes! SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under
the law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all," she
said.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner said, "We will continue our efforts
to repeal the law and replace it."

But it was unclear what Republicans could do to make good on that pledge.
Republican lawmakers had worked on action plans for a high court ruling
against the subsidies, but there seemed to be no clear Republican strategy
for the ruling that was handed down, a resounding victory for Obama.

The Republican party is divided, said Robert Blendon, a health policy and
politics analyst at Harvard University.

One wing "wants to go back to 2009" before Obamacare existed. Others have
proposed alternatives. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, for
instance, is urging the approval of tax credits to help people buy
insurance.

Some Republicans "feel they dodged a bullet" with the court's decision,
which means they won't have to anger their base by preserving the
subsidies, even temporarily, said John Ullyot, a Republican strategist and
former longtime Senate aide.

Most of the dozen or so Republican candidates running for their party's
nomination vowed to repeal Obamacare if elected.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's campaign issued a fundraising appeal for
"emergency" contributions to ensure the law is rolled back. "I will work
with Congress to repeal and replace this flawed law," Bush said in a
statement.

Senator Marco Rubio, another Republican contender, said: “I remain
committed to repealing this bad law."

Brookings Institution analyst Stuart Butler said the law may be modified,
but it is now hard to imagine it being totally repealed, even after a new
president takes office in 2017.

"The longer it is on the books the harder it will be to dislodge," he said.
"Not harder - impossible."

*After Charleston shootings, poll highlights race dilemma for Republicans
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/25/us-usa-election-race-idUSKBN0P50DA20150625>
// Reuters // John Whitesides – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential contenders face a dilemma when talking about racial
issues after last week's racially motivated murders at a South Carolina
church, as a new poll shows many Republican primary voters are less likely
to see the topic as important.

While more than three-quarters of Americans believe race relations must be
addressed in the United States, a smaller majority of only about 65 percent
of likely Republican primary voters agree, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
(Graphic: link.reuters.com/dun94w)

One-third of likely Republican primary voters see race relations as
unimportant to some degree, compared to only 9 percent of likely Democratic
voters who feel that way.

"There is a tension Republicans are trying to navigate, and they are really
stuck between a rock and a hard place," said Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson.

"You have the majority of the public on one side, but the people who are
actually going to vote for them in the primaries are less interested in
this particular issue and may have different takes or alternate priorities
altogether," he said.

The poll, carried out after the murder by a white gunman of nine black
members of a Bible study group at a Charleston church, also found Democrats
were more trusted to deal with race relations by more than a 2-to-1 margin.

The findings illustrate the Republican Party's challenge in trying to
expand its appeal among minorities - crucial if the party is to win the
presidency - and could help explain the largely muted response to the
Charleston shootings by the party's 2016 presidential contenders.

Around a dozen hopefuls, who must court the white, conservative voters who
dominate the party's primaries, largely steered clear of calls to action or
policy prescriptions after the shootings, focusing instead on messages of
condolence.

Several Republican presidential contenders and other party leaders did join
South Carolina state officials earlier this week in calling for removal of
the Confederate battle flag from in front of the State House, seat of the
legislature, labeling it an act of healing and unity.

Republican National Committee spokesman Orlando Watson noted that call was
led by Indian-American Governor Nikki Haley and a prominent black
Republican, U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.

"Republican leaders have stepped up and are working hard to address all
voter concerns, including those involving race," he said.

After losing the 2012 presidential election, Republicans had vowed to
expand their appeal beyond their shrinking base of white males and reach
out to court new supporters among blacks, Hispanics, Asians and the young.

But blacks have for decades been the most loyal Democratic voting bloc, a
trend only reinforced by the election of President Barack Obama, the first
black in the White House.

When Obama won re-election in 2012, Mitt Romney received 6 percent of the
black vote. No Republican presidential contender has won more than 12
percent of black votes since President Gerald Ford's 15 percent in 1976.

The poll found Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was considered the
presidential contender who was best suited to handle the issue of race
relations, with 17 percent of all adults and 32 percent of blacks viewing
her that way.

The top-ranked Republican was retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, the only
black Republican in the race. He was seen as best suited by 7 percent of
all adults and 6 percent of blacks. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was
next, with 6 percent of all adults and 1 percent of blacks viewing him as
best suited.

Carson and Bush are among 13 candidates who have formally jumped into the
race for the Republican presidential nomination in the November 2016
election.

Some respondents to the poll said the issue of race relations simply took a
backseat to more heavily debated topics such as unemployment, crime,
education and trade.

"I don't know if it's really an election issue, it's a people issue. Our
political leaders can't change it," said Alex Jackson, a white Republican
who is a student at West Georgia College in Carrolton, Georgia. She rated
race relations as "somewhat unimportant."

Mary Wickham, a white Republican in Naperville, Illinois, who also said
race relations were "somewhat unimportant", said she did not see it as an
issue in her diverse community and she was much more interested in a
candidate's views on immigration.

"It's just not a problem here," she said of racial issues. "We pray
together, we stay together."

The online poll of 1,402 Americans was taken between June 18 and 22, and
has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percent for all
Americans and 6.4 percent for Republican primary voters.

*GOP presidential hopefuls in Colorado for conservative summit - and a
marijuana policy grade
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/inside-beltway-gop-presidential-hopefuls-earn-weed/>
// The Washington Times // Jennifer Harper – June 25, 2015 *

Here’s another one of those bodacious weekend events, and this begins
Friday: The Western Conservative Summit, staged in Denver by Colorado
Christian University. “There’s a rebirth going on in America. Be part of
it. After decades of slipping to the left, citizen patriots have re-engaged
in the public arena, and our political discourse has been enriched by their
voices,” the organizers advise the 4,000 incoming delegates.

The two-day event has also drawn seven presidential hopefuls and a spate of
heavyweights ranging from radio host Hugh Hewitt and Family Research
Council president Tony Perkins to CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow, security maven
Frank Gaffney and Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress. A
“Rally on the Right” is also planned. Find it all here:
WesternConservativeSummit.com

Along with all the serious policy talk and presidential posturing, the GOP
hopefuls have something else to consider. Or maybe not. The Marijuana
Policy Project, a research group, will release a report card on the 2016
presidential hopefuls, detailing their positions on marijuana policy. The
group has organized a press conference only blocks from the summit to
reveal their ratings.

“Candidate grades are based on actions they have taken and statements they
have made that indicate their levels of support for ending marijuana
prohibition, allowing legal access to medical marijuana, and defending
states’ rights to adopt their own marijuana policies without interference
from the federal government,” says Mason Tvert, the organization’s
spokesman, who adds that a mammoth report card will be hoisted aloft for
all the public to see.

*GOP lawmaker: Blumenthal Benghazi deposition should be released
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/246184-gop-lawmaker-blumenthal-benghazi-deposition-should-be-released>
// The Hill // Martin Matishak – June 25, 2015 *

A Republican member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says the
panel should make public the deposition of Hillary Clinton adviser and
confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

“I think it needs to be released,” Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) told The
Hill on Thursday.

He also argued that Democratic demands for the release are “an excuse” for
the panel’s seven Republicans to do so.

If Westmoreland joined with Democrats on the special panel to vote for the
deposition’s release, they’d be within one vote of forcing the matter.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has resisted publishing the
deposition, arguing that the select committee hasn’t released a transcript
of any of its previous interviews.

Democrats contend that the panel has already released nearly 60 emails to
and from Clinton that Blumenthal himself turned over earlier this month.

They also believe the transcript will show the questions centered around
political matters and not the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed
four Americans, including the ambassador.

Westmoreland said that Gowdy is concerned that if the transcript is
published, “it would discourage, maybe, some other people from coming in
voluntarily,” such as longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

“But this is the only person we had to subpoena to come in,” Westmoreland
noted.

Blumenthal appeared before the committee last week.

*THE LID: Glass Half Full for GOP After Obamacare Decision
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/lid-glass-half-full-gop-after-obamacare-decision-n382016>
// NBC News // Carrie Dann & Andrew Rafferty – June 25, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidates have released a barrage of statements
slamming the Supreme Court over today's decision to uphold Obamacare
subsidies. But we have a sneaky suspicion that the court's decision isn't
all bad news for GOP candidates with their eyes on the White House. For
one, it allows them to keep up the drumbeat for a full repeal of the law,
which will energize the base (In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, a majority of GOP
primary voters - 55 percent - said that the law should be "totally
eliminated," and an additional 36 percent said it needs a "major
overhaul.") And they can make a big-picture argument that a Republican-held
White House really is the only way to ensure the end of Obamacare, which
remains relatively unpopular with independents, too. (A combined 56 percent
of indies say that the law should be gutted or dramatically changed, and
just eight percent of ALL Americans say they think it's working well as it
is.)

The other advantage is they can continue to lambast the law without the
immediate need to craft a legislative replacement, or at least figure out
what to do about 6.4 million Americans who would have been effectively
kicked off their health insurance plans. The candidates who are talking
about repealing and replacing Obamacare are going to be under pressure to
present a tangible alternative. But at least now they can avoid getting hit
with ads featuring Americans who can no longer afford care after losing
their subsidies.

*Supreme Court Lets GOP Candidates Off the Hook on Obamacare
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/25/supreme-court-lets-gop-candidates-off-the-hook-on-obamacare.html>
// The Daily Beast // Betsy Woodruff – June 25, 2015 *

Jeb Bush didn’t waste any time not fundraising off the King v. Burwell
decision.

The former Florida governor, who is currently polling at the top of the
Republican pack, blasted out a statement to reporters that landed in The
Daily Beast’s inbox at 11:26 a.m. And a fundraising email to supporters
pegged to the decision came our way five minutes earlier.

“Friend, you know in your heart that we cannot afford four more years of
the same policies, which will be the case under a Clinton White House,” the
fundraising email read. “But the only way to prevent that is to make the
most generous contribution you can afford right now to stop her. [that last
sentence hyperlinked to a donation page].”

In his official press statement, Bush said the loss in court doesn’t mean
the GOP will stop pushing for repeal. He didn’t add any specifics about
what he would do as president, beyond saying that he would push for
“conservative reforms that empower consumers with more choices and control
over their health care decisions.”

Republican presidential candidates like Bush must have a lot of feelings
about Obama’s big win at the Supreme Court today. On the one hand, they’re
univocally opposed to the Affordable Care Act, and they seem to share a
deep disappointment that SCOTUS ruled to keep it unchanged.

On the other hand, though, this really gets them out of the hot seat.
Proposing policy fixes for the millions of people who received government
subsidies to offset the costs of health insurance they bought through the
federal exchange would have been, from a political standpoint,
extraordinarily dicey.

Former Texas governor Rick Perry promptly blasted out a statement decrying
the justices’ move and calling for new leadership in the White House (hint
hint!).

“While I disagree with the ruling, it was never up to the Supreme Court to
save us from Obamacare,” he said in the statement. “We need leadership in
the White House that recognizes the folly of having to pass a bill to know
what’s in it.”

Senator Ted Cruz, meanwhile, compared the justices to the 20th century’s
most celebrated illusionist.

“Today, these robed Houdinis transmogrified a ‘federal exchange’ into an
exchange ‘established by the State,’” he wrote.

“These judges have joined with President Obama in harming millions of
Americans,” he continued. “Unelected judges have once again become
legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their
prevarication in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of laws,
not of men, and this transparent distortion is disgraceful.”

Proposing policy fixes for the millions of people who received government
subsidies to offset the costs of health insurance they bought through the
federal exchange would have been, from a political standpoint,
extraordinarily dicey.

And Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin who’s expected to
announce a presidential bid next month, immediately looked to Republicans
in Congress for answers.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the administration’s implementation
of ObamaCare means Republicans in the House and Senate must redouble their
efforts to repeal and replace this destructive and costly law,” he said in
a statement.

“Now, instead of just finger-pointing from the president for why his law is
failing, we need real leadership in Washington, and Congress needs to
repeal and replace ObamaCare,” he continued.

And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also came out swinging.

“Republicans must outline a clear and coherent vision for health care to
win the trust of the American people to repeal Obamacare,” he said. “And
right now, I am the only candidate to put forward a comprehensive plan.”

Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner summarized Jindal’s healthcare plan
as an approach that would “wipe out Obamacare completely, return tax and
spending levels to where they would have been if the law had never passed,
and build a free market alternative from scratch.”

And former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina took to Facebook to call the
court’s decision “outrageous.”

“We need to do the one thing we’ve never tried in our healthcare
system—real competition,” she continued.

“And competition doesn’t mean eliminating care for those with preexisting
conditions,” she added. “States should administer high-risk pools for those
who have real needs. We’ve seen this in action—New Hampshire was able to
administer high-risk pools effectively before Obamacare.”

Fiorina’s response is about as detailed as the Republicans got. The Burwell
decision has taken them off the hook. And if others follow Bush’s lead, it
might get them a windfall.

*GOP chairman: Only way to fix healthcare is to elect Republicans
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/246163-gop-chairman-only-way-to-fix-obamacare-is-to-elect-republicans>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 25, 2015 *

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold ObamaCare shows that the only way to
fix the healthcare system is to elect Republicans, the party’s national
chairman wrote Thursday.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus joins scores of GOP
lawmakers bashing the court’s opinion with an op-ed published hours after
the ruling.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today doesn’t change the facts: Obamacare was
so poorly written, so sloppily created, that all these years later it is
still creating confusion and frustration for Americans,” he writes.

“The country is ready for a new direction, and today’s ruling makes it
clear that if we want to fix our broken health-care system, we will need to
elect Republican leaders with proven ideas and real solutions that will
help American families.”

Priebus laments the costs of the healthcare law, attributing it to “slow
job growth, rising insurance premiums and even shuttered small businesses.

He also bashes President Obama for promising that everyone would be able to
keep their plans and doctors and pushes back at the assertion that the GOP
doesn’t have its own health care plan.

“Democrats continue to suggest that Republicans don’t have other plans.
That’s because they want people to think there’s no choice but to put up
with Obamacare,” he writes.

“There are Republican alternatives, proposed by members of both the House
and the Senate. All Republican plans are better than what Democrats,
President Obama, and Hillary Clinton have forced on us — and would continue
to force on the country. All are better than the mess we’re in.”

His rival, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (Fla.), critiqued similar arguments in comments Thursday on CNN’s
“Wolf.”

“This is a case of sour grapes and a case where Republicans are entitled to
their opinions but not their own facts,” she said.

“The facts are that healthcare insurance rates are increasing at their
slowest rate in 50 years. We have 16 million people who have health
insurance coverage who didn’t have it before.”

Priebus's piece adds that the party is in agreement on providing access to
those with preexisting conditions, keeping young adults on their parents’
plans until they turn 26, a patient-centered approach instead of a
government-centered approach, insurance competition across state lines and
lawsuit reforms.

*GOP Field Renews "Repeal Obamacare" Battle Cry
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/25/gop_field_renews_repeal_obamacare_battle_cry_127120.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Caitlin Huey-Burns – June 25, 2015*

The U.S. Supreme Court moved Thursday to uphold a law that Republicans,
particularly those running for president, intensely dislike.

But the court’s decision to leave the Affordable Care Act intact may have a
silver lining for the GOP field: It allows them to renew a once potent
rallying cry -- anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- that had become somewhat dormant
on the campaign trail as the justices mulled whether subsidies for health
coverage purchased on the federal insurance exchange were lawful.

Almost immediately after Thursday’s 6-3 ruling, Republican White House
hopefuls lined up behind a revamped cause: to repeal and replace the law
entirely.

“This decision is not the end of the fight against Obamacare,” former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said. “As president of the United States … I will
work with Congress to repeal and replace this flawed law with conservative
reforms that empower consumers with more choices and control over their
health care decisions.”

In announcing his candidacy last week in Miami, Bush notably left off the
“repeal” mantra from his speech. And several candidates running for
president had been markedly quiet about the ACA ahead of the court’s
ruling, tending to mention it only as one in a litany of complaints about
what they consider big-government overreach.

As the subsidies for 6.4 million Americans hung in the balance, Republicans
were faced with a politically sticky challenge of wanting the court to
unravel the law while also worrying about how to address the needs of
millions of Americans who would lose their coverage. Republicans were
divided on how best to proceed if the court struck down this integral part
of the law, with some wanting to temporarily extend the subsidies while
others preferred holding to principle and letting them expire.

The matter would have been particularly challenging for candidates in swing
states with high numbers of voters receiving the federal aid. Florida, for
example, the home state of Bush and fellow candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, has
the largest contingent of people (1.3 million) getting subsidies. (Florida
is one of 34 states that uses the federal exchange instead of a state-run
marketplace.)

Now, Republicans can privately breathe a sigh of relief about avoiding a
divisive and politically complicated scenario on the policy and
constituent-relations front.

“I think that in some ways this actually could help our presidential
candidate because there won’t be the folks out there without subsidies
screaming out,” Arizona Republican Rep. Matt Salmon told RCP. “I think that
most Americans that have really been hurt [by Obamacare changes] over the
last couple years will be the loudest voices now and I’m not sure that
won’t help our candidate.”

Rubio, who was hosting a veterans event in New Hampshire when the ruling
came down, said he was committed to repealing the law and replacing it with
his own proposal of a “consumer-centered” plan that he says would give
patients and families more control over their health care decisions,
something for which most of the GOP contenders have advocated.

While Republicans will push more loudly on the campaign trail for gutting
the law, the replacement part could become tricky. There are various
proposals from members of Congress and outlines suggested by presidential
candidates. But the party is not united around an alternative plan. Still,
the Oval Office aspirants will argue that a replacement can only come with
a Republican in the White House.

“Today’s decision only reinforces why we need a president who will bring
about real reform that repeals Obamacare and replaces it with a plan that
expands consumer choice, increases coverage, delivers better value for the
dollar, and gives states more control, without stifling job creation,” said
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a GOP presidential contender who voted against the law
in 2010.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is expected to announce his candidacy next
month, echoed those sentiments, and added that the ruling “means
Republicans in the House and Senate must redouble their efforts to repeal
and replace this destructive and costly law.”

Most of the Republican candidates released similar statements.

Ohio's John Kasich, one of the few Republican governors to accept the
expansion of Medicaid coverage in his state offered under the Affordable
Care Act, called for replacing Obamacare with a more market-driven solution
administered by the states. "We will continue to pursue innovative ways for
Ohio to best meet the unique needs of our residents, in line with our
priorities, and reduce the negative consequences of this flawed law," the
governor's spokesman, Rob Nichols, said.

Though the Supreme Court removed doubts about pieces of the law, enabling
Republicans to run fully against it -- as occurred in 2012 and during the
2010 and 2014 midterms – the GOP may find the issue to be less of a driving
issue for voters. Recent polls show a slight majority of Americans oppose
the law.

Democrats, on the other hand, are poised to run by fully embracing
it—literally. After Thursday’s court decision, Hillary Clinton tweeted a
picture of her and President Obama embracing. Democrats will likely frame
Republicans as working to take away insurance from people who now have it
under the health care act.

Republicans, however, wasted no time in focusing on the general election
opposition. "Hillary Clinton supports big government mandates and expanding
the government’s reach into our healthcare system, maneuvers that have made
our healthcare system worse off,” said Republican National Committee
Chairman Reince Priebus.

*Republican Presidential Candidates Blast Supreme Court Ruling
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/republican-presidential-candidates-blast-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>
// The Daily Caller // Alex Pappas – June 25, 2015 *

The Republicans running for president in 2016 expressed disappointment —
and in one case accused the high court of “judicial tyranny” — after the
Supreme Court on Thursday upheld federal subsidies under President Obama’s
health care law.

“Today’s King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands Obamacare, is
an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee. “Our founding fathers didn’t create a ‘do-over’ provision in our
Constitution that allows unelected, Supreme Court justices the power to
circumvent Congress and rewrite bad laws.”

“This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head,”
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said. “Obamacare raises taxes, harms patients and
doctors, and is the wrong fix for America’s health care system.”

“It is outrageous that the Supreme Court once again rewrote ObamaCare to
save this deeply flawed law despite the plain text and in the face of
overwhelming evidence that the law is not working for the majority of
Americans,” said former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

“I disagree with the court’s ruling and believe they have once again erred
in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in
forcing Obamacare on the American people,” said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court ruling in the King v. Burwell
case,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said. “But this decision is not the end
of the fight against Obamacare.”

“While I disagree with the ruling, it was never up to the Supreme Court to
save us from Obamacare,” former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said. “We need
leadership in the White House that recognizes the folly of having to pass a
bill to know what’s in it.”

“Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the debate will grow,” Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal said. “Conservatives must be fearless in demanding that
our leaders in Washington repeal and replace Obamacare with a plan that
will lower health care costs and restore freedom.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the administration’s implementation
of Obamacare means Republicans in the House and Senate must redouble their
efforts to repeal and replace this destructive and costly law,” Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker, who’s exploring a run, said Thursday.

*Conservatives Unleash Fury at One-Time Hero John Roberts
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-25/conservatives-unleash-fury-at-one-time-hero-john-roberts>
// Bloomberg News // Sahil Kapur – June 25, 2015 *

After the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reject an existential challenge to
Obamacare on Thursday, conservatives took direct aim at the author of the
decision: their one-time hero Chief Justice John Roberts.

Their sentiments were channeled by several Republican presidential
candidates, who lashed out at the Roberts Court for its purportedly
activist pro-Obamacare ruling.

“Roberts told everybody he was just going to be an umpire and call strikes
and balls, but now as justice he’s got two results-oriented decisions that
go far beyond that role,” said Club For Growth President David McIntosh,
suggesting his group will seek to avoid future nominations like Roberts.
“What the Club does, in picking candidates, is look at their record, and
look at not just what they have stood for on economic issues but what
they’ll do in the future. What the Club will want candidates to ask their
potential nominees is: Will they be faithful to the Constitution?”

"Today the Supreme Court allowed itself to be intimidated."

Michael F. Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute

Shortly after the decision, Competitive Enterprise Institute general
counsel Sam Kazman told reporters that Roberts’s rationale seemed to
abandon the logic of “what words mean” in favor of executive power.

“We were very surprised by his reasoning in the NFIB case [in 2012 about
Obamacare's individual mandate], and we’re even more surprised by his
reasoning here,” said Kazman, who largely coordinated the plaintiffs’ case.
“Frankly, since the entire purpose of the Constitution was to impose
restrictions on government, we see his ruling as a weakening of that.”

Elsewhere on the right, Roberts’s decision was being interpreted as a
failure of Republicans to properly vet nominees–or worse. Phil Kerpen,
whose group American Commitment had popularized videos of Obama
administration consultant Jonathan Gruber appearing to make the plaintiffs’
case in King, directed followers to a 2005 column that decried Roberts as a
“political” appointee who would not rely strictly on the Constitution. The
author of that column, Ben Shapiro, took a sort of Twitter victory lap.

“Republicans should be asked: knowing then what you know now, would you
have voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts?” Shapiro wrote.

Conservatives had plenty of help from their presidential contenders, who
didn't explicitly name Roberts but launched a series of arrows at his
ruling and his court.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a former lawyer who has argued cases before the
Supreme Court, came out swinging against the ruling as "judicial activism,
plain and simple," and swiped the majority as "robed Houdinis" who made a
"nakedly political" move.

"These judges have joined with President Obama in harming millions of
Americans," he said. "Unelected judges have once again become legislators,
and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication
in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not of men, and
this transparent distortion is disgraceful."

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was no less fired up.

"Today's King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands Obamacare, is
an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny," he said. "Our Founding Fathers
didn't create a 'do-over' provision in our Constitution that allows
unelected, Supreme Court justices the power to circumvent Congress and
rewrite bad laws."

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a likely candidate, adopted the attack
with a string of tweets quoting Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent that the
law should now be called "SCOTUScare." Senator Marco Rubio subtly accused
the justices of taking policy in their own hands, saying they "erred in
trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in
forcing ObamaCare on the American people." Other Republican candidates took
aim at Obamacare but not the Supreme Court.

A blog post by Michael F. Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute, an
architect of the King v. Burwell lawsuit, blared "Supreme Court Validates
Obama’s Power Grab."

"Today the Supreme Court allowed itself to be intimidated," he wrote,
warning that the ruling "establishes a precedent that could let any
president modify, amend, or suspend any enacted law at his or her whim."

The anger at Roberts spanned generations, uniting all manner of
conservatives in a distrust at the Republican establishment. David
Limbaugh, the author and brother of radio host Limbaugh, asked why
Republicans “end up with so many Trojan Horse Supreme Court appointments.”
Sean Davis, a senior editor at the conservative web site The Federalist
wrote bitterly that “every fancy conservative legal foundation said Roberts
was the most amazing nomination ever.”

On the more conspiracy-minded end of the spectrum, libertarian author Wayne
Root wondered in the website The Blaze: "Has Supreme Court Justice John
Roberts been blackmailed or intimidated? I would put nothing by the Obama
administration that lives and rules by the Chicago thug playbook."

*Republicans Go On Obamacare Offensive: 'A Reckless Law'
<https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/republicans-go-obamacare-offensive-reckless-law_977780.html>
// The Weekly Standard // Daniel Halper – June 25, 2015 *

In anticipation of the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling on the Obamacare
case, the Republican National Committee is going on the offensive. In a new
66-second web video, which is set to be released later today, Republicans
are blaiming the law on Democrats who "pushed through Obamacare." Not a
single Republican voted for Obamacare's passage.

Watch here:

The ad features some of the loudest (and most unpopular) voices on
Obamacare.

"You know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever,"
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is quoted as saying in the ad.

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it," Nancy
Pelosi, the former speaker of the House, says in the ad.

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," Gruber is heard
saying.

Then news reports are played describing that the Affordable Care Act,
Obamacare, is not working as intended and that it isn't affordable as
promised.

An on screen graphic says that Obamacare is "hurting the American people."

Finally, the ad ends with Hillary Clinton, who advocated Hillarycare in the
1990s and who is seeking the Democratic nomination.

"Obama & the Democrats rush to pass Obamacare," reads the finaly on screen
graphic. "Americans are paying the price. Help us stop Hillary.
StopHillary.gop."

The web ad is titled, "A Reckless Law."

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*Obamacare ruling: Six takeaways for 2016
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/obamacare-ruling-six-takeaways-gop-presidential-election-119432.html?hp=t3_r>
// Politico // Glenn Thrush & Kyle Cheney – June 25, 2015 *

Today was the rarest of days in American political history — the legacies
of both a sitting president and a Supreme Court chief justice were defined
in an instant.

While the jockeying swarm of 2016 aspirants aren’t posing for posterity,
they are angling for power — and the court’s 6-to-3 decision upholding
Obamacare subsidies alters their calculations. It’s nothing compared to the
unpinned hand grenade that would have been chucked into the field if the
Affordable Care Act had been toppled as many analysts (and Republicans)
conjectured, but it’s forcing a rethinking nevertheless.

President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hailed the decision as an
unalloyed and historic victory, even if one cynical Democrat interviewed by
POLITICO thought a loss would have galvanized Clinton’s sleepy base like
“nothing else could have.”

The ruling’s real political import lies on the Republican side, which is
united in opposition to Obamacare but deeply divided on how to get rid of
it — and even over the tone to use when saying nasty things about it.

The consensus: It was a constitutional abomination and an electoral
godsend. “The ‘repeal Obamacare’ idea was good politically, but in
practice, to peel back that whole program, was more complicated and less
realistic,” said Jason Roe, a California-based Republican consultant. “I
don’t think there is any [Republican] who can point to something and say,
‘this is the consensus replacement,’ and that was part of our struggle.
What’s next? Republicans don’t need to answer that now.”

“In general, I’d say this was decent day for the Republican Party,” said a
top staffer for a Republican 2016 candidate. “It’s cleared off the table…
And we don’t have to spend the next 18 months trying to create a
replacement for all the people who would lose coverage.”

With the case off the table, here are six takeaways on the decision and its
impact on a very rattled 2016 GOP field:

1. The pitchforks are coming for you, Jeb and Marco

Rage-against-the-machine anger has fueled the Republican resurgence since
2010 – actually since CNBC’s Rick Santelli coined the “Tea Party” moniker
during a rant against a proposed mortgage bailout in February 2009.
Six-plus years later, the tension between the party’s conservative base and
more moderate/establishment/big-money candidates remains a serious issue,
which explains why the second-tier candidates wasted little time in
adopting the language of grievance demanded by the party’s base.

With the ultimate fate of the health care law seemingly decided for good,
there are really only two moves left for a GOP field seeking to derive
political capital from Obamacare: move on, with a promise to repeal it
later, or point fingers and demand Republican traitors get the
tar-and-feather treatment.

The top tier candidates as defined by establishment support and cash —
namely Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio –were more muted in their responses than
lower-down-the-pole candidates like Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson, who has
likened Obamacare to slavery.

Bush’s statement was bloodless, trust me-I’m-angry boilerplate: “I am
disappointed by today’s Supreme Court ruling in the King v. Burwell case.
But this decision is not the end of the fight against Obamacare.” Bush also
vowed to go the repeal-and-replace route, even though he hasn’t backed a
specific plan.

Marco Rubio, who also favors repeal and replacement, touted his
“consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of
their health care decisions,” employing the measured language of a man with
one eye on a general election audience.

Contrast that with Huckabee’s fight-to-the-gates-of-hell rhetoric. A press
release/fundraising pitch blasted minutes after the decision came down
featured the following subject line “Breaking: Judicial tyranny &
Obamacare!”

Carson likened to the decision to a death. “Those of us who pledge to
repeal ?#Obamacare must redouble our efforts and not waste time and energy
mourning today’s ?#SCOTUS ruling,” the surgeon-turned-politician tweeted.

These factions are about to collide on a debate stage. If there was any
doubt of that, it was dispelled by Ted Cruz’s post-decision salvo pointed
at many in his own party. “[C]rocodile tears are flooding our nation’s
capital today over the Supreme Court’s decision to illegally rewrite
Obamacare, which has been a disaster since its inception. But one day of
faux outrage from the Washington Cartel won’t fool the millions of
courageous conservatives across our country,” he wrote in a fundraising
email. “They know the Republican leadership in Washington is quietly
celebrating the Court’s decision. If they believe this issue is now settled
so they don’t have to address it, they are sorely mistaken.”

Then, this: “Every GOP candidate for the Republican nomination should know
that this decision makes the 2016 election a referendum on the full repeal
of Obamacare.”

2. It’s Ted Cruz’s moment – not

The tea party favorite – who has repeatedly crossed from Senate to House to
whip up the anti-ACA faithful against leadership foot-draggers – had his
most memorable (and donation-inducing) moments battling Obamacare,
including orchestrating the government shutdown strategy that earned him
bipartisan scorn but near-deification among conservatives. This could’ve
been the Texas senator’s Supreme-Court endorsed moment of triumph, and he
could have rightly taken credit for creating many of the arguments that led
to the undoing of a law he views as an abomination.

Had the law been toppled, as Cruz and many other GOP candidates
anticipated, he would have had a crowning moment of political product
differentiation from the 2016 field – he had already said that he would
block efforts by fellow conservatives to extend Obamacare subsidies
temporarily to deal with the post-Obamacare shock. “I think the best
legislative option is to allow states to opt out,” Cruz said. “I am
cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will conclude in King vs.
Burwell that the Obama IRS … acted lawlessly.”

That didn’t happen – robbing Cruz of a chance for another big look-at-me
moment in the Capitol and keeping him, for the moment, pinned to the 4
percent national showing he managed in the most recent FOX News poll.

3. Start calling it “Hillarycare,” please

Hillary Clinton bashed Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign for refusing
to put the individual mandate in his somewhat half-baked campaign
health-care proposal. As it turned out, Obama flipped quickly once he took
power, and the Hillary-backed mandate was the basis for the King v. Burwell
challenge – vindicated by the Roberts Court today.

Clinton has been very complimentary toward her one-time rival but she also
wants America to know that the idea was, um, hers. In a five-graph
statement applauding the decision Clinton didn’t once use the words “Obama”
or “Obamacare” – and she concluded with it a not-so-subtle reminder that
she was crusading on health care when the president was still an unknown
community organizer in Chicago. “I’ve fought for the promise of quality,
affordable health care for every American for decades. And I’m not going to
stop now. Anyone seeking to lead our country should stand up and support
this decision.“

4. Scott Walker is a happy man

That low whoosh is the sound of Wisconsin’s Republican governor – and the
third member of the presumptive top tier – breathing easier. Walker had
jammed 90,000 constituents onto the federal exchange as part of a contorted
health care overhaul – meant in part to snub Obamacare’s Medicaid
expansion. But if the court had ruled against the White House, those 90,000
people – plus another 70,000 who also signed up — might’ve been left
uninsured. Walker was preparing to blame the White House for the crisis,
but more than any other GOP governor, he hung his own reform effort on the
success of the federal program.

But Walker’s not the only governor wiping sweat off his brow. Chris
Christie vetoed efforts by lawmakers in New Jersey to establish a
state-based exchange, forcing his constituents to sign up for the federal
version. That left more than 170,000 residents at the mercy of the court,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Bobby Jindal never even sniffed
in the direction of a state exchange, and another 137,000 residents there
could’ve been in trouble. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich – often painted as a
friend of Obamacare because of his crusade to implement Medicaid expansion
– refused to build a state exchange, leaving 160,000 residents on the hook.

Earlier in the week, Walker took to the CNN op-ed page to pre-spin the
ruling, declaring that the onus fell on the White House and Congress to
quell any crisis created by the court. Post-ruling, he returned to a more
comfortable flavor: vanilla. “Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the
administration’s implementation of ObamaCare means Republicans in the House
and Senate must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this
destructive and costly law,” he said.

5. Ca-ching

Cue the pleas for credit card numbers and contact information. Faster than
John Roberts’ gavel could come down, campaigns stuffed their supporters’
in-boxes and Twitter feeds with frantic appeals. Huckabee asked for $10 –
or $50 – to help him “lead this fight as President to repeal Obamacare.”
EMILY’s List, a Democratic powerhouse, asked for $3 to “help elect a
president who will appoint thoughtful Supreme Court justices and a Senate
who will confirm them.” And on Twitter, Hillary Clinton asked for
supporters to enter their email addresses if they “stand with Hillary for
health care.”

6. Benedict Roberts

Once hailed by Republicans as the youthful leader of a new conservative
jurisprudential era, Roberts is being vilified after penning the two
decisions that preserved the signature Democratic policy accomplishment of
the last four decades. Cruz, didn’t call him out by name, but it’s only a
matter of time. “For the second time in just a few years, a handful of
unelected judges has rewritten the text of Obamacare in order to impose
this failed law on millions of Americans,” Cruz wrote. “The first time, the
Court ignored federal law and magically transformed a statutory ‘penalty’
into a ‘tax.’ Today, these robed Houdinis transmogrified a ‘federal
exchange’ into an exchange ‘established by the State.’”

*GOP, Democrats seek campaign cash from Obamacare ruling
<http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/06/25/gop-democrats-seek-campaign-cash-from-obamacare-ruling/>
// USA Today // Fredreka Schouten – June 25, 2015 *

Republicans and Democrats alike quickly sought to raise political donations
off the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to uphold a key component of
President Obama’s health-care law.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who says he will repeal the law if
elected, asked supporters for an “emergency contribution of $50, $25 or $10″
to ensure that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton won’t be elected.

Bush, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, said Obama
“forced” the law on the public “in a partisan and toxic way” and “Hillary
Clinton will be more of the same.”

America Rising, a group dedicated to digging up unflattering information on
Clinton and other Democrats, picked up the theme in its plea for cash. “We
need to make sure Hillary Clinton — the mother of Obamacare — does NOT
become president,” the group said in a reference to Clinton’s unsuccessful
health-care initiative as first lady.

The Senate Majority Fund, a group working for a Democratic takeover of the
U.S. Senate, asked supporters to “give every dollar you can spare this
second” to prevent Republicans from controlling both the Senate and White
House in 2017 and repealing the law.

In an email sent out early Thursday afternoon, Clinton celebrated the
high-court victory, but didn’t ask for cash — at least not yet. Instead,
her missive sought to collect the email addresses of people who agree with
her that “access to health care is a basic human right.”

Tuesday marks the first major fundraising deadline for most 2016
presidential candidates.

*Campaign swag and “Made in America” in the 2016 election
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-swag-and-made-in-america-in-the-2016-election/>
// CBS News // Jenna Sakwa – June 25, 2015 *

The selling of presidential campaign swag is a fundamental part of nearly
every major political campaign. It helps bring in money, build donor
databases, and swag also makes a statement about the candidate.

One question some campaigns wrestle with is whether every piece of
merchandise sold with their names writ large needs to be stamped "Made in
America." For many, the answer is, in essence, not necessarily.

Republican candidate Rand Paul is currently selling a shirt on his website
that declares "Defeat the Washington Machine, Unleash The American Dream."

Its label reads "Made in Guatemala."

"All of our products are either made in America, or printed in America," a
spokesman for the Paul campaign said. "The [campaign] store was built and
is run in the heartland of America. Unfortunately, not all products sold in
the US are American made, but we are continually looking for products to
offer that are."

Bella + Canvas, the company who manufactures the t-shirt says it does, in
fact, have a "Made in the USA" collection as part of its full line.
However, the shirt sold on Paul's website is not part of it.

Candidates on both sides of the aisle are pledging American-made products
this cycle. Democrat Hillary Clinton's store advertises that her campaign's
items are both American-made and union-made.

And spokespeople for the campaigns of Republicans Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
tell CBS News all of their merchandise is made in the USA.

In 2012 both Mitt Romney and President Obama's presidential campaigns sold
exclusively made-in-America swag.

Romney's former digital director Zac Moffatt, who oversaw the campaign's
e-commerce store, explained that sourcing all of a campaign's products in
the U.S. can present some challenges.

"You would be surprised how hard that can be," Moffatt said. "We were often
running out of inventory."

Meaghan Burdick, who was in charge of marketing and merchandising for
Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, said American-made goods can also be more
expensive, but the campaign products set the tone.

"You're running for President of the United States, so I think it should be
made in the U.S.," Burdick said of the products she ordered. "We felt
extremely strongly about it. We tried to have everything union-made, so it
was made in the U.S. and union printed."

Many of the Republicans running are more flexible than Democrats on the
origins of their candidate bobble-heads or bumper stickers. They largely
support trade initiatives, as their congressional votes on trade suggest
(Democrats are divided), and they say that the wares on their websites
reflect this attitude.

"We live in a global society," explains Sean Spicer, communications
director for Republican National Committee. "We are a party that welcomes
and believes in free trade."

So, it depends on the message candidates want to send. The lengths to which
campaigns will go to ensure every product is made in America, Spicer says,
are the decisions of each individual candidate.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/upshot/obamacare-ruling-may-have-just-killed-state-based-exchanges.html?smid=tw-share&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0>
// NYT // Margot Sanger-Katz – June 25, 2015 *

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that health insurance consumers can
receive federal subsidies regardless of their state’s role in running their
insurance market, fewer states may stay in the game.

When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, most people expected that each
state would want to run its own health insurance marketplace. That never
really happened, as many states opted to let the federal system,
HealthCare.gov, do the work for them. Many of those states that did try
running their own marketplaces are starting to think twice.

Now, with the Supreme Court ensuring that every state’s consumers will have
equal access to federal subsidies, it is becoming clear that more of those
states will revert to a federal system for enrolling people in health
insurance.

“There may be a little bit of buyers’ remorse going on in some state
capitals right now,” said Sabrina Corlette, the director of the Center on
Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. She said states
underestimated the difficulty and expense of building and maintaining state
marketplaces. Now, she said, many officials are asking: “What did we get
ourselves into?”

As the law envisioned, state exchanges would provide an opportunity for
state insurance regulators to oversee their markets, a role they have long
performed. The state exchange system would also allow a greater degree of
policy flexibility and control, so state officials could customize the
marketplaces for local conditions. What few people grasped was the
technical and logistical challenge of building a complex website and
customer service operation from scratch.

“Certainly, one of the lessons learned was that it is much more difficult
than was expected,” said Joel Ario, who ran the office in the Department of
Health and Human Services devoted to building the exchanges after the law
passed. He is now a managing director at Manatt Health Solutions, a
consulting firm that is assisting several states.

In the first year of operation, three state exchanges — Nevada, New Mexico
and Oregon — had technology failures so profound that they handed the bulk
of their operations to the federal government. Other states managed to
rebound from a troublesome first year by rebuilding their systems, but only
with substantial effort and expense. Both Massachusetts and Maryland
essentially started from scratch in 2015.

As my colleague Abby Goodnough reported this month, state struggles
continue. The Hawaii exchange is collapsing, while Vermont’s looks shaky.
Even some exchanges that have performed relatively well — including
Washington and Minnesota — are experiencing substantial information
technology problems. And the expense of managing an exchange is also
climbing in many places as federal start-up funding diminishes. The
Washington Post reported in May that nearly half of the states are
suffering from financial difficulties.

“There is no new money now to build new infrastructure, and there are no
grants available to fix these systems if they’re struggling,” said Heather
Howard, the director of the State Health Reform Assistance Network at
Princeton University, which was set up to advise states on exchange
building. “So the only path forward may be to use HealthCare.gov.”

Lawrence Miller, chief of health care reform in Vermont, who reports to the
governor, said his state was still working hard to try to repair its
exchange architecture — and he hopes he succeeds. But he said he also took
some solace in the court’s decision.

Ms. Howard says the future for many states may be something along the lines
of the New Mexico system. That state performs some of the functions
envisioned for a state exchange, including selecting the health plans that
will be sold on the state’s marketplace, and collecting fees from insurers.
But it uses the federal government’s HealthCare.gov infrastructure to
determine people’s eligibility for insurance and sign them up for health
plans.

The National Association of State Health Policy, an organization closely
watched by state officials, recently published a paper describing how
states can transition to the New Mexico model. People working closely with
state governments say they expect the template to become increasingly
popular.

If the court had ruled for the health law’s challengers, we would have seen
more states adopting the state-based model to preserve subsidies for their
residents. Now that the government has won, movement is likely to be in the
other direction.

*Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling benefits way more people in red counties
than blue
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/25/republican-voters-won-big-on-the-obamacare-ruling-even-if-gop-politicians-didnt/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – June 25, 2015 *

Whether or not Republican politicians consider Thursday's Supreme Court
ruling a negative for them is open to interpretation. The 2016 candidates
have railed against it in press releases, but deep down inside, it's hard
to believe that they wanted to deal with the fallout of the nuclear
detonation that a ruling against Obamacare would have been. They still have
their political cudgel, and they don't have to clean up a mess. Win-win.

And for Republican voters, the win is even clearer.

The government releases regular updates on how many people are enrolled in
the federal exchange. The Supreme Court decision only dealt with those
enrollees, as you probably know; at issue was whether or not the government
subsidies for people in the federal exchanges would be continued. Without
those subsidies, costs for mandatory health insurance would have spiked.
And, according to our analysis of government data, it would have affected a
lot more people in Republican counties than Democratic ones.

Here's the distribution of enrollees by county. (This is Enroll America's
aggregation of ZIP code-level data provided by the government.) The darker
the color, the more enrollees. (Counties in gray didn't have data.)

(Note the heavy enrollment in Jeb Bush's and Marco Rubio's back yard.)

As you'd expect, the numbers are much bigger near cities. But notice that
several large states are missing, including California and New York.
They've got their own exchanges, and so they're not on the federal
exchange. The states that are reliant on the federal exchange are often
more Republican -- which is why they're in the exchange. They chose not to
set up their own exchanges in large part because it was viewed as enabling
the law as a whole.

On a county-by-county basis, you can see that a lot of people in counties
that backed Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012 would have been affected.

But when you tally the number of those enrolled through the federal
exchange in each county, according to the Enroll America data, with how
those counties voted, the difference is staggering.

About 1.8 million people in federal exchanges live in counties that voted
for Obama. About 4.5 million live in counties that voted for Mitt Romney.

Not all of these people would have seen big spikes in what they have to pay
for insurance if the decision had gone the other way. But nearly nine-in-10
nationally receive some subsidy, meaning millions would have been
negatively affected.

And just because a county leans Republican doesn't mean its Obamacare
beneficiaries lean Republican -- but it seems much more likely that they do.

Overall, the effects of Obamacare have been pretty widely distributed.
Enroll America also has estimates of the change in the number of uninsured
between 2013 and 2014. Compare that to the 2012 election results, below.

It's not just Democrats or Democratic areas that have seen a benefit from
the law. Which gives prominent Republican politicians another reason to
feel relieved. A lot of their voters might have been very angry if the
Supreme Court's decision went the other way.

*Supreme Court Rules That Disparate Impact Claims Are Allowed Under Fair
Housing Act
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-rules-that-disparate-impact-claims-are-allowed?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.ulMWYkaj6>
// Buzzfeed // Chris Geidner – June 25, 2015*

The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that claims of “disparate impact” can be
brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The 5-4 closely divided decision — authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy,
joined by the four more liberal justices — was a victory for civil rights
advocates, who have been long concerned about how the high court would
resolve the issue.

In January, the justices heard arguments in the case — which was brought
back in 2008 by the Inclusive Communities Project against the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

The question that ultimately reached the Supreme Court is a relatively
simple one: Whether “disparate impact” claims are able to be brought under
the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

“Disparate impact” claims address policies that are not discriminatory on
their face but have a “disparate impact” on a particular race, and civil
rights advocates have said they are a key tool in addressing housing
discrimination.

While the FHA makes no specific mention of whether such claims are covered
by the law, every court of appeals to decide the issue and the federal
government — through the Department of Housing and Urban Development —
agree that such claims are permitted under the act.

“Congress’ use of the phrase ‘otherwise make unavailable’ [in the FHA]
refers to the consequences of an action rather than the actor’s intent,”
Kennedy wrote for the court on Thursday. “This results-oriented language
counsels in favor of recognizing disparate-impact liability.”

The “disparate impact” question is one the court has been trying to review
for several years now. Twice previously the justices have accepted a case
to address the issue only to have it settle out of court before the
justices could rule.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Putin Breaks Silence With Call to Obama
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/world/europe/putin-breaks-silence-with-call-to-obama.html?ref=world>
// NYT // Peter Baker – June 25, 2015 *

WASHINGTON — President Obama spoke with President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia on Thursday in their first direct contact in four months as the
United States and Russia try to manage their conflict over Ukraine while
still working together on other issues like Syria and Iran’s nuclear
program.

Mr. Putin initiated the call, the first between the estranged leaders since
February, the White House said. He brought up the war against the Islamic
State in Syria and the two leaders agreed to have Secretary of State John
Kerry meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov to discuss how to counter
the spread of radicalism in the Middle East. They also discussed the Iran
talks in advance of next week’s deadline for an agreement.

But American officials said that Mr. Obama focused on the continuing
separatist war in Ukraine fomented by support from Moscow and pushed Mr.
Putin to abide by a shaky diplomatic agreement known as the Minsk accord.
Violence has flared in recent weeks even as Russia failed to drive a wedge
among the members of the European Union who agreed to renew economic
sanctions on Russia for another six months.

“President Obama reiterated the need for Russia to fulfill its commitments
under the Minsk agreements, including the removal of all Russian troops and
equipment from Ukrainian territory,” the White House said.

The Kremlin said Mr. Putin agreed to have his deputy foreign minister,
Grigory Karasin, talk with Victoria J. Nuland, an assistant secretary of
state, about the fulfillment of the Minsk accord.

Mr. Putin’s decision to call Mr. Obama and focus on Syria and Iran may
reflect a desire to assert his continuing importance on the world stage
despite Russia’s isolation and failure to break the Western consensus on
sanctions.

The United States and Russia have been at odds over Syria. Moscow supports
the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and Mr. Obama has called for
his resignation. American officials hope Mr. Putin may see the rise of the
Islamic State as enough of a threat to now be willing to apply pressure on
Mr. Assad, but they also suspected his renewed interest in the issue may be
a way of distracting from Ukraine.

*ISIS Attacks Two Towns in Northern Syria
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/world/middleeast/isis-attacks-two-border-towns-in-northern-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0>
// NYT // Ben Hubbard – June 25, 2015 *

The militants of the Islamic State carried out two new offensives in
northern Syria on Thursday, entering a provincial capital and detonating
large bombs in the border town of Kobani, where intensive airstrikes by a
United States-led coalition helped Kurdish forces rout the jihadists last
year.

In southern Syria, rebel groups began a new campaign to push government
forces from the city of Dara’a.

The new attacks by the Islamic State came more than a week after its
fighters lost the town of Tal Abyad, on the Turkish border, to Kurdish
militias and Arab rebels in what was seen as a strategic setback for the
group. In striking back, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL,
appeared to be trying to counter losses in one place with attacks on other
sites it considers vulnerable, a tactic it has employed before.

Kurdish activists inside Kobani said Islamic State fighters disguised in
the uniforms of Kurdish militiamen had sneaked into the town at dawn, when
few people were awake. Then a large truck bomb exploded at the town’s
border crossing with Turkey, setting off clashes between the Islamic State
militants and local Kurdish forces.

“They entered the neighborhoods and started killing civilians on their
way,” said Baran Mesko, a Kurdish activist in Kobani. In a telephone
interview, he said about 100 Islamic State fighters disguised as locals had
taken up positions in Kobani, a small, strategic frontier town near the
Syrian border with Turkey.

At least one more bombing followed, reportedly a suicide attack by a
jihadist on a motorcycle, and Islamic State fighters were said to be
blowing themselves up with explosive vests and killing civilians.

Kobani, known as Ain al-Arab in Arabic, gained prominence in the fight
against the Islamic State last year, when Kurdish fighters fought for
months to keep the group out, eventually succeeding in January with the
help of intensive airstrikes by the United States-led coalition that has
been bombing the militants in Iraq and Syria.

The black flag of the Islamic State, left, flew over Tal Abyad, Syria, on
Tuesday. After Kurdish and rebel fighters took over the town later Tuesday,
they hoisted a Kurdish militia flag.ISIS Loses Control of Crucial Syrian
Border TownJUNE 16, 2015

President Obama on Wednesday at West Point, where he laid out his foreign
policy plan for his final two and a half years in office.Obama’s Evolution
on ISISJUNE 9, 2015

By Thursday evening the Islamic State militants were holed up in a school
that had been converted into a hospital and were holding a number of
Kurdish families hostage, Mr. Mesko said.

Salih Muslim, another Kurdish activist in Kobani, said the fighting
continued late Thursday, and that Islamic State snipers were preventing
crews from removing bodies lying in the streets.

The death toll from the fighting was unclear. The Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights, which monitors the conflict from Britain through contacts on
the ground, said that 22 Islamic State fighters had been killed in addition
to 35 civilians and Kurdish fighters. Activists reported higher numbers of
casualties, but said they could not get a more accurate count because of
the continuing fighting.

The Syrian state news agency, SANA, also reported the clashes, saying five
people were killed by the initial truck bomb.

That battle highlighted Turkey’s complicated relationship with the war just
over its border: the Turkish Army did not intervene against the Islamic
State nor did its soldiers join the international coalition against them.
While Turkish leaders have condemned the Islamic State, they have also made
it clear that they consider any Kurdish advance near their border a
potential threat to national security.

The Kurdish militias fighting in Syria are linked to the Kurdistan Workers’
Party, or P.K.K., which fought a deadly insurgency against the Turkish
state.

Syrian Kurds from Kobani waited Thursday at a border fence to cross into
Turkey. Islamic State militants have launched new attacks against Kurdish
fighters and government forces. Credit Murad Sezer/Reuters

The distrust is mutual, and some Kurdish activists said Thursday that at
least one bomber had entered the town from Turkey, a charge Turkish
officials denied.

Speaking to reporters in Ankara on Thursday, a spokesman for the Turkish
foreign ministry, Tanju Bilgic, called those claims “baseless lies.”

Mr. Bilgic said that 63 people who had been wounded were brought across the
border from Syria for treatment in Turkey after the explosions and that two
died in the hospital.

Farther east, Islamic State fighters seized southern parts of the city of
Hasaka, the regional capital of the oil-rich province of the same name.
Control of the city had been split between Kurdish forces and the
government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but activists said
government forces had withdrawn to the city center.

The Islamic State advance sent civilians streaming out of the area,
according to photos and videos posted online.

The news agency SANA also reported the Islamic State incursion in Hasaka,
accusing militants of using human shields in fierce clashes with government
forces.

In southern Syria, a coalition of rebel fighters began a new offensive to
push government forces from the city of Dara’a, widely regarded as the
birthplace of the uprising against Mr. Assad that began in 2011 and later
devolved into the civil war. The Syrian Observatory reported that more than
18 rebel fighters and at least 20 government soldiers were killed.

The Islamic State has only a small presence in southern Syria and most of
the groups involved in the fighting there are nationalists seeking to oust
Mr. Assad. Some have received financial and military support from the West
through Jordan. Fighters from the Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of Al
Qaeda, were also involved.

*Palestinians press International Criminal Court to charge Israel
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinians-press-international-criminal-court-to-charge-israel-with-war-crimes/2015/06/25/c0c85306-19d1-11e5-bed8-1093ee58dad0_story.html>
// WaPo // William Booth – June 25, 2015 *

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry presented documents on Thursday to the
International Criminal Court in The Hague asserting that Israel should be
investigated for war crimes in last summer’s fighting in the Gaza Strip and
for continued construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The presentation of files to the ICC, written in broad outline with no
specific charges against named individuals, is another step in what the
Palestinians describe as their new strategy of “internationalizing” the
conflict with Israel by seeking ways to embarrass, isolate and pressure it
to withdraw from occupied territories and allow them to form a sovereign
state.

The Palestinians stress that they are not “referring” cases for prosecution
but “supplying information” to the ICC prosecutor for her to make up her
own mind about how to proceed.

If the Palestinians were seen as referring cases against Israel, that
could trigger congressional ire — and real consequences. Congress could
withhold $400 million that the United States annually provides for aid
projects in the West Bank.

Israel has also warned the Palestinians that they will pay a price for
taking their case to the ICC. After the Palestinian Authority signed
documents to join the court, Israel withheld transfers of customs tax money
for three months, forcing the authority to pay reduced salaries to civil
employees.

The Palestinian Authority officially joined the court in April, although
Israel and the Obama administration argue that “Palestine” is not a state
and so cannot accede to the court’s founding document, the Rome Statute.
Palestine is a “non-member observer state” in the United Nations.

The ICC’s top prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, launched a preliminary
examination into possible crimes committed in last year’s Gaza war and
other actions in the West Bank. If she deems the alleged crimes “grave” and
decides the court has proper jurisdiction, she can go before judges at a
pretrial tribunal and ask the court for permission to begin a full-fledged
investigation, a much more serious matter.

The Palestinian documents submitted on Thursday were not made public,
although Palestinian diplomat Ammar Hijazi discussed the contents with
reporters. Hijazi said the documents seek to describe Israel’s “settlement
regime” in the West Bank — how the government, through laws, land seizures,
funding and military orders, aids and abets Jewish settlements in the West
Bank and East Jerusalem, and why the Palestinians think this is a violation
of international law.

Israel argues that the West Bank is not occupied but disputed territory and
that its settlements are legal. The Obama administration describes the
settlements as “illegitimate” and not helpful to the peace process between
Israel and the Palestinians.

The other half of the Palestinian submission to the ICC focuses on the war
in Gaza and describes how Israeli rules of engagement and intense artillery
and tank fire led to civilian deaths.

“It presents a grim picture,” Hijazi said.The Palestinian presentation of
documents follows the release this week of a report commissioned by the
U.N. Human Rights Council that found evidence that both the Israeli
military and armed Palestinian factions such as Hamas, the Islamist
militant movement that controls the Gaza Strip, may have committed war
crimes in last year’s fighting.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and government ministers have
strenuously denied that Israel committed violations of international law in
the Gaza war. The prime minister called the U.N. report “flawed and biased”
and urged the world to ignore it.

Israel released its own report this month defending its military as
cautious and moral. It blamed Hamas for civilian deaths because the group
employed “human shields” and cached weapons and fired rockets near
hospitals, mosques, schools and churches.

Netanyahu has vowed that he will never allow Israeli soldiers to “be
dragged” before the ICC. But the ICC does not concern itself with low-level
troops; instead it seeks to indict the highest authority in the chain of
command. If Israel were ever prosecuted by the court, the defendant would
not a conscript but a top Israeli commander or Netanyahu himself.

Some Palestinians relish this idea. “Our aim is to establish war crimes in
order that an investigation by the chief prosecutor’s office is carried out
and to remove immunity from Israel and its leaders, achieve justice, apply
human rights conventions, protect Palestinians and hold criminals
accountable for their crimes,” Mustafa Barghouthi, head of the Palestine
National Initiative, told reporters Wednesday in Ramallah.

The ICC has never handled a case as politically explosive and legally
complex as the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Those previously indicted by
the court have been African warlords and leaders. Nor does the ICC move
with speed. Some of its preliminary examinations have dragged on for years.

“We are not going to the ICC seeking revenge,” chief Palestinian peace
negotiator Saeb Erekat said, but to hold Israel “accountable.”

Responding to Israeli complaints that going to the ICC will not bring the
Palestinians any closer to a state, Erekat said, “Those who are wary of
courts should stop committing crimes.”Erekat suggested that going to the
ICC also served to remind his constituents that the Palestinian leadership
is doing something. “It is asking our people, ‘don’t despair, don’t go
toward violence.’ ”

The ICC prosecutor in her preliminary examination is not limiting herself
to Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank but is looking at “all
parties,” including Hamas and its militia, as well as other armed factions,
and presumably the Palestinian Authority itself, which formed a “united
government” with Hamas.The recent U.N. report suggested that Hamas and the
other militants may have committed war crimes with their rocket fire aimed
at Israeli civilian centers and their curbside extrajudicial killings of
alleged “collaborators.”

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*A Bush vs. a Clinton?
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bush-vs-a-clinton-1435183234> // WSJ //
Daniel Henninger – June 25, 2015 *

The one story many mumble that they don’t want to hear again is the tale of
two dynasties—another Bush versus another Clinton. But when opinion polls
ask about the dynastic matchup, the answer most people give is it doesn’t
matter to them if the choice is Jeb versus Hillary. In short, get over it
and maybe even, bring it on.

Only a legally actionable revelation about the Clinton Foundation could
stop Mrs. Clinton, and with no chance of that from a Justice Department
preoccupied with indicting Democrats like Sen. Robert Menendez for talking
to Medicare bureaucrats, she is her party’s nominee.

Jeb Bush’s path to the nomination is less automatic. Unlike Hillary, he has
competitors of substance bunched behind him, such as Marco Rubio and Scott
Walker. But for all the carping about political rust, Gov. Bush retains the
top spot in virtually every new poll. This week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC
Poll puts Mrs. Clinton’s lead over Jeb at eight points, which would
probably translate into a dead heat by October 2016.

I’m not promoting a Bush-Clinton race (yet), but dynasties reflect a
nation’s politics. “Bush” and “Clinton” stand for more than just Jeb or
Hillary.

One thing they stand for is the baby boomers’ last shot at occupying the
U.S. presidency. They’re done. The generation born to parents who fought
World War II has given us Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and may produce
one more president. After that, the country’s presidential politics
transfers to the generation of a Rubio or a Walker.

To balance the reality of her own baby-boomer status, Hillary’s running
mate may be 40-year-old Julián Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio and
current HUD secretary, or 46-year-old New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. That
many voters have never heard of Julián Castro testifies to the smothering
power of the gerrymandered gerontocracy that rules Democratic politics.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for about the same reason
Edward II followed Edward I as England’s king: She, none dare dispute, is
next in line.

One reason public offices now seem to become family heirlooms—the Cuomos,
the Pauls, the Romneys—is children and spouses witness the lives of
officials making political decisions in ways not available to the rest of
us. And so why, beyond neurotic ambition, one should want to be president
of the United States, with voters believing the stakes so high in 2016, is
a question Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton should be able to answer better
than most. Each has been privy to two presidencies. (The fastidious will
say it’s 1.25 for Hillary; only one person has been “close” to the Obama
presidency.)

Conventional wisdom among Republicans holds that Jeb shouldn’t get bogged
down talking about his brother’s and father’s presidencies. But he should
indeed talk about them. Resistance to “another Bush,” an authentic and
reasonable American instinct, could suppress voter turnout at the margins.
Weak turnout hurt Mitt Romney.

Mr. Bush has a chance to tell a skeptical country that he understands the
responsibilities of an American president because he knows how his father
and brother succeeded—or stumbled. There is much to admire in both those
presidencies, but if an honest appraisal requires criticism of them, so be
it. “Own man” has to mean more than a promise.

For Hillary, answering why America needs another Clinton is, well,
trickier—if indeed she or her campaign think it is a subject worth
bothering with at all. But Mrs. Clinton has now spent 12 years close to a
presidency. Surely she has views on what reason there is for holding that
office, beyond one’s name.

It’s a good question how many voters remember what a complicated thing the
Clinton presidency was. At the heart of Bill Clinton’s problems then were
abuses of the presidential office on matters having nothing to do with the
Lewinsky mess. How Hillary Clinton has sorted through all that and any
recent lessons of the Clinton dynasty is a reflection that will have to
await future histories. Indeed the operational theory behind the Clinton
stonewall seems to be: Survive the moment and let history figure it out.

Dynasties fall, however, when they fail to see the political ground
shifting beneath them. For both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, it has
shifted.

Hillary is running for president, rather than retiring after eight years as
president, because in 2008 the Democratic left defeated the Clinton
machine, got Barack Obama elected president and captured the party’s
policies. Now a Clinton is running as a woman of the left, and the bonfire
this week over her violative statement, “all lives matter,” suggests she
hasn’t arrived yet in the land of solidarity.

Jeb somehow got through the trial-by-ordeal of his official presidential
announcement without reigniting right-wing mobs calling for his political
head. One wonders how far he’d go if he said that the phrase “Common Core”
is to academic standards what the Edsel was to cars.

A 17th-century political pundit described “vaulting ambition, which
o’erleaps itself.” If it’s Jeb versus Hillary, only one of them will
overleap to dynastic oblivion.

*Hillary Clinton has to attack Bernie Sanders
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/25/hillary-clinton-has-to-attack-bernie-sanders/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 25, 2015 *

Bloomberg reports: “Bernie Sanders is gaining on Hillary Clinton in Iowa
and New Hampshire, with an appeal as an issue-oriented protest vehicle
potentially capable of slowing any coronation of the popular front-runner.
In simultaneous surveys, the U.S. senator from Vermont received nearly a
quarter of support from likely Democratic caucus and primary voters in the
states that host the first presidential nomination balloting early next
year, cutting sharply into Clinton’s still-huge lead.” In Iowa, she leads
50 percent to 24 percent and in New Hampshire she has a 56 percent to 24
percent lead.

On one level, she is in no danger of losing either contest at this point.
On another, it is remarkable that the “inevitable” nominee is under 60
percent in both places. Clinton might not know how to charm voters or how
to thrill them with innovative policy, but she knows how to attack. Hence:

Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) unloaded on her Senate colleague Bernie Sanders on
Thursday, saying the Vermont independent is far too liberal to make it to
the White House.

“I think that the media is giving Bernie a pass right now,” McCaskill said
in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I very rarely read in any
coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist. I think everybody wants a fight
and I think they are not really giving the same scrutiny to Bernie Sanders
that they’re giving to, certainly, Hillary Clinton and the other
candidates.”

It’s not clear how much sympathy that will drum up for Sanders, but he can
now claim she’s threatened by him. His shtick as the underdog candidate
works well if his opponent is hiding from the media and sending out
surrogates to trash him. In fact, he might invite her to sit next to him on
one of the Sunday morning shows so we can hear her complaints about him
directly. Well, that is not happening anytime soon.

The danger here for Clinton is three-fold.

First, Sanders might start hitting her hard for her cronyism (The
Huffington Post points out: “The newest hire for Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign is a longtime strategist who played a key role in her
2008 primary defeat while working for then-Sen. Barack Obama. He’s also a
Washington lobbyist who lobbied the State Department — led, at the time, by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on behalf of the company seeking to
build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.”) That means going after the
conflicts of interest, the speeches for hedge funds, the anti-woman regimes
who donated to her foundation and more.

There is also the matter of her cronies. Sid Blumenthal found a back door
into the State Department while getting paid by the “charitable”
foundation. Hillaryland regulars Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin remained on
the government payroll while working outside government (in the case of
Mills, her status was not previously disclosed). The operating rules in
Clinton’s orbit seem to be: Let the rules be damned, ignore conflicts and
take the money and run. Not exactly the model of public service we expect.

It’s not clear he wants to go whole hog, but it might be the only way to
roust Democrats from their slumber.

Second, carrying around the empty chair and excoriating her for refusal to
engage and enunciate her views is another possible Sanders tactic. Clinton,
to the extent she has views, surely does not want to reveal any
controversial ones that would make either her nomination or general
election candidacy more problematic. The progress Sanders has made in the
polls bashing her for taking no definitive stance on trade may encourage
him to keep at it.

Third, how much higher can Sanders go before a bigger name (Vice President
Joe Biden? Michael Bloomberg?) decides to get into the race? That might
come after a primary or two, or it could come this summer. Watching Clinton
dodge and weave, leaving the president out to dry on trade must be
infuriating to a guy like Biden who has spent seven years loyally serving
the president, and in fact goading him into more liberal positions (e.g.,
gay marriage).

Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite, but to the extent Bernie Sanders
of all people can inflict real damage or draw bigger fish into the pond, he
remains a danger to Hillaryland. In any event, many of the potential
attacks on her — greed, being out of touch, ethical lapses — will be fodder
for the GOP in the general election. No wonder she is attacking him.

*It's Official -- Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the
Hearts and Minds of Democrats
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/its-official-bernie-sande_b_7660226.html>
// HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – June 25, 2015 *

According to PBS, Bernie Sanders is "gaining against Clinton in early
polls." Salon's Bill Curry believes "Hillary Clinton is going lose,"
primarily because millions of voters longing for a truly progressive
candidate will nominate Sanders. POLITICO explained recently that
Early-state polls hint at a Bernie Sanders surge, a headline that was
unthinkable only several months earlier. Yahoo's Meredith Shiner calls
Sanders a "progressive social media star and pragmatic legislator" and
states that "Sanders also has a much more substantial legislative history"
than any GOP challenger. In Iowa, 1,100 people packed a gym to hear Bernie
Sanders speak in May.

In contrast, Team Hillary had an intimate business roundtable discussion
with five "ordinary" Iowans. The only problem was that according to The
Washington Post, "All five were selected to attend her events." In fact,
Clinton's "staged roundtables" were attended by a total of 13 Iowans,
picked by either the campaign or the host.

Therefore, a paradigm shift has taken place. Many Iowans drove 50 miles to
hear Sanders speak in Des Moines, primarily because Bernie Sanders has
surpassed Clinton as the ideal choice for Democratic nominee. Regarding
electability, Sanders has also surpassed Clinton as the realistic choice
for Democratic nominee in the minds of many voters, because as one Salon
piece illustrates, Hillary "just doesn't get it."

When it comes to everything from immigration to climate change and economic
issues (most Americans side with Democrats, according to Pew research and
other data) some writers believe that Democrats "can nominate a ham
sandwich and win the presidency." Although once thought of as an
impossibility, a closer look at the electoral map shows why Bernie Sanders
could realistically defeat any GOP challenger. If voters around the country
still care about middle class economics, the federal budget, trade and
other hot button issues in 2016, Sanders has a legitimate chance to win.
Also, since Sanders isn't tied to Obama fatigue like Hillary Clinton, it's
quite possible the Vermont Senator re-energizes an America that just
recently decided the Confederate flag doesn't represent its value system.

According to a POLITICO piece titled The 2016 Results We Can Already
Predict, "Assuming the lean, likely, and safe Democratic states remain
loyal to the party, the nominee need only win 23 of the 85 toss-up
electoral votes." Therefore, there's no need to jettison cherished values
for the sake of pragmatism; those days are over. Senator Bernie Sanders,
known in Washington and throughout the nation as an advocate for middle
class Americans, veterans, the environment, and other cherished causes can
win crucial electoral votes just as easily as Hillary Clinton.

Finally, we're all asking a question that we've been too frightened to ask,
for fear of seeming unrealistic:"Why Not Bernie?"

Not long ago, many Democrats emphasized realism over progressive values.
Sure, Hillary voted for Iraq and has close ties to Wall Street, but she'll
raise $2.5 billion, so doesn't this represent our best chance to beat the
GOP? This mindset, however, ignored the fact that the Associated Press,
Vice News, and others are suing the State Department for access to tens of
thousands of Clinton's emails. A Bloomberg piece titled Hillary Clinton
Monthly E-Mail Releases Must Begin in June Court Rules highlights the
reality of eventual email disclosures:

The U.S. must begin to make public 30,000 e-mails belonging to former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a monthly basis beginning June 30, a
federal judge ruled Wednesday amid competing proposals over their
disclosure...

The State Department proposed releasing as many documents as possible at
60-day intervals, ending by Jan. 15. Attorneys for Vice News reporter Jason
Leopold, who sued to gain access to the e-mails, proposed releases every
two weeks.

Leopold's case is one of several seeking access to all or part of Clinton's
State Department e-mail through the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Not long ago, winning meant voting for Hillary, even though someone like
Bernie Sanders represented a candidate who spoke to the value system of
citizens throughout the country. In reality, though, even billions of
dollars in campaign funding won't help if a controversial email is
uncovered before Election Day, or debated endlessly like other Clinton
scandals.

As for why Bernie Sanders is finally being given the attention he deserves,
the Vermont Senator is intimately involved with issues that affect the
lives of everyday Americans. While Clinton supporters reference their
candidate's experience, many people aren't aware of the various
Congressional Committees that Sanders is involved with on a daily basis:

Environment and Public Works

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is
responsible for dealing with matters related to the environment and
infrastructure.

Energy and Natural Resources

The United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has
jurisdiction over matters related to energy and nuclear waste policy,
territorial policy, native Hawaiian matters, and public lands.

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (HELP) generally considers matters relating to these issues.

Budget

The United States Senate Committee on Budget... is responsible for drafting
Congress's annual budget plan and monitoring action on the budget for the
Federal Government. The committee has jurisdiction over the Congressional
Budget Office.

Veterans' Affairs

The United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs considers matters
relating to the compensation of veterans, life insurance issued on account
of service in the Armed Forces, national cemeteries, pensions of all wars,
readjustment of servicemen to civil life, and veterans' hospitals and
medical care.

Joint Economic Committee

This joint committee of the United States Senate and the United States
House of Representatives focuses on promoting maximum employment,
production, and purchasing power.

While Hillary voted for Iraq, Sanders knows how the repercussions of this
decision continue to affect veterans and their families. As for jobs, the
federal budget, healthcare, energy, and the environment, Sanders has far
more experience than Clinton, Bush, or any other candidate in 2016.

Finally, perhaps the biggest reason Sanders is surging is because he's a
genuine person with real beliefs, while others become chameleons when votes
and public image are at stake. It's important to note that Hillary Clinton
just recently "evolved" on gay marriage and in 2004, Clinton's speech
(forward to 0:22 on the Slate video or read the transcript of her
passionate defense of marriage between only a man and woman) highlighted
her views on the "sacred bond" of marriage:

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "I believe marriage is...a sacred bond
between a man and a woman....a fundamental bedrock principle that it exists
between a man and woman, going back into the midst of history, as one of
the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and
civilization. And that it's primary principle role during those milennia
has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which
they are to become adults."

According to The Atlantic, Clinton's stance remained unchanged for years,
and "she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a
majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position."

In terms of identity, Hillary Clinton might be a liberal according to
fivethirtyeight.com, yet their analysis gives her a free pass on war, gay
marriage, and other issues liberals had championed before they were
popular. Adhering to polls is fine, but the words "poll driven," not
"progressive," come to mind for someone with this type of persona. If one's
views on war and foreign policy are enough for The New York Times to
publish an article titled Are neocons getting ready to ally with Hillary
Clinton?, then Bernie Sanders becomes an even better candidate for people
opposed to never-ending American counterinsurgency wars. Clinton might say
she was duped by faulty intelligence, but Bernie Sanders had enough
intelligence and wisdom to vote against the Iraq war back in 2003.

In contrast to Clinton, Sanders has supported the issue of gay marriage
since 2000, vehemently opposed the Iraq War, opposes TPP, wants student
loan debt reforms, fights for veterans, and isn't afraid to blast "too big
to fail" Wall Street firms. As for him being an "avowed Socialist," George
Bush's $700 billion bailout of banks was textbook socialism, so Sanders
will be able to shrug off the label after one or two televised debates.
Bernie Sanders represents a new era in American politics; one where values
trump Citizens United cash or cold pragmatism. America needs a human being
like Sanders, now more than ever before.