Subject: H4A News Clips 7.11.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:08:39 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*July 11, 2015*

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES.....................................................................................
**6*

Trusted Hillary Clinton Aide Has a Full Plate // WSJ // Laura Meckler –
July 10, 2015.............. 6

George W. Bush Hopes Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton ‘Elevate the Discourse’
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 10,
2015......................................................................................................................................
8

Clinton plans Tuesday meetings with all Hill Democrats // Politico //
Lauren French – July 10, 2015         8

*SOCIAL
MEDIA.................................................................................................
**9*

Josh Kraushaar (7/10/15, 5:01 PM) – Rick Perry super PACs raise $16.8M.
Strong tally for a candidate having a solid
week..............................................................................................................................
9

Jennifer Jacobs (7/10/15, 5:41 PM) – Bernie Sanders’ Iowa operation is
growing FAST: 29 organizers; 7 field offices open now and 3 more open by
Monday, aides tell me. #iacaucus.................................... 9

Teddy Schleifer (7/10/15, 6:16 PM) – Rand Paul raised more than $7 million
in second quarter through his campaign and a joint committee, a spokesman
says, confirming Breitbart................................ 9

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

Hillary Clinton makes Bob McDonnel look like a chump // WaPo // Jennifer
Rubin – July 10, 2015             9

Hillary Clinton probably can’t get gun control passed. But she should talk
about it, anyway. // WaPo // Paul Waldman – July 10,
2015......................................................................................................
10

Jacob Lew: Americans Will Work Hard if Jobs Pay Decent Wages // WSJ // Nick
Timiraos – July 10,
2015............................................................................................................................................
12

Hillary Clinton bucks trend, confronts NRA // MSNBC // Steve Benen – July
10, 2015............. 13

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sander’s awkward lunch // Politico // Gabriel
Debenedetti and Jonathan Topaz – July 10,
2015........................................................................................................................
14

Jeb Bush: Hillary Clinton ‘can’t be trusted’ // Politico // Nick Gass –
July 10, 2015.................. 16

Hillary Clinton’s union problem // Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 10,
2015........................... 16

Modern campaigning: The Hillary Quilt Project // CNN // Betsy Klein – July
10, 2015............. 17

Gowdy: ‘Pulling teeth’ to get info for Benghazi investigation // CNN //
Daniella Diaz – July 10, 2015           20

Hillary Clinton directs support for One Direction // CNN // Deena Zaru –
July 10, 2015........... 21

House Of Cards Creator: Hillary Clinton Is The Real Claire Underwood //
BuzzFeed // Jim Waterson and Lynzy Billing – July 10,
2015.................................................................................................
21

Beghazi Committee Chairman: Clinton’s Made “Maybe Half Dozen Demonstrably
False Statements” // BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 10,
2015......................................................................
23

Clinton Foundation Donor Violated Iran Sanctions, Tried to Sells 747s to
Tehran // Daily Beast // Michael Weiss and Alex Shirazi – July 10,
2015...................................................................................
24

Hillary’s Strategy Is Actually Brilliant // Daily Beast // Nick Gillespie –
July 10, 2015.............. 27

Clinton camp on Bush’s fundraising: It should scare you // MSNBC // Alex
Seitz-Wald – July 10, 2015       30

Medical Bill: Mystery donor picked up $150G tab for 2010 Clinton speech //
Fox // Malia Zimmerman – July 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................
32

Kudos To Sanders, With A Wink To Clinton, Too // NPR // Ron Elving – July
10, 2015............. 33

Hillary Clinton to Visit Senate Democrats at Lunch // Roll Call // Niels
Lesniewski – July 10, 2015              35

Another Questionable Donor to the Clinton Foundation Emerges, and This One
Could Tie in With the Pending Iran Deal // The Blaze // Fred Lucas – July
10, 2015.............................................................. 35

‘House of Cards’ creator thinks Hillary Clinton is closest to a real life
Claire Underwood // Business Insider // Jethro Nededog – July 10,
2015.............................................................................................
37

Don’t believe Hillary Clinton’s campaign – here’s why they’re not ‘worried’
about Bernie Sanders // Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 10,
2015.................................................................................
37

No, Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need a Plan For Passing Gun Control Legislation
// Mother Jones // Kevin Drum – July 10,
2015........................................................................................................................
39

Ariana Grande’s Manager Is Throwing a Big Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton //
Mediaite // Jamie Frevele – July 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................
40

Hillary Clinton aligns herself with a surprising party // Elle // Alyssa
Bailey – July 10, 2015.... 40

Bill and Hillary Clinton ordered to give depositions about emails in civil
case // Washington Times // Kellan Howell – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................
40

Chelsea Clinton to speak at World Food Prize // Des Moines Register //
Donnelle Eller – July 10, 2015      41

Hillary Clinton campaign releases video about Confederate flag // Post and
Courier // July 10, 2015           43

Hillary Clinton to make first Utah trip of 2016 race // Salt Lake Tribune
// Robert Gehrke – July 9, 2015    43

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **44*

*DECLARED.................................................................................................
**44*

*O’MALLEY...............................................................................................
**45*

Martin O’Malley Takes a Shot at Hillary Clinton Over ‘Sanctuary Cities’
Policy // WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................
45

On student loans, do as  O’Malley says, not as he does // WaPo // Michelle
Singletary – July 10, 2015        45

Martin O’Malley’s comeback plot // Politico // Jonathan Topaz and Gabriel
Debenedetti – July 10, 2015  47

How O’Malley Would Let Private Lenders Back Into Federal Student Loans //
Forbes // Jason Delisle – July 10,
2015...............................................................................................................................
50

O’Malley to speak at candidate forum in Des Moines // Des Moines Register
// Jason Noble – July 10,
2015............................................................................................................................................
51

*SANDERS.................................................................................................
**51*

Bernie Sander’s misleading characterization of a controversial gun law //
WaPo // Michelle Ye Hee Lee – July 10,
2015................................................................................................................................
51

Sanders Makes Play for Caucus States // WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 10,
2015....................... 54

Bernie defends Jeb’s ‘longer hours’ comment // Politico // Nick Gass—July
10, 2015............... 56

The One Point on Which Bernie Sanders Agrees With Jeb Bush // Bloomberg //
Arit John – July 10,
2015............................................................................................................................................
57

Sanders dings Bush on work, ducks personal questions // CNN // Tom LoBianco
– July 10, 2015 58

Bernie Sanders: The Cable Bill Is Too Damn High // HuffPo // Zach Carter –
July 10, 2015...... 59

Bernie Sanders: Income Tax Proposal To Come “In Two Or Three Weeks” //
BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 10,
2015........................................................................................................................
60

Bernie Sanders Is The Left’s Trump // Daily Beast // Ana Marie Cox – July
10, 2015................ 60

Bernie Sanders is the Ron Paul of 2016 // The Hill // Eddie Zipperer – July
10, 2015............... 65

Sanders: ‘We have got to apologize for slavery’ // Washington Examiner //
Barbara Boland – July 10,
2015............................................................................................................................................
67

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders defends past votes on gun control
measures // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................
68

Bernie’s Big Break With the Left on Guns // US News and World Report //
David Catanese – July 10,
2015............................................................................................................................................
69

Did Bernie Sanders vote against background checks and waiting periods for
gun purchases? // PolitiFact // Linda Qiu – July 10,
2015.....................................................................................................
70

GOP Officials Publicly Denounce Bernie Sanders’ Obamacare Expansion,
Quietly Request Funding // The Intercept // Lee Fang – July 10,
2015....................................................................................
73

*WEBB.......................................................................................................
**76*

Jim Webb arrives in the age of Sanders and Trump // The Hill // Bernie
Quigley – July 10, 2015 76

*OTHER....................................................................................................
**78*

Bill Clinton’s Candid Views of the Political Press // NYT // Amy Chozick –
July 10, 2015.......... 78

Latinos Gather For NCLR Conference Amid Political Spotlight // // NYT –
Upshot // Griselda Nevarez – July 11,
2015................................................................................................................................
79

DNC Chair Says Candidates Must Meet ‘Threshold’ For Debates, Though
Criteria And Dates Still Unclear // HuffPo // Michael Calderone – July 10,
2015.........................................................................
80

Hillary and her rivals to meet with union leaders // Washington Examiner //
Sean Higgins – July 10,
2015............................................................................................................................................
81

*GOP.................................................................................................................
**82*

*DECLARED.................................................................................................
**82*

*BUSH.......................................................................................................
**82*

Jeb Bush Draws on Family Dynasty for Fund-Raising Efforts // NYT //
Nicholas Confessore – July 10,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
83

That time Jeb Bush invited 300 top donors to his parents’ house // WaPo //
Ed O’Keefe – July 10, 2015   85

Jeb Bush and Allies Raise More Than $114 Million in 2016 Race // WSJ //
Rebecca Ballhaus – July 10,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
87

‘Space Guy’ Jeb Bush’s Donor Categories: ‘Voyager,’ ‘Endeavor,’ ‘Apollo’ //
WSJ // Beth Reinhard – July 10,
2015....................................................................................................................................
89

Jeb to donors: You’re not done // Politico // Eli Stokols and Anna Palmer –
July 10, 2015........ 90

Is Donald Trump Helping the Bush Brand? // Bloomberg // Michael C. Bender –
July 10, 2015 92

Bush raises over $100 million to help his campaign // CNN // Theodore
Schleifer – July 10, 2015 94

Bush rips Obama over OPM hack, but had data issues of own in Florida // CNN
// Chris Frates – July 9,
2015............................................................................................................................................
96

Jeb Bush’s $114 million haul: By the numbers // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin –
July 10, 2015...... 98

Jeb Bush ‘did it on his own’? // MSNBC // Steve Benen – July 10,
2015................................... 99

Paul Ryan Explains What Jeb Bush meant When He Said Americans Should Work
Longer Hours // HuffPo // Michael McAuliff – July 10,
2015.........................................................................................
100

Does Jeb Bush Understand Economics? // Newsweek // Kurt Eichenwald – July
10, 2015..... 101

*RUBIO....................................................................................................
**104*

Marco Rubio Calls Abortion Rights ‘Indefensible’ – and Knocks Down
‘Pro-Abortion’ Straw Man // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 10,
2015..............................................................................................
104

Marco Rubio: Roe v. Wade Was ‘Egregiously Flawed Decision’ // HuffPo //
Laura Bassett – July 10, 2015 105

Rubio: Confederate Flag A “Deeply Painful Symbol” For Millions, Shouldn’t
Be On Government Buildings // BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 10,
2015.................................................................... 106

As Donald Trump Riles GOP Race, Marco Rubio Begins to Connect With Voters
In Spanish // ABC // Ines de la Cuetara – July 10,
2015.......................................................................................................
106

Marco Rubio: I will absolutely roll back Obama Cuba policy // Guardian //
Sabrina Siddiqui – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
108

Marco Rubio: The American Dream Is Really A Universal Dream? // Breitbart
// Michelle Moons – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
112

*PAUL.......................................................................................................
**113*

Rand Paul’s Fake Flat Tax // NYT // Editorial Board – July 10,
2015...................................... 113

Rand Paul’s presidential campaign raises $7 million // WaPo // Katie Zezima
– July 10, 2015 114

Rand Paul pulls in $7 million for presidential run // Politico // Daniel
Strauss – July 10, 2015 115

Rand Paul takes in $7 million in second quarter // CNN // Theodore
Schleifer – July 10, 2015. 115

Rand Paul Raises $7 Million in Second Quarter with Overwhelming Grassroots
Support // Breitbart // Matthew Boyle – July 10,
2015.............................................................................................
116

*CRUZ......................................................................................................
**118*

Ted Cruz hits the jackpot: A book war with the New York Times // WaPo //
Philip Bump – July 10, 2015   118

The Daily Cruz // Politico // Hadas Gold, Katie Glueck, and Kenneth P.
Vogel – July 10, 2015. 119

Ted Cruz feuds with the New York Times – and loves it // Politico // Dylan
Byers – July 10, 2015 122

HarperCollins disputes N.Y. Times on Ted Cruz book: ‘No evidence of bulk
sales’ // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 10,
2015.......................................................................................................................
125

Ted Cruz is “proud to stand with Donald Trump” // Reuters // Alana Wise –
July 10, 2015..... 125

Presidential hopeful Cruz blasts N.Y. Times book off bestseller list //
Reuters // Fiona Ortiz – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
126

HarperCollins Refutes New York Times Claim That Ted Cruz Tried To Game
Bestseller List // BuzzFeed // McKay Coppins – July 10,
2015............................................................................................
127

Is Ted Cruz A Bestselling Author Or Isn’t He? // Daily Beast // Malcolm
Jones – July 10, 2015 127

NTU: Cruz tried to reduce federal spending by $169 billion per year, while
Hillary Clinton proposes $226 billion in new spending // Breitbart // Alex
Swoyer – July 10, 2015....................................... 129

*CHRISTIE..............................................................................................
**130*

Christie’s First Television Ad Goes Up for New Hampshire Viewers // NYT //
Nick Corasaniti – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
130

Chris Christie releases first TV spot // Politico // Ryan Hutchins – July
10, 2015.................... 131

Christie Pushes Tough-Talking Image With Ads in New Hampshire // Bloomberg
// Terrence Dopp – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
131

3 Questions African Americans Should Ask Chris Christie // NBC // Jason
Johnson – July 10, 2015              132

Chris Christie releases first campaign ad for 2016 nomination: ‘I mean what
I say, and I say what I mean’ // NY Daily News // Celeste Katz – July 10,
2015...........................................................................
133

*PERRY...................................................................................................
**134*

Rick Perry’s super PAC haul: $16.8 million // Politico // Katie Glueck –
July 10, 2015............. 134

Rick Perry super PACs raise nearly $17M // CNN // Sara Murray – July 10,
2015..................... 135

New Super PAC Ad for Rick Perry Touts His Pro-Life, Gun Rights Record //
Breitbart // Sarah Rumpf – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
136

*GRAHAM................................................................................................
**137*

Lindsey Graham: Trump’s comments are going to ‘kill the party’ // Politico
// Nick Gass – July 10, 2015    137

*SANTORUM...........................................................................................
**139*

Rick Santorum Wants to Be More Than Just a Pro-Life Candidate // National
Journal // Emma Roller – July 10,
2015..............................................................................................................................
139

Rick Santorum: The Supreme Court Doesn’t Have the Final Say on Everything
// The Blaze // Fred Lucas – July 10,
2015......................................................................................................................
140

*HUCKABEE............................................................................................
**141*

Mike Huckabee cites infamous ‘Daisy’ ad for Iran nuclear deal // CNN //
Jeremy Diamond – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
141

Huckabee: Trump can say what he thinks // Washington Examiner // Emilie
Padgett – July 10, 2015        141

*CARSON.................................................................................................
**143*

N.H. fans feel the passion for Ben Carson // Boston Globe // Akilah Johnson
– July 11, 2015.. 143

Carson: ‘Baby killers’ capitalize ‘on people’s lack of knowledge’ //
Washington Examiner // Ariel Cohen – July 10,
2015..............................................................................................................................
145

*JINDAL..................................................................................................
**146*

Bobby Jindal’s obsession with “colorblindness” is everything wrong with the
GOP’s racial politics // Salon // Eesha Pandit – July 10,
2015...............................................................................................
146

*TRUMP...................................................................................................
**148*

Event for Donald Trump in Phoenix Will Draw Thousands // NYT // Nicholas
Fandos – July 10, 2015         148

Donald Trump Lied to Us // Politico // Antonio Rijerino – July 10,
2015................................ 149

Trump: I’m still a birther // Politico // Nick Gass – July 10,
2015........................................... 150

Donald Trump’s immigration stance dividing GOP in Arizona // AP // Bob
Christie - July 11, 2015               151

In Phoenix Speech, Donald Trump Won’t Back Down On Immigration Comments //
Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 10,
2015.................................................................................................
152

Trump’s Arizona Speech on Illegal Immigration Could Attract Thousands //
Bloomberg // Ben Brody – July 10,
2015..............................................................................................................................
154

Don’t Cry for the Trump Brand // Bloomberg // Caleb Melby – July 10,
2015......................... 155

Donald Trump moves immigration rally to larger venue // CNN // Tom LoBianco
– July 10, 2015 156

D.C.-Area Lawmakers Call For Boycott Of Donald Trump’s Businesses // HuffPo
// Christine Conetta – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
157

Donald Trump: Narcissist in Chief // HuffPo // Jim Wallis – July 10,
2015............................. 158

Donald Trump Could Seriously Damage The Real Republican Efforts To Reach
Latinos // BuzzFeed // Adrian Carrasquillo – July 10,
2015.................................................................................................
161

Donald Trump Wanted To Make Charlie Rangel HUD Secretary In 1999 //
BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 10,
2015.......................................................................................................................
163

Trump’s Got the GOP by the Balls // Daily Beast // Michael Tomasky – July
10, 2015............ 164

Donald Trump, immigration and the GOP // Chicago Tribune // Editorial Board
– July 10, 2015 165

Trump ups the ante on immigration, unfazed by criticism and protests // LA
Times // Katie Linthicum, Richard Winton and Kurtis Lee – July 10,
2015.....................................................................
167

*UNDECLARED...........................................................................................
**170*

*WALKER................................................................................................
**170*

Did Scott Walker’s Twitter Account Get Ahead of His Campaign? // NYT //
Patrick Healy – July 10, 2015  170

Is Scott Walker’s Crossover Appeal Real? Turnout Data Raises Questions //
WSJ // Dante Chinni – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
170

Scott Walker tweets his presidential run // Politico // Katie Glueck – July
10, 2015................ 171

Scott Walker’s timely abortion victory // Politico // Kyle Cheney – July
10, 2015.................... 172

Oops: Scott Walker Scoops Himself Via Twitter // Bloomberg // John
McCormick – July 10, 2015 174

Republican Scott Walker tweets that he is running for president // Reuters
// Steve Holland – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
174

Scott Walker spars with GOP ahead of 2016 launch // CNN // Tom LoBianco –
July 10, 2015... 175

Twitter: Scott Walker Presidential Announcement Tweet Wasn’t His Fault //
BuzzFeed // Katherine Miller – July 10,
2015.......................................................................................................................
177

Scott Walker On Hillary Clinton: “What Has She Accomplished?” // BuzzFeed
// Andrew Kaczynski – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
177

Scott Walker Gets Schooled by His Neighbor // Daily Beast // Eleanor Clift
– July 10, 2015.... 178

*KASICH..................................................................................................
**180*

Pro-John Kasich group raises $11.5 million // Politico // Adam B. Lerner –
July 10, 2015....... 180

Kasich’s Early 527 Haul: $11.5 Million In Just Two Months // Bloomberg //
Mark Halperin – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
181

Kasich groups announce $11.5 million haul // CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 10,
2015............. 182

*OTHER...................................................................................................
**182*

Republican Candidates Appeal to Anti-Abortion Groups // NYT // Jeremy W.
Peters – July 10, 2015          182

Could a 2012 Rule Change Upend the GOP’s 2016 Nomination Process? // WSJ //
Patrick O’Connor – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
184

Once allies, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in battle for Florida // Boston Globe
// Matt Viser – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
185

*OTHER 2016
NEWS.......................................................................................
**189*

Presidential Race Takes Shape and Offers Hints of Things to Come // NYT //
Maggie Haberman – July 10,
2015...................................................................................................................................
189

The Insiders: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are experts at manipulating
the media // WaPo // Ed Rogers – July 10,
2015....................................................................................................................
190

The Truth Behind Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton’s Twitter Spat // Bloomberg
// Victoria Stilwell – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
190

Republicans rename the GOP the ‘Retrumplican Party’ // Reuters // Lena
Masri – July 10, 2015 192

‘War horses’ Bush, Clinton lay ground for 2016 race // USA Today // Susan
Page – July 10, 2015 193

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**195*

The Gloria Borger – Hillary Clinton Watch: Waiting for Insight // HuffPo //
Kathleen Reardon – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
195

Hillary Clinton’s fibs // Chicago Tribune // Jonah Goldberg – July 10,
2015........................... 197

Not Feeling the Bern // US News and World Report // Matthew Dickinson –
July 10, 2015..... 199

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**201*

*DOMESTIC................................................................................................
**201*

Barack Obama to make historic visit to federal prison // Politico // Nick
Gass – July 10, 2015. 201

Confederate flag comes down for good at S.C. Statehouse // Politico // Ben
Schreckinger – July 10, 2015   202

OPM director resigns amid data breach scandal // Politico // Sarah Wheaton
and Tal Kopan – July 10,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
203

*INTERNATIONAL.....................................................................................
**204*

Greece’s Parliament Approves Prime Minister’s Bailout Plan // NYT // Liz
Alderman and Andrew Higgins – July 10,
2015......................................................................................................................
204

Turkey Arrests 21 Suspected of Ties to ISIS // NYT // Ceylan Yeginsu – July
10, 2015............. 207

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Trusted Hillary Clinton Aide Has a Full Plate
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/trusted-hillary-clinton-aide-has-a-full-plate-1436570808>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 10, 2015 *

There are legions of economists who have worked for the Clintons over the
years, and more than 200 have helped develop the current campaign’s
economics platform.

The inner circle is much smaller, however. And at the center of it is a
longtime aide to Hillary Clinton who has no particular background in
economics.

Jake Sullivan, a 38-year-old who rose to prominence in Mrs. Clinton’s State
Department, now has the challenge of distilling advice from across the
Democratic Party. The resulting plan will be the foundation of a Monday
policy speech in which Mrs. Clinton intends to lay out her vision.

His challenge is evident in how the campaign has been buffeted by a
surprising challenge from the left in the form of independent Sen. Bernie
Sanders of Vermont. Part of the party’s base wants to hear about government
solutions for problems such as income inequality and wage stagnation, while
its more centrist members emphasize prescriptions to stimulate economic
growth.

While the subject material is new for Mr. Sullivan, colleagues say the
process is familiar from his four years at Mrs. Clinton’s side when she was
secretary of state. Those who know Mr. Sullivan, from both sides of the
aisle, commend his intelligence and his ability to pull ideas from across a
wide universe while shaping a policy that suits his boss.

“He uses his access with her to be an honest broker with no preconceived
agenda other than ensuring she has the best set of policy options to choose
from,” said Gene Sperling, a longtime economic adviser to Bill and Hillary
Clinton who remains in her tight inner circle.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies and a sharp critic of the Obama administration’s nuclear talks
with Iran, in which Mr. Sullivan played a big role, commends him for
reaching out to those who dislike the direction of the negotiations.

“He engages with his critics, and that’s rare,” said Mr. Dubowitz, who
added the administration should have done more to set a tough tone at the
start of the talks, to allow for more concessions later.

Mrs. Clinton in 2012 sent Mr. Sullivan and another aide to Oman to meet
secretly with Iran officials to gauge whether they were serious about
potential compromises with the West. He concluded they were, setting the
stage for the current talks.

On the economy, Mrs. Clinton has met with scores of experts on big issues
such as income inequality and discrete topics including why states should
publicize licensing rules for cosmetologists.

But the core brain trust is smaller. Besides Mr. Sullivan, who declined to
comment through a campaign spokesman, prominent Clinton staffers include
Ann O’Leary, who is developing proposals on education, health care and
family issues, and Gary Gensler, a former Wall Street regulator who is the
campaign’s chief financial officer and who participates in economic-policy
discussions as well. Maya Harris is charged with social policy such as
immigration.

Outside the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters, two longtime Clinton aides
are her most important economic advisers: Mr. Sperling and Neera Tanden,
policy chief of the 2008 presidential campaign who is now president of the
liberal think tank Center for American Progress.

Just a handful of other outsiders hold sway, according to people close to
the process, including David Kamin, an expert on the federal budget and tax
law at New York University’s law school; Alan Krueger, a Princeton
University economist who served as chairman of President Barack Obama’s
Council of Economic Advisers; Jacob Hacker, an expert on the politics of
health and social policy at Yale University; Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel
Prize-winning economist at Columbia University; and Heather Boushey, chief
economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a liberal think
tank.

Mr. Sullivan, who also oversees foreign policy for the campaign, is hunting
for someone to later handle economic policy, a campaign official said.

Few can match the level of trust he enjoys with the candidate. In her book
“Hard Choices,” Mrs. Clinton called him “earnest and brilliant,” with
credentials including a Rhodes scholarship, Yale law degree and Supreme
Court clerkship. In 2008, he was a policy aide and ran debate preparation
for Mrs. Clinton. He joined the Obama campaign for the general election.

Mr. Sullivan had planned to return to his Minnesota home to practice law
and prepare for a likely run for Congress, but he was persuaded to join
Mrs. Clinton at State, first as deputy chief of staff and then the
youngest-ever director of policy planning. If Mrs. Clinton is elected
president, Mr. Sullivan is seen as a potential national security adviser.

*George W. Bush Hopes Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton ‘Elevate the Discourse’
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/republican-candidates-appeal-to-anti-abortion-groups/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 10, 2015 *

In his appearance in Texas with Bill Clinton on Thursday, George W. Bush
called for an elevated political discourse in the 2016 presidential
campaign, defended his difficult wartime decisions, and said he did not
plan to campaign for his brother Jeb Bush.

Mr. Bush, speaking at an event with Mr. Clinton in Dallas, complained that
the Internet “is a brutal place these days for political figures” and said
it made the campaign discourse particularly nasty. But he attributed that
to surrogates and not to the candidates themselves.

“I know Jeb and I’m confident Secretary Hillary will elevate the
discourse,” Mr. Bush said of his brother, a Republican, and Hillary Rodham
Clinton, a Democrat. “I can’t attest to their surrogates. I can attest to
this surrogate: I’m not gonna be a surrogate.”

Before announcing his presidential bid, Jeb Bush declared, “I love my
father and my brother, but I am my own man,” and much has been made about
how much (or how little) he would rely on his brother as a campaigner,
particularly given how George W. Bush is still very popular in pockets of
the Republican Party, but remains a divisive figure to others.

The two former presidents, speaking to graduates of a jointly sponsored
scholarship program at George W. Bush’s presidential library, were both
asked about their decision-making process. Mr. Clinton talked about the
importance of postponing some critical decisions. “I’d say: ‘Can I kill
them tomorrow? Because I can’t bring them back to life tomorrow.'”

Without directly commenting on the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush said the turbulent
circumstances during his presidency (unlike the comparatively peaceful
years in Mr. Clinton’s two terms) “made it really imperative that you
decide and decide decisively.”

He said he “had to make decisions that protected the homeland — that was my
goal and some of the decisions I had to make needed to be made pretty
quickly because the enemy, that sadly still exists, doesn’t really care
whether a president agonizes over a decision or not.”

*Clinton plans Tuesday meetings with all Hill Democrats
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clinton-plans-tuesday-meetings-with-all-hill-democrats-119973.html?ml=tl_11>
// Politico // Lauren French – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton will meet with the entire House Democratic caucus on
Tuesday.

The former secretary of state was slated to meet with minority lawmakers
from the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the
Asian Pacific caucus but added another stop at the party’s weekly caucus
meeting to her Washington swing.

Developing a strong relationship with House members will be key for
Clinton’s campaign. Lawmakers have often felt ignored by the White House
during President Barack Obama’s tenure and Clinton is already making an
effort to help Democratic lawmakers feel like they have a stake in her
presidential bid.

She is also slated to meet with Senate Democrats, many of whom she knows
from her tenure as a senator from New York before her 2008 presidential bid
against Obama.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley tours a section of Baltimore on
Thursday, May 21, 2015. O'Malley is considering a run for President of the
United States.

The Capitol Hill meetings are the most direct engagement from the Clinton
campaign since she announced earlier this year. Her senior aides held a
series of meet and greets but Clinton has yet to engage with the entire
congressional Democratic caucus personally.

The meetings are being billed as policy discussions.

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Josh Kraushaar (7/10/15, 5:01 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/619597216672575488>* – Rick Perry
super PACs raise $16.8M. Strong tally for a candidate having a solid week.*

*Jennifer Jacobs (7/10/15, 5:41 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/619607390837567488>* – Bernie
Sanders’ Iowa operation is growing FAST: 29 organizers; 7 field offices
open now and 3 more open by Monday, aides tell me. #iacaucus*

*Teddy Schleifer (7/10/15, 6:16 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/619616095117418498>* – Rand Paul
raised more than $7 million in second quarter through his campaign and a
joint committee, a spokesman says, confirming Breitbart.*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary Clinton makes Bob McDonnel look like a chump
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/10/hillary-clinton-makes-bob-mcdonnell-look-like-a-chump/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – July 10, 2015 *

The Post reports, “A federal appeals panel court on Thursday unanimously
affirmed the public corruption convictions against former Virginia governor
Robert F. McDonnell, writing in an 89-page opinion that the onetime
Republican rising star ‘received a fair trial and was duly convicted by a
jury of his fellow Virginians.'” Of most relevance and interest to other
pols, McDonnell’s attorneys argued he had not performed any “official acts”
in exchange for bribes. The court nixed that complaint:

The appeals court panel disagreed, asserting that the government had
“exceeded its burden” of proof on the topic of official acts. The opinion
cited three particular ways in which McDonnell tried to use his office to
help Williams: trying to get researchers to study Williams’s product,
Anatabloc; trying to the state tobacco commission to fund studies of an
ingredient in his product; and trying to get Anatabloc included in the
health insurance plan for state employees.

So a mere favor for a donor, even to move along the bureaucracy, can be an
official act. In that case, Hillary Clinton’s e-mails — both the destroyed
ones and the ones turned over — raise the question: Why is McDonnell going
to jail and Clinton going on the presidential trail?

One answer is that with McDonnell, the prominence of a single donor and the
proximity of communications to the minor official acts made the case easier
to prove. Clinton benefits from taking so much money for so many over such
a long time. This, mind you, does not mean she did not do official acts for
donors or that there was an implicit back-scratching arrangement; it means
only that it is hard to prove. And second, Hillary Clinton is Hillary
Clinton. She can lie about a subpoena, destroy potentially incriminating
evidence, violate the terms of her disclosure agreement and take money for
her family’s foundation from an “Iranian businessman accused by the U.S.
government of violating sanctions” as well as woman-abusing Arab regimes
and Donald Trump. Democrats yawn. The media cover it for a day or two and
then move on.

I’m not suggesting Hillary Clinton has committed a crime and should take
the cell next to McDonnell. For one thing, no one has bothered to
investigate her as McDonnell was when gift revelations came to light.
(Imagine if a Republican had been in the White House and no Justice
Department investigation of McDonnell took place.) I am saying without
knowing anything more that it is hard to argue based on what we have
already seen that Clinton meets the character test for the presidency. But
that is for the voters to decide.

Other pols should be wary, however. They are far more likely to be held to
the McDonnell standard than the Clinton standard.

*Hillary Clinton probably can’t get gun control passed. But she should talk
about it, anyway.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/10/hillary-clinton-probably-cant-get-gun-control-passed-but-she-should-talk-about-it-anyway/>
// WaPo // Paul Waldman – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is talking about guns, and everyone seems surprised. After
all, doesn’t she know the issue is a sure loser for Democrats?

The truth is quite a bit more complicated than that — in fact, pushing for
measures like expanded background checks is likely to help Clinton in the
2016 election. But if she’s going to promise to make headway on this issue,
she needs to offer some plausible account of how as president she could
make real progress where Barack Obama couldn’t.

Let’s address the matter of the gun issue’s political potency first. As is
the case on so many issues, the Republican position is more popular when
the questions are vague, while the Democratic position is more popular when
the questions are specific. If you look at polling on guns, what you see is
that the country is split pretty evenly on the broad question of whether
gun laws should be more strict or less strict. But particular measures to
regulate guns get much more support, especially universal background
checks, which as many as nine out of ten Americans endorse.

At some point in this discussion, someone will always say: “But what about
the NRA? They’re so powerful!” The NRA’s power is real in some ways and
illusory in others, and it’s important to understand which is which. When
it comes to lobbying, the NRA is indeed hugely powerful. It has the ability
to stop any legislation on guns, often before it even gets written. But
elections are an entirely different story. Almost all the congressional
candidates who win the NRA’s supposedly coveted endorsement are Republican
incumbents from conservative districts who win their elections by huge
margins. When Republicans have a good election, as they did in 2014 and
2010, the NRA rushes to reporters to claim credit, saying the election
proves that voters will punish any candidate who isn’t pro-gun. But when
Democrats have a good election, as they did in 2012 and 2008, the NRA is
strangely silent.

Gun ownership has been steadily declining since the 1970’s, and guns are
more concentrated among voters that Democrats already won’t win and don’t
need. For instance, according to the Pew Research Center, whites are twice
as likely as Hispanics to own guns. If winning over Hispanic voters is the
sine qua non of a Republican victory, advocacy for loosening gun laws isn’t
exactly going to be part of a winning formula for the GOP. The person most
likely to be a gun owner is a married white man from the South — in other
words, probably a Republican.

When people argue that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t touch the gun issue, watch
out for comparisons to how Bill Clinton did in the Electoral College,
because America’s political geography is very different than it was two
decades ago. For instance, I guarantee you that Senator Joe Manchin will at
some point loudly advise that Clinton needs to tread carefully on guns if
she’s to win his home state of West Virginia like her husband did twice.
But the truth is that Clinton is probably not going to win West Virginia no
matter what she does, and she doesn’t need to. Barack Obama’s two
comfortable Electoral College victories were built on combining Democratic
strongholds in the Northeast and West with the more liberal states in the
Midwest and the fast-changing Southwest, where Hispanic votes are key.
Clinton will almost certainly seek to assemble the same map — and it’s one
where advocacy for the more popular gun restrictions will help her, not
hurt her.

Still: if Clinton says it’s vital to enact universal background checks and
other “common-sense” gun laws, she has to explain how she’s going to do it.
Let’s not forget that in the wake of the horrific Newtown massacre, a
bipartisan measure to expand background checks failed to overcome a
Republican filibuster in the Senate, falling six votes short of the 60 it
needed. If a bill that had the support of 90 percent of the public couldn’t
make it past congressional Republicans just after 20 elementary school
students had been murdered, how is Clinton going to convince them to vote
for whatever she proposes?

But talking about gun measures in the presidential campaign could still
have a practical impact, by elevating the issue and thereby making it more
likely that more gun laws might be passed on the state level. And that’s
where all the action has been of late: since the Newtown shooting, there
have been dozens of laws passed at the state level on the subject of guns,
and they tell a story of red and blue America moving farther apart.

In Red America, one state after another has passed laws to expand who can
get a gun and where you can take it. Last year Georgia passed a law
allowing people to take guns into churches, government buildings, and bars.
“Stand your ground” laws have proliferated in Republican-run states
(despite the fact that research indicates that they increase the number of
homicides).

Meanwhile in Blue America, dozens of laws have been passed to rein in guns.
Legislatures in states like California, Maryland, and Connecticut expanded
background checks, restricted access for those with mental illness or
domestic abuse convictions, and made it harder to get assault weapons. In
2014, voters in Washington state passed a ballot initiative mandating
universal background checks by a wide margin.

So when we talk about the gun issue, we have to keep three things in mind.
First, the kind of restrictions Clinton is proposing are hugely popular.
Second, there really are two Americas when it comes to guns. And third, one
of those Americas has the ability and the desire to stop any gun
legislation in Congress. If Hillary Clinton has a plan to deal with that
last reality, it would be interesting to hear.

*Jacob Lew: Americans Will Work Hard if Jobs Pay Decent Wages
<http://on.wsj.com/1SdSABs> // WSJ // Nick Timiraos – July 10, 2015 *

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew waded into a political spat over the economy
sparked Wednesday when Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said
Americans needed to work longer hours to boost economic growth.

Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, said the comment referred to the
elevated level of workers—some 6.5 million Americans—who have part-time
jobs but desire full-time work. Democrats jumped on the comment earlier
this week to portray Mr. Bush’s comment in an unflattering light.

“It is a challenge for a lot of families to make ends meet. I don’t think
the problem is that Americans aren’t willing to work hard,” said Mr. Lew in
response to a question Friday at an event in New York sponsored by
Politico. “Americans are willing to work hard if there’s work available to
them and if they are paid a decent wage for that.”

Mr. Lew said the government’s job should be to provide anyone who is able
and interested in working with the ability to get a job that can support a
middle-class standard of living. He pointed to the White House’s push to
boost the federal minimum wage.

“If you work full time, you should not be below the poverty line in this
country,” he said.

*Hillary Clinton bucks trend, confronts NRA
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/hillary-clinton-bucks-trend-confronts-nra>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – July 10, 2015 *

In the three weeks since the mass shooting in Charleston, two notable
statewide gun measures have been signed into law. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott
Walker (R) scrapped his state’s 48-hour waiting period, and this week in
Maine, Gov. Paul LePage (R) got rid of his state’s concealed gun permit
requirement.

The developments are a striking reminder about the politics of the gun
issue. No matter how high-profile the shootings, and no matter how severe
the public revulsion, proposals to scale back restrictions keep advancing.

At the national level, meanwhile, the massive Republican presidential field
is largely unified on all gun-related questions, and recent history
suggests the Democratic candidates will generally avoid the issue. But the
Washington Post had an interesting piece overnight highlighting the degree
to which Hillary Clinton is pursuing her own course.

[I]n a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake
of recent mass shootings – and of Clinton’s determination to stake out
liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) – Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control but
also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.

“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our
country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa
City.

A few days earlier, she said in Hanover, N.H.: “We have to take on the gun
lobby…. This is a controversial issue. I am well aware of that. But I think
it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.”

The Post piece makes the case, persuasively, that this isn’t the norm for
recent Democratic candidates. None of the party’s recent nominees in
“several decades,” including President Obama, emphasized the issue at all
while on the campaign trail.

Clinton, however, is trying something different. It’s worth appreciating
why.

Some of this may be the result of a unique primary rival – Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) is running to Clinton’s left on some issues, but guns are a
notable exception. The Independent senator describes himself as aiming for
“the middle” on the issue and he has a voting record that arguably puts him
well to the right of many Democratic activists.

It’s possible, in other words, that Clinton is stressing the issue at this
point to help exploit a gap between Sanders and the Democrats’ progressive
base.

But chances are, there’s even more to it than this. Practically all of the
leading Democratic presidential candidates have shied away from the issue,
for over a generation, fearing a fierce backlash from far-right groups like
the NRA.

Clinton no doubt realizes, however, that as the NRA becomes more extreme,
there’s no placating the group – it goes after Democrats whether they try
to make the group happy or not. Just ask former Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.),
who eagerly tried to keep the NRA happy, but who found that the NRA
targeted him with a vengeance anyway.

To this extent, the NRA has given up its credibility. The group’s message
used to effectively be, “Play ball with us and we’ll leave you alone.”
That’s transformed into, “We’re coming after you, whether you try to work
with us or not.”

Given those incentives, Clinton might as well speak her mind, confident
that the attacks are inevitable either way.

*Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sander’s awkward lunch
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-awkward-lunch-119974.html>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti and Jonathan Topaz – July 10, 2015 *

When Hillary Clinton travels to Capitol Hill on Tuesday as part of her
lawmaker charm offensive, she could be in for a slightly awkward encounter.

Bernie Sanders — the Independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats — will
be sitting there at the weekly lunchtime meeting, as he always does, while
the front-runner talks to her former colleagues.

It’s hardly unusual for rival presidential candidates to gather together on
the Hill — four Republican senators are currently running against each
other, and other candidates occasionally visit — but in Clinton and
Sanders’ situation, the tension is a tad thicker.

That’s because Clinton has the support of 30 Democratic senators already —
including Sanders’ Vermont colleague, Patrick Leahy — in her latest White
House bid, while her opponent has the backing of none. Clinton has yet to
even acknowledge her main rival by name on the campaign trail — despite
recent polling that shows Sanders nipping at her heels in Iowa and New
Hampshire, and despite being asked about him directly twice in a CNN
interview this week.

“As far as Senate caucus politics go, this is probably as awkward as it’s
going to get. There’s nothing he can do about it. It is what it is,” said
Jim Manley, a former veteran aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and
Ted Kennedy.

Beyond Sanders, however, the room Clinton addresses will also likely
contain a handful of influential unaffiliated liberal senators — including
progressive icon Elizabeth Warren and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. Sanders
recently said that he’d “love to have” Warren campaign with him, while the
Massachusetts senator has said multiple times that it’s premature to say
whether she will.

But the meeting will also provide another reminder that, despite Sanders’
huge crowds and scores of small-dollar donations, his candidacy remains
mostly an afterthought at his place of business. Twenty-one members of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus — Congress’ leading caucus on liberal
issues, in which Sanders is the lone senator — have endorsed Clinton, while
none has endorsed Sanders. And Clinton’s Tuesday swing across the Hill will
include a meeting with that very group.

Sanders has had a similarly awkward reception with the party establishment
back home in Vermont. In addition to Leahy, Gov. Peter Shumlin and Miro
Weinberger, the mayor of Burlington — the city where Sanders served four
terms as mayor and held his campaign kickoff — have also endorsed Clinton.

Clinton and Sanders have rarely crossed paths since they each announced
their candidacies in April, save a chance run-in at New York’s Penn Station
last month. But Tuesday’s encounter in Washington will likely be the second
of at least three next week: they’ll both appear in Kansas City at the
National Council of La Raza conference on Monday, and they’re both
scheduled to speak at the Democrats’ first cattle call of the cycle on
Friday, the Iowa Democratic Party’s Hall of Fame ceremony.

Clinton and Sanders overlapped for two years in the Senate before she left
the Hill for Foggy Bottom, and they have a cordial relationship. But as the
pair has emerged as the two leading candidates in the Democratic field, the
apparent distance between them has grown: Sanders does not shy away from
implicitly criticizing the front-runner on the stump, though he rarely goes
after her by name.

Clinton, meanwhile, has started pressing harder on issues where Sanders is
perceived as weak by the liberal base, such as gun control.

Nonetheless, tensions between the two aren’t anything like the strained
relations between Republican candidates, such as Sens. Lindsey Graham and
Rand Paul, who frequently clash. Sanders sat in on a meeting of the Senate
Democrats with Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta and political
director Amanda Renteria in late April, and his spokesman told POLITICO
that the candidate “of course” planned to attend the event with Clinton
herself. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment for this story.

(Two other Democrats running for president — Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb —
are former senators, but they are not expected to attend the Senate caucus
meeting.)

The former New York senator’s Capitol Hill trip will also include meetings
with the House Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus.

And while the meeting will come days after Sanders attends a weekend
retreat with Senate Democrats in Martha’s Vineyard, the timing is unlikely
to soften the impact of Clinton’s appearance.

“She’s going to be walking down that hallway with her vast entourage,
people are going to be screaming out questions, and she’s going to walk
into that room to a rock star reception,” Manley said.

*Jeb Bush: Hillary Clinton ‘can’t be trusted’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jeb-bush-criticize-hillary-clinton-no-trust-119943.html?ml=tl_24>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s greatest vulnerability? According to Jeb Bush, it’s
Hillary Clinton.

Asked the question in a preview of an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier,
Bush responded: “It’s her — just this protective shield she wants to create
around her candidacy. I just don’t think it’s going to work.”

Clinton “can’t be trusted,” Bush continued. “There is never a straight
answer. Whether it’s the server, the emails, Benghazi, [she] just
constantly validates this notion that there are two sets of rules.”

The former Florida governor rejected the notion that a potential general
election match-up of a Bush against a Clinton would deter voter turnout.

“I’m going to win the nomination, and I’m going to run a campaign that will
inspire people that their lives can get better,” he said. “And that’ll
drive turnout, particularly among people who are conservative and they just
don’t know it yet.”

Clinton’s ability to be trusted has been the subject of scrutiny in the
polls. Quinnipiac University surveys conducted last month in Florida, Ohio
and Pennsylvania found wide skepticism of her trustworthiness.

But in an interview with CNN earlier this week, Clinton dismissed the idea
that Americans have trust issues with her.

“People should and do trust me,” she said, blaming a “barrage of attacks
that are largely fomented by and coming from the right” for any perceptions
to the contrary.

*Hillary Clinton’s union problem
<http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/07/10/hillary-clintons-union-problem/>
// Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s meeting with AFL-CIO leaders later this month will
underscore just how much ground she has to make up with unions that are
flatly angry at the presidential candidate over her recent policy stances
(or lack thereof).

Clinton can “absolutely not” take unions’ backing for granted, said RoseAnn
DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, the largest U.S.
organization of registered nurses.

“I think that there was an assumption that whoever was anointed by the
Democratic Party would be the candidate of organized labor. And I think
that’s proven to be false,” she said.

In fact, DeMoro noted, “our values as a labor movement line up pretty
clearly with the program of (Bernie) Sanders, the nurses’ values.”

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has drawn crowds of thousands to recent
events, surprising many political observers and suggesting a stronger than
expected challenge to Clinton.

Sanders, along with former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, will also
speak to the AFL-CIO executive council at the July 29-30 meeting as part of
the union’s endorsement process. All three candidates are Democrats; an
endorsement is not necessarily expected this early in the road to the
November 2016 election.

DeMoro also criticized Clinton and the Democratic Party on the Pacific Rim
trade deal that the Obama administration is working on. Clinton has called
for worker protections in any deal but has said little otherwise.

“It’s the elephant in the room,” DeMoro said.

Thomas Buffenbarger, president of The International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, also called for greater regulation of the
financial industry.

“The re-imposition of Glass-Steagall legislation would kind of break up the
big banks and put some sanity into the thing,” he said.

The Glass-Steagall Act of the last century separated investment banks and
commercial banks in an effort to reduce risk in the banking system.

Buffenbarger also noted that his union is worried about the U.S.
Export-Import Bank, which was forced to halt business after its charter
expired on June 30.

The bank helps finance purchases by foreign companies of U.S. exports.

The three Democrats all returned questionnaires to the AFL-CIO as part of
the endorsement process.

But they’re not the only ones, said Buffenbarger: “The surprise was Mike
Huckabee,” who Buffenbarger said also returned a questionnaire.

*Modern campaigning: The Hillary Quilt Project
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-quilts-2016-election/index.html>
// CNN // Betsy Klein – July 10, 2015 *

The group assembles every Tuesday, toting fabric, needles, the occasional
rhubarb pie and their "Iowans Ready for Hillary" pins.

For two hours, they talk 2016 while stitching a very political quilt.

"This is a supporter quilt. It's kind of a way to say to Hillary, 'We've
got your back,'" Iowan Clara Oleson said.

For Clinton supporters, this quilt has special significance: It's a sign of
organization and momentum for a campaign that needs to ignite enthusiasm
for Clinton during her second race in the Hawkeye State. In 2008, Clinton's
bid for the presidency faltered here and never recovered.

Many Iowans said in interviews they had felt ignored by Clinton's campaign
the last time around. Connecting supporters over shared interests such as
quilting offers one way to excite and engage them.

Clinton's campaign in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucus state, has 27
organizers who have held over 2,500 meetings with Iowans. In addition to
the Hillary Quilt Project, they've launched a morning swim group in Cedar
Rapids, a Kayaking group in Benton County, and a group that is working on a
community garden in Eastern Iowa.

It's a strategy, much like church small groups, that draws in supporters to
connect beyond the more broadly labeled coalition-building of campaigns
past (for example, "Teachers for Hillary").

"It used to be just strictly coalition-building. You'd get this wide swath
of teachers for whoever your candidate was, or farmers, or business
owners," said Iowa Republican strategist Tim Albrecht. "But now, you're
really seeing this organizing at the micro level. If you can attract people
around something they are already doing ... that's priceless."

With these grassroots common interest groups, the Clinton campaign is
harnessing micro-organization at a level unmatched by her competitors in
Iowa and around the country.

There's a long history of quilting in American politics: Women gathered to
stitch during the Civil War, supporters of the late 19th century temperance
movement created quilts as fundraisers, and more recently, the AIDS
Memorial Quilt has been growing since 1987 with more than 48,000 individual
memorial panels.

In a state where the presidential campaign process is revered, quilts are
also engrained in Iowa culture, Oleson explained. Quilts are made for
momentous occasions: new babies, graduations, anniversaries, and now, a new
presidential campaign.

When the Clinton campaign unveiled its H logo this spring, Oleson saw an
opportunity.

"Boy, this would make a great quilt," Oleson wrote of the logo on Facebook.

Clinton campaign organizer Sarah Andrews also saw an opportunity -- and
hours later, was in Oleson's living room.

The "Hillary Quilt Project" was born.

"If there's a common touch in democracy," Oleson said, "My God, it's a
quilt."

Oleson, 73, is a retired lawyer and a prolific quilter -- just don't ask
her how long she's been working on any particular quilt. On one week this
summer, she led the men and women in the group as they went around the
quilt circle, introducing themselves and choosing the color in the rainbow
"H" logo of the quilt that they found most meaningful.

Ellen Heywood chose purple, the color of women's suffrage. Janean Arnold
chose green for her concerns about climate change. Colleen Picek chose
yellow, supporting the troops and hoping for an end to war.

Cameron Macaw-Hennick chose all of the colors together.

"All of the colors in the center are important to me because of the
rainbow. Something that really stands out to me about Hillary, from the
very get-go, is her unequivocal support of the LGBT community, which she
didn't have several years ago. But just like everyday citizens, she grows
and changes," he said as he stitched.

Macaw-Hennick is a campaign volunteer from Cedar Rapids who also happens to
be a skilled quilter. He and his husband are ardent Hillary Clinton
supporters.

"The day she announced, I was jumping up and down. My husband is super
excited, as well... I said I have to be involved in this campaign."

Later, the group continued to stitch while supporter Julie Kline read aloud
from the Gaza chapter of Clinton's 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices."

Participants in the Hillary Quilt Project range from veteran quilters to a
few who had never even picked up a needle.

The quilt, Oleson said, exists in two worlds: physically in West Branch,
and in "virtual reality," with its own Facebook page. Recently it was even
featured on Clinton's official campaign Twitter account, which has nearly
four million followers.

"It's good for quilting and it's good for Hillary," she said of the project.

"The dance of democracy in Iowa is a privilege and an honor," Oleson, who
supported President Barack Obama in 2008, said.

"I've done it for 50 years and this is one of the most fun dances I've
done. People working together, doing something they'd never do, and this
campaign is open to that kind of an idea."

Once the quilt is done, the quilters and other Clinton supporters will sign
their names on it. Oleson hopes the quilt will be signed and seen by many
people, including Clinton herself.

"I want to see her standing in front of the quilt and giving a speech," she
said. "You also make a quilt for the future, and sometimes you think about
where is the quilt going to end up. It's not going to end up in somebody's
closet -- it's going to hang on somebody's wall or in a presidential
library."

CNN caught up with Oleson at Clinton's Monday town hall event in nearby
Iowa City. Olseon had the opportunity to speak with Clinton following her
speech.

"She knows about the quilt," Oleson said proudly. "And she says it's
beautiful."

*Gowdy: ‘Pulling teeth’ to get info for Benghazi investigation
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton/> // CNN
// Daniella Diaz – July 10, 2015 *

House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy said Friday that the
Obama administration could speed up the Benghazi investigation if they
turned over the requested relevant documents, but they haven't cooperated.

Gowdy told CNN's Brianna Keilar that his panel has been specific with the
administration about the documents needed to be turned over for the
investigation.

"They begged us to narrow it so we narrowed it," he said. "It's still like
pulling teeth to get the information."

Gowdy told CNN that so far, the documents that have been turned over
haven't been helpful toward their investigation into the 2012 Benghazi
attack.

"You know what we got last week? We got 3,600 pages, half of which were
press clippings, including articles about Richard Gere," he said. "So if
that is their idea of complying with a congressional investigation, then we
are going to be at this for a long time."

He also told CNN that Hillary Clinton was wrong when she said that she'd
never had a subpoena in her interview with CNN.

"That is demonstrably false," Gowdy told CNN. "You have an obligation to
preserve the public record."

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN that the former Secretary of State
understood the question to be if she was under subpoena when the emails
were deleted, this past December.

Gowdy said there were other subpoenas prior the one he issued to Clinton in
March 2015 and that she has a "statutory obligation" to preserve public
records.

"There are at least three separate legal obligations that should have
informed and instructed her not to delete emails or wipe her server clean,"
he told CNN.

*Hillary Clinton directs support for One Direction
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/hillary-clinton-one-direction-charity-action-climate-change/index.html>
// CNN // Deena Zaru – July 10, 2015 *

British boy band sensation One Direction teamed up with charity Action2015
and asked their millions of fans or "Directioners" to share videos and
pictures that reflect issues that are important to them, ahead of the
United Nation's climate change summit in Paris this September.

Among the many fans who answered the foursome's call is Democratic
presidential candidate and possible Directioner Hillary Clinton.

Clinton tweeted her support for the boy band's cause Friday, saying "the
boys are right."

In a video released Wednesday, Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Louis Tomlinson
and Liam Payne called for action on "extreme poverty, inequality and
climate change" — all of which are key focuses of the Clinton campaign.

This is not the first time that Clinton was linked to the young foursome.

In March, former One Direction member Zayn Malik's departure from the band
devastated fans and erupted shock waves on social media. There was
speculation over a possible fifth member of One Direction.

While hosting the MTV Movie Awards the same day that Clinton announced her
presidential bid, comedian and actress Amy Schumer joked about the "big
news" and announced that "after months of speculation, Hillary Clinton
finally announced she's taking Zayn's spot in One Direction."

*House Of Cards Creator: Hillary Clinton Is The Real Claire Underwood
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/you-might-think-that-but-we-couldnt-possibly-comment#.sqp1M7Jvm>
// BuzzFeed // Jim Waterson and Lynzy Billing – July 10, 2015*

Lord Dobbs, the creator of House of Cards, is considering which real-life
individual is closest to Claire Underwood, the ice-cold political wife
played by Robin Wright in the Netflix series.

“Hillary [Clinton],” Dobbs says after a moment’s thought. “She is a
political figure in her own right – behind the scenes, but now increasingly
in front of the scenes. That is much more of a Claire character than, for
instance, Cherie [Blair], who as far as I’m aware didn’t become actively
aware in politics as such.”

It’s not necessarily the endorsement the US presidential candidate would be
after but Dobbs is obsessed with the character of the former first lady and
how it’ll affect her run for the top job.

“I’m fascinated by Hillary of course, because she comes with so much
baggage,” he tells BuzzFeed News, sitting on a bench outside parliament,
dressed in a crisp white shirt and cufflinks. “That baggage is her strength
but also her vulnerability. We just have to wait and see where the balance
lies on that. Though it is bizarre that the system that was bred out of
[rejection of a King] has produced the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Clintons,
the Roosevelts….”

What about the real-life President Underwood? “More Tony Blair than
Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher left behind something called Thatcherism, we
all know what we stood for and I’m buggered if I know what Tony Blair stood
for other than being in office.”

And troubled political aide Doug Stamper? “In terms of focus and loyalty,
apart from myself of course, it’d be Alastair [Campbell] in the UK.”

Dobbs knows what he’s talking about when it comes to political narratives.
He first created House of Cards as a novel in the late 1980s. A former
assistant to Thatcher, he was the first person to tell her that she had won
the 1979 general election but was later sacked by his political idol, “She
attacked me horribly and grossly unfairly”. He turned to writing and
watched as his creation became a BBC TV series, followed by a highly
successful American reboot for Netflix in 2013. He’s stayed actively
involved all the way, offering advice to the production team and is
currently promoting the DVD release of series three.

He’s also a rare beast: a writer and an active parliamentarian – a believer
in small government, he enjoys a “hugely disruptive and distracting” three
days a week as a Conservative member of the House of Lords where he helped
to lay the ground for the forthcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of
the European Union. However, Dobbs keeps his personal politics out of his
writing because it bores the audience: “Once people start writing through
political prejudice then it’s not likely to be very successful.

In House of Cards, for instance, I defy you to remember a single bit of the
actual politics that was written about. It’s about the people in politics.”

The first three series dealt with Underwood’s rise from Congress to the top
job, but despite the show currently at the end of Francis’ first term as
president, Dobbs dismisses suggestions the show necessarily has to come to
an end any time soon. That’s for the simple reason that there’s always
something else for the characters to do: “Some programmes have the ability
to go on and on forever – those are the ones that are based around
relationships. How long can a show go on that is focused on a relationship
between two people – Francis and Claire – I don’t know. But it’s not just
about power, it’s also about their relationship which gives [the show]
legs. It has is a global audience, there are more watchers in China than in
America.”

He talks with pride about the quality of the set and the people involved:
“People have come from the White House to inspect the set and their jaws
have dropped. Even the doors of the Oval Office close with the same quiet
thud as they do. It’s actually a third larger than the real Oval Office but
everything is sourced to be just right in meticulous detail; even light
switches and door knobs.”

He’s planning to keep working on the show as well as a new project with
Adam Price, the creator of Borgen and a proposed work about Winston
Churchill. He says he wouldn’t ever write a character based on Ed Miliband
(“certainly not as a lead figure”) but he’s optimistic about a political
culture that is more engaged and less dependent on traditional sources of
information: “People are beginning to bother again now and make up their
own minds – The Sun Wot Won It? Not any more. It never did in the first
place but certainly not any more. There are no secrets anymore, everything
you do or say will come out eventually – the question is when and does it
matter?”

At the same time, he wants to take an active role in the negotiations over
a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the European Union,
touring the country and speaking to the public.

But if he’s willing to make that commitment, surely he already knows which
way he’ll campaign in the referendum?

“It depends! I will wait to see what the prime minister comes back with
[from negotiations with EU leaders]. It would require returning some
important powers, not just a standstill. Everyone in Europe knows the
system is screwed and could be screwed magnificently over Greece. It is
madness to put institutions before the people they are meant to serve. 50%
youth unemployment in Greece is not their fault – that is the madness,
Brussels thinks there is a way to make the Greeks to pay their debts back.
There’s no way of paying it back! They are bankrupt!”

So is he a libertarian? “Well, I’m not a great believer in big government:
the more government promises, the less it delivers, that’s been my entire
experience. It’d be wonderful if we could find a way for people to say ‘I
want government less in my life and for me to get on with it more’. There
are plenty of people who need government, it has got to a point where the
system isn’t working anymore.”

Ultimately Dobbs credits his sacking from the 1980s Conservative government
by Britain’s first female prime minister as the moment that gave the world
one of the greatest ever political dramas: “Politics is cruel. If you go
into politics to be cuddled and be hugged the whole time then you’re in the
wrong business. That was the start of House of Cards.”

“To that extent, I owe it all to Maggie.”

*Beghazi Committee Chairman: Clinton’s Made “Maybe Half Dozen Demonstrably
False Statements”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/benghazi-committee-chairman-clintons-made-maybe-half-dozen-d#.yo3BAOVLP>
// BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 10, 2015 *

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Benghazi Committee,
said Hillary Clinton has made “maybe” a “half dozen” false statements about
her compliance with the committee’s requests and her exclusive use of a
private email server during her time at the State Department.

“We’re getting up near maybe half dozen demonstrably false statements,” the
South Carolina congressman said on the Mike Gallagher Show Thursday.

Gowdy said Clinton should turn her private email server over to the State
Department’s inspector general for review.

“Let the inspector general make sure that the public record was intact and
not your own lawyers,” said Gowdy.

Clinton turned over about 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department
last December. Clinton’s team decided which emails were personal and which
were official government records that needed to be turned over to the State
Department. Her lawyer told the Benghazi Committee in March that her server
was wiped and the emails were deleted after they were turned over.

Clinton said in an interview with CNN she hadn’t received a subpoena for
emails from her time as secretary of state. A spokesperson for Clinton told
CNN after the interview that Clinton was responding to the suggestion that
she was under subpoena when her emails were deleted in December. Clinton
was subpoenaed by the Benghazi Committee in March.

*Clinton Foundation Donor Violated Iran Sanctions, Tried to Sells 747s to
Tehran
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/10/iranian-moneyman-gave-to-clinton-foundation.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>
// Daily Beast // Michael Weiss and Alex Shirazi – July 10, 2015 *

An Iranian businessman accused by the U.S. government of violating
sanctions on Tehran donated money to the Clinton Foundation, The Daily
Beast has confirmed.

Vahid Alaghband’s Balli Aviation Ltd., a London-based subsidiary of the
commodities trading firm Balli Group PLC, tried to sell 747 airplanes to
Iran, despite a federal ban on such sales. The company pleaded guilty to
two counts of criminal information in 2010. In its plea agreement with the
Department of Justice, Balli Aviation agreed to pay a $2 million criminal
fine, serve five years corporate probation, and pay an additional $15
million in civil fines. The hefty sum was “a direct consequence of the
level of deception used to mislead investigators," Thomas Madigan, a top
Justice Department official, said at the time.

Alaghband is one of an array of questionable actors who’ve been found in
recent months to give to the Clinton Foundation.  The gifts  – from foreign
governments with human rights violations like Qatar, Algeria, Saudi Arabia
and China as well as  FIFA, soccer’s corrupt governing body – have
complicated Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president and raised questions
as to whether these entities were trying to curry favor with the former
Secretary of State.

But Alaghband stands out from the rest, because the beneficiary of his
firm’s deals with Tehran was an Iranian airline accused by the U.S.
government of working with the regime’s foreign intelligence operatives and
shipping arms and troops to Syria. Plus, if an agreement between Iran and
the world’s major powers is concluded in the coming days – as is widely
expected – operators like Alaghband could stand to benefit. Hillary Clinton
will be put in the awkward position of either defending the act of the
Obama administration in which she once served or criticizing the
culmination of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement effort, which her State Department
began.

One of the two counts against Balli Aviation was that it “conspired to
export three Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran,” according
to a Justice Department statement, without first obtaining the necessary
export licenses from the U.S. government. The company then used its
Armenian airline subsidiary to buy the 747s with financing obtained from
Mahan Air, Iran’s largest private airline, which is thought by the State
Department to be controlled by former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani.

In 2011, the Treasury Department sanctioned the airline for “providing
financial, material and technological support to the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF),” or the expeditionary arm of the Islamic
Republic's praetorian military division, now heavily active in both Syria
and Iraq. At the time, the Treasury Department accused the Qods Force of
“secretly ferrying operatives, weapons and funds” on Mahan flights.

On the Clinton Foundation website, Alaghband’s company is listed as a donor
in the $10,001 to $25,000 bracket. Moreover, on the website for Balli Real
Estate, a property investment and development subsidiary also based in the
UK, his personal bio describes him as a member of the Clinton Global
Initiative.

This affiliation, along with his donation to the Foundation, came as a
surprise to Alaghband.

“I am not a member of the Clinton Global Initiative,” he told The Daily
Beast from London. “I attended a few meetings. The last meeting was 10
years ago. I don’t recall having ever made a contribution.” Asked why he
was listed as a member of the CGI on his own corporate website, he said: “I
haven’t seen this website recently. If attending a few meetings makes you a
member, I don’t know.”

A source familiar with the Clinton Foundation told The Daily Beast that
“Vahid Alaghband was never a member of CGI in a personal capacity.”
However, the source added, “In 2007, Balli Group paid a onetime CGI
membership fee and they designated him as their delegate to the meeting.”

Alaghband did recall giving money to another influential organization — the
Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Brookings Institution. The donation
he gave was to Brookings’ former Middle East policy shop, the Saban Center,
which had been named for its major benefactor, the Israeli billionaire Haim
Saban. (Staunchly pro-Israel, Saban is also, coincidentally, an avowed
supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions.)

In 2007, Alaghband offered to give a $900,000 donation to run for three
years to Brookings via the U.S.-based PARSA Foundation, “the first Persian
community foundation in the U.S. and the leading Persian philanthropic
institution practicing strategic philanthropy and promoting social
entrepreneurship around the globe,” as the foundation’s website describes
it.

Emails obtained in the discovery process of a separate libel case show that
Alaghband, who had already donated at least $50,000 to PARSA, initially
intended to make a pass-through donation via the foundation to Brookings.

But Alaghband says that he never ultimately used PARSA as a conduit for his
donation; instead made his contribution directly to the Saban Center. He
claims that the amount given was “far less” than $900,000 but declined to
specify how much. Furthermore, he insisted, the money wasn’t ear-marked for
any specific project or research use. “Our donation went to the Saban
Center and they had full discretion as to what to do with it,” Alaghband
said. “Martin Indyk had discretion over the use of the funds.”

Indyk, who headed the Saban Center from 2002 to 2013, is today the Vice
President and Director for Foreign Policy at Brookings. He also served—
twice—as U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration. In
2013, Secretary of State John Kerry named Indyk the U.S. envoy to the
Middle East.

“When we took the donation nobody knew there were any problems with
Alaghband,” David Nassar, the Vice President of Communications for
Brookings, told The Daily Beast, speaking on behalf of the think tank.
Nassar also specified that the donation came from Balli Group bank
accounts, not from Alaghband’s personal accounts. (Full disclosure: Daily
Beast executive editor Noah Shachtman previously did work as a non-resident
fellow in Brookings’ foreign policy division.)

Asked why he was listed as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative on his
own corporate website, he said: “I haven’t seen this website recently.”

A former Brookings staffer with direct knowledge of the donation told The
Daily Beast said that, on the contrary, Alaghband’s problems with the U.S.
government were known to the think tank at the time and that the money
helped finance the work of Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department
policy advisor and Republican advocate of U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.

Nassar told The Daily Beast that the suggestion that Alaghband’s donation
was intended to bolster Maloney’s pro-rapprochement research was false.
“The money was general funding for the Persian Gulf Initiative and not
directed at any particular issue or any particular scholar,” he said.
Nevertheless, the Persian Gulf Initiative was a program run by the Saban
Center and Maloney worked on it.

Maloney is married to Ray Takeyh, an Iran scholar who served in the Obama
White House in 2009 and who, during that period, was one of the lead
advocates of engagement with Tehran.

Since leaving the administration, Takeyh has emerged as a scathing critic
of his former employer’s nuclear diplomacy. But in 2008, Maloney and Takeyh
jointly published a 34-page white paper with the Saban Center titled,
“Pathway to Coexistence: A New U.S. Policy toward Iran.”  Arguing that the
longstanding U.S. policy of containment “is actually obsolete because Iran
is no longer an expansionist power,” they called not for a mere “policy
shift but for a paradigm change” in Washington.

In many ways, the paper essentially forecasted what Obama administration’s
approach to dealing with Iran, from the largely hands-off approach to
Iran’s bloody 2009 Green Revolution to the present-day compromises on its
nuclear program.

Alaghband’s legal troubles did not appear to affect his relationship with
Brookings a year after Balli Aviation was hit by the U.S. Commerce
Department with a temporary ban on his Iranian export business. In February
2009, he spoke at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, where Brookings has
another Middle East center, this one bankrolled by the Qatari government.
The forum, in fact, was organized by the Saban Center on behalf of that
government.

Alaghband, for his part, insists that he did nothing wrong, despite his
company’s guilty plea.

“The settlement [with the Justice Department] was one under which we did
not have to accept liability. We just agreed to make a payment and settle
out of court,” he told The Daily Beast. “We had to establish a compliance
program and do all of those things. The transactions we were engaged in was
reviewed by and subject to a legal to a legal opinion both in the UK and
U.S. about the compliance of with sanctions. We proceeded on this basis.”

The settlement also represented the largest civil penalty ever imposed by
the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

PARSA’s second largest recipient of grants is the National Iranian American
Council (NIAC), a Washington, D.C.-based lobby group close to the Iranian
regime, which advocates an end to all U.S. sanctions on Iran. It received a
total received a total of $591,500 from the foundation. Alaghband’s
brother, Hassan Alaghband, who is also the CEO of the Balli Group, spoke at
a organized conference in Tehran by one of NIAC's founders in June 2007, at
which he spoke about Western companies doing business in Iran and cited
Balli’s client, Caterpillar, as a case study.

The Balli Group PLC had once been the world’s second-largest steel trader
but it declared bankruptcy in 2013. A major reason for its folding? U.S.
sanctions on Iran.

*Hillary’s Strategy Is Actually Brilliant
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/10/hillary-s-strategy-is-actually-brilliant.html>
// Daily Beast // Nick Gillespie – July 10, 2015 *

Has any future president been more misunderstood than Hillary Clinton?

As someone who cannot imagine any possible scenario in which I would cast a
ballot for the former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, First Lady, and
Goldwater Girl, I note this with a heavy heart. But Clinton’s deafening and
widely criticized silence since announcing her candidacy isn’t a weakness
or a failing on her part. It underscores exactly the professionalism,
strategizing, and discipline that explain why she is atop the polls.

She has nothing to gain and everything to lose from shooting off her mouth
for at least the rest of the year. Like an aging boxer who survives more by
smarts than by slugging, Clinton knows that the fight for the White House
is a 15-round bout that will certainly go the distance. Only a showboating
chump would punch themselves out in the early rounds.

Sure, over the past few weeks, she’s lost some ground among Democratic
voters to socialist Bernie Sanders. But she’s still ahead of him, not to
mention the ever-growing gaggle of Republican rivals. Sure, ever since
announcing she was running for president, Clinton has stayed awfully quiet,
popping up in Chipotle surveillance camera footage like Patty Hearst on the
lam and eschewing actual public events for “intimate” meetings with vetted,
handpicked supporters.

On the rare occasions when she does step out of her bubble, things have
gotten hinky, like when she literally roped off the press during a Fourth
of July parade in New Hampshire. The optics of that scene—photogs and
journos being physically restrained from getting close enough to her
highness to take good pics or ask embarrassing queries—would be
shame-inducing if not suicide-inducing to most candidates.

But do we need to spell it out, really? Hillary Clinton is not most
candidates.

Hillary is turning into a defensive master, but on her own terms.

She’s learned from the acknowledged master—husband Bill, who can’t even be
bothered to flatly promise not to give paid speeches if he becomes First
Dude—that there’s never a reason to give in to common decency and slink off
into the dark night of political oblivion. Hillary Clinton hasn’t driven a
car since 1996 and it’s a safe bet that she hasn’t felt shame for even
longer.

Since announcing for president, Clinton has granted exactly one televsion
interview, with CNN’s Brianna Keilar, and smartly used the occasion to
attack the Republican field for their weak-tea responses to Donald Trump’s
muy stupido assertion that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists.
Indicating that she was “disappointed” (read: elated) “in those comments,”
Clinton went on to note that her Republican rivals “are all in the same
general area on immigration.”

The worst part of that? She’s absolutely right. Once the party of near-open
borders (watch this video from 1980 in which Ronald Reagan and George H.W.
Bush one up each other on praising the contributions of illegal
immigrants), today’s GOP, with minor exceptions, vilifies the wretched
yearning to breathe free, at least when they come from Latin America.

In 2004, George Bush won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Eight years
later, Mitt Romney—who counseled that illegal immigrants should practice
“self-deportation”—pulled just 27 percent. In the GOP “autopsy” of Romney’s
failure in 2012, the authors wrote, “If Hispanic Americans hear that the
GOP doesn’t want them in the United States, they won’t pay attention to our
next sentence.” Given the way that the current candidates have been
non-reacting to Trump, that might be the best outcome the Republican Party
could hope for.

Against such a backdrop, Clinton is right to keep mum, except when making
easy layups against her opponents. Let Bernie Sanders whip Democrats into a
progressive frenzy and then step in with vague nods toward equality and
growth for all. She knows full well that Sanders is not her real rival—that
will be the GOP nominee, not a frothing-at-the-mouth socialist from a state
with a population smaller than Washington, D.C.

She also knows as well as anyone that her toughest challenge will be
sweetening the air of inevitability that surrounds her like noxious
second-hand smoke. No one outside of their immediate families wants to see
a Clinton-Bush contest, but such a showdown is more likely than not. She
may indeed be as “arrogant” as Commentary and a thousand other similar
publications contend, but she’s likely smart enough to realize that nothing
humanizes her more than right-wing outlets foaming at the mouth about
everything from blowjobs to Benghazi.

This is not to say that she’s a perfect candidate. In fact, the roping off
of journalists—on a day celebrating indepence, no less!—suggests Hillary
Clinton is in many ways singularly off-putting. Her feminist bona fides
were rightly called into question during her time as First Lady, her time
as senator from New York was unmemorable, and her tenure as secretary of
state nothing short of disastrous. When under attack, she’s capable of
mind-bogglingly stupid comments, like when she started talking about Bobby
Kennedy’s assassination during the end days of her 2008 run for the
Democratic nomination.

This is why she is smart to be running rope-a-dope strategy, essentially
letting her opponents (Democratic and Republican) punch themselves out in
the early rounds. When they’ve taken their best shots and mostly exhausted
themselves, she can come off the ropes and throw a haymaker or two. Along
with forgoing shame, this is another great tactical advantage she’s learned
from her husband.

Bill Clinton outlasted his opponents—think Newt Gingrich and a gaggle of
moralistic congressmen, many of whom had skeletons of their own to hide.
Bill was like Muhammad Ali taking on George Foreman in the jungle heat, a
personable motormouth who loved to talk and press the flesh (sometimes a
bit too much, to be sure). Hillary is turning into a defensive master, but
on her own terms. She’s more like Floyd Mayweather, nobody’s idea of a fun
person to hang out with, but capable of taking huge amounts of punishment
and coming off the ropes in the late rounds to secure victory.

If the eventual Republican nominee—whether it’s Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or
god help us all Donald Trump—wants a real chance at the crown, they’d do
best to back away from Hillary and the anger-bear rhetoric that only makes
her more sympathetic. The nominee would do well to outline an actually
positive and inclusive message about how they plan to guide the country
into the 21st century rather than constantly harp on last century’s
scandals, the need for even newer and bigger wars, and protecting us from
the scourge of immigrants so desperate for a better life that they’re
willing to risk arrest to come to America.

A Republican employing positive rhetoric—which is exactly how Barack Obama
toppled Clinton in 2008—would pull her out of her crouch and cause her to
swing recklessly and wildly. In all that lunging, she’d be likely to knock
herself out. But so long as the Republicans keep smacking themselves in the
face, she’s smart to hold her punches.

*Clinton camp on Bush’s fundraising: It should scare you
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-camp-jeb-bush-fundraising-it-should-scare-you>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is looking to turn Jeb Bush’s money into her own.

The Republican presidential candidate’s super PAC announced Thursday a
record-shattering $103 million fundraising haul, an astonishing number even
in the post-Citizens United era. That’s almost quadruple the amount of
money every super PAC had raised by this point in the 2012 election cycle
combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and more than
the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, which is now backing Clinton,
raised in two years during the last presidential election.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is sounding the alarm, even as allies see a
potential silver lining in Bush’s haul.

On Friday, Clinton finance director Dennis Cheng sent an email to
supporters pleading for contributions with the subject line: “Hillary needs
you.” In the email, Cheng said he had “bad news” and noted that Bush’s
campaign and super PAC had raised a combined $114 million. “If that number
scares you, good. It should,” Cheng warned.

“[T]here’s a point at which it may be too much – when we can’t make up for
it by organizing better and spending our resources more wisely,” Cheng
continued. “We cannot hit that point, especially this early in the
campaign.”

But the Clinton campaign is hardly broke.

Last week, her campaign announced that it had raised $45 million since it
launched – the most any primary candidate had raised in history. Priorities
USA, that super PAC supporting Clinton, announced that it raised $15.6
millions so far this year, almost all of it coming in the previous four
weeks.

Clinton has been on a break-neck fundraising spree since announcing her
campaign in April, hopscotching across the country to attend dozens of
$2,700 per head fundraises. Aware of Team Bush’s goal of raising more than
$100 million, Clinton’s campaign pushed back her big kick-off rally in part
to give her more time to fundraise. Donors reported intense pressure to get
checks in early, and Clinton has gone hardly more than a few days between
fundraisers.

Bush’s haul is daunting, but not surprising since his campaign telegraphed
their goal. And some Clinton allies insist it could actually help encourage
their donors to pony up. “It’s obviously an impressive number. But it could
be good for us, it’s not easy to raise money against nothing. We now have a
real threat that should motivate our prospective donors to step up in a way
most haven’t yet,” said one source in the pro-Clinton super PAC world, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity.

There are also downsides to Bush in raising most of his money via super
PACs instead of campaigns. Super PACs are legally prohibited from
coordinating with campaigns, so the candidate has little say in how the
money is spent or what the super PAC does. For instance, Democratic
presidential candidate Martin O’Malley was recently forced to publicly
denounce an ad made by the super PAC supporting him attacking Bernie
Sanders on gun control.

And campaigns get a discounted rate not available to super PACs when it
comes to purchasing TV ads, the main expenditure of super PACs. That means
campaigns can run more ads for less money than super PACs, potentially
paying huge dividends. Mitt Romney learned this the hard way when he and
his super PAC outspent Obama by almost a third, but ended up running 50,000
fewer ads nonetheless.

“Hillary’s $45m in campaign money is much more valuable to her campaign
than Jeb’s $100m in Super Pac money is to his,” former Obama official Dan
Pfeiffer said on twitter.

And Clinton allies note that Bush’s super PAC may not be able to repeat its
massive haul again. Bush himself led the PAC and made personal appeals to
donors on its behalf, something he is now prohibited from doing since he’s
an official candidate. Enthusiasm could drop off if Bush is no longer
involved.

But even setting aside the super PAC, Clinton could fall behind Bush.
Bush’s official campaign managed to out-compete Clinton’s record-breaking
haul in one key measure. Bush’s campaign raised $11.4 million to Clinton’s
$45 million, but he did it just 16 days compared to Clinton’s 81. That
breaks down to $555,555 a day for Clinton, but $712,500 per day for Bush.

Bush’s sprint could just capture the boost of enthusiasm any candidate
receives after they announce, and his numbers could drop off afterwards.
Meanwhile, he’ll be preoccupied with the Republican presidential primary
and will have to spend most of money bashing Republicans before he even
makes it to the general election – if he makes it at all.

But it could also spell trouble for Clinton is she continues to be
out-raised among both Bush’s campaign and super PAC.

*Medical Bill: Mystery donor picked up $150G tab for 2010 Clinton speech
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/10/medical-bill-mystery-donor-picked-up-150g-tab-for-2010-clinton-speech/>
// Fox // Malia Zimmerman – July 10, 2015 *

It was a big coup when a nonprofit medical trade group landed Bill Clinton
as a speaker at its 2010 annual conference in Chicago -- so big that some
members wondered how the former president was being paid.

Not to worry, members of the Radiological Society of North America were
told: An anonymous donor footed his bill.

The $150,000 fee was a mere fraction of the $48 million Clinton took in
from 215 speeches between 2009 and 2013, while his wife was secretary of
state. Who paid Clinton and why they thought it was a fair bargain may
never be known — but government watchdogs say it is a prime example of how
elusive accounting can be for the ex-president's eye-popping earnings.

It was clear, however, that the husband of America's top diplomat was not
chosen for his medical expertise.

“I think this is interesting that you would ask me to come and speak today
to a group of people from all over the world, and everyone of you knows
more about the subject than I do,” Clinton said at the beginning of his
45-minute address to an audience of 4,250.

Dr. Sam Friedman, a radiologist from Columbia, SC., said at first he was
“peeved” when he heard Clinton was paid $150,000 for the “rambling” speech,
during which Clinton took several “gratuitous shots” at Republicans and
blamed U.S. doctors for many of the healthcare problems in third world
countries. When he and like-minded members made their objections known to
the organization, they were told the fee was paid by an “anonymous” donor.

Radiological Society of North America spokesman Marijo Millette told
FoxNews.com the group “strives to provide compelling speakers that will
satisfy the educational needs and special interests of a diverse audience.”

Millette would not comment on Friedman's claim, which was also reported by
trade media, but said Clinton's fee and travel expenses were paid to the
Harry Walker Agency, which represents Clinton. The organization’s 990
forms, filed with the Internal Revenue Service and required to maintain its
501(c)3 status, do not list any payment to Clinton or his representative.
Neither the executive director nor three executive board members contacted
by FoxNews.com would divulge who paid Clinton's fee.

Matthew Whitaker, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability &
Civic Trust, a Washington-based, non-partisan campaign and ethics watchdog
group, said the anonymous donation “opens up a Pandora’s box of questions
including who funded this speech and what their motivations were.”

“This issue has to be resolved," Whitaker told FoxNews.com. "There has to
be an answer as to who gave the money. “It has the smell of someone trying
to move money through an organization to curry favor with the former
president. It also calls into question almost every speech Bill Clinton as
made and who the ultimate funder is.”

Neither Clinton's representatives at Harry Walker nor at the Clinton
Foundation responded to a request for the name of the mystery sponsor. It
was not clear if other speeches by Clinton were similarly funded by
anonymous third parties.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a Washington D.C.-based government
watchdog foundation, said much of the $48 million Bill Clinton made from
215 speeches during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State went to
the Clintons' personal coffers, not to the foundation. Federal disclosure
forms filed by Hillary Clinton for 2010 record her husband’s compensation
as $150,000 from the Oak Brook, Ill.-based group, but critics say the lack
of transparency about where the money really came from raises serious
questions.

“Bill and Hillary Clinton are married, so under the law, paying him for a
speech is like giving money directly to her – to the Secretary of State,”
Fitton said. “I cannot think of a comparable ‘pay to play’ scandal.”

Clinton gave 542 speeches around the world between 2001 and 2013, earning
$104.9 million, and delivered another 53 speeches between January 2014 and
May 2015, earning an additional $13.5 million, according to reports by Fox
News and the Washington Post. The former president's speaking fees have
ranged from $28,100 for a 2001 talk at the London School of Economics to
$750,000 for a 2011 appearance at an event for Swedish communications
company Ericsson.

While Clinton's knowledge of world events and charm as a raconteur is
well-documented, critics doubt the sky-high fees are doled out by anonymous
parties for sheer entertainment value.

"These donors don't cut checks because they want to hear a brief speech,"
said Sean Davis, co- founder of The Federalist, a conservative online
magazine. "They do it to gain access or favors from the Clintons. The
Clintons owe voters a clear explanation of who is funneling them this money
and why.”

*Kudos To Sanders, With A Wink To Clinton, Too
<http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/10/421566327/kudos-to-sanders-with-a-wink-to-clinton-too>
// NPR // Ron Elving – July 10, 2015 *

These are palmy days for Sen. Bernie Sanders and his improbable campaign
for president. Thousands throng his events in Maine, Iowa and Wisconsin. He
has raised $15 million in just a few months, and he polls better among
Democrats than any one Republican is polling among Republicans.

At a minimum, the "independent socialist" senator has established himself
as the insurgent to watch among Democrats in this cycle. So, we should
salute the man. But we should also cast a smiling glance toward the other,
possibly ultimate, beneficiary of his early success.

That would be Hillary Clinton.

Why? Because in the long run, "the Sanders summer" is likely to boost her
bid for the White House. Indeed, from her perspective, Sanders may be the
ideal rival en route to the nomination.

He's a man, he's 73, and he's well to her left on most issues. Moreover, he
starts from a low base of national recognition, lacks conventional media
appeal and hails from a tiny northeastern state that is totally lopsided
politically. Did we mention he calls himself a socialist?

Clinton would have had far more to fear from the candidate dynamics had
another senator, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, made the race. Even if
Clinton prevailed, the inevitable wounds would be felt in the fall campaign.

Warren would have equal claim to Clinton's magic demographic wand: the
prospect of being the nation's first female president. Warren is also eight
years younger than Sanders, and two years younger than Clinton. She has
heartland roots in Oklahoma, and the momentum from a late-blooming career
and a scrappy battle to the top of Bay State politics. Her issue profile
would match the economic equality mood of the moment without stretching the
point.

Sanders, of course, goes further. He pleases crowds with full-throated
proclamations about universal health care and Wall Street reform. He
quickens the pulse of liberals and populists alike, including many who,
like Sanders, have not been card-carrying Democrats.

Beyond that, he has earned his moment with his own brand of vitality and
political punch. Brooklyn born and raised, Sanders is far more New York
than Clinton will ever be, but even his combative nature carries a certain
charm.

All this helps explain Sanders' rise to the level of respectable in
national polls, including strong numbers in tuned-in Iowa and New
Hampshire. But those polls also bespeak the hunger many Democrats feel for
a choice in 2016. They may be "ready for Hillary," or resigned to her, but
they feel entitled to a little competition first. It's just part of being a
Democrat.

Sanders should benefit from this, tapping into the nostalgia of boomers who
rebelled against the Democratic establishment decades ago, backing Eugene
McCarthy in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972. Some also remember their
enthusiasm for Howard Dean a dozen years ago. Those upstart candidates,
too, made a virtue of lacking conventional charisma.

Taken together, these threads of political sentiment weave a ready-to-wear
mantle for some Democrat plucky enough to put it on. Naturally, the Clinton
camp has been watching keenly for years now to see who it would be.

Now, halfway through the critical pre-election year, the Democratic field
consists of Clinton, Sanders and three other white males who have failed to
make much of a dent. It is possible one of them will catch fire, but
Sanders is in their way. It is also possible other candidates will emerge,
but Sanders is in their way, too.

And that helps Clinton.

Ultimately, though, Sanders' greatest boon to Clinton may be in making her
work harder to connect — both with the party's activist left and with its
traditional lunch-bucket issues. Rooting her in what Dean liked to call
"the democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

We always knew that Clinton could not be crowned the nominee in the
presumptive manner of an incumbent president, or even an incumbent vice
president. We always knew there needed to be, and would inevitably be,
someone who mounted a challenge from within Democratic ranks.

Now that someone has emerged. He's Bernie Sanders, and he's doing very
well, thank you.

Clinton should be grateful.

*Hillary Clinton to Visit Senate Democrats at Lunch
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/hillary-clinton-to-visit-senate-democrats-at-lunch/>
// Roll Call // Niels Lesniewski – July 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton is scheduled to attend the July 14 Senate Democratic caucus
lunch, a senior Democratic aide told CQ Roll Call.

It is one of several meetings with congressional Democrats Clinton is
expected to hold while in Washington, D.C., next week.

But the visit with her former Senate colleagues, a good number of whom have
already endorsed her presidential bid, is interesting because another
person seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, Sen. Bernard Sanders,
I-Vt., caucuses with the Democrats and serves as their ranking member on
the Budget Committee.

*Another Questionable Donor to the Clinton Foundation Emerges, and This One
Could Tie in With the Pending Iran Deal
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/10/another-questionable-donor-to-the-clinton-foundation-emerges-and-this-one-could-tie-in-with-the-pending-iran-deal/>
// The Blaze // Fred Lucas – July 10, 2015 *

Additionally, the website for Balli Real Estate, a property investment and
development subsidiary based in Britain, says that Alaghband is a member of
the Clinton Global Initiative.

From the Daily Beast:

The company pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal information in 2010.
In its plea agreement with the Department of Justice, Balli Aviation agreed
to pay a $2 million criminal fine, serve five years corporate probation,
and pay an additional $15 million in civil fines. The hefty sum was “a
direct consequence of the level of deception used to mislead
investigators,” Thomas Madigan, a top Justice Department official, said at
the time.

Alaghband is one of an array of questionable actors who’ve been found in
recent months to give to the Clinton Foundation. The gifts – from foreign
governments with human rights violations like Qatar, Algeria, Saudi Arabia
and China as well as FIFA, soccer’s corrupt governing body – have
complicated Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president and raised questions
as to whether these entities were trying to curry favor with the former
Secretary of State.

But Alaghband stands out from the rest, because the beneficiary of his
firm’s deals with Tehran was an Iranian airline accused by the U.S.
government of working with the regime’s foreign intelligence operatives and
shipping arms and troops to Syria. Plus, if an agreement between Iran and
the world’s major powers is concluded in the coming days – as is widely
expected – operators like Alaghband could stand to benefit. Hillary Clinton
will be put in the awkward position of either defending the act of the
Obama administration in which she once served or criticizing the
culmination of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement effort, which her State Department
began.

Interestingly, Alaghband, told the Daily Beast, “I am not a member of the
Clinton Global Initiative.”

“I attended a few meetings. The last meeting was 10 years ago,” he said. “I
don’t recall having ever made a contribution.”

As to why his own corporate website listed him as a member, he said: “I
haven’t seen this website recently. If attending a few meetings makes you a
member, I don’t know.”

A source close to the Clinton Foundation told the Daily Beast that
Alaghband “was never a member of CGI in a personal capacity,” but added,
“In 2007, Balli Group paid a onetime CGI membership fee and they designated
him as their delegate to the meeting.”

One of the charges against Balli Aviation was that it “conspired to export
three Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran,” without
obtaining the necessary export licenses from the U.S. government, according
to a Justice Department statement reported by the Daily Beast. It further
used an U.S. airline subsidiary to buy 747s with financing from the
Iranian-based Mahan Air – a company the State Department sais is controlled
by former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Mahan was sanctioned by the
Treasury Department in 2011 for “providing financial, material and
technological support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force
(IRGC-QF).”

*‘House of Cards’ creator thinks Hillary Clinton is closest to a real life
Claire Underwood
<http://www.businessinsider.com/house-of-cards-creator-lord-dobbs-hillary-clinton-is-claire-underwood-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Jethro Nededog – July 10, 2015 *

It doesn't seem likely that Hillary Clinton would have gotten UK's "House
of Cards" creator Lord Michael Dobbs' vote if her were able to cast a
ballot in US elections.

Dobbs believes Clinton most resembles a real life Claire Underwood (Robyn
Wright), the conniving and politically ambitious wife of president Frank
Underwood (Kevin Spacey) on Netflix's adaptation of Dobbs' "House of Cards."

“[Hillary Clinton] is a political figure in her own right – behind the
scenes, but now increasingly in front of the scenes." Dobbs told Buzzfeed
of the similarities to Claire. "That is much more of a Claire character
than, for instance, Cherie [Blair], who as far as I’m aware didn’t become
actively aware in politics as such.”

Dobbs, who wrote the novel "House of Cards" after serving as an advisor to
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has a healthy obsession of Clinton.

“I’m fascinated by Hillary, of course, because she comes with so much
baggage,” he told the online site. “That baggage is her strength but also
her vulnerability. We just have to wait and see where the balance lies on
that. Though it is bizarre that the system that was bred out of [rejection
of a King] has produced the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Clintons, the
Roosevelts….”

Dobbs' TV version of "House of Cards" ended after just four one-hour
episodes aired on BBC in 1990. Netflix's adaptation will return with its
fourth season next year.s

*Don’t believe Hillary Clinton’s campaign – here’s why they’re not
‘worried’ about Bernie Sanders
<http://www.businessinsider.com/does-bernie-sanders-worry-hillary-clinton-2015-7#ixzz3fUhc01lb>
// Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 10, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is gaining momentum as a Democratic
presidential rival to Hillary Clinton. But he's no threat just yet.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that Clinton staffers are becoming
increasingly concerned that the Vermont senator is a serious threat to
Clinton's campaign.

They point to his rising poll numbers and his large event turnouts —
according to The Washington Post, Sanders drew 7,500 at a Maine event on
Monday, a week after drawing a 10,000-person crowd in Wisconsin.

But Sanders' first problem is that, as political strategists and analysts
told Business Insider, his candidacy at this point is more resembling that
of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) in 2004 than Barack Obama in 2008.

His momentum is concentrated in the first two early-voting states, Iowa and
New Hampshire. The general consensus among many left-leaning strategists
and pollsters is that Sanders is best suited to win in those two states,
where there are a sizeable portion of white, liberal voters.

"Sanders is certainly doing a lot better in Iowa and New Hampshire where
voters are playing close attention than he is anywhere else," Tom Jensen,
the director of Public Policy Polling, told Business Insider.

"I don't think that [Clinton campaign strategists] think that Sanders is
going to win the nomination, but they probably take it seriously that he
could win a state or two early," added John Hagner, a campaign strategist
at Clarity Campaign Labs.

Hagner, a veteran of the former Democratic National Committee chairman
Dean's 2004 presidential campaign team in New Hampshire, pointed to
similarities between Sanders and Dean's momentous starts — and not just the
fact that they're both from Vermont.

Hagner noted that Dean's team also garnered lots of liberal enthusiasm
early on, raising millions in small donations from passionate primary
voters. And he said Dean wasn't the only upstart to mount a challenge in
New Hampshire. Former Vice President Al Gore almost lost the state to
former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-New Jersey) in 2000.

"The similarities [between Dean and Sanders] is in the fan base and in the
intensity. And there really are, particularly in New Hampshire, a lot of
very progressive voters who enjoy uncertain candidates," Hagner said.

Analysts also told Business Insider that Sanders is benefiting from the
disproportionate share of white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Though
he's tried to outflank Clinton to the left on a number of issues like
income inequality and taxes, Sanders has been less decidedly liberal on
topics like immigration reform and gun control.

In 2007, he voted against an immigration-reform package in the Senate,
teaming up with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to add restrictive amendments
to the bill. Many Latino lawmakers don't believe that Sanders has
immigration reform at the top of his agenda in the same way that Clinton
does.

"It is not his priority," Arturo Vargas, the executive director of the
National Association of Latino Elected Office, told CNN last month. "I
think that is one of the challenges his campaign is going to have to
confront."

Sanders also hasn't made many inroads with African-American voters. Jensen,
the director of Public Policy Polling, told Business Insider that most
recent polls put the former Secretary of State's support among
African-American voters at around 70-80%.

"If Sanders wins Iowa or New Hampshire it will build a lot of momentum for
him that will help in the states that follow, but he's still going to
struggle in places like South Carolina with large black populations and
Nevada with large Hispanic populations unless he improves his appeal to
nonwhite voters," Jensen said.

Hagner said that if the Clinton campaign becomes legitimately nervous, they
may start putting issues in the spotlight that historically resonate with
black and Hispanic voters.

"Immigration and gun rights are going to be problems for him. If you start
to see stories pop up that have some finger prints, we'll know they're
taking it seriously," Hagner said.

hillary clintonL.E. BaskowPresidential candidate Hillary Clinton arrives at
the Aria and greets workers before speaking at a conference in Las Vegas.

For its part, the Clinton campaign could also see the benefit in a
strengthened Sanders.

Republicans have repeatedly slammed national Democrats for running a
campaign that much more resembles an incumbent's. Clinton has long sought
to avoid looking like she's taking her party's nomination for granted.

And campaigns always like to lower expectations in the early-voting states.
And every candidate wants to be able to claim momentum, regardless of the
reality on the ground.

Said Bill Burton, a former top adviser to Obama's 2008 campaign: "Hillary
Clinton tried out inevitability as a message, and it was not successful."

*No, Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need a Plan For Passing Gun Control
Legislation
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/no-hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-plan-passing-gun-control-legislation>
// Mother Jones // Kevin Drum – July 10, 2015 *

Lots of political observers are surprised that Hillary Clinton is talking
about guns. That's a loser for Democrats, isn't it? Paul Waldman isn't so
sure:

The truth is quite a bit more complicated than that — in fact, pushing for
measures like expanded background checks is likely to help Clinton in the
2016 election. But if she’s going to promise to make headway on this issue,
she needs to offer some plausible account of how as president she could
make real progress where Barack Obama couldn’t.

Allow me to impolitely disagree. Presidential campaigns are extended
exercises in affinity marketing. No presidential candidate ever has to
explain how they're going to enact legislation. The most they have to do is
offer a bit of breezy blather about crossing the aisle and focusing on
areas of agreement and Americans not really being as polarized as the media
makes them out to be. That's plenty.

Oh sure, there are a few thousand annoying know-it-alls like Waldman and me
who are going to write blog posts about how this or that promise ain't
gonna happen because the politics are impossible. But hell, even we don't
care. We're still going to vote for whoever we planned to vote for anyway.
It's not as if any of the other candidates are going to work miracles
either.

Now, it's true that some candidates run on a theme of competence, of
"getting things done." Scott Walker is doing it this year. Michael Dukakis
did it. But I don't think there's any evidence that even this pale shadow
of "how I'm going to get things done" has much effect on voters. They just
vote for the candidate who seems to be generally on their side, or
generally most reasonable, or generally good to have a beer with. The
details can be left to the wonks.

*Ariana Grande’s Manager Is Throwing a Big Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
<http://www.mediaite.com/online/ariana-grandes-manager-is-throwing-a-big-fundraiser-for-hillary-clinton/>
// Mediaite // Jamie Frevele – July 10, 2015 *

It looks like Hillary Clinton definitely has the Canadian teenybopper vote,
if they’re old enough and not all Canadian! Scooter Braun, who manages
musical acts including Justin Bieber and donut-licking America-hater Ariana
Grande, announced that he and his wife Yael will host a fundraiser for the
Democratic candidate in Los Angeles.

Billed as a “conversation” with Clinton, the event will take place at the
Brauns’ home on August 6 and will cost $2,700 to get in.

A fundraiser for Clinton at the Brauns’ abode could be pretty fun,
considering how Braun does pretty wicked impressions of Clinton’s former
boss, President Obama, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. So
that’ll be a neat little party trick. Just maybe don’t talk about the
clients until this donut thing blows over. And let’s not forget Bieber’s
previous run-in with a Clinton.

*Hillary Clinton aligns herself with a surprising party*
<http://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/news/a29264/hillary-clinton-one-direction-tweet/>*
// Elle // Alyssa Bailey – July 10, 2015*

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made a very strategic move last
night, aligning herself with a party whose fan base is among the most
active in the U.S. (and really world). Clinton casually tweeted this:

Throwing her support behind One Direction and its activism efforts: Genius.
No word yet on her favorite member or song, but the campaign just
started—and she's clearly courting the Directioner endorsement. Expect that
Harry Styles-Hillary Clinton photo in the months to come.

*Bill and Hillary Clinton ordered to give depositions about emails in civil
case
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/10/bill-and-hillary-clinton-ordered-give-depositions-/>
// Washington Times // Kellan Howell – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been
ordered to give depositions in a civil case investigating the pair’s
growing email scandal.

Mrs. Clinton will giver her deposition on the morning of July 28 in
Washington, and Mr. Clinton will give his the following morning, according
to copies of the notices of deposition reviewed by The Washington Times.

The case, filed by Freedom Watch founder and former federal prosecutor
Larry Klayman, alleges the couple committed criminal violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

According to a statement from Freedom Watch, the suit alleges Mrs. Clinton,
the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, covered up these
crimes by destroying her personal emails sent during her time as Secretary
of State.

Mr. Klayman alleges in his lawsuit that the Clintons — through mail and
wire fraud, and various false statements — misappropriated documents that
he requested under the Freedom of Information concerning the Mrs. Clinton’s
involvement in releasing Israeli war and cyber-warfare plans and practices.

The lawsuit, filed in March, claims that Mrs. Clinton orchestrated the
release to thwart Israeli plans to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear
sites.

Mr. Klayman also requested Mrs. Clinton’s and other State Department
records pertaining to waivers that were granted for persons, companies,
countries and other interests that do business with Iran, undermining
economic sanctions.

“This is the first and only hard-hitting case to address the growing email
scandal,” Mr. Klayman said in a statement. “What Hillary Clinton, her
husband, and their foundation have done is nothing new. It is simply part
of a criminal enterprise which dates back at least 10 years, all designed
to enrich themselves personally at the expense of the American people and
our nation. It’s time, however, that they finally be held legally
accountable.”

*Chelsea Clinton to speak at World Food Prize
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2015/07/10/chelsea-clinton-world-food-prize/29994749/>
// Des Moines Register // Donnelle Eller – July 10, 2015 *

Chelsea Clinton will speak at the World Food Prize symposium this fall
about encouraging girls in the U.S. and developing countries to pursue
math, science and technology educations as way to escape poverty.

Clinton is vice chair of the Clinton Foundation, the New York-based
nonprofit focused on improving global health, creating economic
opportunity, and increasing opportunities for women and girls. The group’s
founder is former President Bill Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s entry into the presidential
race has prompted questions about the foundation, including foreign
donations to it and potential conflicts of interest. The campaign has
rejected those criticisms.

Ken Quinn, president of the World Food Prize, said he doesn’t intend for
the event to become political. But Timothy Hagle, a University of Iowa
political science professor, said that might be hard to avoid.

“That might be difficult in Iowa, in the middle of a presidential cycle,”
Hagle said. “Even with an important issue, politics may intrude.”

Quinn said he reached out to invite Chelsea Clinton months before her
mother decided to take another run at the White House. “I’ve worked very
hard to never have the World Food Prize seen as anyway involved in
politics,” said Quinn, a former ambassador.

Chelsea Clinton will receive no fee for speaking at the event, scheduled
for Oct. 14-16. The World Food Prize will provide airfare and lodging, he
said.

Encouraging the education of women and girls is a big push for the World
Food Prize. This year’s prize winner, Sir Fazle Hasan Abed, is being
honored for his work creating the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee,
focused on giving women the social and economic tools to help themselves
and their communities.

Quinn said women play key roles in attacking hunger, improving health and
incomes in developing countries. As small-holder farmers, they make many of
the decisions about growing but often have limited access to education.

“Chelsea Clinton has been speaking a great deal, and the Clinton Global
Initiative is focused on, girls’ education and empowering women around the
world,” Quinn said.

Quinn said he also invited Lauren Bush Lauren, founder of FEED, a nonprofit
that uses part of the sale of bags and accessories to help address hunger.
Lauren, granddaughter of president George H.W. Bush and niece of president
George W. Bush, was unable to attend the Des Moines event.

Chelsea Clinton will speak about the foundation’s work, not politics, Quinn
said. “I stressed that we are nonpartisan.”

Hagle said even talking issues like STEM — science, technology, engineering
and math training that many political leaders favor — could be viewed as
Chelsea Clinton subtly pushing for her mother. “She will bring attention to
the issue, but she could get some eyebrows raised and criticism,” he said.

Quinn said other political figures have been honored and spoken at the
World Food Prize in the past, without being political, including current
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and former President Jimmy
Carter, who is an honorary member of the council of advisers.

Quinn said it’s unclear whether Chelsea Clinton will take the opportunity
to be in Iowa to campaign for her mother. Campaign and foundation officials
could not immediately say what her plans are while in Iowa.

Quinn said Chelsea Clinton’s staff has indicated she wants to meet with
young people to talk about the importance of education.

In addition to Clinton, Sheryl WuDunn, an author and Pulitzer Prize winner,
also will speak about empowering women. She wrote her most recent book, “A
Path Appears: Transforming Lives, Creating Opportunity,” with her husband,
Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times columnist.

*Hillary Clinton campaign releases video about Confederate flag
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150710/PC1603/150719930/hillary-clinton-campaign-releases-video-about-confederate-flag-has-video>
// Post and Courier // July 10, 2015 *

About an hour after the Confederate flag was removed from the Statehouse
grounds today, the Hillary Clinton for South Carolina staff released a
campaign video about the flag’s removal being a good first step.

The video features interviews with South Carolinians discussing the
historic significance of removing the flag as well as offering their views
on the next steps that need to take place, such as action on issues like
wages, prison reform, education, gun control, and poverty.

Clinton has commended state leaders for their action, a Clinton staffer
said in a news release.

“Removing this symbol of our nation’s racist past is an important step
towards equality and civil rights in America,” Clinton said. “There is
still unfinished business in confronting and acting on the inequalities
that still exist in our country. We can’t hide from the hard truths about
race and justice. We must do everything in our power to have the courage to
name them and change them.”

*Hillary Clinton to make first Utah trip of 2016 race
<http://www.sltrib.com/home/2715067-155/hillary-clinton-to-make-first-utah>
// Salt Lake Tribune // Robert Gehrke – July 9, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, will make her
first visit to Utah during her 2016 campaign next month, holding a
fundraiser at a posh Park City home.

"I think it's always exciting to have a presidential candidate come to Utah
and, of course, from my perspective, it's great to have a Democrat coming
to Utah this early in the campaign," said Utah Democratic Party Chairman
Peter Corroon. "I think it shows Utah is playing a more prominent role in
politics."

The event, billed as a "Conversation with Hillary," is available to those
who give between $500 and $2,700. It is being held at the home of Barry and
Amy Baker, who have hosted the Clintons before.

Barry Baker is the former president of USA Networks and is a senior adviser
to Lee Equity Partners, LLC, a private equity and venture-capital firm. Amy
Baker spent 20 years at NBC News.

Clinton, the former secretary of state, U.S. senator from New York and
first lady, holds a wide lead over the Democratic field and all of the
Republican contenders in head-to-head polling.

But she is a polarizing figure reviled among Republicans.

"I'm sure she'll get a very positive reaction from most of the Democratic
faithful. I'm not so sure the feelings will be the same on the Republican
side," Corroon said.

Utah Republican Party Chairman James Evans said he isn't surprised Clinton
is coming to Utah — the Democratic candidates have in the past — and he
doesn't expect her visit to stir up protests.

"They come to Park City several times and I would expect her to visit with
the liberal elite, as she certainly is not connected to the everyday
American," Evans said. "I don't think people are going to go out of their
way to protest her. We'll be respectful because everybody knows who she is
and what she's about. So there's nothing else to really say other than
certainly she will be a disaster as president. I think people already know
that."

Evans said he expects prominent Republican candidates to visit the state
for fundraisers, possibly as early as next month.

Six of the Republican contenders already visited Utah last month —
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. Jon
Kasich, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and
businesswoman Carly Fiorina — for an annual Deer Valley retreat with donors
and politicos hosted by Mitt Romney.

In April, Clinton became the first presidential hopeful to hire staff in
Utah, engaging Ben Haynes, an American Fork native who worked to re-elect
Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill and on the Count My Vote
initiative, to lead the Clinton campaign efforts in Utah.

In 2008, Clinton lost the Democratic presidential primary in Utah to
then-Sen. Barack Obama, 57 percent to 39 percent, as Obama went on to win
the nomination and the White House.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*Martin O’Malley Takes a Shot at Hillary Clinton Over ‘Sanctuary Cities’
Policy
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/10/martin-omalley-takes-a-shot-at-hillary-clinton-over-sanctuary-cities-policy/>
// WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley took a veiled swipe at
front runner Hillary Clinton on Friday, over the case of a convicted felon
who had been deported multiple times and who has been charged with
murdering a woman in San Francisco on July 1.

In an interview this week on CNN, Mrs. Clinton was asked about the San
Francisco sheriff’s office decision in April to release the suspect, Juan
Francisco Lopez Sanchez, even though federal authorities had wanted him
held with a view toward deporting him again.

The sheriff’s office has said it was following procedures in keeping with
San Francisco’s status as a “sanctuary city” that provides protections for
certain undocumented immigrants.

In the CNN interview, Mrs. Clinton said: “Well, what should be done is any
city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I
understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of
prison another time. You know, here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve
deported, we’ve deported. He ends back up in our country and I think the
city made a mistake. The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the
federal government strongly felt should be deported”

Mr. O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, weighed in with a statement
that defended the sanctuary cities policy. He did not mention Mrs. Clinton
by name, but said: “It’s lamentable that the senseless and tragic act of
violence that occurred in San Francisco is prompting a rush to judgment and
finger pointing: we can and should do better.  Local governments should not
be blamed for the federal government’s inability to fix our broken
immigration system nor should they be held responsible for doing the
federal government’s job.”

Mr. O’Malley  is competing for Hispanic voters as part of a larger strategy
of appealing to liberal Democrats who might see Mrs. Clinton as too
centrist for their taste. Thus far, though, he has lost ground to Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been gaining on Mrs. Clinton in surveys of
voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

*On student loans, do as  O’Malley says, not as he does
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/on-student-loans-do-as-omalley-says-not-as-he-does/2015/07/10/91ee4212-23f8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html>
// WaPo // Michelle Singletary – July 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley surrendered — just like
many other parents.

When his daughters were choosing their colleges, he let them have their
way. He didn’t want to crush their dreams, and he ended up with crushing
debt.

Last week, O’Malley spelled out a proposal to help students graduate
debt-free from public colleges and universities by increasing Pell Grants
and automatically enrolling borrowers in income-based repayment plans. One
key part of his plan calls for helping students and parents refinance their
debt at lower interest rates.

O’Malley knows of what he speaks. In announcing his proposals, he revealed
that his family has accumulated more than $339,200 in student loans, the
bulk of which are parent PLUS loans. He and his wife borrowed to educate
their daughters, Grace, 24, who attended Georgetown University and is a
public school teacher in Baltimore, and Tara, 23, who attended the College
of Charleston in South Carolina and is now an administrative assistant for
the United Nations Foundation in the District. The couple still has two
sons to get through college, William 17, and Jack, 12.

When O’Malley was governor of Maryland, he fought to have the state
universities freeze tuition. Even with his vast political and legal
experience, O’Malley couldn’t win a key argument with his daughters that
state schools were a good bargain.

“I’m blessed with strong-willed women in my life,” he gently laughed during
a phone interview while campaigning in New Hampshire. “I wanted them to go
in-state. But I lost the vote.”

I can empathize with O’Malley’s dilemma. His father, a World War II
veteran, graduated from Georgetown. His daughter pleaded to have the same
opportunity, although his father went on the G.I. Bill. And once you allow
the first child to go out-of-state, it’s hard to deny the second.

We can second-guess the wisdom of the O’Malleys’ decision, and I do. But
now that they’ve made it, I hope the family — given their public platform —
will use their experience as a cautionary tale that, for most families,
it’s not okay to cave to an 18-year-old whose dreams of a particular
college will create decades of debt.

“I don’t want to hold us up as a metaphor of every family,” O’Malley said.
“We are very lucky in that both of us are working and hopefully will
continue to work. I think one thing that is true for all of us as
Americans, it’s not good for our country or our economy to saddle
[families] with the sort of debt that we have. A lot of families don’t have
the ability to go into that sort of debt.”

Total outstanding student loan debt has reached $1.3 trillion. When we talk
about the student-loan crisis, we mostly focus on the amount of debt being
accumulated by students. But there’s not enough emphasis on the amount
parents are borrowing. PLUS loans for parents have reached almost $69
billion, according to Department of Education data.

“Better we have the debt than [our children] have the debt,” O’Malley said.

That’s a sentiment many parents hold. And even as public servants, the
O’Malleys (Katie O’Malley is a Baltimore District Court judge) may be able
to manage the debt load. But are other families really thinking through
whether they can?

As Consumers Union points out, PLUS loans, which are also available for
graduate students, have much higher borrowing limits. The organization, in
a letter urging the Department of Education not to lower borrowing
standards for PLUS loans, made some important observations.

“Loans to graduate students are made on the promise that they will see an
increase in salary from their educational attainment that enables them to
repay the loans they borrowed,” wrote Suzanne Martindale, a staff attorney
for Consumers Union. “Parents, on the other hand, do not see an increase in
their incomes from their children’s education. . . . They have no guarantee
that their children will help pay the loans back, or will even finish
school. For these reasons, allowing parents to borrow many thousands of
dollars in PLUS loans raises unique concerns.”

We’ve heard promises on the campaign trail this year about helping families
afford college. And we do need some legislative intervention so that many
people won’t be priced out of a college education.

But we also need to press upon parents and their children that dreams can
come true without going to colleges that result in a heavy debt load.

As we wrapped up our conversation, I asked O’Malley an obvious question.
What’s the plan for their sons?

“I hope to make a compelling argument with them to choose more affordable
options for their parents,” he said. “I may put your column under their
pillows.”

Hey, governor, I’m willing to do an in-person intervention.

*Martin O’Malley’s comeback plot
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/martin-omalley-2016-strategy-policy-119963.html?ml=tl_1>
// Politico // Jonathan Topaz and Gabriel Debenedetti – July 10, 2015 *

Martin O’Malley, stuck in low single digits in national and early-state
polls, has embarked on an aggressive strategy to out-wonk his rivals,
sending out a flood of super-specific policy proposals on Wall Street and
climate change and more.

But fellow Democrats who themselves have slogged through long-shot
campaigns aren’t sold.

“It’s not going to grab voters’ attentions,” said 2008 presidential
candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, of O’Malley’s policy
proposals.

“Martin O’Malley’s challenge is this: why him and not Hillary Clinton?
There’s no good reason,” said Steve Murphy, who was Dick Gephardt’s
campaign manager in 2004.

The contrast between O’Malley and his rivals can be jarring.

On the same day that Bernie Sanders rallied nearly 8,000 raucous supporters
in Portland, Maine, O’Malley was on Haitian radio discussing the
humanitarian crisis in the Dominican Republic.

And while the political world had its eyes fixed on Hillary Clinton’s first
nationally televised interview this week, O’Malley was readying to detail
policy proposals on debt-free college and financial regulation.

Running a distant third behind a popular, entrenched front-runner in
Clinton and a surging liberal firebrand in Sanders, O’Malley — whose camp
always assumed he would be the progressive alternative in the race — is
hoping that he can grab voters’ attention by staking out deeply specific
and deeply liberal positions on issues other candidates have yet to weigh
in on.

Last month, O’Malley released a white paper on climate change that vowed to
transition to 100 percent clean energy by 2050 — a bold plan that earned
the praise of billionaire Democratic donor and environmentalist Tom Steyer
(who has longstanding ties to Clinton and already hosted a fundraiser for
her).

On Wednesday, he put forth a plan to increase Pell Grants and offer
debt-free public higher education within five years. A day later, he
released a set of financial regulatory proposals that would, in part, put a
greater emphasis on criminal prosecution on Wall Street and institute a
three-year revolving door ban on regulators and Wall Street firms.

And early next week, the campaign — which has placed significant emphasis
on immigration early in the campaign — will release a similarly detailed
policy rollout on that issue.

Meanwhile, he has also pushed hard on a series of issues that are far from
the front of Clinton’s and Sanders’ minds. His statement on providing some
relief for Puerto Rico’s debt crisis came days before Clinton or Sanders
weighed in, and he remains the only candidate to talk about the crisis in
the Dominican Republic. To his team, such issues are moral ones that
distinguish O’Malley from his supposedly more poll-driven competitors.

O’Malley’s advisers say his attempt to dig in on progressive policy will
put him in a strong position in the early-voting states when it comes time
for caucus- and primary-goers to actually make up their mind.

“We’re going to be policy-heavy,” said top O’Malley strategist Bill Hyers.
“Our plan is to do a bunch of policy and have him in Iowa rolling out his
plans — talking about them in Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s where we’ll
grind it out.”

Hyers concedes that the candidate is a virtual unknown — 70 percent of Iowa
Democrats in a recent Quinnipiac survey said they didn’t know enough about
him to make an opinion.

The idea, then, is to continue to introduce the candidate to voters by
staying the course and being specific on policy, especially as Clinton
draws flak for her vague stances on issues like trade and the Iran deal.
The campaign is also presenting O’Malley as more of a heavyweight than
Sanders, who harbors a radical past.

“I lived through Howard Dean. Al Cranston won the Wisconsin straw poll in
84,” added Hyers — an implicit jab at Sanders, whom several Democrats have
compared to Dean and Cranston, who ultimately flamed out after hot starts.
“Bruce Babbitt was hot in Iowa. It was Joe Biden at some point. That’s the
fun of it.”

But Sanders has hardly been vague himself. Forcing specificity from Clinton
was a core plank of his strategy from the start, as he — like O’Malley —
has refused to go after the front-runner by name with attack ads.

Sanders, for example, has said that he wants to raise top marginal tax
rates to above 50 percent. He was one of the leaders in Congress leading
against fast-track authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He has
released a proposal on paid sick leave and a 40-hour work week. And since
launching his candidacy, he’s introduced legislation to break up so-called
Too Big to Fail banks and provide tuition-free college at four-year public
colleges.

Staking out his own position, O’Malley offered some criticism for the
latter plan on Wednesday, saying — again without naming Sanders — that
addressing tuition alone wasn’t enough.

But the liberal former governor is hardly a red-in-the-face
anti-establishment crusader like the Vermont legislator, despite his
penchant for railing against Wall Street.

Having developed a name for himself back in Maryland as a data-driven
executive, the policy roll-outs fit his style better than the massive
rallies Sanders has been headlining across the country.

“Sanders is basically seen as the anti-establishment candidate,” explained
Richardson, who found himself far behind Clinton and Obama — not to mention
John Edwards — early in the 2008 race. The New Mexican said he had reviewed
O’Malley’s climate plan, and that he has discussed foreign policy with the
Marylander as recently as a month ago. “O’Malley is seen as the progressive
establishment candidate,” he said.

Unaffiliated Democratic strategists who’ve run previous long-shot campaigns
aren’t convinced that O’Malley’s in a position to catch up to Clinton, or
even Sanders. No number of wonky or lefty policy roll-outs can make up for
his name recognition or polling deficits, they say — not to mention the
fact that there’s little room on the left as the front-runner continues to
work to win over the liberal base. And O’Malley’s organization in Iowa,
where caucus mechanisms must be built months in advance, lags as well.

“Let’s put it this way, this strategy would not get him a spot on the
Republican debate stage,” said Gina Glantz, who ran Bill Bradley’s 2000
long-shot campaign against Al Gore.

“She’s doing exactly the same thing,” added Murphy, referring to Clinton.
“She’s addressing one issue after the other in comprehensive fashion.”

Nonetheless, while many Democrats are skeptical of O’Malley’s ability to
pass Sanders anytime soon, Richardson counseled patience.

“Let the Bernie Sanders boomlet develop,” he advised. “He can’t stop it
anyway, for now.”

*How O’Malley Would Let Private Lenders Back Into Federal Student Loans
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasondelisle/2015/07/10/how-omalley-would-let-private-lenders-back-into-federal-student-loans/>
// Forbes // Jason Delisle – July 10, 2015 *

President Obama won a major victory by kicking banks out of the federal
student loan program in 2010. It was no-brainer good policy. Now Governor
Martin O’Malley is proposing to let the same banks into the program through
the back door. And expensive colleges are likely to pick up a little cash
as part of the deal.

O’Malley wants to let people with private student loans convert them to
federal student loans. The plan is a little light on details (there’s only
one sentence on his campaign webpage) but we can assume it works like this.
You have a private student loan. You file an application with the U.S.
Department of Education to “refinance” your private loan into a federal
loan. The federal government pays off your lender and issues you a new loan
with the same balance. This loan now has a lower interest rate and you can
repay it through income-based repayment or any other repayment plan the
government offers.

Here is why expensive colleges will like the plan. It makes the limits
lawmakers placed on the amount undergraduates can borrow each year in
federal loans moot. The federal loan program doesn’t let undergraduates
borrow an unlimited amount of money for a variety of good reasons (Parent
PLUS loans not withstanding). But under Governor O’Malley’s plan students
would max out federal loans and then take out even more private loans. Then
they would promptly convert the private loans to federal student loans.
That would allow them to enroll in income-based repayment and make progress
toward having their erstwhile private student loan forgiven at the expense
of taxpayers. Few policies would drive tuition up more.

Private lenders are big winners, too. Private lenders do not make loans to
anyone at any school. They underwrite, trying to gauge who is likely to
repay, who is a good bet, etc. But under Governor O’Malley’s plan they can
safely get out of the underwriting business and make loans to everyone. If
a borrower gets behind on payments the lender can inform him of the
wonderful benefits of refinancing his loan into the federal loan program.
Heck, they might even pay him to do so. The federal student loan program
can provide him no-questions-asked forbearance or loan forgiveness through
income-based repayment.

In finance lingo, O’Malley is selling private lenders a put option on every
loan they make — taxpayers bear 100 percent of the risk on each and every
loan. Make a bad loan; put it to the government at face value. In fact,
that’s a lot like how the federal loan program used to work when banks made
loans with full government guarantees.

Governor O’Malley may be the only progressive who wants taxpayers
guaranteeing student loans again. Sadly, some Republican candidates might
actually get behind this idea.

*O’Malley to speak at candidate forum in Des Moines
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#label/Clips/14e7962bc5f3e3e8> // Des
Moines Register // Jason Noble – July 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley will speak in Des Moines
on July 24 as part of a bipartisan series of candidate forums.

O’Malley is the former governor of Maryland and one of several declared
candidates for the Democratic nomination.

He’ll appear at 11:30 on July 24 at the State Historical Building in
downtown Des Moines. He’ll speak and take questions.

Attendees may RSVP ahead of the event, but are not required to do so.

The candidate forum series is organized by the Iowa Caucus Consortium, an
initiative of several Des Moines area organizations — including the Des
Moines Register — to provide educational and informational resources on the
caucuses.

The consortium aims to bring Democratic and Republican candidates alike to
Des Moines for free and open-to-the-public events in the months leading up
to the Feb. 1 caucuses.

*SANDERS*

*Bernie Sander’s misleading characterization of a controversial gun law
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/>
// WaPo // Michelle Ye Hee Lee – July 10, 2015 *

Jake Tapper: “One issue where your Democratic rivals are starting to hit
you is the fact that you have, in the past, sided with the NRA on some gun
issues. Earlier this year, the parents of one of the 12 innocent people
killed during the Aurora movie theater shooting, they saw their lawsuit to
hold ammunition sellers liable for the attack, they saw that dismissed. And
one of the reasons was a law that you voted for, which protects
manufacturers of firearms and ammunition from being sued. Why did you vote
that way?”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): “Now, the issues that you’re talking about is,
if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that
murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer
responsible? Not anymore than you would hold a hammer company responsible
if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a
lawsuit should be about.”

— exchange during a CNN interview, July 5, 2015

Sanders’s answer, which came after an aside about the low grade the
National Rifle Association gave him and the need for a sensible debate on
gun control, was circulated online amid growing attention to his record on
gun issues. His vote on the 2005 law is one of the key criticisms from
Democrats about his record.

Sanders, an Independent running for the Democratic presidential nomination,
characterized the law as providing immunity for gun manufacturers from
being sued when a gun is misused by a third party. It’s as if a hammer
manufacturer were to be held responsible if someone used the hammer to beat
someone else, he said.

Clearly, there is a difference between using a gun and using a hammer as a
weapon. Our goal is not to nitpick or play gotcha, but rather explore the
types of protection a gun manufacturer has under this law that would not
apply to other consumer-goods manufacturers — hammer or otherwise. How
accurate is Sanders’s characterization?

The Facts

Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 after
a wave of lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers by municipalities and
gun-control advocates. Some of this can get technical, so bear with us.

Victims accused manufacturers of creating “public nuisance” and not doing
enough to ensure safe distribution of guns or prevent the flow of guns into
illegal markets. They alleged that manufacturers were oversupplying the
industry (and therefore knew that some of the guns would end up on the
black market) and that they marketed the guns by promoting attributes that
could be associated with criminal activities.

Advocates for gunmakers argued that these lawsuits threatened Second
Amendment rights and that law-abiding manufacturers should not be held
liable for criminal actions of individuals. They pushed for the 2005 law,
which generally shielded manufacturers and sellers of firearms and
ammunition from civil lawsuits “resulting from criminal or unlawful misuse”
of their product by a third party.

The law’s proponents, including the NRA, argued it was necessary to block
baseless lawsuits that threatened to bankrupt the firearms industry.
Opponents said it gave unprecedented blanket immunity and took away
consumer rights. The Fact Checker takes no position on the law.

The bill passed the House (where Sanders was at the time) 223 to 140, with
59 Democrats voting with the majority.

Interestingly, just five years earlier, the Clinton administration had
reached an unprecedented deal with a major gun manufacturer, Smith &
Wesson, to adopt safety measures. The agreement nearly ruined the company,
as revenues declined 40 percent within a year amid an NRA boycott and
criticism from gun advocates.

The 2005 law does not guarantee blanket immunity, and it has some
exceptions. Manufacturers or dealers can be sued if they knowingly sold a
product that would be used to commit a crime. They can be sued if they were
negligent in selling the product to someone they knew was unfit (i.e., a
child or someone who was drunk). They can be sued for another technical
negligence claim (“negligence per se”) that relates to the violation of a
safety statute. The law bars any other type of negligence claims against a
gun manufacturer.

Still, it provides a unique federal legal shield that most consumer goods
manufacturers do not have.

Negligence claims in tort law allow consumers to sue for negligence caused
by carelessness, which doesn’t always involve a violation of the law or
knowingly entrusting someone unfit to handle the product, said Timothy
Lytton, a Georgia State University law professor who specializes in tort
law and gun policies. (For example, doctors can be sued for carelessness
and negligence in medical malpractice. You can sue a supermarket if you
slip and are injured, and the market did not display a “wet floor” sign.)

While the law allows victims to sue if there was a design defect or a
malfunction with the gun, there have been exceptions. For example, the
Illinois Supreme Court in 2009 cited the law in dismissing a case where a
young boy playing with his father’s gun accidentally shot and killed his
friend. The victim’s family sued the gun manufacturer, saying the gun did
not have proper safety features or proper warnings. The court found the
plaintiffs did not fit the technical definition in the exception.

“If the gun is defectively designed so that when fired it explodes and
injures the shooter’s hand, they can sue for that. The suit that’s barred
is by a crime victim who wants to say that a different design could have
prevented or mitigated the crime,” said Kermit Roosevelt III, a University
of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor specializing in Second
Amendment and gun-control laws.

Few industries have federal liability immunity. Vaccine manufacturers have
limited protection from lawsuits if their vaccine led to an injury. The
federal government enacted this immunity to encourage companies to produce
more vaccines without the fear of lawsuits, for their benefit to public
health. Another example is federal protection for the airline industry from
lawsuits arising from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But unlike the gun law,
both cases established a compensation scheme for victims to recover money
for damages.

While the law provides protections that no other industry has, courts have
been reluctant to impose liability on manufacturers for third-party misuse
of the product, said John Goldberg, Harvard Law School professor who
specializes in product liability. So the types of lawsuits that Sanders
mentioned (for hammers or guns) didn’t have a slam-dunk chance in court
before this law came about. Instead, this law ensures that those types of
lawsuits can’t be brought against gun manufacturers.

Sanders’s spokesman, Michael Briggs, said in a statement: “Bernie’s
position is that a manufacturer should not be held liable for the illegal
and unintended use of its product.”

The Pinocchio Test

As Sanders says, under the 2005 law, gun manufacturers are not held
responsible if a murderer uses their gun to kill someone. But it does more
than that. It gives broad protections to gun manufacturers, including for
negligence, and can protect them from being sued in certain types of claims
relating to the gun’s design. The Illinois case is one example where this
immunity was cited to dismiss a lawsuit over the safety features of a gun
that was accidentally fired by a boy. That type of technical protection
would not apply to someone using a hammer.

Further, Sanders’s comparison makes it seem as if this lawsuit came about
solely because people were suing gun manufacturers for making guns that
somehow fell in the hands of criminals. But that is not exactly the case.
Advocates and cities were suing manufacturers alleging their actions were
increasing the risk that guns would fall into criminal hands. The gun
industry then responded with legislation to shut down those lawsuits.
Sanders’s statement is misleading and a simplification of this complex case.

Two Pinocchios

*Sanders Makes Play for Caucus States
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-makes-play-for-caucus-states-1436550252>
// WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 10, 2015 *

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been showing up in unexpected places:
Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, states that seldom see a candidate at this
early point in a presidential-primary campaign.

Drawing large, boisterous crowds, Mr. Sanders’s travel itinerary may seem a
quixotic hunt for the most liberal pockets of the Democratic Party that
relish his anti-Wall Street, pro-tax-and-spend messages. It isn’t.

Mr. Sanders is making a play for caucus states rather than traditional
primaries. His goal is to mobilize his passionate, grass-roots backers and
rack up enough delegates to pose a real challenge to Hillary Clinton. It is
a tactic President Barack Obama successfully used against Mrs. Clinton in
2008, which raises the bar for Mr. Sanders. Can he pull off a repeat?

“It’s something we’ve thought about for a while,” said Tad Devine, an
adviser to the Sanders campaign. “A few thousand people can make a big
difference in those early caucus states, so that’s a big part of the
strategy.”

Of the 57 states and territories that will hold contests in the Democratic
primary, about one-third use caucuses to determine the winner. Last month,
Mr. Sanders spoke to almost 5,000 people in Colorado, a state tentatively
set to hold its caucus on March 1. He addressed more than 7,500 people
earlier this week in Maine, where a caucus is now set for March 6.

Craig Hughes, a Democratic strategist who served as a Colorado senior
adviser to Mr. Obama’s two presidential bids, said the Sanders strategy
makes sense, though it isn’t at all certain he can parlay the early
enthusiasm into concrete support in the caucuses.

“What you saw in Denver was a very large crowd for Sanders, but I don’t see
much ability to grow that for him as I see the potential for Hillary here,”
Mr. Hughes said.

Iowa, the state that kicks off the nomination contests, is also a caucus
state, and Mr. Sanders is spending ample time and money there, too. After
collecting $15 million in campaign donations in the last quarter, he has
hired 27 people in Iowa, compared with five in New Hampshire, which holds a
traditional primary election. Mrs. Clinton, who raised three times as much
as Mr. Sanders in that same time frame, has 47 organizers on the ground in
Iowa.

In his book about the 2008 campaign, “The Audacity to Win,” former Obama
Campaign Manager David Plouffe wrote that “the Clinton campaign was
essentially ceding caucus states.”

Not this time, her advisers said.

One of her most important hires may turn out to be Jeff Berman, who helped
execute the 2008 Obama campaign’s strategy of capitalizing on the often
arcane caucus rules to maximize his delegate take.

Asked to contrast the present-day Clinton campaign with the 2008 model, one
senior campaign manager ruefully made the point that this time around, Team
Clinton grasps that caucus states can’t be ignored because—no less than
states that hold primaries—they help candidates amass the delegates needed
to clinch the nomination.

Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist who is now part of the pro-Clinton
super PAC Priorities USA Action, recalled Mrs. Clinton’s decision to fly
around Iowa in a helicopter at one point in the 2008 race. “You couldn’t
have had a worse way to approach Iowans than flying around in a helicopter
like the Queen of England,” Mr. Begala said.

In April, after announcing her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton visited Iowa before
any other state, eschewing a chartered helicopter and opting for a road
trip from her New York home in a van she dubbed “Scooby-Doo.”

In an interview with CNN this week, Mrs. Clinton said: “One of the things
that I learned last time is it’s organize, organize, organize.” She now has
a supporter in each of Iowa’s 1,682 election precincts, the campaign said.

Still, Mr. Sanders’s large crowds have raised worries inside the Clinton
camp. Rightly so, said Troy Jackson, a Maine Democrat. In 2008, he backed
Mrs. Clinton; now he supports Mr. Sanders. “Obama never had crowds like
that,” he said.

*Bernie defends Jeb’s ‘longer hours’ comment
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-jeb-bush-longer-hours-comment-react-119948.html?hp=l3_4>
// Politico // Nick Gass—July 10, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders on Friday defended Jeb Bush’s remarks that Americans need to
work longer hours, acknowledging that Bush was “absolutely correct” if he
was referring to the need for more full-time jobs than part-time jobs.

“Well, of course we need full-time jobs rather than part-time jobs, but to
suggest that people have got to work harder —Chris, here’s the fact: People
in the United States of America today are working the longest hours of a
people of any major industrialized countries,” Sanders said in an interview
on CNN’s “New Day” with Chris Cuomo.

Bush came under fire from his presidential race rivals, including Hillary
Clinton and Sanders, for his comments late Wednesday, which reminded some
of Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” moment.

But Bush quickly clarified that he was referring the millions of people who
want full-time employment and can’t find it, and has found some success in
defusing the situation.

In the interview on Friday morning, Sanders also acknowledged that he will
not be able to avoid having every part of his personal life scrutinized as
he runs for the Democratic presidential nomination. But politicians and the
media should not turn it into a soap opera, he said.

The self-described democratic socialist candidate addressed a POLITICO
Magazine article in which Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs confirmed that
Sanders had his only son Levi in a relationship outside of his first
marriage.

The United States, Sanders said, “faces enormous problems, and I think it’s
incumbent upon political leaders and the media to focus on those issues and
not make politics into a soap opera.”

He also partially defended Democratic rival Hillary Clinton against what he
called “unjustified attacks,” urging a focus on the issues rather than the
people. At the same time, Sanders noted his policy differences with the
former secretary of state and his former Senate colleague.

“I am prepared to break up the large financial institutions because I feel
that Wall Street has too much power. She has not been clear on that. So you
know, I’m not going to be beating her up and attacking her in personal
ways,” he said. “I like her.”

*The One Point on Which Bernie Sanders Agrees With Jeb Bush
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/the-one-point-on-which-bernie-sanders-agrees-with-jeb-bush>
// Bloomberg // Arit John – July 10, 2015 *

News flash: Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders just said
Republican presidential rival Jeb Bush is right about something. Sort of.

One day after saying Bush "does not seem to understand what is happening in
our economy today," Sanders, Vermont's democratic socialist senator,
grudgingly acknowledged Friday that he may actually agree on at least one
aspect of the former Florida governor's views.

At issue: Bush's much-discussed interview with the New Hampshire Union
Leader editorial board on Wednesday in which Bush said that improving the
economy means "that people need to work longer hours and through their
productivity gain more income for their families."

On Friday, CNN's "New Day" host Chris Cuomo asked Sanders if he'd been
unfair, given that Bush seemed to be talking about the need for more
full-time jobs, as opposed to part-time work.

"Of course we need full time jobs rather than part time jobs, but to
suggest that people have gotta work harder..." Sanders said, adding that
Americans work some of the longest hours of any major industrialized
country. "So what we need to do is raise wages and income not force our
people, who are already stressed out by long hours, to work even more
hours."

Cuomo pushed him, and said that Sanders needed to be "consistent" if he
wanted to stay above the board of dirty politics.

"Well if he is talking about the need for more full-time jobs rather than
part-time jobs he's absolutely correct. That's what we have to do," Sanders
said.

In an earlier statement released after Bush's comment, Sanders said that
"[u]nfortunately ... Gov. Bush does not seem to understand what is
happening in our economy today." Hillary Clinton also criticized Bush in a
tweet:

Bush pushed back on Thursday. "You can take it out of context all you want,
but high sustained growth means people work 40 hours rather than 30 hours
and that by our success they have disposable income for their families to
decide how they want to spend it rather than standing in line and being
dependent upon government," he said.

Sanders was less willing to go after Hillary Clinton. Cuomo mentioned that
Clinton has "trust issues"—specifically, a June CNN poll found that 57
percent of Americans don't consider her to be honest and trustworthy.

"Look, I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I respect her. I like
her," Sanders said. His criticism of her lies with her stances, or lack of
stances, on issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and breaking up large
financial institutions.

The interview also touched on a new Politico profile, which reports that
Sanders has a son born out of wedlock. Cuomo asked Sanders if he thinks he
can continue to run his campaign without opening up more about his personal
life.

Sanders said he couldn't avoid it, but would rather focus on the issues,
given the problems the country is facing. "I think it's incumbent on
political leaders and media to focus on those issues and not make politics
into a soap opera," he said.

*Sanders dings Bush on work, ducks personal questions
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/bernie-sanders-jeb-bush-work-hours/index.html>
// CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 10, 2015 *

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders hit Republican contender Jeb Bush for
his comments on the productivity of American workers and said he was best
positioned to take on the nation's "billionaire class" if elected president.

The Vermont senator, who identifies as a Democratic socialist, said that 85
percent of men and 65 percent of women are working more than 40 hours a
week.

"So what we need to do is raise wages and income, not force more people,
who are already stressed out by long hours, to work even more hours,"
Sanders said on CNN's "New Day".

Jeb Bush told The Union Leader in New Hampshire Wednesday that "people need
to work longer hours", which quickly drew a blast from frontrunner Hillary
Clinton, who accused Bush of not understanding how hard Americans already
work.

The Bush team explained his comments were taken out of context and said he
meant that more part-time workers need full time jobs.

When pressed on if he was twisting Bush's comments, which Bush has said
were about the availability of good full time jobs an not about American
work ethic, Sanders relented.

"If he is talking about the need for more full time jobs than part time
jobs he is absolutely correct," Sanders said.

Sanders has been gaining ground on frontrunner Hillary Clinton steadily, as
the liberal wing of the Democratic party has coalesced behind him. As he
has inched forward, personal questions from his past have bubbled up in
media.

Asked about a Politico story on the child he had out of wedlock almost 40
years ago, Sanders deflected, saying he wanted to focus instead on issues.
CNN's Chris Cuomo asked Sanders if he believed he could avoid personal
scrutiny while running for president.

"I'm not being naïve, I understand it, yes," Sanders said. "No, no, I don't
think I can avoid it. But this this country faces enormous problems and I
think it's incumbent upon political leaders and the media to focus on those
issues and not make politics into a soap opera."

*Bernie Sanders: The Cable Bill Is Too Damn High
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-cable_n_7772806.html>
// HuffPo // Zach Carter – July 10, 2015 *

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter
on Friday accusing big cable companies of using monopoly powers to muscle
consumers into paying higher prices.

In the letter, addressed to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom
Wheeler, Sanders and Warren wrote that mega-mergers have left over 60
percent of Americans with no choice whatsoever when it comes to their cable
and Internet providers. This state of things, they wrote, makes it possible
for companies to jack up prices without losing customers to competition.
Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also signed the letter.

"As the telecommunications industry becomes increasingly concentrated, this
lack of choice has resulted in huge price increases and often poor service
for consumers," the senators wrote. "There are now de facto
telecommunications monopolies throughout the United States."

The letter noted that a new merger between Time Warner Cable and Charter
Communications would only exacerbate the problem, saying that recent Time
Warner price increases suggest the cable giant is already insulated from
normal market pressures. Modem rental charges for Time Warner have jumped
203 percent since they were introduced in 2012, according to the letter.
The FCC has the power to block the TWC-Charter deal.

"Given the lack of incentive for companies to provide better quality
service and competitive prices, it is no surprise that individuals rank
cable and Internet providers last in customer satisfaction when compared to
other companies in other industries," the senators wrote.

Sanders and his colleagues asked for the FCC to publish a host of cable and
broadband pricing data, so consumers could see how much they pay compared
to customers in other areas. They asked the FCC to provide average prices
for each state and each cable provider, and also asked the agency to
publicize the average prices in urban areas compared to those in rural
markets.

*Bernie Sanders: Income Tax Proposal To Come “In Two Or Three Weeks”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/sanders-says-income-tax-proposal-to-come-in-two-three-weeks#.tc3Pav34Y>
// BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 10, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders said on Friday that he would have a concrete proposal for an
income tax rate on the highest earners “in two or three weeks.”

The Democratic presidential candidate was discussing legislation he has
introduced as a senator from Vermont that he says “would end this business
of companies being able to store their profits in the Cayman Islands” and
tax “Wall Street speculation,” when he was asked to name his preferred tax
rate on the upper echelon of individual incomes.

“We’re working on that,” Sanders said on a New Hampshire radio station.
“Ask me that question in two or three weeks, I will give you a definitive
answer. How’s that?”

In late May, Sanders said that, under the Eisenhower administration, the
top tax rate “was something like 90 percent,” and said he didn’t think that
was necessarily too high a rate to reinstate.

In June, Sanders alluded to “a comprehensive tax package” his team was
working on and said he suspected that it would, “for the top marginal
rates, go over 50 percent.”

In the interview on Friday, Sanders said that the plan to be released in
the coming weeks would “ask the rich to pay a higher tax rate.”

“In general, what I can tell you is that when Warren Buffett tells us that
he pays an effective tax rate lower than his secretaries or lower than
nurses, there’s something wrong with our tax system,” he said, after again
refusing to give a specific number. “So yes, my proposal will ask the
wealthiest people in this country, who, by and large, are doing
phenomenally well right now, while the middle class is disappearing, yes, I
will ask the rich to pay a higher tax rate.”

*Bernie Sanders Is The Left’s Trump
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/11/bernie-sanders-is-the-left-s-trump.html>
// Daily Beast // Ana Marie Cox – July 10, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is the Left’s Donald Trump.

Bear with me here. There is a lot they don’t have in common, including
where they stand in their respective party’s polls—though Sanders’ slow
creep into a distant second is likely to be more sustainable. Still, they
have both managed to disrupt their respective nomination races, and they’ve
done that because they both have a similar appeal: They’ve tapped into
anti-establishment passions with rhetoric that is a kind of
wish-fulfillment fantasy for some voters. “He has the guts to say what
others won’t” could be the slogan for either of them.

I don’t want to gloss over the content of that gut-driven bluntness. In
Trump’s case, just because he’s saying what others won’t doesn’t mean what
he’s saying is true. And it’s fair to point out that Trump’s
lowest-common-denominator xenophobia is a sugar high kind populism: it’s
cheap and easily reproduced but difficult to sustain. Sanders, on the other
hand, offers a chewier and less visceral version of “us-versus-them”:
discussions about income inequality and financial regulatory policy don’t
create the same kind of direct line to voters’ emotions that Trump’s talk
of rapists and thieves travels on.

The media is covering them in a similar fashion, too, though that’s mainly
a function of how the political media cover campaigns in general. The story
is the process, not the messages or ideas. “Analysis” consists of asking,
“What this will do the race?” and not, “What does it mean for voters?”
Granted, only one of the candidates in question has ideas to cover. Indeed,
Sanders reliance on a few big ideas—not personality, not easy outrage—is
one of the reasons coverage of Sanders’ rise has an element of arch
bemusement. Note The New York Times: “Somehow, Bernie Sanders, the
73-year-old senator from Vermont, has emerged as a king of social media.”
Somehow!

“I think we need to just cut to the chase and have a real
libertarian/conservative go up against Elizabeth Warren or avowed socialist
Bernie Sanders.”

Trump coverage, of course, is more straightforwardly mocking (I highly
recommend the Trump Chrome extension). While everyone wonders what Trump’s
rise might do to the GOP race, no one is wondering how it is he got as far
as he did. Just ask any of the other, “more serious” candidates, whose
reluctance to criticize Trump proves that his only real divergence from the
Republican mainstream is stylistic, not substantive.

On the other hand, there are real policy differences between Sanders and
the Democratic leadership—that’s why he wasn’t a Democrat until recently,
after all. Moderate Democrats have been denouncing Sanders with a vigor
conspicuously absent from the intraparty Trump conversation: Missouri
Senator Claire McCaskill complained, “I very rarely read in any coverage of
Bernie that he’s a socialist” and declared him “too liberal” to be
president.

Put it another way: When Democratic base voters flock to Sanders, they are
expressing dissatisfaction what current Democratic policies. When
Republican base voters flock to Trump, they are expressing dissatisfaction
with Republican rhetoric.

But I said I was going to talk about what they had in common, and that’s
easy enough here: whether its rhetorically or policy-wise, Trump and
Sanders supporters are asking their parties to move away from the
center—or, perhaps more clearly stated, away from each other.

Indeed, there are those on both sides who long for a Trump-Sanders
match-up. It would, on some level, be a battle of caricatures—as defined by
the opposing side. And what about the Democrats who would love to see Trump
get the nomination? And Republicans who’d like to see Sanders? They
envision that contest as referendum more than an election, a chance to
finally and fatally eject the other side from the political spectrum. As
Glenn Beck put it recently: “I think we need to just cut to the chase and
have a real libertarian/conservative go up against Elizabeth Warren or
avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. This country could finally make up its
mind based on two honest and completely different visions of the future of
this country.”

A nation born of revolution is given to absolutes, of course. (“Give me
liberty or give me death,” no middle ground, etc.) But the Founders never
thought we’d be using those words against each other. Beck and others frame
the prospect of two extremists as a contest of “visions” but both sides are
actually color blind: Everything is black and white. One side is totally
wrong; one side is totally right. This zero-sum mentality and vengeful
nihilism threaten to turn government into just another WWE show, a cage
match of ideologies.

Left unspoken in these hyperbolic hypotheticals is what happens if the
other guy’s caricature wins. That 50-50 chance of total validation is just
too blinding, I guess. But what happens if their own caricature wins, more
often than not, is just as vague. It’s standard practice to snigger when
asking a supporter of a fringe candidate (though neither Trump nor Sanders
are really fringe) what will happen were their dream president actually to
sit down in the Oval Office. The objectively ridiculous proposition of a
President Sanders or a President Trump actually trying to govern is
supposed to destabilize the fantasy.

But the attraction of a Sanders or Trump presidency for true believers
isn’t the opportunity to govern all of us, but the chance to punish the
rest of us.

In June, the South Carolina Highway Patrol honor guard carried the mortal
remains of the murdered Sen. Clementa Pinckney up the State House steps and
into the rotunda.

Members of the honor guard flanked the open coffin, spit polished and
erect, eyes straight ahead in a silent show of respect as thousands of
mourners filed past. A black cloth had been draped over one of the windows
to spare anyone who might be offended by the Confederate battle flag flying
out front.

A bill called the Heritage Act passed in this very building prevented the
flag from being lowered even to half-staff, much less taken down without a
two-thirds vote of the legislature.

But on Thursday, the legislature voted to do just that and set a 24-hour
deadline on having it done.

On Friday, the honor guard returned, this this time to lower the
Confederate battle flag, which had been designed by William Porcher Miles,
a onetime mayor of Charleston who had been a prominent “fire-eater,” as the
most ardent proponents of slavery and secession leading up to the Civil War
were called.

The honor guard had performed countless other ceremonies, but this one was
a little different. And they had not been given much time to work out
exactly how it should go.

The flag was being taken down in the first place because it was seen by
many people—African-Americans in particular—as a hateful symbol of slavery
and oppression. Some rightly view it as a shameful banner of treason.

“Nothing was said. I felt like that was appropriate.”

But it had been hoisted there in the first place because it is viewed by
others—none of them African-Americans—as a symbol of an idealized heritage
and history.

And the very fact that the honor guard had been chosen to lower it was an
implicit nod to those people.

At the appointed time on Friday morning, the guard went about lowering the
flag with the same ritualistic respect as it would with the Stars and
Stripes.

Two of the officers took the lowered banner in their white gloved hands.

And for a moment, it seemed as if they might fold it as they would an
American flag that had covered the coffin of a fellow cop or a U.S. solider
who had made the supreme sacrifice.

Instead, they rolled it, presumably an echo of the way Confederate
regiments furled their battle flags in surrender at the end of the Civil
War.

A black sergeant was the one who then took the furled banner. He had done
this at American flag ceremonies where race was not issue, but it was hard
to believe that he had been chosen by chance in this instance.

He seemed to be an attempt to compensate for the bigotry associated with
what he now carried so solemnly over to the State House steps. The director
of the South Carolina Relic Room and Military Museum waited to receive it.

For a second, truly terrible moment, the ritual was too much like that
performed when the flag from a hero’s coffin is presented to a grieving
loved one along with the words, “On behalf of a grateful nation.…”

Thankfully, the sergeant uttered not a word. The director, Allen Roberson,
was also silent as he took the furled flag.

“Nothing was said,” Roberson later told The Daily Beast. “I felt like that
was appropriate.”

Roberson was escorted up into the State House.

“I just wanted to make sure I didn’t trip when I was carrying the flag,” he
recalled.

He then descended to the basement, where an armored car was waiting to
transport the flag to the museum.

Upon arriving, Robeson brought the flag in through a back door. The flag
was unrolled, smoothed and carefully folded.

“So it wouldn’t crease,” Roberson said.

The museum’s registrar, Rachel Cockrell, and an intern named John
Faulkenberry placed it in an “acid-free textile storage box, padded with
acid-free tissue.” The box was stored in the museum’s “secure,
climate-controlled Artifact Storage area.”

“Locked and alarmed,” Roberson said.

150710-daly-confederate-embed

Courtesy of the SC Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum

Roberson dismissed as not entirely accurate reports that there had been a
tacit agreement as part of a legislative compromise to store the flag in a
multimillion-dollar facility funded by the taxpayers—which would include,
necessarily, the descendants of slaves.

He allowed that there had been some brainstorming with various architects
and planners, but nothing had been decided and whatever was ultimately done
would not likely be so grand.

He noted that he has not been able to get added funding for anything in
recent years.

“Our budget has not increased at all,” he said.

Back at the State House, the flagpole where the banner had flown was now
bare, but a monument to the Confederate dead remained. The inscription on
the north side reads:

“This monument

perpetuates the memory,

of those who

true to the instincts of their birth,

faithful to the teachings of their fathers,

constant in their love for the State,

died in the performance of their duty:

Who

have glorified a fallen cause

by the simple manhood of their lives,

the patient endurance of suffering,

and the heroism of death,

and who,

in the dark house of imprisonment,

in the hopelessness of the hospital,

in the short, sharp agony of the field

found support and consolation

in the belief

that at home they would not be forgotten.

Unveiled May 13, 1879”

The fallen cause they glorified included sedition and slavery. The people
at home included slaves who had suffered horrors that outdid even war.

There is also an inscription on the north side:

“Let the stranger,

who may in the future times

read this inscription,

recognize that these were men

whom power could not corrupt,

whom death could not terrify,

whom defeat could not dishonor

and let their virtues plead

for just judgment

of the cause in which they perished.

Let the South Carolinian

of another generation

remember

that the State taught them

how to live and how to die.

And that from her broken fortunes

she has preserved for her children

the priceless treasure of their memories,

teaching all who may claim

the same birthright

that truth, courage and patriotism

endure forever.”

The truth is they died fighting to deny fellow human beings the right to
life and liberty. Their legacy is racism and hate.

The flowery falsehoods on the monument remain, now that the flag has been
taken down in somber ceremony with white gloved hands and tucked safely
away by a very nice museum director in an acid-free box, locked and alarmed.

*Bernie Sanders is the Ron Paul of 2016
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/247470-bernie-sanders-is-the-ron-paul-of-2016>
// The Hill // Eddie Zipperer – July 10, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the Ron Paul of the 2016 election — with his
enormous crowds, a network of hardcore supporters and an iconoclasm that
seems to transcend the politics-as-usual establishment.

But none of that will be enough to carry him to victory. The fringe
candidate drawing huge crowds and surging in the polls because he appeals
to the party base is nothing new. He'll strut and fret his hour upon the
stage and then be heard no more — just like then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in
2012.

Here's how Nina Malika Henderson summed up the state of the Paul campaign
in The Washington Post on April 1, 2012: "[E]nthusiastic crowds who love
Paul's fierce independence but fail to carry him to victory at the polls.
After running in 30 states and gaining a scant 50 delegates, according to
the Associated Press, Paul has learned a hard lesson: Crowds don't vote."

Sanders is going to learn the same lesson in a few months.

Geoffrey Skelley, associate editor of Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball at the
University of Virginia Center for Politics, had this to say about Sanders's
crowds:

Most of the places we've seen him draw huge crowds are exactly the kinds of
spots where we might expect it: whiter urban areas like Denver and
Minneapolis (compared to most big cities), liberal college towns like
Madison, Wis., and now most recently in very white Portland, Maine, the
most liberal part of the Pine Tree State. National polling hasn't shown
Sanders making in-roads with nonwhite voters, and much of his support is
coming from whites who are particularly liberal.

Progressive media outlets will continue to cite enormous crowds,
cherry-picked state polls and a general feeling of Bernie-mania in order to
push the narrative that Hillary Clinton is being seriously challenged.

In late 2011 to early 2012, Paul had a media surge very similar to what
Sanders is experiencing now.

When Paul spoke at UCLA to a crowd of 6,000 to 7,000 people jammed into an
over-capacity stadium, one wire service reported that Paul fans who
couldn't get in were "climbing nearby trees to see the speech."

Stories of Paul's rise in the Iowa polls were ubiquitous for weeks.

But you know how the story ends: with former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.)
coasting over the finish line and beating Paul by a count of nearly 1,400
delegates.

Paul had niche appeal, but not mass appeal. Any argument that Sanders will
be different — that he'll score the mass appeal that Paul lacked — is two
parts hope and zero parts reality.

Sanders's power to rise in the polls is going to slam headfirst into the
socialist ceiling. It makes no difference what the word "socialism" means
to Sanders or his supporters. A Gallup poll from June 22 showed that while
74 percent of Americans would vote for a gay or lesbian presidential
candidate, 73 percent would vote for an evangelical Christian and 60
percent would vote for a Muslim, only 47 percent of Americans would vote
for a socialist presidential candidate.

Then, there's money. If the rest of Sanders's problems don't shut his
campaign down, the money problem will. Michael Hagen, associate professor
of political science at Temple University, points out that "Sanders's
funding situation will make it difficult for him to let Democrats know who
he is and what he stands for."

The largest differences between Paul and Sanders are the advantages Paul
enjoyed, which Sanders does not.

In order for Sanders — a candidate on the party's fringe — to win, he would
need serious challengers to divide and conquer the Clinton coalition.
Former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.), former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and
former Gov. Lincoln Chaffee (D-R.I.) are practically nonexistent. Vice
President Biden puts a small dent in Clinton's lead (as we've seen when his
name is removed from polls). But Sanders fanatics need Biden and a second
establishment challenger to step in. Preferably a big-name Democrat who is
within an ideological arm's length of Clinton.

My goal is not to pour cold water on the hopes of Sanders fans. It is
simply to hold a mirror up to nature and present the reality of his
situation — a reality being ignored by the left-wing media where many
Sanders fans turn to for their news.

Partisan news sources are food for intellectual dishonesty. The real story
about candidates like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders is the same every four
years: big crowds, big hype, big loss.

*Sanders: ‘We have got to apologize for slavery’
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanders-we-have-got-to-apologize-for-slavery/article/2568017>
// Washington Examiner // Barbara Boland – July 10, 2015 *

"As a nation, we have got to apologize for slavery" Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., said during a recent Sirius XM interview.

Host Joe Madison of Sirius XM's "The Black Eagle" asked Sanders, "If
elected president of the United States, would you apologize for slavery?"

"You know, obviously, nobody in this generation is involved in slavery,"
replied Sanders. "But as a nation, slavery is one of the abominations that
our country has experienced. There is no excuse. What can we say about it?
It was horrific, it killed millions of people who never made it even across
the oceans, and it destroyed just the lives of so many people."

"So as a nation – and I don't think as a president, but as a nation – we
have got to apologize for slavery, of course," Sanders said.

"So is that a yes or a no?" asked Madison.

"Well, it's … I mean … I'm not exactly sure what it means," replied Sanders
haltingly. "As a nation, we have got to apologize for slavery; and of
course, the president is the leader of the nation."

While a recent poll found that Sanders trailed Democrat rival Hillary
Clinton by only 12 points in New Hampshire, Sanders garners the support of
only 5 percent of black Democrats according to a poll by Fox News.

The latest RealClearPolitics poll shows Clinton leading Sanders in the
Democrat nomination by 48 points.

*Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders defends past votes on gun control
measures
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-defends-votes-gun-control-measures-article-1.2287649>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 10, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders defended his past opposition to some gun control measures in
a testy exchange Thursday night.

The Vermont senator and fast-rising progressive primary challenger to
Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination doubled down on
his past votes to block people from suing gun manufacturers and allow
people to check guns in their baggage on Amtrak trains.

Sanders was confronted at an appearance by Honora Laszlo, the local
chairwoman of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, who criticized
him for his votes and statements opposing some gun control measures.

“If somebody has a gun and somebody steals that gun and shoots somebody, do
you really think it makes sense to blame the manufacturer of that weapon?”
Sanders said, before he and Laszlo began talking over one another.

“If somebody assaults you with a baseball bat, you hit somebody over the
head, you’re not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer,” Sanders
continued. “There’s going to have to be some compromises on both sides. So
I don’t apologize for that vote."

Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, is a hardline liberal on
most issues. His economic populism has been earning him plaudits from
progressives, generating enthusiasm with the liberal Democratic base and
pumping up his poll numbers in early voting states. But he has a mixed
record on gun control, and Clinton is to his left on an issue that’s
crucial to many progressives.

The senator touted his votes to ban assault weapons, create instant
background checks and close the gun show loophole, arguing that Democrats
need to end the culture wars over guns to get “common-sense solutions”
through.

“We can argue all that we want between Vermont and Montana and urban
America about guns. We are not going to succeed,” he said.

Laszlo said she’d been a longtime Sanders fan and told the Daily News
afterward that she arrived hoping he would walk away from his past
positions because she’s not crazy about Clinton.

“He was dishonest in the way he talked about it. He is using this language
that the NRA and their supporters use to polarize people,” she said. “I
really hoped that if I gave him the chance to walk those statements back
that he would, and instead he just really threw a bunch of smoke out.”

*Bernie’s Big Break With the Left on Guns
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns>
// US News and World Report // David Catanese – July 10, 2015 *

As a lifelong Bernie Sanders fan, Honora Laszlo was hoping for the best
when she came to a forum here Thursday night to challenge the Vermont
senator and presidential candidate on his gun control position.

The avowed socialist Sanders voted in 2005 to prohibit lawsuits against gun
manufacturers when crimes are committed with their weapons. In the wake of
the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, he told a
home-state media outlet that stronger gun control legislation wouldn't have
prevented the shootings.

This bothered Laszlo, a member of the local chapter for Gun Sense In
America, who agrees with Sanders on virtually every other issue. So she
stood up to pointedly pin him down on the matter, seeking a conversion or
at least a concession. Instead, she got a confrontation – which illuminated
Sanders' weakest spot with liberals in his long-shot quest for the
Democratic Party nomination.

Laszlo first wanted to know how Sanders could claim that further gun
control measures wouldn't prevent future mass casualty tragedies. She then
pressed for an explanation on his 2005 vote.

A defender of the Second Amendment from a rural state, Sanders explained he
knows tens of thousands of his constituents who hunt and target practice
safely and lawfully. He stressed he has voted for a ban on assault weapons,
in favor of instant background checks and to close the gun-show loophole
covering private sales.

But not unlike many conservatives from the heartland of America, Sanders
asserted that it would be folly to make Burlington and Boston live under
the same gun laws.

"The overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect
guns and are law-abiding people. That's the truth," he said. "We will not
succeed on this terribly important issue if we continue the cultural
warfare between urban America and rural America."

But his answer on why gun manufacturers should be shielded from civil
lawsuits is what really irked Laszlo.

"If somebody sells you a baseball bat and you hit somebody over the head,
you're not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer," Sanders said, to a
smattering of applause among a mostly liberal audience. "I don't apologize
for that vote."

Afterward, Laszlo called that analogy "ridiculous" and felt Sanders was
employing language that mimicked the "dog-whistling" of the National Rifle
Association. (The lawmaker's current grade from the NRA is still an F.)

"[Baseball bats] have other uses. The guns we're talking about only are
designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time," she says.
"It's not about whether people like guns or don't. This honest conversation
he's talking about is not at all rural versus urban because there's a lot
of people that are killed in rural communities all the time."

Whereas Sanders posited that he had a balanced record on gun control that
heeds to his state's culture but acknowledges the nationwide problem,
Laszlo found his language as polarizing as some on the right.

"He reinforces the idea in people on the other side of the divide that this
is about people hating them and about people hating guns. This is not. This
is about safety," she says.

A super PAC supporting former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has also
identified gun control as Sanders' weak spot, running an ad targeting the
very issue concerning Laszlo. "Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it
comes to guns," it blares.

Additionally, Hillary Clinton has been more vocal on gun violence in recent
weeks, promising to speak out against the "gun lobby" and "uncontrollable
use of guns in our country." She has yet to directly frame a contrast with
Sanders.

But the line of attack hasn't gained serious traction yet, mostly because
liberals have prioritized Sanders' withering message of economic inequality
over all else.

"These Vermonters like their guns, but ya know, we go along with that,"
says Madi Green, a Sanders fan in the audience who also disagrees with his
gun control stand. "You just say, 'OK, they're hunters,' you pardon them.'

But Laszlo isn't giving him a pass.

She was yearning for him to change her mind: "He absolutely could've, if he
had talked about it in a different way."

Instead, she walked out of Thursday's forum unable to support him.

"A lot of us were super Bernie Sanders supporters before," she says. "We
were all really disappointed to hear him talk about it in this way that is
boilerplate NRA language."

*Did Bernie Sanders vote against background checks and waiting periods for
gun purchases?
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/>
// PolitiFact // Linda Qiu – July 10, 2015 *

As hype around Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders grows,
political opponents and media reporters are once again suggesting the
socialist Vermont senator is a gun nut.

"One issue your Democratic rivals are starting to hit you with is the fact
that you have, in the past, sided with the NRA on some gun issues," CNN’s
Jake Tapper said in a July 5 interview with Sanders, alluding to an attack
ad paid for by a pro-Martin O’Malley group.

"Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill -- background checks and
waiting periods," said the attack, which first aired June 25. "Bernie
Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns."

Sanders’ record on guns has been the subject of liberal ire ("Bernie
Sanders, gun nut") as well as conservative glee ("Sorry liberals, Bernie
Sanders is a gun nut"). So we wanted to take a look at his vote on the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a landmark piece of gun control
legislation.

The Brady Act mandated that everyone who wanted to buy a handgun had to
wait five days while local law enforcement ran criminal background checks.
(After 1998, the firearm dealers became responsible for conducting the
checks.)

But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders,
elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous
times, virtually almost always in opposition:

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day
waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill
returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version.
Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The
Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that
reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted
against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background
check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant
checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting
periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know
why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill --  an interim five-day
waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was
passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for
opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a
national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his
job.

"He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to.
The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them,
and Bernie voted that down," Weaver said. "He said he would be against
waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont."

In April 1991, Sanders’ then-chief of staff Anthony Pollina echoed the idea
that Sanders was simply representing the will of his constituents.

"Bernie’s response is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and
progressives. He was sent to Washington to present all of Vermont," Pollina
said. "It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority
position, particularly on something Vermonters have been very clear about."

The Green Mountain State, though left-leaning, has a high gun ownership
rate and lax gun control laws (as well as a low homicide rate). That and
Sanders’ own personal views are reflected in his overall voting record,
experts told us.

"As a rural state with a large number of hunters and other gun owners,
Vermont has been less liberal on guns than on most other issues,
historically," explained Bertram Johnson, a professor of political science
at Middlebury College in Vermont. "He seems to support more regulation of
guns than the U.S. presently has, but he recognizes his constituents’
preferences so does not make gun control a priority."

"I think he has disappointed many progressives in Vermont with his gun
positions, which sort of walk a middle line – and angering both sides
through the years," said Chris Graff, the former Vermont Associated Press
bureau chief. "Gun control is a tough issue in Vermont for all politicians."

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential bid is often
compared to Sanders’ 2016 run, received high marks from the National Rifle
Association. Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also voted against the
Brady bill. For his part, Sanders has voted to tighten gun control about
half the time, and to protect Second Amendment rights the other half.

Here are his votes on key gun bills in his 25 years in Congress (bold
reflects a pro-gun control position):

Sanders’ moderate stance is noted by firearm enthusiasts and gun control
advocates alike. Former NRA research coordinator Paul Blackman says the
group doesn’t consider Sanders "an anti-gunner," and he’s received mixed
marks from NRA ranging from a C-  to F. Brady Campaign president Dan Gross
says Sanders has shown suppleness and evolution since those first Brady
votes and added he isn’t a "gun lobby lapdog."

Experts agreed that on guns, Sanders’ views are to the right of his
Democratic rivals.

"When it comes to guns, he’s not Ted Cruz, but he believes federal policy
should be less intrusive than Martin O’Malley or Hillary Clinton," said
Eric Davis, who studies Vermont politics at Middlebury College. "Guns are
not an important issue for him, because they don’t fit into the class-based
framework that Bernie looks at politics through."

Our ruling

An attack ad said, "Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill --
background checks and waiting periods."

The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of
handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He
did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant
background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background
checks.

Experts noted Sanders’ votes were representative of Vermont’s gun owners
and gun laws. Since the 1990s, his record on gun control is mixed.

We rate the ad’s claim Mostly True.

*GOP Officials Publicly Denounce Bernie Sanders’ Obamacare Expansion,
Quietly Request Funding
<https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/gop-senators-support-sanders-obamacare-expansion/>
// The Intercept // Lee Fang – July 10, 2015 *

he conventional wisdom on Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is that he’s a
charming if impractical dreamer, a pie-in-the-sky socialist who’s good at
inspiring young people and aging hippies, but hopeless at the knife
fighting that real-life politics requires.

Despite the inherent limitations of a self-described democratic socialist
who eschews the norms of Beltway fundraising, the Democratic presidential
candidate from Vermont has won legislative victory after victory on an
issue that has been dear to him since his days as Burlington’s mayor.

That issue is the simultaneously benign and revolutionary expansion of
federally qualified community health clinics.

Over the years, Sanders has tucked away funding for health centers in
appropriation bills signed by George W. Bush, into Barack Obama’s stimulus
program, and through the earmarking process. But his biggest achievement
came in 2010 through the Affordable Care Act. In a series of high-stakes
legislative maneuvers, Sanders struck a deal to include $11 billion for
health clinics in the law.

The result has made an indelible mark on American health care, extending
the number of people served by clinics from 18 million before the ACA to an
expected 28 million next year.

As one would expect, the program was largely met with plaudits from
patients and public health experts, but it has also won praise from even
the biggest Obamacare critics on Capitol Hill. In letters I obtained
through multiple record requests, dozens of Republican lawmakers, including
members of the House and Senate leadership, have privately praised the ACA
clinic funding, calling health centers a vital provider in both rural and
urban communities.

To Sanders, the clinics have served as an alternative to his preferred
single-payer system. Community health centers accept anyone regardless of
health, insurance status or ability to pay. They are founded and managed by
a board composed of patients and local residents, so each center is
customized to fit the needs of a community. No two health centers are alike.

In rural North Carolina, ACA-backed health centers now provide dental and
nutrition services, while in San Francisco, the clinics provide translation
services and outreach for immigrant families. In other areas, they provide
mental health counseling, low-cost prescription drugs, and serve as the
primary care doctors for entire counties. They have also served as a
platform for innovation, introducing electronic medical record systems and
paving the way with new methods for tracking those most susceptible for
heart disease and diabetes.

Author John Dittmer, in The Good Doctors, traces the history of the modern
health center to the civil rights activists who ventured into the South
during the early 1960s. The activists were seen as outside agitators, and
local doctors refused to treat them. As a solution, volunteer bands of
physicians were organized by a group called the Medical Committee for Human
Rights.

Beyond treating the civil rights workers, the MCHR physicians were struck
by the stark disparity in health services, encountering many
African-Americans who had never seen a doctor before in their lives. The
activist physicians returned to the South after the “Freedom Rides” to
found a small clinic in Mound Bayou, Mississippi, in the heart of the
Mississippi Delta, and by doing so, began a movement to launch health
clinics across the country in underserved areas. Winning support from
President Lyndon Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity, the clinics
became part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”

Over the years, health centers have gained support on a bipartisan basis.
Health centers secured critical funding from the efforts of the late Sen.
Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and both George W. Bush and John McCain campaigned on
pledges to expand them.

Sanders’s place in health clinic history will be remembered for his
forceful role in the winter of the health reform debate. In December 2009,
tensions ran high as Congress inched closer to a final health reform deal.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., tapped Sanders to help win support from liberals
who thought the bill was too weak as well as from Democrats from rural
states who were facing mounting pressure. More funding for community health
centers, Sanders argued, was a win-win solution for both camps, since the
program would ensure access to health care for even the most remote areas
of the country while also helping those without insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson,
D-Neb., among others, held out to the very last moment.

Two days before the Senate voted to break a Republican filibuster of the
bill, Reid called on Sanders to make his case on the Senate floor. Sanders,
in typical fashion, said the legislation was far from perfect, but
thundered about the common-sense need for health centers, citing the acute
demand for more primary care doctors, the cost-savings from patients who
would otherwise use the emergency room for the common cold, the
patient-centered model of clinics, and so on. Senate Democrats rallied and
overcame the Republican filibuster.

Another turning point came several weeks later, when Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown won a special election in an upset victory, ending
the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. Brown’s election brought
Democrats close to despair, because lawmakers could only use a procedure
called reconciliation to pass the law. Such a move would keep chances for
passage alive while foreclosing any chance of enacting the much stronger
legislation that originated in the House of Representatives through a
conference committee. For progressives, it was a painful blow that not only
sealed the defeat of the Public Option insurance program but also removed
many robust provisions they had worked hard to include. Again called upon
to work out a solution with House liberals, with whom Sanders enjoys a
strong working relationship, the Vermont senator forged a deal to build
support for the bill by focusing on health clinics.

Daniel Hawkins, vice president of the National Association of Community
Health Centers, recalls that in the end Sanders was able to negotiate with
Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., to increase health clinic funding through a
special technical amendment that could modify the reconciliation Senate
bill through a simple majority vote. The technical amendment passed, with
$9.5 billion targeted for health center operations and $1.5 billion for
construction and renovation projects. The House passed the final Senate
bill, and President Obama signed the legislation with $11 billion in health
clinic funding into law on March 23, 2010.

“There was no one who played a more important role than Senator Sanders,”
Hawkins says, remembering Sanders’s constant lobbying of other lawmakers to
support the funding.

Although the health reform has transformed the funding of local health
clinics, few patients even realize that the changes have occurred as a
result of the law, because few aspects of the health reform are explicitly
branded as being part of the ACA.

That relative invisibility has shielded health clinic funding from the
hyper-partisan attacks faced by other provisions of the law. But it has
also allowed Republican opponents of Obamacare to play a two-faced game.
Every single congressional Republican has voted to repeal the entire bill,
health center funding included. But many have taken credit for popular
local health clinic programs funded by the ACA, without disclosing the
source of the funds. Others have written letters expressing their support
for the money.

As I reported previously for The Nation, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., among
other Republicans, authored letters to the Obama administration to
recommend ACA funding for local health clinics. Now, a new batch of
letters, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, shows other
requests by GOP leaders.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., the House Republican whip, for instance, signed
onto a letter with other members of the Louisiana congressional delegation
to ask the Obama administration for health center funding in New Orleans.
The proposed clinic, the letter noted, would build a graduate medical
training program, a proposal that “will attract not only more citizens back
to our community but provide critical training opportunities for our
region’s future healthcare workforce.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the number two leader in the Senate, wrote at
least 17 letters to the administration asking for funding, in cities such
as Lubbock and Houston, for a wide range of programs, including clinics
devoted to low-income rural residents and Asian-Americans in Texas.
Senators Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., David Vitter, R-La., Rob
Portman, R-Ohio, and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., made similar requests.

It’s no wonder that politicians from rural states such as Texas would seek
community health centers to better serve their constituents. A recent
report from the Texas A&M School of Public Health found that only 9 percent
of physicians practice in rural areas. Many rural Texans live in areas that
are more than 30 minutes from the nearest hospital, which dramatically
raises mortality rates in cases of medical emergencies.

Still, press releases from GOP officials have lashed out at the Affordable
Care Act’s health center funding as some sort of “slush fund.”

Regardless of the politics, the success of health centers has been
particularly satisfying for Sanders, who can simply point to his own state
as a reminder of its impact. One in four Vermonters are now served by more
than 50 health centers throughout the state, according to the senator’s
office. Just last month, a new federally qualified health clinic opened in
Shoreham, Vermont, to provide dental care, physicals and medication for
common diseases.

Though his own role in securing the funds for the ACA is barely mentioned
on his Senate website, the image gallery is adorned with pictures of
Sanders beaming a smile as he breaks ground and cuts ribbons for various
health clinic openings in Vermont.

*WEBB*

*Jim Webb arrives in the age of Sanders and Trump
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/247489-jim-webb-arrives-in-the-age-of-sanders-and-trump>
// The Hill // Bernie Quigley – July 10, 2015 *

Years ago, when I went to the Baptist South to work at a college, the
country women who came down from the hills to work in our offices offered
life advice as I, coming into the country from New York City, seemed likely
to need it. Which I did. Like when our last child was about to be born,
they would ask, "Did you get your girl yet?" Actually, no. All boys so far.
"She'll come on the moon," they would say. And as I recall, she did come on
the full moon. They would often advise, "When God closes a door, he opens a
window," which was pretty metaphysical stuff but might be as accurate as
any historical hypothesis: Things begin again where they end, and the world
starts again right there as if from scratch.

It came to mind yesterday afternoon, when South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
(R) announced that the Confederate battle flag would be removed from the
State House. Fifty years ago it went up, not so much to respect the
tradition of honor and bravery in America's most difficult and important
moment, but to repudiate congressional passage of the civil rights efforts.

The Confederate flag, shorn of original intent, symbolically represented
that counterforce and yesterday it ended. So it was an auspicious day for
Jim Webb (D), former Virginia senator and secretary of the Navy under
President Reagan, who announced last week that he will run for president,
to make his public debut in a morning interview on "CBS This Morning."

The battle flag has "long been due to come down," he said. Webb had been
criticized on comments recently on the history of the South and the
Confederate flag. And it was a good interview. It slowed things down. Webb
explained his thinking as the interviewers egged him on to speed it up and
get to it: How you gonna beat Hillary, that's what we're talking about.

But that was not what Webb was talking about. When Webb cited statistics
about slave ownership and participation of the Civil War, he explained
himself, citing the master historian John Hope Franklin, bringing his own
tempo to the discussion.

It may have been one of those days yesterday when the South awakened as if
from a great sleep, or another day, possibly beginning a new era in which
the South will fight for its life and our own. As oddly enough, history has
turned in the last few weeks and Webb comes to us in that turning.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and celebrity entrepreneur and politico
Donald Trump enter fate virtually at the same moment. The mainstream media
tell us not to worry — they will soon go away (it is their job to say so) —
but one can look with some disgust today at former Presidents Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush on stage together, Bush declaring that former Gov. Jeb
Bush (R-Fla.) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both
candidates for president, will "elevate the discourse." It is, as might be
heard in the hills, "enough to gag a horse."

Instead, for whatever else might be said about these two, Sanders and
Trump, they transcend the painful banality of Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush
and awaken new energies. Energies, however, which suggest or approximate
the formulation of the the last world more than a hundred years ago, when
Leon Trotsky was writing his first dramatic prose in Russia and Gabriele
D'Annunzio rode bareback on the beach to the rise of fascism in Italy.

Sanders has hundreds of thousands of Facebook followers and has
commandeered the millennials. Trump comes at a time when at least two dozen
American states in the middle and north of Texas are looking for a
dramatic, public figure to oppose the federal government on a garden
variety of issues. They will not go away. It is Jeb Bush will go away.
Hillary Clinton will go away. Like Haile Selassie, god king of Ethiopia, an
old antique lost in the attic of history, they are suddenly caught in
history's cross fires and will remain mystified to the very end about their
sudden irrelevance.

Said here in The Hill recently, as the Confederate flag comes down, the
Gadsden flag goes up. We face a coming era of civil disobedience,
commentator Pat Buchanan writes this week, but this time it will be
conservatives. Indeed, it is well underway as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R)
brings an impressive posse of heartland governors to challenge the
president's executive order on immigration. The idea has caught on. As The
Hill reports, "State legislators around the country have introduced more
than 200 bills aiming to nullify regulations and laws coming out of
Washington, D.C., as they look to rein in the federal government."

This movement needs a dramatic (flamboyant) public spokesperson and it will
be Trump. And New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) today rallies the major
cities against the governors, in coordination with the president and the
federal government. He likewise needs a dramatic, charismatic public figure
as spokesperson and that surely is to be Sanders.

This is where Webb enters history, and he arrives with a sterling
endorsement by one of the most respected scholars and commentators today,
Andrew Bacevich.

Of all proposed candidates, writes Bacevich, "Only Webb has the bona fides
to promote a serious debate that looks beyond bogus issues such as
Benghazi."

Possibly it is nature that sends the single indispensable warrior to us at
times like this, as the women of Appalachian hills will say, to open a
window. That warrior is Jim Webb.

*OTHER*

*Bill Clinton’s Candid Views of the Political Press
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/bill-clintons-candid-views-of-the-political-press/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s relations with the political news media had been
tense long before she declared her candidacy in April, and her campaign’s
efforts to try and improve those relations have backfired at times.

On Thursday, Bill Clinton provided a candid look at how the former first
couple felt about the role the news media played in the presidential
campaign.

At a joint event in Dallas alongside George W. Bush, Mr. Clinton said that
part of the nation’s problem was a news media driven by the belief that
“conflict is better than concord.”

Mr. Bush blamed the political divisiveness on candidates’ impassioned
surrogates and the Internet granting them a veil of anonymity to hurl nasty
attacks. But Mr. Clinton ultimately put the blame squarely on the political
press.

“Let’s suppose we were in a campaign against each other,” he said to his
predecessor. “He would have his narrative and I would have mine and each of
us would try to convince you that our narrative was better than the other.
That’s O.K.

“But the people covering the campaign, they develop a narrative, too, a
storyline, and it’s almost impossible for the real story to be the same as
the storyline,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s very hard for the American people
to be well informed if the storyline swamps the real story.”

Mr. Clinton did not specifically mention Mrs. Clinton’s campaign (except
for saying “I know who I want to win”) and he did not discuss recent
articles about her use of private email at the State Department and foreign
donations to the Clinton Foundation.

His comments come just days after Mrs. Clinton tried to begin a more
accessible phase in the campaign, by sitting down on Tuesday with CNN’s
Brianna Keilar in her first national interview.

In his remarks, Mr. Clinton also echoed a frequent and widely held
complaint that the political press is too focused on the horse race of who
is ahead in the campaign rather than policy and issues.

*Latinos Gather For NCLR Conference Amid Political Spotlight
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/upshot/class-or-ideology-my-conversation-with-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0>
// // NYT – Upshot // Griselda Nevarez – July 11, 2015*

An estimated 2,000 Latinos are expected to attend the National Council of
La Raza's annual conference, which kicks off Saturday in Kansas City,
Missouri.

NCLR prides itself as the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights and
advocacy organization. The four-day conference is garnering the national
political spotlight - the top three Democratic presidential candidates will
address the Latino advocates and leaders gathered at the event.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to speak Monday morning at a town
hall forum. Also speaking Monday during a luncheon are former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, who is considered the Democratic front-runner in the
race for president, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

The candidates are "expected to address issues vital to Latinos and all
Americans: jobs and the economy, civil rights, immigration, education and
more," according to NCLR.

Republican presidential candidates were invited to attend but none are
scheduled to speak.

The conference comes several weeks after Republican presidential hopeful
Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, was the only Republican to speak at the
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual
conference in Las Vegas. Sanders and Clinton also spoke at the NALEO
conference.

It also comes as at a time when Latino leaders are urging Republican
presidential candidates to counter remarks surrounding Donald Trump after
his controversial comments that Mexico is sending "rapists" and "criminals"
to the U.S.

The conference takes place in Missouri, a state which has experienced
strong Latino growth over the last few years. Currently, Latinos make up
nearly 4 percent of the state's population and 10 percent of Kansas City
residents. Between 2000 and 2010, Missouri's Latino population grew by 79.2
percent, according to the U.S. Census.

*DNC Chair Says Candidates Must Meet ‘Threshold’ For Debates, Though
Criteria And Dates Still Unclear
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/democratic-debate-criteria_n_7772156.html?1436561457>
// HuffPo // Michael Calderone – July 10, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidates will have to meet a certain “threshold”
to participate in the party’s six scheduled primary debates, Democratic
National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Thursday, though she
did not specify which criteria, such as state or national polling, will be
used to determine who qualifies.

“It’ll be a threshold that’ll be expansive and allows for the maximum
inclusion of our major party candidates," Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC’s
Ari Melber. She said the DNC hasn’t “quite finished formulating the
details” for the debates, including specific dates, locations and media
sponsors.

The lack of clarity has been frustrating to both campaigns and major TV
networks, the latter of which produce the debates and need to book venues
and handle logistical details well in advance.

In May, the DNC announced plans to hold six primary debates, four of which
would be held in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South
Carolina and Nevada. The DNC said debates would begin in "the fall of
2015," though didn't specify when.

The first Republican debate, sponsored by Fox News, is scheduled to take
place less than four weeks from now, with the second and third GOP contests
planned for September (CNN) and October (CNBC).

The DNC’s plan drew criticism from Democratic presidential contender Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who urged Wasserman Schultz to accelerate the
schedule and start debates during the summer, as well as to consider
including Republican contenders. “I believe we need to go beyond the bounds
of traditional party debates,” Sanders wrote in a letter.

It's understandable Sanders would want more debates given that national
media exposure likely benefits him and any candidates not named Hillary
Clinton. She already has worldwide name recognition, is a clear
front-runner in the polls, and presumably has the most to lose by getting
on the debate stage. Some Democrats have suggested the DNC is protecting
Clinton by sanctioning only six debates.

In response to Sanders' request, a DNC spokeswoman reiterated on June 1
that the committee would continue with the six-debate framework and said
more details would be provided "in the coming weeks.”

The Republican schedule, meanwhile, has been settled since January. The
Republican National Committee announced plans to hold nine debates, along
with their locations, media sponsors and each month they’d take place. The
RNC also announced that three additional debates could be sanctioned
depending on the circumstances next year.

Though the Republicans' schedule was rolled out smoothly, the debates
haven't been without controversy. Fox News' decision to limit its primetime
debate to only candidates ranking in the top 10 in national polls has drawn
criticism from campaigns arguing that the barrier for entry is placing too
much emphasis on national name recognition rather than early state
campaigning.

Both the RNC and DNC are taking a firmer hand with the debate process by
penalizing candidates who participate in non-sanctioned debates by not
allowing them in sanctioned events. Candidates may attend forums in which
they don't directly engage with one another.

Democratic candidates appeared in over two dozen debates in 2008, which
included repeated verbal slugfests between Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton. Republican candidates debated 20 times in 2012, a grueling process
that party leaders want to avoid this cycle.

*Hillary and her rivals to meet with union leaders
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-and-her-rivals-to-meet-with-union-leaders/article/2568030>
// Washington Examiner // Sean Higgins – July 10, 2015 *

Front-running Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top
challengers, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley,
will meet privately with the AFL-CIO's executive council at the end of July.

Union leaders will press the candidates on their stances, particularly on
international trade, at the meeting in Silver Spring, Md., Reuters reported.

That will be a tricky issue for Clinton, who has tried to stay above both
the recent congressional fight over Trade Promotion Authority legislation
and the looming one over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation trade
deal. Clinton has not taken definitive positions on either. Labor leaders
strongly oppose both, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has said trade
will be crucial to 12 million-member labor federation's presidential
endorsement.

Sanders, I-Vt., has consistently and loudly opposed President Obama's trade
agenda. O'Malley opposes both as well.

"There is no middle ground, and the time for deliberations is drawing to a
close. In the 2016 campaign, there will be no place to hide for those who
aspire to lead America," Trumka said in an April speech at the AFL-CIO's
Washington headquarters on trade and the election.

Asked after the speech if he was calling on Clinton to issue a clear
statement on Trade Promotion Authority, Trumka told the Washington
Examiner, he was referring to "all candidates." He added later that Clinton
"would have to respond like every candidate."

Clinton, nevertheless, did not issue a clear statement. Her status as the
front-runner far ahead of all other Democratic candidates in the polls has
made liberal groups reluctant to criticize her. Sanders has gained in
recent polls, though, and the prospect of Vice President Joe Biden entering
the race means she may not be able to count on that advantage forever.

Trade is treacherous territory for Clinton. Her husband, former President
Bill Clinton, used a version of Trade Promotion Authority to help secure
passage of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement in 1994, but she voted
against renewing the authority in 2002 when she was a New York senator.

Coming out in opposition of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would put Clinton
at odds with the administration where she served as the top official on
international relations and took part in the deal's negotiations.
Supporting it would put her at odds with much of the party's base as she
tries to lock down the party's presidential nomination with a minimum of
drama.

She has tried to adopt a more skeptical position on trade in recent months,
but has left open the possibility that she could support the
administration's agenda.

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*BUSH*

*Jeb Bush Draws on Family Dynasty for Fund-Raising Efforts
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/politics/jeb-bush-draws-on-family-dynasty-for-fund-raising-efforts.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 10, 2015 *

The Bush people arrived by private plane, black car and finally
old-fashioned trolley, shuttled in by the hundreds for a bonding ritual
unlike anything else in contemporary politics.

They posed on the lawn for pictures with Barbara Bush, the former first
lady. They dined on lobster rolls and burgers, traded business cards with
eminent executives and former ambassadors, and basked in the inner sanctum
of the most successful political dynasty in history.

“This is to the Bushes what Hyannis Port is to the Kennedys,” said Dirk Van
Dongen, a lobbyist in Washington, making his first journey to the Bush
family compound.

In his early months as a candidate, Jeb Bush seemed unsure of how tightly
to embrace the family mantle, dodging questions about the record of his
older brother, George W. Bush, as president, eschewing his surname on
bumper stickers and declaring at his campaign kickoff that “not a one of us
deserves the job by right of résumé, party, seniority, family or family
narrative.”

But Jeb Bush is now seeking both advantage and refuge in the trappings of a
dynasty, eagerly deploying the unique political assets of a family that has
already supplied two United States presidents and that hopes to produce a
third.

His father, his mother, his wife and even his son have raised money for the
campaign or for his “super PAC,” tapping into a vast network of donors that
began with the Bush family’s Christmas card mailing list. And the Bush
family compound in Kennebunkport — for decades the ultimate V.I.P. room in
Republican politics — is now Mr. Bush’s reward to bestow.

On Monday, the last Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, dined
there with Mr. Bush, hoping to soothe lingering hurt over what Mr. Romney’s
supporters considered a desultory endorsement of their nominee in 2012.

And as the donors arrived here on Thursday for two days of cocktails and
strategy briefings, Mr. Bush’s campaign and super PAC announced that they
had amassed more money, and more quickly, than any presidential effort in
history, easily outpacing his rivals for the Republican nomination.

Continue reading the main story

Money Raised So Far

The first Federal Election Commission filing deadline for presidential
candidates is Wednesday, but some organizations have released their totals
early. Below, the announced money raised by the campaigns, “super PACs” and
nonprofits supporting each candidate.

“I think Jeb’s made clear that he’s not going to run away from his family,”
said Eric J. Tanenblatt, who led the Georgia campaign efforts of George W.
Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign.

Donor retreats have become a routine feature of presidential campaigns, all
the more important as the price tag for a major-party candidacy breaches
the $1 billion mark. They are curated to reflect some actual or projected
essence of the candidate: Hillary Rodham Clinton gathered her top
fund-raisers in May at a Brooklyn warehouse, for example, while Mr. Romney
invited top donors for annual hikes and foreign policy lectures at the
Stein Eriksen ski resort in Utah, a favorite destination of his family.

George W. Bush, a Texan who styled himself as a political outsider,
pointedly eschewed the establishment trappings of Maine: Many of the donors
in Kennebunkport recalled, with something less than fondness, their
frequent meetings at Mr. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., huddled under a
tent in 100-degree heat.

But few candidates, they said, could compete with the Bush family seat, a
compound of a half-dozen homes on a rocky spit jutting into the Atlantic,
one of them recently built for Jeb Bush and his family. The guests were
greeted by Mr. Bush’s mother and ushered into the main house for drinks,
where the elder George Bush made a brief appearance.

The veteran Bush donors had chosen their socks carefully, in tribute to the
elder Mr. Bush, known for his taste in brightly colored ones. Later, they
dined at a nearby luxury hotel, where Jeb Bush promised his guests that he
would not let their hard work go for naught.

“You leave saying: Not only was the next president of the United States,
but the most important American of my lifetime, George H. W. Bush, sitting
at my table, making me feel comfortable,” said Ron Kaufman, who served as
political director for the elder Mr. Bush.

Another top fund-raiser for Jeb Bush, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity lest the Bush family think him crass, said, “For fund-raising, it
is gold.”

“It’s not hauling these guys into a two-week rental in Martha’s Vineyard,”
the fund-raiser said, adding that Kennebunkport was “a little bit more
special than what Hillary can offer.”

The guests who trickled onto the compound were a microcosm of the financial
operation that Mr. Bush is hoping will overwhelm his rivals. Robert M.
Duncan, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Woody
Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets, are among the party’s leading
fund-raisers. There was also new blood: a contingent in their 30s and 40s
who one donor referred to as “P’s crowd,” referring to one of Jeb Bush’s
sons, George P. Bush.

Some had served under, or raised money for, the last two Presidents Bush
and fondly recalled their past visits to Maine. One guest, trying to convey
the simplicity of the Bush home, described arriving on a past Kennebunkport
visit and being offered a bowl of Fritos.

“All of you who are playing shrink to the Bushes these days overstate a lot
of things,” Mr. Kaufman said. “The truth is, Jeb has always summered in
Kennebunkport. This is his place. He loves it in his blood. This is him.”

*That time Jeb Bush invited 300 top donors to his parents’ house
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/10/when-jeb-bush-invited-300-top-donors-to-his-parents-house/>
// WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – July 10, 2015 *

One by one, nearly 300 of Jeb Bush's top donors, from New York, Washington,
Miami — even Americans living abroad in China and Germany — climbed aboard
a trolley here for a trip a mile and a half down Ocean Avenue.

There was Dina Powell, a Goldman Sachs executive and a former assistant
secretary of state under George W. Bush. And Mike Duncan, the former
Republican National Committee chairman. Several Floridians — including
Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, former Republican Sen. George Lemieux
and former Republican Gov. Bob Martinez. Younger faces like Jay Zeidman, a
close friend of George P. Bush, were among a few dozen notably youthful
benefactors.

Woody Johnson, Bush's national finance chairman, was one of the last people
to board a trolley Thursday evening as the crowd traveled to the nearby
Bush family estate. The owner of the NFL's New York Jets was carrying a
white visor with the team's green logo.

Admiring a green sweater slung over the shoulders of a fellow donor,
Johnson commented: "You can never have too much green."

The confab for some of the GOP's wealthiest donors came just hours after
Bush's campaign and an allied super PAC announced that they'd donated more
than $114 million to support the former governor — an unprecedented sum in
American politics that gives him a sizable financial advantage over more
than a dozen GOP rivals.

Bush had announced plans for the Kennebunkport donor retreat at the start
of his campaign, dangling one of the most cherished chits in Republican
politics -- a visit to his family's storied beachfront estate -- as an
incentive to entice benefactors to deliver. Supporters who gave the maximum
$2,700 to Bush's primary campaign, and were able to find at least 10 other
people also willing to do so, were invited to attend.

Bush was asked by reporters on Wednesday night why he had decided to hold
the retreat at his parents' estate, known as Walker's Point. He deflected
the question by clarifying that "It's at the Colony, it's not at my
parents' home, that would be a little overwhelming for them."

That was kind of correct.

The Colony Hotel is where most guests stayed and where closed-door
briefings will be held with top campaign officials on Friday. But on
Thursday evening, the family compound at Walker's Point was the main venue.

The gathering began at the hotel around 5 p.m., as attendees gathered at
the Carriage House, with about a half dozen Secret Service agents looking
on. Some in the crowd said that they'd just learned about Bush's
fundraising total.

Once on the grounds of the estate, the crowd was split up in groups of 40
or 50 for a quick tour. Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife,
Barbara, were the main tour guides, leading people across the compound to
their home on the southern tip. Elated at the invitation, some attendees
quickly posted photos on social media.

"Incredible night in Kennebunkport! #allinforjeb," Fritz Brogan, a
Washington-based donor and former aide to Jeb Bush when he was Florida
governor, wrote on Facebook as he posted a photo of him alongside George
H.W. Bush.

Reporters were not allowed to attend the dinner, but could easily watch the
proceedings from a public overlook about 1,200 yards to the west, where
tourists and locals often gawk at the property.

Around 5:30 p.m., Jeb Bush was spotted entering his parents' home and came
out a few minutes later, dressed in a dark blue sweater, to greet his
donors. The entire party posed for a photo on the western lawn of the home
around 6 p.m. Several attendees held campaign signs aloft as a photographer
took shots of the crowd. Barbara Bush — with her infamous locks of white
hair — was easily spotted from a distance standing in the front wearing a
bright coral sweater.

After the photo and more mingling, the crowd was transported to the nearby
Hidden Pond luxury resort. The mood was celebratory, as donors dined on
lobster rolls and hamburgers and Bush touted their record-breaking
fundraising effort. His wife, Columba, was on hand, smiling proudly.

"Money is great but votes matter a lot more. I will outwork everybody,"
Bush said, according to attendees, who asked to remain anonymous because
guests were asked not to discuss details.

Already, the campaign is plotting ahead: Donors said there's talk of plans
to have top donors help raise another $20,000 over the next 20 days in
order to win an invitation to a campaign-sponsored party in Cleveland on
Aug. 6 — the date of the first Republican presidential debate.

As the crowd mingled on the lawn of Bush home, tourists at the lookout
watched unaware of why such a large crowd had gathered.

"They didn't invite us," quipped a woman who said she grew up in
Kennebunkport and was visiting from Seattle, but declined to give her name.

As trolleys full of donors kept driving past, she turned to her
daughter-in-law and said, "Those are trolleys full of Republicans. Because
usually they never let trolleys in there."

Another man watching the reception unfold marveled at the scene: "Every
time I come here I think: There's two people who spend time over there who
know the contents of what's in Area 51."

*Jeb Bush and Allies Raise More Than $114 Million in 2016 Race
<http://stream.wsj.com/story/election-2016/SS-2-738144/> // WSJ // Rebecca
Ballhaus – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush’s campaign and his allies have
raised more than $114 million to back him in the 2016 race, surpassing
expectations.

Jeb Bush’s campaign and its allied super PAC raised more than $114 million
in the first half of the year, surpassing expectations and far outstripping
his Democratic and Republican rivals for the White House.

The Republican presidential hopeful’s super PAC, called Right to Rise USA,
said Thursday that it had received $103 million from more than 9,900
donors—a broad pool of supporters he could tap for yet more money for the
super PAC and for donations to his campaign, which are capped at $2,700 per
person for the primary. The campaign, meanwhile, took in $11.4 million in
the two weeks between its launch and the end of June.

The only candidate positioned to keep up with Mr. Bush’s fundraising is the
Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who launched her campaign two
months before he did. She has raised $45 million for her campaign and three
groups backing her raised about $24 million, for a total of $69 million.

Mr. Bush’s campaign fundraising also outpaced many GOP rivals who started
raising money earlier in the year.

The rise of the super PACs and their expanding roles in presidential
campaigns means any candidate with a wealthy backer, or a collection of
them, can spend exponentially more on his or her candidacy and stay in the
race longer than in prior presidential contests. There is a cost, though:
The candidates can’t control their friendly super PACs by directing where
they spend their money and what messages they send to try to motivate
voters.

Only one-tenth of Mr. Bush’s haul went to his Miami-based campaign, with
the rest going to the technically independent super PAC, which is based in
California and is legally barred from coordinating its activities with his
team.

The imbalance exists partly because the super PAC has been raising money
since January, while Mr. Bush didn’t launch his campaign until mid-June,
only two weeks ahead of the second-quarter fundraising deadline. But since
the super PAC can raise money without contribution caps, it is expected to
continue to overpower the campaign.

In the 2016 presidential race, the balance of cash increasingly favors
outside groups over campaigns, a shift political strategists say threatens
to reduce the effectiveness of their political operations—or to turn some
voters away.

“Candidates are going to have less control over the resources in their
campaigns than ever before,” said Tony Corrado, a professor of government
at Colby College and a campaign-finance expert.

Super PACs first began backing individual candidates in the 2012 election,
following a 2010 Supreme Court decision that led to their creation. They
are poised to play a much bigger role in the current election cycle.

Mr. Bush’s super PAC smashed all previous fundraising records set by such
groups. In the 2012 election, the super PAC backing GOP nominee Mitt Romney
raised just $12 million in the first half of 2011, and brought in $153
million over the course of the race. Priorities USA Action, the super PAC
backing President Barack Obama, raised less than $80 million for the entire
cycle.

As super PACs’ roles grows, campaigns and super PACs supporting the same
candidate risk duplicating their activities, particularly voter
mobilization and grass roots organizing.

“The question will be whether you will reach the point where voters are
tired of having people at their door or picking up the phone,” Mr. Corrado
said.

Kevin Madden, a GOP strategist who advised Mr. Romney, said there is a
“strong advantage” to keeping field work under the campaign’s supervision.

“I’d want to have as robust a field operation under the auspices of my
campaign as possible,” he said. “It’s the difference between losing and
winning sometimes.”

Barred from coordinating with campaign leadership, super PACs also risk
veering away from the candidate’s central message, even though
many—including Mr. Bush’s—are being run by former top aides to the
candidates themselves.

Mr. Madden recalls a moment when the Romney campaign was focused on
neutralizing former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum while the super PAC was
running ads attacking Newt Gingrich. “We were like, ‘What are they doing?’”
he said.

In the current election cycle, super PACs have outraised the campaigns of
at least three out of the four Republicans who have disclosed their
fundraising totals so far. The super PAC backing the fourth, retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson, hasn’t yet released its fundraising haul.

Four super PACs backing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have raised nearly $38 million,
almost four times as much as the amount raised in the second quarter by his
campaign, which launched in March.

Unlike many candidates, Mr. Bush and his supporters haven’t touted grass
roots support from small donors.

Mr. Bush’s campaign didn’t provide an average donation size, while his
super PAC disclosed that about 95% of its donors had given $25,000 or less.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, by contrast, stressed that about 90% of its
donations were for $100 or less.

As their share of funds grows, super PACs are expanding their roles to
include tasks traditionally reserved for a campaign, such as compiling
voter data and running field operations.

That marks a contrast from 2012, when super PACs were new to the scene and
mostly focused on running advertisements.

The super PAC backing former Hewlett-Packard Co. chief executive Carly
Fiorina has taken on some press operations and helped set up candidate
events. Her super PAC said this week it raised $3.4 million, more than
twice as much as her campaign.

Over the next month, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is slated to hold at least
seven town hall events in Iowa, where he will speak about the “most
important issues of the day,” according to the organizers. The events have
the trappings of a traditional campaign event, but their host is Mr.
Jindal’s super PAC, called Believe Again. Neither the campaign nor the
super PAC has yet released fundraising details, but the totals for the
super PAC that launched in January are virtually certain to be higher than
those of the campaign, which began in late June.

On the Democratic side, super PACs seem to be operating more like they did
in the 2012 election. Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC backing
Mrs. Clinton, plans to limit its efforts to paid advertising on television
and the Internet, according to people close to the group. It won’t do any
organizing or field work, they say.

*‘Space Guy’ Jeb Bush’s Donor Categories: ‘Voyager,’ ‘Endeavor,’ ‘Apollo’
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/10/space-guy-jeb-bushs-donor-categories-voyager-endeavor-apollo/>
// WSJ // Beth Reinhard – July 10, 2015 *

Going where no candidate has gone before, presidential fundraising leader
Jeb Bush is naming donor levels after the great NASA space missions of the
past.

“The Mission Jeb 2016” levels: Voyager, for donors who raise $250,000;
Endeavor for $150,000, and Apollo for $75,000.

Mr. Bush’s team announced the categories Friday to the roughly 250 donors
gathered for a two-day retreat at Kennebunkport, Maine. Donors are expected
to hit up their business associates, friends and family members for maximum
contributions of $2,700 to the campaign in order to reach the different
levels.

Mr. Bush, a self-proclaimed “space guy” and the former governor of Florida,
which hosts the Kennedy Space Center, has said he would increase funding
for space exploration if elected president.

The retreat for donors who raised at least $27,000 in the first two weeks
of Mr. Bush’s campaign amounts to a victory party for a record-setting
fundraising team. Mr. Bush’s campaign and super PAC announced Friday they
had raised more than $114 million since January.

On Friday night, the donors dined on burgers and lobster rolls at Walker’s
Point, where the Bush family has long vacationed. Former President George
H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush offered tours of the family
compound, where they are building a new home for their son as well as an
artist’s studio for his brother, former President George W. Bush.

George W. Bush was the candidate who pioneered the system of encouraging
donors to bundle campaign contributions. Texans for Public Justice, a
non-partisan non-profit, lists 940 people who achieved the status of Ranger
(raising at least $200,000) or Pioneer (at least $100,000) in the 2000 and
2004 campaigns.

When Mr. Bush first began raising money earlier this year for his Right to
Rise super PAC – which unlike the campaign can collect unlimited donations
— he was encouraging donors to write checks or raise as much as $500,000.
The campaign is required to disclose the names of its donors and the size
of their contributions next week, while the super PAC’s disclosure is due
at the end of July.

According to donors who attended the dinner Friday, Mr. Bush told them that
he planned to outwork all of his rivals.

*Jeb to donors: You’re not done
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jeb-to-donors-youre-not-done-119975.html?ml=tl_1>
// Politico // Eli Stokols and Anna Palmer – July 10, 2015 *

Less than 24 hours after Jeb Bush revealed an unprecedented war chest, he
and his top campaign staffers gathered donors at the family compound in
Kennebunkport, Maine, to let them know that $114 million is not enough.

This weekend’s invitation wasn’t just a reward for the roughly 200 major
donors who helped Bush amass a just-announced record fundraising haul —
although, as one attendee said, “there was lots of high-fiving.”

It was a reminder that, with the Iowa caucuses still seven months away,
this is just the beginning. Bush’s operation doesn’t plan to sit on its
massive cash pile, but to keep adding to it.

According to sources who attended two days of meetings at the Bush family’s
picturesque seaside compound, the Bush team outlined a number of ambitious
new incentives for donors including one called “Eight for Eight,” tasking
major bundlers with signing up eight new supporters to make a maximum
$2,700 contribution by Aug. 8.

Donors learned Friday morning that the Right to Rise leadership PAC, a
third fundraising entity,has hauled in $5 million, bringing the total
combined war chest of Bush’s campaign and supporting super PAC, which both
announced their fundraising hauls Thursday, to $119 million.

Even though that’s more than twice the total haul of any other presidential
candidates (Ted Cruz sits in second place with a combined $51 million),
Bush’s team reminded donors that there’s more work to be done, and laid out
a near-term schedule of fundraisers and future meetings.

One highlight: cocktails with Columba. According to a one source, Bush’s
wife is scheduled to host a cocktail fundraiser in Washington, DC on July
22 with a minimum required contribution of $500.

The next gathering of Bush donors is likely to take place just days before
the first GOP primary debate, scheduled for Aug. 6 in Cleveland; and the
group is planning another get-together in Miami, where the campaign is
headquartered, in the fall.

Even as his campaign is focused on introducing him apart from his
presidential father and brother, Jeb Bush’s robust fundraising machine is
built in large part on the strength of his family’s network, which started
as his mother’s Christmas card list and has been growing for more than 50
years.

While Jeb Bush will continue to assume the posture of a humble,
hard-working candidate, careful to avoid giving off even a whiff of
entitlement, his campaign’s fundraising prowess is a signal of strength to
undecided donors that should grease the skids for even more contributions.

Former president George H.W. Bush made a brief appearance Friday night
during a welcome reception at Hunter’s Point, the home he shares with his
wife, Barbara Bush, who greeted donors as they arrived.

Among those attending: Ron Kaufman, Woody Johnson, Brian McCormack,
Kimberly Fritts, Reg Brown, Al Cardenas, Jamie Wareham and Dirk Van Dongen.

Presentations from Jeb Bush, finance director Heather Larrison and campaign
manager Danny Diaz took place Friday morning. Bush, according to sources,
told donors that he is enjoying the campaign and sticking to his plan — and
he promised not to squander their overwhelming financial support.

All of them were careful, sources said, not to talk about the Right to Rise
super PAC, which Bush spent the first six months of the year raising money
for but is now, as an official candidate, prohibited from coordinating or
communicating with in any way.

Bush’s fundraising numbers aren’t just staggering for the amount of money
raised but the breadth of his donor list. Nearly 10,000 individuals gave
money to his super PAC; of those, 500 gave $25,000 or more. Such a
diversified portfolio of donors allows Bush a huge cash advantage and the
ability to compete in every state; and it helps establish his independence
from any individual billionaire.

“It means he won’t have any one person you can characterize as a
co-investor,” said Charlie Black, a GOP lobbyist who advised George W. Bush
and Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns. “I think these others that have
big super PAC donors are honest, sincere people, but it’s a better
perception for Jeb that he doesn’t have one big sugar daddy.”

Mike Murphy, who is running Bush’s media operation through the super PAC,
“has told donors a number he wants to hit by end of the year,” a source
said, without divulging what that number is.

For the last few weeks, even before the fundraising numbers were released
Thursday, donors headed to Kennebunkport knew the initial effort had hit
the mark, that the two days of meetings would be a chance to celebrate the
early success and to lay out a path that will sustain it.

“If they hadn’t hit their numbers, they’d have been on everyone’s ass for
the last several weeks,” one donor said. “But that dog didn’t bark, so we
could all tell they’d gotten what they wanted.”

*Is Donald Trump Helping the Bush Brand?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/is-donald-trump-helping-the-bush-brand->
// Bloomberg // Michael C. Bender – July 10, 2015 *

While Republican Party mandarins wring their hands over Donald Trump's
presidential bid, the celebrity real estate mogul's untethered political
approach may actually be buoying Jeb Bush, the target of his most frequent
attacks, and making the former Florida governor’s moderate approach to
immigration more palatable in the process.

That's the case for a least some New Hampshire voters who were impressed by
Bush's performance at a town hall meeting this week and offered favorable —
and unprompted —  comparisons to Trump.

"He seemed to really get into the weeds talking about issues," Dennis
Hogan, the Hillsborough County Attorney, said after listening to Bush. "And
he says it in a sellable way. Not like Trump, where you’re saying something
and you're losing as many people as you're gaining. We don’t need that in a
nominee."

Trump announced his presidential campaign on June 16 by saying the country
needs "somebody that can take the brand of the United States and make it
great again." But following that speech and a series of interviews,
Republican donors and elected leaders have worried about what damage he's
doing to the party's brand.

NBC, Univision, Macy's and other companies cut ties with Trump as he
defended his comments that many immigrants in the country illegally are
rapists. Republican donor John Jordan told the Associated Press on Monday
that GOP leaders should take steps to block Trump's access to the first
presidential debate next month. Trump told CNN that Republican National
Committee Chairman Reince Preibus asked him to "tone it down a little bit."

Much of Trump's invective has been targeted at Bush. Trump briefly posted
on his Twitter page, followed by 3.14 million people, another person's
comment that Bush "has to like the Mexican Illegals" (sic) because his wife
is from Mexico. Trump called Bush's position on education standards
"pathetic" and ridiculed the former governor for saying many immigrants
illegally cross the border as "an act of love. "I mean what kind of stuff
is that?" Trump said on Fox News this week. "It's baby stuff."

The comments have earned him media attention, and now the top spot in the
Republican field, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll. The poll showed
Trump with support of 15 percent of respondents, 4 percentage points ahead
of Bush and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. A plurality of respondents, 29
percent, said they believed Jeb Bush would ultimately win the party's
nomination.

Trump, who lives part-time in Palm Beach, Florida, has a long and
complicated history with Bush, whose home is about 90 minutes south in
Miami. The two helped raise money in 1990 for a Nicaraguan presidential
candidate. Trump gave $50,000 to the Florida Republican Party while Bush
was governor as he unsuccessfully pushed for Bush to expand gambling in the
state. Trump has called Bush's brother, George W. Bush, "probably the worst
president in the history of the United States," and repeatedly says that
the "last thing we need is another Bush."

Just a few weeks ago, Bush was chuckling at criticisms from Trump. Now,
he's taking it personally. "His views are way out of the mainstream of what
Republicans think," Bush told reporters after marching in a pair of Fourth
of July parades in New Hampshire.

On immigration, it can be difficult to define the mainstream of the party.
Two of the four U.S. senators running for president backed a bipartisan
bill that included a path to citizenship for many of the country'a 12
million undocumented immigrants. But House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio
Republican, couldn't get enough support for even a watered-down version in
his chamber. "This has become the biggest political football I've seen in
my congressional career, this whole issue of illegal immigration and what
to do about it," Boehner told reporters on Thursday.

Bush has thrown himself into the immigration issue, and is attempting to
persuade his party to take a more moderate position on immigration, arguing
that legalizing undocumented workers will boost the economy and help the
party.

"I want to win elections," Bush said while answering an immigration
question on Wednesday at the New Hampshire town hall meeting. "And to win
we better start figuring out ways to message our beliefs in a way that
gives people hope that everybody will be included in the progress that
comes with this."

Bush added a dose of humor. When one man started his question about border
control by saying, "Me gusta Latinos y Mexicanos," Bush laughed. "Maybe you
could talk to Donald Trump about that," Bush said. "I don't have his
number, but I can find it for you. Give him a call."

Bush, who has led in most recent president polls of New Hampshire, is also
figuring out ways to connect with Republican crowds as he pushes a plan
legalize undocumented immigrants.

He earned applause from the audience when he said he'd campaign "in Spanish
and English," and again for tough talk about the death of Kathryn Steinle,
who prosecutors say was killed in San Francisco by a Mexican man who had
already been deported five times. "We ought to eliminate sanctuary cities,"
Bush said. "We shouldn't provide law enforcement monies for cities like San
Francisco until they change their policies."

On the border, Bush talked about stationing agents closer to the
U.S.-Mexico line, building a "virtual wall," and using drones to patrol the
area and "send a signal."

"Donald Trump is colorful, but Bush is trying to think of a solution,"
Valerie Morelli, a 69-year-old from Amherst said when asked why she was
impressed with Bush's performance. "One thing I wish is that he (Bush)
would still build a wall, even though he said there’s other way to do it."

"I was impressed," said Ed Gorman, a 66-year-old from Londonderry who has
concerns about illegal immigration. "He's the first candidate that I’ve
heard actually say that we have a situation with illegal immigrants, that
if you’re not going to deport them wholesale, you’ve got to deal with them
here. And it sounded like he’s going to do that."

Gorman isn't totally sold yet. He brought up Trump's comments on
immigration, saying "there's a smidgeon of truth there."

"The best people are not always coming over, but I’m not going to support
anything he said," Gorman said of Trump.

Gorman said he was looking forward to seeing other Republican presidential
candidates speak in New Hampshire before making his decision, mentioning
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Wisconsin
Governor Scott Walker.

"I don’t want to see Trump," he offered. "That’s a waste of my time."

*Bush raises over $100 million to help his campaign
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/bush-fundraising-second-quarter/index.html>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 10, 2015*

Jeb Bush and his allied super PAC raised $114 million to support his
campaign, a massive fundraising haul made possible in part by rewriting the
rules of how presidential campaigns raise money.

Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise USA, said Thursday it collected $103
million since January, money that it must spend independently to back
Bush's presidential bid. Together, Bush's super PAC and campaign came close
to raising as much money in the first half of 2015 -- a year before a
general election -- as American Crossroads, the second biggest super PAC in
2012, did during the entire two-year cycle.

All groups will be required to file detailed reports by the end of the
month, but the Bush super PAC raised two and a half times as much as its
current closest competitor.

What enabled its size was an innovative strategy that some of Bush's GOP
rivals chose to emulate: By not formally running for President, Bush could
keep the independent group close by and help it grow into a political and
financial juggernaut.

Fundraisers and strategists had questioned aloud whether or not Bush would
succeed in raising the $100 million, a benchmark repeatedly swatted away by
campaign aides looking to measure expectations. But it was never in doubt
that the former Florida governor would lead the pack by a significant
margin.

Though campaign-finance reformers scoffed at what they saw as Bush's
feigned indecision, he was able to hire staff, travel the country and share
strategy with advisers who soon would be off limits. And most critically of
all, he was able to headline high-dollar fundraisers for the super PAC for
six months, delaying his own campaign launch in order to ask donors for
unlimited cash that gives him an unparalleled bank account entering the
summer.

Bush eventually formally launched his campaign in mid-June, and the
campaign itself said it raised $11.4 million in the 16 days between the
launch and the end of the fundraising quarter in June. That haul -- at a
clip of $710,000 a day -- is all eligible for spending in the primary, his
campaign said.

"Jeb is encouraged and grateful for the tremendous early support and
enthusiasm his candidacy has generated since he launched his campaign," New
York Jets owner Woody Johnson, national finance chairman of Bush's
campaign, said in a statement.

Yet it is the Los Angeles-based super PAC that will likely play the heavy
in the Bush political shop. The Right to Rise super PAC made its first
independent expenditures on Wednesday to bolster the campaign, releasing an
advertisement that compared Bush's record on transparency with Clinton's.

The group, led by longtime Bush senior aide Mike Murphy, had over $98
million cash on hand and raked in contributions from 9,900 donors. Five
hundred of those contributors gave in excess of $25,000.

Some campaign reformers reflected on the past six months by charging that
Bush had made a mockery of the super PAC system. David Donnelly, the head
of the advocacy organization Every Voice, said in a statement "that Bush
attended dozens of fundraisers to help raise that cash while claiming he
wasn't running for president is the political lie of the year so far."

Super PACs directly linked to candidates are playing a more central part in
2016 than the outside groups ever have before. And Bush's super PAC in
particular is reported to be playing an even greater role than is
traditionally done by outside groups, taking on more of the day-to-day
functions typically run out of a campaign headquarters.

"We are grateful for the overwhelming response from the thousands of donors
who have been drawn to Jeb's optimistic message of conservative renewal and
reform," said Charlie Spies, the election lawyer who is advising Bush and
helped Mitt Romney raise more than $150 million for Romney's super PAC in
2012.

The cash announced by Bush Thursday also does not include any money raised
by an allied nonprofit group, Right to Rise Policy Solutions. That group
won't be required to disclose its contributors.

Drawing on his family's vast network of experienced bundlers and
deep-pocketed donors, the Bush fundraising operation is likely to well
outperform its nearest competitors. But despite the campaign's opening
attempt to convince rival Republicans to pass on the race by exclusively
securing major donors -- a "shock and awe" salvo, as some allies described
it -- Bush will be joined by 16 other Republicans in the race for the White
House.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz posted a greater second-quarter fundraising total than
Bush's campaign did, collecting $14.2 million, though he had much more time
to raise the cash and that sum includes a small amount of money earmarked
for the general election. His four linked super PACs claim together claim
to have raised just under $38 million, putting Cruz likely in second place
in the fundraising competition.

And on the Democratic side, a set of groups backing Hillary Clinton say
they have raised $24 million and her campaign has raised $45 million.

Other top raisers include Florida senator Marco Rubio, who has a nonprofit
group and a super PAC that raised $16 million each. His official campaign
has not yet said how much it raised in the second quarter.

Bush is currently in Kennebunkport, Maine, huddling with these top donors
and bundlers.

*Bush rips Obama over OPM hack, but had data issues of own in Florida
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/jeb-bush-florida-data-breach/index.html>
// CNN // Chris Frates – July 9, 2015 *

After news broke last month that suspected Chinese hackers stole the
sensitive personal data of millions of Americans from the federal
government's human resources department, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
called for the agency's director to be fired.

But when a human resources company Florida hired compromised the personal
information of an estimated 100,000 state employees, then-Gov. Bush didn't
fire the contractor.

In fact, the state official who managed the contract, Bill Simon, is now
helping Bush build his presidential campaign's policy team.

In 2006, the Florida Department of Management Services estimated that
108,000 then-current and former state employees may have been affected when
their personal data, managed by Convergys Corporation, was improperly sent
to India by a subcontractor, Computerworld reported at the time.

Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said Thursday night that Bush's
administration acted quickly to address the issue, including strengthening
security measures, providing protection for potentially affected employees
and tightening oversight of the program.

But Bush didn't cancel the company's $350 million contract.

Campbell argued that the recent Office of Personnel Management case and the
Florida incident are not comparable.

"This was not a national security breach or threat," she said. "The OPM
breach was just another example of President Obama's failed and flawed
leadership."

When it comes to the federal government's data breach, the Republican
presidential contender has had tough words for OPM Director Katherine
Archuleta. On Thursday, the agency announced the breach compromised the
data of 21.5 million Americans, about five times more people than
originally estimated.

"The Office of Personnel Management head, a woman who was the political
director of the Obama re-election campaign, a political hack, in charge of
something of that responsibility, said 'No one was responsible at OPM for
this. The Chinese government was responsible,'" Bush told a crowded VFW
hall in New Hampshire Wednesday night. "No ma'am, you're responsible for
it, and you ought to be fired for incompetence."

Asked by reporters Wednesday if it was appropriate to compare the OPM
breach to the data compromise that occurred during Bush's governorship, he
strongly pushed back.

"I'd say its a slight difference when you have up to 18 million records
that are stolen by a foreign government where security clearances are
jeopardized, where people are filling out 100-page forms sharing their
whole life history to find out if they are qualified for a security
clearance controlled by a foreign government," Bush said.

*Jeb Bush’s $114 million haul: By the numbers
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bushs-114-million-haul-the-numbers> //
MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin – July 10, 2015 *

When it comes to fundraising, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush
has blown his GOP and Democratic competition out of the water. His campaign
and its allied super political action committee announced on Thursday that
they had, combined, brought in $114 million in the first half of the year.

Sure, the former Florida governor had a network of donors (via his brother
and father, both former presidents) to tap into – and he essentially
exploited a campaign finance loophole to raise such massive funds.
Nonetheless, the haul is impressive.

To put into perspective just how big that sum is, let’s take a look at what
else the man who wants to be America’s third President Bush could buy with
that $114 million.

28.5: The approximate number of 30-second Super Bowl commercials Team Bush
could buy with its $114 million haul.

207,273: The approximate number of round-trip plane tickets the Republican
could buy from his home state of Florida to the early voting state of New
Hampshire.

28.5 million: The number of deep-fried Twinkies Bush could buy at next
month’s Iowa State Fair.

57: The number of months of television ads Bush could buy in the
battleground state of Nevada.

9.5 million: The number of Jeb 2016 coffee mugs he could buy to hand out to
his supporters

RELATED: The 2016 money race: What we know now and what to look out for

And more seriously, here is where Bush’s money comes from, and how it
stacks up to the competition:

$103 million: The amount Right to Rise, the super political action
committee backing Bush, said it raised in the first half of the year.

$11.4 million: The amount Bush’s campaign said it brought in between when
Bush announced his White House bid on June 15 and the end of the second
quarter on June 30.

$710,000: The amount Bush’s campaign raised on average per day since he
announced his candidacy.

1:9: The ratio of campaign money Bush’s campaign brought in compared to his
super PAC, which is supposed to be independent of any campaign but can
accept unlimited funds in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens
United decision.

$98 million: The amount of cash Right to Rise now has on hand.

9,900: The approximate number of donors who contributed to the super PAC in
the first half of the year.

9,400: The approximate number of donors who gave $25,000 or less to the
super PAC.

$45 million: How much more cash Bush’s campaign and his allied super PAC
raised in comparison to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s campaign
and the allied groups backing her.

$109.2 million: How much more cash Bush’s campaign and his allied super PAC
raised in comparison to GOP competitor Carly Fiorina’s campaign and her
super PAC. Fiorina has been struggling with fundraising.

$7 million: How much more Bush raised in the first half of this year than
Mitt Romney managed in his total haul during his 2008 presidential primary
effort.

$91 million—How much more Bush’s super PAC raised in the first half of this
year compared to the amount the super PAC allied with Mitt Romney raised in
the first half of 2011.

$23 million– How much more Bush’s super PAC raised in the first half of
this year compared to the amount the super PAC supporting President Obama
raked in during the entire election cycle four years ago.

*Jeb Bush ‘did it on his own’?
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/jeb-bush-did-it-his-own> // MSNBC
// Steve Benen – July 10, 2015 *

Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign operation has a variety of key goals, but
as the cycle gets underway in earnest, the Florida Republican’s first
priority was simple: raise a ridiculous amount of money.

As of yesterday, it’s mission accomplished. MSNBC’s Aliyah Frumin reported
that the former governor’s super PAC has raised a staggering $114.4
million, on top of the $11.4 million Bush’s campaign itself raised in the
16 days following his formal launch.

To put this in perspective, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner,
raised $45 million in the second quarter, on top of the $15.6 million haul
for the pro-Clinton super PAC. Those totals were widely seen as pretty
impressive – initially the best of any candidate in either party – though
they pale in comparison to the Bush fundraising juggernaut.

The former governor’s fundraising prowess is all the more impressive in
light of the enormous field of Republican candidates – with 17 candidates
vying for contributions from GOP donors, it’s that much more difficult for
one contender to dominate. Bush nevertheless has more than doubled the
money raised by his next closest Republican rival.

But what struck me as funny about all of this was a quote in the Associated
Press report about Bush’s fundraising success.

…Bill Kunkler, a Chicago private equity executive and Bush donor, said that
while the Bush name may have opened some doors, it’s Jeb Bush who closed
the deal.

“People have been willing to take a look, and he’s overcome the people who
have said, ‘Not another Bush,’” Kunkler said Thursday. “People are looking
at him as a guy who did it on his own, and who stands on his own.”

What’s amusing about this is how wrong it is.

I’m not trying to take away anything from Bush’s fundraising totals –
they’re genuinely impressive – but by no fair measure is he someone who
succeeded and stands “on his own.”

As regular readers may recall, the New York Times reported earlier in the
year that Jeb Bush spent much of his adult life taking advantage of his
family connections to advance his interests and ambitions. In Florida,
people went out of their way to get close to Bush in the hopes that he’d
relay messages and suggestions to his powerful relatives – which he
routinely did.

When Bush decided to run for president, he quickly exploited a “wide
network of donors who supported his father and brother.” Indeed, when
fundraising appeals started reaching GOP donors, they were sent directly
from his father, mother, brother, and even his son (an elected official in
Texas). It’s consistent with a life filled with unique opportunities made
available to Jeb because of his powerful last name and political legacy.

Maybe the voting public will care about this, maybe not. But either way, if
“people are looking at him as a guy who did it on his own, and who stands
on his own,” those people are mistaken.

*Paul Ryan Explains What Jeb Bush meant When He Said Americans Should Work
Longer Hours
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/jeb-bush-paul-ryan_n_7772234.html>
// HuffPo // Michael McAuliff – July 10, 2015 *

Rep. Paul Ryan, who was Mitt Romney's vice presidential nominee in 2012,
declined Friday to say whether 2016 contender Jeb Bush's recent declaration
that "Americans need to work longer hours" was as damaging as Romney's
infamous "47 percent" remarks.

"You're Huffington Post aren't you? What the hell?" the Wisconsin
Republican joked at first.

But Ryan, a notorious data geek, did offer his interpretation of what Bush
meant to say.

"I think what he’s talking about is the fact that there are too many people
in America who have part-time jobs who want full-time jobs. That’s a
problem; that's what he’s talking about," Ryan said. "If you get into the
labor force participation rates, inside of that, there’s a lot of part-time
workers who don’t want to be part-time workers, who want to be full-time
workers.”

Bush was hammered over the remark by commentators and the campaign of
Hillary Clinton, which noted that Americans are the most productive workers
in the world, and that while productivity has kept on rising, it is pay
that has lagged. On top of that, Gallup reports that American workers
already average nearly 47 hours per week.

Still, part-time workers' share of the workforce has been slowly falling
since it peaked at 20 percent after the recession. It still stands at 18.6
percent, a couple of points higher than before the recession.

Asked how many times Bush would now have to say it Ryan’s way, Ryan said,
"Welcome to politics."

*Does Jeb Bush Understand Economics?
<http://www.newsweek.com/jeb-bush-its-stupid-economy-352232> // Newsweek //
Kurt Eichenwald – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush set off a firestorm this week by
appearing to say in a newspaper interview that Americans should work longer
hours. Democrats pounced, even as the Bush campaign said his comments were
taken out of context.

But everyone is missing the real story. Whether Bush’s comment was a
criticism of American workers or a lament about a weakened job market, his
words demonstrated such a lack of knowledge of economics that it’s
virtually impossible to understand what was the context of his words.

Bush’s full statement was: “My aspiration for the country and I believe we
can achieve it, is 4% growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have
to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its
all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and,
through their productivity, gain more income for their families.”

This word salad mixes together different economic terms as if they mean the
same thing and reaches for statistics that are, quite simply, ridiculous.
Perhaps Bush was just sloppy in his language, but whatever aide is prepping
him on economics needs to do a better job–maybe by working longer hours.

The key terms in his statement are growth, workforce participation,
productivity and income. His campaign insisted that when he said “people
need to work longer hours,” he was referring to them being able to obtain
jobs that are full-time or offer close to full-time hours. Bush speaks of
these economic concepts as if they are all interlinked; some are, some
aren’t.

Start with 4% growth “as far as the eye can see.” Lots of problems there.
Constant growth at that rate has never been achieved in the history of the
United States. In fact, the average from the boom of 1947 to this year is
3.26%. Even the Republican saint, Ronald Reagan, only achieved an average
of 3.5%. The longest period during which the United States achieved 4% or
greater growth was four years, under President Bill Clinton. So
essentially, Bush has as his aspiration something that has no precedent in
history.

But this part of Bush’s comment has both a logical flaw and a sign he
hasn’t been paying much attention to political language over the years. As
should be obvious, no one can see growth rates into the future, so the idea
of growth “as far as the eye can see” is the kind of clumsy infelicity that
should raise an eyebrow. “As far as the eye can see,” though, is a common
term used by politicians in reference to one element of economics: deficits.

The phrase was first popularized during the Reagan administration by David
Stockman, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget. In a
1981 interview with the journalist William Grieder, Stockman let slip the
dirty secret of the Reagan budgets: that there would be $200 billion
deficits “as far as the eye can see.” (Just $200 billion? Ah, those were
the days.) Since then, politicians on both sides have used the term
endlessly to refer to deficits. (John Boehner, the speaker of the House,
said it just a few months ago.) Given that rapid deficit growth started
under Reagan, reversed under Clinton and then exploded to astronomical
heights under Bush’s brother, using phrases that make no logical sense and
are connected to huge economic blunders isn’t smart.

Just as with the growth rates, Bush’s original–and revised–statements about
employees working more hours is statistical hooey. The average annual hours
per worker has essentially been unchanged for many, many years. Let’s take
the best full economic year during the George W. Bush presidency–2005–and
compare it to the worst under President Barack Obama–2011. Under Bush,
American workers put in an average of 34.6 hours of work a week. Under
Obama, they worked an average of 34.3 hours a week. That’s a difference of
3 minutes and 36 seconds a day, which translates for the median worker
salary to $1.62 (for minimum wage workers, it’s 39 cents). The problem is
that American business believes–unwisely–that using contractors and
part-timers boosts profits. How does Bush plan to make economic growth
rates translate into longer hours when that hasn’t happened in the past 15
years? He doesn’t–he’s just saying things.

Bush’s statement about workforce participation is correct–sort of. No doubt
the low workforce participation rate signals a weak recovery. But unlike
the unemployment rate, the participation rate is a complex amalgam of
issues. According to a just-released report by the American Enterprise
Institute–a respected center-right think tank in Washington–the meaning
behind the statistics is much more complex than Bush implies. AEI says
workforce participation has shrunk 3% since the Great Recession, but it
cites a report from Barclay’s attributing two points of that drop to the
aging population. The report also notes that women have been dropping out
of the workforce in a constant pattern since the mid-1990s. Still, there is
no doubt that there are plenty of chronically unemployed people who have
dropped out of the job market, so Bush gets a point.

But the rest of his comment makes him a loser in this game.

He says, “We have to be a lot more productive,” and then later refers to
productivity. This clearly demonstrates he has no idea what has been going
on in the economy. Productivity means something in economics. As a
comparison, it would be like saying the word “inflation” in an economic
statement but then arguing you were referring to the expanding American
waistline.

When it comes to productivity, American workers have been doing a great
job. Productivity, which is the economic output per worker, has grown
relentlessly since 1947 in almost a straight upward line. Implying that
Americans aren’t being productive enough is about the same as saying
McDonald’s doesn’t sell enough hamburgers. How much is enough to Bush? If
record productivity–with a cumulative growth of almost 300% since
1947–doesn’t cut it, what does?

There is no context where “we have to be more productive” means anything
other than “push yourselves past record levels, workers!” That is, unless
Bush doesn’t know what the word means.

But with this full statement, he has also demonstrated that he has no idea
of the real problem facing American workers. No doubt, he is blaming them
for their stagnant wages–all that’s needed is more hours of work, and wages
will improve significantly.

As history proves, that’s hokum. America went through nearly a century
where the profits generated by growth in worker productivity was shared–the
more they produced, the more money everyone made. What Bush and far too
many Republicans refuse to acknowledge is that wages and productivity
became uncoupled around 1973: Productivity goes up, corporate profits go
up, the rich get wealthier, but the financial benefits don’t trickle down
to workers. Since the great uncoupling, the only times there was
significant percentage wage growth that even vaguely mimicked productivity
growth were in the Carter and Clinton administrations. (Both George W. Bush
and Obama had short periods of wage growth, but nothing to brag about.)

American history’s most productive workers are not responsible for the fact
that they aren’t paid enough. Do Bush and his GOP cohorts really believe
that the wealthy are sitting in their offices, twiddling their thumbs,
waiting for workers to demand more money that will then be handed over
gladly? Wages are growing at their lowest level since World War II. In
fact, income inequality is worse today than it was in 1774, even when
slavery is included in the numbers, according to a study by the National
Bureau of Economic Research.

The bottom line: Folks are missing the real news in Bush’s jumble of
economic words. He doesn’t know what is happening in the economy, he
doesn’t know what economic terms mean and he is willing to blame workers
for their own stagnant wages by proclaiming all that is needed is for them
to get more hours a week at the job. And what he leaves off the table? That
the problem is his friends in corporate America, whose wages keep
skyrocketing because of growing productivity per worker, which allows the
companies to shed workers, creating a larger pool of labor going after a
shrinking number of jobs, putting more downward pressure on wages–an
unbreakable cycle that will continue as far as the eye can see.  Add to
that corporate outsourcing of jobs overseas, and Bush’s simplistic “work
more hours” blather–regardless of whether he meant what the Democrats says
or his campaign says–is shown up for the nonsense it is.

Bush needs to–but certainly won’t–take a new approach. Rather than telling
employees that record workforce productivity needs to be even higher, he
needs to let his wealthy friends know that record-high income is enough.
Already, several of the super-rich have warned their compatriots that the
type of massive economic inequality being experienced in the United States
has never ended well throughout global history, and that policy changes are
needed before mobs start slamming heads on pikes. Unfortunately, with his
recent comment proving his feeble understanding of economics and his
willingness to attribute low wages to largely irrelevant issues, Jeb Bush
has proved he does not have the courage or the knowledge to lead that
policy transformation.

*RUBIO*

*Marco Rubio Calls Abortion Rights ‘Indefensible’ – and Knocks Down
‘Pro-Abortion’ Straw Man
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/marco-rubio-calls-abortion-rights-indefensible-and-knocks-down-pro-abortion-straw-man>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 10, 2015 *

At the National Right to Life Convention on Friday, Florida Senator Marco
Rubio touted his opposition to abortion rights, long a prerequisite for
being a viable Republican presidential candidate.

Speaking to the crowd in New Orleans, he hit all the necessary notes —
legal abortion is "the taking of innocent life on a massive scale"; Roe v.
Wade was an "egregiously flawed Supreme Court decision"; the case for
abortion rights is "indefensible."

If an embryo is "not a person, what is it? Because if you left it alone,
that's the only thing it can become," he said. "It can’t develop into a
pony!" Though he didn't mention it in his speech, Rubio has supported three
exceptions to making abortion illegal—in cases of rape, incest and if the
mother's life is at stake.

Also notable was his message of respect for proponents of legal abortion,
uncommon for a cause that has sparked ugly clashes and divisive rhetoric
between the opposing sides for generations. He knocked down a straw man by
some of the more aggressive opponents of the cause, namely the notion that
its supporters want more abortions.

"You can judge a cause by the arguments made on both sides. For example, I
rarely meet anyone who's willing to say they're pro-abortion," Rubio said.
"They'll say they're pro-choice, but almost everyone I've met says that
they personally disagree with abortion. That alone tells us a little about
the basic common sense the issue is built on."

Rubio's appearance at the National Right to Life Convention came fresh off
a three-day swing in Iowa packed with speeches, during which he didn't
mention abortion. On Friday, he connected his abortion message to his
overall pitch for the presidency—about reviving a disappearing American
Dream. "And it is fundamentally impossible," he said, "for America to reach
her destiny as a nation founded on the equal rights of all if our
government believes an entire segment of the human population doesn’t have
a right to exist."

*Marco Rubio: Roe v. Wade Was ‘Egregiously Flawed Decision’
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/marco-rubio-abortion_n_7772510.html?1436557719>
// HuffPo // Laura Bassett – July 10, 2015 *

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) laid out his strong anti-abortion views in a
speech on Friday, calling the Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights
decision in Roe v. Wade a "historically, egregiously flawed decision" that
"has condoned the taking of innocent life on a massive scale."

“It is fundamentally impossible for America to reach her destiny as a
nation founded on the equal rights of all if our government believes an
entire segment of the human population doesn’t have a right to exist," the
2016 presidential candidate said at the National Right to Life Convention
in New Orleans.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion in the 1973 decision, ruling that
states cannot prevent women from obtaining the procedure up until the fetus
would be viable outside the womb, around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. In
the years before abortion was legal, it was common for women to land in the
hospital after seeking illegal, "back-alley" abortions or attempting to
self-induce. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that
in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, 130,000 women obtained illegal or
self-induced procedures, and 39 of them died.

Republicans in Congress are currently trying to chip away at Roe v. Wade by
banning abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. Rubio and nearly every other
Republican presidential candidate has endorsed the legislation. Ten states
have enacted similar abortion limits, and anti-abortion advocates hope one
of the laws eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court and overturns Roe.

Rubio said Friday that the issue of abortion is "more than political or
policy-related. It is a definitional issue about the kind of country we
want to be."

According to a recent Gallup poll, half of Americans consider themselves
"pro-choice," while 44 percent identify as "pro-life." But Rubio said he
believes that nearly every American is personally opposed to the procedure,
regardless of whether they think it should be legal.

“You can judge a cause by the arguments made on both sides. For example, I
rarely meet anyone who’s willing to say they’re pro-abortion,” he said.
“They’ll say they’re pro-choice, but almost everyone I’ve met says that
they personally disagree with abortion. That alone tells us a little about
the basic common sense the issue is built on.”

*Rubio: Confederate Flag A “Deeply Painful Symbol” For Millions, Shouldn’t
Be On Government Buildings
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rubio-confederate-flag-a-deeply-painful-symbol-for-millions#.mbRoP2Qvg>
// BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio on the Michael Medved Show
Thursday said that although for some the Confederate Flag is a symbol of
heritage, “we have to recognize that for millions of Americans, it is a
deeply painful symbol and that’s why it shouldn’t be over government
buildings, as it is not in Florida and it will now not be over in South
Carolina.”

Here’s the full quote:

It was the right decision for South Carolina to make. I knew they would
make the decision that was best for them. I had trust and faith in their
process and in their leadership. And I felt strongly that outsiders should
not be coming in and telling them what to do. That they knew what to do and
they would do it. And I thought it would be counterproductive. Look, I know
people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage, not as a
symbol of racism. But I also know people, many people, who see it as a
symbol of pain. For them, it’s a reminder of an era in which in this
country human beings were enslaved. And so, that’s why in Florida and in
many parts of the country, people have decided that the time has come for
that flag not to be displayed in government buildings. And I think it’s,
it’s, you’re — it is possible to say you agree with that decision, as I do,
and also say that we recognize, that, for many people, the flag — the
reason that they’re tied to it is not because of racism. They’re not
racist, it’s a cultural attachment. But we have to recognize that for
millions of Americans, it is a deeply painful symbol and that’s why it
shouldn’t be over government buildings, as it is not in Florida and it will
now not be over in South Carolina.

*As Donald Trump Riles GOP Race, Marco Rubio Begins to Connect With Voters
In Spanish
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-riles-gop-race-marco-rubio-begins/story?id=32357758>
// ABC // Ines de la Cuetara – July 10, 2015 *

On the campaign trail this week, Marco Rubio chatted with a woman from San
Salvador. Claudia Steele, who is now an American citizen and a voter,
eagerly told him she would do everything she could to support his
presidential bid. Rubio thanked her, and the two discussed politics and
family — all in Spanish.

When Steele told Rubio she was the only Latina member of her local
Republican organization, Rubio answered, smiling, "Hay que cambiar eso.”
(Translation: “We need to change that.”)

But this wasn’t downtown Miami. It was a western suburb of Des Moines, Iowa.

While Republicans worry recent comments by Donald Trump comparing illegal
immigrants to rapists and drug dealers may harm the party’s chances with
Hispanic voters during the 2016 election cycle, the 44 year-old Senator
from Florida was welcomed with open arms — quite literally — by the Spanish
speakers who came to meet him over the course of his three-day swing in
Iowa. According to 2003 U.S. Census bureau, just 5.5 percent of the
population of the Hawkeye State identifies as Hispanic or Latino, but more
than a few found Rubio this week.

Steele said she thinks it’s important Rubio speaks Spanish. "It helps him
communicate and connect with the community," she said in an interview with
ABC News. (Fellow GOP candidate Jeb Bush is also a fluent Spanish speaker).

At the same event Steele attended, held by the Westside Conservative Club
in Urbandale, a waitress originally from Barcelona happily conversed with
Rubio in Spanish, and later hugged him goodbye.

In Cedar Rapids, Sydney Speltz, whose mother is a Colombian immigrant, said
she would definitely be voting for Rubio.

"It's just really inspiring to see a fellow Hispanic be so successful,"
said Speltz, who works at the Cedar Rapids Country Club, where Rubio hosted
the Linn Eagles Lunch.

In Davenport, Morena Gonzales-Castro Hausuer, originally from El Salvador,
showed up to hear the Florida senator and son of Cuban immigrants.

"I do believe that he is the one who has the right ideas, the right points
about what is going to happen to our youth if we don't change our
policies," she said.

This week — like many of his fellow candidates — Rubio was asked to address
whether Trump’s recent comments were hurting the Republican Party. He said
he thinks voters are “capable of distinguishing between Donald Trump and
the Republican Party.”

“I obviously strongly disagree with him,” Rubio told reporters at a
campaign stop, reiterating that Trump’s comments were "inaccurate, they’re
offensive, and they’re divisive.”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, on the other hand,
argued that all of the GOP candidates are “in the same general area on
immigration.” (Rubio dismissed Clinton’s comments as “silly talk”).

"We have a right to enforce our immigration laws,” Rubio told reporters.
“That’s not hostility, that’s sovereignty.”

Gonzalez-Castro Hausuer agreed.

“I believe if someone wants to be in this country, they can come to this
country, but they have to do it legally," she said, detailing the lengthy
and costly immigration process she had to navigate in order to move to Iowa
with her U.S.-born husband.

"But that is the way it should be," she added.

Steele, Gonzalez-Castro Hausuer, and Speltz all said what they liked most
about Rubio were his ideas for higher education reform. Neither cited
immigration as a top priority, but Speltz acknowledged she saw it as a kind
of litmus test for candidates' general opinion of Hispanics.

“I feel that some Republicans are too tough on immigration, and don’t show
a lot of respect for people from Mexico and South America,” she said,
referring to Trump. "But I definitely don’t think Republicans as a whole
are anti-Hispanic.”

*Marco Rubio: I will absolutely roll back Obama Cuba policy
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/10/marco-rubio-cuba-obama-policy-roll-back>
// Guardian // Sabrina Siddiqui – July 10, 2015 *

Barack Obama’s historic policy shift toward Cuba would be short-lived under
a Marco Rubio presidency, the Florida senator has told the Guardian, one
week after the White House made the final major step in renewing diplomatic
ties with the Castro regime.

Rubio, a top contender for the Republican nomination for president, said he
would “absolutely” reverse the unilateral steps Obama has taken thus far to
normalize relations between the two countries – including closing down the
embassies that are slated to open on 20 July – if he is elected to the
White House in 2016.

“In fact, I think they’re in violation of the law,” Rubio said during an
interview at the tail end of a three-day campaign swing through Iowa. “The
statute passed by Congress specifically prohibits many of the things he
[Obama]’s now undertaking. It says those things can only happen after
certain conditions have been met, none of which have been met. As
president, I will follow the law.”

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has been the leading opponent in the US
Congress of Obama’s overtures to the island nation.

Ever since the president announced in December that the US would end a
half-century diplomatic freeze with Cuba, Rubio has publicly castigated the
administration at every turn – be it the lifting of certain commercial and
travel sanctions, the removal of Cuba from a list of state sponsors of
terrorism, and Obama’s announcement last week on the reopening of embassies
between Washington and Havana.

In addition to saying he would reverse those steps, Rubio also defended his
steadfast opposition to lifting the 50-year-old US trade embargo on Cuba –
which critics argue has taken a significant humanitarian toll on the Cuban
people while doing little to deter the grip on power of the Castro brothers.

Opponents of the embargo, Rubio said, “fundamentally misunderstand” its
purpose.

“The purpose of the embargo was not to overthrow Fidel Castro – that’s what
the Bay of Pigs was about, that’s what Operation Mongoose was about, but
not the embargo,” Rubio said, referring to the failed missions under
President John F Kennedy in the early 1960s to help the Cuban people
overthrow the communist regime.

The intent of the sanctions, Rubio argued, was to protect the property of
Americans and other private owners and prevent stolen goods from being
trafficked into the United States as well as to serve as leverage against
the Castros.

“We could have used, and can use, economic sanctions through the embargo as
a leverage to gain democratic concessions and openings for the Cuban people
in exchange for alleviating some of these conditions, especially the
diplomatic recognition and the removal of Cuba from the state sponsor of
terrorism list,” Rubio said. “The Cubans have basically achieved all of
those concessions and in return have done nothing to change … The only
thing that will change is the amount of money the regime will have access
to.”

Jeb Bush, regarded as one of Rubio’s main rivals in a crowded pathway to
the Republican nomination for president, has similarly opposed the Obama
administration’s Cuba policy but offered a less definitive response when
asked if he would allow a US embassy in Havana to remain open.

“Probably not,” Bush, a former governor of Florida, told the editorial
board of the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper this week. “I haven’t
given thought about undoing a work in progress.”

Rubio has pledged to oppose whoever Obama nominates as ambassador to Cuba –
a post that must be confirmed by the US Senate, where he sits on the
influential foreign relations committee. Republican lawmakers in Washington
have also refused to take up Obama’s request to lift the trade embargo,
which requires an act of Congress.

Rubio’s unwavering position on US policy toward Cuba is a point of contrast
in a presidential campaign built on the notion that he is a next-generation
leader with fresh ideas to usher in what he has dubbed “a new American
century”.

In seven stops this week through different parts of the early battleground
state of Iowa, the earliest-voting state in the primaries, the 44-year-old
senator sought to convince voters that he is the candidate of the future
while declaring that “yesterday is over” – an implicit dig both a Bush and
at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

But those in favor of rapprochement in US-Cuba relations see the 50-year
policy upheld until Obama’s reversal late last year as decidedly
antiquated, and at odds with recent decades of bipartisan support for
liberalizing international trade with the express purpose of expanding
political and economic opportunity around the world.

Rubio himself referred to two such examples – China and Vietnam – in a
Wednesday op-ed in the New York Times, but to make a counterpoint: that
despite the opening up of economic pathways, both China and Vietnam remain
notorious violators of basic human rights.

Asked if he believed the US should then no longer engage in trade with
China or Vietnam, Rubio conceded there was a “geopolitical reality” that
set the two apart from Cuba – especially with respect to China.

“It’s the second largest economy in the world, it has nuclear weapons, it’s
the second largest military or the third largest on the planet,” he said.
“There’s a reality there that doesn’t exist with Cuba that we have to
address. It just is what it is – we have to balance geopolitical reality.”

Rubio added that concessions to China had nonetheless forced the US to go
silent on human rights abuses there, and his broader point was that China,
Vietnam and Burma disproved the argument that economic engagement will pave
the way for a political transformation.

“It is proof that economic engagement alone does not lead a reluctant
tyranny to open up democratically,” Rubio said, before identifying the
biggest difference, in his view, in the analogy. “China’s half a world
away, Vietnam is half a world away – Cuba is 90 miles from our shores. It
is not in the national security interest of the United States to have a
communist, anti-American tyranny 90 miles from our shores.”

He said prerequisites necessary for him to consider engagement with Cuba
would be free and fair elections, independence of the media, the right to
organize political parties, freedom of assembly, and the release of
political prisoners.

Rubio further referenced reports of a crackdown last weekend in which
nearly a hundred peaceful activists were detained by Cuban authorities, and
prominent activist Antonio G Rodiles was beaten, to underscore his point
that engagement at this juncture was futile.

The reports of the arrests were confirmed by the State Department earlier
this week. A spokesman expressed concern, but argued that such behavior
further reinforced “the need to move forward” with restoring diplomatic
relations.

Obama acknowledged in his own remarks last week that “very serious
differences” will continue between the two countries on freedom of speech
and assembly, and access to information, while proposing engagement as the
means through which change can occur.

“Nobody expects Cuba to be transformed overnight,” Obama said in his speech
on the reopening of embassies. “But I believe that American engagement
through our embassy, our businesses and most of all through our people, is
our best way to advance our interests and support for democracy and human
rights.”

Although the president did not mention Rubio by name, he criticized
Republicans who have rejected his approach. Obama cited public opinion in
both the US and Cuba showing a majority support for re-establishing ties,
and urged Republicans to “listen to the Cuban people, the American people”.

Asked for his response to polling putting the public at odds with his view
– which includes a majority of Americans, as well as Cuban Americans, and
residents of Cuba – Rubio was unfazed.

“I don’t ever believe a president should conduct foreign policy on the
basis of polls,” he said. “A president’s supposed to lead. A president’s
supposed to do what’s right for the country even if it isn’t popular,
particularly when it comes to national security issues. A president needs
to view things with a 20-, a 10- and a 5-year outlook, not what’s
immediately gratifying. One of the biggest failures of this administration
is that it’s tried to use foreign policy for domestic political
considerations.”

Rubio added that the opinion of Americans would shift if they were more
informed on the implications of opening up ties with Cuba, which he said
would be an “economic opening to the Cuban regime [that] controls the
entire economy”.

Although Rubio did not raise in detail his stance on Cuba while courting
several packed rooms across Iowa this week, he drew heavily on his personal
story, as he has since declaring his candidacy for the White House. He
recounted how his parents left Cuba in the 1956 in search of a better
future.

Their realization of the American Dream – Rubio’s father worked as a
bartender and his mother a maid – is what set the United States apart from
the place his parents once called home he said.

The senator launched his presidential campaign in April from the Freedom
Tower in Miami, Florida, which served for more than a decade starting in
the early 1960s as the first stop for Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the
United States.

Cuban Americans living in Florida who are registered Republicans continue
to overwhelmingly oppose Obama’s new Cuba policy.

“That combination has been steadfastly anti-Castro and pro-embargo,” said
Dr. Gregory Weeks, an expert on Latin America who heads the political
science department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “This
is how Cuban-American Republicans have been for many, many years and
something that is very only slowly changing. That’s how [Rubio has]
developed politically. He also sees that as part of a package that includes
relations with Iran, Russia and dealing with Isis, indicative of what he
believes is a broader weakness of Obama’s foreign policy.”

But unravelling the steps the administration has already taken would be
politically risky, according to Richard Feinberg, a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution and an architect of the first Summit of the Americas.

“Latin America as a whole would be outraged. It would be incredibly costly
for Rubio’s US policies throughout the region,” Feinberg said. “Two years
from now it’s going to be difficult for any Republican to completely
reverse the initiative of this administration.”

*Marco Rubio: The American Dream Is Really A Universal Dream?
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/marco-rubio-the-american-dream-is-really-a-universal-dream/>
// Breitbart // Michelle Moons – July 10, 2015 *

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed Freedom Fest attendees Friday night with
a message centered around the idea of the American Dream, the story of his
parents’ immigration, and his own success.

Rubio is one of two presidential candidates reaching out to a mix of about
2,000 conservative and libertarian-leaning conference goers. The other
attendee is the new Republican frontrunner, real estate mogul Donald Trump.

Rubio recalled the story of his hard-working Cuban parents who immigrated
to the United States in 1956. His father worked as a bartender, his mother
mainly as a maid. He made it a point that he lived in Las Vegas for six
years as a kid. The story, which he has told during many a speech,
contrasts his father’s work at the back of a room to propel Rubio’s later
ascension to a podium at the front of the room.

“We call it the American dream, but it really is a universal dream,” Rubio
declared. “People all over the world have this dream, they’ve had it for
millennia, the desire not just to be better off and to earn a better life,
but to leave their kids better off than themselves. Why they call it the
American dream is because so many millions of people have been able to
achieve it here and not enough places. That’s the real American Dream.

“Here’s the spiritual principal. Every human being, not every human being
born in North America, every human being is born with certain rights, life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“The road to the American Dream has gotten narrower” because of two things,
Rubio said. He listed the globalization of the economy and advances in
technology as those two obstacles.

“We now compete with people half way around the world for the best ideas,
the best talent, the best innovations, the best jobs, the best companies.”

It’s the relaxing of protections for American workers that has been
criticized, as American workers have been replaced by foreign H1B visa
workers in instances such as the Disney layoffs. Rubio has come under
continual criticism for lax stances on immigration, including his role in
the “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill.

He went on to note that today, even bartender and maid positions require
more advanced training and technology in the 21st century.

He seemed to pick up Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)96%’s “cartel” terminology,
calling the traditional higher education system an “existing and stagnant
cartel.” Cruz has been emphasizing the idea of the “Washington Cartel” in
his speeches and new book.

Rubio touched on a complicated, burdensome tax system and regulatory system.

He closed with “I have a debt to America I will never repay,” and that the
journey from the back of the room to the front of the room was the American
Dream. “Whether we remain a special country or not will be determined by
whether that journey is still possible for the people trying to make that
journey now.”

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul’s Fake Flat Tax
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/opinion/rand-pauls-fake-flat-tax.html>
// NYT // Editorial Board – July 10, 2015 *

Every four years, Republican candidates for the White House denounce the
federal tax system — often advocating replacing it with a supposedly more
equitable single tax rate — and this year is no exception. Senator Rand
Paul has already come up with a flat-tax reform plan, and it shows clearly,
once again, that this is a fundamentally flawed idea.

Mr. Paul has pledged to “blow up the tax code” by replacing all federal
taxes with a flat 14.5 percent tax on personal and corporate income —
except, that is, when his plan exempts income from taxation altogether by
retaining popular write-offs. Mr. Paul proposes to continue deductions for
mortgage interest and charitable donations, which would gut the supposed
simplicity of a flat tax.

The Paul plan, like the flat-tax plans from previous campaigns, would fail
to raise enough revenue to finance a modern government. Estimates by the
conservative Tax Foundation found that it would reduce revenue to the
Treasury by $1 trillion to $3 trillion over a decade. Citizens for Tax
Justice, a more liberal advocacy group, estimates a 10-year loss of $15
trillion. Arguments about the proper role of government aside, a population
and an economy that are growing in size and complexity cannot thrive with a
shrinking government.

Rand Paul in Las Vegas last month, flanked by more than 74,000 pieces of
paper meant to represent the size of the United States tax code. Credit
Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The Paul plan also fails the basic test of progressivity. It promises a big
tax cut for everyone, but analyses show it would be a big tax cut for high
earners and businesses and basically a wash for everyone else. And that’s
being generous. If Mr. Paul were to cut federal spending to offset the
plan’s revenue loss, as he has promised to do, middle-class and
lower-income Americans would be much worse off, because programs that
benefit them would have to be reduced or ended. Contenders for the chopping
block would include Social Security, health care, education and
environmental protection.

Mr. Paul might be on to something if he were willing to acknowledge that
his flat tax is essentially a value-added tax similar to those used in all
market-oriented democracies except the United States. (With both a flat tax
and a VAT, businesses deduct nonlabor expenses from gross receipts and pay
taxes on the difference — the value added.)

Mr. Paul doesn’t call his flat tax a VAT because anti-tax conservatives are
opposed to VATs. So he has taken a baffling approach that would be prone to
evasion. But a carefully conceived VAT could be exactly what the United
States needs. Experience and research show that it can raise substantial
revenue, is relatively easy to administer and is minimally harmful to
economic growth. In fact, the reason it is loathed by anti-tax
conservatives is that their real agenda is to hobble government.

The problem with a VAT is that it falls more heavily on lower-income
taxpayers, who spend all of or most of their earnings, than on
higher-income people, who can afford to save some or most of what they
make. To offset that disadvantage, a VAT must be part of a progressive
fiscal system that includes a graduated income tax; adequate spending on
Social Security, Medicare and other government insurance programs; and
ample government investment in education, roads, scientific research and
other public goods and services.

Mr. Paul’s plan heads the wrong way on all those fronts, providing less
progressivity and more cuts to spending and investment. It is bad policy,
and it does nothing to foster a meaningful debate about the economy or
taxes.

*Rand Paul’s presidential campaign raises $7 million
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/10/rand-pauls-presidential-campaign-raises-7-million/>
// WaPo // Katie Zezima – July 10, 2015 *

Sen. Rand Paul's presidential campaign has raised $7 million since its
launch in April.

The overwhelming majority of Paul's contributions came through small-dollar
donations. Eighty-five percent of Paul's haul came from contributions of
$50 or less, and 96 percent from people who gave $100 or less. Paul's
fundraising totals were first reported by Breitbart.com and confirmed by
his presidential campaign.

More than 108,205 people gave to Paul's campaign, with the average donation
coming in at $65. Super PACs supporting Paul have not released their
fundraising totals. The money was raised through the presidential campaign
and a joint fundraising committee where a portion of the money goes toward
Paul's presidential campaign.

Paul, who has positioned himself as a grass-roots fundraiser, lags in the
Republican money race. Jeb Bush's campaign raised $11.4 million; his allied
super PAC raised more than $103 million between January and June. Sen. Ted
Cruz's presidential campaign raised $14.2 million since Cruz announced in
March; combined with his super PAC total, Cruz has raised more than $51
million.

Paul's campaign has raised, on average, $83,333.33 a day, putting him
behind the campaigns of Ben Carson and ahead of Carly Fiorina. Bush's
campaign has raised an average of $760,000 a day.

Paul's campaign attempted to capitalize monetarily on a nearly 11-hour
speech he gave about surveillance on the Senate floor in May, peppering
inboxes with fundraising pitches, and tried to focus his fundraising pitch
on small-dollar, grassroots donations.

"When the media pores through my financial reports next week, they'll be
scrutinizing every little detail. And that doesn't include just fundraising
totals. They'll also be looking to see how far and wide my base of
grass-roots support extends. If they discover my campaign has a grassroots
army of supporters in every state and every city across the country, it's
sure to make their heads spin," Paul's campaign wrote in a fundraising
e-mail days before the end of the June 30 reporting quarter.

*Rand Paul pulls in $7 million for presidential run
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-rakes-in-7-million-for-presidential-run-119978.html?ml=tl_7>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 10, 2015 *

Sen. Rand Paul pulled in $7 million for his presidential run during the
last fundraising quarter, his campaign reported on Friday.

Included in that number are receipts from Paul’s joint fundraising
committee, and his campaign is able to point to a decently large number of
contributors (108,205) with an average donation of $65.

The $7 million figure doesn’t, however, include the money raised by the
libertarian-ish candidate’s super PAC, which is expected to significantly
up his total haul.

While that makes comparisons tough, the initial figure pales in comparison
to the eye-popping numbers trotted out by his Republican rivals in recent
days. On Thursday, Jeb Bush’s super PAC that it had exceeded its
fundraising target, and had brought in $103 million. On top of that, Bush’s
campaign reported it had raised $11.4 million.

And Sen. Ted Cruz announced last week that his campaign and super PACs had
brought in a total $51 million haul for the second quarter.

During the same fundraising period in the 2012 cycle, Sen. Paul’s father,
Ron Paul, raised $4.5 million.

Paul’s overall fundraising numbers are expected to put him very much in the
game, and his polling numbers have him in the upper middle of the field. A
recent CNN poll found Paul with 8 percent support, tied with Ben Carson and
trailing Bush and Donald Trump.

Breitbart.com first reported Paul’s haul.

*Rand Paul takes in $7 million in second quarter
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/rand-paul-fundraising-numbers/> //
CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 10, 2015 *

Rand Paul raised $7 million in the opening months of his presidential
campaign, sitting in the middle of the pack of Republicans who have so far
released their fundraising numbers, his campaign said Friday.

Paul, powered by low-dollar "moneybombs" that catapulted him to the Senate
in 2010 and helped his father win delegates in his 2012 presidential
campaign, raised the millions from 108,000 donors who gave an average of
$65.

The figures were first reported late Friday afternoon by Breitbart.

Paul is also considering running for re-election to the Senate, and the $7
million haul is split between the presidential bank account and a joint
fundraising committee, which dedicates the first $2,700 of each donation to
his presidential run and the next $2,700 to a potential Senate run. A Paul
spokesman, Sergio Gor, declined Friday to say how much of the $7 million
was raised by each committee.

The Kentucky senator's numbers show that he raised money at a slower clip
than his competitors, raising about $85,000 a day.

Paul also has two major super PAC's backing him, one of which is led by
several former Paul aides. But he reportedly has struggled to woo the big
moneymen who are choosing instead to line up behind former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The Kentucky
senator has placed a particular emphasis on courting wealthy donors in
Silicon Valley.

Unlike some of his competitors, Paul has had almost the full quarter, which
began April 1, to raise money for his official campaign. Bush, who
officially announced his candidacy about two weeks before the fundraising
quarter closed, currently leads the Republican field in those hauls,
gathering about $11 million. Cruz raised $10 million in the second quarter,
retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson cashed in $8.3 million and businesswoman
Carly Fiorina and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry trailed the field with
between $1 and $2 million.

*Rand Paul Raises $7 Million in Second Quarter with Overwhelming Grassroots
Support
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/exclusive-rand-paul-raises-7-million-in-second-quarter-with-overwhelming-grassroots-support/>
// Breitbart // Matthew Boyle – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)93% raked in an
impressive more than $7 million in the last Federal Election Commission
(FEC) fundraising quarter which includes receipts through the joint
fundraising committee, his campaign told Breitbart News exclusively.

What’s perhaps more impressive than the dollar amount, however, is just how
successful Paul has been with grassroots supporters: the total number of
donations is comprised of 108,205 individual donors with an average of $65.

What’s more, a whopping 85 percent of all donations were for either $50 or
less, and 96 percent of all donations were for $100 or less. Those numbers
prove that Paul has raw grassroots support nationwide, and hardworking
people who aren’t part of the permanent political class—the folks who can’t
max out in thousands of dollars of donations to various political
candidates—are doing whatever they can to help him out.

The numbers Paul’s campaign released to Breitbart News exclusively also
show he is outpacing the contributions of almost every 2012 Republican
campaign and has the resources to build a national campaign capable of
competing through the convention. The last quarter’s $7 million of receipts
come from the time frame of between April and June of this year. Paul
announced he’s running for president in April.

At this point in the 2012 Republican primary, Paul’s father former Rep. Ron
Paul (R-TX) raised only $4.5 million, and only former Massachusetts Gov.
Mitt Romney raised more. Paul is on pace to raise almost double what his
father and almost every other candidate garnered during the 2012 primary.

Additionally, Paul’s campaign’s announcement of high levels of small dollar
donors means he has strong support from real primary voters, not political
insiders. His donors are activists who will continue to donate and, as
engaged activists, they will drive others to give to and vote for Sen. Rand
Paul (R-KY)93%.

Polls continue to show Paul is the best-suited GOP candidate at this time
when it comes to facing off against former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in a hypothetical general election. He leads the field against
Hillary Clinton nationally, according to Real Clear Politics’ average of
polls. Also, he is the only candidate who polls ahead of Clinton in polls
from key states Republicans need to win the White House, including
Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Paul is running a grassroots campaign, unlike other candidates who must
raise higher amount of funds to overcome monumental negatives. While donor
class candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)80% or former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush will pump millions into efforts to assuage Republican voters they’ve
infuriated, grassroots insurgent candidates like Paul will continue outside
efforts like he’s been doing.

In the past two months, Paul has rolled out countless local and national
endorsements, opened offices in New Hampshire and Iowa, and focused on
campaigning in areas where other Republicans dare not show up, such as
liberal college campuses, minority areas throughout the nation, and Silicon
Valley. There’s also hardly any other candidates as good as Paul at gaining
earned media and driving the political narrative—so he’s able to, without
having to purchase advertising, push the conversation he wants to talk
about.

One of the first real tests of any presidential campaign is building an
organization that is deep enough in the early states to build momentum and
wide enough around the country to sustain the long slog that is a national
campaign.

Paul has surpassed such expectations as, in addition to his energized and
large grassroots following of liberty supporters, his early state operation
has been flexing its muscle since the senator went on his five state
announcement tour, packing the house at each spot. Since then, the Senator
has announced 125 members to his New Hampshire leadership team, including
25 state representatives and two state senators. He’s been lauded for
operational efficiency in Iowa and amassed hundreds of volunteers in South
Carolina.

And that’s not to mention all the endorsements he’s pulled together, from
people like Congressman Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)95% of Michigan or Rep.
Thomas Massie (R-KY)92% of his home state of Kentucky. Paul also has the
endorsement of Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)52%, even
though the two have been somewhat at loggerheads with each other since
earlier this year on issues like Obamatrade and government surveillance.

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz hits the jackpot: A book war with the New York Times
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/10/ted-cruz-hits-the-jackpot-a-book-war-with-the-new-york-times/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – July 10, 2015 *

Perhaps the only thing better for Sen. Ted Cruz's 2016 candidacy than
seeing his book on the New York Times bestseller list is seeing the New
York Times refuse to include it.

Politico reported Thursday night that Cruz's (R-Tex.) new book, "A Time for
Truth," would be left off of the paper's bestsellers list. It does appear
on the Publisher's Weekly list for the week, identifying that 11,853 copies
were sold, landing it in fourth place between books from former Playboy
bunny Holly Madison and enthusiastic facial-expression-maker Aziz Ansari.

At first, the reason that Cruz wasn't being included weren't clear. A
spokesperson for the Times simply told Politico that the paper has "uniform
standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis
of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold. This book
didn't meet that standard this week."

Eventually, though, the Times told Politico that "the overwhelming
preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk
purchases" -- in other words, someone bought a lot of copies of the book so
that Cruz would make it onto the bestseller list. Or, to put it more
bluntly: Someone gamed the system.

Cruz's publisher denies that. In a statement to Buzzfeed, HarperCollins
said that it had "investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz’s book" and
"found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or
organization." It went on to note that Nielsen Bookscan excludes bulk sales
from its figures, which resulted in the 11,800 number above.

You will not be surprised to learn that the news of Cruz's omission was met
with either gloating or fury directed at the liberal media, depending on
observers' political leanings.

For example:

Update, 4:00 p.m.: Cruz joins the fight. In a statement to Politico,
spokesman Rick Tyler said, "The Times is presumably embarrassed by having
their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response — alleging
'strategic bulk purchases' — is a blatant falsehood. The evidence is
directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has
tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher Harper
Collins."

If you're curious, that 11,800 in sales is substantially lower than the
86,000 first-week sales of Hillary Clinton's "Hard Choices" -- though that
was backed up with a healthy public relations blitz. (It's closer to
Clinton's fourth week, when she sold 17,000 copies.) It's also lower than
the sales of Mitt Romney's 2012 book, "No Apology," which did 42,000 in
sales in its first week.

Here is a prediction! The Times will soon include Cruz's book on its list,
in part because the negative (or, depending on how you look at it,
positive) publicity will help goose sales. When Costco axed Dinesh
D'Souza's book from its shelves last summer for poor sales, the resulting
outcry ensured so much demand that Costco quickly restocked it.

In which case Cruz gets the conservative cred of being blackballed by the
Times and the PR bonus of being a Times bestseller. Win-win.

*The Daily Cruz
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruzs-secret-weapon-breitbartcom-119935.html?ml=tl_27>
// Politico // Hadas Gold, Katie Glueck, and Kenneth P. Vogel – July 10,
2015 *

Ted Cruz has a media strategy. It’s called Breitbart.com.

The Texas senator is firmly ensconced in the middle of the Republican
presidential primary pack. But you wouldn’t be able to tell from
Breitbart.com.

From reader polls and the conservative website’s near cheerleading coverage
of the Texas Senator, to donor connections behind the scenes, Cruz likely
has the Republican presidential field’s deepest relationship with the
Breitbart machine — a relationship he’s seeking to parlay into more
energized grassroots support.

Breitbart.com, which boasts of having 18.7 million unique users per month —
almost all of them conservative firebrands — is funded in part by New York
hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, whose family is bankrolling a pro-Cruz
super PAC as well as a political data company called Cambridge Analytica
that is working with Cruz’s presidential campaign.

Breitbart.com insists it’s independent, though proudly conservative, and
attributes its often-favorable assessments of Cruz to the fact that his
independent brand of conservatism is appealing to its readers.

But no one disputes the site’s enthusiasm for Cruz.

The night before his campaign announcement, Cruz invited a Breitbart
reporter to spend one-on-one time with him and his family — an item deemed
an “exclusive” with photos of the “potential first family” as they got
ready for bed.

A recent story about an AP photo that appeared to position a gun at the
senator’s head stated that while a Democrat would be incredibly offended by
the image, Cruz’s “feelings won’t get hurt. He’s a big boy.”

And another blasted former President George W. Bush’s senior aide Karl Rove
for what the site characterized as “lying” over an exchange Cruz and Rove
had during Cruz’s run for Texas Attorney General.

“Karl Rove should probably read what he wrote in his own emails before he
attacks the integrity of a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate again,”
the story’s lead sentence reads.

The site, founded in 2007 by the now-iconic conservative journalist and
activist Andrew Breitbart, can be an important starting ground for driving
the conversation on the right — even if its reporting is not always on
entirely solid ground. (The site has been known to misquote officials and
misidentify others.)

In June, the site’s editors said their 18.7 million unique users
represented a 56 percent increase over the year before. And nearly all of
the Republican presidential candidates regularly post op-eds and grant the
site interviews or certain “exclusives,” which can range from interviews to
excerpts of their forthcoming books.

Cruz’s distaste for the mainstream media is well known. Last week, the
Texas senator told conservative host Glenn Beck that he once rebuked a
young staffer for calling one member of the mainstream media “nice,”
telling the staffer all the media want to do is “filet” him across the
front page. He once told a New York Times reporter he was going to kick
around the publication and never give the reporter access.

But conservative media is a different story. He has long used that avenue
as a tool to engage conservative audiences. He even broke the news, in
2011, that he was planning to run for Senate in a conference call with
conservative bloggers. Just weeks after Andrew Breitbart died at the age of
43 in 2012, a story on Breitbart.com said “The late Andrew Breitbart saw in
Sen. Ted Cruz the future of the conservative movement,” alongside a photo
of Breitbart holding a Ted Cruz for Senate sticker.

And Cruz has gone to bat for Breitbart.com in the Senate. Cruz sent a
letter to the IRS commissioner on Breitbart’s behalf about the “highly
questionable” audit of the company the agency was undertaking last
September.

Meanwhile, he has offered toasts and remembrances to Andrew Breitbart and
is a frequent guest at Breitbart.com events.

He nodded to Andrew Breitbart’s legacy again when he endorsed Mike Flynn, a
former editor at Breitbart.com who was running in a GOP congressional
primary in Illinois (a race he lost on Tuesday), prompting puzzlement among
observers for the spending of political capital on a candidate that was far
from viable.

“When Andrew Breitbart launched BigGovernment.com to expose ACORN and fight
back against the institutional left and the political class, he chose Mike
Flynn as his lieutenant,” Cruz said in a statement. “For six years, Flynn
helped expose the media’s lies and led many fights against the Obama
administration.”

Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said that the senator considers Breitbart.com a
source of “fair” coverage, its “center-right” perspective a corrective for
the mainstream media’s “center-left” bias.

“While most of the media covers the news from a center-left perspective,
they cover from a center-right perspective, and their readers have been
very supportive of Cruz,” Tyler said of Breitbart.com. “It can be a vehicle
to get covered fairly from a center-right perspective, to an audience that
enjoys hearing from Sen. Cruz.”

The love runs both ways. For the first time, the site is hosting its own
regular online poll of its readers, and Cruz is far and away the favorite
candidate. Of the approximately 55,000 responses from June, Breitbart said
33 percent voted in favor of Cruz, putting him in first place ahead of
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who garnered 23 percent, and Kentucky Sen.
Rand Paul who brought in 10 percent. It’s hardly a scientific poll — anyone
can vote as often as they’d like — but the results match up with the site’s
favorable coverage of particular candidates.

“I don’t think this is a surprise, the result that we have, based on sort
of the voice of our site. It tends to favor the tea party grassroots type
of conservatives, the independent-minded conservatives, people who don’t
identify with the Republican establishment,” Alex Marlow, the site’s
editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

Behind the scenes there is perhaps an even more important connection
between Cruz and Breitbart.

Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon has worked with Mercer on
political projects including Cambridge Analytica, according to conservative
finance operatives. They describe Bannon as something of a gatekeeper for
Mercer, a New York hedge fund magnate who keeps a close circle of
associates and has not publicly advocated for Cruz. According to the New
York Times, Mercer is the main donor behind a network of four super PACs
supporting Cruz’s bid for president. Mercer’s daughter Rebekah Mercer, who
has helped steer the family’s increasingly public investment in
conservative politics, was an early Cruz supporter, hosting a fundraiser in
April for the Texas Senator.

A spokesman for the Mercers decline to comment on their involvement in
Breitbart.com or whether they have sought to shape the outlet’s coverage of
Cruz. Breitbart editors refused to comment on the Mercer connection saying
they’re a “private company and we don’t comment on who our investors or
backers are.”

“Breitbart is perfectly content letting these nameless/faceless ‘multiple
places’ as you put it speculate, gossip and exhaust their imaginations
telling reporters tales of what they think they know,” a Breitbart
spokesperson said in a statement.

And Tyler, Cruz’s spokesman, said that Mercer’s involvement in Breitbart
also had no effect on the Cruz campaign’s dealings with the outlet.

“I answered the phone for you just like I would answer for Breitbart,” he
told a POLITICO reporter. “I don’t stop and look at who POLITICO’s
investors are. I think we have open access to all the media outlets except
the ones that have an agenda,” which aren’t real outlets, he said.

Marlow said Cruz’s views often align well with those of the site’s editors
and readers, but that Breitbart.com been critical of him in the past.

“[Cruz] tends to have a lot of ideas that are supported by a lot of our
readers … but we’ve been critical of him in the past particularly when he
went down to the border with Glenn Beck and brought soccer balls — we were
pretty brutal there,” Marlow said.

Breitbart has published articles about how Cruz is “poorly matched to
defeat Hillary.” The site also hammered Cruz over his initial support for
fast-track authority on the trade deal, a position he later reversed —
through an op-ed posted at Breitbart.com. And, to be sure, Breitbart has
also showered favorable coverage on the likes of Walker, Ben Carson, Mike
Huckabee and, in the past couple of weeks, Donald Trump.

For Breitbart, the attention from candidates like Cruz is nothing but
positive.

“There’s a huge field in terms of Republican candidates who are vying for
to become the nominee and this huge field has generated an intensity of
interest,” Breitbart News CEO Larry Solov said in an interview. “I think a
lot of candidates realize our audience is the one that they will have to be
capture in order to win the nomination. That’s why they’re paying
attention.”

*Ted Cruz feuds with the New York Times – and loves it
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-feud-new-york-times-119981.html?ml=tl_5>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – July 10, 2015 *

The campaign gods are smiling down on Ted Cruz, gifting him a feud with
conservatives’ most despised news outlet at a time when most 2016 campaigns
are gasping for Trump-free air.

At issue: The New York Times refuses to grant the Texas senator’s memoir,
“A Time for Truth,” a place on its powerful list of bestselling books,
despite his publisher’s insistence that his numbers should vault him well
ahead of other titles in the top 10.

News of Cruz’s exclusion broke this week after HarperCollins, the book’s
publisher, sent a letter to the Times inquiring about its omission from the
list, sources with knowledge of the situation told POLITICO, which first
reported the story. The Times responded by telling HarperCollins that the
book did not meet their criteria for inclusion.

On Thursday, a Times spokesperson said that the book was excluded because
the paper had found its sales to be mostly “strategic bulk purchases” — a
common practice among political authors, but a claim hotly disputed by
Cruz’s campaign.

“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias
called out.

But their response — alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’ — is a blatant
falsehood,” Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler said in a statement
Friday. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false
charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of
his publisher Harper Collins.”

“We call on the Times, release your so-called ‘evidence.’ Demonstrate that
your charge isn’t simply a naked fabrication, designed to cover up your own
partisan agenda,” Tyler continued. “And, if you cannot do so, then issue a
public apology to Senator Cruz and Harper Collins editor Adam Bellow for
making false charges against them.”

Tyler’s blast came just minutes after HarperCollins announced it had found
“no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization”
— a statement that all but accused the Times of lying. The publisher also
pointed out that ‘A Time For Truth’ “ranked high on other publishing
industry bestseller lists including Nielsen Bookscan (#4) … The Wall Street
Journal (#4) and Barnes and Noble (#7),” all of which “omit bulk orders
books from their rankings.”

Cruz’s camp is clearly relishing the controversy, which has been good for
business.

“It’s been a good week and a half with wall-to-wall coverage of the book,
and yes, this latest unfortunate news courtesy of the New York Times is a
chance to get yet more attention and drive readers to Senator Cruz’s book,”
said Keith Urbahn, co-founder of Javelin, a D.C.-based literary agency and
communications firm that represented Cruz on the deal and helped with his
book rollout. “This controversy is already helping sales.”

Several Cruz-linked Twitter accounts, including @TedCruz, also retweeted a
Washington Post blog post with the headline, “Ted Cruz hits the jackpot: A
book war with the New York Times.”

Cruz is somewhat better positioned than many of his fellow 2016 rivals, who
have struggled to get attention since real estate mogul Donald Trump
entered the race.

Not Cruz. Not only is his book a success, giving him a second round of
publicity after his May 23 launch, he also appears to be having little
trouble raising funds. His campaign announced this week that he had raised
at least $51 million split between the official campaign and four super
PACs, putting him in second place in the money race behind former Florida
governor Jeb Bush and well ahead of Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

In that sense, Cruz’s feud with the Times is a happy bonus.

Eileen Murphy, the Times spokesperson, said Friday that the paper was
standing by her initial claim that the “overwhelming preponderance of
evidence was that sales [of Cruz’s book] were limited to strategic bulk
purchases.” Murphy did not respond to a request for comment regarding the
Cruz campaign’s statement.

In her initial response, Murphy said the Times had “uniform standards that
we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales
that goes beyond simply the number of books sold.” She later added, “Our
goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and
analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book.”

The Cruz campaign called Murphy’s initial explanation “cryptic,” and her
later claims about bulk purchases “false.”

“Their decision to blackball Cruz’s book suggests that the Times very much
does not want people to read the book,” the campaign said. “There were no
‘strategic bulk purchases.’ Cruz spent last week on a nationwide book tour,
signing copies of his book at multiple locations. Booksellers at each event
had long lines — sometimes over 400 people per event.”

“A Time For Truth” was published on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its
first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan’s hardcover sale numbers. That’s
more than 18 of the 20 titles that will appear on the bestseller list for
the week ending July 4, including Aziz Ansari’s “Modern Romance,” which is
#2 on the list, and Ann Coulter’s “Adios America,” which is #11.

Cruz’s memoir has also sold more copies in a single week than Rand Paul’s
“Taking a Stand,” which has been out for more than a month, and more than
Marco Rubio’s “American Dreams,” which has been out for six months.

That may partly be the result of much more aggressive promotion, and partly
because Cruz’s book is simply more interesting, with revealing anecdotes
about his half-sister’s drug overdose, his time looking at pornography
while clerking on the Supreme Court, and his blistering attacks on his
fellow Republicans.

“What will really make this book a long-term success is that Senator Cruz
deliberately decided not to craft a boilerplate book of safe bromides, like
most politicians do,” Urbahn said.

A public brawl with The New York Times won’t hurt, either. As the Post’s
Philip Bump noted, “When Costco axed Dinesh D’Souza’s book from its shelves
last summer for poor sales, the resulting outcry ensured so much demand
that Costco quickly restocked it.”

“It’s important to look at a book like a campaign, setting the groundwork
early and then seizing opportunities,” noted Urbahn. “The New York Times,
ironically, offered us exactly that.”

*HarperCollins disputes N.Y. Times on Ted Cruz book: ‘No evidence of bulk
sales’
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/harpercollins-disputes-ny-times-no-evidence-of-bulk-210314.html?ml=tl_3>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – July 10, 2015 *

The publisher HarperCollins is disputing the New York Times' claim that Ted
Cruz’s new book was disqualified from its bestseller list because its sales
had been driven by "strategic bulk purchases."

The On Media blog reported Thursday that the Times was keeping Cruz's "A
Time For Truth" off of its forthcoming bestsellers list, despite the fact
that the book has sold more copies in its first week than all but two of
the Times' bestselling titles. In an email, Times spokesperson Eileen
Murphy attributed that decision to an "overwhelming preponderance of
evidence... that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases."

But on Friday, HarperCollins issued a statement declaring that it had found
"no evidence" of bulk purchases.

"HarperCollins Publishers has investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz’s
book 'A Time For Truth' and has found no evidence of bulk orders or sales
through any retailer or organization," the publisher said in a statement,
first reported by BuzzFeed.

The statement also cited Murphy's quote about "strategic bulk purchases,"
then went on to note that "A Time For Truth" "ranked high on other
publishing industry bestseller lists including Nielsen Bookscan (#4), a
subscription service that tracks the vast majority of book sales in
America, The Wall Street Journal (#4) and Barnes and Noble (#7).  All these
outlets omit bulk orders books from their rankings."

Reached by email on Friday, Murphy said the Times would continue to stand
by her previous statement.

"Time For Truth" was published on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its
first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan's hardcover sale numbers -- more
than 18 of the 20 titles that will appear on the bestseller list for the
week ending July 4, including Aziz Ansari's "Modern Romance," which is #2
on the list, and Ann Coulter's "Adios America," which is #11.

*Ted Cruz is “proud to stand with Donald Trump”
<http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/07/10/ted-cruz-is-proud-to-stand-with-donald-trump/>
// Reuters // Alana Wise – July 10, 2015 *

Two of the Republican Party’s most controversial figures have struck up an
unlikely alliance as they both vie for the 2016 Republican Party nomination.

Despite faring fairly well in the polls, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are
still considered long shots for the GOP vote. Both candidates have made
enemies within their own party. In Cruz’s case, he angered many of his
Senate colleagues when he pushed a fight over Obamcare that led to a 16-day
shutdown of the federal government.

Republicans such as 2016 White House rival Jeb Bush have distanced
themselves from Trump, who described illegal immigrants from Mexico as
“rapists” and criminals when he launched his presidential race last month.
Trump promised if elected to erect a “great wall” between the U.S. and
Mexico.

In the weeks since, Trump’s comments cost him business partners and friends
from every direction including ties with Macy’s, NBC and NASCAR, in the
past two weeks alone. All the while, fellow outsider Cruz has yet to jump
ship.

“I’m pleased to welcome [Donald Trump] into the race for the 2016 GOP
nomination for President of the United States…” Cruz tweeted after Trump’s
contentious announcement. On a later interview on “Fox and Friends,” Cruz
said he liked Trump and described the former “Celebrity Apprentice” host as
“terrific.”

Throughout the losses a growing number of professional relationships, Trump
has maintained a poker face, writing them off as minor and took shots at
Democrats and fellow Republicans alike, accusing them of taking his
comments out of context.

But Cruz told Fox Business Network: “I am proud to stand with Donald Trump.”

*Presidential hopeful Cruz blasts N.Y. Times book off bestseller list
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-usa-election-cruz-idUSKCN0PL00V20150711>
// Reuters // Fiona Ortiz – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz says his book "A Time for Truth"
is a legitimate bestseller and on Friday challenged the New York Times to
prove its contention that the tome's high sales were due to bulk buying.

In a statement on his campaign website, the Texas senator said the New York
Times should apologize or release evidence of its analysis. He said he was
being kept off the bestseller list because the newspaper is politically
biased against him.

HarperCollins Publishers said in a statement that it investigated sales of
the book and "found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any
retailer or organization."

New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said the company stands by
its statement on Thursday that Cruz's book did not meet the standards for
its bestseller list, "which includes an analysis of book sales that goes
beyond simply the number of books sold."

"In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was
that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases," the statement said.

The book does not appear at all in the Times' top-20 non-fiction books.

Cruz's campaign denied there were any strategic bulk purchases and said
booksellers at events on his campaign tour had long lines for people buying
"A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America" and getting it
autographed by the candidate.

HarperCollins said the book ranked high on other bestseller lists that omit
bulk orders from their rankings, noting it was No. 4 on Nielsen BookScan's
hardover nonfiction list, which is published on the Wall Street Journal and
Publishers Weekly websites.

Barnes and Noble's website showed the book at No. 10 on its list of current
affairs and politics bestsellers on Friday evening, but it was not in its
overall top 100.

*HarperCollins Refutes New York Times Claim That Ted Cruz Tried To Game
Bestseller List
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/harpercollins-refutes-new-york-times-claim-that-ted-cruz-tri#.kky3wkaz2>
// BuzzFeed // McKay Coppins – July 10, 2015 *

Publishing giant HarperCollins is publicly pushing back against the New
York Times’ claim that Ted Cruz’s new book, A Time For Truth, was
disqualified from its bestseller list because sales were limited to
“strategic bulk purchases.”

In a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, HarperCollins publicity director
Tina Andreadis said the company looked into the matter and “found no
evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization.”

It is common practice for politicians to try to game the Times’ prestigious
bestseller list by having their campaigns or political action committees
buy up thousands of copies of their books. When Cruz’s book was left off
the list this week despite outselling many of the entries that did make it,
the paper’s spokesperson justified the omission by telling Politico they
found an “overwhelming preponderance of evidence” that the sales numbers
were being padded by bulk purchases.

By publicly refuting the Times’ claim , HarperCollins is taking on one of
the most influential forces in the publishing industry — an exceedingly
rare move for any large publisher.

Here is Andreadis’ complete statement:

HarperCollins Publishers has investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz’s
book A TIME FOR TRUTH and has found no evidence of bulk orders or sales
through any retailer or organization.

When questioned about the omission of A TIME FOR TRUTH from its bestseller
list, the New York Times told Politico, “In the case of this book, the
overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to
strategic bulk purchases.”

A TIME FOR TRUTH ranked high on other publishing industry bestseller lists
including Nielsen Bookscan (#4), a subscription service that tracks the
vast majority of book sales in America, The Wall Street Journal (#4) and
Barnes and Noble (#7). All these outlets omit bulk orders books from their
rankings.

*Is Ted Cruz A Bestselling Author Or Isn’t He?
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/10/is-ted-cruz-a-bestselling-author-or-isn-t-he.html>
// Daily Beast // Malcolm Jones – July 10, 2015 *

Ted Cruz’s new book, A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America,
is not on the New York Times bestseller list. It is on other lists, such as
the Wall Street Journal’s and USA Today’s. Cruz partisans have been quick
to assume that the liberal Times is smothering the news that Cruz’s book is
selling well.

Trust me, it’s much, much weirder than that.

Nearly every news outlet that maintains a bestseller list uses a different
methodology. Some rely on Nielsen BookScan for their sales information.
Some collect their own data.

Some, like USA Today, mush everything into one list, so hardcovers and
paperbacks and e-books all jostle for the same rankings. Others segregate
their lists according to format (one for hardcovers, one for paperback,
etc.).

The Times slices and dices its list about as finely as anyone. There’s a
hardcover fiction list, an e-book fiction list, a paperback fiction list, a
how-to list, and on and on. After J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books took
over the number one fiction spot for months on end, the Times created a
separate list for children’s fiction.

The kids’ book list was in response, it was said at the time, to complaints
from publishers that they couldn’t compete with Rowling’s success. As long
as she dominated the fiction list, no one else was ever going to have a
number one adult bestseller again.

And number-one bestsellers are important to publishers. A number-one
bestseller gets pride of place in bookstores, and it gets better positioned
on Amazon. Just the name of a book on a bestseller list is that much more
free advertising. And down the road, a hardback’s bestselling status means
more will be spent to promote the paperback edition when it comes out, and
of course the paperback is bedecked with type proclaiming it a Times
bestseller.  When the author’s agent tries to sell the author’s next book,
the bestselling status of the author’s previous book completely changes the
conversation.

The Times takes its role in all this very seriously, which is to say, it
knows how important the list is to publishers, and it doesn’t like being
gamed.

If you’ve got deep pockets and want to make your book a best seller, you
can do that. You can buy up books in bulk and make the list. To counter
this, the Times weights the results of its tabulations from stores around
the country. It also does this to keep, say, New York City or other big
book markets from controlling the contents of the lists.

So, for example, if the Times sees that a significant number of the 11,854
copies of Cruz’s book sold so far this week come from one place or a
handful of places, the newspaper does not give those sales the same weight
it gives sales from other stores and online outlets.

Which is admirable, and also worrisome. Admirable because the Times wants
its list to reflect what books readers actually bought, not what was
snapped up in bulk by some company in the employ of a conservative interest
group (some other day we’ll undertake an examination of the closed circle
in which conservative writers publish books with conservative publishing
imprints, which are then promoted by conservative Fox News commentators to
conservative viewers who loyally buy the books—if you doubt the
effectiveness of such a loop, consider that nearly every mainstream
publishing conglomerate has an imprint dedicated exclusively to books by
and about conservatives). Worrisome because who ultimately decides what
constitutes a legitimate sale? And a sale is a sale is sale, or isn’t it?
Well, no, clearly at the Times it is not.

Of course, however they are compiled, the nation’s various bestseller lists
do roughly reflect reality. John Grisham and James Patterson and Doris
Kearns Goodwin really do sell a lot of books. Day in and day out, the books
on various lists are largely the same and in more or less the same order
from list to list. But if a publisher or an author or an author’s rich
associates want to “create” a bestseller, they can do that, too. So take
what you see not as hard fact but as an approximation of fact.

Every few years some enterprising reporter exposes all the contradictions
and problems associated with bestseller lists. And maybe there’s some
handwringing, and maybe someone comes along with a new innovation that will
set everything right. USA Today’s one-size-fits-all list was supposed to
resolve disparities and let you see what was really the most popular book
in a given week. BookScan was supposed to make everything about sales
transparent. The changes get made, and yet essentially everything remains
the same, because all the players have too much invested in the status quo.
They know it’s flawed. And yet …

It’s like the joke Woody Allen tells in Annie Hall: “A guy walks into a
psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's
a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says,
I would but I need the eggs.”

*NTU: Cruz tried to reduce federal spending by $169 billion per year, while
Hillary Clinton proposes $226 billion in new spending
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/ntu-cruz-tried-to-reduce-federal-spending-by-169-billion-per-year-while-hillary-clinton-proposes-226-billion-in-new-spending/>
// Breitbart // Alex Swoyer – July 10, 2015 *

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) reports that GOP
presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)96%

has supported measures to reduce federal spending by $169.4 billion a year
during his time in Congress.

“Cruz’s average tallies $10 billion more in spending cuts than his
Republican colleagues. For every dollar of new spending, Cruz’s agenda
would cut $8.47 billion in spending,” the press release states.

“Senator Cruz supported significant spending reductions like repeal of the
Affordable Care Act and abolishing the IRS and income tax in favor of a
sales tax,” said Demian Brady, NTUF Director of Research. “Combined with
very minimal spending increases, these make for a legislative slate big on
savings.”

NTUF’s BillTally examined and analyzed the cost impact of Cruz’s
legislation he sponsored during the first session of the 113th Congress and
found not only would it reduce federal spending by $169.4 billion each
year, but also his repeal of Obamacare would cut federal spending by close
to 64 billion dollars per year.

Cruz’s plea to abolish the IRS and the federal income tax and replace it
with a national sales tax would save 96.9 billion dollars over five years.

Brady added, “NTUF’s data continues to provide a clear picture of the
fiscal history of Members of Congress, helping to enlighten on the costs of
the policies politicians support.”

In contrast, the NTUF analysis found Democratic presidential candidate Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pushed more than a one trillion dollar annual
spending during his time in the Senate, and Democratic frontrunner Hillary
Clinton proposed 226 billion dollars in new spending.

Cruz’s fellow GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)80%

proposed $330 billion in cuts while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)93%

proposed on average a $484 billion spending reduction.

*CHRISTIE*

*Christie’s First Television Ad Goes Up for New Hampshire Viewers
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/christies-first-television-ad-goes-up-for-new-hampshire-viewers/>
// NYT // Nick Corasaniti – July 10, 2015 *

Gov. Chris Christie will be showing his first television ad of the cycle in
the same place he spent his first week as a candidate: New Hampshire.

The nearly $500,000 ad purchase will run in the Boston and Manchester,
N.H., television markets, as well on cable, satellite and digital, over a
four-week period.

With splices of Mr. Christie’s announcement speech in New Jersey tracking
under footage of people working in plants and hugging on doorsteps, the ad
further builds on his campaign’s central message: the Republican
candidate’s persona.

“I am not looking to be the most popular guy, who looks in your eyes
everyday and tries to figure out what you want to hear, say it, and then
turn around and do something else,” Mr. Christie says in the ad.

The ad purchase in New Hampshire is yet another example of Mr. Christie’s
campaign staking its 2016 hopes on the Granite State.

*Chris Christie releases first TV spot
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/chris-christie-releases-first-tv-spot-119957.html?ml=ri>
// Politico // Ryan Hutchins – July 10, 2015 *

Governor Chris Christie on Friday released the first television ad of his
presidential campaign, drawing on his unscripted announcement speech and
his new slogan, “tell it like it is.”

The 30-second spot uses a clip from Christie’s campaign launch, held last
month at his former high school in Livingston, and attempts to sell the
candidate himself—rather than an ideology—by declaring that “leadership
matters.”

“It matters for our country. And American leadership matters for the
world,” Christie says as the ad. “But if we’re going to lead, we have to
stop worrying about being loved and start caring about being respected
again. I am not looking to be the most popular guy, who looks in your eyes
everyday and tries to figure out what you want to hear, say it, and then
turn around and do something else. I mean what I say, and I say what I
mean. And that’s what America needs right now.”

The ad was first reported in POLITICO Playbook this morning. It is expected
to run for one month on broadcast and cable stations in New Hampshire,
where Christie has focused most of his efforts in hopes of turning his
candidacy into a viable run for the presidency.

*Christie Pushes Tough-Talking Image With Ads in New Hampshire
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/christie-pushes-tough-talking-image-with-ads-in-new-hampshire>
// Bloomberg // Terrence Dopp – July 10, 2015 *

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is taking out his first television ads
in New Hampshire as he targets the state with the first primary to build
momentum in a crowded Republican field.

The $500,000 ad buy, produced by Strategic Media Partners, will air over
four weeks across broadcast channels in Boston and Manchester, as well as
cable, radio and digital across the Granite State, said Samantha Smith, a
spokeswoman for Christie.

Footage was taken from Christie’s June 30 presidential announcement in his
hometown of Livingston, New Jersey. The two-term governor is pushing his
tough-talking image as he fights for one of the 10 slots at the first
Republican primary debate in August. He’s currently near the bottom of the
list of those who will make the cutoff, which will be based on the
candidates' national poll rankings.

“If we’re going to lead we have to stop worrying about being loved and
start caring about being respected again,” Christie says in the 30-second
spot. “I’m not looking to be the most popular guy who looks in your eyes
every day and tries to figure out what you want to hear; say it and turn
around and do something else.”

Christie is betting that New Hampshire holds the key to jump-starting an
electoral effort that hasn’t ignited the same kind of popularity that four
years ago prompted business and political leaders to urge him to enter the
race. He declined in 2012, saying he wasn’t ready.

*3 Questions African Americans Should Ask Chris Christie
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/3-questions-african-americans-should-ask-chris-christie-n389766>
// NBC // Jason Johnson – July 10, 2015 *

As the number of candidates has grown from a group to a sports to team to
what now resembles the crowd during the closing credits of SNL, it's
getting harder and harder to distinguish which candidates really warrant
much scrutiny.

Chris Christie became the 14th Republican candidate to declare and we can
expect at least two more (John Kasich and Scott Walker) to announce this
month.

If there's anyone in the GOP who should feel accountable to African
American primary voters it's Christie. This is a particularly important
constituency for him because unlike every other Republican contender, he
boasts bringing in about 21 percent of the African American vote in his
last re-election in 2014, a jump from only 9 percent in his first race in
2010.

African Americans, a key constituency for any contender in 2016, have a
special set of concerns and asks for anyone running for president that are
seldom directly addressed. Throughout the 2016 campaign season NBCBLK will
examine the candidates' statements, campaigns, and policies to find out
what they have to offer the black community. Hopefully their campaigns will
feel compelled to respond.

1. How will you implement criminal justice reform ?

Chris Christie has already been at the forefront of some criminal just
reform measures in New Jersey. He fought for expanding drug courts that put
offenders into treatment instead of prison (and this was over Democrats who
actually wanted to delay the program). Governor Christie also dedicated a
large part of his second inaugural address to criminal justice reform and
pledged to make that a key part of his second term. However, as president
he faces significant obstacles to such reform. African American voters
should ask Christie how he would plan to improve or change criminal justice
practices in the DOJ or the DEA if he were elected with likely are
Republican Congress. This is especially important as Christie has remained
silent on cases like the Zimmerman trial, he deferred on the Eric Garner
case, and he pretty much gave a "no comment" on Ferguson.

2. What is the Chris Christie version of Washington bipartisanship ?

In his announcement speech yesterday Christie was in full 2012 mode, by
chastising both political parties and decrying the lack of leadership in
the Obama administration in foreign affairs. But within minutes he was back
to talking about how he'd reach across the aisle to work on ideas that he
and Democrats could agree upon. All of this sounds nice until you think of
"Bridgegate." While the scandal didn't result in the kind of major charges
against Christie that some expected African American voters should be wary
of any candidate who has a reputation for being particularly punitive to
those he disagrees with politically.

Bridgegate not only damages Christie's reputation as a straight shooter,
but also labels him as a bully who will punish opponents regardless of how
that may impact innocent citizen bystanders. Black folks are often
collateral damage in battles between political elites and Christie should
explain to voters how he won't let that happen under his presidency.

3. What about the Jobs?

During the last several years of the Great Recession, African American
unemployment rates have slowly gone down to about 10 percent. (This is
still worse than the 8.7 percent it was before Obama took office.) African
American voters should ask Christie how effective he will be at helping to
lift black voters out of poverty.

New Jersey has the fourth highest rate of long-term unemployment African
Americans in the nation at 48.7 percent. (Mind you, New Jersey also led the
nation in White long term unemployed people at 41 percent for 2013-2014, so
Christie doesn't seem to be doing a good job of lifting anyone's status in
the Garden State.)

An effective long term plan for getting America back to work would go a
long way in establishing Christie not only as a legitimate contender for
2016 but also a viable competitor for African American voters.

*Chris Christie releases first campaign ad for 2016 nomination: ‘I mean
what I say, and I say what I mean’
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chris-christie-releases-campaign-ad-article-1.2288008>
// NY Daily News // Celeste Katz – July 10, 2015 *

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rolled out his first ad of the fight for the
2016 Republican nomination for President on Friday — a mashup of his
teleprompter-free kickoff speech in his hometown.

“Leadership matters. It matters for our country. And American leadership
matters for the world,” Christie says in the 30-second spot, which uses
footage from his June 30 launch event.

“But if we’re going to lead, we have to stop worrying about being loved and
start caring about being respected again.”

Team Christie says it is investing nearly $500,000 to air the inaugural
spot in early-voting New Hampshire — the focal point of Christie’s
campaigning — for a month in broadcast TV, cable, radio and digital formats.

That timeline would bring Christie up to the first televised debate between
the GOP candidates, which is scheduled for Aug. 6 in the battleground state
of Ohio.

The “Leadership” ad captures Christie in one of his favorite campaign
modes, one on which he’s relied heavily both as governor and White House
hopeful: addressing supporters directly on all sides in a town hall-style
setup.

Footage and sound from Christie’s launch speech is interspersed with images
of a variety of people filmed working or gazing into the camera — including
a one man who prominently wears both American and Mexican flag patches on
his coat.

Christie, who’s framing himself as the straight talker in the jammed
Republican field with a “Telling It Like It Is” slogan, wraps with a
signature line from his kickoff at his alma mater, Livingston High School.

“I am not looking to be the most popular guy, who looks in your eyes
everyday and tries to figure out what you want to hear, say it, and then
turn around and do something else,” Christie says.

“I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. And that’s what America needs
right now.”

Christie was once regarded as a major rising star in the GOP, with a
featured speaking spot at the 2012 national convention and a 2014 turn as
head of the Republican Governors Association.

But his image and popularity took a turn for the worse as he battled the
fallout of the Bridgegate lane closure scandal, and voters in his own state
have given him low marks for addressing unemployment and high taxes.

*PERRY*

*Rick Perry’s super PAC haul: $16.8 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rick-perrys-2016-fundraising-super-pac-16-million-119969.html?ml=tl_17>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – July 10, 2015 *

Three affiliated super PACs supporting Rick Perry’s presidential bid have
raised nearly $17 million, a PAC official confirmed Friday, while his
campaign announced a $1 million fundraising haul.

Jordan Russell, a spokesman for the Opportunity and Freedom PAC, confirmed
that the organization and its two affiliated groups, all under the
leadership of prominent Mississippi operative Austin Barbour, among others,
had raised $16.8 million for the former Texas governor.

“It looks like we’re going to have the resources to help Gov. Perry compete
in the early states and beyond, so we feel good about it,” Russell said.

His official campaign said Friday afternoon that it had raised $1.07
million since announcing last month, but in a statement noted the
independent super PAC figure, claiming close to $18 million in pro-Perry
money.

Unlike some campaigns, where nearly the entire brain trust is housed under
the super PAC, Perry has a robust campaign staff. But Opportunity and
Freedom, led by Barbour and several longtime Perry advisers, has already
bought up airtime in Iowa to run ads on behalf of the former governor and,
as the better-funded arm, looks poised to play an active role in the race.

Perry is a longshot for the GOP nomination after his disastrous 2012
presidential run. Last time, he entered the race as a presumptive
front-runner but quickly flamed out amid a series of embarrassing missteps,
including major fumbles on the debate stage.

This time around, he lags enough in the polls that it’s unlikely he’ll
qualify for the first debate. But he has spent the past year and a half
seeking to rebrand himself, studying up on policy issues and spending
significant time in the early states, particularly Iowa.

The super PAC haul, while far behind that of Jeb Bush’s and Ted Cruz’s, is
in line with other candidates’ totals.

The news of the super PAC haul was first reported by CNN.

*Rick Perry super PACs raise nearly $17M
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/rick-perry-super-pac-fundraising-17-million/index.html>
// CNN // Sara Murray – July 10, 2015 *

A trio of super PACs supporting former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has raised
neared $17 million, according to a senior adviser for the groups.

Two pro-Perry groups -- Opportunity and Freedom PAC and Opportunity and
Freedom PAC I -- raised $12.8 million in the first half of the year. A
third super PAC, which was created Thursday, collected a $4 million check
from a single donor, bringing the full tally for the three groups to $16.8
million as of July 10, said Austin Barbour, the senior adviser to all three
affiliated entities.

The total falls far short of the $103 million Jeb Bush's super PAC has
raised, but it is competitive with others in the GOP field. That's a
promising sign for Perry who has faced questions from GOP voters and donors
alike about whether he can mount a comeback after his embarrassing 2012
presidential bid.

"Look nobody's going to compete with Jeb Bush, it's impossible.
Congratulations to them," Barbour said. But, "we have enough money now to
keep us competitive in this process for a long time."

Barbour said their robust fundraising lends his candidate additional
credibility. It also gives bundlers an opening to circle back with hesitant
donors and pitch them on supporting Perry or writing larger checks.

Wealthy Texas donors helped fuel the fundraising for the pro-Perry groups.

Kelcy Warren, a Dallas billionaire and chief executive of an energy company
whose board of directors includes Perry, gave a $6 million contribution.
Warren is also the finance chairman for Perry's presidential campaign.

Darwin Deason, another Dallas billionaire who founded an information
technology company that was later acquired by Xerox Corporation, gave $5
million.

Brint Ryan, chief executive of tax services firm Ryan LLC, is serving as
the finance chairman for all three groups, which have collected donations
from dozens of contributors.

Barbour said he and other Perry allies organized three super PACs because
high-dollars donors want to have more input in the process this election
cycle than they did in 2012. For instance, many of his biggest contributors
are eager to tout Perry's record of job creation in Texas.

"If they were going to give a million dollars or $5 million they really
want to be able to participate," Barbour said. "They know that the final
decisions on strategy and execution still lie with me and our team."

The super PACs still have most of their cash on hand, Barbour said,
although they have spent more than $1 million already in paid television
and digital advertising in Iowa.

"We made this decision a long time ago that we were going to go early in
Iowa," Barbour said. "We feel like we have clean air," giving them an edge
to reintroduce voters to the governor before the airwaves become too
crowded.

The Perry campaign and super PACs are all betting heavily on a strong
showing in Iowa and on the debate stage to carry the candidate further
along in the process.

That's why the super PACs have also spent a "significant amount" to reach a
large conservative audience nationally to try to boost Perry's polling and
ensure he makes the debate stage, Barbour said.

Perry comes in eighth place with 4% support among Republicans in the latest
CNN/ORC poll. Averages of recent national polls indicate he will likely
qualify for the first debate.

As for the recent Donald Trump mania, Barbour said Perry's exchanges with
the brash businessman over immigration policies are a welcome fight.

"If the conversation is about border security, nobody knows it better than
Rick Perry," Barbour said.

*New Super PAC Ad for Rick Perry Touts His Pro-Life, Gun Rights Record
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/new-super-pac-ad-for-rick-perry-touts-his-pro-life-gun-rights-record/>
// Breitbart // Sarah Rumpf – July 10, 2015 *

The Super PAC supporting former Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) in his bid for the
Republican presidential nomination has released a new television ad, titled
“Values,” and Breitbart News has an exclusive first look.

The 30-second spot begins mentioning how Rick Perry “learned life’s
important values” growing up in the small town of Paint Creek, Texas, and
“as Governor, he put those values to work,” supporting pro-life and Second
Amendment causes.

As Governor of Texas in 2013, Perry signed into law a ban on abortions
after 20 weeks. He backed the bill after former State Sen. Wendy Davis
filibustered it by calling the legislature back for a special session to
pass the bill. During a previous session, he signed a bill requiring
parental consent for abortions.

Regarding gun rights, Perry is well-known as a Second Amendment advocate,
and has an A+ rating with the National Rifle Association. The ad touts his
support for a “castle law,” protecting the right to defend yourself at your
home.

“You can talk about your values, or you can live them,” says the ad’s
narrator, as the video shows scenes from Perry’s campaign launch in Addison
last month.

“As Governor Perry says, this is a show me don’t tell me election,” said
Jordan Russell, spokesman for Opportunity and Freedom PAC. “Governor Perry
has the best pro-life record of any governor in Texas history and is an
unwavering defender of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. His strong
record on these issues is an important part of what makes Rick Perry the
right choice for for president, and we want to make sure the people of Iowa
know about it.”

Russell told Breitbart News that this was a “significant buy,” to be run on
broadcast for major media markets and statewide cable.

This is the fourth ad that Opportunity and Freedom PAC will run in Iowa.
The PAC has not yet released their fundraising numbers for the second
quarter, but sources close to the PAC told Breitbart News they will release
their numbers next week and are confident they will have the resources to
help Perry be competitive in this race.

*GRAHAM*

*Lindsey Graham: Trump’s comments are going to ‘kill the party’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/lindsey-graham-gop-debate-fox-rnc-119956.html?ml=tl_19>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 10, 2015 *

Donald Trump’s statements on immigrants are going to kill the Republican
Party, fellow candidate Lindsey Graham says.

“Well, I think he said something that has brought people who are frustrated
about our immigration system to light, but he also said it in a way that’s
going to kill my party,” Graham said in an interview with CNN on Friday. “I
would prefer that Donald Trump bring his economic genius and his talents to
the table in a more constructive way,” he added, noting the billionaire’s
charity efforts with military veterans and their families.

Trump’s comments, Graham said, reinforce a narrative between the GOP and
Hispanics that will “destroy” any chance the party has of winning the 2016
presidential election.

“I think he should do better, because I think he’s a better man than that,”
he said.

Graham is not the only candidate in the crowded Republican field to condemn
Trump’s comments that many immigrants from Mexico are “rapists” and
“criminals.” A number of other candidates, especially those ranking low in
the national polls, have turned to Trump-bashing as they seek to boost
their poll numbers ahead of the first debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland.

If the first GOP debate were held today, Graham would not be on the stage,
and two people who have never held elected office—Trump and Ben
Carson—would be in.

And Graham has a beef about that, making sure to tell the network
televising the first event just how he felt during an interview on Fox News
on Friday, calling the top 10 format “a dumb way” to pare down the crowded
GOP field.

It’s all about money and celebrity he said, blasting the use of national
polling averages to determine the 10 candidates who will appear on the
debate stage.

Recent polling has Graham in the low single digits; his Real Clear Politics
polling average sits at 1.3 percent. Trump’s average is 6.5 percent, though
he polled better in recent polls from CNN/ORC (12 percent) and Fox News (11
percent).

Brad Pitt would have a better chance getting in the debate at this point,
Graham said.

“Anybody with any celebrity would be in the debate. I think this is a dumb
way to weed out the field. I don’t mind weeding out the field over time,
but a national poll tests celebrity, big states have an advantage versus
small states,” the South Carolina senator and presidential candidate said.
“People who have run before have an advantage over those who haven’t.”

“It’s July, for god sakes. So a national poll is a lousy way, in my view,
to determine who should be on the stage, and I quite frankly resent it,” he
said.

Graham placed the blame on the Republican National Committee and Fox News
for the format, declining to name any other names.

“I would find a way for everybody who’s filed and has got a viable campaign
to be on the stage, and after a couple of debates, you could start weeding
people out. It’s not about me. It’s about destroying the early primary
process of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina,” he said. “At the end
of the day, you’re rewarding money and celebrity over the hard work in the
early states.”

Graham said he would decide later whether he would participate in the
earlier afternoon forum of candidates who don’t make the cut.

*SANTORUM*

*Rick Santorum Wants to Be More Than Just a Pro-Life Candidate
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/rick-santorum-wants-to-be-more-than-just-a-pro-life-candidate-20150710>
// National Journal // Emma Roller – July 10, 2015 *

Rick Santorum is tired of being pigeonholed. At least, that's the message
the two-time Republican presidential candidate gave to the attendees at an
antiabortion conference on Friday.

Santorum, along with at least three other GOP presidential contenders,
addressed the National Right to Life Conference on Friday. In his speech,
he said that people who claim "the science is settled" on climate change
but don't agree that life begins at conception are hypocrites. (For the
record, Santorum called climate change "junk science" in 2011.)

"I do not believe life begins at conception. I know life begins at
conception. This is not a matter of debate. It's not a matter of faith,"
Santorum told the crowd. "Every child at the moment of conception is both
living—that embryo is metabolizing—and it is a genetically completely
human."

He went on to complain that as soon as he started advocating against
abortion, media outlets began labeling him as "ultraconservative," and
reporters stopped caring about his stances on the economy or foreign policy.

"Because I led on this, and very few do, you get labeled, and you get put
over there at the kids' table," he paused. "By the media."

This is part of a larger strategy for Santorum's campaign to rebrand its
candidate as a populist reformer—whom his allies say is the "real
Santorum." When Santorum was first elected to the Senate, it was as a
candidate who appealed to Pennsylvania's blue-collar workers. But once he
entered Congress, he began cementing his position as his party's champion
against abortion and gay marriage. In 2003, he famously compared same-sex
marriage to "man-on-dog" relationships, and forever earned the ire (and
digital backlash) of gay-rights activist Dan Savage.

Santorum has been out of political office for more than eight years, and
during that time, public opinion on social issues, particularly gay
marriage, has shifted substantially. The more Santorum is painted as a
social-issues candidate, the more he risks being depicted as a relic of the
past compared with his Republican competitors.

There is some dramatic irony to Santorum's insisting that he is not a
social-issues candidate at a gathering of pro-life activists. If he were
speaking to the Atlantic Council or the American Enterprise Institute, his
actions would reinforce his message. But so long as he continues to play to
his base's social activists, all the while insisting that he is more than
just a social crusader, his message will continue to get muddled.

*Rick Santorum: The Supreme Court Doesn’t Have the Final Say on Everything
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/10/rick-santorum-the-supreme-court-doesnt-have-the-final-say-on-everything/>
// The Blaze // Fred Lucas – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum reminded abortion opponents
of two separate Supreme Court cases on partial-birth abortion bans as he
talked about the high court’s recent decision legalizing gay marriage
nationwide.

In 2000, the justice struck down a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortion.
Then a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum said he fought efforts
within the Republican Party to move on.

“We crafted a law and said the Supreme Court was wrong,” Santorum said to
applause Friday at the National Right to Life Convention in New Orleans.

A federal ban that Santorum led the way on was signed into law by President
George W. Bush in 2003 and then upheld by the high court in 2007.

“When did it become the law of the land because the Supreme Court had the
final say on everything?” Santorum said.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say on everything. The American
people have the final say on everything,” he added to a rousing ovation.

Santorum was the runner-up to eventual Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney in 2012, winning 11 states. However, in this election cycle, he is
not performing strongly in most polls ahead of the early-voting states.

Santorum told the crowd that 2016 “is not a time for the faint of heart”
because the nation is undergoing sweeping social change.

Santorum admitted that in his early years in Congress, he never talked
about abortion, until finding out about the so-called partial birth
abortion issue in the late 1990s. He became a leader on the issue,
sponsoring a bill to overturn President Bill Clinton’s veto of the federal
ban. After he became a leader on the front lines of the abortion debate, he
said, he was labeled by the media.

“My kids thought my first name was ‘ultra’,” he said, referring to
“ultra-conservative” label.

“It’s one thing to be pro-life – being a governor and signing bills, being
a senator and voting,” Santorum said. “If you stand up and fight, if you
are identified as a leader on the issue, you pay a price.”

*HUCKABEE*

*Mike Huckabee cites infamous ‘Daisy’ ad for Iran nuclear deal
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/mike-huckabee-daisy-ad-nuclear-iran/index.html>
// CNN // Jeremy Diamond – July 10, 2015 *

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Friday repurposed the controversial
"Daisy" ad from 1964 that ominously raised the specter of a nuclear bomb
explosion to warn about the dangers of the negotiations with Iran over its
nuclear program.

The Republican presidential candidate's campaign released his version of
the ad on Friday, playing the ad almost in its entirety in a web video. A
little girl slowly picks petals off a daisy, counting as she goes, but once
she picks all of the petals, a nuclear bomb explodes on screen.

In Huckabee's version, a message about the Iranian nuclear threat rolls on
screen following the explosion

"A threat to Israel is a threat to America. Stand with Israel. Reject a
nuclear Iran," reads the ad.

Huckabee posted the video as negotiators once again extended a deadline on
Friday to continue working toward a final deal that aims to cut off Iran's
path to a nuclear bomb through restrictions on its nuclear activity and
thorough inspections, in exchange for relief from international economic
sanctions.

Huckabee's ad is drawn from a campaign spot the Democratic National
Committee ran in support of President Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 presidential
campaign. The ad only ran once because it was so controversial and it was
widely panned as a prime example of fear-mongering. But many credit the ad
with helping Johnson win that election.

Even Huckabee's campaign acknowledged in a press release that the ad is
"controversial," but it noted that "the video highlights the threat posed
by a nuclear Iran."

The video also urges supporters to sign Huckabee's letter to Secretary of
State John Kerry, urging him to "reject a deal with Iran that will spark a
nuclear arms race in the Middle East, threaten Israel's existence and
unleash a wave of terrorism around the world."

Kerry, President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have insisted this
week that the U.S. will "walk away" from the negotiating table if Iran
cannot meet the U.S.'s demands for a good deal that would cut off Iran's
pathways to a nuclear bomb.

*Huckabee: Trump can say what he thinks
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/huckabee-trump-can-say-what-he-thinks/article/2568055>
// Washington Examiner // Emilie Padgett – July 10, 2015 *

At least one GOP candidate has no qualms about Donald Trump airing his
opinions.

Mike Huckabee, a fellow Republican 2016 presidential candidate, made clear
on Friday that Trump should be able to say whatever he wants, despite the
backlash against Trump for his controversial comments about Hispanic
immigrants during his campaign kickoff speech.

Huckabee called the real estate mogul "unique," but when asked whether he
was "hurting" the Republican name, he said, "I don't think so." The
Arkansas governor said the attention Trump has received could be a good
thing.

"He's capturing a lot of this space. My gosh, I wish I was getting as much
attention as he is, because anybody getting that much attention certainly
is going to soar in the polls," Huckabee said on Fox News Radio.

According to a recent poll taken by Economist/YouGov, Trump is leading the
GOP field. Fifteen percent of respondents preferred Trump, which puts him
four percentage points ahead of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Rand
Paul, who are tied for second.

Huckabee added that no one need worry about what Trump will say as the race
for the White House continues.

"I don't think that people ought to wring their hands that Donald Trump is
in there," he said. "He'll say things differently than most of us, he'll
say things that maybe some of us wouldn't say, but he has as much right to
be on the stage and speak his message as any of us."

The former Arkansas governor said that allowing candidates to speak their
minds enables voters to reach their own conclusions, saying, "That's how
the process works." Huckabee emphasized that whether or not he agreed with
Trump's rhetoric, getting the billionaire to change his ways would be
difficult.

"This notion that we need to ask him to tone it down, well, first of all,
he's Donald Trump. He'll say what he wishes," Huckabee said. "And second of
all, I think it's important for people to say what they really think. The
voters then get a chance to decide. 'Is that who I want to support?'"

Despite the attention, the Economist/YouGov poll found that registered
Republican voters believe Trump has a small chance of keeping his top spot
as the race continues.

"I hope when [the voters] hear me say what I want to say, they'll like it.
They'll want to support me," Huckabee said.

Huckabee has been ranking fifth in most national polls. That support should
qualify both candidates for a place among the 10 allowed to participate in
the first Republican debate next month.

*CARSON*

*N.H. fans feel the passion for Ben Carson
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/10/ben-carson-brings-uncanny-appeal-campaign-trail/pnCWdgy6wArheCYG19DINK/story.html>
// Boston Globe // Akilah Johnson – July 11, 2015 *

There’s just something about Dr. Ben Carson, some Republican voters here
say.

They line up to buy copies of his books. They chase him down streets for
photos. Sometimes, they just continue to stare with awe after he speaks.

“I’m just kind of overwhelmed,” said Peter Rice, a retired volunteer
firefighter, his newly acquired “I’m with Ben” button in hand. “This guy is
a breath of fresh air.”

There’s liking a candidate — and then there’s the particular passion that
Carson seems to incite, despite the sometimes unusual statements that make
him stand out among 2016’s Republican White House hopefuls.

So what is it about the 63-year-old political neophyte, who often refers to
himself in the third person as “Carson” during stump speeches, advocates
for tax rates based on tithing, and compares the life-or-death plight of
Revolutionary figures to today’s politics?

He speaks with the aplomb of a superstar neurosurgeon and a highbrow
history buff — yet also the raw candor overheard in a coffee klatch. While
describing detractors’ efforts to bring him down — including a reference to
a years-old paternity suit — Carson revealed to a packed town hall Tuesday
that, “I knew something they didn’t know. I knew that the only woman I’d
ever slept with in my life was my wife.”

Supporters gush over what they call his “compelling personal story” and
“common sense.” He is the only African-American candidate – Democrat or
Republican – and his resume is unlike the others. It includes his tenure as
director of neurosurgery at John Hopkins University but no elected offices
or previous flirtations with running for president.

‘So far, he hits the nerve in my body that says treat people fairly, be
respectable, do the right thing, love your country.’

There are pundits who say Carson’s brand of religious conservatism will not
win in New Hampshire, which polls show is one of the least religious states
in the country.

A recent poll by the University of New Hampshire showed Carson barely
registered when voters were asked who had the best chance of winning, which
candidate best represented Republicans like themselves, and who would be
the strongest leader.

Still, the university poll did show Carson had a high net favorability
ranking, coming in second after US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. And
according to national polls, he would make the 10-candidate cut to be
onstage if the first televised national debate were held today.

So the retired doctor and his supporters aren’t worried about the naysayers.

“I’m in love with him,” said Dianne Durkin, president and founder of an
employment loyalty company. “His entire thing about . . . leadership is
spot on.”

Ben Carson greeted passersby as he campaigned in Portsmouth, N.H. earlier
this week.

“So far, he hits the nerve in my body that says treat people fairly, be
respectable, do the right thing, love your country,” said Doug Bates,
president of the Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce.

Bates estimates he has heard eight candidates speak but only wanted his
picture taken with one – Carson.

In a speech Tuesday morning to about 50 business leaders at Pease
International Tradeport, Carson called for “stopping all this silly
divisiveness” and class, race, gender, and age “warfare” — all
distractions, he said, from the “radical Islamic jihadists” targeting
America.

“We are falling for garbage. We are allowing ourselves to be colluded. You
can’t just go through life worried about who’s on ‘Dancing with the Stars,’ ”
Carson said. “What are you willing to fight for? What are you willing to
die for?”

Carson spent three days campaigning in New Hampshire, with its
first-in-the-nation primary.

Last month, Carson grabbed national attention by calling out some of the
other candidates who, he said, were slow to criticize the massacre at the
Charleston, S.C., church as rooted in racism.

“But there are people who are claiming that they can lead this country who
dare not call this tragedy an act of racism, a hate crime, for fear of
offending a particular segment of the electorate,” he wrote in an op-ed
piece.

It was just two years ago that Carson burst into the political arena at the
National Prayer Breakfast. He used humor and his personal story of growing
up in an impoverished Detroit home to give a conservative critique on the
country’s state of affairs as President Obama sat nearby.

Some of his most scathing remarks focused on the Affordable Care Act, which
he wants to replace with a health care system that gives people
transferable health savings accounts.

Carson’s single mother was determined her two sons would rise above their
station in life, he said. She refused to accept public assistance and
required regular book reports when he began doing poorly in school, even
though she couldn’t read them.

He would earn a scholarship to Yale University, where he met his wife,
Candy, and continue to the University of Michigan’s medical school.

Echoes of that speech come through when Carson addresses a crowd from the
campaign trail — but not when he engages in retail politics. As he shook
hands and greeted voters one-on-one along the streets of downtown
Portsmouth with his wife of 40 years, she was talkative and personable
while he was awkward and reserved.

Onstage, though, he seems to capture voters. In Bedford, after one of the
must-stop “Politics & Eggs” forums, a woman murmured, “Love his message. He
says it just right.” At a town hall in Barrington, he concluded his speech
by invoking Nathan Hale, famous for saying “I only regret that I have but
one life to lose for my country.”

“The baton of freedom is in the hands of we the people,” Carson told the
crowd of about 150.

It was a speech that might have earned Donna Callmeyer’s support. The
72-year-old Milford resident said she, like so many Republicans, was
looking “for one of the bazillion candidates that we can support.”

Carson’s intellect “totally impressed,” her, as did “the fact that he
answers questions so thoroughly,” she said.

“He wasn’t, like, in your face about it,” interjected her 14-year-old
granddaughter Asia Hanson.

“I won’t walk away wondering what he thinks about immigration or the
economy,” Callmeyer continued. “I felt a genuine honesty. This is the first
candidate I’m excited about.”

*Carson: ‘Baby killers’ capitalize ‘on people’s lack of knowledge’ //
Washington Examiner
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/carson-baby-killers-capitalize-on-peoples-lack-of-knowledge/article/2568035>
// Ariel Cohen – July 10, 2015 *

Ben Carson warned against the growing power of the federal government and
"baby killers" denying the humanity of fetuses during his keynote speech at
the 2015 National Right to Life Conference in New Orleans.

"When I look there in particular out to the next generations. As we destroy
them economically as we destroy them morally as we weaken our defenses as
we do all the things that are necessary to bring down our nation," Carson
said.

Carson's comments about government overreach came in reaction to the
Supreme Court's recent decision upholding Obamacare subsidies for federal
exchange customers. Carson said "the Affordable Care Act is the government
saying we don't care what we the people think."

But Carson, a famed pediatric neurosurgeon, reserved his harshest criticism
for people who support legal abortion. He said there are people who go to
"great lengths to save spiders" but not fetuses between six and 10 weeks
old.

"The baby killers, that's what they do, manipulate you into thinking this
is not a human being," Carson said, adding they "capitalize on people's
lack of knowledge." He added that technology was making more people
pro-life, because ultrasounds showed them the truth about fetal development.

Many people in attendance at the National Right to Life Conference were
evangelicals, a large bloc of voters to which Carson appeals. Carson called
on them to speak up for their values.

"I think it's us the American people who will make the difference," Carson
said. "It was Thomas Jefferson said this would happen. That we would become
relaxed, and that the government would grow and it would infiltrate every
aspect of our lives. But just before we turn into another form of
government he said the people would waken and reassert themselves. I think
now is the time we must do that if we are to save our nation."

In the last election, 30 million evangelicals did not vote, Carson claimed.
He urged attendees to encourage their friends to go to the poll, saying
"our strength is in unity and belief system."

*JINDAL*

*Bobby Jindal’s obsession with “colorblindness” is everything wrong with
the GOP’s racial politics
<http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/bobby_jindals_obsession_with_colorblindness_is_everything_wrong_with_the_gops_racial_politics/>
// Salon // Eesha Pandit – July 10, 2015 *

A few years ago, the members of the Republican National Committee gathered
for a retreat after the 2012 election, in which the Democrats held onto the
White House and gained seats in both chambers of Congress. At that meeting
in the winter of 2012, Bobby Jindal offered up some fiery words about what
his party needed to do to win, including a rejection of its obsession with
“identity politics,” which he deemed “corrosive to the great American
melting pot.”

“We must reject the notion that demography is destiny, the pathetic and
simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behavior,” Jindal
said to applause.

To milder applause that night, Jindal called on Republicans to “stop being
the stupid party” and to “stop insulting the intelligence of voters.” And
yet, just a few years hence we find Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, a Rhodes scholar
who once led his state’s university system, engaging in the most regressive
of politics as he begins his bid for the presidency.

Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected bans on gay marriage,
Jindal’s spokesman Mike Reed said, “We believe the U.S. Constitution,
Louisiana Constitution, Louisiana’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act,
as well as our Executive Order prevents government from compelling
individuals to violate sincerely held religious beliefs. We will continue
to fight to protect religious liberty.” In practice, this means that the
governor’s administration issued an executive order to protect clerks and
state employees who have moral objections to gay marriage and don’t feel
comfortable handing out licenses to same-sex couples.

As Jindal runs for president in the Republican primary, he is resorting to
those very same regressive and divisive tactics that only a few short years
ago he inveighed against — so much so, in fact, that many observers were
taken in by a satirical article that quoted Jindal as saying, “the
Confederate Flag is part of my heritage.” (In fact, the governor has
skirted the issue of the flag altogether, telling reporters that “now’s the
time for mourning.”) Given Jindal’s penchant for refusing to identify as an
Indian American, saying that he’s “just American,” while hanging a portrait
of himself in his office looking remarkably white, and raging against the
need for hyphenated identities, it wasn’t a stretch to imagine Gov. Jindal
actually claiming the Confederate flag.

(And that’s before we even consider his new campaign slogan — “Tanned.
Rested. Ready.” — which has been met with hostility in recent days by many
in the Indian American community.)

In an Op-Ed in February, Gov. Jindal called for “The End of Race,” going
“all-in” on the melting pot idea of America and beseeching us all to give
up on our racial identities for the sake of a singular American one. This
is a very convenient solution for a party that refuses to address racial
inequity and injustice, which are, in fact, bedrock values in America. We
haven’t ended up with a racialized system where black and brown residents
and citizens of the U.S. suffer greater levels of violence, discrimination
and institutionalized inequity simply by chance. Our country was founded
on, and is grounded in, the belief of a racialized American exceptionalism.
It’s a deeply rooted racism that allowed the founders to displace and
murder so many of the Native and First Nations people here before them, and
to uphold and entrench a system of chattel slavery while talking about
American freedom and independence. Today, Jindal’s statements about
colorblindness are a disavowal of that legacy and its ongoing aftermath. We
are a country in which your race, and gender, are key determinants in
whether you’re paid fairly, whether you are likely to be unjustly
incarcerated, whether you are likely to be killed by police officers,
whether your children will get a good education, whether you will get care
when you get sick, whether your babies will be born healthy, and how long
you will live.

We do not live in a “colorblind” country, no matter how much Gov. Jindal
wishes it were so, nor how much many of us would like to. We live in a
hyper-racialized one. Calling for “colorblindness” is a ridiculous solution
to a centuries-old racial hierarchy that has devastating results for
communities of color. Colorblindness is anti-blackness. Colorblindness is
racism. The solutions we need involve looking that truth in the eye and
changing racist systems and structures, not turning away and deriding the
question itself.

*TRUMP*

*Event for Donald Trump in Phoenix Will Draw Thousands
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/republican-candidates-appeal-to-anti-abortion-groups/>
// NYT // Nicholas Fandos – July 10, 2015 *

Donald J. Trump, the real estate mogul who has tied Republicans in knots in
recent weeks with his comments on immigration, will roll into Phoenix on
Saturday to address the issue again, just after the head of the Republican
Party supposedly asked him to tone down his words on the issue.

The planned speech is already attracting a storm of attention. Even as city
leaders have asked Mr. Trump “to stage his hate-filled circus” elsewhere,
ticket requests have been so high the campaign has moved the speech from
the swank Arizona Biltmore hotel to the convention center downtown.

“Mr. Trump certainly has a First Amendment right to bluster as much as he
wants, and even to pander to our worst instincts in a sad attempt to win
votes at the expense of hard-working, honorable, law-abiding Latinos,”
Daniel Valenzuela, a Democratic councilman and the city’s vice mayor, said
on Thursday. “However, we should draw the line at allowing him to use the
Phoenix Convention Center — a public building funded by all of our
taxpayers’ dollars.”

Mayor Greg Stanton, also a Democrat, issued a similar statement condemning
Mr. Trump and his remarks, but assured that the city would not try to
prevent the candidate from speaking.

Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said on Friday that 4,500 tickets had
already been reserved for the speech, 3,500 more than initially expected.

Mr. Trump will appear onstage with Joe Arpaio, the long-serving sheriff of
surrounding Maricopa County, whose tactics to track down and deport illegal
immigrants have drawn national attention and a federal conviction for
racial profiling in 2013.

Mr. Trump has attracted sharp criticism from business and political leaders
since asserting in his campaign announcement that those crossing the United
States-Mexico border illegally include rapists and criminals. The remarks
led several businesses, including Macy’s, Univision and NBC, to cut their
ties with the developer.

Republicans will be watching the weekend swing through the desert closely
to see if Mr. Trump tempers his language on the issue. This week, Reince
Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, was said to
have urged Mr. Trump in a phone call on Wednesday to soften his tone on
immigration.

Mr. Trump is expected to start the day on Saturday in Las Vegas, where he
will speak at FreedomFest, an annual libertarian-leaning gathering that
bills itself as the “world’s largest gathering of free minds.” Ms. Hicks
said he will also hold a press conference after the event.

*Donald Trump Lied to Us
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/donald-trump-lied-to-us-119929.html?ml=tl_6#.VaAM6BNViko>
// Politico // Antonio Rijerino – July 10, 2015 *

As I protested Thursday afternoon in front of the Old Post Office Pavilion
on Pennsylvania Ave in Washington D.C.—the building Donald Trump is turning
into a hotel a few blocks away from another historical building he wants to
take over, the White House—I thought about a meeting I had with Trump at
his headquarters in New York two years ago to discuss my organization’s
programs, including the Hispanic Heritage Awards.

Once the meeting was set, I called immigration activists Estuardo Rodriguez
and Gaby Pacheco to gather some young DREAMers to crash the meeting and try
and change The Donald’s mind on immigration reform and the DREAM Act. I
didn’t mention the tactic to his assistant coordinating the meeting, and
figured I’d simply sneak the DREAMers in as my associates. We were met with
bewildered and not-so-happy faces at the top floor of Trump Tower, but to
his credit, Trump waved off his concerned staff and graciously got up from
his desk, welcomed us individually, and proceeded to have a civil dialogue
about immigration reform and the important role immigrants have
historically played in the United States.

For over an hour, Trump listened intently, asked thoughtful questions, and
gave us examples of Latino employees he held in high regard. He then asked
each of the DREAMers to describe their journeys, which were compelling and
mirrored every value each American shares: education, work ethic,
community, faith and family. After I summed up the conversation with
“immigrants are a value proposition to America,” he stood up, waved his
hands in dramatic Donald fashion and exclaimed, “You’ve convinced me!”

It was a great moment, but that’s what entertainers do. They know their
audience and give them what they want.

And now, this shameless opportunist is giving a very different audience
what they want to hear—hate speech. An audience that has made him a
cultural icon, a viable candidate for president and what is most worrisome,
an audience that is responding favorably to his message. The no-filter,
in-your-face, celebrity billionaire is now in second place behind Wisconsin
Governor Scott Walker in Iowa according to a Quinnipiac University survey
and in New Hampshire according to a CNN-WMUR poll. Apology from Trump? No
way.

Yesterday, in defense of his now-infamous statement on Mexicans, Trump said
he was simply “defending the people of the United States.” I applaud
Univision for being the first to send a message to Trump by breaking off
their relationship with the Miss Universe Organization. Then NBC, Macy’s,
NASCAR and others including this afternoon my friend Chef Jose Andres sent
a message. But the loudest message is being sent by many Americans who have
supported Trump’s xenophobic diatribe. And that’s my biggest concern - he
continues to pander to an audience that can potentially take his hateful
words and turn them into hateful action.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re sending people that have lots of
problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs,
they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” That was Trump talking about
Mexicans (let’s face it, Latinos) taking over the country.

“You are raping our women and taking over the country.” That was Dylann
Storm Roof, the 21 year-old racist who murdered nine worshippers in cold
blood at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Sound familiar?

Hate speech is the gateway to hate action and at some point in his life,
Roof heard hate talk. Did he take it seriously? Sounds like he did. His
words nourish myths of brown invaders crossing the border with hopes of
ruining America like an updated Orson Wells prank. Or in Roof’s case, Black
villains. This isn’t simply a case of the PC police attacking a spirited
American as Trump-backers Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas, and, yes, Rep. Steve
King of Iowa say. (Let’s not forget that King was the reigning champion of
ludicrous remarks about immigrants way before Trump when in 2013 he
blustered, “They weigh 130 pounds and with calves the size of cantaloupes
because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” King is
still a Congressman representing a district in America where the majority
supports his stances about immigrants.)

Attacks against Hispanics have more than tripled in a year, according to an
official report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, The Hate
Crime Victimization report. The Census-driven study shows an alarming rise
in violent anti-Hispanic crime with anti-Hispanic crimes more likely in
regions with higher immigration populations and new arrivals. Trump’s words
are dangerous not simply offensive and should be treated that way.

*Trump: I’m still a birther
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-birther-obama-119945.html?ml=tl_20>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 10, 2015 *

Donald Trump is still not sure whether President Barack Obama was born in
the United States.

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper that aired Thursday night, the
Republican presidential candidate said he was not that interested in
talking about the issue, compared to other ones.

“Honestly, I don’t want to get into it,” Trump said.

Asked whether he thought Obama was born in the U.S., Trump responded: “I
don’t know. I really don’t know. I don’t know why he wouldn’t release his
records.”

In the interview, Trump also claimed that Hillary Clinton and John McCain
were both birthers, and mentioned how he got Obama to release “something.”

Obama released his long-form birth certificate in April 2011 after
speculation from Trump and others that he might have been born elsewhere.

“Do you know that Hillary Clinton was a birther? She wanted those records
and fought like hell. People forgot. You know that John McCain was a
birther, wanted those records. They couldn’t get the records. Hillary
failed. John McCain failed,” he said.

“Trump was able to get something. I don’t know what the hell it was, but it
doesn’t matter. Because I’m off that subject. I’m about jobs, I’m about the
military, I’m about doing the right thing for this country,” he added.

Meanwhile, Trump signaled that his beef with the GOP establishment is far
from over.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday night, he
speculated that Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus might
have leaked details of their call to The Washington Post.

“I just don’t know how the story got out. Nobody called us for
verification, and honestly, I can’t blame him, unless he gave out the
story, which is possible. Probably, he did,” Trump said.

Trump also again declined to rule out a third-party bid on Thursday,
telling the Post that he “would have to see who the nominee is” should he
fail in his quest for the Republican nomination.

*Donald Trump’s immigration stance dividing GOP in Arizona
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/donald-trumps-immigration-stance-dividing-gop-arizona-32377961>
// AP // Bob Christie - July 11, 2015*

PHOENIX (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is drawing
larger crowds as he continues to criticize immigration policies in stark
language that has revealed a deep divide between immigration hawks and
moderates who are trying to avoid alienating Hispanic voters.

On Saturday, Trump was scheduled to campaign in Nevada and then in Arizona,
a hub of immigrant and drug smuggling where the real estate developer and
reality TV star has developed a large following. A rally in Phoenix was
first planned at a posh resort that could handle about 1,000 guests, but
organizers moved it to the city’s convention center.

Trump’s descriptions of Mexican immigrants bringing drugs and crime to the
U.S. and being rapists have been roundly denounced as offensive. But his
message about the broken border has resonated with many in the GOP,
especially after an immigrant who was deported multiple times was accused
of killing a woman on a San Francisco pier.

In Los Angeles for a rally Friday evening, Trump brought together people
who said their relatives had been killed by immigrants in the U.S.
illegally. “The illegals come in and the illegals killed their children,”
he said. “And we better get smart in the United States.”

Arizona’s major Chamber of Commerce group, both U.S. senators and a host of
other GOP backers heaped their ire on Trump as the visit to Phoenix drew
near. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who met presidential hopefuls Sen. Marco
Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker when they were in the
state, is snubbing Trump. Protesters like the ones who greeted Trump in Los
Angeles were expected.

Maricopa County’s tough-on-immigration sheriff, Joe Arpaio, is set to speak
before Trump at the convention center event.

Sen. Jeff Flake, who with Sen. John McCain sponsored a 2013 comprehensive
immigration reform bill that stalled when it reached the House, said
Trump’s views “are coarse, ill-informed and inaccurate, and they are not
representative of the Republican Party. As an elected Republican official,
I’m disappointed the county party would host a speaker that so damages the
party’s image.”

McCain, in a statement issued Friday, said, “If the Republican nominee for
president does not support comprehensive immigration reform and border
security policy, we have no chance of defeating Hillary Clinton and winning
the White House in 2016.”

But A.J. LaFaro, former head of the Maricopa County Republican Party,
rejected those views. “With regards to McCain, Flake and the chambers, I
don’t respect any of those people anyway, so why would I care?” Lafaro
said. “They’re not representative of my conservative Christian values. I
understand that Mr. Trump is saying what a lot of people here in the United
States, I would like to think a majority of the people here in the Unites
States, are thinking.”

Trump’s comments after a June 16 campaign kickoff speech helped revive
immigration as a campaign issue but also prompted a series of cancellations
from companies that do business with him or his companies.

Trump begins Saturday speaking in Las Vegas at the libertarian-minded
gathering Freedom Fest. Nevada is 27 percent Hispanic and a key state for
Republican candidates. His appearance at the conference, which bills itself
as an egalitarian event for free-thinkers to discuss and celebrate liberty,
was a recent addition to a lineup that includes Rubio on Friday night.

*In Phoenix Speech, Donald Trump Won’t Back Down On Immigration Comments
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/donald-trump-won-t-back-down-on-immigration-comments-in-phoenix-speech>
// Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 10, 2015 *

On the eve of a Phoenix rally that he predicts will draw 5,000 people to
hear him speak about illegal immigration, Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump told Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect" that he has no
intention of backing off the stands that have drawn him rebukes from some
top-ranking political figures. "We have to stop illegal immigration," the
billionaire businessman told interviewer Mark Halperin on Friday. "The
country is being decimated by it.

Speaking about the wave of criticism he has received this week, he did not
back down. “All I can do is talk the truth,” Trump said. He declined to say
that he has made any mistakes, or that anything had hurt his feelings.
“No,” Trump said, “because I’m a big boy.”

Shortly after Trump made his comments, the senior senator of the state that
he will be visiting for his Saturday rally issued a statement that, without
naming the real estate mogul, clearly took issue with his rhetoric. "The
circus currently surrounding the debate over illegal immigration sows
division within our country and damages the Republican Party," said Arizona
Senator John McCain, the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nominee. "If
the Republican nominee for president does not support comprehensive
immigration reform and border security policy, we have no chance of
defeating Hillary Clinton and winning the White House in 2016."

Donald Trump on Campaign: It Really Is Intense

In his interview with Halperin, Trump acknowledged that the intensity of
the presidential campaign had surprised him. When asked to name competitors
in the Republican field whom he respects, he pointed to Texas Senator Ted
Cruz and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who have come out in defense of
his comments.

At one point, Trump said that he felt the week, in which he has been a
major focus of national political coverage, had improved his chances of
winning, though later stated that he wasn’t entirely sure.

He made much of an Economist/YouGov poll that placed him Thursday in the
lead of the presidential field.

Trump has received a spate of negative attention since his remarks on
immigrants coming from Mexico at his official presidential campaign
announcement on June 16th. Businesses including Univision, NBC, Macy’s,
plus a number of golf tournaments and celebrity chefs have moved to
distance themselves from him. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that
Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, called Trump
that day to encourage him to tamp down inflammatory comments on
immigration. Trump has characterized the call differently.

Trump stressed his maverick status, twice telling Halperin, “I’m not a
politician.”

He said, “The politicians will never take us to the promised land,” whereas
he alone has the capacity to win the general election. “I am the only one
that can beat Hillary Clinton,” he said, “I will win the Hispanic vote.”

He said that he will speak without a prepared text in his Arizona speech
Saturday—“I have a very great memory”—and stressed how high the attendance
will be in Phoenix, and at an event Friday evening in California.

“I believe in winning,” Trump said.

*Trump’s Arizona Speech on Illegal Immigration Could Attract Thousands
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/the-one-point-on-which-bernie-sanders-agrees-with-jeb-bush>
// Bloomberg // Ben Brody – July 10, 2015 *

Donald Trump is still talking immigration. And, unlike some in the
Republican establishment, Arizona supporters seem to love it.

A speech "on illegal immigration and numerous other topics" by the real
estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate had to be moved from a
hotel to the Phoenix convention center "to accommodate the thousands of
people expected to attend" the Saturday event.

The rally, which will also feature the city's anti-immigration Sheriff Joe
Arpaio, already had 3,500 committed attendees Thursday evening when the
campaign announced the venue change, according to the Arizona Republic
newspaper. Arpaio has faced condemnation for his hard-line rhetoric on
immigration and has been found by a federal judge to have violated the
civil rights of Latinos.

Trump has faced weeks of fallout since he said in his presidential campaign
announcement that some Mexican immigrants are "rapists." He has repeatedly
doubled down on the assertion since then—and seen his polling numbers rise
to top positions—even as he has lost business contracts and faced
denunciations from both Democrats and Republicans.

The possibility of a Republican presidential candidate continuing to attack
immigrants and stoking backlash among the large group of Latino voters
angered Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who said Trump's views don't reflect
those of his party, according to the Washington Post. An immigration-reform
supporter, Flake also asked the Republican Party of Maricopa County, which
includes Phoenix, to withdraw its sponsorship of Trump's event, the Post
said, but the party told the paper it is "thrilled" about the speech.

Arizona, a border state with a large immigrant population, has become an
evolving case study on the subject. Arpaio's actions, along with those of
former Governor Jan Brewer, who pushed through a tough anti-immigration law
in 2010 only to have it struck down by the Supreme Court, have garnered
nationwide attention. At the same time, the state's senators, Flake and
John McCain, have supported immigration reform as Republican leaders worry
about alienating Latino voters whom they hope to court, especially in 2016.

Trump's rhetoric was "offensive to not only Hispanic citizenry but other
citizenry," McCain told MSNBC Thursday. "I guarantee you the overwhelming
majority do not agree with his attitude that he has displayed towards our
Hispanic citizens. We love them."

A spokesman for McCain also told Bloomberg that the senator and former
Republican presidential nominee agreed with Flake's stance on the rally.

*Don’t Cry for the Trump Brand
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/don-t-cry-for-the-trump-brand>
// Bloomberg // Caleb Melby – July 10, 2015 *

Judging by discounts on Donald Trump-labeled mattresses on Amazon.com, the
billionaire’s brand is hurting. But his overseas business partners don’t
seem to have noticed.

Trump's Macy’s deal, and others, are gone after his incendiary remarks
about Mexican immigrants. Still, selling shirts and ties was “a small
business in terms of dollar volume,” the real-estate mogul, reality TV star
and Republican presidential contender said in a press release last week.
His partners in international property licensing deals, a more lucrative
business line, haven’t joined in on the dog pile.

“So far as the Trump-Panchshil association is concerned, this stands
unaffected and we will continue our association with the Trump
Organization,” Surbhi Gupta, a spokeswoman for Panchshil Realty, Trump’s
development partner in two condominium towers in Pune, India, said in an
e-mail. The company declined to comment on Trump’s remarks, “since we are
unaware of the ground situation there, from a social and political
context,” the e-mail said.

Developers in the Philippines, Turkey, Panama, Canada, India, and Uruguay
pay Trump millions in licensing fees to put his name on buildings he
neither built nor owns, with an aim to sell condominiums and hotel rooms at
higher prices. These deals provide nearly risk-less revenue streams for
Trump, which, along with income from properties he owns, helps pay down
existing debts and fund new projects.

“Mr. Trump is successful and wealthy and one of the great things about the
empire he’s built is that it’s diverse—both geographically and across
numerous business lines,” said Alan Garten, general counsel for Trump. “It
can withstand situations like this.”

Construction cranes stand above Trump Towers Istanbul in Istanbul, Turkey.

In the United States, Trump's presidential campaign has so far prompted a
stampede of disassociation: ESPN, NBCUniversal, NASCAR, Univision Holdings
Inc. and Serta Inc. have cut ties with Trump after he described Mexican
immigrants as criminals and rapists. A television company controlled by
Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, the world’s second richest man, announced
Monday it would cancel a project with Trump. Chef José Andrés said
Wednesday that he’d be backing out of a deal to open the flagship
restaurant at an upcoming Trump hotel in Washington. And even the Federal
Aviation Administration got in on the act, announcing Thursday that its
renaming three aerial navigation posts that had Trump-related monickers.

That Trump’s remarks aren’t registering outside of North America doesn’t
surprise Nick Andrews, a London-based senior partner and crisis management
expert at public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard Inc.

“He’s better-known as a celebrity than as a businessman outside of the
U.S.,” Andrews said. “And outrageous things are exactly what celebrities
often say. Most people don’t follow U.S. politics that closely anyway.”

The billionaire told Bloomberg his net worth was $10 billion on June 3. A
document disclosed to reporters on June 16 put the number at $8.7 billion.
The biggest line item, in his own estimation, is $3.3 billion for “real
estate licensing deals, brand and branded developments.”

A Bloomberg assessment found Trump’s largest assets, including the
commercial spaces at Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York, the
leaseholds to 40 Wall Street and Manhattan’s Niketown, a partnership with
Vornado Realty Trust in two office buildings, and his collection of golf
courses and resorts, to be worth at least $2.4 billion.

The Trump fallout closely resembles one experienced by cooking personality
Paula Deen, said Melissa Agnes, cofounder and crisis management consultant
at Agnes & Day. Deen’s contract with The Food Network wasn’t renewed in
2013 after revelations that she’d used racial slurs.

“She’ll never be back to the same degree, but she did come back in some
form,” Day said. “Donald Trump has proven to be extremely resilient over
the years.”

*Donald Trump moves immigration rally to larger venue
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/donald-trump-immigration-rally-moved/index.html>
// CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 10, 2015 *

Donald Trump's divisive comments about immigration have drawn a crowd, one
bigger than even the blustery billionaire expected.

Trump announced late Thursday that his weekend rally in Phoenix, Arizona
had been moved to the Phoenix Convention Center.

"Due to the overwhelming response for Saturday's Rally in Phoenix, Arizona
the venue has been changed to accommodate the thousands of people expected
to attend and the event will now take place at the Phoenix Convention
Center," Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement.

The former reality TV star's theatrics have helped vault him near the front
of the pack of a wide field of big name Republican candidates. But they
have also cost him a seemingly endless string of business relationships, as
major brands like Macy's, NBC and others have broken off ties with him.

Speaking with CNN Wednesday, Trump could not say whether any illegal
immigrants were working on his new Trump Hotel being constructed just
blocks from The White House. The Washington Post reported that many illegal
immigrants, as well as legal ones, were working on the project.

Arizona has been a hotbed for conservative anger over illegal immigration
for years, making political stars out of figures like Maricopa County
Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The Republican Party of Maricopa County and Arpaio are hosting Trump on
Saturday. But the state's Republican establishment is largely snubbing him.

Sen. John McCain, the party's 2008 nominee, Sen. Jeff Flake and Gov. Doug
Ducey are all skipping Trump's rally. Flake told The Arizona Republic that
Trump's views are "coarse, ill-informed, inaccurate, and they are not
representative of The Republican Party."

The Republican Party, meanwhile, has struggled with the issue. Trump and
Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus spoke on the phone Wednesday and
walked away with very different versions of what was actually said.

*D.C.-Area Lawmakers Call For Boycott Of Donald Trump’s Businesses
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/donald-trump-protest-hotel_n_7770496.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Christine Conetta – July 10, 2015 *

Lawmakers and dozens of protesters came to the site of the future Trump
International Hotel in the nation's capital Thursday to protest racist
comments about the Latino community made by GOP presidential candidate and
businessman Donald Trump and to call for a boycott of his businesses and
products.

“He has put everyone into the category of rapists and drug dealers,”
Maryland state Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D) said. “A position of hatred and
xenophobia being expressed by a presidential candidate who wishes to lead
this great nation in the future. How can that be tolerated?”

Politicians were wearing buttons that read "Dump Trump." Protesters showed
up with signs that read “Trump is morally bankrupt,” and “Stand with
immigrant workers.” They chanted, "We are in the fight.”

The backlash against the real estate mogul began after his presidential
announcement speech last month, when Trump said Mexican immigration was
bringing drugs, crime and "rapists" into the U.S.

A slew of companies, including Macy's and NBC, cut corporate ties

with Trump after the comments. Most recently, Spanish-born celebrity chef
José Andrés announced he will no longer open a flagship restaurant in
Trump’s Washington hotel.

Some D.C.-area lawmakers believe that boycotting businesses and products
tied to Trump is the best way to fight back.

“We have huge economic power. Don’t go to his hotels. Don’t go to his
restaurants. Boycott everything that’s even closely related to Trump,”
Gutierrez said.

She even called on the Latino construction workers who are currently
renovating the space to find another job, saying they don’t need money
that’s “tainted” with hatred.

Another Democratic Maryland state delegate, Joseline Peña-Melnyk, echoed
her fellow politician's sentiments.

“A lot of the people who work on this building are Latinos," she said. "He
should not be the benefit of our hard work.”

D.C. Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss (D), who also spoke at the protest, called on
the federal government to stop the renovation of the Old Post Office
Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue, the site of the future hotel.

“This is not a hotel that Mr. Trump built, bought or land that he owns.
This is public space, federal land that belongs to the people of the United
States of America," Strauss said. “We would like the Department of the
Interior, who controls this scaffolding and who controls this space, to
remove this logo, so long as it continues to be a symbol of hate speech.”

Meanwhile, across the street from the protest, a small group gathered in
support of Trump.

Alvin Whittaker, one of those present, admitted Trump “should’ve chosen his
words differently,” but doesn’t think the comments will have “that much of
an effect” in the long run.

Strauss disagrees and said he thinks continuing construction on the hotel
is an insult to the diverse community that makes up the nation’s capital.

“It’s not just wrong and offensive, it’s not something that we the
taxpayers should be subsidizing in public space,” Strauss said.

*Donald Trump: Narcissist in Chief
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/donald-trump-narcissist-i_b_7770156.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Jim Wallis – July 10, 2015*

Donald Trump is a real estate mogul for whom the word "egomaniac" is an
understatement. But when America's narcissist in chief says he also wants
to become commander in chief, the country pays attention. And that's what
Trump wanted to have happen. Here is what Trump said in his announcement
that he is running to add the presidency to his list of successes:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ...They're
bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I
assume, are good people."

When challenged on the inaccuracy, outrageousness and viciousness of his
remarks, "The Donald" characteristically doubled down and claimed to be the
nation's only truth-teller, then attacked everyone who dared to challenge
him.

Nice of Trump to assume, I thought, that some of the 11 million
undocumented immigrants who live such vulnerable lives in this country
might be good people. But obviously Trump doesn't know any of them.

Jesus talks about immigrants when he refers to welcoming "the stranger,"
and says that how we treat them is how we treat him (Matthew 25:31-46). But
everything about Donald Trump's life indicates that Jesus is a stranger to
him, too. (Parenthetically, could somebody ask why Liberty University, a
Christian school, asked this lover of money, luxury, and power -- and
hardly an exemplar of sexual morality -- to deliver a convocation address
in 2012? I still can't understand that.)

In a long and remarkable interview with Trump on Wednesday, NBC's Katy Tur
pointed out some real truths -- including that undocumented immigrants in
America actually have much lower crime rates that our natural born American
citizens. Trump just insulted her, telling the journalist that she was
"naïve" and didn't know what she was talking about.

It was hard to keep count of the number of individual people Trump attacked
during this insane interview, including the other Republican presidential
candidates, conservative columnists who were embarrassed or dared to raise
questions about the facts of all his "truth-telling," or the businesses
that are severing ties with Trump one after another for his idiotic,
vicious and divisive comments. Trump called all of his opponents "stupid"
and kept saying that nobody else can compare to his astounding "success."

Trump's ethics are very clear here -- or rather, his non-ethics. Trump's
pride in his own success literally "trumps" everything else -- shutting out
reason, respect, experience, maturity, truth, civility and certainly any
sense of human compassion or empathy.

While it is unlikely that Donald's favorite word ("TRUMP") will ultimately
be painted on the side of Air Force One, there are some important political
questions to raise about the "success" Trump is having in the Republican
and primary state polls -- second only to Jeb Bush at the latest reading.

Why did it take weeks for the other Republican presidential candidates to
distance themselves from -- much less denounce -- Trump's ugly words about
Mexicans? Late and tepid at first, Republican pushback is slowly growing
stronger from some, while others like Ted Cruz are "saluting" Trump for
focusing on "illegal immigration" and smiling over his "colorful language."

Republican courage and conviction in response to Trump's clearly racial
comments has been sadly lacking, as has the party's alleged concern to
become a bigger tent that can reach out to racial minorities and American
Hispanics in particular. Why?

Because Donald Trump is a salesman. And that's really all he is. And the
only product Trump really sells is the only thing he really believes in --
himself. He's made another calculation, another deal, that he can have
success with a certain political segment of America. I think Trump has
decided to reach down, and I do mean down, to the hard core of the
Republican base, which is white, angry, and very right-wing -- a
constituency that is especially active and indeed overrepresented in the
primary phase of every presidential campaign.

Trump reached out to that same group in the last presidential election
campaign when he decided to lead the "birther" movement challenging whether
Barack Obama was an American or was really an "other" and not one of "us."
That racial appeal against a black president was the very worst of American
sentiments -- and is consistent with Trump's latest attack on immigrants
from Mexico and other "foreign" people not like "us."

Trump certainly acts and sounds like a racial bigot. But whether he really
is or not, there is a much deeper issue here -- Donald Trump is a salesman
who sees that racial bigotry still works with a core base of the Republican
Party.

Ever since the Democrats lost the south to the Republicans because of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Republican
Party, which dominates the entire south, has faced a very deep ethical
crisis and has some difficult choices to make. That hardcore white southern
base of the Republican Party wants to be a white party, and the leadership
of the Republican Party still panders to it. What's also clear is that
Republican presidential candidates are afraid of that hardcore right-wing
white base of their party--especially in the primary season.

That is exactly what happened to immigration reform, which passed in a
bi-partisan way in the Senate in 2013 but was vetoed in the House of
Representatives by the many Republican districts that have now been
"white-washed" -- meaning designed to have no significant minority voters.

When members of the House Republican leadership met with several
evangelical and Catholic leaders in 2014, they promised to our faces that
they would bring serious immigration reform to the House floor for a vote.
They failed to live up to that promise, deciding instead to cave to their
white-washed right wing base. Some Republican members admitted to us that
many of their constituents were expressing clear racial biases.

I believe Donald Trump is deliberately and directly appealing to that white
racist core of the Republican Party, and that's why he is currently number
two in the Republican polls. He is selling racism and he is winning.

I know and trust Republicans and conservative friends who reject such
racism -- want to purge it from their party -- and long for a wider, more
diverse Republican Party for the future. Indeed, the Republican votes, and
even impassioned speeches, to take down the Confederate flag in South
Carolina show a tale of two Republican parties -- and that is a hopeful
contrast to the racist elements of the party to which Trump is selling
himself.

It is time for them to stand up to Donald Trump and what he is selling.

They not only have my challenge -- they have my prayers.

*Donald Trump Could Seriously Damage The Real Republican Efforts To Reach
Latinos
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/donald-trump-could-seriously-damage-the-real-republican-effo#.igNwEyr0M>
// BuzzFeed // Adrian Carrasquillo – July 10, 2015 *

No Democrats are quoted in this story.

It’s not that they don’t want to be. There is no topic that fills them more
with unbridled glee, outrage, or fake outrage than Donald Trump. His antics
help Democrats who want the GOP to be seen as xenophobic and unable to
discuss issues that deal with Hispanics, like immigration, in a respectful,
measured manner.

But for those who have worked to improve the GOP brand with Hispanics, the
last month of the Trump comedy spectacular, in which he has called Mexicans
criminals and rapists and doubled down on those comments, has been deeply
unsettling. More importantly, they worry it risks further damaging the
party with Latinos and eroding gains they’ve already made — even as
candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio put them in a potentially even
better place.

Republicans have made real and concerted efforts, over a period of time, to
engage Hispanics after 2012. The Republican National Committee’s Growth and
Opportunity project has been well-funded, successful in key 2014 races, and
is ramping up for the presidential cycle, with the largest chunk of
spending going toward Hispanic outreach.

Latinos on the left worry about the LIBRE Initiative, a Koch-funded project
that’s doing real on-the-ground work in Hispanic churches and communities,
all while espousing conservative principles in literature and on Latino
media. GROW Elect, an effort started in California and expanding to
Southwest states, helped dozens of Latino Republicans get elected in 2014,
often in Hispanic districts.

The goal with these projects is clear: showing that the Republican Party is
not the enemy. And Trump, these Republicans worry, is ruining that.

“The greatest harm is to Trump himself — he says he can win the Latino
vote, he’s kidding himself,” said Ruben Barrales, who leads GROW Elect and
is the son of Mexican immigrants. “Now young Hispanics will be smashing
Donald Trump piñatas at their birthday parties in celebration. He fails to
recognize the harm on the Trump brand. But it’s damaging not just to
Republican Latino efforts, but to Republican efforts as a whole.”

Barrales pointed to the campaign for California’s Proposition 187, which
took aim at undocumented immigrants and featured harsh ads about Latinos,
as a moment when Latinos decided the GOP was against them.

Trump hasn’t just dominated the mainstream media, but has been viewing
nightly on Univision and Telemundo, the Spanish-language giants that reach
Hispanic homes across the country.

“Trump has turned out to be Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s replacement as the
principal villain in what has practically become a new nightly telenovela
on Univision and Telemundo,” said MRC Latino’s director, Ken Oliver-Méndez,
whose organization monitors Spanish-language media’s inclusion of
conservative viewpoints.

Since his announcement, Oliver-Méndez said, Trump has been mentioned at
least once or twice in practically every newscast with very few exceptions
on the three major networks MRC Latino monitors: Univision, Telemundo, and
MundoFox.

“It’s a distraction, a major distraction,” said LIBRE’s executive director,
Daniel Garza. “It’s not the narrative you want driving the national news.”
But he said Trump has created a realignment within the immigration debate,
where the bombastic businessman represents the extreme fringe and other
presidential candidates are able to emerge as the adults in the room.

Still, Republicans have not just had to comment on Trump, but some have had
to do so repeatedly. When Trump retweeted a comment by someone saying that
Jeb Bush has to like the “Mexican illegals” because of his wife, Bush was
forced to say, “You can love the Mexican culture, you can love your
Mexican-American wife and also believe that we need to control the border.”

Izzy Santa, former director of Hispanic media at the RNC, said Trump is the
only person who disregards that tone, and rhetoric matters.

“Trump’s comments hurt the Republican field for the next cycle because it
portrays Republicans as out of touch when it comes to understanding
Hispanic culture and the immigration debate,” she said.

Republican officials have also pushed back against Trump. RNC Chair Reince
Priebus reportedly called Trump and told him to “tone it down.” House
Speaker John Boehner condemned the use of immigration as a “political
football.”

Still, people maintain all’s not lost. A prominent Hispanic operative
advising a Republican campaign called Trump irrelevant and said he doesn’t
reflect the views of the party.

A Latino at a different campaign said the good news for Republicans is that
it’s 2015, not 2016. The operative said candidates who have had to engage
Latinos in the past, like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and Chris
Christie, know that they have to speak to Hispanic voters, who will be
paying attention to how they respond to Trump and the immigration issue. “I
think it’s a defining moment for the Republican candidates on where they
stand in regards to these comments,” the strategist said, adding that Ted
Cruz’s embrace of Trump “has disqualified him as a serious general election
candidate.”

Trump, relishing his role as presidential troll, has made it clear that he
isn’t going anywhere.

On Saturday, Trump will hold a “Stand Up To Illegal Immigration” joint
event with Arpaio in Arizona. The question now for GOP presidential
candidates is even if they come out stronger to repudiate him, how can they
stop Trump from being Trump, all the while representing their party?

Barrales said just as Republicans were leaders most recently in South
Carolina to help take down the Confederate flag, they need to be here with
Trump as well.

One prominent Latino operative who advises campaigns laid out the stakes,
saying continued comments and a focus on Trump only endangers the work
Republicans have been putting in for the last few years.

“Trump’s divisive rhetoric and harsh tone is undermining those efforts and
could potentially block Republican’s path to the White House in 2016,” the
operative said.

*Donald Trump Wanted To Make Charlie Rangel HUD Secretary In 1999
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/donald-trump-wanted-to-make-charlie-rangel-hud-secretary#.wl8bo8Vyw>
// BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in November 1999 that,
if elected president, he wanted to make Charles Rangel, the Democratic
Congressman from New York, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

At the time, real estate magnate was considering running for president as a
member of the Reform Party. Asked by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer if he’d “given
some thought to a potential Trump Cabinet,” Trump mentioned Rangel as his
top choice to lead HUD.

“Well, let’s go — like HUD,” Trump said. “I think Charlie Rangel is a
terrific guy. He’s a congressman from New York. He has been a powerful guy.
Now the Democrats are not in power, but I think he’d be terrific at HUD.”

Rangel has been a member of the House since 1971 and is still in office.
His website touts his record promoting affordable housing in New York’s
13th Congressional District.

Other Trump Cabinet picks would have included Colin Powell as secretary of
state and General Electric CEO Jack Welch as treasury secretary. Trump said
that John McCain would be “a very interesting candidate” for secretary of
defense.

In the interview, Trump also predicted that, if he won the Reform Party’s
nomination, he would “take more votes away from the Democrats” than the
Republicans in the general election. He ended up withdrawing from the race
in February 2000.

*Trump’s Got the GOP by the Balls
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/10/trump-s-got-the-gop-by-the-balls.html>
// Daily Beast // Michael Tomasky – July 10, 2015 *

Deflating as it is, the likely Donald Trump scenario is this: He burns hot
for a little while longer; he says something really out there in the first
debate that roils up the base but makes Reince Priebus and Karl Rove break
out in canker sores; but by the time of the baseball playoffs maybe, his
act gets old, and somebody else becomes the Herman Cain of October. Then,
next year, the primaries will start, and he’ll have to get votes. He’s not
going to be all that competitive in Iowa, so it’s New Hampshire where he’ll
need to deliver something. And if he doesn’t, he’ll just go away.

That’s the pattern anyway. I seem to recall that at this point in 2011,
Michele Bachmann had a pretty good head of steam going. So maybe we
shouldn’t get too overheated about him.

But Trump is different from Bachmann, and even from fellow entrepreneur
Cain, in one major respect: He doesn’t give a crap about the Republican
Party. He cares about Trump. And don’t forget he has the power
singlehandedly to make Hillary Clinton president. He knows it, and you
better believe Priebus knows it, and it is this fact that establishes a
power dynamic between Trump and the GOP in which Trump totally has the
upper hand and can make mischief in the party for months.

How does he have the power to elect Clinton all by himself? By running as
an independent. Two factors usually prevent candidates who lose nominations
from running as independents. One, they lack the enormous amount of money
needed to pursue that path (pay the lawyers to get them on 50 state
ballots, etc.). Two, they have a sense of proportion and decency, and they
figure that if primary voters rejected them, it’s time to go home.

Well, Trump has the dough and lacks the decency. In an interview this week
with Byron York, he left the door open a crack to such a candidacy. And
that would be all it would take. Given his fame and name recognition, he’d
likely hit the polling threshold needed to qualify for the fall debates.
And with that kind of exposure, he’d do well—enough. All he needs to get is
5 percent of the vote in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado, and the
Republican, whoever it is, is sizzled. Another electoral landslide.

How does he have the power to elect Clinton all by himself? By running as
an independent.

The question is would he, and the answer is who knows? To York, he
expressed awareness of the obvious drawbacks, pointing to the spoiler role
he says Ross Perot played in 1992: “I think every single vote that went to
Ross Perot came from [George H.W.] Bush…Virtually every one of his 19
percentage points came from the Republicans. If Ross Perot didn’t run, you
have never heard of Bill Clinton.” He is—shocker—wrong about this, but what
matters for present purposes is that he believes it, so maybe that means he
wouldn’t follow through.

But he is an unpredictable fellow. Suppose Priebus and the GOP piss him off
in some way, and he thinks the hell with these losers. Suppose he
decides—and don’t doubt the importance of this—that an independent run
would be good for the Trump brand in the long run. And suppose he doesn’t
actually mind so much the idea of Hillary Clinton being president. We
already know he retains a soft spot for old Bill. And he donated to Hillary
Clinton’s senatorial campaign.

All that’s speculative. But even in the here and now this dynamic has
consequences. It means the GOP can’t afford to offend Trump. This is why
Priebus’s spokesman characterized the chairman’s Wednesday evening phone
chat with Trump as “very respectful.”

And it’s why the other candidates’ criticisms of him have been a little,
ah, restrained. Politicians aren’t always real smart about any number of
things, but one thing in my experience that they almost always have a very
keen sense of is risk. Members of Congress, for example, generally know
exactly what percentage of their electorate they’re going to sacrifice by
casting X vote. Jeb Bush’s Trump criticisms are muted because he has a lot
to lose by offending Trump and his supporters. Chris Christie, who’s little
more than an asterisk in the polls, has less to lose, so he’s willing to be
a bit more blunt. Same goes for Rick Perry.

We’ll see if Trump has developed that politician’s sense of risk. If he
goes too far, one or certainly two more equivalents of “Mexican rapists,”
it’ll be open season on him. He’s at a point of maximum leverage right now,
and if he wants to stay there, he’s got to tuck it in about 10 or 15
percent and start employing the kind of racialized euphemisms that are not
only tolerated but celebrated within the Republican Party—build the damn
fence, no amnesty, Al Qaeda is storming the mainland through Obama’s porous
border, etc. That way, he’ll hang around. And he’ll build enough of a
following that the threat of a viable independent candidacy remains a real
one. And that is Trump’s trump card. And it makes Reince Priebus a very
nervous man.

*Donald Trump, immigration and the GOP
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-trump-immigration-bush-rubio-gop-rapists-edit-0712-jm-20150710-story.html>
// Chicago Tribune // Editorial Board – July 10, 2015 *

Many of the candidates have been wary of staking out a position on an issue
that has divided Americans for decades. Too bad.

The trick for Republicans is to appeal to their conservative base in the
primary season without alienating the Latinos who are increasingly
important in November. In 2012, Barack Obama got more than 70 percent of
the Latino vote.

The takeaway from that election, supposedly, was that Republicans needed to
get serious about immigration reform, including addressing the status of
the 11 million — no, it's not 34 million, Mr. Trump — who are in the
country illegally.

But here we are at the dawn of another presidential election cycle with no
solution in sight, and a lot of ducking and weaving from candidates who
don't want to take a position now that could hurt them later.

There's no ambiguity in Trump's stance, and so far it hasn't hurt him in
the polls. (His business dealings are another matter.) On Thursday, for
example, an Economist/YouGov poll had Trump first among 16 candidates, with
15 percent of the GOP vote nationwide.

That emboldened the hardliners to chime in when Trump blamed lax border
security for the murder of a San Francisco woman. The man accused of
shooting her had slipped into the country from Mexico and had been sent
back five times.

To Trump, that's more evidence that the U.S. is a "dumping ground" for
Mexico's most violent criminals. He's promised to build an "impenetrable"
wall along the border, and send Mexico the bill.

The candidates have been careful to distance themselves from Trump's
inflammatory remarks — "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime.
They're rapists"— while calling for more border security or stricter
enforcement of existing laws.

Some have focused on the role of "sanctuary cities," such as San Francisco
(and Chicago), where local law enforcement officials do not routinely
detain undocumented immigrants for the feds. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry both called for withholding federal
funding from cities with sanctuary policies.

You don't have to agree with Trump to welcome a discussion that will help
sort the throw-them-all-out candidates from the ones who recognize that a
broader fix is in order.

The last thing Republicans need is a replay of the 2012 primaries, in which
one candidate (Herman Cain) called for a 20-foot electrified border fence
and another (Perry) was scorned for suggesting that kids who were brought
to the U.S. by their parents ought to be allowed to stay and go to college.

Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee, favored a policy harsh enough to
encourage undocumented immigrants to "self-deport." Look what that got him.

You need a score card to keep up with the shifting positions of this year's
candidates.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was one of the authors of an excellent bipartisan
measure that passed the Senate in 2013. The bill balanced border security
with a more flexible visa system and a path to earned citizenship for most
undocumented immigrants. But Rubio backed away from that approach, which
got nowhere in the House.

Bush proposed a legal status short of earned citizenship as part of a
comprehensive fix in his 2013 book, "Immigration Wars: Forging an American
Solution." Before and after that, he favored a path to citizenship.

It's frankly hard to tell where either of them stands at the moment, though
we'd argue that they've both been in the ballpark most of the time. We'd
also argue that flexibility isn't such a bad thing if it gets us to a
solution.

Compromise is one thing. Waffling is another. How are voters supposed to
tell the difference?

Republicans have to find a way forward on immigration reform. The candidate
who can make that happen is the one who's willing to grab the megaphone
from Trump, and lead.

*Trump ups the ante on immigration, unfazed by criticism and protests
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-donald-trump-immigration-20150710-story.html#page=1>
// LA Times // Katie Linthicum, Richard Winton and Kurtis Lee – July 10,
2015 *

Donald Trump brought his Republican presidential campaign to Los Angeles on
Friday, unrepentant over his inflammatory comments about Latino immigrants
that have drawn national ire and pushback from businesses, celebrities and
fellow party members.

In two appearances Friday, Trump drew praise from fellow opponents of
illegal immigration and criticism from protesters angered by his comments
that Mexican immigrants were drug dealers and rapists.

The business mogul seemed unfazed, even predicting he would win the Latino
vote.

“When it’s all said and done, I will win the Hispanic vote,” Trump said at
his first campaign stop at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. “I will win the
Hispanic vote because I’m going to create jobs. I’m going to take them away
from China.”

Trump appeared with several opponents of illegal immigration, including
those whose family members were killed in accidents and crimes by
assailants alleged to be in the country illegally. One of them was Brenda
Sparks, who said her son was killed in a traffic collision with an
immigrant in the country illegally.

She praised Trump for having “the guts to say what millions are thinking.”

"My taxpayer dollars are paying for all these illegals and their children,”
Sparks said. “I’ve lost my child; how much more do I have to give?”

Don Rosenberg, whose son was killed in 2010 by an immigrant from Honduras
who came to the country illegally but had been given temporary legal
status, said his appearance at the event was not an endorsement of Trump's
campaign. But he said he appreciated the candidate putting immigration at
the center of the 2016 presidential race.

"I think that what he said he could have articulated better, but the
general premise of what he said is true," Rosenberg said. "I’m happy that
he brought the subject up because it needs to be talked about. Every crime
an immigrant commits is an additional crime. Every crime they commit is a
crime they wouldn't have committed otherwise."

Trump drew a decidedly different reaction in Brentwood, where he addressed
a group of entertainment industry conservatives at the Luxe Sunset
Boulevard Hotel.

Hours before Trump’s arrival, protesters began packing the corner of Sunset
Boulevard and Church Lane, holding American flags and “Dump Donald Trump”
signs. They yelled anti-Trump chants through megaphones in Spanish and
English as some drivers of passing cars honked in support.

By 7 p.m., the crowd had swelled to more than 120. Organizers with the
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles brought Trump pinatas
stuffed with trash -- symbolizing, they said, the mogul’s incendiary
rhetoric.

Hilda Ramirez, a West Los Angeles resident, said Trump should keep his
mouth shut. “When you open your mouth, a mess spills out.... You talk
nothing but trash. Don't back Donald Trump!" she yelled through a megaphone.

Joshua Gonzalez, a 21-year-old Calabasas resident holding a sign depicting
Trump in a pink wig, said he came to the protest to send a message that
Californians won't put up with "his out-of-control antics."

He said Trump was hurting the Republican Party, which might otherwise
appeal to conservative Latinos who believe in education and hard work.

"Donald Trump creates division among the races in California and across the
nation," Gonzalez said. “He is trying to exploit divisions.”

But about 20 feet away, about 40 Trump supporters gathered, many wearing
red, white and blue and carrying signs reading, “Trump Tells the Truth.” A
man in a megaphone yelled, “Viva Donald Trump!”

At times protesters and supporters got in each other's faces. One man
jabbed his “Trump for President” sign at protesters as a woman yelled back,
“Racist!” and "Trump isn't welcome here!" Protest organizers and a security
officer tried to keep the sides apart.

By 7:55 p.m., the protesters had disbanded -- missing Trump by a few
minutes, as he was driven to the hotel entrance in a black SUV with two
bodyguards. He was to speak to the Friends of Abe group, founded a decade
ago by Hollywood actors including Gary Sinise and Clint Eastwood, which
holds monthly gatherings with Republican speakers.

This election cycle the group has hosted several GOP presidential hopefuls
such as Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee. The events are private
and not publicly advertised.

Even amid criticism from some party leaders and companies, such as NBC
Universal and Macy's, that have cut business ties with him, Trump has
escalated his anti-immigrant rhetoric since his campaign announcement last
month.

In recent days, Trump has focused his criticism on San Francisco's
sanctuary policies, under which a Mexican immigrant in the country
illegally was released and subsequently charged with murder in a
high-profile shooting July 1.

Immigration agents had asked the San Francisco Sheriff's Department to hold
Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, but the county's policies prohibit law
enforcement officers from transferring immigrants to federal authorities
without a criminal warrant.

On Friday, Trump repeated his accusation that Mexico is sending “criminals”
to the United States and pledged to build a wall along the southern U.S.
border to keep them out.

“People came into the country illegally and killed their children,” Trump
said, referring to the families who stood alongside him at the Beverly
Hills event. “The illegals come in and the illegals kill their children.”

He acknowledged he has become a lightning rod, saying the head of the
Republican National Committee called him recently and ask him to “tone it
down.”

“I don’t want to tone down important issues,” Trump said. “I’m so proud of
myself for bringing this issue to bear, to the forefront.

“I must be doing something right,” he added. “I’m No. 1 in the polls.”

Indeed, several recent polls have showed Trump among the top GOP
candidates. This week his campaign announced that an event Saturday in
Phoenix with controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was being
moved to a bigger location to accommodate more people.

But not all Republicans have embraced Trump's appearance. U.S. Sen. Jeff
Flake (R-Arizona) called on the Maricopa County Republican Party not to
host Trump.

"Donald Trump's views are coarse, ill-informed and inaccurate, and they are
not representative of the Republican Party," Flake said in a statement. "As
an elected Republican official, I'm disappointed the county party would
host a speaker that so damages the party's image."

Still, some leaders of the local GOP have said they will welcome the
real-estate mogul.

"In Maricopa County we believe deeply in Reagan's 11th commandment that
'Thou shall not speak ill of any other Republican,'" the party said in a
statement. "It is disappointing when our Republican leaders do not share
that same commitment to party unity and teamwork."

*UNDECLARED*

*WALKER*

*Did Scott Walker’s Twitter Account Get Ahead of His Campaign?
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/did-scott-walkers-twitter-account-get-ahead-of-his-campaign/?ref=politics>
// NYT // Patrick Healy – July 10, 2015 *

In what appears to be either a premature presidential announcement or a
tease of one to get attention, the Twitter account of Gov. Scott Walker of
Wisconsin sent word on Friday afternoon that he was seeking the 2016
Republican nomination for president.

Mr. Walker, who has been all but officially running for president for
months, is scheduled make “an announcement” on Monday afternoon in
Wisconsin about whether he will seek the White House. Friday’s tweet said,
“Scott is in. Are you? Join our team today” with a photo of Mr. Walker the
features the words “SCOTT WALKER IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.” Mr. Walker
usually signs his personal tweets with his initials, but “SKW” is not on
this one.

Scott is in. Are you? Join our team today. pic.twitter.com/JueJJKDdCt

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) July 10, 2015

Asked if the tweet constituted an official announcement, a spokeswoman for
Mr. Walker replied by e-mail, “Stay tuned for Governor Walker’s
announcement on Monday at 5pm CT.”

*Is Scott Walker’s Crossover Appeal Real? Turnout Data Raises Questions
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/10/is-scott-walkers-crossover-appeal-real-turnout-data-raises-questions/>
// WSJ // Dante Chinni – July 10, 2015 *

A major part of Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s appeal, he reminds
supporters in every stump speech, is his proven ability to win the
governor’s mansion in a highly-contested, Democratic-leaning state.

But with Mr. Walker set to launch his presidential candidacy on Monday, a
closer look at the numbers shows a more complicated picture.

Results from four recent elections in Wisconsin suggest that while Mr.
Walker can win in a low-turnout, off-year election, he could have more
trouble in a presidential year, when more voters — especially more minority
and young voters — come to the polls.

Since 2010, Mr. Walker has won three statewide elections, including the
June 2012 recall, in a state that has not voted for a Republican
presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984. On the surface, that is
an impressive accomplishment that Mr. Walker’s supporters say points to his
ability to bring traditionally Democratic states into the Republican column
in 2016. In fact, Mr. Walker’s performance in the state looks a great deal
like Democratic President Barack Obama’s.

But those percentages only tell part of the story. Mr. Walker has never
been tested by an electorate as large and diverse as that which turns out
for presidential elections.

Compare the turnout in the races Mr. Walker won to the last two
presidential races in the state.

Those are big differences. The drop between 2012’s presidential race and
the 2014 gubernatorial was more than 600,000 votes – about 20%.

And there is more to the difference than simply the number of voters. Years
of voter turnout data show Democrats are simply less likely than
Republicans to vote in non-presidential elections, and that has been a big
advantage for Mr. Walker. Look at Milwaukee County, the state’s biggest
Democratic stronghold.

In Milwaukee since 2008, the average decline in turnout from presidential
to non-presidential years has been more than 115,000 votes – 24%. In the
state’s biggest GOP stronghold, Waukesha County, the falloff has been far
less dramatic – only about 37,000 votes, or 16%.

That trend carries across the state. The counties that went for Mr. Obama
in 2012 saw a drop of about 23% in the number of votes cast in the 2014
governor’s race. The counties that voted for Republican Mitt Romney in 2012
saw a drop-off of just under 20%.

In total, the 35 Wisconsin counties that voted for Mr. Obama in 2012
accounted for 57% of the vote drop-off between the presidential election
and the 2014 gubernatorial campaign. And Mr. Walker won 20 of those
counties in 2014.

Taken together, these numbers suggest Mr. Walker’s appeal to Democratic
voters may be overstated, and that his ability to win in a
Democratic-leaning state may be more the result of his timing than his
ability to reach swing voters. His biggest advantage may have been that he
was facing a smaller electorate.

Should he get the Republican nod in 2016, Mr. Walker would not have that
off-year election advantage. He would be going against the bigger
presidential voter pool, and his strength in Wisconsin and elsewhere could
be very different.

*Scott Walker tweets his presidential run
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-tweets-his-presidential-run-119972.html?ml=tl_12>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – July 10, 2015 *

Scott Walker is running for president, he announced in what appeared to be
an unintentional tweet on Friday.

The Wisconsin governor isn’t expected to formally announce until Monday,
but on Friday afternoon, the Republican appeared to tweet a black-and-white
image of himself waving onstage that read, “Scott Walker is running for
president.”

The tweet was not available on his timeline later in the afternoon, but was
still viewable under his account.

“Stay tuned for Governor Walker’s announcement on Monday at 5pm CT,”
spokeswoman AshLee Strong said in an email, when asked for comment.

Late Friday, a Twitter spokesperson said, "We're looking into today's
issue, and we've determined the Walker team was not at fault."

If the tweet was unintentional, Walker wouldn’t be the first candidate to
scoop himself on his own announcement: Earlier this year, a video of
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson saying that he was announcing
his candidacy aired the night before his announcement — something he wasn’t
planning on, he said at the time.

*Scott Walker’s timely abortion victory
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-abortion-20-week-ban-wisconsin-119960.html?ml=tl_4>
// Politico // Kyle Cheney – July 10, 2015 *

Wisconsin Republicans gift-wrapped an Iowa talking point for Gov. Scott
Walker this week, sending abortion restrictions to his desk just days ahead
of his presidential announcement.

The legislation, which would ban nearly all abortions after 20 weeks,
cleared the state Assembly Thursday on a party-line vote, four days before
the governor intends to launch his presidential bid. Walker has indicated
that he’ll sign the measure.

Walker’s win on the issue comes as he’s introducing himself to Iowa
Republicans, who tend to favor social conservative candidates in their
first-in-the-nation caucuses. It also comes amid questions Walker has faced
on the right about his commitment to conservative causes, like opposing
same-sex marriage and limiting abortions.

Prominent anti-abortion advocates and social conservatives signaled that
Walker’s signature on the measure, which could come as early as Friday,
would be a welcome gesture to kick off his campaign.

“Those things will basically give him that Good Housekeeping Seal, so to
speak,” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader, an
influential conservative group in Iowa.

“I think it’s great timing to benefit him,” added Marilyn Musgrave, a
former congresswoman and a leader of the conservative Susan B. Anthony List.

Twenty-week abortion bans have been enacted in 11 states, according to the
Guttmacher Institute, though in at least two — Arizona and Idaho — they’ve
been struck down by courts. Proponents contend the bans are meant to
prevent abortions after the point at which an unborn baby can feel pain.

Abortion rights advocates – backed up by the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists – contend that the science on pain doesn’t
justify the 20-week cutoff. The bill awaiting Walker’s signature makes no
exception for babies conceived by rape or incest, but it does allow doctors
to act — while attempting to save the life of the baby — if any immediate
health risks to the mother arise.

Republican leaders in Madison insisted the bill’s timetable had nothing to
do with Walker’s ambitions. Yet, after Walker first publicly supported a
20-week ban in March, the legislature raced the bill to the governor’s desk
using a series of procedural shortcuts, from an expedited hearing process
to an “extraordinary” July session of the Assembly to ensure the bill got
to Walker ahead of his July 13 announcement.

State Sen. Mary Lazich, a Republican who said she used to carpool with
Walker in the 1990s when Walker was in the Assembly, told POLITICO she led
the drive for the measure – knowing that Walker would support it but
without explicitly coordinating with his office, though she said it did
occasionally come up in conversation.

“We’re on the same wavelength, the same plane,” she said.

State Rep. Jesse Kremer, who sponsored an identical bill in the Assembly,
acknowledged that legislative leaders may have sped up the timetable,
though he said he wasn’t privy to any machinations on Walker’s behalf. He
added, however, that Walker’s sudden interest in the legislation seemed
like a shift.

“A year ago, he actually wasn’t really interested in something like this
and he changed his mind,” Kremer said. “We probably wouldn’t have brought
it up if we knew he wouldn’t [sign it].”

Walker has repeatedly pointed to his efforts to crack down on abortion —
from defunding Planned Parenthood to requiring women to receive ultrasounds
before undergoing the procedure to toughening requirements for doctors who
perform abortions — as he inches closer to a presidential bid. But
conservatives were angered last year when, in the midst of a tight
re-election fight, Walker aired an ad calling a woman’s decision on
abortion “agonizing. And he borrowed language from abortion rights
advocates in his message: “The bill leaves the final decision to a woman
and her doctor.”

“I didn’t like the ad. You’re using the other side’s garbage and it’s not
helpful,” said Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, a
conservative policy group.

Yet Nance said Walker’s position on abortion was never in doubt. Though she
and other conservatives still have issues with some of Walker’s advisers
who don’t hail from the most conservative corners of the party, she says
the governor has taken more steps to curb abortion than just about anyone
else in the GOP field. The 20-week ban, Nance said, would just be
additional confirmation.

“We’re thrilled and happy that he’s going to do this,” she said. “This is
policy whose time has come.”

*Oops: Scott Walker Scoops Himself Via Twitter
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/scott-walker-tweets-that-he-s-running-for-president>
// Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 10, 2015*

The word broke late Friday afternoon on Scott Walker's official Twitter
account: “Scott is in. Are you? Join our team today,” along with picture
captioned, “Scott Walker is running for president.”

While the news wasn't particularly surprising — the Wisconsin governor has
begun raising money through an exploratory presidential campaign committee
and has conducted an elaborate pre-announcement vamping via social media —
it did seem strange that he would deliver such momentous news late on a
Friday afternoon, just two days before the Republican hopeful is scheduled
to make a formal announcement in Wisconsin Monday.

Via e-mail, AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Walker's political operation,
declined to say if the tweet, an be viewed in a web browse but it doesn't
appear on his account's Twitter feed was intentional or accidental. "Stay
tuned for Governor Walker's announcement Monday," she said.

Several hours later, Twitter released a statement: "We're looking into
today's issue and we've determined that the Walker team is not at fault,"
it said.

*Republican Scott Walker tweets that he is running for president
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-usa-election-walker-idUSKCN0PK2MU20150711>
// Reuters // Steve Holland – July 10, 2015 *

Republican Scott Walker tweeted the obvious on Friday, that he is running
for president in 2016, days ahead of his official announcement in Wisconsin.

"Scott is in. Are you? Join our team today," Walker said in a tweet
accompanied by an image of him waving with the headline: "Scott Walker is
running for president. Join the team."

The tweet was later deleted.

There was some question over whether Walker's tweet was inadvertently sent.
A Twitter representative said in an emailed statement, "We're looking into
today's issue, and we've determined the Walker team was not at fault."

Walker, a two-term governor of Wisconsin, is to announce his bid for the
Republican presidential nomination on Monday in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

The Walker team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But
Walker's communications director, Kirsten Kukowski, tweeted what appeared
to be a response to media questions about the Walker tweet.

"Happy Friday everyone, stay tuned for @ScottWalker's announcement at 5
p.m. CT Monday in Waukesha, WI," she said.

*Scott Walker spars with GOP ahead of 2016 launch
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/scott-walker-republicans-2016/index.html>
// CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 10, 2015 *

Gov. Scott Walker's famous brawls with Democrats and labor unions put him
on the political map.

But squabbles with fellow Republicans here at the Wisconsin Statehouse are
tripping him up as he prepares to formally enter the 2016 presidential race
on Monday.

Republicans in Madison have worked overtime in recent weeks to find an
elusive deal for the state's two-year, $73 billion budget. Just a few
months ago, Walker optimistically said he would announce his White House
plans after he finished all-important budget negotiations. But fights among
Republicans over road funding, cuts in higher education spending and a new
arena for the Milwaukee Bucks delayed talks to a point where Walker had to
tamp down that expectation a few weeks ago.

With just five days left before the Walker announcement, the legislature
inched toward a deal on Wednesday when the Senate narrowly backed the
measure, sending it to the state Assembly for final approval.

And in a rare move that has his fiscal conservative backers frustrated,
Walker has been pushing hard to find $250 million for a new arena to keep
the Milwaukee Bucks from moving. That effort to include the Bucks deal as
part of the bigger budget was scrapped amid concerns that GOP leaders in
the legislature would not be able to find enough support from their
rank-and-file.

For any governor running for president, it's a vexing problem. Walker's
brand, like the other governors seeking the White House, is built on the
promise that running their home state effectively makes them fit to lead
the nation in a way that no senator ever could. But the national focus on
Walker, who is scheduled to formally announce his White House bid Monday in
the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha, has shifted recently from what he
accomplished between 2011 and 2014 to the intraparty struggles he has faced
more recently.

Charles Franklin, a veteran Wisconsin pollster and director of the
Marquette Law School Poll, said Walker might be a victim of his own success
after clearing a litany of top conservative goals from the shelf in
Wisconsin. The list includes starting a statewide school voucher program,
privatizing the state's economic development arm (albeit one plagued
questionable decisions currently) and making Wisconsin a concealed carry
state.

"If you listed all of the things that have passed during Walker's tenure
it's a long and impressive list," Franklin said. "The big and bold thing
was Act 10 (labor measures from 2011), but to me all of the small ball
things matter."

Walker still sits atop most polls of Iowa Republican caucus-goers, but that
early lead has dwindled somewhat. The Koch brothers, who were among many
billionaire donors to Walker's 2012 recall battle, meanwhile have indicated
they will likely wait before throwing their resources behind a single
candidate (if they select one at all, this cycle.)

Walker's meeting with state lawmakers this year hasn't carried the gravitas
of the 2011 national labor fight. But he has pushed for some equally heavy
conservative policies, many top priorities for the funders who could carry
him through a very crowded Republican field.

In March, Walker signed a controversial "right to work" ban on mandatory
union fees. In May, he announced he wanted to repeal the state's
"prevailing wage," which establishes a minimum wage for construction
workers on publicly financed projects. And a few days later, Walker said he
would sign a new 20-week ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.

Democrats are quick to point out that during the 2014 election, which
Walker won by roughly 6 points, the governor made no mention of his support
for any of the explosive issues and was often obtuse, as in an ad where he
said that abortion should be a decision between a "woman and her doctor."

Walker's office points to myriad accomplishments he's had, both at the
start of his first term and in his latest budget proposal offered this
year. Spokeswoman Laurel Patrick pointed out a two-year freeze in student
tuition at public universities, drug-testing for welfare recipients and
other items this year.

"Since taking office, Governor Walker has bucked the status quo in
Wisconsin. His bold, common-sense reforms are about empowering taxpayers
and putting them in control. Giving Wisconsinites the freedom to control
their own lives creates prosperity for our people, as well as our state,"
Patrick wrote in an email.

Behind the scenes at the Wisconsin Capitol, Walker has come under fire for
spending too much time on the campaign trail, while major decisions linger.

Walker's focus on the campaign trail, including high-profile trips abroad
to Canada and Israel dubbed "trade missions," has left the state
unattended, said the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Leader Peter Barca, who
has scrapped regularly with Walker throughout his five year's in the
governor's office.

"You just add up the time he's been away over the course of the past couple
of months, on trade deals, not even to mention his political visits. I bet
you he's been in 15-20 states in the last month alone," Barca said. "He's
just obviously is not putting much attention here."

It's a different governor, Barca said, than the man who pushed through "Act
10" and the major overhaul in labor laws that would eventually make him a
national hero among conservatives and Republican donors.

"He was very much hands on, he was here all the time and working it hard
and talking to anyone he thought could help him have success," Barca said.
"Wisconsin's in the rearview mirror, and it's getting more and more distant
by the day."

*Twitter: Scott Walker Presidential Announcement Tweet Wasn’t His Fault
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/scott-walker-tweets-that-he-is-running-for-president#.jtm1MNDek>
// BuzzFeed // Katherine Miller – July 10, 2015 *

On Friday, a photo with the words “Scott Walker Is Running For President”
was tweeted from Walker’s account.

On Friday, a photo with the words "Scott Walker Is Running For President"
was tweeted from Walker's account.

The tweet, which did not appear in Walker’s timeline for much of the day
but was still visible for hours at its permalink, was a weirdly timed
surprise: Walker wasn’t supposed to formally announce his candidacy until
Monday in Wisconsin.

A Twitter spokesman said Friday night that the tweet wasn’t the Walker
campaign’s fault:

“We’re looking into today’s issue, and we’ve determined the Walker team was
not at fault,” the spokesman said in a statement.

Twitter did not provide further information on what exactly happened.

On Monday, Walker is expected to announce his candidacy, which will be the
culmination of a lot of early pre-official campaigning for most of the year.

Since Iowa Freedom Summit this winter, he has aggressively campaigned in
early presidential primary states this year and is considered a top
Republican contender for the nomination.

The Wisconsin governor is best known for his battles with public unions.
After he passed a budget that required public workers to contribute more
money to their pension plans and limited collective bargaining in the
public sector, unions protested for weeks, and ultimately helped force a
recall election in 2013, which Walker won decisively. Because of the
recall, the Republican has won three statewide elections in a blue state.

Early on, Walker has focused on his conservative record and pitched himself
as a slightly more populist alternative to many of the other prospective
candidates.

*Scott Walker On Hillary Clinton: “What Has She Accomplished?”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/scott-walker-on-hillary-clinton-what-has-she-accomplished#.jpQjRL4Qv>
// BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 10, 2015 *

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says he’s the best person in the Republican
presidential field to take on Hillary Clinton, who he says has no real
accomplishments.

“I do,” Walker said when asked if he thought Clinton was going to be the
Democratic nominee on the Charlie Sykes Show Friday. Walker is set to
officially launch his presidential campaign on Monday.

“I think that provides a great contrast,” continued Walker. “I think it’s
all the more reason why as Republicans we need to nominate a new fresh
face. Someone definitely from outside of Washington with big bold ideas. I
think most importantly someone who can more than talk who can actually
deliver.”

Walker said he is from “the future” but Clinton, who is from Washington
D.C., is from “the past.”

“Cause that’s the best contrast. Clinton’s obviously not a new face,
someone from the past is best taken on with someone from the future.
Certainly she’s someone from Washington, so someone from outside of
Washington is helpful.”

Walker added “for all her notoriety” Clinton has no accomplishments.

“Most importantly, for all of her notoriety, what has she accomplished? And
so having someone who has real accomplishment I think is a great contrast.”

*Scott Walker Gets Schooled by His Neighbor
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/10/scott-walker-gets-schooled-by-his-neighbor.html>
// Daily Beast // Eleanor Clift – July 10, 2015 *

Wisconsin and Minnesota share a common cultural heritage that until
recently included a healthy Midwestern strain of progressive politics.
Elected in 2010, Governor Scott Walker upended a hundred years of liberal
populism, charting a conservative path for Wisconsin that made him a
darling of the Republican Right, but left his state with a serious budget
shortfall and disappointing job growth.

Meanwhile, across the border in neighboring Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton
has relentlessly pursued liberal policies, embodying the tax-and-spend
Democrat that Republicans love to caricature. The result, surprising to
many, is that the Minnesota economy is going gangbusters while Wisconsin’s
job growth has fallen to 44th among the 50 states.

Dayton’s success steering his state’s progressive course has been a
surprise. He was a middling senator at best, serving a single term from
2001 to 2007 before returning to Minnesota disillusioned with the way
Washington operated. Time named him one of America’s “Five Worst Senators”
in 2006, and he was known mainly for his inherited fortune as the
great-grandson of the founder of Dayton’s department store, which became
Target. As senator, he donated his salary to underwrite bus trips to Canada
for senior citizens buying low-cost prescription drugs.

“Minnesota’s gains are not because Mark Dayton has overpowered the state
with his political acumen,” says Lawrence Jacobs, a political science
professor at the University of Minnesota. He describes the low-key Dayton
as the “anti-politician,” someone the voters trust because he’s not smooth
enough to fool them. “His skill is he has a clear agenda, and he’s
unyielding. This is not pie-in-the-sky Great Society adventurism.”

Dayton has a majority Democratic legislature just as Walker has a
Republican controlled legislature, bolstering the ongoing policy experiment
in their states. The two governors have pursued agendas that mirror their
respective party’s core beliefs, and the results so far suggest that the
starve-the-government, tax-cutting credo of conservative orthodoxy has run
its course.

Dayton has raised the minimum wage, and he’s significantly increased taxes
on the top two percent of wage earners to close a budget shortfall and to
raise money for investments in infrastructure and education. In the
legislative session that just ended, some Democrats joined with Republicans
to block his goal of expanding universal preschool. But he did get more
scholarship money to educate four-year-olds.

“This is the largest tax increase we’ve seen in Minnesota, over $2
billion,” says Jacobs. More than three-quarters of the new spending is on
education, compared to Wisconsin, where education is on the chopping block,
and Walker is at odds with professors and administrators alike at his
state’s flagship university system.

Minnesota has also passed the state’s version of the Affordable Care Act
(MNsure), and while its implementation has been rocky, it is in place and
serving tens of thousands of people.

Dayton ran for governor in 2010 on an unapologetically liberal agenda, and
won narrowly after a recount. He was reelected comfortably in 2014, and his
approval rating in the latest Minneapolis Star Tribune poll is 54 percent.
Contrast that with Walker’s 41 percent, and you’ve got a clear picture of
how each is faring in the eyes of voters.

Dayton’s idiosyncratic style is in tune with the times, and at 68, he has
no ambition for national office. Walker is running for president and
touting hard right policies that play well with Iowa caucus goers. He
opposed raising the minimum wage, has significantly weakened unions,
reduced spending for education, cut taxes on the wealthy, and increased
taxes on the middle-class in part to pay for the tax cut.  According to the
non-partisan Wisconsin Budget Project, Walker gave tax breaks that
disproportionally favored upper income earners while cutting $56 million in
tax credits for working families.

Faced with a budget shortfall and no way to plug it without additional
revenue, Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature are rebelling against
additional spending cuts. But Walker shows no sign of softening his stance
against raising taxes or fees. Other Republican governors, notably
Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, are in the same quandary.

“It seems like they’ve been backed into a corner and are just going forward
with pure ideology and discounting any contradictory evidence,” says David
Madland, author of Hollowed Out: Why the Economy Doesn’t Work without a
Strong Middle Class.

As the Director of the American Worker Project at the Center for American
Progress, a liberal think tank, Madland in his book takes on the premise
that inequality is good in the sense that helping the rich get richer is
going to help everybody else, that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Trickle-down economics has gotten a bad rap and is rarely invoked as a
phrase anymore, but the belief that tax cuts are the engine of economic
growth remains the core of GOP ideology.

The fact that Minnesota’s economy rallied under progressive policies while
Wisconsin’s has struggled is “one more data point proving that trickle down
is wrong,” says Madland. While it’s tricky to attribute the wellbeing of a
state’s economy solely to its political leadership, Minnesota is
experiencing much stronger growth than its neighbor. Dayton has also proved
responsive to the business community, easing early fears that his
liberalism might go unchecked.

Walker, on the other hand, has doubled down to the detriment of his state
on policies that are backfiring. And if voters in his home state aren’t
buying what he’s selling anymore, that doesn’t bode well for his
presidential campaign.

*KASICH*

*Pro-John Kasich group raises $11.5 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-kasich-fundraising-new-day-for-america-11-million-119966.html?ml=tl_16>
// Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 10, 2015 *

New Day for America, an advocacy group supporting John Kasich’s
presidential bid, announced Friday that it and allied organizations raised
more than $11.5 million through the end of June.

Though the Ohio Republican has not yet announced his candidacy, the group’s
executive director, Matt Carle, said in a statement that “the response to
Governor Kasich’s message has been strong.”

“In over eight weeks, we’ve exceeded our initial fundraising goal by over a
million dollars,” Carle said. “Supporters are looking for a record of
accomplishment and someone who looks out for all Americans. That’s what
they are seeing when they look at Governor Kasich and why we’ve already
received millions in additional commitments already pledged.”

The fundraising announcement comes a day after the group began airing its
first ads on television stations around Manchester, New Hampshire, and
Boston. The group has purchased approximately $1.7 million in air time
through July 13.

The Ohio governor plans to announce his candidacy for president on July 21.
A former Republican congressman who is now serving in his second term as
governor, Kasich plans to contest heavily in New Hampshire by highlighting
his working-class background and work improving Ohio’s economy.

*Kasich’s Early 527 Haul: $11.5 Million In Just Two Months
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/kasich-s-early-527-haul-11-5-million-in-just-two-months>
// Bloomberg // Mark Halperin – July 10, 2015 *

Two 527 committees supporting John Kasich's presidential bid will report
raising around $11.5 million dollars in just two months, an encouraging
sign for the Ohio Republican governor's late-starting effort.

Part of that money is already being spent on a million-dollar television
advertising buy that began this week, targeting New Hampshire voters, in
advance of Kasich's expected formal announcement in Columbus on July 21.

According to a source familiar with the two committees, which share a
version of the same name (New Day for America), the effort has focused on
major donors, rather than grassroots contributions. The total includes
thirty checks of $100,000 or more. The source said millions in additional
donations are already in the pipeline.

Raising more than $10 million in eight weeks suggests that the Ohio
Governor's backers can potentially compete on equal footing with the
committees backing at least some of his rivals, which have raised more than
Kasich, but over longer periods of time. A nonprofit backing Florida
Senator Marco Rubio, Conservative Solutions Project (501(c)(4)), announced
recently that it had raised $15.8 million to date since January. A group of
Ted Cruz affiliated super-PACs said they raised a combined $37 million
since early April. Yesterday, Jeb Bush's super-PAC, Right to Rise,
announced it had raised a whopping $103 million since the beginning of the
year.

“In just over 10 weeks, we’ve exceeded our initial fundraising goal by over
a million dollars,” said New Day for America Executive Director Matt Carle.
“The response to Governor Kasich’s message has been strong. Supporters are
looking for a record of accomplishment and someone who looks out for all
Americans.”

Among those major contributors who have raised money for the committees as
well as contributed were Phil Geier, former chairman and CEO of the
Interpublic Group of Companies, and Gay and Stanley Gaines, longtime active
Republican donors from Florida.

Kasich has long rubbed elbows with the kind of megarich donors who can kick
in big checks to these types of organizations, first as a prominent member
of Congress for many years, then as an investment banker, and in the last
few years as the governor of one of the nation’s most politically important
states. Since he began to seriously consider running for president several
months ago, he has put a premium on determining if he could raise
sufficient money to be competitive and has spent a good deal of time
courting wealthy backers.

Kasich’s operation will also have to prove it can also raise money for the
campaign itself if he is going to thrive within the large field of
Republican candidates. Raising campaign money, with a limit of $2,700 per
person for the nomination fight, is an extraordinarily time-consuming
effort, one which Kasich will have to engage in while continuing his day
job as governor of Ohio and meeting voters around the country.

Kasich and his supporters are eager to convince political elites and voters
that he should be considered a top-tier candidate. With his meager poll
standing, fundraising success is one of his best talking points to date to
suggest the viability of his candidacy.

In the 2000 presidential cycle, when Kasich made a previous run, he proved
to be an anemic fundraiser and withdrew from the race.

*Kasich groups announce $11.5 million haul
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/kasich-group-fundraising-total/index.html>
// CNN // Tom LoBianco – July 10, 2015 *

Two groups backing Ohio Gov. John Kasich announced Friday they had pulled
in $11.5 million since May 1.

"The response to Governor Kasich's message has been strong. Supporters are
looking for a record of accomplishment and someone who looks out for all
Americans," New Day Executive Director Matt Carle said in a statement
Friday.

New Day for America, Kasich's 527 group that can run political ads with
unlimited individual and corporate contributions, as well as an affiliated
organization, New Day for America Independent Media, touted the haul at a
critical juncture for Kasich. The Ohio governor is not formally entering
the race until July 21, but he faces the possibility he might not make it
onto the stage for the first Republican debate next month.

To forestall that possibility, Kasich supporters spent $1.7 million to go
on air in New Hampshire with the first major ad buy of the 2016 cycle.

Kasich's haul puts him near the middle of the Republican pack, based on
announced fundraising tallies so far. The Jeb Bush apparatus leads the pack
with an eye-popping $114 million and Sen. Ted Cruz drew in a surprising $51
million with the help of a string of super PACs. On the Democratic side, a
set of groups backing Hillary Clinton say they have raised $24 million and
her campaign has raised $45 million.

*OTHER*

*Republican Candidates Appeal to Anti-Abortion Groups
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/republican-candidates-appeal-to-anti-abortion-groups/>
// NYT // Jeremy W. Peters – July 10, 2015 *

A half dozen Republican candidates for president reassured members of one
of the most influential anti-abortion groups on Friday that they favored
further regulation and restriction of the procedure and, if elected, would
be strong leaders on the issue.

Some, like Jeb Bush of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas, both former
governors, pointed to the various laws they signed when in office that made
obtaining an abortion more difficult for women. Praising the “extraordinary
work” of the National Right to Life Committee, Mr. Bush, speaking via a
produced video that featured people testifying to his strong credentials on
the issue, listed his work as governor.

“I’m strongly pro-life,” he said. “I expanded adoption. We increased
regulation over abortion clinics. We abolished this horrific procedure of
partial-birth abortion. We limited late-term abortions. We required
parental notification for teenage children.”

Mr. Perry assured the crowd that no one has a better record than his.
“That’s a fact,” he said. “We passed a parental notification law. I signed
a parental consent law. I signed a sonogram law so mothers facing that
agonizing choice can actually see.”

One of those laws that Mr. Perry signed — it set a higher bar for standards
that govern things like medical equipment and staffing and required that
doctors have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital — has been put on
hold while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear an appeal.

While abortion is not likely to dominate the 2016 election, its potency as
an issue that can stir passions and fears among both conservatives and
liberals will no doubt be a factor. And wIth movement on several fronts,
including in state legislatures and the courts, the fight over abortion
policy is already something that candidates of both parties are being
forced to confront in more real and urgent ways compared with other recent
presidential elections.

In Wisconsin this week, where Gov. Scott Walker is preparing to announce
his campaign for the Republican nomination, lawmakers passed a bill that
would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Mr. Walker plans to sign
it. But his shifting public statements on abortion illustrate how fraught
the issue is, and the differences in running for office in a swing state
and in running for the nomination of a party that has shown little
tolerance for ambiguous stances on social issues.

When he was running for re-election last year, Mr. Walker insisted that
making abortion illegal was out of his hands and a matter of settled
Supreme Court precedent. He also produced an ad in which he said he
supported legislation that “leaves the final decision to a woman and her
doctor.” Then early this year, as he was starting to more aggressively
court the social conservatives he believes he needs to win the White House,
he encouraged state legislators to send him a 20-week ban. Similar bans in
several other states are now being challenged in the courts.

Abortion rights advocates have pointed out that the bill Mr. Walker intends
to sign in Wisconsin has no provisions exempting women who are victims of
rape or incest.

The possibility that the Supreme Court could take up a major abortion case
next term forces the issue in another way that makes it very likely to
persist well into 2016. The fact that the next president could appoint
several new justices was never far from the minds of the speakers.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida alluded to this when he condemned the
“egregiously flawed” Roe v. Wade decision and told the crowd, “The White
House needs an occupant who values and prioritizes life. And so my pledge
to you is this: if you help send me to that place, I will never forget this
place. And i will bring advocacy to the White House, and we will get things
done.”

*Could a 2012 Rule Change Upend the GOP’s 2016 Nomination Process?
<http://on.wsj.com/1grNIx0> // WSJ // Patrick O’Connor – July 10, 2015 *

Close races can turn on small, often overlooked details. One detail getting
some attention from Republican campaign strategists in the runup to 2016 is
a rule requiring its presidential candidates to win more than half the
delegates in eight states to qualify for the nomination. In a field as
crowded as this one, that might prove trickier than usual.

The Republican National Committee adopted the rule ahead of its convention
in 2012 at the insistence of allies to the last GOP nominee, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who wanted to insulate him from an
insurgent challenge. The previous requirement was that a candidate win five
states.

Some have suggested this rule might help winnow the field, as a de facto
shortcut to winning the nomination, if the delegate math becomes a little
blurry. But critics have argued the rule might prevent some candidates with
a sizable share of delegates from qualifying for the nomination. Some go a
step further, suggesting the rule may upend the entire nominating process
if no candidate claims more than half the delegates in eight states, or if
multiple candidates clear that bar.

The reality is that this rule, like just about every other rule in
politics, can be changed. Members of the RNC rules committee can simply
vote to change the number of states needed to qualify when they meet the
week before next year’s convention in Cleveland. They can raise or lower
the threshold of states in which the eventual nominee needs a majority of
the delegates. Or, they can  scrap the requirement entirely. The candidate
with the most delegates will control this process.

Of course, it may not be that simple. As anyone who has witnessed an RNC
rules meeting can attest, even small tweaks can provoke a spirited
backlash, especially if a presidential nomination is on the line. A small
group of RNC agitators has been griping about this rule since the 2012
convention, with one committeeman vowing to use it to unravel the entire
primary process no matter the results.

And, a fight over arcane procedural rules is the last thing party leaders
or the eventual nominee wants a week before the 2016 convention, especially
if the nomination remains up in the air.

These questions may seem a little silly and premature, but the smartest
campaigns are already trying to game out scenarios like this one as they
look for an edge in this historically crowded field that includes a
half-dozen top-tier candidates but no obvious front-runner.

Just as the Obama campaign corralled delegates in smaller states and
caucuses, don’t be surprised if the savviest Republican campaigns start
sending allies to Guam, Puerto Rico or the other territories that award
delegates. For all the focus on Iowa and New Hampshire, the best-organized
campaigns are already taking steps to collect the signatures necessary to
qualify for contests in the 10 or so states that require them.

This, of course, is all a byproduct of the size of the field and the
caliber of the candidates. Despite the heartburn this process may cause the
party if the contest stretches deep into next year and turns on RNC rules
and delegate math, for many Republicans, it’s a welcome break from the last
two GOP primaries in which no candidate generated significant early
enthusiasm.

“When this rule change was made in Tampa, there was no way to anticipate
four years later that there would be the largest number of Republican
presidential candidates running all being on the varsity team,” said Rick
Hohlt, a prominent GOP fundraiser. “It is a serious problem, but a good one
to have, if you are the RNC chairman.”

*Once allies, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in battle for Florida
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/07/09/jeb-bush-and-marco-rubio-heading-for-florida-showdown-gop-primary-subplot/JhtrkpDuWJ62XDEXWXsAKL/story.html>
// Boston Globe // Matt Viser – July 10, 2015 *

With Florida’s political elite gathered in the state Capitol, Governor Jeb
Bush welcomed the next House speaker with a flourish, presenting Marco
Rubio with a gold sword and a legend dredged from the annals of the Bush
family.

The sword, Bush half-seriously explained to Rubio in the 2005 ceremony,
once belonged to a mystical (and mythical) warrior named Chiang, “who
believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial
capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society.’’ The
story was inspired by Bush’s father, who used to joke about unleashing the
wrath of the former anticommunist Chinese political leader Chiang Kai-shek
against his opponents on the tennis court.

A decade after that humorous moment, the two Floridians, who have described
their relationship as mentor and protege, are now rivals, locked in an
intense battle for the Republican nomination for president. Both are near
the top in national polls.

The battle for Florida — which votes March 15 and awards all 99 delegates
to the winner — is shaping up to be one of the juiciest subplots of the GOP
primary. Both Bush, 62, and Rubio, 44, established their public identities
in the state’s diverse and sprawling political culture and are now seeking
to use their experience and records to catapult to the pinnacle of national
power.

But for Rubio to win the nomination, political observers say, he must
develop a strategy to sabotage his onetime mentor, creating tensions that
are beginning to seep into view.

Bush supporters contend that Rubio should have been more deferential to
Bush — waiting until he had more experience — while Rubio’s supporters say
he is just the type of generational leader to challenge Democratic
front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And that sword that Bush gave Rubio so many years ago? In the minds of some
Bush supporters, the senator might as well be using it to stab his mentor
in the back.

“Marco was supposed to be a good boy and wait his turn,” said one Florida
Republican with ties to both. “Jeb people are not happy at all with Marco
getting into this race.”

“Marco is a wonderful politician. He could very well someday make a decent
president. But I don’t know that time is now,’’ said Juan-Carlos Planas, a
Bush supporter who has known Rubio for decades and served with him in the
state Legislature. “Marco may be many great things. But he’s not Jeb.”

Rubio is not-so-subtly suggesting the Bush name is a negative, talking up
young new leadership and running against dynastic political families. In
response, Bush allies are openly denigrating Rubio.

“Marco’s four years into his first term in the Senate,” said Mac
Stipanovich, an influential Florida lobbyist and longtime Bush supporter.
“The biggest thing he’s ever managed is a 10-person House staff.”

* * *

It was 1998, and a 26-year-old Marco Rubio had just become the newest West
Miami city commissioner. He was at City Hall celebrating when the phone
rang. The man on the line had donated $50 to the campaign and wanted to
share in the joy.

It was Bush, the soon-to-be-governor.

From the beginning of Rubio’s career in politics, Bush was there to help.
Although one is the scion of a storied political family and the other the
son of a bartender and a maid, the two developed a bond out of their
experiences in Miami.

“Did [Rubio] sit at Jeb’s knee as Jeb taught him the way of the world? No,”
Stipanovich said. “But was he someone who liked and admired and aspired to
be like Jeb, and probably learned a lot of his skills from watching Jeb? I
think yes.’’

In an e-mail exchange with a supporter just after Rubio became speaker,
Bush wrote, “I am so proud of Marco.” In another, Bush called Rubio “a fine
leader.”

“I feel that our party can renew itself, something that I fret about at the
national level,” Bush wrote.

In his memoir, Rubio called Bush “the man I most admired in Florida
politics.”

“I was most influenced by the creativity and daring of Governor Jeb Bush,
who was a one-man idea factory,” Rubio wrote in the book, “An American Son:
A Memoir.”

* * *

Six years ago, during a high-profile race in Florida, Rubio was happy to
wait his turn.

It happened two days before Christmas in 2008. News had just broken that
Senator Mel Martinez was not going to run for reelection in 2010.
Speculation was rampant that Bush would run, so Rubio drove to his business
office at the Biltmore Hotel. Rubio, who was about to leave office because
of term limits, wanted to run, too. But he wouldn’t think of challenging
Bush.

Jeb Bush was at the Biltmore Hotel when Marco Rubio won the US Senate seat.

They sat for an hour, and Rubio left convinced that Bush was going to seek
the seat, according to a recounting in Rubio’s memoir.

But about two weeks later, Bush called Rubio to tell him, “I’m not going to
do it.” Only then did Rubio begin planning to run himself in a race in
which he started as the underdog. At one point, he was down by more than 50
points and contemplated getting out of the race. Jeb Bush encouraged him to
stay in, according to a source familiar with their conversation.

In the end, Rubio’s timing proved to be excellent. He burst onto the
national scene with his Tea Party conservatism in 2010, when a health care
backlash sweeping much of the country helped him pull an upset victory
against Governor Charlie Crist, who ran as an independent, and Democratic
Congressman Kendrick Meek.

And just as he had been there for him on an election night for Miami City
Commission a decade earlier, Bush was at the Biltmore Hotel when Rubio won
his US Senate seat.

“I’m so proud of Marco,” Bush told the crowd. “I’m so proud of his
high-voltage energy, I’m so proud of his enthusiasm. I’m so proud of his
eloquence. And I’m so proud that he will be part of a next generation of
leaders that will restore America. Marco Rubio is the right man at the
right time.”

* * *

The Senate race placed Rubio’s name near the top of many lists for
president — in 2012, Bush was publicly pushing Mitt Romney to tap Rubio as
his running mate. Not only did Rubio hail from a big and important general
election state, but his Hispanic heritage could help his party broaden its
reach with a growing slice of the electorate.

In 2012, Jeb Bush was publicly pushing Mitt Romney to tap Marco Rubio as
his running mate.

Rubio still feels like he is the right man at the right time. And this
time, there was little deference paid to Bush. His career has been marked
by underdog races in which he displays a willingness to take political
risks. Like Obama, he also has shown that he’s willing to jump into a race
when he thinks he’s ready — but when others say it’s not his turn.

“It’s like, ‘I like Jeb. But not as much as I like the idea of being
president of the United States,’ ” said Steven Geller, who overlapped with
Rubio and Bush as the Democratic leader in the Senate.

The strategy for Bush is to portray himself as an experienced manager who
has a run the nation’s third most populous state. Rubio, on the other hand,
is presenting himself as a fresh face who doesn’t hail from a dynastic
political family.

“Yesterday’s over,” he declared as he announced his campaign in April, a
swipe he made at Clinton that could also be interpreted as aimed at Bush.

* * *

Although Bush currently leads in most national polls, Rubio is seen as a
likely alternative. When asked whether they could vote for certain
candidates, 75 percent of probable GOP primary voters said they could vote
for Bush and 74 percent said the same for Rubio, according to a recent NBC
News-Wall Street Journal poll. Those results were significantly higher than
any other candidate in the race.

In Florida, Bush leads with 20 percent of voters, followed by Rubio with 18
percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last month.

A key battle will be waged over Florida’s Hispanic voters, not just in the
fight to win the state but also to demonstrate who can best attract Latinos
to the Republican Party nationally.

Rubio often talks about his Cuban heritage, and he was the first to deliver
the State of the Union response in Spanish. Bush had a Cuban band playing
during his announcement speech. He toggles between English and Spanish, and
his friends are quick to point out that he speaks Spanish at home.

On some key issues, the two candidates offer a contrast.

On immigration, Rubio initially pursued a comprehensive overhaul that would
both strengthen border security and provide a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants. But under withering conservative criticism he
backed away from that plan, saying changes should be done piecemeal.

Bush favors a comprehensive approach that would solve both issues at once,
a solution that immigration advocates support and consider more politically
realistic but also one that causes heartburn among conservatives.

Bush is also more steadfast in his support for Common Core and its national
education standards. Rubio has talked about eliminating the Department of
Education and in 2013 came out against Common Core.

For some Republicans in Florida and across the country, seeing one of their
brightest young stars and a scion of one of their party’s most enduring
families compete is causing deep angst.

“As a friend of both, I don’t like it. I wish it weren’t so,” said Ana
Navarro, a Miami-based Republican who is supporting Bush. “But it is a
fact, and there’s not a damn thing anyone can do to change it.”

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*Presidential Race Takes Shape and Offers Hints of Things to Come
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/10/today-in-politics-presidential-race-takes-shape-and-offers-hints-of-things-to-come/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 10, 2015 *

The presidential race, slow-forming for much of the year, sprang clearly to
life this week with disparate events that could play a role in deciding the
Republican nominee and the contours of the general election.

In one sphere is Donald J. Trump, the bombastic real estate developer and
television personality. Skepticism remains about whether he’ll stay in the
presidential race through the fall, but he appears to be laser-focused on
making it into the primary debates next month. And he is dominating the
discussion in the Republican Party.

The slow reaction from party figures to his caustic remarks about Mexicans
has again highlighted divisions over an immigration overhaul, two years
after Republicans criticized Mitt Romney‘s tone on the issue in 2012.

Mr. Trump’s remarks are already being used by Hillary Rodham Clinton to tar
the Republican field, including Jeb Bush, the one party candidate who has
long made overhauling immigration a cause.

Separately, Mrs. Clinton and her allies have pounced on a comment from Mr.
Bush about people needing to “work longer hours” to improve the economy.
The Clinton team has said the comment defines him as a clone of Mr. Romney,
who was lampooned as out of touch by President Obama in the 2012 race.

Mr. Bush is certain to hear about that statement for weeks, but Mrs.
Clinton’s campaign is signaling clearly that they see him as the likeliest
nominee. And he will be able to make that point to Republicans to try to
galvanize support in a crowded field.

Finally, the economic turbulence in Greece and in Puerto Rico is a familiar
pocket of uncertainty as the United States recovers from the Great
Recession and moves toward a national election.

*The Insiders: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are experts at manipulating
the media
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/07/10/the-insiders-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-are-experts-at-manipulating-the-media/>
// WaPo // Ed Rogers – July 10, 2015 *

Besides the fact that they are both running for president in 2016, what do
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have in common? They both play the media
like a fiddle. They use the mainstream media in the same way: They say
something outrageous, whether it’s an outright lie or a provocative
statement, then wait for the media to come after them.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures and declares
"You're fired!" at a campaign rally in Manchester, N.H., in this file photo
taken June 17, 2015. (Dominick Reuter/Reuters) Donald Trump gestures and
declares “You’re fired!” at a campaign rally last month in Manchester, N.H.
(Dominick Reuter/Reuters)

In Trump’s case, he throws down the gauntlet and goads the media into
pursuing him relentlessly. Trump relishes the chase, and it draws needed
attention to his campaign. He knows perfectly well how to garner as much
attention as possible with his incendiary comments.

Clinton throws down the gauntlet and intimidates the media into silence.
She regularly stiff-arms the press but is available just enough to allow
her apologists and her enablers to say she is not hiding from the media.
She can say whatever she wants, true or not, and the media mostly go along
with it or feign disappointment that there is not more to say.

The media like to pretend they are forced to cover Trump; they act as
though he has thrust himself upon them and they wish they didn’t have to
talk about him. The media pretend they can’t cover Clinton because she
won’t let them; they ask the obvious questions but rarely show any zeal for
follow-up.

So what are we left with? The Trump coverage is forced and phony, yet it’s
exactly what he wants. Any substantive coverage of Clinton is practically
nonexistent, which is exactly what she wants. The whole thing is a game,
and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Clinton and Trump are both manipulating
the media, but the media are proving all too willing to be manipulated.
Everyone seems perfectly willing to play his or her role and be compliant.
As I have said before, the coverage of Campaign 2016 thus far has been a
product of too much media chasing too little story.

*The Truth Behind Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton’s Twitter Spat
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-10/the-truth-behind-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-s-twitter-spat>
// Bloomberg // Victoria Stilwell – July 10, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush and his Democratic rival Hillary
Clinton got into an economic spat yesterday via the noblest form of debate:
the Twitter argument.

As Bush campaigned in New Hampshire Wednesday, he bemoaned the nation's low
labor force participation rate, telling the New Hampshire Union Leader
editorial board  "that people need to work longer hours" to help propel
U.S. growth. The Clinton campaign quickly capitalized on the comment,
tweeting:

A few hours later, Bush struck back:

Naturally, the issue is much more nuanced than either candidate is making
it out to be. And harder to fit into 140-character dispatches.

Here's the context of Bush's now-infamous quote at the Union Leader
editorial board.

"My aspirations for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is for 4
percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot
more productive. Workforce participation has to rise from its all-time
modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and through
their productivity gain more income for their families. That's the only way
we are going to get out of this rut that we’re in."

While that may make the "longer hours" comment more palatable, a 4 percent
growth rate is ambitious to say the least. The last time the nation saw
economic growth rates at that level or higher: 2000.

Bush is calculating that the growth rate can be goosed by upping labor
force participation, the share of working-age people who are employed or
actively looking for a job. In June, the share of Americans in that
category was 62.6 percent, the lowest level since 1977. That compares with
a peak of 67.3 percent in January 2000.

What's debatable, however, is just how much participation can rise in the
future.  Much of the decline — about half by some estimates — has been
driven by the mass exodus of retiring baby boomers from the labor force.
There are also other long-term trends at play, such as more young people
choosing not to work when they're in school.

And while there is a significant share of people who were sidelined from
work by the recession, it's unclear how many are left waiting in the wings.
At 5.3 percent, the unemployment rate is bumping up against the Federal
Reserve's estimates for what full employment looks like. The number of
discouraged workers — those who say the dearth of job prospects has driven
them to give up looking — has been coming down steadily. And jobless claims
are trending at levels consistent with a booming economy.

Still, most economists agree there's some amount of slack left. For one,
wages have been slow to accelerate out of the 2 percent band they've
tracked since the recovery started, which suggest employers aren't yet
feeling the pressure to offer fatter paychecks to attract the best talent.

And, as Bush correctly notes (and Democratic-socialist presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders agrees), the number of part-time workers is still
elevated compared to before the recession. While Americans worked 34.5
hours on average per week in June, right in line with the trend for the two
years' worth of Labor Department data that pre-date the recession,  there
are 6.5 million people in part-time jobs for an economic reason, like
having their hours cut or being unable to find full-time work. That
compares with an average 4.62 million in the 20 years leading up to the
recession.

This is something that others are worried about too, such as Fed Chair
Janet Yellen. She's pointed to this measure as one of several signs there's
still room for the labor market to improve.

Bush says that's what he meant when he remarked "people need to work longer
hours."  More people working more hours will boost productivity, he
reasons, which will in turn help them make more money. While that may seem
like okay logic on the surface, it's more involved than that.

Productivity is measured by how much stuff a worker can churn out for every
hour of labor. While it's fluctuated over the years, lately it's been
pretty lousy since a decade-long boom ending in about 2004, according to
Wells Fargo Securities LLC. So recent productivity trends haven't really
looked as rosy as the chart that Clinton tweeted out, which dates to 1948
and ends around 2010. It's also worth noting that it was supplied by the
Economic Policy Institute, which is partly funded by labor unions.

In fact, the anemic productivity numbers have economists concerned,
including Yellen, who served in President Bill Clinton's administration.
High productivity is the key to creating growth that doesn't spur rampant
inflation. It boosts living standards for U.S. workers.

But simply having more people work more hours isn't enough to increase
productivity. They've got to need to work more hours, for lack of a better
word. If employees are working more hours, but there's not a commensurate
increase in demand for their goods and services, their output will stay the
same. That actually hurts productivity.

Additionally, there are long-lasting factors at work that have pushed down
productivity. Companies haven't been investing in new capital like they
used to -- equipment that could help their workers do their jobs more
efficiently. Some economists think the heydays of productivity are long
gone because new technology has become less revolutionary. It's what they
call "secular stagnation."

So in summary, both Clinton and Bush left out really important details in
this debate, cherry-picking data points that support their agenda. But I
suppose we shouldn't be that surprised. That's politics, after all.

*Republicans rename the GOP the ‘Retrumplican Party’
<http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/07/10/democrats-rename-the-gop-the-retrumplican-party/>
// Reuters // Lena Masri – July 10, 2015 *

The national Democratic Party has found a new nickname for the GOP: “The
Retrumplican Party” — after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

A video, released Thursday by the Democratic National Committee shows clips
of Trump making defamatory statements about Mexican immigrants. The video
connects his stands on immigration with Republican presidential hopefuls
Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker
and Marco Rubio.

“Donald Trump may be running for president,” proclaims the video. “But his
ideas are running the party.”

In fact, most Republican presidential candidates — including those targeted
by the DNC — have denounced Trump’s controversial statements.

The head of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, spent nearly
an hour Wednesday on the phone with Donald Trump, urging him to tone down
his comments about immigrants, according a report from The Washington Post.

*‘War horses’ Bush, Clinton lay ground for 2016 race
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/09/bill-clinton-george-w-bush-on-leadership/29921799/>
// USA Today // Susan Page – July 10, 2015 *

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush agree on this: Learning leadership skills
is crucial in just about every worthwhile endeavor in American life,
political and otherwise.

That said, they couldn't disagree more on who, exactly, would have the
right leadership skills in 2016 to warrant winning the White House job they
both have held.

In a rare joint interview, the two former presidents who share what may be
the most complicated political relationship in modern times sat down with
USA TODAY Thursday at the Bush Presidential Center. They were together for
the graduation ceremony of the inaugural class of Presidential Leadership
Scholars, a project sponsored by four presidential libraries that has
offered leadership training for mid-career professionals who work for
non-profit groups, private-sector firms, state and local agencies and in
the military.

The participants aren't really politicians.

"People hear this and they say, 'You've got a Young Republicans Club' or
'Clinton's got a Young Democrats Club,' (but) that's not the intention at
all," Bush said. "The intention is to take people who have shown good
promise and let them learn some lessons about how decisions were made or
how people collaborated."

"There might be nothing we can do anymore about how fractured America is
politically and ideologically," Clinton said. "But in the end, people have
to get together and make decisions and do things — not just in Congress and
the White House, but I mean all over the country."

It was impossible to ignore the elephant in the room, or maybe the elephant
and the donkey. That is: Clinton's wife, Hillary, is the clear front-runner
for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. Bush's brother Jeb is
in the top rank of contenders for the Republican nomination.

Friends today, combatants tomorrow?

"He loves his brother; I love Hillary," Clinton said. If they win their
respective presidential nominations, "he's going to vote for his brother;
I'm sure going to vote for Hillary, and something will happen. But we'll
still be friends."

"I know Jeb will treat Hillary with respect, and I'm confident Hillary will
treat Jeb with respect," Bush said. "I'm not sure I can speak that highly
of some of the surrogates they may have out there, but these two surrogates
will" do that as well.

The two men sat side by side on a couch in Bush's private office at his
presidential center on the campus of Southern Methodist University. They
had just finished having a class photo taken with the program's scholars,
and in a few minutes, they would head to the auditorium for a joint address
to the group.

They seemed relaxed and at ease, friendly and deferential to one another.
They discussed a challenge they had shared: how to raise confident
daughters into adulthood. Bush reached over to touch Clinton's shoulder as
he made a point; at another time, Clinton tapped Bush's arm.

"Sometimes the decisions we make have bigger consequences," Clinton said,
describing how presidential leadership is in some ways different from other
top jobs. "No question," Bush chimed in.

When Bush noted, "A president, it turns out, has to be prepared for the
unexpected," Clinton nodded and said, "Yes," then enumerated the challenges
Bush faced when the 9/11 attackers struck during the first year of his
tenure.

They said neither believes a 2016 Clinton-Bush campaign would be waged any
differently because of their friendship and collaboration — nor do they
think it should.

"I don't think it's going to be different," Bush said flatly. "I think it's
going to be a political campaign."

"If they win the nominations, it's going to be a very hard-fought campaign,
and if it's like any other campaign, it'll be somewhat bruising, and the
surrogates will be really tough, and they'll have hard debates, and we'll
just live with it," Clinton said.

His advice to the prospective candidates: "Make the choice clear: 'This is
where I am; this is where he is.' Be as accurate as you can, and let it
rip."

The two got to know each other under hostile circumstances, during what
Bush called "the first Bush-Clinton race," which he wryly noted "didn't
turn out that well" for his side. In 1992, Clinton defeated the elder
George Bush in his bid for a second term. In 2000, the younger Bush
defeated Clinton's vice president, Al Gore. Another contest between the
families in 2016 would break new ground.

Though they differ in party registration and many policy positions, they
share some fundamental characteristics, Bush said. "First of all, we're
Baby Boomers, and the only two Baby Boomer presidents. Secondly, we were
both governors of Southern states, Arkansas and Texas." He said both were
"affable people; we're not zero-sum thinkers." And at this point, he said,
both were "like two old war horses, put out to pasture."

Clinton became so close to the elder Bush over the years after their
election showdown that the younger Bush jokes he is his "brother by another
mother." Clinton made a similar reference when noting that Bush had turned
69 this week, a month ahead of Clinton. ("For one month a year, I'm the
younger brother," Clinton said.)

"I just wrote him a birthday note because he just had a birthday," Clinton
said. "So I said, 'Now we have a genuine family feud, maybe we ought to go
get that guitar player from Deliverance and get him to play for us.'
Remember that movie? I mean, the banjo player, the dueling banjos."

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*The Gloria Borger – Hillary Clinton Watch: Waiting for Insight
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/the-gloria-borger-hillary_b_7769486.html>
// HuffPo // Kathleen Reardon – July 10, 2015 *

I've written a number of times about journalists citing "some people say,"
"some people think" and "it's been said" as support for their supposedly
objective reporting. What was once a desire to protect important sources
has deteriorated into a sign of journalistic laziness. When reporters
covering presidential politics employ words they fully know will disparage
female candidates -- or when they purport to discern dishonesty by
examining candidates' facial expressions -- they are taking journalistic
prerogative another step too far.

"Women are tested in ways that men are not," Senator Diane Feinstein
recently observed about Hillary Clinton. It will be harder for a woman to
win the presidency in 2016 than for a man and, Feinstein says, Secretary
Clinton knows this. Clinton has been the target of facile, disparaging
labels and categories -- ones that enter the general lexicon like lice on a
host, becoming firmly attached to women unless people recognize and reject
their misuse.

In 2008 CNN's Gloria Borger wrote the following about then-presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton.

But there is no joy in Hillaryville. In its place are anger (at the press,
for being soft on Barack Obama), angst (at losing 11 straight contests),
and apoplexy (at Obama, for daring to challenge a nomination that was
supposed to have been wrapped up by now).

She added:

And so there is frost, not sun, in the Clinton campaign

The first line -- using the words "anger," "angst" and "apoplexy" -- is
gratuitous, gender baiting alliteration. "Frost" used to describe Clinton's
campaign was not idly chosen. We're all familiar with the ice queen image
and other versions of coldness attributed to competent, assertive women.

Then there are Borger's "multiple faces" insults fanning the flames of the
distrust theme promulgated by Clinton's detractors:

Multiple faces. But presidential choices are intensely personal. And so the
Clinton campaign has decided to play a game of the blind man and the
elephant: Present the multiple faces of Hillary, as if somehow each
identity might attract a voter. Call it microtargeting her persona. Too bad
the result of the groupthink often morphs into caricature. One moment, it's
a scold ("Shame on you, Barack Obama"); the next, fuzzy praise ("honored to
be here with Barack Obama"). And at the Ohio debate, Clinton seemed more
whiny than presidential when she brought up a recent TV skit about
journalists falling in love with Obama. "Well, can I just point out that in
the last several debates I seem to get the first question," Clinton
complained, wearing a false smile.

A "false smile" can be a tight smile, an unfinished smile, a sign of
politeness or simply a means of dealing with difficult situations without
anger. "Scold" is another loaded word, to say nothing of "whiny." This is
how Borger and others like her surreptitiously attempt to poison Hillary's
well.

In an April interview with former Commerce Secretary and White House Chief
of Staff Bill Daley, Borger did it again: "You know she comes with baggage.
There are negative perceptions about the Clintons as paranoid, too
protected, even arrogant." A woman who refrains from standing her ground on
important issues is seen as lacking leadership potential. One who speaks
affirmatively, risks being seen as difficult, arrogant -- a loose canon.
Borger knows this. Such reliance on denigrating labels is cheap, shabby,
sleight of hand "journalism."

If we ever hope to see a female shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling
of the U.S. presidency, and give our daughters the same chance as our sons
have had to lead our country, we must reject efforts to slither into the
"news" the easy, derogatory categories so often applied to women in the
workplace.

Hillary Clinton is not perfect. If there is a shield" around her, it's been
constructed because any woman who gets ahead in her career knows that being
one of the guys doesn't work. There is much about Secretary Clinton we
don't know. Her communication style is occasionally stilted. But there is
much we don't need to know of any candidate. Yet, Clinton will have to
prove herself over and over and over because that is what's typically
required of women who seek to break through professional barriers.

I, for one, won't sit back and watch people like Gloria Borger try to shape
Hillary Clinton into a bitch, a brassy, bossy, distant, elusive woman
simply because Borger won't do the hard work of a real journalist. When was
the last time Borger gave us actual new information or a unique new insight
on any topic or person? C'mon Gloria. Is the title of "Chief Political
Analyst" for Wolf Blitzer's CNN program a code word for someone who is
entitled to cast personal aspersions without providing hard data or at
least hard-won reporting? Is it a code word for someone who relies on
readily available, gender-specific, disparaging labels to provide
"analysis"? It's one way to make and keep a career going, but it isn't
journalism.

When Borger again dragged out the "Where's the real Hillary" theme in
response to Clinton's recent interview with CNN correspondent Brianna
Keilar, where was the "meat"? Nowhere to be found.

We see gratuitous excuses for reporting so often that the public has become
jaded. It's time to let the press know that a presidential election is
deserving of the best information and insights available from qualified
journalists -- of whom a fair number are sitting on their hands thanks to
the personnel efficiencies of media oligarchy. Journalists come out of a
proud tradition, and many of them place their lives on the line every day
to bring insightful news and analysis. Certainly accurate, well-researched
election coverage can't be all that hard.

Kathleen also blogs about communication and politics here. More about
communication that holds women back is in her re-release on Kindle of They
Don't Get It, Do They?

*Hillary Clinton’s fibs
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-lies-20150710-column.html>
// Chicago Tribune // Jonah Goldberg – July 10, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton lies.

This is a widely acknowledged fact among people who pay attention and
aren’t on her payroll. Nearly 20 years ago, New York Times columnist
William Safire wrote: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to
the sad realization that our first lady — a woman of undoubted talents who
was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.”

Younger folks probably have little to no memory of the lies Safire had in
mind, though some might have heard about Clinton’s infamously implausible
explanation for how she managed to make a 10,000 percent profit in cattle
futures simply by reading The Wall Street Journal.

Suffice it to say that she’s been honing her craft for decades. And that’s
turning into a problem for her, perhaps her biggest problem.

After ducking the press for months, Clinton sat down for an interview with
CNN’s Brianna Keilar. It was a savvy choice. Keilar covers the Clinton
campaign and has every incentive not to offend her famously vindictive
sources 16 months before the election.

The most discussed deception came in an exchange about her emails. Clinton
declared emphatically that, “You know, you’re starting with so many
assumptions that are — I’ve never had a subpoena. ... Let’s take a deep
breath here.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chair of the committee investigating the Obama
administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, promptly produced a copy
of the subpoena.

Team Clinton says she was responding to a specific allegation that she
deleted emails that were under subpoena. It’s a legalistically plausible
defense given Keilar’s muddled question and Stakhanovite effort to avoid
asking meaningful follow-ups.

Still, it was a classically Clintonian way of lying: Make a sweeping,
definitive-sounding statement, and then when called on it, release a fog of
technicalities.

Of course, the greatest example of this tactic was her husband’s parsing of
the word “is” when called out for saying things like “there is no improper
relationship” with a White House intern. Only under oath did he explain
that it was technically true if you understand “is” to be a statement about
the present moment, unlike “was.”

The rest of the CNN interview was a farrago of misleading statements,
blame-shifting and deceptions. Hillary insisted she had only used “one
device” for email, when we now know that’s not true. Perhaps under oath she
would clarify that she meant “one device at a time.”

She proclaimed that she broke no rules by using a personal server and other
email chicanery. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column gave her “three
Pinocchios” (out of a possible four) on those claims.

Clinton even flatly denied that voters distrust her when polls clearly show
Americans do, and — as usual — blamed all her problems on right-wing
conspirators.

Reacting to the interview, Carl Bernstein, of Woodward and Bernstein fame,
offered an odd analysis of Clinton’s deceptions, conceding on CNN that
Clinton has a “difficult relationship with the truth.”

“We have to look at what politicians do generally in terms of fudging,”
Bernstein added. “It’s endemic in the profession. She’s become a kind of
specialist at it.”

He went on to explain that Clinton had to become a specialist because she’s
a victim of her husband’s peccadilloes — what Bernstein called the
“peculiarity of the Clinton situation.” Because Bill catted around, “She’s
been in a difficult position.”

It was a strangely forgiving argument from a reporter who made his career
by exposing presidential deceit. And while it’s certainly true Bill put
Hillary in some awkward predicaments, his philandering doesn’t explain why
she lied on issues ranging from her cattle futures windfall to her stealth
server.

But Bernstein is right about one thing: Hillary is a specialist at lying.
And that’s a problem for her. Her husband was — and is — a prodigy at
deceit, a renaissance man of lying. If football were a game of lies, he
could play every position on offense and defense.

Hillary Clinton, alas, is more like a veteran coach — she’s adept at
telling others how to lie on her behalf. But she’s not a natural liar
herself, and it shows. At a time when the Democratic base craves
authenticity (hence the mobs at Bernie Sanders rallies), Clinton seems
utterly fabricated (hence her inability to get a capacity crowd at her
announcement speech last month in New York City). Her best hope now would
be to stop pandering to Sanders’ fans and instead explain where she and
Sanders differ on policy. But that would require a level of political
authenticity she’s forgotten how to fake convincingly.

*Not Feeling the Bern
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-2016-surge-isnt-threatening-hillary-clinton>
// US News and World Report // Matthew Dickinson – July 10, 2015 *

Can you feel the Bern? Maybe not.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign is "surging", according
to multiple media reports. His campaign events have been attracting huge
crowds, including 10,000 – the largest of the campaign season so far – at a
Bernie rally last week in Madison, Wisconsin, and another 7,500 this week
ago in Portland, Maine. He has also been raking in the cash – some $15
million in the first three months of his candidacy – via small campaign
donations, a testament to his broadening appeal.

This surge has been reflected in his polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the
sites of the presidential campaign's first caucus and primary,
respectively. In Iowa, Sanders has closed to within 19 percent of the front
runner Hillary Clinton in the latest poll, up from a 40 percent deficit to
her in earlier surveys. He's even closer to Clinton in New Hampshire, with
the most recent poll showing him trailing by 8 percent, prompting one
enthusiastic headline writer to proclaim they were in a "dead heat" in the
Granite state. Nationally, Sanders has consistently ranked second in polls,
with only Vice President Joe Biden, who so far has shown no evidence that
he is interested in running, challenging him for this spot.

The combination of large crowds, more money and stronger polls has prompted
the national media to give Sanders a second look. To their credit, this
time they are focusing less on essays he wrote four decades ago or his
aborted singing career and more on his stance on the issues. To be sure,
they still seem skeptical that he can win, but they are now at least
willing to acknowledge the possibility, however remote. In Sanders' home
state, of course, belief that he is surging runs far deeper, with Vermont
media outlets openly speculating whether (and no doubt secretly hoping) he
can maintain his presidential momentum. Apropos that sentiment, a local
reporter asked me today why, if Bernie wasn't a viable candidate, she
couldn't find anyone in the state who wasn't supporting him!

So should Hillary Clinton be worried? The short answer is no. To be sure,
as Clinton learned in 2008, it is wise never to take one's front-runner
status for granted. Accordingly, she and her aides are saying all the right
things by publicly acknowledging that Sanders is a serious candidate who
poses a potentially significant threat to her bid for the Democratic
presidential nomination. The reality, however, is that rather than exceed
expectations, Sanders has done about as well as I expected he would to this
point, given where he has positioned himself within the Democratic field.

My expectations were predicated in part on the existing distribution of
preferences among likely Democratic voters, and how they matched up with
Sanders' ideological leanings, but also on previous efforts by progressives
to win the Democratic nomination. As I wrote when Sanders first announced
his candidacy three months ago, he is not the first Vermont favorite son to
set his eyes on the White House in recent years. In 2004, former Vermont
Gov. Howard Dean threw his hat in the ring, positioning himself, much like
Sanders, as the progressive Democrat amid a cast of more centrist opponents
such as John Kerry and Richard Gephardt. In Dean's case, there was no
Clinton-like political heavyweight standing in his path to the White House
and he initially attracted strong support in the polls and in media
coverage based in part on his imaginative use of the Internet to organize
online meetups of "Deaniacs" and to solicit small-dollar donations, much as
Bernie has done. And yet Dean was never able to attract much more than 30
percent support in national polls and his candidacy peaked shortly before
the Iowa caucus, where he subsequently imploded.

Despite the recent up swell in media coverage, the fact is that Sanders'
road to the nomination is probably steeper than was Dean's. Keep in mind
that, as of today, Sanders is still drawing less than 20 percent support
nationally, compared to Clinton's almost 60 percent. So he has a way to go
to even match Dean's showing, never mind threaten Clinton. To be sure,
there are differences between Dean and Sanders. Although Dean attracted
strong support among progressive Democrats based largely on his opposition
to the Iraq war, on economic issues, such as income inequality, his
liberalism was never truly as authentic or as deeply-rooted as Sanders'.
But the reality is that for Bernie to win the Democratic nomination, he is
going to need to expand his support beyond his natural constituency of
aging Grateful Dead hipsters, environmentalists and professors.

In particular, he has to demonstrate some appeal among moderate and
conservative Democrats. This includes the racial and ethnic minorities of
low-to-middle socioeconomic standing who proved so crucial to Obama's
ability to defeat Clinton in 2008. Right now Sanders is trailing Clinton by
40 percent in the crucial state of South Carolina, which holds its primary
directly after New Hampshire. Among African-Americans, who make up about a
quarter of the registered Democratic vote there, he's polling at an anemic
3 percent, compared to Clinton's more than 50 percent support.

He's not doing much better nationally among these key voting blocs,
including racial minorities and older, more moderate Democrats. In the
latest Economist/YouGov national survey of registered voters, Bernie
receives only 10 percent support among African-Americans and 15 percent
among Hispanics, compared to Hillary's 53 percent and 39 percent
respectively. Keep in mind that in past elections racial minorities
constituted more than a third of Democratic primary voters.

Perhaps more worrisome is the fact that he trails Clinton among
self-identified liberals by 44 percent to 32 percent. His strongest support
comes from those earning more than $100,000 a year, where he ties Clinton
in support at 25 percent in the Economist poll, and among the18-29 year-old
crowd which, not incidentally, is the least likely to vote in national
elections. These results are consistent with other national polls in the
field at approximately the same time. And while it is true that Sanders is
attracting his fair share of campaign contributions, the fact remains that
Clinton is outraising him three-to-one. Perhaps most tellingly from the
Democratic Party's perspective, Clinton has taken an early lead in
endorsements, including backing from Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and the
state's senior Sen. Patrick Leahy.

The bottom line is that Bernie's recent "surge" is largely a case of a
candidate securing his natural coalition of support. But there's little
evidence so far to suggest that he is going to expand his base beyond the
Ben and Jerry's crowd and significantly cut into Clinton's larger and more
diverse constituency. Of course, these facts won't stop pundits from
engaging in the "what if" scenarios that are the staple of political talk
shows, particularly if no other viable Democrat (Joe Biden, where are you?)
arrives on the scene. The media loves a horserace, after all, even a
lopsided one, and the thought of Clinton running roughshod across a weak
Democratic field is not a particularly interesting narrative. So expect
pundits to tout the Sanders' horse until a stronger ride appears. But the
reality is that rather than exceeding expectations, Sanders, so far, is
doing about as well as one would anticipate given his stance on the issues
and the configuration of preferences among likely Democratic voters. And,
barring an unexpected turn of events, that's probably not enough to secure
the presidential nomination.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Barack Obama to make historic visit to federal prison
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-to-visit-federal-prison-oklahoma-119962.html?ml=tl_1>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 10, 2015 *

President Barack Obama will become the first sitting chief executive to
visit a federal prison when he goes to El Reno, Oklahoma, next week to meet
with law enforcement officials and inmates as part of the administration’s
push for criminal-justice reform.

“Next week the president will underscore the administration’s focus on the
need to reform and improve America’s criminal justice system,” White House
Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during Friday’s news briefing.

Obama will speak to that on Tuesday when he addresses the NAACP conference
in Philadelphia before stopping at the medium-security federal facility in
Oklahoma on Thursday.

“While there, the president will meet with law enforcement officials and
inmates and conduct an interview with Vice” for a documentary set to air
later in the fall on HBO.

Vice founder Shane Smith, who will host the special, said the documentary
is “going to be fascinating.”

“Visiting El Reno with President Obama — the first-ever visit to a federal
prison by a sitting president — will give our viewers a firsthand look into
how the president is thinking about this problem, from the policy level
down to one on one conversations with the men and women living this
reality,” Smith said in a statement.

Obama is also expected to issue executive orders next week commuting the
sentences of non-violent drug offenders.

*Confederate flag comes down for good at S.C. Statehouse
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/south-carolina-confederate-flag-state-house-119950.html?ml=tl_1>
// Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 10, 2015 *

With thousands looking on, the Confederate flag at the South Carolina
Statehouse came down permanently on Friday morning.

The flag was removed in a short ceremony by an honor guard of the South
Carolina Highway Patrol as onlookers chanted “USA!” and “Take it down!” A
small number of protesters were also present. Gov. Nikki Haley, civil
rights activists, other state leaders and their families looked on from the
Statehouse steps.

Calls to remove the flag had mounted in the wake of the June 17 deaths of
nine black churchgoers, including beloved state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, in
Charleston, when pictures emerged of the alleged shooter posing with a
Confederate flag license plate and other racist symbols.

The lowering of the flag caps three weeks of soul-searching in the state
that culminated with a dramatic early-morning vote in the South Carolina
House on Thursday to pass a bill mandating the flag’s removal. Haley signed
the bill in a joyous ceremony at the Statehouse on Thursday afternoon.

Two other South Carolina governors, Republican David Beasley and Democrat
Jim Hodges, have attempted to take down the flag, which was first flown
from the top of the Statehouse dome in 1962 in defiance of federal
desegregation efforts. Beasley failed to remove the flag after calling for
it to come down in 1996, and lost his 1998 reelection as a result of
backlash from white voters.

Hodges helped broker a compromise that moved the flag from the dome to a
pole in front of a Confederate war monument on the building’s north lawn,
where it flew from 2000 until Friday morning.

On Thursday, an ebullient Beasley, who had returned to Columbia for the
bill signing, told POLITICO, “Love transcends division. It’s the most
powerful weapon in the history of the world.”

After it came down from the pole, the flag was carried in a side door of
the Statehouse. It was to be placed in a van and moved to the Confederate
Relic Room inside the nearby South Carolina State Museum.

*OPM director resigns amid data breach scandal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/opm-katherine-archuleta-resigns-119959.html?ml=tl_10>
// Politico // Sarah Wheaton and Tal Kopan – July 10, 2015 *

President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of OPM Director Katherine
Archuleta on Friday amid widespread criticism of her office’s handling of a
massive data breach that exposed the personnel records of more than 22
million people.

The move was an abrupt reversal and a rare public punishment by a White
House that has generally resisted political pressure the make speedy
leadership shakeups. But as the official toll of the data breaches grew –
up from around 4 million records in a single attack revealed last month to
more than 22 million over two infiltrations — the bipartisan calls for
Archuleta’s ouster became overwhelming.

Archuleta resigned of her “own volition,” White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest said Friday. “She recognizes, as the White House does, that the
urgent challenges currently facing the Office of Personnel Management
require a manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences.”

Members of Congress cheered the move – even as experts in government
management and cybersecurity questioned whether removing Archuleta would
actually help fix the problem, which originated well before her tenure
began in 2013.

“This is the right move for the agency and all those affected by the
breach,” said Senator Mark Warner, who became the most prominent Democrat
to call for her removal on Thursday, in a statement. “The focus now needs
to be on fixing the problem and protecting those impacted.”

Warner’s voice joined those of the top three Republicans in the House on
Thursday, as well as Senator John McCain, in demanding that Archuleta step
down after the administration revealed that hackers had gained access to
background check information from almost everyone who has applied or taken
a job with the federal government over the past 15 years. They joined a
growing chorus of officials that began in June, after Archuleta deflected
blame for the situation during a House Oversight Committee hearing in June,
saying decades of neglecting government security systems was at fault.

“I am as distressed as you are about how long these systems have gone
neglected,” Archuleta said, adding that she had made upgrading the systems
a priority and that the breaches were discovered as part of that upgrade
process. “The whole of government is responsible and it will take all of us
to solve the issue.”

As late as Thursday night, the White House agreed with her, maintaining
that the president still had confidence in her leadership.

But on Friday morning, Archuleta announced that she had “conveyed to the
president that I believe it is best for me to step aside and allow new
leadership that will enable the agency to move beyond the current
challenges and allow the employees at OPM to continue their important work.”

Her interim replacement will be Beth Cobert, currently the chief
performance officer and deputy director for management at the Office of
Management and Budget.

Archuleta had been popular with the bureaucratic rank and file, and the
president of a top federal employees union predicted that the upheaval
would make it more difficult to fix OPM’s IT issues.

“Federal employees are kind of in a critical state of uncertainty,” said
National Federation of Federal Employees President William Dougan in an
interview. “The volatility of the situation has kind of been escalated.”

Cobert will take over as acting director Saturday.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Greece’s Parliament Approves Prime Minister’s Bailout Plan
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/world/europe/greece-struggles-to-rally-support-for-its-proposals.html?ref=world>
// NYT // Liz Alderman and Andrew Higgins – July 10, 2015 *

Setting the stage for a pivotal deal with Europe, the Greek Parliament
early Saturday approved Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s proposal for a
three-year, $59 billion rescue package with harsh austerity terms that was
remarkably similar to the one Greek voters rejected in a referendum less
than a week ago.

With a Sunday deadline looming for a decision on the bailout, a crunch
point that all sides see as Greece’s last chance to avoid bankruptcy and
stay in the euro currency zone, the plan passed by an overwhelming margin.

The final vote showed that 251 lawmakers voted for the plan, while the rest
of the body’s 300 members opposed it, abstained or were absent. But because
17 lawmakers from Mr. Tsipras’s coalition did not support the plan — 2
voted no, 8 voted present and 7 were absent — a shuffling of the prime
minister’s government seemed likely, and some analysts said that it was
possible that Mr. Tsipras might resign.

Fears persist that creditors will still doubt that a government with such
internal rifts will be able to carry out the tough economic measures it has
proposed.

Mr. Tsipras had said that he would resign if he lost the vote in
Parliament, which required the support of 151 lawmakers to pass.

The proposal must now win approval from European officials and institutions
before negotiations can finally go forward on a comprehensive bailout
package.

Alexis Tsipras. Credit Louisa Gouliamaki/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Lawmakers took up the measure after Mr. Tsipras decided to give in to most
of the demands of Greece’s creditors. In exchange, he won the chance to
negotiate for the new bailout money, on top of about $270 billion Greece
has received since 2010, and potential talks to reduce repayment terms on
the debt. It might also allow Greece to avoid a catastrophic exit from the
eurozone.

Yet even as the vote was debated in the Greek Parliament, influential
voices in Germany and Eastern Europe expressed skepticism about whether
Greece would follow through on pledges to be more fiscally responsible. And
crowds gathered outside the Parliament building in Athens on Friday evening
to protest Mr. Tsipras’s abrupt U-turn, with many saying they felt betrayed
after he had urged them to reject the bailout in the referendum last Sunday.

Mr. Tsakalotos in Parliament on Friday. At least 250 of the 300 members
approved a rescue plan. Credit Louisa Gouliamaki/Agence France-Presse —
Getty Images

One of the demonstrators, John Papageorgiou, 45, a math teacher, said he
wanted Greece to drop the euro currency because he believed the euro
benefited certain countries, like Germany, while putting others, like
Greece, at a disadvantage.

Nonetheless, he said, he did not feel betrayed by Mr. Tsipras’s compromise
efforts, and he thought that the European leaders would recognize that
Greece’s debt was illegal. His friend Maria Antonopoulou, 44, who works for
an electric company, interjected: “We love Tsipras. We needed him as
Greeks. We have faith in him. Compared to what we had, he’s clean.”

The new proposal was given a swift thumbs-up by France and lifted hopes in
Brussels that, after months of ill-tempered arguments and fruitless crisis
meetings, Greece and its creditors could reach a deal by midnight on Sunday
to prevent a fracturing of Europe’s currency union.

The goal is not to seal a deal that would immediately provide Greece with
new funding, but simply to get a formal green light to start what could be
lengthy talks on a new bailout to replace one that expired on June 30. Just
the signal to start talks, though, could lift a dark cloud of uncertainty,
at least temporarily, and give the European Central Bank cover to perhaps
expand recently frozen emergency cash for Greek banks, which have been
closed since June 29.

The economy has been in disarray. People have been out of work for years.
The banks have been running out of money. It sounds a lot like the Great
Depression in the United States. But it is Greece – and in some ways, the
situation is worse.

A final agreement is still far from a sure thing. A raft of actors — 19
eurozone finance ministers; 28 European Union leaders, who have been called
to Brussels to discuss the crisis on Sunday; and the bureaucracies in
Brussels — need to examine the proposal before giving their approval. And
there is so much bad blood after months of insults, frustration and
failure, there is little faith in European circles in Greece’s pledges to
carry out measures like tax increases and cuts in pension spending.

Representatives of the main creditors — the International Monetary Fund,
the European Central Bank and the other European nations that use the euro
— were poring over the Greek proposal on Friday. Their assessments will
play a critical role in any decisions by the Eurogroup, an assembly of
finance ministers from euro countries, which is to meet in Brussels on
Saturday.

Even Mr. Tsipras’s party, Syriza, which drafted the proposals with help
from French experts, seemed confused, with members voicing concern over
measures that the culture minister, Nikos Xydakis, described on Friday as
“very tough.” Many lawmakers from Syriza, a coalition of left-wing groups,
had serious misgivings about the proposal. Mr. Xydakis said in an
interview: “No, it’s not a better deal. It’s a tough deal and the only one
we can get right now.”

Speaking to members of Syriza on Friday, Mr. Tsipras said his government
had a “mandate from the Greek people to bring a better agreement,” but “we
do not have a mandate to take the country out of the eurozone,” an event
that would follow a decisive rupture with creditors.

“For six months we fought an uneven war. We suffered losses, but we gained
ground, too,” he told lawmakers later. But, he conceded, “now a minefield
lies ahead of us.”

Mr. Tsipras, who last week vowed never to succumb to creditors’ terms that
he had condemned as the work of “extreme conservative forces,” seems to
have calculated that it was worth making concessions to secure the proposed
three-year, $59 billion bailout loan and the possibility of negotiating
easier terms for repayment of the nation’s debt. When Syriza began
negotiations with creditors after it came to power in January, the
objective was a more modest unblocking of about $8 billion from an existing
bailout program that has since expired.

“It is largely a capitulation on Tsipras’s part to what creditors have been
asking for, but is that enough?” asked Raoul Ruparel, co-director of Open
Europe, a research group in London. “Germany and some others are very
skeptical about anything the Greeks produce, and this goes back to the main
problem — a total lack of trust.”

While President François Hollande of France welcomed the new proposals as
“serious” and “credible,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and her key
ministers kept silent on Friday, insisting that it was too soon to judge
the suggestions now being reviewed by the European Commission, the European
Central Bank and the I.M.F.

“We will wait until the institutions examine them and express their
opinion,” said Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for the German government.

But he repeated Germany’s longstanding insistence that all 19 countries
that use the euro must follow the rules, a position that has made Berlin
resistant in the past to pleas from Greece that demands for tight budgets
must be relaxed and debts restructured to prevent the country from
suffocating.

Martin Jäger, spokesman for the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble,
said the outcome of the Saturday gathering remained “completely open.” Both
Mr. Schäuble and Ms. Merkel have ruled out writing off any of Greece’s debt
under what Ms. Merkel has called “a classical haircut,” or debt write-down,
but they have indicated they might be open to extending payment deadlines
and reducing interest rates.

Some of Ms. Merkel’s political allies and the governments of Eastern and
Central European countries that have taken an even tougher line on Athens
than Germany raised doubts on Friday about Greece’s readiness and ability
to deliver on its new promises, delivered Thursday just before a deadline
fixed by creditors expired.

Hans-Peter Friedrich, a member of the Christian Social Union, which is part
of Ms. Merkel’s conservative bloc, noted the similarities between the new
proposal and the one rejected by the Greek people. “That means there are
two possibilities: Either the Greek government is tricking its own people,
or us yet again,” Mr. Friedrich told Deutschlandfunk radio on Friday.

*Turkey Arrests 21 Suspected of Ties to ISIS
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/world/europe/turkey-arrests-21-suspected-of-ties-to-isis.html?ref=world>
// NYT // Ceylan Yeginsu – July 10, 2015 *

Under pressure from its Western allies to do more to combat Islamist
extremists, the Turkish authorities arrested 21 suspected Islamic State
members on Friday, the semiofficial Anatolian News Agency reported.

Among those arrested were three foreigners and two prominent Islamic State
supporters known to have recruited fighters in Turkey, the local news media
reported.

In early-morning raids in Istanbul and Sanliurfa Province, which borders
Syria, the Turkish police seized automatic rifles, large ammunition packs
and military uniforms, the agency reported.

Turkey is a NATO member and a longtime American ally, but it has been
frequently criticized for its reluctance to play a more active role in
combating the Islamic State. Western officials have accused Turkey of a
degree of ambivalence toward the militant group, which now controls large
parts of Syria and Iraq, and the Turks sometimes give the impression that
they see Kurdish autonomy in Syria as a greater threat to their country
than the extremists.

“They have a strong stake in things, in stability to their south,” Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter said on Tuesday in Washington. “I believe they
could do more along the border.”

Thousands of foreign fighters have joined the ranks of the Islamic State
over the past year, many of them traveling through Turkey to reach the
extremists’ self-declared caliphate in northeastern Syria and northwestern
Iraq. Pressed by the West to stem the flow, the Turks have detained and
deported about 1,500 people trying to reach Syria and have barred more than
14,000 others from entering the country, according to Turkish Foreign
Ministry figures. And there have been at least seven smaller police raids
across the country in the past two weeks against suspected Islamic State
fighters.

Turkey has also stepped up its military presence along the porous Syrian
border, deploying additional tanks and troops. But much of that was done
after Kurdish forces took control of the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad
from the Islamic State in June.

Mr. Carter’s critique aside, other senior American officials said on Friday
that Turkey’s recent actions demonstrated the government’s new commitment
to fighting the Islamic State, though they said it was too early to say
whether the Friday arrests were a major turning point or a symbolic gesture
to fend off the Western criticism.

“The Turks are actually trying to do more, and our collective work with
them would be vastly aided if we’d stop criticizing them in public,” said
one senior Obama administration official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss confidential assessments. “I don’t think this is a
symbolic offering.”

Analysts said that the large-scale raids and arrests on Friday were
something new, and were probably based on intelligence obtained from the
United States. A delegation of American counterterrorism experts met with
Turkish officials in Ankara this week to discuss the fight against the
Islamic State.

“Turkey sees Daesh as a major threat, not just to our country but to the
entire world,” a government official with knowledge of the issue said on
Friday, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. The official spoke
on the condition of anonymity in line with government protocol.

Addressing Western criticism that Turkey had been slow to act against the
group, the official said, “Antiterrorist operations take time and require
comprehensive intelligence gathering and logistics. This is why.”

Aaron Stein, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council, a
Washington-based analytical institute, said Turkey might be stepping up its
efforts now because it was worried about an Islamic State drive toward the
border town of Azaz in northeast Syria.

But he was skeptical that the arrests signaled a major, new antimilitant
resolve in Turkey. “The Ebu Hanzala detentions tell us that we have to be
cautious,” Mr. Stein said, referring a cleric considered to be the
“spiritual leader” of the Islamic State within Turkey, who has repeatedly
been arrested and released.

“Much will be determined in the coming days, and whether those arrested
face charges and are put behind bars,” Mr. Stein said of the latest raids.

In the Hacibayram neighborhood of Ankara, a known Islamic State recruitment
hub, a resident said on Friday that two suspects who were arrested there
last week were freed the next day. The resident would not allow his name to
be used because he feared reprisals.

“They came back and celebrated the fact that they were only charged for
drug abuse,” he said of the two freed suspects. “These arrests will only
mean something if these men are locked up for good. They have gone and
killed in Syria, then they come back and roam our streets. It’s terrifying.”